This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library], [Damian Hine]On: 29 April 2013, At: 16:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

The Role of Knowledge Intermediariesin Developing Firm LearningCapabilitiesRachel Parker a & Damian Hine ba School of Management, Queensland University of Technology,GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, 4101, Australiab Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, AustraliaPublished online: 28 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Rachel Parker & Damian Hine (2013): The Role of KnowledgeIntermediaries in Developing Firm Learning Capabilities, European Planning Studies,DOI:10.1080/09654313.2012.758688

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.758688

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Role of Knowledge Intermediaries inDeveloping Firm Learning Capabilities

RACHEL PARKER∗ & DAMIAN HINE∗∗

∗School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane 4101, Australia,∗∗Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

(Received October 2010; accepted September 2011)

ABSTRACT Regional innovation systems (RISs) literature has emphasized the critical role ofinteractive learning and knowledge exchange amongst firms and a variety of spatially connectedinnovation institutions as the foundation of regional innovation. Knowledge intermediaries havebeen analysed in terms of the technology-transaction services they provide firms and/orknowledge producers such as universities and therefore the role they play in facilitatinginteraction within the RIS. However, innovation also depends on the capability of the firm tolearn. Some studies have suggested that intermediaries also play a role in that regard asparticipation in intermediary knowledge transfer programmes can contribute to the developmentof firm capabilities for problem-solving and learning. Our research is based on two case studyintermediary programmes involving interviews with facilitators and participants. Our data showthat knowledge intermediaries affect organizational learning capabilities by impacting on firms’network relationships, internal and external communication channels and internal learningprocesses which in turn affect the ability to interpret and use knowledge within the firm. Thissuggests that the role of knowledge intermediaries might be greater than facilitating interactionsin the innovation system, as knowledge intermediation may affect the ability of firms to learn andabsorb knowledge from their environment.

Introduction

The interactions and linkages within an economy that facilitate learning and innovation

have been a major focus on national and regional innovation systems (RISs) approaches.

These approaches place an emphasis on interactive learning between a firm and its

environment, involving feedback mechanisms or loops, representing the complex

exchanges between a variety of institutions in the system as part of a continuous

process involving incremental change, error and modification (Edquist, 1997, pp. 1–2).

The RISs approach has suggested that localized learning processes based on interactions

between spatially proximate institutions are an important foundation for innovation in

Correspondence Address: Rachel Parker, School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, GPO

Box 2434, Brisbane 4101, Australia. Email: r.parker@qut.edu.au

European Planning Studies, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.758688

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

knowledge sectors (Cooke et al., 1997; Morgan, 1997; Asheim & Isaksen, 2003). Of

central importance is the “soft institutional infrastructure” of collective learning involving

communication and interpersonal linkages between firms and institutions in a regional

context (Asheim & Isaksen, 2003, pp. 36–37) or what Storper (1997, p. 35) has referred

to as “untraded interdependencies”. Knowledge intermediaries have been typically ana-

lysed in terms of their facilitation of interactions amongst firms and knowledge insti-

tutions, particularly in relation to the technology-transaction services they provide firms

and/or knowledge producers such as universities, including the identification of technol-

ogy commercialization opportunities, assistance in technology exploitation and technol-

ogy search and acquisition services (Howells, 2006; Lichtenthaler & Ernst, 2008).

However, in order for firms to acquire new knowledge through interactions with other

firms and knowledge institutions, they need to have the capability to learn, sometimes

described as absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002;

Rodrıguez-Castellanos et al., 2010) but also more broadly connected with the concept

of the learning organization (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nonaka, 1994). Firms which lack

the ability to learn or to absorb knowledge from their external environment will not

demonstrate the innovation effects of co-location in rich institutional environments for

innovation. A few studies have suggested that knowledge intermediaries play a role

here also, in that participation in intermediary knowledge transfer programmes can con-

tribute to the development of organizational capabilities for problem-solving and learning,

resulting in the creation and diffusion of knowledge in the economic system (Bessant &

Rush, 1995). The aim of this article is to further contribute to this line of inquiry by addres-

sing the research question: “How does participation in knowledge intermediary pro-

grammes affect organizational learning capabilities?” Our research is based on two case

study intermediary programmes in which we conducted 66 interviews with facilitators

and participants.

We draw on the insights from the literature on organizational learning (Cohen &

Levinthal, 1990; Nonaka, 1994; Zollo & Winter, 2002; Teece, 2007) to gain an under-

standing of the role of knowledge intermediaries in developing organizational learning

capabilities. Our research suggests that knowledge intermediaries affect organizational

learning capabilities by influencing the network structures within which firms are

embedded, thereby influencing their opportunities for knowledge acquisition (Cohen &

Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002); by influencing problem-solving through the

development of improved communication processes (Nonaka, 1994); by improving com-

munication within networks through the development of a common language and basis for

understanding (Nooteboom, 2003); and by enhancing understanding within the firm

through the creation of processes for the codification of tacit knowledge (Zollo &

Winter, 2002). This suggests that intermediaries play a role in RISs, not just by facilitating

interactions and linkages between firms and knowledge institutions, but also by affecting

the learning capabilities of firms who participate in their programmes.

