Silveira, Franciane Freitas; Sbragia, Roberto; Lopez-Vega, Henry; Tell, Fredrik

doi:10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.007

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Administração (São Paulo)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Technology Management • Rev. Adm. (São Paulo) 52 (2) • Apr/Jun 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.007 copiar

Factores determinantes de la transferencia inversa de conocimiento en multinacionales de mercados emergentes: el papel de la complejidad, la autonomía y la integración

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumen

Filiales realizan actividades de innovación en los mercados extranjeros, ya sea para capturar el conocimiento valioso que es necesario para adaptar sus productos a los mercados locales, o con el fin de crear conocimiento de alto valor para su sede. Respecto a las multinacionales de mercados emergentes, en la mayor parte de los estudios no se ha dado la debida atención a los factores determinantes de la transferencia de conocimiento a partir de filiales (transferencia inversa). En este estudio se analizan las respuestas de una encuesta realizada a 78 multinacionales brasileñas que poseen filiales en mercados desarrollados y emergentes. Los resultados indican que la complejidad del conocimiento desarrollado en la filial, así como su autonomía e inserción en el mercado externo determinan el flujo de transferencia inversa de conocimiento en la empresa multinacional emergente. Con este trabajo, se colabora al desarrollo de los estudios acerca de la transferencia inversa de conocimiento, con énfasis en los principales drivers para las multinacionales de mercados emergentes.

Palabras clave:
Transferencia inversa de conocimiento; Multinacionales emergentes; Multinacionales brasileñas

Statistics	1. Age	2. Country	3. Complexity	4. Autonomy	5. Embeddedness	6. RKT
Correlation with RKT	−0.150	0.350	0.270	0.300	0.410	1000
Composite reliability	1	1	0.890	0.880	0.900	0.870
Disattenuated correlation with RKT (using CR)	0.161	0.375	0.307	0.343	0.463
Attenuation	−0.011	0.025	0.307	0.343	0.053

Variables	Mean	S.D.	AVE	C.R.	C.A.	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	10.8	11.1				1.00
2. Country	-	-				0.13	1.00
3. Complexity	3.7	1.1	0.61	0.89	0.86	−0.18	0.19	0.78
4. Autonomy	3.2	1.0	0.55	0.88	0.90	0.07	0.17	0.03	0.74
5. Embeddedness	3.0	1.0	0.53	0.90	0.87	0.08	0.28	0.02	0.07	0.73
6. Reverse Transfer	3.0	1.0	0.54	0.87	0.83	−0.15	0.35	0.27	0.30	0.41	0.73

H	Path from	To	Full model		Control model		Theoretical model		Effect size (f²)
			β	p-Values	β	p-Values	β	p-Values
	Age	RKT	−0.182	0.01^ p≤ 0.01.	−0.212	0.00^* ***** p≤ 0.001
	Country	RKT	0.195	0.04^* * p≤ 0.05.	0.408	0.00^* ***** p≤ 0.001
H1	Autonomy	RKT	0.188	0.04^* * p≤ 0.05.			0.252	0.01^ p≤ 0.01.	0.05
H2	Complexity	RKT	0.246	0.01^ p≤ 0.01.			0.262	0.00^* ***** p≤ 0.001	0.08
H3	Embeddednes	RKT	0.351	0.00^* ***** p≤ 0.001			0.395	0.00^* ***** p≤ 0.001	0.15

Reverse transfer R²		0.36		0.19		0.30
ΔR²				0.17		0.06

	Indicators	Authors
Dependent variables
Reverse knowledge transfer (RKT)	1.1 Development of new production process; 1.2 Development of new equipment and/or tools; 1.3 Development of new products; 1.4 Know-how and expertise in the form of plans, models, instructions, guides, formulas, specifications, designs, plans, technical drawings, and/or prototypes to design new products; 1.5 Results of research into new materials and specifications; 1.6 Results of research and development (R&D) into new product generations.	Ariffin and Figueiredo (2003); Bell and Pavitt (1995); Iammarino et al. (2008); Lall (1992); Yang et al. (2008)
Independent variables
Complexity	2.1 Its understanding requires prior learning from other related technological knowledge; 2.2 Its understanding requires a large amount of information; 2.3 It is the product of many interdependent routines, individuals and resources; 2.4 It includes many different skills or competencies; 2.5 It is technologically sophisticated and difficult to deploy; 2.6 It is complex (vs. simple)	Simonin (2004); Zander and Kogut (1995)
Autonomy	3.1 Implementation of changes in products and services; 3.2 Development of new products and services; 3.3 Implementation of changes in production processes; 3.4 Entry into new markets in the country; 3.5 Procurement and supply chain management; 3.6. Management of Purchasing and Supply Chain; 3.7 Hiring and firing of the subsidiary workforce.	Ghoshal and Nohria (1989); Birkinshaw et al. (1998); Rabiosi (2011)
External embeddedness (with customers, suppliers)	4.1 Customers/suppliers has fully participated in the development of technological knowledge in the subsidiary; 4.2 Customers/suppliers showed important initiatives for the development of technological knowledge in the subsidiary; 4.3 Customers/suppliers satisfied the requirements in developing technological knowledge in the subsidiary; 4.4 The technological subsidiary knowledge was partially developed within this Customers/suppliers' premises; 4.5 The cooperation with customers/suppliers has been characterized by frequent interactions.	Lane and Lubatkin (1998),
		Andersson et al. (2005) and
		Najafi-Tavani et al. (2013)
Moderating variables
Subsidiary's location	5.1 Low-income countries (0); 5.2 High-income countries (1)	Cantwell and Mudambi (2005)
Subsidiary's age	6.1 subsidiaries under 10 years old (0); 6.2 Subsidiaries with over 10 years old (1)	Ambos and Schlegelmilch (2007); Rabiosi (2011)

Departamento de Administração da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo Avenida Professor Luciano Gualberto, 908, sala F184, 05508-900 São Paulo / SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 3818-4002 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rausp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author at: Alameda da Universidade, s/nº - CEP 09606-045, São Bernardo do Campo, SP, Brazil. E-mail:franciane.silveira@ufabc.edu.br (F.F. Silveira).