European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.
62–67, 2003
Pergamon
doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00152-4
Global Knowledge
Management Strategies
KEVIN DESOUZA, University of Illinois at Chicago
ROBERTO EVARISTO, University of Illinois at Chicago
In this paper we address the issue of managing
knowledge within firms that span multiple coun-
tries. Through a series of semi-structured inter-
views with 29 senior managers, spanning three con-
tinents and 11 firms, we present insights on
knowledge management approaches and strategies
being undertaken. In the organizations we inter-
viewed we found presence of three strategies for
knowledge management: Headquarter Com-
missioned and Executed, Headquarter Commissioned
and Regionally Executed, and Regionally Com-
missioned and Locally Executed. We also discuss
challenges faced in executing global knowledge
management initiatives.
 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Knowledge management, Global cor-
porations, International strategies
Introduction
In today’s hyper-competitive global marketplace it is
pivotal for enterprises to manage not only tangible
resources but also to exploit intangibles. A conse-
quent outcome of this realization has been the surge
of interest in knowledge management. Verna Allee
(1997) defines knowledge management as: ‘… much
more than managing the flow of information. It
means nothing less than setting knowledge free to
find its own paths. It means fueling the creative fire
of self-questioning in organizations. This means
thinking less about knowledge management and
more about knowledge partnering‘. It has become
evident that organizations must master the act of
integrating disparate sources of knowledge found
within their bounds in order to sustain and maintain
competitive advantages (Grant, 1996). The task of
integrating disparate pockets of knowledge within a
firm is complicated by the fact that enterprises oper-
ate in a global context. Knowledge is hence spread
over a wider spectrum and is meshed in a broad
assortment of contexts. Therefore, managers struggle
with devising strategies for managing and integrat-
62
 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0263-2373/03 $30.00 + 0.00
ing knowledge lending to generating of innovations
and intellectual capital.
Knowledge management has in recent times been an
item of heated interest in the academic community
(see Miles et al., 1998; Davenport et al., 1996; Desouza,
2002a, 2002b, 2002c; Drew, 1999; Allee, 1997; Nonaka,
1991, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Holtshouse,
1998; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Zack, 1999). However,
the literature addressing management of knowledge
in a global context is best described as sparse. To date
there is yet to be a significant undertaking that looks
at issues in managing knowledge across borders. This
is unfortunate as we look at the increasing evidence
that organizations must compete globally in order to
survive (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989; Drucker, 1993;
Levitt, 1983; Ohmae, 1989; Porter, 1986; Hanseth and
Baa, 2000; Naisbitt, 1994). Davenport et al. (1998)
studied 31 knowledge management projects in 24
global companies and identified eight key factors for
success, including culture and processes, developing
a common purpose, and a common language for
knowledge identification and selection. Another
study conducted by Chiesa and Manzini (1996) inves-
tigated instruments and mechanisms used by
research and development groups within twelve
multinational firms for transfer of technical knowl-
edge. They uncovered commonly used mechanisms,
such as electronic linkages, forums, temporary
assignments, international teams, internal markets,
meetings, cross-border assignments, boundary-span-
ning roles, and personnel flows. Alavi and Leidner
(1999) conducted a survey from a sample population
of 12 different countries to look at the issues, chal-
lenges, and benefits of knowledge management sys-
tems. A key limitation of the above studies is that the
researchers were not primarily concerned with
understanding knowledge management intricacies in
a global context.
The following paper adds to the research and prac-
titioner literatures by providing insights on manag-
ing knowledge in global corporations. To this end we
conducted semi-structured interviews with 29 senior
managers representing 11 firms whose headquarters
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 62–67, February 2003

were located in three continents (North America,
Asia, and Europe). Interviews were then analyzed
and comprehended using existing frameworks of
managing in global contexts. Three strategies for
managing knowledge were uncovered: (1) Head-
quarter Commissioned and Executed, (2) Head-
quarter Commissioned and Regionally Executed, and
(3) Regionally Commissioned and Locally Executed.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: we
begin by presenting a brief discussion on our
research methodology. Next, we explicate knowledge
management strategies uncovered. Concluding the
paper we look at critical issues that pertain to manag-
ing knowledge across borders. We also present
insights into how companies operationalize their
strategies into approaches for managing knowledge.