The Role of Knowledge Intermediaries

There is now extensive research identifying the role of universities in brokering their own

knowledge and thereby stimulating innovation (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Wright

et al., 2008). Despite the strong focus of prior research on universities and university com-

mercialization arms, Janis (2003) has identified a much broader range of organizations

2 R. Parker & D. Hine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

whose primary service activities are to facilitate the commercialization of new technol-

ogies and to provide technical advice to solve unmet technology including private

firms, government contractors and government direct providers. These independent inter-

mediaries develop networks necessary to facilitate knowledge flows from knowledge pro-

duction organizations (including research institutions, universities and training

organizations) to knowledge users including firms, both large and small. As Howells

(2006, p. 720) has explained, an intermediary can be defined as any “organization or

body that acts as an agent or broker in any aspect of the innovation process between

two or more parties”. Our research therefore focuses on intermediaries who fit the defi-

nition of “sitting between” the users and producers of knowledge (Howells, 2006, p. 720).

There are two components of the prior literature on knowledge intermediaries that rep-

resent points of departure for this article. First, research on knowledge intermediaries has

had a strong focus on technology transfer or the process of “translating research results

(inventions) from the science lab to the marketplace (product)” (Grady & Pratt, 2000,

p. 206; Markman et al., 2004). The analysis of mechanisms for university2industry

knowledge transfer has focused on spin-offs, licensing, contract research, consulting

and graduate and researcher mobility (Wright et al., 2008). Prior research on intermedi-

aries (and university commercialization activities) draws attention to the role of interme-

diaries in “selling one-off products” to end-users (Bessant & Rush, 1995, p. 100), thereby

facilitating the knowledge transfer process. This role has included the provision of a search

function to identify technology and knowledge solutions, the matching of knowledge sup-

pliers and users and the provision of negotiation and contractual support in the process of

knowledge transfer and diffusion (Howells, 2006, pp. 716–717). In departing from the

focus of prior research on one-off technology transfer, we examine the impact of interme-

diaries on organizational learning. We therefore build on that body of work which is

increasingly recognizing a role for intermediaries in boundary spanning which involves

the translation of knowledge from one domain to another, involving mechanisms to over-

come cognitive and cultural barriers to inter-organizational learning (Wright et al., 2008).

Second, as Wright et al. (2008) explain, much of the research on intermediaries, and

university commercialization arms in particular, has focused on the impact of knowledge

transfer in highly entrepreneurial regions which constitute urban-industrial clusters in

industries such as information and communications technology, biotechnology, elec-

tronics and the creative industries and the benefits of knowledge exchange for either

large firms or small high-technology ventures. This research has been concerned with

factors influencing the success of technology transfer including the types of knowledge

being transferred (particularly the extent to which it is embedded in people, tools and rou-

tines) and whether or not the knowledge is explicit (and readily able to be articulated), or

tacit with embodied and tacit knowledge being most difficult to transfer (Cummings &

Teng, 2003, pp. 44–46). Recent work has emphasized the role of informal relations

between universities and industrial corporations as well as the mobility of university aca-

demics and doctoral researchers as factors impacting on informal processes of tacit knowl-

edge exchange between universities and industry (Colyvas et al., 2002; Bozeman &

Corley, 2004). Other streams of literature have explored recipient characteristics including

firm size, with most studies concluding that large firms and start-ups benefit most from

scientific research (Cohen et al., 2002). We focus instead on established small and

medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which operate in regions and industry sectors that are

characterized by incremental rather than radically changing environmental conditions.

Knowledge Intermediaries and Firm Learning Capabilities 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

We therefore expand previous research which has tended to focus on technology-intensive

industry sectors and highly entrepreneurial firms (Cohen et al., 2002; Bozeman & Corley,

2004).

Method

Cases

We have adopted a “replication logic” in our selection of cases (rather than a sampling

logic). This enables us to improve the robustness of our theory building by pattern matching

across cases (Yin, 2003). We have selected two intermediary programmes for inclusion in

the study, which satisfy three criteria. First, both programmes are provided by intermediaries

that are independent from universities and fit Howells’ (2006, p. 720) definition as an

“organization or body that acts as an agent or broker in any aspect of the innovation

process between two or more parties”. Second, both involve service provision that goes

beyond technology-transaction services: the global positioning system (GPS)/geographical

information system (GIS) programme involves training for graziers and other regional

organizations in the use of a new technology and the Microscope Action Plan (MAP) pro-

gramme involves the development and implementation of business innovation strategies

associated with manufacturing technologies for SMEs. Both incorporate several days of

involvement with the firm and several follow-up points to monitor learning and solve pro-

blems arising from the programme. As such, both cases should provide a basis for under-

standing how participation in a knowledge intermediary programme affects firms’

organizational learning capabilities. Third, participants in both programmes are SMEs

located in relatively low-technology sectors in manufacturing and agriculture. The study

is therefore designed to observe the impact of intermediaries that are located outside univer-

sities and which are involved in the provision of capability-enhancing services outside tech-

nology-intensive industry sectors, as explained above.

