luis m. molina a,, javier llore´ns relationship between quality management practices

www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 682–701

Relationship between quality management practices

and knowledge transfer

Luis M. Molina a,*, Javier Llorens-Montes a, Antonia Ruiz-Moreno a

a Management Department, Universidad de Granada, Campus de Cartuja s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain

Received 4 April 2004; received in revised form 20 April 2006; accepted 28 April 2006

Available online 9 August 2006

Abstract

This paper analyzes the relationship between quality management (QM) and knowledge transfers. The study of QM was tackled

by analyzing the degree of implementation of the different practices that compose it. Hypotheses are developed on the relationship

between some QM practices and knowledge transfers. Both the proposed model and the hypotheses were tested on a sample of 197

Spanish firms. The results confirm the importance of the different QM practices on internal and external knowledge transfers.

# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Quality management; Empirical research

1. Introduction

Quality management (QM) is one of the most relevant

research topics in the field of operations management

(Filippini, 1997), and academia has recognized its

importance internationally (Chen, 1997; Corbett and

Rastrick, 2000). QM has thus reached a state of maturity

in the area of research (Sousa and Voss, 2002). Many

studies have concentrated on determining the relation-

ship between QM and financial and business perfor-

mance (Haynak, 2003), operational performance

(Samson and Terziovski, 1999), the importance of

contingent factors in the relationship (Hendricks and

Singhal, 2001; Llorens et al., 2003), and through its

evolution on the financial markets (Easton and Jarell,

1998). However, the results have not always agreed. This

study approaches the problem of the relationship between

QM and performance from a different perspective. It

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 958 242 349;

fax: +34 958 246 222.

E-mail address: [email protected] (L.M. Molina).

0272-6963/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.007

analyzes the implications of QM practices for knowledge

transfers. It does not analyze the relation between the QM

practices and performance directly but rather through

improvements in internal processes whose importance in

generating competitive advantages has been demon-

strated previously.

Studiesof strategicmanagementexplain improvement

in the firm’s performance along two lines: (a) the classic

studies of the industrial economy, which believe that

improvement in performance comes from better posi-

tioning of the firm, that is, from finding an environment

that favors the firm; and (b) the vision of resources and

capacities, which believes that the firm should focus on

improving its knowledge and abilities to improve its

performance (Hoskinsson et al., 1999). The link between

QM and firm performance is thus based on management

of internal factors, since improvement is achieved by

implementing the principles and elements of QM within

the firm (Chiles and Choi, 2000). QM also parallels the

works from the perspective of resources and capabilities

(Barney, 1991), which asserts that resources and

capabilities characterized as rare, non-substitutable and

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.007

L.M. Molina et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 682–701 683

inimitable (Barney, 1991) determine the obtaining of

competitive advantages. To achieve these characteristics,

capabilities must be path dependent (Helfat and Peteraf,

2003), enacted ambiguously from the coordinated

conduct of the organization’s members (Berman et al.,

2002). Thus, the firm’s capacities that provide a source of

competitive advantage are based on the integration of

knowledge in the firm so that it can be used in a

coordinated way (Grant, 1996a). This genesis is what

leads Conner and Prahalad (1996, p. 477) to state that ‘‘a

resource-based theory of the firm thus entails a knowl-

edge-based perspective’’. Within this framework, knowl-

edge transfers and the firm’s ability to transfer knowledge

are fundamental in explaining some of the basic questions

of business management (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990;

KogutandZander,1992).They have thusbeen considered

crucial in questions as basic as the existence or limits of

firms. This work, however, is primarily interested in the

repercussions for firms’ organizational performance.

In this paper, we study the relationship between the

implementation of certain QM practices and internal and

external knowledge transfers. Our objective is to find

foundations in a knowledge-based view that confirm the

link between QM implementation and organizational

performance. By a knowledge-based view, we mean

studies that find knowledge to be a basis for explaining

the firm’s competitive advantages over its competitors

and other systems of economic coordination, such as

markets. Thus, the study follows the same line of research

as, for example, Reed et al. (2000), who studied QM’s

capacity to create competitive advantages. In spite of the

importance of knowledge management within the firm

(Grant, 1996a), few empirical studies examine its

relationship with QM. The current study analyzes the

influence of QM practices on knowledge transfers, taking

into account that the degree to which firms facilitate

knowledge transfers has been considered fundamental to

explaining the differences in performance between firms.

In the next section of this paper, we review the

literature on QM and knowledge transfer. We then

examine how certain QM practices and knowledge

transfers are related and present the hypotheses. In

Section 4, we provide a description of the methodology,

followed by presentation of the results. Finally, we

discuss the implications of the results and conclusions.

2. Quality management and knowledge transfers

2.1. Quality management

Quality management has been defined as an

approach to management made up of a ‘‘set of mutually

reinforcing principles, each of which is supported by a

set of practices and techniques’’ (Dean and Bowen,

1994), which has achieved discriminant validity with

respect to other strategies for improving the organiza-

tion’s performance (Hackman and Wageman, 1995). To

determine the degree to which quality management has

been implemented in a firm or simply what quality

management is, we must return to the study of the

practices observable in quality management, since these

are very general principles while the techniques are

extremely detailed (Sousa and Voss, 2002).

From the pioneering works of Saraph et al. (1989),

many studies have drawn on the quality management

literature to identify the key practices of QM and have

developed measurement instruments to analyze its

implementation in the firm. Reviews of these studies

were developed by Haynak (2003) and by Sousa and

Voss (2002). The studies show that QM includes

practices for improvement that affect both the firm’s

internal environment and its relationship with its

environment. Likewise, it includes practices focused

on both the technical and social parts of the firm.

In the area of the relation between the firm and its

environment, QM drives the practice of cooperation

with both customers and suppliers. By cooperation with

suppliers and customers, we mean the organization’s

propensity to engage in non-competitive activities with

customers and suppliers and to establish and maintain

an open relation with them (Flynn et al., 1994). One of

the main ideas of QM is the assumption that the firm

acts as an integrated system (Hackman and Wageman,

1995). However, this idea of the system is not limited

only to the relationships established within the

organization. It can also be extrapolated to the

relationships that the firm establishes in its relationship

with the outside world. The full product value chain is

thus seen as a system, which for its optimization must be

considered as such, and the final quality of the products

to be achieved is that which satisfies the customers

(Dean and Evans, 1994). Schonberger (1990) asserts

that QM sees the firm as part of a chain of consumers

and suppliers.

In the strictly internal arena, QM includes practices

highly focused on the social component of the firm, on

areas such as autonomy and teamwork as well as on

others of technical nature, such as process control. By

teamwork, we mean the tendency to develop tasks in a

group rather than individually. Autonomy refers to the

capability of groups or individuals to be self-

regulating in relatively complete tasks. Process control

focuses on making the organization’s processes

comprehensible to the people who carry them out

LENOVO

Sticky Note

LENOVO

Highlight

LENOVO

Highlight

LENOVO

Highlight

LENOVO

Highlight

L.M. Molina et al. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 682–701684

(Saraph et al., 1989), as well as on the search for the

sources of involuntary errors (Ahire and Dreyfus,

2000). Manz and Stewart (1997) maintain that one of

QM’s strong points lies in the fact that it is a

management system that takes into account the socio-

technical system of the organization.

2.2. Knowledge transfer

Following Darr et al. (1995), we define knowledge

transfer as one organizational unit learning from the

experience of another. Internal knowledge transfer

indicates that the unit providing the knowledge is inside

the firm itself. This line of research has gained reception

and increasing interest in recent years, with studies

concentrating both on understanding the transfer

process and on identifying the factors that either help

or hinder the transfers (Hansen, 2002; Simonin, 1999).

The factors that affect how easy or difficult knowledge

transfers are can be classified into factors connected to

the source unit, to the receiver, to the relation between

the two, and to the knowledge itself (Gupta and

Govindarajan, 2000; Simonin, 1999; Szulanski, 1996).