Methodology
Senior managers representing 11 firms were inter-
viewed during the period of December 1999 to July
2001. Our sample was drawn from organizations in
the telecommunications, insurance, pharmaceutical,
manufacturing, software, and consulting industries,
whose headquarters were located in North America,
Europe, and Asia (see Table 1). The companies selec-
ted were global in spirit, and had operations on all
major continents. Hence, we are justified in drawing
insights regarding global knowledge management
strategies. As can be deduced from Table 1, we had
a mixed range of firms in our sample, ranging from
small firms (200+ employees) to industry leaders
(110,000+ employees). Detailed statistics on each firm
can be obtained from the authors. To preserve anon-
ymity, results are presented in aggregate.
Based on Orlikowski (1993), we used semi-structured
interviews for data collection, each interview lasting
approximately 45 minutes. Follow-up questions were
Table 1 Characteristics of Firms Examined
Headquarters Industry
1 North America Manufacturing
2 North America Information solutions &
telecommunications
3 North America Telecommunications
4 North America Pharmaceuticals
5 North America Information solutions
6 North America Insurance
7 Europe Petroleum
8 Europe Telecommunications
9 Asia Petroleum
10 Asia Telecommunications
11 Asia Consulting/advertising & marketing
a
During June 2001, the company decided to close down its international operations. However since the interviews were conducted
in January 2001 we have included the findings in our analysis
b
Due to being in the telecommunication industry the company has operations in a large number of countries due to requirements
for service provisions. Much of the international operations are conducted via alliances with local carriers
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 62–67, February 2003
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
asked via telephone and e-mail when clarification
was necessary. Viewing privileges of corporate
memos and other documents were also provided to
the researchers. Lastly, interviews were transcribed
and analyzed. Even though our sample size is small,
we feel that the duration of interviews and breadth
of issues addressed provides significant insights. We
attempted to synthesize data from interviews with
the state-of-the-art in knowledge management
approaches, resulting in a systematic discussion. Pre-
liminary versions of the paper received positive feed-
back from discussion with out-of-sample organiza-
tions involved in global knowledge management
efforts, thus adding to the validity of the arguments
and approaches.
Knowledge Management Strategies
In an attempt to structure the investigation on knowl-
edge management strategies, we looked at the semi-
nal work of Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989). They high-
light four strategies for competing across borders —
multinational, global, international, and trans-
national. A multinational strategy is one in which
foreign subsidiaries run nearly autonomously or as a
loose federation. Running autonomously enables
subsidiaries to quickly respond to changes in local
markets. The global strategy is one in which the
actions of the subsidiaries are heavily regulated and
controlled by the headquarters or home office. This
approach ensures achieving global efficiency through
economies of scale. The international strategy
exploits the knowledge of the parent organization
through worldwide diffusion and adaptation. Rapid
deployment of innovation is the key operating prin-
ciple here. The transnational strategy strives to achi-
eve the slogan, ‘think globally but act locally,‘
through dynamic interdependence between the par-
ent and the subsidiaries. Organizations following a
Number of employees Global presence
40,000 + 130 countries
600 + 18 countries
110,000 + 75 countries
70,000 + 130 countries
1100 + 3 countriesa
79,200 + 2 countries
58 countries
130,000 + 200 countriesb
25,000 + 15 countries
5000 + 5 countries
200 + 3 countries
63
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
transnational strategy coordinate efforts, ensuring
local flexibility while exploiting the benefits of global
integration and efficiencies, as well as ensuring
worldwide diffusion of innovation.
In their research on managing IT in global corpora-
tions, Ives and Jarvenpaa (1991), found the presence
of three strategies, all closely aligned with those pro-
posed by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989). The first strat-
egy was ‘independent global IT operations,‘ in which
subsidiaries developed their own systems most of the
time, leaving collaborative system development
between divisions a rarity. The second pattern of
operations was ‘headquarters-driven global IT,‘
which imposed corporate- and world-wide IT sol-
utions in the parent organization. The third pattern
closely resembled the international strategy, in which
strong links between the parent and foreign subsidi-
aries based on cooperation and mutual assistance
were exhibited. Ives and Jarvenpaa (1991) did not
find any organizations exhibiting transnational stra-
tegies.