MAP case study. The first case study is a programme offered by QMI Solutions: the

MAP which involves the intermediary role of evaluation, development and implemen-

tation of business and innovation strategies associated with manufacturing technologies

(Parker et al., 2009). QMI Solutions (2009) is an independent not-for-profit organization

partly funded by the government whose stated aim is to “achieve manufacturing excel-

lence through research, education, and implementation of world class practices and tech-

nologies”. Our interviewees completed their intervention sometime after 2004. The

intervention typically involved a senior manager from the firm and a group of participants

who were identified as having an intimate knowledge of the firm and its processes. The

team members then completed a questionnaire covering organization and culture, manu-

facturing cycle times, quality, plant and equipment, innovation, engineering operations

and practice, product development process and business management. This was followed

by a half-day group benchmarking session and subsequently a strengths-and-weaknesses

half-day workshop. The firm was provided with an initial benchmark which compared its

performance with a standard nominated as world class. QMI further analysed the data and

provided a full report around 2 weeks later. Workshops were then tailored for enterprises

and delivered on site. There was a range of different MAP interventions which usually

consisted of workshops of between 1 and 5 days, and a range of written materials including

4 R. Parker & D. Hine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

workbooks, manuals and decision and monitoring tools. Typically, this process was com-

pleted over a 2–3-month period. QMI has videos and tip sheets available for download

from their website on some of the MAP product interventions, and interviewees

mention these being used as a refresher. Often there were follow-up sessions to assist in

the implementation of the new or improved process or to report back on the findings

from the diagnostic tools. Some follow-up sessions took place up to 12 months after the

initial intervention (Parker et al., 2009).

GPS/GIS case study. The second case study involved the GPS/GIS training programme

developed by the Queensland Rural Industry Training Council (QRITC) which involves the

intermediary role of transfer of GPS/GIS technology to regional enterprises including train-

ing in the use of the technology in the business (Howells, 2006). QRITC is a fee-for-service

organization that receives some programme funding from the government and provides a

range of brokerage, advisory, project management and resource development services in

rural and regional Queensland. The GPS/GIS course dealt with basic GPS unit operations,

recording way points, using a track file, plotting infrastructure and practical uses of GPS.

GIS training included use of relevant software, obtaining property maps to use for

pasture and stock management, collecting and sharing shape files and other GIS data,

obtaining and basic interpretation of satellite or aerial imagery, adding attribute files and

data to maps such as conditions of gates or bore maintenance information, practical uses

such as mapping and planning property improvements, calculating paddock sizes, measur-

ing out waterholes, fencing conservation areas and producing mapping for inclusion in

reports and legislation requirements. Training was tailored to specific participant and

regional needs but was in essence designed to enhance knowledge about a specific technol-

ogy which was new to the organization and industry, including the effective application of

that technology and its integration into on-farm management practices. Participants under-

went training sometime between September 2004 and September 2008. Training was deliv-

ered face-to-face in workshops, with the aid of training manuals and cheat sheets. Training

was very hands-on and practical, with training material containing examples of uses for the

technology. Training normally occurred at the property of one of the participants where the

trainer stayed for several days. Other participants from the training cluster would travel to

the course. Participants were encouraged to form a support network with their training

cluster. Participants sought to overcome issues and problems amongst themselves but trai-

ners could be asked for assistance by telephone or email. Participants’ time spent in training

was variable. There were three different training sessions of usually 1–2 days each. The

days for these sessions varied between training sessions. The minimum was 1 day

through to a maximum of 4 days.

Interviews

In late 2007 and through 2008, a total of 66 face-to-face semi-structured interviews

ranging in length from 20 min through to over 2 h were conducted throughout rural,

regional and metropolitan Queensland in Australia. Fifty-seven interviews were conducted

with users, trainers or stakeholders in the GIS/GPS or MAP programmes, and were com-

pleted in 2008. The other nine interviews were with our industry partners to understand

their knowledge exchange projects and operations. The data comprise over 45 h of inter-

views and over 850 pages of interview transcripts.

