Emerging Markets

Received March 30, 2014 / Accepted June 2, 2014
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2
Social Networks and Knowledge Transfer in Technological

Park Companies in Brazil
Clarissa Mussi1, Maria Terezinha Angeloni2, Rafael Avila Faraco3
Abstract
This paper aims to propose a framework for a digital social network designed to support the knowledge transfer for
innovation among companies located in a Technology Park of Florianpolis, in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina. From a
methodological point of view, the study is characterized by a qualitative approach and it was developed in three phases: (1)
definition of the assumptions, requirements, functionalities and strategies for use of the social network; (2) development
of the prototype for the social network and; (3) focus group sessions. The research data were analyzed using content
analysis techniques. As for the results, this paper identifies four main pillars for the conception of digital social networks in
the context of the technology park: types of knowledge; transmitters and receivers of knowledge, context for knowledge
transfer and the nature of the knowledge transfer.
Keywords: knowledge transfer; digital social networks; technology park; innovation.
Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina PPGA UNISUL. Av. Jos Accio Moreira, 787, 88704-900. Phone: +55 48 3621 3241
E-mail: 1Clarissa.mussi@unisul.br (principal contact for correspondence)
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economa y Negocios.
172
Introduction
Business centers are characterized by networks of social
relationships that connect and cluster businesses and individuals within a defined geographical region. This feature is
important in a context in which innovation is increasingly
a joint effort, occurring more rarely in isolated firms (Breschi, 2000). Different types of centers have different social
structures and, consequently, different social networks;
these idiosyncratic geographical regions may favor or hinder
the transfer of knowledge between firms. In other words, it
seems possible that certain factors may lead some business
centers to be more innovative than others.Among these factors, relationship networks may play a key role (Teece, 2000)
when it comes to innovation (Mcgrath, Tsai,Venkataraman &
MacMillan, 1996).
If, on one hand, there are no widely accepted criteria or
general rules for determining whether or not a company is
innovative or what makes one technology park more innovative than another since there are variations on many factors, such as the configuration of the companies, the types
of bonds which link businesses, relationships with external
entities such as universities, research centers and other
companies (Romijn & Albu, 2002) on the other, there is
consensus that business centers advance the creation and
availability of knowledge, generating innovation (Lalkaka,
2002). Szulanski (1996) points out that geographical proximity facilitates the flow of knowledge within technological
parks and enables social relationship networks to promote
the transfer of knowledge and learning opportunities, the
aspects necessary for developing innovations.
Recent studies have highlighted the role of social networks
and social media in the transfer of knowledge within an organization (intra-organization) and/or between different organizations (inter-organization) (Von Krogh, 2012; Bebensee,
Helms & Spruit, 2011; Faraj, Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak., 2011;
Haefliger, Monteiro, Foray & Von Krogh, 2011). In this sense,
it is assumed that a digital social network can be developed
with the goal of fostering collaboration between organizations in business incubators and parks, and ultimately, of
knowledge transfer and innovation. As noted by von Krogh
(2012), social software extensively facilitates knowledge
sharing between individuals within and across organizational
boundaries, as it allows many types of content to evolve
through a variety of collaborative processes.
Given the above, the problem that guided this research
was: how can one configure a digital social network
which leverages the transfer of knowledge for innovation
among technology-based companies located in Brazils
technology parks?
In this research, the technology park in question is located

in the southern region of the state of Santa Catarina. With
over 300 companies, it generates about 10 thousand direct
jobs and constitutes a society whose main feature is the
value of knowledge as a catalyst for its own development.
The main contributions of the study are to be found at the
intersection of the themes of social relationship networks,
knowledge management and innovation, and new information and communication technology.Thus, we expect this research to provide the technology-based entrepreneur with
greater opportunities for innovation, which significantly affects the generation of jobs and opportunities.
Methodologically, the research was organized into three
phases: the first, based on the theoretical foundations of the
proposed themes, includes the definition of assumptions,
requirements, features and strategies for use of a digital social network in order to support the transfer of knowledge
within the technology park; the second involves the development of a prototype of this social network; and the third
phase aims to assess and discuss the results generated in the
previous stages through the methodology of focus groups.
This article is organized into four sections, in addition to
this introduction. The first section presents the theoretical
framework of the study; the second addresses the research
methodology adopted; the third presents the results of the
research, and the fourth and final section presents conclusions and recommendations for future studies.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework includes the transfer of knowledge for innovation, digital social networks and the channels
of knowledge transfer.
Transfer of knowledge for innovation
Several studies highlight the significant influence of knowledge transfer in the innovative capacity of organizations.
Cordey-Hayes and Gilbert (1996) discuss knowledge transfer as a means by which organizations can implement innovations. Vito, Garavello and Schiuma (1999) see knowledge
transfer as a strategy for achieving competitive advantage, so
organizations can respond to change and innovate. Knudsen
(2007), exploring different types of relationships between
companies to develop new products, identified that the process of knowledge transfer influenced innovation.
Knowledge transfer involves, firstly, the preparation and delivery of knowledge to a potential receiver and, secondly,
the acquisition / absorption of this knowledge by the receiver (Brchne, Rosander & Waara, 2004). Moreover, the
joint transmission and absorption have no value if the acquired knowledge is not put to use (Davenport and Prusak,

173
1998). Knowledge transfer can occur between different entities: individuals, teams, intra-organizational units, organizations, and even inter-organizational networks (Hackney,
Desouza, & Loebbecke, 2005; Lawson, Petersen, Cousins &
Handfield, 2009).
knowledge protection (Matin et. al., 2010; Tonet & Paz, 2006;
Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; von Krogh, 2012);
Regarding the transfer of inter-organizational knowledge,