In the organizations we interviewed we found pres-
ence of three strategies for knowledge management
(see Table 2), which complement the work of Bartlett
and Ghoshal (1989) and Ives and Jarvenpaa (1991).
The first strategy, which resembles the ‘global‘ or
‘headquarter-driven global IT‘, was found in three
organizations. In this approach, the home office set
the tone for knowledge management initiatives, and
provided technology solutions and support, training,
and policies and procedures. Supporting Bartlett and
Ghoshal (1989) this approach was found in compa-
nies with standardized global products and services
so as to take advantage of economies of scale. Stan-
dardization of interfaces, procedures, and policies
was the overriding principle here. Take for instance,
a pharmaceutical company involved in the manufac-
turing and sale of drugs in multiple markets. Their
rationale for using this strategy in supporting their
R&D and sales efforts was simply that a drug made
in Illinois does not differ in composition to one made
in Europe. Moreover medical drug sales are stan-
dardized to a large degree enabling a uniform
approach to managing knowledge.
The second approach resembles the transnational
strategy. In recognizing that a global tall order from
headquarters was not the most appropriate manner
to carry out knowledge management and in an effort
Table 2 Knowledge Management Strategies
Strategy Number of companies
Headquarter commissioned and 3 ties found between local offices and the commonali-
executed
Headquarter commissioned and 5
regionally executed
Regionally commissioned and locally 3
executed
64
to prevent each local office from taking its unique
approach, five organizations used a ‘headquarter
commissioned & regionally executed‘ strategy. In
this, the headquarter set out broad guidelines and
policies and initiated the knowledge management
dialogue; they then allowed regional centers to take
command of actual execution. Regional centers were
main hubs at each of the continents where the organi-
zation operated. This ensured that a common theme
and mission was present, while allowing solutions to
be tailored to meet distinct requirements of each
region. This approach was common among organiza-
tions involved in global consulting efforts and even
manufacturing firms. For such organizations the
headquarters set out the knowledge management
initiatives which include the high-level mission,
objectives, aims, etc of the program, and even made
the choice of the tools. However, it was left to the
regional centres to set their own specific objectives
and goals keeping in line with the broad directives
from headquarters. The regional offices also cus-
tomized the technology to meet the distinct require-
ments of their local offices. Common customizations
carried out were change of language, interface, and
types of knowledge bases. Since the headquarters
made the choice of technology, connectivity among
offices was ensured. Each regional and local office
was connected to the rest of the organization, but
could have their own internal schema for interaction
with their peer local offices. All executives inter-
viewed expressed great appreciation for the
approach as it enabled meeting of local needs while
staying connected to their distant global counter-
parts.
The third approach is a unique outcome of our inves-
tigation. In two organizations the vision and initiat-
ives for knowledge management efforts came from
the regional offices themselves. These efforts surfaced
from the recognition that local offices in a given
region needed to exchange expertise on a frequent
basis to operate efficiently and effectively. So, rather
than go for a corporate-wide effort, the regional
headquarters commissioned a locale-specific knowl-
edge management effort. Each field office in the
region was free to execute this in a manner that achi-
eved goals and policies set at the regional office —
‘think regionally but act locally‘. In discussion with
senior managers at the regional offices, we learned
that the regional approach rather than a corporate-
wide endeavour gives the benefit of less lead-time
between thought and action. Corporate-wide endeav-
ours take years to be executed due to the sheer mass
of actors, networks, and inter-relations one has to
manage. On the other hand, regional efforts are sub-
stantially less time consuming due to the close-knit
ties. One adverse effect of this strategy was the dif-
ficulty in sharing knowledge beyond the regions.
Since each region deployed their own tools and
initiatives to capture and store knowledge exchanges
between regions became cumbersome. The only
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 62–67, February 2003
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

viable exchange mechanism between regions was the
use of e-mail. It was difficult (but not impossible) for
one region to access the knowledge database of
another, also if access was enabled each database was
organized in a different manner thus utilizing it
involved significant learning of the schemas.
following the traditional scheme of things. Hence
organizations are expelling a lot of effort trying to
break all methodologies and encouraging people to
share their insights with the organization as a whole
rather than wait to be asked by their peers. The most
common mechanisms being used for change manage-
ment is modification of reward structures to encour-
age knowledge sharing.