Knowledge Intermediaries and Firm Learning Capabilities 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

The use of retrospective interviews was necessary because we were interested in learn-

ing capabilities which cannot be observed at the point of completion of a programme

because they involve a repeated pattern of behaviour (Schreyogg & Kliesch-Eberl,

2007). There are several potential problems with retrospective interviewing that we

sought to address in our research design. These problems include memory lapses which

are particularly problematic for uneventful incidents and rationalization, or the attempt

to make things seem positive after the event (Miller et al., 1997). We followed standard

procedures for dealing with these problems (Forgues & Vandangeon-Derumez, 2001).

First, we selected interviewees who were directly involved in the programme and who

would therefore have spent several days of their time in the initial training, making

them more likely to remember events associated with the programme. Our sampling tech-

nique for the selection of interviewees also sought to minimize the likelihood of effects

resulting from memory lapses. Interviewee selection involved an initial approach by the

intermediary organization to all programme participants seeking volunteers for partici-

pation in an analysis of the impact of the programme. This should have resulted in the

exclusion of interviewees with little memory of the programme. As our objective was

to understand how participation in an intermediary programme affected structures and pro-

cesses for organizational learning, the selection of interviewees for whom the programme

had an enduring impact was appropriate. Second, interviewees were not pushed to answer

questions if they indicated little or no memory of an effect of an event. Third, interviewees

were asked to discuss their organizational learning processes before they were asked to

identify causal connections with participation in the programme in order to limit rational-

ization bias. Finally, our analysis techniques involved careful comparison across inter-

views seeking recurring patterns of intermediary impacts.

We were interested in the way in which participation in the programme affected organ-

izational learning capabilities. As such, the interview questions focused on how partici-

pation in the programme affected the ability of a firm to acquire new knowledge and to

interpret and modify knowledge within the firm. The interviews have all been transcribed,

coded and analysed using qualitative analysis software. We followed established pro-

cedures for the analysis of qualitative data (Miles & Huberman, 1994) by undertaking

initial coding and identification of themes, relating our findings to the literature,

re-analysing and recoding data in light of emerging patters and ultimately developing

theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). Regular project meetings involving the authors of the study

and project research assistants involved close examination and discussion of data, codes

and emerging patterns and themes.

The Impact of Intermediaries on Firm Learning Capabilities

Prior literature has identified sensing capabilities as a critical foundation of organizational

learning and change. Sensing new opportunities involves scanning and interpretive

activity (Teece, 2007; Augier & Teece, 2008). Sensing therefore involves more than

merely the acquisition of knowledge; it also requires a process of understanding and eval-

uating the role knowledge plays in the firm’s performance (Van den Bosch et al., 2003;

Lane et al., 2006). Knowledge exists both inside a firm amongst organizational

members and within the firm’s social networks (Dyer & Singh, 1998). While absorptive

capacity literature has emphasized the importance of capturing knowledge that is external

to the firm through scanning processes (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002;

6 R. Parker & D. Hine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

Rodrıguez-Castellanos et al., 2010), organizational learning literature has demonstrated

the importance of processes for capturing the internal knowledge of organizational

members (Nonaka, 1994; Zollo & Winter, 2002). These literatures would suggest that

the ability of a firm to learn involves the acquisition and assimilation of knowledge

both internal and external to the firm.

Our data indicate that intermediary programmes have the potential to develop learning

capabilities in firms, which relate to both internal and external knowledge capture and

analysis. This occurs in four ways: by developing problem-solving routines which are

the basis for the detection and correction of errors; by supporting the development of

mechanisms for the codification of existing tacit knowledge within the firm leading to

internal knowledge capture and interpretation; by creating a common language amongst

firms which facilitates communication with stakeholders and by linking firms with exter-

nal knowledge networks leading to knowledge acquisition opportunities (Table 1). With

respect to all these dimensions, the intermediary programme expands the firm’s experience

with accessing, analysing and assimilating knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002; Todorova

& Durisin, 2007). The following discussion elaborates on how the two intermediary pro-

grammes have affected the development of organizational learning capabilities.

Communication and Problem-Solving Processes

As explained above, the benchmarking exercise that was the foundation of the QMI pro-

gramme involved an evaluation and reconfiguration of problem-solving and communi-

cation channels within the firm. This was one element of the review of business

organization and culture involved in the benchmarking exercise. The literature on organ-

izational learning explains that communication mechanisms facilitate knowledge proces-

sing and integration within the firm and therefore enhance understanding of the

organization’s knowledge base. Absorptive capacity literature suggests that in order for

knowledge to be exploited, it must be shared within the firm (Lane et al., 2006; Todorova

& Durisin, 2007). Nonaka (1994, p. 24) emphasizes the way in which “various forms of

tacit knowledge that are brought into the field by individual members are converted

through co-experience among them to form a common base for understanding”. The

sharing and exchange of knowledge is an important part of knowledge creation through

the production of “narratives” and “war stories” which help organizations to interpret

and make sense of data or information and its implications for performance (Brown &

Duguid, 1991; Nonaka, 1994, p. 24).