In studying knowledge transfers, two major theories

have been used. First, references to issues emerging

from studies of social and organizational networks are

common, such as centrality, the intensity of the

relationship, the depth and importance of the relation-

ship, the structure of the relationships, diversity of

relationships, (Cohen and Fields, 1999; Hansen, 1999;

Powell et al., 1996), etc. All of these come from network

issues that are social (Liebeskind et al., 1996), physical

(Almeida and Kogut, 1999) and institutional (Kraatz,

1998).

This theoretical base is used basically to study the

different intensity and capacity for acquiring knowledge

through transfers by different actors, due less to the

knowledge or agents and more to the relationship

established between them. Thus, the theory has focused

on explaining the transfers between organizational units

(Hansen, 1999, 2002) or between firms in the same

industry (Oliver, 2001), with crucial contributions from

this last field. From this perspective, the units that

transmit knowledge among themselves are considered,

to a large extent, to be equals or to be like a black box,

where the differences found in the transfers are due to

the diversity of the relationships established between

these units.

Yet another important current in the literature prefers

to focus on the characteristics of the units, whether

individually or relative to the unit with which they

transfer knowledge. In this case, the underlying theory

most used is communication theory. According to Krone

et al. (1987), any communication contains the following

elements: message, issuer, codification system, commu-

nication channel, receiver and decodification system.

From these elements, the main factors that explain ease of

transfer based on the characteristics of the units have been

developed, as well as the characteristics of the knowledge

(message) that the sender wishes to send and the

difference between both units’ systems of codification

(Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000).

3. Development of hypotheses and proposed

model

3.1. QM teamwork and internal knowledge

transfers

Structuring the firm into work teams is one of QM’s

basic principles. Improving coordination means that the

people who have the most contact, due to the tasks they

carry out, cannot coordinate themselves using the

classical hierarchical mechanisms. Rather, they must do

so by means of systems with a greater degree of mutual

adaptation (Grant et al., 1994). Dean and Evans (1994,

p. 191) state that QM team effectiveness ‘‘consists of

achieving quality goals in a timely manner and

strengthening relationships both within and between

the team and the rest of the organization’’. To achieve

these objectives, it is crucial to improve the processes of

selection of problems and search for information.

Improving the knowledge transfers is necessary for QM

teamwork to work.

In turn, human resource practices are closely linked to

knowledge transfers. Sparkes and Miyake (2000) go so

far as to state that, when human resource practices are

established, tacit knowledge is being managed indirectly.

Team implementations are considered a fundamental

element (Dyerson and Mueller, 1999). Hedlund (1994)

maintains that organizations that wish to improve their

knowledge management should be composed of tem-

porary constellations of workers, where lateral commu-

nication is predominant. By temporary constellations of

workers, Hedlund means the idea that there is flexibility

to mobilize human resources in the form of temporary

work teams. Dougherty (2001) maintains that the use of

teamwork facilitates the creation of a shared image of the

work, which in turn facilitates knowledge transfers in the

organization. Likewise, Crossan et al. (1999, p. 533)

consider that ‘‘the action provides the opportunity to

share common experiences, which will lead to the

development of a way of understanding the common

reality’’.


Brown and Duguid (1991) use the term communities

of practice to refer to the work groups created among

workers carrying out the same task. These communities

should not be restricted to the one firm, but rather can be

shared - and in fact are, by members of different firms.

Brown and Duguid (2001, p. 202) maintain that ‘‘these

groups of interdependent participants create a work

context where the members build not only their shared

identities, but also the social context in which these

identities are shared’’, the ‘‘organization in itself

[being] little more than a community of practice’’.

Thus, by determining the shared knowledge, work

teams help to create a common base on which to transfer

the knowledge.

Along similar lines, Orlikowski (2002) considers

that people acquire knowledge through practice, such

that the practice of transferring it within the group to

carry out a common task legitimizes and produces the

acquisition of the knowledge needed for that transfer

itself to occur, both within the group and with other

groups. In other words, the need to transfer knowledge

in order to work in a coordinated manner creates the

very knowledge needed for the transfer.

Hansen (2002) draws the conclusion that the fewer

intermediaries in a relationship between two units that

are not directly related, the better the knowledge

transfer. Structuring the firm into work groups thus

shortens the communication chains, since it is no longer

necessary to go up through the hierarchy to discover

opportunities provided by the knowledge being used by

other groups. Teece (2000), likewise, defends flat

hierarchies as enabling knowledge transfers to flow

rapidly from the marketplace to those responsible for

decision making. Leonard-Barton (1992), in her study

on the Chaparral Steel company, deduced that internal

knowledge transfers improved due, among other

things, to the relative lack of hierarchy, since the

engineers operated as a team with the workers and the

whole team was responsible for the successes and

failures.

Grant (1997) concludes that much of the current

interest in team-based structures responds to the need to

improve the integration and knowledge transfer within

organizations. For Grant, ‘‘QM is a work-team-based

non-hierarchic technique that enables the organization

to access and use the knowledge of individuals located

in the lower echelons of the organization’’ (Grant, 1997,

p. 453). Bearing in mind all these considerations, we

have formulated the following hypothesis:

H2. The degree of implementation of QM teamwork is

positively related to internal knowledge transfers.

3.2. QM autonomy and internal knowledge

transfers

For Wruck and Jensen (1994), the importance of

distributing the decision making among the firm’s

workers lies in the fact that, for QM, decisions should be

made where the best information is, the necessary

knowledge being very often held by the firm’s workers

themselves. Grant (1997) maintains that the more tacit

the knowledge is, the more inefficient the hierarchy

becomes, since none of the managers is capable of

integrating the knowledge of his or her subordinates.

Grant also recommends that ‘‘decisions requiring

idiosyncratic tacit knowledge that is not easily

transferable should be made where the knowledge is

located’’ (Grant, 1997, p. 453).

QM requires people to make real changes in the way

work is done. Dean and Evans (1994) comment that

only the employees involved in the processes possess

the necessary understanding, which is why so many

managers consider employee involvement and auton-

omy as a part of QM. Even so, decision making

normally requires the integration of a great deal of

knowledge that is dispersed throughout the firm

(Lessard and Zaheer, 1996). This means that those

having to make the decision are forced to look for the

necessary knowledge within the organization and then

to try to transfer it to the work groups where it is needed

at a given time (Hoopes and Postrel, 1999).

Where decisions are made centrally, the information

must flow equally upwards through the organization.

Due to a problem of over-information, however, the

knowledge held by the workers must be coded,

summarized and normalized so that management can

make decisions. Therefore, if the workers lack

autonomy, there is likely to be a strong vertical transfer

of coded knowledge or information, resulting in a

highly inefficient decision-making process (Kogut and

Zander, 1992). Thus, Teece (2000) mentions that

efficient knowledge management requires a company

structure that is non-bureaucratic, and decentralized.

However, when worker autonomy is increased, tacit

knowledge transfers among the different work units and

groups must be high, since the decisions must be made

and implemented by the workers themselves. O’Dell and

Grayson (1998) consider that for internal transfers to

occur workers must be responsible for their own work.

The vertical communication of information will be

maintained, since the rights of control are still

hierarchized in QM (Wruck and Jensen, 1994). The

workers will perceive greater rewards in applying

resources to acquire the knowledge they need. Autonomy


goes hand in hand with responsibility for the results, such

that the need to search for knowledge will lead to the

application of resources (Arias and Molina, 2002).

Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2. The degree of QM autonomy is positively related

to internal knowledge transfers.

3.3. QM process control and internal knowledge

transfers

In QM, process control centers on making the

organization’s processes understandable for the people

who carry them out (Saraph et al., 1989), as well as on

identifying the sources of involuntary errors (Ahire and

Dreyfus, 2000). To achieve this, QM uses a set of basic

tools that includes statistical control techniques (SPC).

These tools provide the organization with valuable

information concerning key aspects of the processes

carried out within the organization (Ahire and Dreyfus,

2000; Rungtusanatham, 2000).

The important issue in the relation between control

of QM processes and internal knowledge transfers is

that the systematic use of the control processes in the

organization has a clear influence on the search for and

transfer of the knowledge to which they are applied.