the focus of this article, Comi and Eppler (2010) point out
that organizations continually seek opportunities for innovation beyond their organizational boundaries, thus engaging
in inter-organizational collaborations. Sources of innovation are not found exclusively within companies, but also
at the interfaces between companies, universities, research
laboratories, suppliers and customers (Lawson et. al., 2009).
Inter-organizational knowledge networks represent opportunities for individuals to engage in new forms of cooperative learning, as well as opportunities for organizations to better achieve their goals through the acquisition
of knowledge critical to their processes or strategy, or
through collaborative knowledge exchanges and initiatives
(Hackney et. al., 2005).
Many of the factors listed above (a, b and c) are also demonstrated when it comes to inter-organizational knowledge
transfer (d). With regard to the type of knowledge being
transferred, tacit knowledge is more easily and frequently
passed between individual members of the same organization because they share a common working environment
and also common experiences and values, while in situations
where knowledge sharing involves individuals belonging to
different organizations, explicit knowledge will be shared,
because this type of knowledge can be easily documented
(Lahti, 2000; Lam, 1997).
Regardless of the context in which it occurs, be it intraorganizational or inter-organizational, knowledge transfer

per se is a process influenced by many factors or variables.
As ODell and Grayson (1998) say, the natural desire that
most people have to learn and share what they know may
be frustrated by a variety of barriers. In this sense, when one
intends to encourage the transfer of knowledge, it becomes
necessary to pay attention to the factors that may facilitate,
hinder or prevent individuals from sharing what they know.
In general, these factors are related to:
a) knowledge itself - the difficulty in transferring knowledge
is directly related to the type of knowledge involved, either
explicit or implied. (Matin, Alvani, Jandaghi & Pashazadeh,
2010; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995);
b) the transmitter and receiver of knowledge the existence of a common language between the sharing agents; the
capacity of the receiver for absorbing knowledge, in other
words, the receivers ability to acquire and use it; the perceived value of the sources knowledge, and; motivation of
the source to transfer knowledge and of the receiver to
acquire it. (Matin et. al., 2010; Tonet & Paz, 2006; Gupta &
Govindarajan, 2000; Davenport & Pruzak, 1998);
c) the context (environment) of sharing knowledge variables of the organizational environment that may, depending
on how they are configured, influence knowledge transfer
activities: organizational structure (formality, complexity,
focus), organizational culture (organizational and social aspects), information technology (IT skills), capital structure
(structural network aspects, cognitive and communication
aspects), behavioral aspects (political behavior); aspects of
d) the nature of the transfer intra-organizational or interorganizational. (Lahti, 2000; Lam, 1997,Von Krogh, 2012).
Pointing to the challenges and solutions concerning the

inter-organizational transfer of knowledge, Comi and Eppler (2010) emphasize that barriers may be encountered
due to organizational differences such as those related to
management styles, the culture and power bases of the participating organizations, as well as those of a semantic nature, such as the lack of a common language, i.e. comprehension problems arising from the multidisciplinary nature of
inter-organizational work.
Comi and Eppler (2010) suggest that barriers may be related
to the protection of proprietary knowledge from unintentional leaks between collaborating partners, resulting in lack
of confidence. Similarly, Hackney et. al. (2005) address issues
related to cooperation and competition in the process of
knowledge transfer in inter-organizational networks. The
question of the strategic role of knowledge in organizations
and its protection, specifically in the context of online social
networks, is discussed by von Krogh (2012). As the authors
argue, in contrast to traditional knowledge management in
which access to knowledge repositories is centrally governed, when it comes to knowledge transfer through social
networks, access to content and its distribution are more
decentralized it is the individual who chooses with whom
and what to share.
In the context of inter-organizational cooperation for innovation, the role of online social networks has been highlighted they may be seen as tools that support the transfer of
knowledge (Von Krogh, 2012; Bebensee et. al., 2011, Faraj et.
al., 2011). This is the subject of the following section.

174
Digital social networks and channels of knowledge

transfer
In the study of organizations, the term network is used to
describe many types of economic arrangement, such as vertical networks that integrate various links in the supply chain,
clusters, joint ventures and strategic alliances. Another form
of interconnection between companies is virtual organizations, which break the barriers of space and time, giving rise
to global organizations (Castells, 2003). Porter (1998) and
Teece (2000) agree that among the different ways organizations generate competitive advantages, the formation of
social networks is one of the most promising.
The popularization of the Internet has been responsible
for important changes in society. For this study, the most
significant of these changes is the possibility of expression
and socialization by means of computer-mediated communication tools (Castells, 2003). This communication is based
on the structures of what has come to be known as Web
2.0. Web 2.0 is the basic structure that enables the use of
electronic and communication resources for the formation,
maintenance or representation of social relationships, the
so-called digital social networks.
The way many organizations have faced the challenges

raised by the constant need for innovation involves the
introduction of models of flexibility and intense collaboration with external agents (Almirall & Casadesus-Masanell,
2010). The creation and maintenance of social ties between firms and other agents can respond to this need for
ongoing interaction.
Based on concepts inherent to the transfer of inter-organizational knowledge for innovation and to digital social
networks, as well as on the potential of these networks to
establish social ties between different agents and organizations, a set of assumptions has been outlined in order to
develop a social network for the transfer of knowledge and
innovation within technology parks, according to the methodology described in the next section.
Bebensee et. al. (2011) argue that online social networks are
changing the way individuals share knowledge. These networks, by means of Web 2.0 features, are relevant to processes of knowledge management such as the acquisition,
creation and transfer of knowledge, mainly because: they are
based on principles of a social nature; applications are intuitive and easy to use (e.g. blogs, wikis, social bookmarking);
they are based on open platforms.
Digital social networks have channels that enable information and knowledge to be transferred between their participants. In the context and literature of social networks,
these channels used for relationships between individuals
are commonly called social tools or social media, with the
networks being, effectively, the set of relationships supported by these media. The transfer of knowledge can be
achieved through informal channels or media (spontaneous,
unstructured exchanges) or formal ones (more structured
and formalized transfers); personal channels (e.g. personal
contacts, internships) or impersonal channels (e.g. forums afforded by electronic tools, repositories of knowledge based
on IT) (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
Organizations can benefit from online social networks and
social media by their presence in different areas. Among the
various organizational activities that can benefit from the
introduction of digital social networks, in the context of this
work, the transfer of knowledge and innovation stands out.
Figure 1 Outline of the first phase of research. Source: prepared

by the authors (2014)