The QMI intervention therefore enabled programme participants to become aware that

employees throughout the business were working on different aspects of the same

problem. By improving communication channels within the firm, the programme

enabled them to better identify recurring problems and pool knowledge to more effectively

resolve those problems.

This facilitated the development of a sense of mutual sharing or common ownership of

problems.

I think they got some problem solving tools and also the idea of making problems

more visual to everybody. So it’s not just their problem, it’s the previous shift’s

problem and the following shift’s problem . . . . (MU003)

Knowledge Intermediaries and Firm Learning Capabilities 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

As our interviewees explained, this sharing of problems can overcome the “demar-

cation” barriers which prevent organizational members from viewing the problems of

others as their own.

This internal communication is critical to identifying knowledge gaps within the organ-

ization. As problems are shared, organization members become aware of the lack of

internal solutions and progress to identify external knowledge sources which might be

useful in addressing knowledge needs. Participants indicated that improved communi-

cation channels within the firm helped them to identify key problems which management

then sought to solve through external knowledge acquisition. This involved management

acquiring new machinery, tools or equipment or attending trade shows and exhibitions to

identify new technologies which were utilized to improve production processes or solve

operational problems.

Codification and Analysis of Internal Tacit Knowledge

As explained above, the QRITC intervention involved the diffusion of a technology that

facilitated knowledge capture; hence, it is not surprising that it impacted on the learning

capabilities of participating organizations through a process of knowledge codification.

In addition, the benchmarking exercise that constituted part of the QMI intervention

also involved a process of knowledge codification as it emphasized the development

of systems for recording and sharing organizational knowledge. The intermediary

programmes therefore facilitated the development of organizational mechanisms for

the codification of internal knowledge. Zollo and Winter (2002) explain that internal

knowledge-processing routines allow for the evaluation and selection of new knowledge

of value to the firm.

For the graziers, of particular importance was the fact that the GPS training gave them

an ability to visually represent their knowledge which was otherwise “stored in their

heads” (GS001). This is a knowledge creation process involving the conversion of tacit

knowledge which is “in the graziers heads” based on work they have done “all their

lives” into explicit knowledge which is a process of “externalization” (Nonaka, 1994,

p. 19) in which knowledge is then available to others, such as government regulators.

In the context of the QMI Intervention, firms were encouraged to establish tools for

recording and sharing information within the organization. One firm explained that they

had developed a “Total Product Maintenance Board” which provided operators with

instructions that enabled them to conduct checks on machinery which allowed for moni-

toring of machinery faults. By making problems visual, these record-keeping devices

changed the role that operators played in the organization; they evolved from mere obser-

vers to organizational problem-solvers.

A further consequence of the codification process is that it facilitates future knowledge

creation—it does this by enabling the combination of the codified knowledge with other

explicit information to produce new knowledge (Nonaka, 1994, p. 19). Participants

were forced to think about what data were important to the firm and how they would be

used in the future. This required the organization to consider the way in which data and

knowledge could be used in the future for the purpose of improving organizational analysis

and performance. As Zollo and Winter (2002, p. 342) explain, to develop manuals which

depict the way in which tasks or operations are executed, it is necessary to form “mental

models” of those tasks and under what circumstances they are appropriate and in doing so,

8 R. Parker & D. Hine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

“they will most likely emerge with a crisper definition of what works, what doesn’t work,

and why”.

A further critical function of the codification process is that it involves capturing the

knowledge of organizational members for the purposes of organizational memory, so

that it becomes a permanent record within the organization that can guide future actions.

Data warehousing is an important point. We have a reasonably high staff turnover.

When you’ve got a situation like that, there is a very high risk of loss of corporate

knowledge. Another way we can sort of somehow manage that is to data warehouse.

(GU009)

By providing organizations with a mechanism for recording data, the GPS/GIS pro-

gramme enabled them to capture knowledge that would otherwise be lost through staff

mobility, which is a challenge for organizations operating in regional economies where

workforces are often seasonal and transitory. Similarly, the MAP programme enabled

the recording of organizational procedures and processes which was especially important

for organizations that were growing.

Stakeholder Communication

Because the QRITC programme involved the roll out of a technology-based information

system, it resulted in the development of opportunities for knowledge acquisition in par-

ticipating enterprises by establishing a common language amongst stakeholders. The inter-

mediary intervention was able to overcome impediments to communication amongst

enterprises and their stakeholder communities (Nooteboom, 2003; Sapsed et al., 2007).