First, having reliable information on the processes aids

in identifying the problems. This is the first step that

should be taken toward knowledge transfer (Szulanski,

1994). Second, it helps identify the source of the

information needed. Knowing the data of the different

processes carried out by the organization and compar-

ing and evaluating that data is easier, serving at least as a

signposting system (Morris, 2001). For this reason,

O’Dell and Grayson (1998, p. 170) state that ‘‘measur-

ing performance can help to identify superior practices,

though, in itself, it may not be enough’’. The importance

of QM in the continuous improvement of processes is

will lead firms that have implemented QM to seek and

use the knowledge they need (Dean and Bowen, 1994).

Likewise, the systematic use of the same tools

throughout the firm provides a common language. One

of the main problems when transferring knowledge is

the need for the issuer and the receiver to communicate

via a system of signs that both are able to assimilate

(Huber, 1991). Therefore, when transferring knowledge

on objectives, requirements or performance of the

processes implemented among different groups, the use

of a language that can be understood because it has the

same meaning throughout the organization will facil-

itate the increase of transfers among the groups (Hoopes

and Postrel, 1999). It follows that, within the outline of

the benefits and costs of each transfer, we can say that

process control, primarily through the use of SPC, will

reduce the transfer costs.

Another very important issue is the reduced risk

perceived by those who must learn and, where this is the

case, use the transferred knowledge. This risk can be

minimized when the receiver is certain, due to the data

accumulated, that the applied knowledge to be

transferred has statistically proven to be efficient. It

is not a case of trusting in what the issuer says he has

achieved, but rather in the data that has been collected.

Ravichandran (2001) and Szulanski (1996), among

others, have demonstrated that the receiver’s lack of

trust in the true effectiveness of the knowledge, related

to the problem of not invented here is a key problem in

the satisfactory transfer of internal knowledge.

Finally, process control using SPC involves an effort to

encode part of the tacit knowledge used in the processes.

Knowledge that has not been encoded, when it could be

(Winter, 1987), is, according to Zack (1999) a lost

opportunity. Its transfer is impeded, while the organiza-

tion’s overall performance could be improved by its

encoding, transfer and use in other units within the firm.

Bearing in mind the foregoing, we have formulated

the following hypothesis:

H3. The degree of implementation of QM process

control is positively related to internal knowledge

transfers.

3.4. QM cooperation with external agents and

external knowledge transfers

QM focuses not only on improving internal processes

but also on cooperation. The firm’s position within the

frame of a value chain, is fundamental to understanding

how that firm should behave (Schonberger, 1990).

Cooperation comes from establishing relations with

the previous and subsequent links in the value chain that

go beyond mere commercial relations to become a form

of cooperation with agents outside the organization.

The postulates of QM provide a basis for under-

standing this form of action. Due to the complexity

involved in coordinating the different links in the chain

of value, some advantages of independence must be

relinquished for the sake of improvement in coordina-

tion (Wruck and Jensen, 1994). Better coordination

cannot be achieved solely through the market. The

organization must establish a network of relations with

the external agents. Within this framework, the relations

between firms go beyond a mere commercial relation-

ship (Dean and Evans, 1994).


Knowledge management particularly encourages

firms to establish stable links and relations with agents

outside the firm. Lubatkin et al. (2001) state that

innovation occurs increasingly in network environ-

ments rather than in individual firms.

In the subject of transfers among independent

firms, it is particularly important to control the

amount of knowledge the firm is putting at the

disposal of its partners, as well as to avoid problems

of opportunism. Because traditional controls are

becoming more difficult to establish (Bachmann,

2001), cooperation and the forging of trust-based

relations is the only way of controlling the develop-

ment of the relationship satisfactorily for both parties.

In QM, this control is one of the pillars on which the

relations with major suppliers and customers should

be built, on the assumption that cooperation is the best

strategy for both players. Thus, cooperation helps

smooth out the problem of loss of power by the person

surrendering knowledge (Simonin, 1999); it serves as

a social control between the parties (Welch and

Welch, 1997).

Even so, Simonin (1997) maintains that having

experience with external agents does not suffice. This

experience must have been transformed into relational

knowledge. In other words, maintaining general

relations with suppliers and customers is not enough.

One must learn from these relations the correct way to

act in this type of interchange with external agents.

The links established with suppliers and customers

should not only be based on cooperation. Establishing

a relationship that leads to smooth knowledge

transfers among the parties requires dedicating time

and resources to that relationship (Postrel, 2002).

Because QM orients the relations with suppliers

toward the long term while also insisting that relations

be established only with a small number of them, it

should encourage the development of common or

related knowledge, or the overlapping of the firms’

knowledge bases, making the transfers more efficient

(Hansen, 2002).

Therefore, we have formulated the following

hypotheses:

H4a. The degree to which the QM practice supplier

cooperation has been implemented will lead to an

increase in knowledge transfers from those suppliers.

H4b. The degree to which the QM practice consumer

cooperation has been implemented will lead to an

increase in knowledge transfers from those customers.

3.5. Relationship between external and internal

knowledge transfers

The literature on knowledge transfers usually

emphasizes either the internal or external transfers.

Thus, the studies focus on improving the transfers

among different units in an organization (e.g., Hansen,

1999) or else among firms (Inkpen, 1998). In the

studies that treat the two together, the emphasis is

placed on the suitability of internal and external

transfers as alternative sources in the search for the

knowledge needed (Amasse and Cohedet, 2001;

Lubatkin et al., 2001). Because it depends on the

nature of the knowledge necessary and on its relative

centrality to the rest of the organization’s knowledge,

knowledge transfer (or creation, if the knowledge does

not exist) improves either within the organization or

outside it.

However, internal and external transfers should not

be seen solely as alternative sources of knowledge.

The distance between the knowledge bases within the

firm must be shorter than that which exists between the

firm and its environment (Postrel, 2002). Thus, the

transfer costs within an organization would be lower

than in a marketplace, and both activities would be

carried out jointly within a single organization (Grant,

1996b). Once the organization has applied resources to

achieve the transfer of useful knowledge from

suppliers and customers, this knowledge has a lower

internal transfer cost than the cost incurred for its

external transfer. If the external transfer has been

undertaken due to the improvement in expected

performance, the advantage of transferring this

knowledge within the firm must be greater still. This

indicates that, once the knowledge has been trans-

ferred to the organization, it can lead – as long as the

knowledge is relevant to more than one group within

the firm – to a cascade of transfers in that organization.

This idea is supported by the fact that, if the knowledge

is valuable, it has not only a lower transfer cost but also

a lower perceived risk.

Emphasis on the advantages of transferring

acquired knowledge internally is present in the

studies on learning in joint ventures. Inkpen and

Crossan (1995) and Kogut (1988), among others,

mention that one of the most important advantages in

establishing this type of hybrid structure is the

possibility of transferring within the organization the

knowledge transferred by the counterparty to the joint

venture.

Considering the above, we can propose the following

hypotheses:


H5a. Knowledge transfers from suppliers will have a

positive impact on the increase in internal knowledge

transfers.

H5b. Knowledge transfers from the customers will

have a positive impact on the increase in internal

knowledge transfers.

3.6. Relation between knowledge transfers and

profitability

The positive relation between better internal knowl-

edge transfers and the firm’s profitability is a subject

much studied from the theoretical perspective, although

empirical studies are much scarcer. This relation can be

supported in the fact that the transfer of best practices

improves the firm’s average performance (Szulanski

et al., 2000). Thus, replacing inefficient practices and

routines by those that have shown greater efficiency will

improve the organization’s average performance, above

all if we take into account that the difference in

efficiency in the firm can be very great for the same

process (Szulanski, 1996).

In turn, the overlap between the knowledge of

different members facilitates the integration and

coordination between the different workers. Thus,

internal knowledge transfers help to create a greater

degree of common terms and meanings in the knowl-

edge of the firm members, facilitating subsequent

transmission, increasing creativity (Nonaka et al., 1998)

and ultimately making it possible for subsequent

collaborations to occur with less effort (Grant, 1996a).