175
Methodology
This research, in accordance with its methodological approach, is qualitative (Yin, 2009). The development of the
study comprises the following three phases: (1) definition of
the assumptions, requirements, features and strategies of the
network; (2) development of a prototype of the network; (3)
focus groups.
Phase one: definition of assumptions, requirements,
features and strategies
The first phase consists of theoretical research that provides
the bases for the development of a set of theoretical assumptions for the digital social network, in accordance with
the outline shown in Figure 1. Minayo (2000, p. 93) highlights
that, under the qualitative approach, the term assumptions
is generally used to express basic parameters that serve as
a path and support in the interaction with empirical reality.
The definition of theoretical assumptions guided the survey
of the network requirements, features and strategies for use.
Four assumptions were then outlined for a digital social network with the potential to support knowledge transfer for
innovation among incubated companies within a technology
park. The assumptions are based on the factors that may facilitate, hinder or prevent the transfer of knowledge, related
to: a) knowledge itself; b) the transmitter and receiver of
knowledge; c) the context (environment) of sharing knowledge and d) the nature of the transfer. These factors and the
major authors are shown in Table 1.
From each of the theoretical assumptions, requirements, features and strategies of network usage were derived, which
lay the groundwork for the development of the first version
of the social networks prototype.Thus, for each assumption,
Subject of the assumption

Types of knowledge tacit and explicit
Profile of receivers and transmitters of knowledge
Context of knowledge transfer
Nature of knowledge transfer internal or external
requirements were derived, for each requirement, features

were derived and for each feature, strategies of network
usage were derived. By assumption, a more general/comprehensive preconceived notion is understood; by requirements, the specific conditions in which the assumptions can
be met; by feature, the functions to be implemented in order
to meet requirements; and by usage strategies, the features
forms of use within the technology park, i.e. in the context
of the network.
Phase two: prototyping
In this phase, a prototype of a digital social network was
developed, which aimed to facilitate discussions held in the
focus group meetings (third phase). The approach to prototyping of systems in the field of software engineering has
gained momentum with the emergence of tools that accelerate the process of software development. One objective
of this approach is to facilitate the survey and validation of
requirements with users of systems, thus permitting fewer
risks when defining the scope of a software project, especially in cases where there is a wide range of users (Boehm et.
al., 1988). A prototype is therefore characterized as a model
or an initial version of a system with the aim of exploring
needs and finding out more about problems and possible
solutions (Sommerville, 2004).
The developed prototype did not aim to turn into a final
product, but rather it aimed to enable, within the context of
the focus group meetings, the generation of a set of recommendations for the implementation of a digital social network with the intention of stimulating the transfer of knowledge for innovation between technology-based companies.
To develop the prototype of the network, an open source
platform for social networks called Elgg was used. (available
at http://www.elgg.org).
Major authors
Matin et. al. (2010), Tonet & Paz (2006), Nonaka &
Takeuchi (1995), Davenport & Prusak (1998).
Matin et. al. (2010), Tonet & Paz (2006), Gupta &
Govindarajan (2000), Davenport & Prusak (1998).
von Krogh (2012); Matin et. al. (2010), Tonet and Paz
(2006), Gupta & Govindarajan (2000), Davenport &
Prusak (1998), Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995).
von Krogh (2012), Comi & Eppler (2010), Hackney;
Desouza & Loebbecke (2005), Lahti (2000), Lam
(1997).
Table 1 - Subject of theoretical assumptions and major authors

176
Phase three: focus groups

The third phase involves the validation of the assumptions,
requirements, features and strategies defined in the first
phase, as well as the prototype structured and implemented
in the second phase through focus group workshops. The
focus group methodology is considered to be a technique
for collecting qualitative information from primary sources,
which can help in assessing the needs of the users before
the design of the interface and after its implementation
(Oheocha, Wang & Conboy, 2012).
Two focus group workshops were held in November 2012.
They were recorded and consisted of three teams (A, B and
C). In the first workshop, team A consisted of the researchers and authors of this article, one of which was a moderator; the second team (team B) consisted of two individuals
from the company hired to develop the prototype and the
third team (team C) consisted of six evaluators of the assumptions, requirements, features and strategies and of the
social network prototype. The second workshop consisted
of the same members of teams A and B, and another five
evaluators of the work undertaken, as shown in Table 2.
The definition of the participants of the focus groups was
done intentionally, bringing together teachers of undergraduate and postgraduate courses in the subject areas of this
research and entrepreneurs in the field of information technology, meeting the requirement of diversity of participant
profiles in each focus group. All participants had some level
of participation in the technology park in question. At the
beginning of each workshop, all the participants introduced
themselves. Then, the research, its aims and methodological
steps, were presented. Orientation on how a focus group
works and its aims was also provided. Issues for discussion
were then proposed.The first issue presented for discussion
was the question (the problem) that guided the development of this research. The participants were freely encouraged to express their opinions. Subsequently, the assumptions of the network were presented for discussion and,
finally, the prototype.
The information from the focus group workshops was analyzed qualitatively by means of a process of categorization.
Workshops/participants
Research team
IT company team
Participants
Total number of participants
This procedure is characterized by the classification of elements into categories (codes or labels), bringing together
a group of elements with common characteristics under a
generic title (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).The form of
categorization used was mixed grid analysis. Preliminary categories are defined (closed grid), however during the process of analysis, new categories emerge (open grid), which
can be added to those previously defined and may indicate
the need for the subdivision, inclusion or exclusion of categories. Preliminary or predefined categories were derived
from the theoretical assumptions and requirements defined
for the social network. We started by performing a reading
of the focus group workshops, transcribed in full from the
recordings made, aiming to identify the preliminary categories/subcategories and/or the emergence of new categories/
subcategories. The categories analyzed are presented in
Table 7. During the presentation of the results, in the following section, participants were identified by numbers as
follows: P1 to P11.
Results
The results of the research are organized according to the
methodological phases: first phase results the assumptions,
requirements, features and strategies determined for the
network (section 4.1); second phase results characteristics
of the network prototypes development process (section
4.2); third phase results consolidated analysis of the focus
group workshops (section 4.3).
Assumptions, requirements, features and strategies
for a digital social network for knowledge transfer
The definition of theoretical assumptions guided the entire
development of the digital social network. The first assumption of the social network is related to the different types
of knowledge and the need to consider them in the context
of inter-organizational knowledge transfer. In this sense, it
becomes necessary to provide, within these networks, channels that support both the transfer of tacit knowledge and
explicit knowledge. Therefore, the assumption was stated
thus: Both types of knowledge - tacit and explicit - permeate the social network in contexts of formal and informal,
personal and impersonal knowledge transfer.
Workshop 1
4
2
6
12
Workshop 2
4
2
5
11
Table 2 Description of focus groups. Source: prepared by the authors (2014)

