Relation‐specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships

By Jeffrey H. Dyer, N. Hatch. 2006

1,013 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/04fde41e7ad489843be395df8d2ada936339bf10

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Markets as networks: implications for strategy-making (2011, background): “The relationships have effects on knowledge development (Dyer and Hatch 2006; Gulati 1999a, b, Gulati and Gargiulo 1999).”
Does firm location make a difference to the export performance of SMEs (2012, background): “In fact, the sharing of information facilitates new product development enabling SMEs to compete more effectively in export markets ( Dyer and Hatch, 2006”
Network Structure and Innovation: The Leveraging of a Dual Network as a Distinctive Relational Capability (2007, background): “More recently, Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) have examined in detail the knowledge-sharing routines developed by Toyota to promote superior learning in its supplier network.”
Supplier development efforts: The suppliers' point of view (2013, background): “Customers can also decide to invest in training and education of a supplier's personnel, and in installation of tools and equipment for production and logistics processes (Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Sánchez-Rodríguez, Hemsworth, & Martínez-Lorente, 2005).”
Alliance Capabilities (2015, background): “Whether the focal firm is more effective at transferring its knowledge to the partner than its competitors also plays a crucial role (Dyer & Hatch, 2006).”
Non-linear relationship between industrial service offering and sales growth: The moderating role of network capabilities (2013, background): “According to the strategic capability view (Barney, Ketchen, & Wright, 2011; Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Madhok & Tallman, 1998), capabilities are needed to create value from resources and competences (Long & Vickers-Koch, 1995; Theoharakis, Sajtos, & Hooley, 2009) for the realization of competitive…”
Partner Geographic and Organizational Proximity and the Innovative Performance of Knowledge‐Creating Alliances (2014, positive): “, 2000; Capaldo, 2007), the emergence of idiosyncratic languages (Romo and Schwartz, 1995; Uzzi, 1997), and the accumulation on both sides of a deep mutual understanding of the other party’s organizational routines (Romo and Schwartz, 1995; Dyer and Hatch, 2006).”
Network composition, collaborative ties, and upgrading in emerging-market firms: Lessons from the Argentine autoparts sector (2010, background): “…suggesting that suppliers, regardless of their tier or ownership, often vary in developing new capabilities, largely because of the types of collaborative relationship they have with other firms in the value chain (Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Helper, MacDuffie, & Sabel, 2000; MacDuffie & Helper, 2006).”
Understanding the impact of relational capital and organizational learning on alliance outcomes (2010, background): “Some stress the linkage between relationship development and knowledge transfer in alliances (Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Sarkar, Echambadi, Cavusgil, & Aulakh, 2001; Uzzi & Lancaster, 2003), and others highlight the connection between knowledge process systems (i.e., knowledge acquisition and sharing) and…”
How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness? (2009, background): “Along a similar vein, recent research in strategy examines the issue of how interorganizational partnerships affect firms' ability to acquire resources and capabilities necessary for profitability and growth (e.g., Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Kale, Singh, & Perlmutter, 2000; Stuart, Hoang, & Hybels, 1999).”
Effectiveness and Efficiency of Cross-Border Knowledge Transfer: An Empirical Examination (2008, neutral): “According to Grant (1996), ‘knowledge has emerged as the most strategically-significant resource of the firm’ (p.”