Using the perspective of resources and capacities,

knowledge transfer and the relations established

between different kinds of organization members’

knowledge makes the possibility of external imitation

more difficult. The greater the base of knowledge used

and the relations between kinds of knowledge, the

harder imitation becomes. This allows the firm to

achieve greater sustainability of the advantages

obtained and thus ensures that the quasi-profits obtained

last over time. The increase mentioned above in the

overlap between the knowledge of the firm’s members

will also lead to greater perfection in the replication

(Szulanski et al., 2000). McEvily et al. (2000, p. 300)

argue that ‘‘a firm can delay the substitution [of

competences] by the continuous improvement through

the exchange of knowledge of managerial practices,

performance of processes and the contingencies of

implementation’’. Therefore, knowledge transfers help

the firm’s resources and capacities to be less imitable

and substitutable.

As to external knowledge introduced in the firm, its

relation to improved performance has some mechan-

isms that we have mentioned above. First, knowledge

transfer from the outside allows the firm to increase its

fund of knowledge, making more knowledge available.

In a given situation, having more knowledge available

makes it possible to find a solution that should be at least

as good as and usually better than the possibilities

without this external knowledge. This will make the

average productivity greater in the organization,

especially if it is combined with internal knowledge

transfer.

This greater fund of knowledge also makes it more

difficult for a person outside the organization to

imitate the solutions developed. The greater the whole

of the knowledge used, the more difficult it is for an

outside person or firm to have stored the same kind of

knowledge (Grant, 1996b), making it harder to

understand the solution. This makes involuntary

external transfer and its imitability harder and

improvements in performance more lasting (Rivkin,

2001).

Further, having been exposed to external knowledge

causes one to question knowledge and practices

established in the firm. When the firm finds itself in

a situation of inertia when the environmental conditions

change, the firm should turn to its most immediate

environment to seek information on the new situation.

Within this kind of transfer, according to previous

studies, the knowledge acquired concerning customers

for the development of new products and their

adaptation to the customers’ needs will be especially

important (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Many studies

also focus on the importance in this ability respect of

acquiring part of the knowledge that the suppliers

possess (Brusoni et al., 2001).

Given the foregoing, we formulate the following

hypotheses:

H6. Internal knowledge transfers are related positively

to the firm’s performance.

H7a. Knowledge transfers from providers will affect

the firm’s performance positively.

H7b. Knowledge transfers from customers will affect

the firm’s performance positively.

The joint consideration of these hypotheses pro-

duces the structural model shown in Fig. 1. This figure

shows how both the technical and social aspects of QM

affect internal transfers. The climate of cooperation


Fig. 1. Model of QM influence on knowledge transfers.

with suppliers and customers is the element that

provides the possibility of acquiring knowledge

from outside. These transfers, in turn, strengthen

the internal knowledge transfers. Further, know-

ledge transfers will affect the firm’s performance

positively.

4. Methodology

4.1. Sample and data collection

To test the different hypotheses, we performed an

empirical study of large Spanish firms. The ques-

tionnaire was specially designed to correspond to the

relation between quality management and knowledge

transfers. The Duns and Bradstreet and Actualidad

Economica databases were cross-referenced to ensure

the reliability of the population list. A sample of 975

firms was chosen at random. Each was asked to take

part in the research. Due to the typical problems

regarding the low response rate to questions on

aspects of firm strategy, extra care was taken to

maximize the response rate. To this end, we began by

pre-testing the questionnaire, carrying out five in-

depth interviews with CEOs from firms that formed

part of the population. Each interview lasted over 2 h,

during which all aspects of the questionnaire were

covered. Secondly, non-respondents were sent a new

questionnaire about 1 month after the initial mailing.

197 valid responses were collected, giving a response

rate of 20.21%. The responses were collected from

May to July 2002. In all of the cases considered valid,

the informants were the CEO (24.5% of the

responses), the quality manager (60.3%) or other

top-level executives (15.2%). We decided to use the

managers as our key informants, since these people

receive information from a wide range of departments

and are therefore a very valuable source for

evaluating the different variables of the organization.

They also play a major role in forming and molding

these variables by determining the types of behavior

that are expected and supported (Baer and Frese,

2003).

The questionnaire was administered in Spanish.

Since the great majority of the scales came from

previous studies to improve their validity, the questions

were translated into Spanish. To ensure that the

concepts had the same meaning in Spanish and English,

we performed a process of double translation, as

described in Whybark (1997).

Possible bias due to non-respondent firms has been

analyzed. The aforementioned databases also provide

secondary information on number of workers and

turnover, both for firms in the sample and for non-

respondents. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Klein-

baum et al., 1988) was used, and neither the number of

employees ( p = 0.486) nor the turnover ( p = 0.615)

was significantly different. We can be confident these


firms come from the same population and that there is

no bias in the respondent firms.

4.2. Measurement model

4.2.1. Knowledge transfer from customers and

suppliers

A Likert-type seven-point scale (1 = ‘‘totally dis-

agree’’ to 7 = ‘‘totally agree’’) was developed. It takes

into account the two basic characteristics of the most

commonly-used scales in studies on knowledge transfers

with external agents (Kale et al., 2000; Simonin, 1999):

(a) the fact that different types of knowledge flow among

organizations, and (b) the fact that merely acquiring the

knowledge does not suffice; rather, it must help the firm

in improving its current capacities and abilities (thus

reducing its dependence on external knowledge).

The foundation was provided by the scale developed

by Kale et al. (2000), as applied to marketing-related

knowledge, technological knowledge and knowledge on

management.

The scale established can be applied to the firm’s

relations with any of the organizations it has links with,

from its customers and suppliers to its strategic allies,

research centers or business associations, to mention a

few relevant examples. This study has concentrated on

the knowledge transfers from the main customer and

supplier with which the organization with which the

organization cooperates, in accordance with the

hypotheses put forward.

The scale’s internal consistency and reliability were

studied. We established a mean for each of the three

indicators for each knowledge type. Factor analysis

showed that the items loaded on a single factor, which

provides proof of unidimensionality. The Cronbach’s

alpha values for internal consistency were 0.9699

(transfers from suppliers) and 0.9767 (transfers from

customers), indicating an acceptable level of internal

consistency.

4.2.2. Internal knowledge transfer

We adapted the scale developed by Cummings

(2001) and asked the company CEOs to indicate on a

Likert-type seven-point scale (1 = ‘‘never’’, 7 = ‘‘to a

great extent’’) the degree to which the different units in

the firm transfer: (a) objectives and responsibilities; (b)

specific requirements; (c) written procedures and the

practical knowledge to use them; (d) superior practices

for carrying out tasks; and (e) clear recommendations

and tips to improve the performance of the tasks. The

internal consistency (a = 0.89) was analyzed, as was the

unidimensionality, using an exploratory factor study.

4.2.3. Teamwork

To determine the degree to which the firm has

implemented teamwork, three items were used: (a) how

strongly management backs teamwork; (b) how often the

firm solves its problems using teamwork; and (c) how the

firm uses inter-functional teams. These items are based

on those proposed by Griffin et al. (2001) and Valle and

Witt (2001). Within QM studies, these indicators have

been used in the prior works of Anderson et al. (1995) or

Flynn et al. (1994). A Likert-type seven-point scale was

used (1 = ‘‘never’’, 7 = ‘‘to a great extent’’). The

Cronbach’s a is 0.92, indicating the scale’s reliability.

To ensure unidimensionality, we checked that all the

items loaded on a single factor.

4.2.4. Autonomy

Three items were used to determine the level of

autonomy within the firm: the degree to which (a) the

workers control and are responsible for their own work;

(b) the workers are encouraged to identify and solve

their work-related problems; and (c) autonomy in

decision making has increased. To select these items,

we took into account the scales presented by Ahire et al.

(1996), Flynn et al. (1994), Griffin et al. (2001) or

Saraph et al. (1989). The scale is similar to others used

previously (Chang et al., 2003). Again, we used a

Likert-type seven-point scale. Its reliability was

analyzed (a = 0.92), as was the unidimensionality.