177
Two requirements were outlined for this assumption, the

first relating to channels for transferring tacit knowledge
and the second explicit knowledge, described as follows:
a) the network should provide channels which enable the
transfer of tacit knowledge; b) the network should provide
channels which enable the transfer of explicit knowledge.
For each requirement, the features and the strategies for the
use of these features, were proposed within the context of
technology parks, as illustrated in table 3.
The second assumption of the social network relates
to the stakeholders in the transfer of knowledge and to
the influence of their profile in the exchanges of knowledge that are established, described thus: the transfer of
knowledge in the social network is influenced by factors
related to the stakeholders in the network: receivers and
transmitters of knowledge.
Two requirements were created for this assumption: the first
is related to questions of the identification and ranking of
participants on the network and the second to the provision
of mechanisms that permit the recognition of participants
by the whole community: a) the network should allow the
transmitters and receivers of knowledge to be identified and
to be ranked; b) the network should possess mechanisms
for evaluating the relevance of the knowledge transferred.
Some examples of features and the strategies for the use
of these features in technology parks, covering the requirements outlined, are illustrated in table 4.
The third assumption of the social network is related to the
environment for transferring knowledge, more specifically
to the context which permeates the transfer and the possibility of this context affecting the exchange of knowledge
on the network.This assumption was phrased as follows: the
organizational context (environment) exerts an influence on
the transfer of knowledge on the network.
The requirements defined for this assumption relate to the
provision of features that stimulate the exchange of knowledge as well as the usability of these features and the creation of mechanisms that seek to protect strategic knowledge. With this as the focus, the following requirements
were defined: a) the network should provide the basis for
the creation of a simplified, stimulating environment for the
sharing of knowledge; b) the network should have mechanisms for protecting strategic knowledge.
A number of examples of features and strategies for use
in technology parks, addressing this assumption and the respective requirements, are shown in table 5.
The fourth assumption of the social network for the transfer of knowledge considers the nature of the transfer, i.e. if it
is taking place between members of the same organization
that participate in the network and/or between members of
different organizations, described as follows: the transfer of
knowledge on the network takes place by means of interactions originating within and/or outside of the organization.
In this regard, one requirement was established that focuses
on mechanisms that qualify the origin of this knowledge and
which permit the management of the knowledge flows involved in the transfer, as follows: the network should contain
mechanisms to qualify the knowledge which is internal or
external to the organization and also manage the flow of
knowledge transfer between organizations. For this requirement, some examples of the features and strategies for use
in technology parks are shown in table 6.
The assumptions, requirements, features and strategies defined and presented in tables 3 to 6 furnished support for
the process of structuring and developing the digital social
network prototype.
Prototype: characteristics of development of the
network prototype
The principal software tool used for the network prototype
was Elgg, an open-source platform for networks. Launched
in 2004, Elgg is a tool that permits the creation of social
networks, making available a host of features where it is fully
possible to make alterations, as it is open source. So Elgg is
not just a product created by a few developers but in fact
a platform created and maintained on a continuous basis by
a global community of users. While Elgg offers the advantages of flexibility and ease of access of an open- source
software platform, the lack of support and documentation
brought with it technical difficulties as regards the use of the
tools plug-ins.
The network prototype that was developed was integrated
with the Facebook social network to facilitate the automatic
search for data on the users who make up this network.
Accordingly, the entire Facebook network of contacts and
relationships could easily belong to the network created
for the technology park. Figure 2 below shows the main
screen of the network prototype, designated as the Konexa
social network, that was proposed for the technology
park in question.
On the left-hand side of the screen is the options menu,
with the proposed functions discussed during the focus
group meetings and established in phase 1 of the research
study. Every time one of the features is clicked, a new window opens addressing the respective feature. In addition to

178
Assumption 1
Both types of knowledge tacit and explicit permeate the social network in formal and
informal, personal and impersonal knowledge transfer environments.
Requirement 1.1
The network should provide channels that enable the transfer of tacit knowledge.
Features and strategies

for use in the park
Highly interactive features include:

Videoconferencing: this permits the simultaneous, interpersonal interaction (video and
sound) between two or more people. Holding of meetings, lectures, mini-courses, discussion with specialists, hands-on activities, amongst the networks participants.
Chat permits simultaneous, interpersonal communication similar to an actual conversation. Conversations can take place between two or more staff members in a company
or between different companies. One of the ways to use the chat feature is in discussions
with specialists.
Virtual brainstorming an area for public interaction for the resolution of predetermined
problems or the generation of innovation. It permits the free inclusion of suggestions and
ideas. It may be used whenever a user or organization needs a place to generate focused
ideas.
Talent or organizational skills database system which permits the survey and storage of
the skills of those working in companies in the park and their partners. It allows for the
localization of expertise in the various incubated companies and the exchange of talent.
Forums these provide interaction between those interested in a common subject.
Proposal by all users of topics of interest for the members of the network, for discussion purposes. They may be used for: the exchange of ideas in groups, exposing common
problems and the search for solutions as well as the creation of new items of knowledge,
communities of practice (CoP).
Blue pages - register (catalogue) of specialists outside the area of the park, both individuals and legal entities, with their respective skills and the way to localize them (consultants,
ex-staff, retirees, etc.). Evaluation of companies that have already provided services to
companies in the park.
Search search feature using keywords.
Requirement 1.2
The network should provide channels that enable the transfer of explicit knowledge.

of use in the park
These are the features that can be formatted on media.