Zahra and George (2002) note that the processing and internalization of externally gener-

ated knowledge depend on comprehension which is impeded when new knowledge is

heuristically different from the firm’s existing knowledge. Cognitive distance is a well-

recognized barrier to inter-organizational learning (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; Carlile,

2004). The ability to integrate knowledge from the external environment of a firm, and

in particular its stakeholders, depends on the presence of a common language or heuristic.

Similarly, gatekeepers or brokers play a role in overcoming the barriers to learning that

arise from different mental maps, language and culture of groups through a process of

translation (Bessant & Rush, 1995; Jones, 2006).

A critical role for intermediaries is to act as brokers of knowledge, thereby overcoming

the well-established barriers to learning arising from cognitive distance or language and

meaning barriers (Nooteboom, 2003; Carlile, 2004). The knowledge exchange process

involved in the QRITC programme resulted in the development of opportunities for learn-

ing and change in participating enterprises by creating a single format by which graziers

and other stakeholders could record and exchange information:

I guess we haven’t had a mechanism for effectively receiving information in a single

format, regardless of the project, whether you’re working in the grazing industry or

with landholders, tackling biodiversity or even doing things with the local govern-

ment on stormwater. We haven’t had a single mechanism for collection of that infor-

mation. It’s all been hard copy, paper produced and not standardised. (GU013)

Knowledge Intermediaries and Firm Learning Capabilities 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

The QRITC intervention was associated with what Van Wijk et al. (2008, p. 835) has

described as the “third dimension of social capital” or the “resources within relationships

that provide shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning”. The exist-

ence of the GPS/GIS platform for communication enabled graziers and indigenous com-

munities to overcome the “cultural distance” (Van Wijk et al., 2008) that had previously

prevented inter-organizational knowledge exchange, partly by creating a common com-

munication platform which increased awareness amongst graziers of indigenous networks

and cultural claims.

In a similar way, the QMI programme impacted on the ability of participants to acquire

information from customers and suppliers through the establishment of processes for

developing and maintaining relationships with external organizations. The development

of deep communication channels with customers and suppliers has been identified as a

critical foundation of innovation and the capability to adapt to external environmental

changes (Chesbrough, 2003; Teece, 2007). Demanding customers require product and

service modifications which can lead to innovation that is potentially diffusible, while sup-

pliers may themselves be a source of new product or service designs which might drive

innovation in downstream markets. Close relationships with customers and suppliers

provide early insights into market needs and technological changes which are critical

for innovation and dynamic organizational change. The QMI programme drew partici-

pants’ attention to the fact that customers and suppliers are sources of knowledge which

can be acquired by building a relationship involving mutual understanding rather than

relying on arms-length cost-based transactions as the foundation of stakeholder inter-

actions:

Whereas before you just chased a price and whoever was the cheapest for you; you

know you didn’t build a real relationship. Whereas now we’ve got some good links

with suppliers so it’s not all about price; which is how we want people, our custo-

mers to be. Not just about price but about the whole package. (MU011)

Knowledge Acquisition through New Knowledge Networks

Finally, by participating in a knowledge exchange programme, firms came to recognize the

value of external knowledge sources and the importance of knowledge networks as a

source of further learning. This was an outcome of both programmes. Intermediaries

were therefore able to change the “patterns of relationships” within which firms were

embedded (Dyer & Singh, 1998; Van Wijk et al., 2008) and thereby enhance the knowl-

edge acquisition capabilities of the firm which are critical for knowledge creation and util-

ization (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002). As one QRITC programme

participant explained:

I feel that it’s not the knowledge I myself carry but it’s the knowledge of all those

people that I’ve made contacts with . . . it’s opened me up to a library of people and

other resources out there than I can now go and collect. (GU005)

Access to a variety of external knowledge sources is an important foundation for organ-

izational learning. Zahra and George (2002, p. 191) explain that “The breadth and depth of

knowledge exposure positively influence a firm’s propensity to explore new and related

10 R. Parker & D. Hine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

knowledge”. Knowledge that comes from outside the firm’s existing networks is important

in the development of absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Lane et al., 2006;

Todorova & Durisin, 2007).

Participation in the MAP programme created awareness amongst firms of the existence

and value of external knowledge, particularly that which can be acquired from organiz-

ational consultants who could provide useful insights into the firms’ operations.

Participants in the MAP programme reported that they searched their environment for

new knowledge and paid closer attention to the behaviours of other firms as a potential

source of knowledge about how to improve their own business.

Conclusion

Both intermediary programmes affected the learning capabilities of participant firms,

although there were some differences in the two programmes in terms of the dimensions

of organizational learning capabilities that were developed. The GPS/GIS programme

improved the capability of firms to communicate with stakeholders because it involved

the transfer of a common communication platform amongst regional private, government

and community organizations, and improved knowledge networks through the creation of

training reference groups. It also led to the development of codification and interpretation

capabilities amongst participants because it involved training in technology which facili-

tated the collection and analysis of data. In contrast, the MAP programme led to the devel-

opment of codification and internal communication and problem-sharing processes which

were an integral part of the benchmarking and business analysis and reconfiguration exer-

cise linked to manufacturing technologies within the MAP programme. This programme

also improved communication between participants and their customers and suppliers.