4.2.5. Process control

Four items were used to determine the degree to

which the process control practices included in QM

have been implemented in the firm. The scale has been

adapted from the prior scales of Flynn et al. (1994) and

Saraph et al. (1989). A Likert-type seven-point scale

was used (1 = ‘‘never’’, 7 = ‘‘to a great extent’’) to ask

the CEOs the extent to which: (a) statistical methods are

applied to control quality; (b) the processes are designed

with quality assurance in mind; (c) the design of the

products/services guarantees their final quality; and (d)

the employees are familiar with statistical control

techniques for process control. The unidimensionality

was studied, as was the internal consistency (a = 0.84).

4.2.6. Cooperation with suppliers

A four-item scale was used. CEOs were asked to

indicate the degree to which: (a) suppliers are involved

in the design and development of products; (b) long-

term relationships are established; (c) a small high-

quality group of suppliers is used; and (d) a climate of

cooperation has been developed. This scale has been

adapted from the prior work of Ahire et al. (1996) and


Flynn et al. (1994). The scale is unidimensional and

reliable (a = 0.78).

4.2.7. Cooperation with customers

To determine the type of relationship the firm

maintains with its customers, CEOs were asked to

indicate the degree to which the firm: (a) encourages

visits to the firm by customers and vice versa; (b) seeks

direct contact between the workers and the staff of key

customers; (c) involves customers in the design and

development of the products and services; (d) coop-

erates with customers to determine their tastes and

preferences; and (e) has established a climate of

cooperation with the main customers. This scale has

been based on prior studies by Black and Porter (1995)

and Flynn et al. (1994). The scale is unidimensional and

shows internal consistency (a = 0.78).

4.2.8. Performance

After reviewing the scales for measuring perfor-

mance developed in studies published in the major

journals, we considered it most appropriate to use the

measured proposed by Murray and Kotabe (1999) for

financial and operative performance. After the scale had

been adapted, the firm managers were asked what they

valued, according to a seven-point Likert-type

(1 = ‘‘much worse than my competitors’’ to 7 = ‘‘much

better than my competitors’’). The use of scales in

which performance is valued in accordance with the

main competitors is one of the practices most widely

used in recent studies, particularly in multi-sectorial

studies (Brews and Hunt, 1999). The scale is

unidimensional and reliable (a = 0.88).

4.2.9. Scales validity and reliability

After analyzing the unidimensionality and the

internal consistency of the scales taken individually,

we performed a confirmatory factor analysis using the

LISREL 8.30 software package. The estimation method

chosen was ordinary least squares (OLS). Although the

ratio of sample size to questions was 5.62, above the

recommended level of five (Hair et al., 1998), the study

of the scales’ normality proved to be negative, and the

sample is not large enough to allow the asymptotic

covariance matrix to converge. The factor loads are

shown in Table 1. All are very significant and exceed the

normally accepted level of 0.4 (Nunnally, 1978). The

internal consistency had been studied before using the

Cronbach’s alpha indicator. However, Fornell and

Larcker (1981) state that the composite reliability is a

more appropriate indicator, since it is calculated taking

the scale into account in the context of the measurement

model. The minimum recommended value is 0.7. This

analysis was completed by calculating the average

variance extracted, whose minimum recommended

value is 0.5. As Table 1 shows, in all cases the scales

are within the accepted limits, indicating that the

measurement model is good. We also studied all the

indicators of the measurement scale’s goodness of fit by

analyzing the absolute and incremental goodness of fit

and the model’s parsimony. In all cases, the indicators are

within the levels recommended as acceptable in the

literature (Hair et al., 1998). The fact that some of the

indicators are higher than 1 is particularly interesting,

given the widespread belief that all the indicators of

incremental goodness of fit fall within the interval [0,1].

In reality, values outside this interval are just as possible

(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993, p. 125).

We then studied the discriminant validity of the

different scales. The normal analysis consists of forcing

the correlation between each pair of constructs to be one

and studying the model’s loss of fit. To do this, we

compared each pair of constructs two by two. In all cases,

the loss of fit is significant and corresponds to the increase

in x2 ( p < 0.001), indicating that the constructs have

discriminant validity. Table 2 shows the descriptive

statistics and the correlations between the constructs.

5. Results

The results of the structural analysis are shown in

Fig. 2. For greater clarity, the figure includes only the

values of the structural equations, not the measurement

model. Firstly, the model’s goodness-of-fit must be

studied. In all cases, we have taken into account the

indicators and the recommendations on them presented

by Hair et al. (1998). Thus, three types of indicators of

the model’s goodness have been considered: absolute fit

measurements, incremental fit measurements and

parsimonious fit measurements. First, with regard to

the model’s absolute fit, the indicators that can be

applied to non-competitive analysis strategies are the

goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the root-mean-square

error of approximation (RMSEA). The GFI indicator is

restricted to the interval of values [0,1]. The higher the

value, the better the fit; and good fit is indicated by a

value above 0.90. This indicator is therefore acceptable

in our model (GFI = 0.99). The RMSEA is an indicator

based on the error of approximation per expected degree

of freedom in the population. The lower the indicator,

the better the fit; and fit is acceptable for values below

0.08 or even 0.10. In our model, the indicator takes a

value of 0.067 and is indicative, along with the GFI, of

its good overall fit.


Table 1

Factor loading, and reliability analysis

Constructs/items Mean S.D. Stand. factor

loading

t-Valuesa Composite

reliability

Average variance

extracted

Teamwork 0.92 0.80

Management initiative 5.31 1.54 0.89 29.18

Team-based problem solving 5.04 1.45 0.89 28.96

Use of inter-functional teams 4.93 1.50 0.91 29.35

Autonomy 0.92 0.80

Responsibility for own work 5.18 1.31 0.80 27.08

Desire to find solutions 4.95 1.52 0.91 28.86

Autonomy in decision making 4.58 1.49 0.96 29.45

Supplier cooperation 0.79 0.50

Involvement in design 4.47 1.64 0.67 20.89

Long-term relations 5.41 1.29 0.58 18.62

Few suppliers 4.85 1.45 0.75 22.30

Climate of cooperation 5.08 1.29 0.80 23.12

Customer cooperation 0.89 0.63

Visits from customers and vice versa 5.29 1.48 0.75 27.70

Encouraging direct personal contact 5.83 1.16 0.87 31.06

Involvement in design 4.94 1.48 0.69 25.90

Information search cooperation 5.38 1.36 0.86 30.82

Climate of cooperation 5.46 1.27 0.77 28.32

Process control 0.86 0.61

Use of SPC 5.14 1.59 0.74 25.07

Processes designed for quality 5.65 1.24 0.80 26.54

Design of products for quality 5.27 1.38 0.82 26.95

Employee familiarity with SPC 4.40 1.61 0.76 25.54

Internal knowledge transfers 0.89 0.61

Objectives and responsibilities 4.69 1.33 0.81 31.08

Specific requirements 4.49 1.41 0.86 32.56

Procedures 4.85 1.40 0.76 29.83

Best-practices 4.45 1.37 0.86 32.36

Recommendations and tricks 4–42 1.47 0.74 29.02

Suppliers knowledge transfers 0.97 0.92

Acquire information 3.61 1.40 0.93 24.42

Acquire capabilities 3.42 1.36 0.97 25.01

Improve prior capabilities 3.43 1.35 0.98 25.05

Customers knowledge transfers 0.98 0.94

Acquire information 4.02 1.37 0.98 26.24

Acquire capabilities 3.86 1.43 0.96 25.78

Improve prior capabilities 3.98 1.41 0.95 25.66

Performance 0.88 0.60

ROA 5.06 1.11 0.82 23.47

ROE 5.09 1.16 0.79 23.09

Earning/sales 5.01 1.14 0.68 20.85

Market share 5.05 1.18 0.75 23.03

Sales growth 5.09 1.09 0.81 24.44

x2 = 975.73, d.f. = 524; RMSEA = 0.066, GFI = 0.99; AGFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.98, NNFI = 1.02, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.02, RFI = 0.98; x2/d.f. = 1.86.a All factor loads are significant at p < 0.01.