Founded on best practices tool in which the best practices are stored for subsequent
viewing by network community. The best practices may be reused by the other companies and others may be generated within the network itself. The main information to be
registered includes: problems resolved using best practices, keywords, proposer, description of the best practice, useful features to show acceptance of the best practice.
FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) an area which brings together the answers to the
questions most frequently asked by members of the network concerning access, functions and the use of the network itself.
WIKI refers to the simplified, collaborative development of the various topics (concepts) on the Web. Definition of subjects of common interest to the members of the
network. Based on the principles of folksonomy and self-regulation, it permits free
expression for all and facilitates the creation and transfer of knowledge. Any member can
create a new topic or subject.
Shared Bookmark an area for sharing favorite web pages and websites for specific
topics. Each member is able to insert new bookmark topics.
Ideas database a warehouse that permits the recording, tracking and evaluation of ideas
that may benefit and strengthen the park, as well as enterprising suggestions that permit
the generation of new business. The park community can submit ideas for new business
ideas which can then be evaluated and backed by companies or investors.
Virtual library a warehouse of files in different formats (text, sounds, videos, etc.). File
sharing of books, podcasts, videos, course books, manuals, presentations, simulators.
Table 3 Assumption 1 Types of knowledge: tacit and explicit.

179
Assumption 2
The transfer of knowledge on the social network is influenced by factors related to the
network stakeholders: the receiver and transmitter of knowledge.
Requirement 2.1
The network should allow the transmitters and receivers of knowledge to be identified
and to be ranked.

of use in the park
Network user profile allows for the recording of information (identification of institution and individual, area of knowledge, areas of interest, professional experience, amongst
others) on network users who register their profiles and who can access the profiles of
other users on the network.
Participation of users on the network queries or reports tracking the interaction carried
out on the network between sender and receiver of the knowledge. Users should know
what is their level of participation on the network both as transmitter and as receiver of
knowledge. Establishing mechanisms to reward the most active users and/or organizations
on the network (system to recognize and acknowledge the value of individuals who make
contributions to the transfer of knowledge).
Affinity presents the users who have some affinity on account of their proximity in terms
of knowledge or interests. Each user has a list of other users with a profile similar to
theirs. The users can find other users with a potential to transfer knowledge, based on the
respective profiles.
Requirement 2.2
The network should contain mechanisms for evaluating the relevance of the knowledge
transferred (as a result of these mechanisms, people can receive recognition from the
entire community).

of use in the park
Relevance of the knowledge transferred Enables the relevance of posted content to be

highlighted. The useful function (similar to like on Facebook) indicating that the information was important to some or other context.Valuing the network user as regards his/
her contribution. The prize could be recognition as a relevant user or even some form of
recompense. Highlighting the most useful topics to the park community, thereby promoting capacity-building events.
Table 4 - Assumption 2 Profile of receivers and transmitters of knowledge

Assumption 3
The organizational context (environment) exerts an influence on the transfer of knowledge

on the network.
Requirement 3.1
The network should provide a basis for the creation of a simplified, stimulating environment
for the sharing of knowledge.

of use in the park
Analytical graphs of social networks permit us to view the relationships between the members and it is possible to detect the dynamics of interaction on the network. The viewing of
these dynamics can create mechanisms to stimulate use of the network.
Participation of organizations area for demonstrating the participation of each organization
on the network and the relationships established between them, as well highlighting those
organizations with the more active users. Highlighting and/or rewarding organizations that
incentivize their staff to participate in the network. Creating periodic events to acknowledge
the value of the organizations or groups which are most engaged.
Good practices for stimulating use of the network area for publicizing good practices for
incentivizing the use of the network. Organizations can formalize the motivator or multiplier users on the network.
Help publicizes the features of the network and the ways to use it, and provides space for
suggestions on network improvement. New features of interest to the network users may be
developed and the existing ones perfected.
Requirement 3.2
The network should have mechanisms for protecting strategic knowledge.

of use in the park
Policy of network use area for creating a network usage policy with topics for stimulating
participation, security and reliability, and to implement options for allowing complaints of
poor use of the network. Each organization could have one user responsible for monitoring
the network with regard to the usage policy. It could be the selfsame motivator user.
Table 5 - Assumption 3 Profile of the receivers and transmitters of knowledge

180
features for end-users, the network displays a panel with

management options for the network as a whole.
Focus groups: consolidated analysis
The preliminary analysis categories and subcategories displayed in table 7 derive from the respective network assumptions and requirements presented in section 4.1
(categories 1 to 4). During the analysis, new categories (categories 5 and 6) emerged from the debates of the focus
group participants.
Although in agreement with the need for the network to
offer means that afford both the transfer of explicit and tacit
knowledge (category 1), the participants did not appear to
hold great concern for the distinction between these types

of knowledge. However there was a clear reflection on how
the network could lead to informal encounters, which the
participants consider to be fundamental to the exchange of
knowledge, particularly tacit knowledge, and the creation of
knowledge, as the following statements illustrate:
I believe that it will be something of a challenge to introduce
an environment that this company can benefit from. We
have performed research on innovation and creativity and
we have seen that the secret of innovation is the exchange
of ideas on street corners, in the bars. This is going back to
before creativity and innovation a fostering environment
where it is fun to exchange ideas, that security of being able
to exchange ideas. (P1)
Assumption 4
The transfer of knowledge on the network occurs by means of interactions originating within and/or
outside of the organization.
Requirement 4.1
The network should have mechanisms for qualifying knowledge within or outside of the organization
and also manage the flow of the knowledge transfer between organizations.

of use in the park
Organizational profile permits the recording of information about organizations that use the network, highlighting organizational skills. The organizations register their profile and users can access
the profile of all member organizations on the network
Analysis of message transfer flows this enables the flow of messages to be mapped within an organization or between different organizations. Checking of the concentration of internal and external
transfers of knowledge. Possibility of drilling down into relationships detected by the map. Identification of organizations with greater knowledge in particular areas.
Table 6 - Assumption 4 Context for the transfer of knowledge
Figure 2 Main screen of the developed network prototype. Source: screen shot from the Konexa prototype (2013)
181
The director of the incubator performs service requisitions

