Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Constantin Bratianu, Adriana Agapie and Ivona Orzea
According to Szulanski (2000) <strong>the</strong> main stages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge transfer process are <strong>the</strong> following:
initiation, implementation, ramp-up, and integration. Each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se stages contains barriers that slow
down <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> knowledge. If <strong>the</strong> university leaders want to enhance intergenerational knowledge
transfer, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>re should be implemented a strategy to motivate <strong>the</strong> source for knowledge sharing
by decreasing <strong>the</strong> stickiness <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge in <strong>the</strong> initiation phase. From academic experience we
may say that it can be done more easily by encouraging teamwork in complex research projects. This
working context seems to be suitable also for <strong>the</strong> implementation, ramp-up and integration phases.
Motivation can be developed by setting up specific criteria for academic staff promotion based on <strong>the</strong>
number, importance and scientific value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se research grants obtained through national or
international competition.
3. Research design
We considered for this research all <strong>the</strong> faculties <strong>of</strong> economics and business from <strong>the</strong> Romanian
academic consortium composed <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following universities: University <strong>of</strong> Bucharest, University
“Al.I.Cuza” <strong>of</strong> Iasi, University “Babes-Bolyai” <strong>of</strong> Cluj-Napoca, The West University <strong>of</strong> Timisoara, and
Academy <strong>of</strong> Economic Studies <strong>of</strong> Bucharest. We addressed 500 questionnaires, and we received 223
valid questionnaires from all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se universities. It is important to emphasize <strong>the</strong> fact that in this kind
<strong>of</strong> ma<strong>the</strong>matical analysis it is important <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> people participating in <strong>the</strong> quantitative
evaluation, and not <strong>the</strong>ir number. That is primarily from <strong>the</strong> main hypo<strong>the</strong>sis we made that <strong>the</strong>
knowledge field is asymmetric and highly nonuniform throughout <strong>the</strong> university. Its nonuniformity is
generating all <strong>the</strong> knowledge flows (Nissen, 2006), out <strong>of</strong> which we are interested especially in those
that represent intergenerational knowledge transfer.
The qualitative component <strong>of</strong> our research consists in structuring <strong>the</strong> knowledge transfer field within
<strong>the</strong> university and in defining <strong>the</strong> basic strategies for enhancing knowledge retention in universities,
and activities that are significant for intergenerational knowledge transfer. The whole transfer
dynamics is structured into three levels: <strong>the</strong> top level is for defining <strong>the</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> this evaluation. The
goal is enhancing knowledge retention in <strong>the</strong> university through intergenerational learning and
knowledge transfer. The next lower level is for <strong>the</strong> main strategies used for identifying <strong>the</strong> priorities <strong>of</strong>
knowledge transfer attitudes. These strategies are <strong>the</strong> following: (S1) – <strong>the</strong> strategy to stimulate <strong>the</strong>
faculty staff attitude toward cooperation; (S2) – <strong>the</strong> strategy to stimulate <strong>the</strong> faculty staff attitude
toward individual competition. The lowest level is for defining <strong>the</strong> main activities considered in this
research: (A1) – <strong>the</strong> activity done for research grants; (A2) – <strong>the</strong> activity done for writing books; (A3) –
<strong>the</strong> activity done for writing papers to be published in scientific journals. The graphical illustration <strong>of</strong>
this model is presented in figure 1.
The analytical hierarchy process includes judgments on pairs <strong>of</strong> elements throughout <strong>the</strong> hierarchy,
one level at a time beginning at <strong>the</strong> top, based on <strong>the</strong> respondent’s knowledge and according to <strong>the</strong>irs
perceived relative importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> factors involved. The most heavily weighted alternative outcome
in <strong>the</strong> bottom level is <strong>the</strong> most likely one. A survey designed according with <strong>the</strong>se principles was
electronically distributed among <strong>the</strong> academic staff <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> universities from <strong>the</strong> consortium mentioned
above. In order to understand how this was processed, a short presentation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> way in which <strong>the</strong>
questions were formulated in this survey and processed <strong>the</strong>reafter will follow. Numerical results and
interpretations will be presented in <strong>the</strong> next section <strong>of</strong> this paper.
126