It is also necessary to ensure that the model presents a

good incremental fit. This is based on checking the

increase in the fit between a base model (normally the

null model) and the proposed model. In all cases, values

above 0.90 are considered acceptable. In the model

proposed, all the indicators are well above the minimum

threshold (AGFI = 0.96; NFI = 0.96; NNFI = 0.99;

CFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99; RFI = 0.95). The final aspect to

be studied is the proposed model’s parsimony. Of the

measurements proposed, only the normed chi-square is


Fig. 2. Structural equation estimation. Structural equation.

Table 2

Analysis of discriminate validitya

Variable SEM correlationsb

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Internal knowledge transfers

2. Suppliers knowledge transfers 0.33

3. Customers knowledge transfers 0.32 0.17

4. Performance 0.45 0.32 0.30

5. Teamwork 0.81 0.27 0.34 0.38

6. Autonomy 0.86 0.29 0.36 0.40 0.79

7. Process control 0.59 0.49 0.35 0.34 0.55 0.59

8. Supplier cooperation 0.68 0.34 0.50 0.37 0.69 0.72 0.70

9. Customer cooperation 0.75 0.26 0.30 0.35 0.70 0.63 0.52 0.60

a n = 197.b All correlations are significant at p < 0.05.

of use in the confirmatory analysis. This measurement

must take values above one and below three or even five

to ensure the data is not overfitted (Hair et al., 1998) and

to be truly representative of the data. In our case, the value

reached is 1.88 and therefore within the accepted limits.

The results of the analysis are consistent with the

hypotheses put forward, thus confirming the predicted

hypotheses. Only in the cases of the relation between

knowledge transfers from customers and internal

transfers (H5b) and of the relation between teamwork

and internal knowledge transfers (H1) are the hypoth-

eses not confirmed. The rest of the relationships are

significant. These results are in line with the general

hypothesis of this study; namely, that implementing QM

in the firm has positive implications for knowledge

transfers.


6. Discussion

Since the end of the last century the knowledge

applied to the development and manufacturing of

products and services has steadily grown in complexity,

specificity and system dependence. In short, it has

become a key element that needs to be managed. This

increased importance of applied knowledge in produc-

tion appears to be having powerful consequences for the

economic structure, giving rise to what has been called

the new economy. According to Foss (1999), its

growing theoretical importance lies in the inability of

the dominant transaction costs paradigm to provide a

satisfactory explanation for the differences in profit-

ability due to possessing competitive advantages.

Although the knowledge-based view of the firm is a

poor theory to define the existence and limits of the

organization, it is an excellent one to explain

competitive advantages.

In this economic context, the quality movement has

continued to develop, giving rise to what we know as

QM, a relatively recent term (Bemowski, 1992) despite

its widespread dissemination. This study assumes that

the relevance of knowledge management (especially in

academia) and of QM (above all in professional circles)

in the same period of time has not occurred by chance.

The first conclusion that can be drawn from the study

is that the results do not confirm the relationship between

the teamwork of QM itself and knowledge transfers. This

result may be linked to the need to create strong ties

between the two parties, which implies a substantial use

of resources (Hansen, 1999). On the one hand, group

members must devote more resources to transfers within

the group itself, leaving fewer resources for transfers

among units. On the other, group members must also

create, through experience, a type of shared language that

facilitates transfers within the group but which hinders

transfers among units, since this ad hoc language is not

common to the other groups, thus increasing the distance

between the knowledge bases (Huber, 1991).

In hypothesis 2, we proposed that worker autonomy is

positively related to internal knowledge transfers. This is

based on the utilitarist theory: because the workers are

responsible for the correct functioning of the tasks, their

willingness to search for the knowledge should increase

when the reward expected from the transfer is greater

(Arias and Molina, 2002; Wang and Netemeyer, 2002).

We also took into account the corpus of studies focusing

on the need for decentralization when the knowledge

involved in the transfer is tacit, as is the case of the

knowledge analyzed in this paper (Teece, 2000).

Autonomy gives the individuals or work groups the

freedom to establish the procedures best adapted to the

needs of the tasks. Since in most cases the workers

possess the best knowledge of their jobs and the best

information on the validity of the practices and their

implementation, they will be able to perform the search

for the necessary knowledge more efficiently. Autonomy

not only affects the evaluation of knowledge, but it also

facilitates the exchange, due to the fact that a smaller

number of parties are involved. Generally speaking, these

parties have a better knowledge of the tasks, since they

establish the relationship instead of having first to go

through someone who does not belong to management.

Further, this study established the hypothesis that

QM process control helps knowledge transfers by

making the firm’s problems more visible, highlighting

the differences in efficiency among the different

processes that the firm performs based on data rather

than on intuition, facilitating the search for more

efficient processes and improving the level of coding of

the firm’s knowledge. The relationship between process

control and internal transfers has been verified, under-

lining its importance to the processes described.

Hypotheses 4a and 4b maintain that cooperation with

suppliers and customers will improve the transfer of

knowledge from them to the firm. The empirical study

verifies the importance of cooperation with both

suppliers and customers. Even so, the capacity to

explain the variation in the external transferences is

relatively small (R2 = 0.24 for the suppliers; R2 = 0.25

for the customers). Bearing in mind the results obtained,

we must accept hypotheses 4a and 4b, although some

factors have nothing to do with the mere cooperation

with external agents, which explains the variability in

the external knowledge transfers. These factors have

been studied in the literature on the subject. Thus, the

concept of knowledge absorption capacity (Cohen and

Levinthal, 1990; Lane and Lubatkin, 1998) includes

prior knowledge on the subject, organizational form,

integration capacity, motivation to acquire knowledge

and level of trust.

Outside the relationship between QM practices and

knowledge transfers, we have established hypotheses 5a

and 5b. These hypotheses show the positive relationship

that can exist between the presence of external and

internal knowledge transfers, due to the fact that the

expected benefit from internal dissemination of the

knowledge must be greater than in the case of external

transfer. The potential value must be similar in groups

with the same activities, while the cost will be reduced.

Because the knowledge is in a more familiar language

and both the receiver and the issuer belong to the same

firm, they possess a common culture that does not


interfere in the transfers (Simonin, 1999). The results

confirm that the transfers from suppliers are significant

for a level of p < 0.05. This is not the case in the

knowledge transferred from customers. One possible

explanation for this can be found in the line of research

opened by Menon et al. (2001). Menon’s studies state

that internal competition and political wrangling among

management indicate that managers value internal

knowledge less, not because of its lower potential but

because they expect to earn greater credit by using

external knowledge. Furthermore, they value more

positively workers who use external knowledge.

Bearing in mind this bias in favor of external

knowledge, it is possible to soften the influence of

external knowledge transfers on internal knowledge.

Although objectively speaking the knowledge trans-

ferred from outside will have a lower internal transfer

cost than it originally had, those whose responsibility it

is to decide its suitability will value the knowledge

personally. Applying the bias against internal knowl-

edge, the difference between value and cost means that

its internal transfer remains undecided, since one must

compare the loss of personal credit with the situation

that would arise if that information were sought outside

the organization.

In the study, the results indicate that both internal

knowledge transfers and those from suppliers and

customers were highly and significantly related to the

firm’s performance Therefore, hypotheses H6, H7a and

H7b have been verified by the empirical study

performed. The knowledge transfers are latent, not

directly manageable variables which are highly

influenced by the QM elements. This influence on

variables that have such theoretical relevance in the

organization provides a theoretical base on which we

can analyze the importance of QM when it is

implemented in the firm. Thus, QM increases the

organization’s capacity to transfer knowledge. This

capacity fulfills the requirements for providing the basis

of competitive advantage and can thus explain the

influence of QM on performance.

Appendix A. Questionnaire

Please indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement with respect to the de

in your firm

7. Conclusion and future research

In this paper we have studied the relationship

between certain QM practices and knowledge transfers.