over coffee therefore our kitchen area is shared. Forget
the incubator where everyone has his own little room,
where every room has a sign saying that the sectors operation takes place there. Incubators have to be like this: a room
with a group of people, everyone sitting next to each other,
because it is there that ideas are often conceived. I had an
idea, he had an idea, then suddenly a business idea emerges
when my idea is being added to by his idea and from this
comes a fusion of ideas. (P5)
As for the identification of the profile of receivers and transmitters of knowledge (category 2) those who most receive or most offer knowledge on a network arouses everybodys interest. As regards the identification, recognition
and ranking of users, this creates an interesting debate: As
far as I can see, I think that this question of measuring what I
give and what I take is important, said one participant (P9).
Another (P6) suggested that the members and companies
that contribute to the network with the most useful knowledge should be clearly identified and should be able to capitalize on this in terms of their image. It was found that the
groups perceive the need to identify the users, and perhaps
the companies, which contribute and the way these stakeholders contribute to knowledge on the network. However
there was little consensus over the way this information
should be published, the use which should be attributed to
it or on the way of recognizing and/or rewarding the users.
As regards recognition and/or reward, some participants

were opposed to financial rewards and in favor of other
forms of recognition such as ranking.This declaration is illustrative: [...] There, there exists a type of ranking. It is quite a
good reward. Suddenly a considerable, respectable amount
of business ensues, which is good for the guy who is in the
midst of the people there. The network itself, the very people who are saying: this guy really made a contribution, this
lad is good. (P8)
Issues related to affinity of profile and formation of relationship networks also predominated in the discourses of the
participants, who felt it to be important that the network
has mechanisms to bring its members together.These mechanisms should not be limited, according to the declarations,
to basic registration information on the network (work area,
title), but should also have other information which allows
people with common interests to get together.
The context for the transfer of knowledge (category 3)
was the highlight of the discussions. The users are clearly
concerned that incentives and motivation are generated for
everyone to be able to share their knowledge. The following
excerpts demonstrate this concern:
The success of the social network lies in spontaneous sharing. If people do not share spontaneously the social network
remains stationary. So it has to come from people searching,
posting, modifying the content. (P4)
CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES
DEFINITIONS
1 Types of knowledge
1.1 Channels for the transfer of tacit knowledge
1.2 Channels for the transfer of explicit
knowledge
Parts where the participants present their concerns about or interest in

the differences between the type of knowledge to be transmitted, in the
idiosyncrasies of transmission and the process of transferring each type of
knowledge.
2 Profile of the receivers and transmitters of

the knowledge
2.1 Identification and ranking
2.2 Relevance of the knowledge transferred
Discourse that demonstrates an interest in the disparity between the offering

of knowledge and its use, concerns with recognition of users, identifying the
flow of knowledge and key-users.
3 Context for the transfer of the knowledge

3.1 Network sharing environment
3.2 Protection of strategic knowledge
Discourse which contains elements on the environmental conditions that

favor the transfer of knowledge, incentives and motivation to use the virtual
environment and concerns over the protection of strategic knowledge, monitoring and usage restrictions.
4 Nature of knowledge transfer

4.1 Characterization and flow of the knowledge
Discourse related to the origin and flow of knowledge (internal or external)

as well as the way it flows across the network.
5 Network aims
Comments on the ends for which the proposed network may be used.
6 Tool
General comments about the tool and its interface

Table 7 Analysis categories and subcategories

182
I believe in the question of motivating individuals to become

part of this network and even for companies to get on to
these networks. (P1)
a bargaining chip I have this, you have that; lets exchange?

I believe that obstacles exist for this sort of thing to flow
naturally. (P7)
Some participants believe that motivation would not be a

hindrance when it comes to people in the IT area whose
custom it already is to participate actively in discussion
groups as well as, when it is perceived that the exchange of
knowledge can result in personal and professional benefits,
as can be seen below:
Aspects related to the nature of knowledge transfer (category 4) were also discussed amongst the participants. This
point deals with the origins of the knowledge that is circulating on the network, if it is internal or external to the
companies. In this regard, new features were mooted that
were not initially anticipated, such as the possibility of the
network generating indicators for those partnerships established and the possibility of the network also being used as
an intra-organizational tool.
This type of public, this type of professional in the area of

technology, already has this profile, they already do this and
do it naturally, without thinking: I am not going to help because Im not going to get anything out of it. These discussion groups are already part of the IT culture. (P10)
I believe that this will be determined by motivation; the degree of necessity. One example would be the software companies who need to share between them the problem of
how to resolve something in Java. It is this unease that will
fuel the synergy and see how far it gets you. (P5)
The encouragement to use knowledge transfer networks
and the obstacles that may be put in the way of its implementation, are discussed. Amongst these obstacles, besides
the motivation to take part, the following were cited: the
culture of organizations, striking a balance between passive
participation (consuming knowledge) and active participation (offering knowledge), trust when sharing, safety of strategic information. The following statements illustrate some
of these issues:
Clearly the majority only go there to consume knowledge
and the minority to disseminate it. This is the difficulty I perceive with the Internet. It is not just in the IT area: most people do not generate knowledge, they just consume it. (P3)
Ok: it is still sharing, it is working jointly, great! What does
it do for me, what are the issues, how is this network going
to guarantee that I am not going to have my idea usurped?
Oh, but people that go there already know this, but then
it becomes a question of culture. (P2)
The issue of protection of strategic knowledge stands out
as an item for discussion and concern of the participants, as
can be seen below:
For the individual taking part in the network, to what extent
does he/she have a notion of what is or isnt confidential,
or what it is that stimulates partnership? Which bit of your
idea is stimulating the partnership and which bit is the trick
up the sleeve, what sets you apart so to speak? That could
come back and bite you in the future. That might even act as
The possible goals of the network were the topic of debate

at various moments in sections of the focus group (category 5). This category had not previously been identified; the
function of the network is precisely the transfer of knowledge for innovation. The participants see the potential in a
social network for the transfer of knowledge with a view to
innovation. One of them commented: the way forward for
innovation is open relationships via networks. (P10). Other
accounts substantiate this idea:
Mainly here in the incubator, you have the opportunity to
work side by side, communicating with one another. The
companies that are doing alright here are those that understood that one hand washes another. I believe that when you
talk over a social network with a very specific focus, working
this concept of security, that has your details, I believe that it
can achieve results. (P7)
This [the network] can strengthen what the market has
been demanding more and more in the sense that the market is very competitive and increasingly global. In the past we
viewed competition merely as competition. Nowadays competition is partnership in new projects. In this sense, there is
today an appetite for this type of situation. (P5)
Nevertheless, the participants themselves were able to see
that the system can work to nurture the relationship between companies, create off-line connections, giving rise to
innovation and new business. It is supposed that the network serves more to nurture and grow relationships outside the virtual environment.
It is difficult to imagine that a patent might arise out of social
networking, but a conversation may emerge from it, an exchange of ideas. It is an environment which has to connect
people. (P3)
I believe that these tools, these strategies, contribute to
bringing people together and through this, a more formal
arrangement may ensue. I believe that this is the proposition:
this acceleration of processes. This really helps. (P2)