Issues in Managing Knowledge Across

Borders
Culture
During the course of our investigation we encoun- Knowledge sharing and usage behaviour varies
tered several issues pertaining to managing knowl- across cultures, and it is difficult to come up with
edge across borders that were common across mul- global standards and protocols on how to initiate
tiple organizations. We now present them here: knowledge management. One of the most commonly
cited definitions of culture is Hofstede. Hofstede
(1985) defines culture ‘as a collective phenomenon,
Change Management because it is at least partly shared with people who
live or lived within the same social environment
A key concern and barrier faced by 10 out of the 11 where it was learned. It is the collective program-
firms was executing change management. To success- ming of the mind that distinguishes the members of
fully execute knowledge management efforts organi- one group or category of people from another.‘ Hof-
zations must expel effort in changing the mindset of stede mentioned five dimensions of culture: Power
employees from sharing on a distance, uncertainty avoid-
‘need to know basis‘ to ‘con- Contributing to the ance, individualism, femininity,
tinuous sharing of new and time horizon. Power dis-
insights‘. The traditional knowledge repositories also tance is how much the percep-
method for knowledge sharing tion of inequality is accepted by
is ‘need to know‘, in which one serves another important members of a culture. Uncer-
member contacts another either tainty avoidance, on the other
via e-mail or in-person and purpose — identification of hand, is the lack of tolerance for
queries for knowledge, insights ambiguity and the need for for-
are then exchanged between mal rules. Individualism/
the two members, leaving the
knowledge providers collectivism is how much a
rest of the organization out. given individual put his inter-
While most organizations have central repositories ests ahead of the interests of the group to which he
for knowledge hosting and distribution the rate of or she belongs. Masculinity relates to the extent of
contribution to these entities are below expec- emphasis on work goals and assertiveness as
tations — a key reason being the difficulty to break opposed to personal goals. In more feminine coun-
out of traditional habits. This issue is complicated tries, women are expected to stay at home to care for
further in a global context. If two members of the their offspring. Finally, time horizon relates to
organization share insights in London via the tra- whether a person is short-term oriented or longer-
ditional means their counterparts in Asia may never term oriented. Western societies are typically shorter-
know those insights. term oriented than Eastern societies. Each dimension
plays a pivotal role in knowledge sharing and usage.
Contributing to the knowledge repositories also Take for instance, in eastern cultures, where one
serves another important purpose — identification of stresses the group rather than the individual, mem-
knowledge providers. Only when one contributes bers of the organization are less likely to use the
insights into the central repositories is it known to knowledge repositories to store their insights and
the rest of the organization that he/she has relevant share them, instead relying more on informal dis-
knowledge on a domain. In organizations with oper- cussions and networks. In contrast, westerners are
ations in one location this might not be a major prob- more disposed to use electronic medium for knowl-
lem as people have strong informal ties that can com- edge exchange. Moreover, drawing on the work of
pensate for formalities (Kiesler and Sproull, 1992), Hall and Hall (1990), we can see the differences
and due to proximity and shared context identifi- between low and high context cultures. In highly-
cation of knowledge owners is easy. However, this is focused cultures e.g. North American, and Western
not the case in global organizations. All members of Europe, knowledge is controlled and not inclined to
the organization do not share the same language, flow freely. This compares to low context cultures
place, or behaviour and hence it is physically imposs- e.g. Japanese and Spanish, wherein knowledge flows
ible to know how to contact a knowledge provider freely without many barriers.

European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 62–67, February 2003 65
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Operationalizing Knowledge
Management Strategies
While the focus of the article was to detail strategies
for managing knowledge, we now present prelimi-
nary results from an investigation into approaches on
how to implement the strategies. Researchers and
practitioners have suggested a multitude of
approaches to managing knowledge, most of which
can be categorized broadly into codification and per-
sonalization approaches (Hansen et al., 1999). In the
codification strategy, individual knowledge is amal-
gamated, put in a cohesive context, and made cen-
trally available to members of the organization via
databases and data warehouses (Desouza, 2002a).