The results indicate that the joint handling of the social

and technical aspects of QM implies that we have a set

of practices with great impact on knowledge manage-

ment, especially on knowledge transfers. Cohen (1998)

considers that, from the basic perspectives that can be

adopted for knowledge management, Western firms

have opted for the line of explicit knowledge manage-

ment and subsequent investment in costly information

systems. In its tacit aspect, research has studied which

factors determine whether the knowledge is more or less

transferable. However, there are few studies on the

management elements that will facilitate the transfer.

Given the explanatory capacity of the elements

mentioned, establishing a socio-technical system

according to the principles of QM has proven to be a

good system for overcoming these difficulties.

Thus, the results provide a theoretical support for the

relationship between QM and performance. We can

conclude that, since QM has a positive influence on

knowledge transfer, it affects the firm’s resources and

capabilities, as well as the organization’s competitive

advantage.

For future study in this line of research, we believe

that the analysis of the influence of implementing QM

practices in other knowledge management processes is

important. The relation between knowledge creation

and QM implementation has been studied before

(Liderman et al., 2004), but empirical studies in this

field are very few. Even fewer studies analyze the

relation between QM and knowledge integration, an

issue on which QM practices a priori have a great

impact. On the other hand, the lack of significance of

QM teamwork in the internal transfers is an unexpected

result. Deeper study of this relation to take into account

the different kinds of teams in QM and their relation to

knowledge transfers is a line of research that would

improve understanding of this relationship.

gree of implementation of the following quality management practices


Appendix A (Continued )


Indicate with what frequency the different kinds of knowledge, abilities, techniques, information, etc. are transferred or exchanged between work

groups

Focusing on your relation with the main supplier with whom you have established relations of cooperation, indicate the degree of agreement or

disagreement with the following statements



Focusing on your relationship with the main customer with whom you maintain relations of cooperation, indicate the degree of agreement or

disagreement with the following statements

Answer the following questions, taking into account the situation of your firm in the last 3 years. Relative to your main competitors, what is your

firm’s performance in the following aspects


References

Ahire, S.L., Dreyfus, P., 2000. The impact of design management and

process management on quality: an empirical investigation. Jour-

nal of Operation Management 18, 549–575.

Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y., Waller, M.A., 1996. Development and

validation of tqm implementation constructs. Decision Sciences

27 (1), 23–56.

Almeida, P., Kogut, B., 1999. Location of knowledge and the mobility

of engineers in regional networks. Management Science 45 (7),

905–917.

Amasse, F., Cohedet, P., 2001. Technology transfer revisited form the

perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy 30,

1459–1478.

Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R.G., Devaraj, S.,

1995. A path analytic model of a theory of quality mana-

gement underlying the deming management method: prel-

iminary empirical finding. Decision Sciences 26 (5), 637–

657.

Arias, D., Molina, L.M., 2002. Determinants of innovation through a

knowledge-based theory lens. Industrial Management and Data

Systems 102 (5), 289–296.


Bachmann, R., 2001. Trust and control in organizational relations

(editorial). Organization Studies 22 (2), i–viii.

Baer, M., Frese, M., 2003. Innovation in not enough: Climates for

innovative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm

performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24 (1), 45–68.

Barney, J.B., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advan-

tage. Journal of Management 17, 99–120.

Bemowski, K., 1992. The quality glossary. Quality Progress 25 (2),

18–29.

Berman, S.L., Down, J., Hill, C.W., 2002. Tacit knowledge as a source

of competitive advantage in the National Basketball Association.

Academy of Management Journal 45, 13–31.

Black, S.A., Porter, L.J., 1995. An empirical model for total quality

management. Total Quality Management 6 (2), 149–165.

Brews, P.J., Hunt, M.R., 1999. Learning to plan and planning to learn:

resolving the planning school/learning school debate. Strategic

Management Journal 20, 889–913.

Brown, J.S., Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational learning and commu-

nities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and

innovation. Organization Science 2 (1), 40–57.

Brown, J.S., Duguid, P., 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-

practice perspective. Organization Science 12 (2), 195–213.

Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., Pavitt, K., 2001. Knowledge specialization,

organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: why do

firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quar-

terly 46, 597–621.

Chang, R.D., Chang, Y.W., Paper, D., 2003. The effect of task

uncertainty, decentralization and AIS characteristics on the per-

formance of AIS: an empirical case in Taiwan. Information and

Management 40, 691–703.

Chen, W.H., 1997. The human side of total quality management in

Taiwan: leadership and human resource management. Interna-

tional Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 14 (1), 24–

45.

Chiles, T.H., Choi, T.Y., 2000. Theorizing TQM: an Austrian and

evolutionary economics interpretation. Journal of Management

Studies 37 (2), 185–212.

Clark, K.B., Fujimoto, T., 1991. Product Development Performance.

Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Cohen, D., 1998. Toward a knowledge context: report on the first

annual U.C. Berkeley forum on knowledge and the firm. California

Management Review 40 (3), 22–39.

Cohen, S.S., Fields, G., 1999. Social capital and capital gains in

Silicon Valley. California Management Review 41 (2), 108–130.

Cohen, W., Levinthal, D., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspec-

tive on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly

35, 128–152.

Conner, K.R., Prahalad, C.K., 1996. A resource-based theory of the

firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science 7 (5),

477–501.

Corbett, L.M., Rastrick, K.N., 2000. Quality performance and orga-

nizational culture a New Zealand study. International Journal of

Quality and Reliability Management 17 (1), 14–26.

Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., White, R.E., 1999. An organizational

learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of


Cummings, J.N. 2001. ‘‘Work group and knowledge sharing in a

global organization. Academy of Management Proceedings, paper

OB:D1.

Darr, E.D., Argote, L., Epple, D., 1995. The acquisition, transfer, and

depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: productivity

in franchises. Management Sciencie 41 (11), 1750–1762.

Dean, J.W., Bowen, D.E., 1994. Management theory and total quality:

improving research and practice through theory development.

Academy of Management Review 19 (3), 392–418.

Dean, J.W., Evans, J.R., 1994. Total Quality Management, Organiza-

tion and Strategy. Wet Publishing Co., St. Paul.

Dyerson, R., Mueller, F.U., 1999. Learning, teamwork and appro-

priability: managing technological change in the department of

social security. Journal of Management 36 (5), 629–652.

Dougherty, D. 2001. Organizing practice-based knowledge in service

organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings, paper TIM:

C1.

Easton, G.S., Jarell, S.L., 1998. The effect of total quality management

on corporate performance: an empirical investigation. Journal of

Business 71 (2), 253–307.

Filippini, R., 1997. Operations management research: some reflec-

tions on evolution, models and empirical studies in OM. Interna-

tional Journal of Operations and Production Management 17 (7),

655–670.

Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., 1994. A framework for

quality management research and an associated measurement

instrument. Journal of Operations Management 11, 339–366.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models

with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of

Marketing Research 18, 39–50.

Foss, N.J., 1999. Research in the strategic theory of the firm: ‘iso-

lationism’ and ‘integrationism’. Journal of Management Studies

36 (6), 725–755.

Grant, R.M., 1996a. Prospering in dynamically-competitive enviro-

ments: organizational capabilitiy as knowledge integration. Orga-

nization Science 7 (4), 375–387.

Grant, R.M., 1996b. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.

Strategic Management Journal 17, 109–122 (special issue).

Grant, R.M., 1997. The knowledge-based view of the firm: implica-

tions for management practice. Long Range Planning 30 (3), 450–

454.

Grant, R.M., Shani, R., Krishnan, R., 1994. TQM’s challenge to

management theory and practice. Sloan Management Review

35 (2), 25–35.

Griffin, M.A., Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., 2001. Job satisfaction and

teamwork: the role of supervision support. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behaviour 22, 537–550.

Gupta, A.K., Govindarajan, V., 2000. Knowledge flows within multi-

national corporations. Strategic Management Journal 21, 473–496.

Hackman, J.R., Wageman, R., 1995. Total quality management:

empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative

Science Quarterly 40, 309–342.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multi-

variate data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hansen, M.T., 1999. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties

in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative

Science Quarterly 44, 82–111.