183
Discussion
the use of the network. The theoretical assumptions for the

social network are sustained by the following dimensions:
the types of knowledge involved in the network (tacit and
explicit), the profile of the receivers and transmitters of the
knowledge, the transfer environment (context) and the nature of the transfer (internal and/or external).The conditions
for these assumptions to be satisfied need to be provided
and they consist of the network requirements. For each assumption, this study has presented a set of requirements.
So for example, when considering the assumption that both
types of knowledge permeate the social network, one of the
network requirements is the provision of the means that
make it possible to transfer both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. In turn, each requirement is composed of
a group of features that may be implemented to address it
(for example, discussion forums, talent banks, best practice
bases, amongst others). Features and the strategies for using
these features, i.e. the way in which they may be applied to
technology parks, are also provided in this research study.
Digital social networks have the potential to affect significantly the innovative capacity of organizations. Information,
knowledge and sources of knowledge troll these networks
potentially generating new understanding. In the context of
companies incubated in technological parks, digital social
networks may be conceived through planning and may be
organized so as to promote the transfer and creation of new
knowledge amongst the stakeholders in these parks.
The participants of the focus group meetings contributed

significantly by bringing information that not only allows
us to validate what is expected from the developed prototype but also to perfect it. The effectiveness of the focus group methodology should be stressed with regard to
the possibility of different individuals exchanging information and knowledge and the richness of the content arising
from this exchange.
However the effectiveness of digital social networks in

transferring knowledge does not only depend on the available technological tools but mostly on motivated players, a
recurring issue in the focus group meetings. These players
need to see in the network an environment for receiving
and transferring knowledge, an environment of cooperative
learning which makes it possible to innovate in their activities, generating benefits for the organizations in which they
work. When it comes to transfers between organizations,
one also has to be aware of other aspects involved in the
transfer which could have an impact on perception and the
motivation, within the sphere of the organization, to buy into
the network and actively participate in it. These aspects are
not just technology related, in fact they are predominantly of
a cultural and social nature.
Generally speaking, the assumptions, requirements, features

and strategies for network use have been validated by the
focus groups and thus, the following recommendations are
normally recommended for a digital social network that is
looking to transfer knowledge with the aim of innovation
between the members of technology-based companies:
Strictly speaking, the issues involving the tool itself (category

6), surfaced when the network prototype was presented. In
this sense the talk was mainly about issues, many of which
were already anticipated by the prototype, such as: interface, usability, customization, integration with other business
tools (e.g. intranet) and other relationship networks.
The results of analyses show that the discourse of the focus
group participants reflect the concern with and interest in,
not only questions of a more general and broader nature related to the network as a whole (e.g. motivation for use), but
also those of a more operational nature (e.g. attributes that
should be used for profile affinity). It is interesting to note
that this in some way demonstrates and validates the very
hierarchy of definitions proposed for the structuring of the
network, represented in the present study by assumptions,
requirements, features and strategies for use.
This study presents a theoretical structure for a digital social network aimed at supporting the transfer of knowledge
between companies that comprise the technology incubators. This structure was developed based on a theoretical
review; development of a prototype and its validation in focus group meetings consisting of participants who work in
the technology parks in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina.
The proposed structure addresses what has been defined
as assumptions, requirements, features and strategies for
. conception of the network based on four pillars on which

the assumptions in this study are founded: (1) types of
knowledge; (2) transmitters and receivers of the knowledge;
(3) transfer environment and (4) nature of transfer.
. provision of the channels that make the transfer of explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge possible in both
formal and informal, personal and impersonal, knowledge
transfer environments;
. provision of mechanisms which attempt to encourage the
participation of knowledge receivers and transmitters;
. provision of mechanisms that bring together and integrate
the participants of the network at an individual and organizational level;
. provision of mechanisms for protecting strategic knowledge.

184
The features and strategies recommended in this study will

help in the implementation of these recommendations. New
features and strategies may be added to them, taking into
account the context of the sharing of knowledge between
organizations, and the objectives. As a whole, the assumptions, features, requirements and strategies of use outlined
in this study may also be used for other studies for validation
in contexts similar to the one dealt with here, defining the
boundaries for development in the research and conception
of digital social networks for the transfer of knowledge and
innovation in the business park environment.
References
ALAVI, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual
foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107
136. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250961
ALMIRALL, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open Versus
Closed Innovation: A Model of Discovery and Divergence.
The Academy Of Management Review (AMR), 35(1), 27-47.
doi: 10.5465/AMR.2010.45577790
BEBENSEE, T., Helms, R., & Spruit, M. (2011). Exploring Web
2.0 applications as a means of bolstering up knowledge management. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9,
1-9. Retrieved from http://www.ejkm.com/front/search/index.html
BOEHM, B.W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEE computer, 61-72. doi:
10.1109/2.59
BRESCHI, S. (2000). The geography of innovation: a crosssector analysis. Regional Studies, 34(3), 213-229. doi:
10.1080/00343400050015069
BRCHNER, J., Rosander, S., & Waara, F. (2004). Cross-border post-acquisition knowledge transfer among construction consultants. Construction Management and Economics,
22, 421-427. doi: 10.1080/0144619042000240003
CASTELLS, M. A. (2003). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on
the Internet, Business, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, UK.
COMI, A., & Eppler, M. J. (2010). Challenges and solutions
for knowledge sharing in inter organizational teams: first
experimental results on the positive impact of visualization.
In: Proccedings of 1-KNOW 10, 10th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, Graz, Austria.
CORDEY-HAYES, M., & Gilbert, M. (1996). Understanding
the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful
technological innovation.Technovation, 16(16), 301- 312. doi:
10.1016/0166-4972(96)00012-0
DAVENPORT, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge:
How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
FARAJ, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge
collaboration in online communities. Organization Science,
22(5), 12241239. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.1100.0614