The development of enhanced external knowledge acquisition capabilities in firms was

a further outcome of the programme as they became aware of the availability and useful-

ness of external knowledge from experts and consultants. These learning capabilities were

variously developed across the two programmes, but each programme played some role,

either by establishing processes within the firm for improved understanding and analysis

of knowledge (Argyris & Schon, 1974; Zollo & Winter, 2002) or by opening up opportu-

nities for external knowledge acquisition through improved processes of communication

amongst stakeholders or through extensions of networks (Zahra & George, 2002).

Our data therefore indicate that the role of knowledge intermediaries in innovation is

much broader than the provision of technology-transaction services linking universities

to large firms and start-ups in high-technology regions (Howells, 2006; Wright et al.,

2008). The contribution of knowledge intermediaries includes the development of firm

learning capabilities which are essential if firms are to benefit from the knowledge infra-

structure in which they are located. This would suggest that the business skills and advi-

sory components of technology diffusion programmes run by knowledge intermediaries,

and not just the technology-transaction services they provide, are of critical importance

in the sense that they develop the firms’ ability to understand and analyse knowledge

and to acquire knowledge from external sources. Elsewhere the business services com-

ponent of intermediary services has been identified as under-resourced and unsupported

by appropriately experienced and trained business advisors (Suvinen et al., 2010)

suggesting the need for greater policy attention to this aspect of intermediary activities.

Knowledge Intermediaries and Firm Learning Capabilities 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

Table 1. The impact of the intermediary programmes on organizational learning

Knowledge processing (internal) Knowledge acquisition (external)

Communication andproblem-solving within

the firmCodification of knowledge

within the firmStakeholder

communicationAwareness of and accessto knowledge networks

MAPBusiness services

linked tomanufacturingtechnologies

Benchmarking exercisefocusing on businessprocesses andmanagement forestablished SMEsprincipally inmanufacturing

Improvedcommunication andproblem-solvingprocesses madeproblems more visualand shared, identifyingknowledge needs

Tools for mappingproduction processesresulted in recognitionand sharing of problemsand enabled individualknowledge to becaptured for theorganization

Improved customer andsupplier relationsresulting in knowledgeexchange in inter-organizationalnetworks

Enhanced awareness ofvalue and availabilityof external knowledgeof experts,stakeholders(customers andsuppliers) and theexperience of otherfirms

GPS/GISTraining in the use

of GPS/GIStechnology inrural enterprises

Knowledge transfer ofGPS/GIS technologyto rural enterprises,particularly graziers

Resulted in codification ofgraziers’ knowledge forincorporation in GIS;capturing individualknowledge fororganizational memory

GIS established commoncommunicationplatform improvingknowledge exchangebetween graziers,government andindigenous groups

Connection to “library ofpeople” involved intraining clusterscreated networks ofknowledge exchangeregarding use of newtechnology and farmmanagement

12

R.

Pa

rker&

D.

Hin

e

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contribution of Paul Singh and Anne Edwards who provided research

assistance on the project by conducting interviews and reviewing programme documents.

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council LP0776386.

References

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness (San Francisco, CA:

Josey-Bass).

Asheim, B. & Isaksen, A. (2003) SMEs and the regional dimension of innovation, in: B. Asheim, A. Isaksen, C.

Nauwelaers & F. Todtling (Eds) Regional Innovation Policy for Small-Medium Enterprises, pp. 21–47

(Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

Augier, M. & Teece, D. (2008) Strategy as evolution with design: The foundations of dynamic capabilities and the

role of managers in the economic system, Organization Studies, 29(8–9), pp. 1187–1208.

Bessant, J. & Rush, H. (1995) Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer,

Research Policy, 24(1), pp. 97–115.

Bozeman, B. & Corley, E. (2004) Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical

human capital, Research Policy, 33(4), pp. 599–616.

Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991) Organizational learning and communities of practice: Towards a unified view of

working, learning and innovation, Organization Science, 2(1), pp. 40–57.

Carlile, P. R. (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowl-

edge across boundaries, Organization Science, 15(5), pp. 555–568.

Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology

(Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation,

Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 128–152.

Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. & Walsh, J. (2002) The influence of public research on industrial R&D, Management

Science, 48(1), pp. 1–23.

Colyvas, J., Crpw, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Melson, R., Rosenberg, N. & Sampat, B. (2002) How do uni-

versity interventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), pp. 61–72.

Cooke, P., Uranga, M. & Etxebarria, G. (1997) Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational

dimensions, Research Policy, 26(4–5), pp. 475–491.