Hansen, M.T., 2002. Knowledge networks: explaining effective

knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science

13 (3), 232–248.

Haynak, H., 2003. The relationship between total quality management

practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Opera-

tions Management 21, 405–435.

Helfat, C.E., Peteraf, M.A., 2003. The dynamic resource-based view:

capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal 24, 997–1010.

Hendricks, K.B., Singhal, V.R., 2001. Firm characteristics, total

quality management, and financial performance. Journal of Opera-

tions Management 19, 269–285.


Hedlund, G., 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N-

form corporation. Strategic Management Journal 15, 73–90.

Hoopes, D.G., Postrel, S., 1999. Shared knowledge, ‘glitches’, and

product development performance. Strategic Management Journal

20, 837–865.

Hoskinsson, R.E., Hitt, M.A., Wan, W.P., Yiu, D., 1999. Theory and

research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum. Journal

of Management 25, 417–456.

Huber, G., 1991. Organizational learning: the contributing processes

and the literatures. Organization Science 2 (1), 88–115.

Inkpen, A.C., 1998. Learning, knowledge acquisition and strategic

alliances. European Management Journal 16 (2), 223–229.

Inkpen, A.C., Crossan, M.M., 1995. Believing is seeing: joint ventures

and organization learning. Journal of Management Studies 32,

595–618.

Joreskog, K.G., Sorbom, D., 1993. LISREL 8 Structural Equation

Modeling with SIMPLIS Command Language. Scientific Soft-

ware International, Chicago, IL.

Kale, P., Singh, H., Perlmutter, H., 2000. Learning and protection of

proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital.

Strategic Management Journal 21, 217–237.

Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L., Muller, K.E., 1988. Applied Regres-

sion Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods, 2nd ed. PWS-

Kent Publishing, Boston, MA.

Kogut, B., 1988. Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspec-

tives. Strategic Management Journal 9, 312–332.

Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative

capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization

Science 3, 383–397.

Kraatz, M.S., 1998. Learning by association? Interorganizational

networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of

Management Journal 41 (6), 621–643.

Krone, K.J., Jablin, F.M., Putman, L.L., 1987. Communication

theory and organizational communication. In: Krone, K.J.,

Putman, L.L., Roberts, K.H., Porter, L.M. (Eds.), Handbook

of organizational communication: an interdisciplinary perspec-

tive. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Lane, P.J., Lubatkin, M., 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and

interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal 19,

461–477.

Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. The factory as a learning laboratory. Sloan

management review. Fall 23–38.

Lessard, D.R., Zaheer, S., 1996. Breaking the silos: distributed knowl-

edge and strategic responses to volatile exchange rates. Strategic

Management Journal 17, 513–533.

Liderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C., Choo, A.S.,

2004. Integrating quality management practices with knowledge

creation processes. Journal of Operations Management 22, 589–

607.

Liebeskind, J.P., Oliver, A.L., Zucker, L., Brewer, M., 1996. Social

networks, learning, and flexibility: sourcing scientific knowledge

in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science 7 (4), 429–443.

Llorens, F.C., Verdu, A., Molina, L.M., 2003. Factors affecting the

relationship between total quality management and organizational

performance. International Journal of Quality and Reliability

Management 20 (2), 189–209.

Lubatkin, M., Florin, J., Lane, P., 2001. Learning together and apart: a

model of reciprocal interfirm learning. Human Relations 54 (10),

1353–1382.

Manz, C.C., Stewart, G.L., 1997. Attaining flexible stability by

integrating total quality management and socio-technical systems

theory. Organization Science 8 (1), 59–70.

McEvily, S.K., Das, S., McAbe, K., 2000. Avoiding competitive

substitution through knowledge sharing. Academy of Manage-

ment Review 25 (2), 294–311.

Menon, T., Pfeffer, J., Sutton, R., 2001. The valuation of internal

versus external knowledge: why managers sometimes prefer the

knowledge possessed by outsiders over the knowledge possessed

by insiders. In: Academy of Management Proceedings.

Morris, T., 2001. Asserting property rights: knowledge codification in

the professional service firm. Human Relations 54 (7), 819–838.

Murray, J.Y., Kotabe, M., 1999. Sourcing strategies of U.S. service

companies: a modified transaction-cost analysis. Strategic Man-

agement Journal 20, 791–809.

Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P., Senoo, D., 1998. The ‘ART’ of knowl-

edge: systems to capitalize on market knowledge. European


Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.

O’Dell, C., Grayson, C.J., 1998. If only we know what we know:

identification and transfer of internal best practices. California


Oliver, A.L., 2001. Strategic alliances and the learning life-cycle of

biotechnology firms. Organization Studies 22 (3), 467–489.

Orlikowski, W.J., 2002. Knowing in practice: enacting a collective

capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science 40 (3),

249–273.

Postrel, S., 2002. Islands of shared knowledge: specialization and

mutual understanding in problem-solving teams. Organization

Science 13 (3), 303–320.

Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., 1996. Interorganiza-

tional collaboration and the locus of innovation. Networks of

learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41,

116–145.

Ravichandran, T. 2001. Innovation assimilation in the presence of

knowledge barriers, technology uncertainty and adoption risks.

Academy of Management Proceedings, paper OCIS: C1.

Reed, R., Lemak, D.J., Mero, N.P., 2000. Total quality management

and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Quality Man-

agement 5 (1), 5–26.

Rivkin, J.W., 2001. Reproducing knowledge: Replication without

imitation at moderate complexity. Academy of Management

Journal 12 (3), 274–293.

Rungtusanatham, M., 2000. The quality and motivational effects of

statistical process control. Journal of Quality Management 4 (2),

243–264.

Samson, D., Terziovski, M., 1999. The relationship between total

quality management practices and operational performance. Jour-

nal of Operations Management 17, 393–409.

Saraph, J.V., Benson, G., Schroeder, R.G., 1989. An instrument for

measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision

Science 20, 810–829.

Schonberger, R.J., 1990. Building a Chain of Customers. Free Press,

New York.

Simonin, B.L., 1997. The importance of collaborative know-how: an

empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal 40 (3), 1150–1174.

Simonin, B.L., 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer

in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 29, 595–623.

Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2002. Quality management re-visited: a reflec-

tive review and agenda for future research. Journal of Operations

Management 20, 91–109.

Sparkes, J.R., Miyake, M., 2000. Knowledge transfer and human

resource development practices: Japanese firms in Brazil and

Mexico. International Business Review 9, 599–612.


Szulanski, G., 1994. Intra-firm Transfer of Best Practices Project.

American Productivity and Quality Center, Houston, TX.

Szulanski, G., 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the

transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management

Journal 17, 27–43 (special issue).

Szulanski, G., Winter, S., Cappetta, R. 2000. Knowledge transfer

within the firm: A replication perspective on stickiness. Working

Paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Teece, D.J., 2000. Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role

of firm structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning 33,

35–54.

Valle, M., Witt, L.A., 2001. The moderating effect of teamwork

perceptions on the organizational politics-job satisfaction relation-

ship. Journal of Social Psychology 34, 379–388.

Wang, G., Netemeyer, R.G., 2002. The effects of job autonomy,

customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on salesper-

son learning, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of the Acad-

emy of Marketing Sciences 30 (3), 217–228.

Welch, D., Welch, L., 1997. Being flexible and accommodating

diversity: the challenge for multinational management. European


Whybark, D.C., 1997. GMRC survey research in operation manage-

ment. International Journal of Operations and Production Manage-

ment 17 (7), 686–696.

Winter, S.G., 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic asset. In:

Teece, D. (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Indus-

trial Renewal. Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Wruck, K.H., Jensen, M.C., 1994. Science, specific knowledge and

total quality management. Journal of Accounting and Economics

18, 247–284.

Zack, M.H., 1999. Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management

Review 40 (4), 45–58.

luis m. molina a,, javier llore´ns relationship between quality management practices

Documents

study of qm

firm performance

implications of qm practices

elements of qm withinstudies

firms performance

relationship betweenqm

knowledge transfers

external knowledge