185
GUPTA, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows

within multinational corporations. Strategic Management
Journal, 21(4), 473496. doi: 10,1002 / (SICI) 1097-0266
(200004) 21:4 <473 :: AID-SMJ84> 3.0.CO; 2-I
HACKNEY, R., Desouza, K., & Loebbecke, C. (2005). Cooperation or competition: knowledge sharing processes
in inter-organizational networks. International Conference
Knowledge Management, October, 2005, Westin Charlotte, NC, USA. Retrieved from http://www.mtm.uni-koeln.
de/team-loebbecke-publications-conf-proceedings/Conf089-2005-Cooperation%20or%20Competition-Knowledge%20Sharing%20Processes%20in%20Inter-Organizational%20Networks.pdf
HAEFLIGER, S., Monteiro, E., Foray, D., & von Krogh, G.
(2011). Social software and strategy. Long Range Planning,
44, 297316. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2011.08.001
KNUDSEN, M. P. (2007). The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product
development success. J. Prod. Innov. Manage., 24(2), 117-138.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00238.x
LAHTI, R. K. (2000). Knowledge transfer an management
consulting: a look at the firm. Business Horizons, 3(3), 110127. doi: 10.1016/S0007-6813 (00) 87389-9
LALKAKA, R. (2002). Technology business incubators to
help build an innovation-based economy. Journal of Change
Management, 3(2), 167-176. Available from Business Source
Complete, EBSCOhost.
LAM, A. (1997). Embedded Firms, Embedded Knowledge:
problems of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global
cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 18(6), 973-996.
doi: 10.1177/017084069701800604
LAWSON, B., Petersen, K. J., Cousins, P. D. & Handfield, R.
B. (2009). Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product
development teams: the effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms. J Prod InnovManag, 26, 156-172. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00343.x
MATIN, H. Z., Alvani, S. M., Jandaghi, G. R., & Pashazadeh, Y.
(2010). Designing and clarifying knowledge sharing model in
administrative agencies to improve the performance. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 22. Available from http://www.researchgate.net
MCGRATH, R. G., Tsai, MH.,Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan,
IC. (1996). Innovation, competitive advantage and rent: a
model and test. Management Science, 42(3), 389-403. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634350
MINAYO, M. C. S. (2000). O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em sade. So Paulo: Hucitec; Rio de Janeiro:
Abrasco.
NONAKA, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).The Knowledge-creating
Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics
of Innovation. Oxford University Press, UK.
ODELL, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what we
know: identification and transfer of internal best practices.
California Management Review, 40(3), 154-174. Available
from Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost.
OHEOCHA, C., Wang, X., & Conboy, K. (2012). The use
of focus groups in complex and pressurised IS studies and
evaluation using Klein & Myers principles for interpretive
research. Information Systems Journal, 22, 235256. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00387.x
PORTER, M. E. (1998). On Competition. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
ROMIJN, H., & Albu, M. (2002). Innovation, networking and
proximity: high technology firms in the UK. Regional Studies,
36 (1), 8186. doi : 10.1080/00343400120099889
SAUNDERS, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research
methods for business students. England: Pearson Education
Limited.
SOMMERVILLE, I (2004). Software Engineering. Essex, UK.
TEECE, D. (2000). Strategies for managing knowledge assets:
the role of firm structure and industrial context. Long Range
Planning, 33(1), 35-54. doi: 10.1016/S0024-6301 (99) 00117X
TONET. H. C., & Paz, M. G. T. (2006). Um modelo para o
compartilhamento de conhecimento no trabalho. Revista
de Administrao Contempornea, 10 (2). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552006000200005
VITO, A., Garavello, A. C., & Schiuma, G. (1999). Knowledge
transfer and interfirmrelationship in industrial districts: the
role of the leader firm.Technovation, 19, 53-63. doi: 10.1016/
S0166-4972(98)00078-9
VON KROGH, G. (2012). How does social software change
knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21, 154-164. doi:
10.1016/j.jsis.2012.04.003

186
Copyright of Journal of Technology Management & Innovation is the property of JOTMI

Research Group and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

Emerging Markets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emerging Markets

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emerging Markets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received March 30, 2014 / Accepted June 2, 2014

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

Social Networks and Knowledge Transfer in Technological

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

In this research, the technology park in question is located

ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

Regarding the transfer of inter-organizational knowledge,

Regardless of the context in which it occurs, be it intraorganizational or inter-organizational, knowledge transfer

Pointing to the challenges and solutions concerning the

ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

Digital social networks and channels of knowledge

The way many organizations have faced the challenges

Figure 1 Outline of the first phase of research. Source: prepared

ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

Subject of the assumption

Nature of knowledge transfer internal or external

requirements were derived, for each requirement, features

Table 1 - Subject of theoretical assumptions and major authors

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

Phase three: focus groups

Table 2 Description of focus groups. Source: prepared by the authors (2014)

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

Two requirements were outlined for this assumption, the

ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

Features and strategies

Highly interactive features include:

Features and strategies

These are the features that can be formatted on media.

ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

Features and strategies

Features and strategies

Relevance of the knowledge transferred Enables the relevance of posted content to be

Table 4 - Assumption 2 Profile of receivers and transmitters of knowledge

The organizational context (environment) exerts an influence on the transfer of knowledge

Features and strategies

The network should have mechanisms for protecting strategic knowledge.

Features and strategies

Table 5 - Assumption 3 Profile of the receivers and transmitters of knowledge

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

features for end-users, the network displays a panel with

hold great concern for the distinction between these types

Features and strategies

J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2014,Volume 9, Issue 2

The director of the incubator performs service requisitions

As regards recognition and/or reward, some participants

CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES

Parts where the participants present their concerns about or interest in

2 Profile of the receivers and transmitters of

Discourse that demonstrates an interest in the disparity between the offering

3 Context for the transfer of the knowledge

Discourse which contains elements on the environmental conditions that

4 Nature of knowledge transfer

Discourse related to the origin and flow of knowledge (internal or external)

General comments about the tool and its interface

ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://www.jotmi.org)