Cummings, J. L. & Teng, B. S. (2003) Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge trans-

fer success, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1–2), pp. 39–68.

Dyer, H. H. & Singh, H. (1998) The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational com-

petitive advantage, Academy of Management Review, 23(4), pp. 660–679.

Edquist, C. (1997) Systems of innovation approaches—their emergence and characteristics, in: C. Edquist (Ed.)

Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, pp. 1–35 (London: Pinter).

Eisenhardt, K. (1989) Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, 14(4),

pp. 532–550.

Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (2000) The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a

triple helix of university–industry–government relations, Research Policy, 29(2), pp. 109–123.

Forgues, B. & Vandangeon-Derumez, I. (2001) Longitudinal analyses, in: R.-A. Thietart (Ed.) Doing Manage-

ment Research. A Comprehensive Guide, pp. 332–351 (London: Sage).

Grady, R. & Pratt, J. (2000) The UK technology transfer system: Call for stronger links between higher education

and industry, Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), pp. 205–211.

Howells, J. (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation, Research Policy, 35, pp. 715–728.

Janis, T. (2003) Technology transfer: Emerging issues, high impact trends, Journal of Technology Transfer,

28(3–4), pp. 241–249.

Jones, O. (2006) Developing absorptive capacity in mature organizations: The change agent’s role, Management

Learning, 37(3), pp. 355–375.

Lane, P., Koka, J. B. & Pathak, S. (2006) The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation

of the construct, Academy of Management Review, 31(4), pp. 833–863.

Knowledge Intermediaries and Firm Learning Capabilities 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013

Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. (1998) Relative absorptive capacity and interorganisational learning, Strategic Man-

agement Journal, 19(5), pp. 461–477.

Lichtenthaler, U. & Ernst, H. (2008) Intermediary services in the markets for technology: Organizational ante-

cedents and performance consequences, Organization Studies, 29(7), pp. 1003–1029.

Markman, G. D., Phan, P., Balkin, D. & Gianiodis, P. (2004) Entrepreneurship and university based technology

transfer, Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), pp. 241–263.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage).

Miller, C. C., Cardinal, L. B. & Glick, W. H. (1997) Retrospective reports in organizational research: A reexa-

mination of recent evidence, Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), pp. 189–204.

Morgan, K. (1997) The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal, Regional Studies, 31(5),

pp. 491–503.

Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, 5(1), pp. 14–37.

Nooteboom, B. (2003) Problems and solutions in knowledge transfer, in: D. Fornahl & T. Brenner (Eds)

Cooperation, Networks and Institutions in Regional Innovation Systems, pp. 105–127 (Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar).

Parker, R., Hine, D. & Eastwood, S. (2009) Developing capabilities for ongoing learning and change in intermedi-

ary programs, in: Enhancing the Innovation Environment: Proceedings of the 10th International CINet Con-

ference, September 6–8, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

QMI Solutions. (2009) Available at http://www.qmisolutions.com.au/main.asp?pn=overview (accessed 18 July

2009).

Rodrıguez-Castellanos, A., Hagemeister, M. & Ranguelov, S. (2010) Absorptive capacity for R&D: The identi-

fication of different firm profiles, European Planning Studies, 18(8), pp. 1267–1283.

Sapsed, J., Grantham, A. & DeFillippi, R. (2007) A bridge over troubled waters: Bridging organisations and

entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging sectors, Research Policy, 36(9), pp. 1314–1334.

Schreyogg, G. & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007) How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-

process model of capability dynamization, Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), pp. 913–933.

Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy (New York: Guilford Press).

Suvinen, N., Konttinen, J. & Nieminen, M. (2010) How necessary are intermediary organizations in the commer-

cialisation of research? European Planning Studies, 18(9), pp. 1365–1389.

Teece, D. (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise

performance, Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), pp. 1319–1350.

Todorova, G. & Durisin, B. (2007) Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization, Academy of Management

Review, 32(3), pp. 774–786.

Van den Bosch, F., Van Wijk, R. & Volberda, H. (2003) Absorptive capacity: Antecedents, models and outcomes,

in: M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds) The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowl-

edge Management, pp. 278–302 (Oxford: Blackwell).

Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P. & Lyles, J. A. (2008) Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-

analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences, Journal of Management Studies, 45(4),

pp. 830–853.

Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A. & Knockaert, M. (2008) Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry:

Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries, Research Policy, 37(8), pp. 1205–1223.

Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

Zahra, S. & George, G. (2002) Absorptive capacity: A review, conceptualization and extension, Academy of Man-

agement Review, 27(2), pp. 185–203.

Zollo, M. & Winter, S. (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities, Organization

Science, 13(3), pp. 339–351.

14 R. Parker & D. Hine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

], [

Dam

ian

Hin

e] a

t 16:

42 2

9 A

pril

2013