The codification strategy uses a document-to-person
approach on the premise that knowledge can be
effectively extracted and codified. Knowledge man-
agement using this approach is highly structured as
compared to the personalization approach that is
semi-structured. The personalization approach does
not impose a distinction between the knowledge and
the knowledge provider. It recognizes the tacit
dimension of knowledge and assumes that knowl-
edge is shared mainly through direct person-to-per-
son contacts. The role of information technology here
is to facilitate communication between members of
the organization through tools such as e-mail, group
support systems, etc (Desouza, 2002a; Desouza et
al., 2003).
Our preliminary discussions with senior managers
led us to deduce the following: The codification strat-
egy was prominent for creation of global knowledge
repositories, due to the efficiencies of standard
schemas and representations, ease of access, and cost.
This strategy was found acquiescent to organizations
with well-defined products, such as manufacturing
or ‘product-intensive‘ industries. However, it was no
panacea. An issue faced when using the codification
strategy was the difficulty accounting for the vari-
ations in the context of knowledge. Knowledge is
only actionable if it is the appropriate context for use.
Moreover, differences in the economics of resources
played a crucial factor. While bandwidth and ubiqui-
tous access to technology was not a concern for
employees in North America and Europe, it was a
significant hampering factor for subsidiaries in Asia.
The personalization strategy was used to manage
knowledge within global projects. This strategy was
prominent among consulting, insurance, software,
and other ‘knowledge-intensive‘ firms, the prominent
technologies being e-mail, intranets, and discussion
boards. The personalization strategy was preferred
here due to the difficulty in explicating tacit knowl-
edge without socialization with peers (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995).
We also found the presence of a hybrid strategy
prominent in the insurance and consulting services
66
industries. Offices within a contained geographic
area, e.g. Northeast United States or Southeast Asia,
developed regional knowledge management hubs to
cater to the local needs. The regional knowledge
management hubs serve two major purposes. Firstly,
as a knowledge host for members operating within
the region, they carried client, competitor, and pro-
duct information specifically geared to their locale.
Secondly, their role was to function as the yellow
pages — locating regional expertise. In the consulting
industry, while domain-specific knowledge such as
finance, operations, etc. is essential to one’s perform-
ance, much of the knowledge required is regional
specific. Consider for instance, a financial analyst
working in Asia, while the basis of his or her oper-
ations will be the International Accounting Stan-
dards, the analyst will need to study the Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) before
being able to perform effectively or efficiently in the
United States. Hence, the regional hub in Asia, let’s
say in India, stored knowledge on accounting prac-
tices and norms relevant to operating in India, but
also provided pointers to knowledge about Inter-
national Accounting Standards, which an analyst
could use to serve multinational clients. Moreover,
the analyst could locate knowledge experts in various
other countries to gain tacit insights into the account-
ing practices by using the yellow pages.
Managing knowledge in the global arena is very dif-
ferent from venturing out to manage it locally. For
instance, the role of language, which is absent in the
local arena, plays a pivotal role in the global context.
While a knowledge object may be created in London
and coded using English (British English), its applica-
bility if any and value for a Brazilian-speaking Portu-
guese is limited. Hence, organizations are looking
more into multilingual facilities to store knowledge.
Take for instance, Buckman Laboratories Inter-
national Inc, a chemicals manufacturer in North
America. Buckman uses simultaneous multiple lang-
uage translations to facilitate global knowledge
exchange (McCune, 1999).
Conclusion
While exploratory in nature, this study has addressed
a missing niche in the knowledge management and
international strategies. We unraveled three stra-
tegies found in organizations managing knowledge
in the global context. We posit that our work substan-
tially enhances current literature by focusing entirely
on global corporations and looking at issues that are
particular to sharing and managing knowledge
across borders. Managers and executives must strive
towards meeting the slogan, ‘think globally and act
locally‘ to be truly successful in managing knowledge
across borders.
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 62–67, February 2003

References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (1999) Knowledge management
systems: issues, challenges and benefits. Communications
of the AIS 1(7), 1–37.
Allee, V. (1997) The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organiza-
tional Intelligence. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders:
The Transnational Solution. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Chiesa, V. and Manzini, R. (1996) Managing knowledge trans-
fer within multinational firms. International Journal of
Technology Management 12(4), 462–476.
Davenport, T.H., Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Beers, M.C. (1996)
Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan Management
Review 37(4), 53–65.
Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.H. and Beers, M.C. (1998) Suc-
cessful knowledge management projects. Sloan Manage-
ment Review 39(2), 43–57.
Desouza, K.C. (2002a) Managing Knowledge with Artificial Intel-
ligence. Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Desouza, K.C. (2002b), Barriers to effective use of knowledge
management systems in software engineering. Communi-
cations of the ACM, in press.
Desouza, K.C. (2002c) Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange:
a humanistic and entertainment approach. Communi-
cations of the ACM, in press.
Desouza, K.C., Jayaraman, A. and Evaristo, J.R. (2003) Knowl-
edge management in non-co-located environments: a look at
centralized vs. decentralized design approaches. In Proceed-
ings of the Thirty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS-36), Los Alamos, CA. IEEE
Press, Big Island, Hawaii.
Drew, S. (1999) Building knowledge management into strat-
egy: making sense of a new perspective. Long Range Plan-
ning 32(1), 130–136.
Drucker, P. (1993) The Post-Capitalist Society. Butterworth-Hei-
nemann, Oxford.
Grant, R.M. (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive
environments: organizational capability as knowledge
integration. Organization Science 7(4), 375–387.
Hall, E.G. and Hall, M.R. (1990) Understanding Cultural Differ-
ences. Doubleday, New York.
KEVIN C. DESOUZA,
Center for Research in Infor-
mation Management,
Department of Information
and Decision Sciences, Col-
lege of Business Adminis-
tration, University of Illi-
nois at Chicago, 601 South
Morgan Street, M/C 294,
Chicago, Illinois 60607,
USA. E-mail: kdesou1@uic.
edu
Kevin Desouza is doing doctoral research at the Uni-
versity of Illinois at Chicago, Information and Decision
Sciences Department. His research focuses on knowl-
edge management, data mining and the management
of medical technology. A recent book is Managing
Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence (Quorum
Books, 2002).
European Management Journal Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 62–67, February 2003
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999) What’s your
strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business
Review 77(2), 106–116.
Hanseth, O. and Baa, K. (2000) Globalization and ‘risk
society’. In From Control to Drift, ed. C. Ciborra, pp. 41–
55. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hofstede, G. (1985) The Interaction between national and
organizational value systems. Journal of Management
Studies 22(4), 347–357.
Holtshouse, D. (1998) Knowledge research issues. California
Management Review 40(3), 277–280.
Ives, B. and Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1991) Applications of global
information technology: key issues for management. MIS
Quarterly 15(1), 32–49.
Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1992) Group decision-making and
communication technology. Organization Behavior Human
Decision Process 52(1), 96–123.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992) Knowledge of the firm, com-
binative capabilities, and the replication of technology.
Organizational Science 3, 383–397.
Levitt, T. (1983) The globalization of markets. Harvard Business
Review 61(3), 92–102.
McCune, J.C. (1999) Thirst for knowledge. Management Review
88(4), 10–12.
Miles, G., Miles, R.E., Perrone, V. and Edvinsson, L. (1998)
Some conceptual and research barriers to the utilization
of knowledge. California Management Review 40(3), 28–45.
Naisbitt, J. (1994) Global Paradox. William Morrow & Co,
New York.
Nonaka, I. (1991) The knowledge creating company. Harvard
Business Review Nov-Dec, 96–104.
Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowl-
edge creation. Organization Science 5(1), 14–37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating
Company. Oxford University Press, New York.
Ohmae, K. (1989) Managing a borderless world. Harvard Busi-
ness Review 67(3), 152–161.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1993) CASE tools as organizational change:
investigating incremental and radical changes in systems
development. MIS Quarterly September, 309–340.
Porter, M.E. (1986) Competition in Global Industries. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Zack, M. (1999) Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Manage-
ment Review Summer, 45–58.
J. ROBERTO EVARI-
STO, Department of Infor-
mation and Decision
Sciences, College of Business
Administration, University
of Illinois at Chicago, 601
South Morgan Street, M/C
294, Chicago, Illinois
60607-7124, USA. E-mail:
evaristo@uic.edu
Roberto Evaristo is Assist-
ant Professor in the Department of Information and
Decision Sciences at the University of Illinois at
Chicago. He is currently involved in several projects
related to the management of distributed projects in vir-
tual organizations, with work done in Japan, USA
and Europe.
67