Knowledge Transfer in ’s Technology Parks

Yusof Ismaila and Suhaimi Mhd Sarifb

aFaculty of Economics and Management Sciences International Islamic University Malaysia, P.O. Box 10, 50728 , Malaysia Tel:+6 03-61964747, Fax: +603-61964850, E-mail: [email protected]

bMurdoch Business School Murdoch University, South Street, Perth, Western Australia 6150, Australia Tel:+6 18-93602837, Fax: +6 18-93105004, E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT government through the provision of research grants , launching fund, and so forth. However, Malaysia’s This paper explores the views of tenant firms of technology parks were created as result of a significant Malaysia’s technology parks on knowledge transfer role played by the government. Indeed, the government among them. The sponsors of technology parks assume role is essentially vital. In fact, this agenda has been that technology parks play a significant role in incorporated into several national plans since the promoting knowledge transfer and innovation through leadership of the fourth Prime Minister. Accordingly, it the proximity among the tenants. Personal interviews has been continued with greater emphasis into a notion with the tenant firms in seven technology parks disclose of a more meaningful national innovation system under that the tenants appear to be neutral toward the role of the current Prime Minister. technology parks in promoting knowledge transfer and innovation. The study therefore suggests it is critically The government feels that a technology park is essential necessary to review the existing policies related to to spark innovation for technology competitiveness. Malaysia’s technology parks. (90 words). Likewise, many firms also perceived potentially vast benefits when they operate in a technology park. Indeed, Keywords a technology park is often surrounded by knowledge- based institutions such as universities, research Innovation, Knowledge Transfer, Technology Parks organisations, and government offices. Accordingly, these firms may gain immediate benefits through their 1.0 INTRODUCTION proximity with the knowledge-based organisations for better profitability, improvement on innovation capability and increasing investments on research and In recent years, the pressure of competition and development (R&D). innovation has ‘forced’ many countries (including under the developed countries) to establish a technology park (or its equivalent) to promote knowledge transfer and A technology park provides an instant proximity among innovation. Malaysia is no exception. Indeed, the tenant firms for better knowledge transfer and establishment of Malaysia’s technology parks is innovation. However, they were skepticisms about the essential to attract both foreign and local companies to role of a technology park due to geographical proximity. operate thereon. Despite interchangeable usage of the Macdonald (1998) contends that geographic proximity term technology parks as technology incubators or to knowledge-based institutions alone does not industrial parks (AISP, 2005), many countries have immediately encourage for knowledge transfer and made a strong conviction to give technology park a role innovation. This is because proximity is not directly in the economy . related to knowledge sharing essential for knowledge transfer. Nevertheless, a technology park is still useful at least to establish a network related to individuals The main reason to use a technology parks in the within and outside the firms. economy is to replicate the success stories of renowned technology parks in the United States such as Silicon Valley, Route 128 and Stanford Industrial Park. Another explanation is that knowledge may flow Consequently, many countries (developed and under through formal and informal knowledge networks. developed countries) believe that they need to follow Normally firms will prefer formal knowledge networks, similar approach if they wish to develop a competitive which may not be welcome by their individual economy technologically. members. This situation makes it unlikely to have greater knowledge networks. However, geographical proximity can give a chance to motivate individuals to Private sector plays a great role in those popular share and transfer knowledge anywhere and anytime. technology parks despite the assistance from the Currently, there are a few governments’ sponsored

642 technology parks such as Kulim Hi-Tech Park (Kulim, specificity is resulted from the specialization of jobs in Kedah), Seri Iskandar Technology Park (Seri Iskandar, organizations. For instance, the narrower the Perak), Technology Park Malaysia (, Wilayah knowledge, the more specialized it becomes, and Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur), Selangor Science Park thereby difficult to exchange. (Serdang, Selangor), Johor Technovation Park (Skudai, Johor), MTDC-UPM Park (UPM Selangor), and Needless to say, knowledge transfer is not a new issue Park (Cyberjaya, Wilayah Persekutuan because of its vital role in promoting innovation that is ). All of these technology parks give great crucial for economic growth. Moreover, knowledge is advantages to many technology-based firms (local and valued as a prominent economic resource for foreign) because they can access to good environment, organizations (Drucker, 1995). Indeed, the essence of world -class innovation facilities, and commercial knowledge is appraised by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) networking. into three matters:

In short, a technology park is essential and necessary to First, knowledge is unlike information about beliefs encourage knowledge transfer and innovation for a and commitment. Knowledge is a function of a sustainable economic prospect. In doing so, a good particular stance, perspective, or intention. Second, policy is necessary to give significant role to a knowledge, unlike information, about action. It is technology park to play its part. always to ‘some end.’ And third, knowledge, like information, is about meaning. It is context -specific This paper is organised in the following manner. Section and rational (pp.1-2). 1 gives an overview about the study and the importance of a technology park. The elaboration is explained in Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) also classify knowledge Section 2, which includes a literature review on into two categories: tacit and explicit. In one hand, tacit knowledge, knowledge transfer and a few barriers to an knowledge is embedded in individual’s experience, effective knowledge transfer among firms. The research therefore difficult to codify for the usage of knowledge methodology is discussed in Section 3, which also receiver, so does to share or transfer. Before it can be includes important interview questions. Subsequently, codified, those who have knowledge must be willing to Section 4 highlights important findings from personal share face-to-face with those who do not (Hansen, interviews. The discussions and implications are Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). On the other, explicit discussed in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes knowledge (Nonaka, 1995) that has been codified using some important points of the study. computer can be easily transferred (Hansen et al., 1999).

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW Since knowledge is valuable, knowledge creation and acquisition are equally crucial to organizations (McEvily, Das, & McCabe, 2000; Teece, Pisano, & Knowledge has been essential substance in improving Shuen, 1997). Different mechanisms must be used for human civilisation despite its abstract nature. This different types of knowledge, such as a document suggests that there was a significant knowledge transfer exchange mechanism for codified knowledge and in the previous economy despite knowing that personal contact for tacit knowledge (Gupta & knowledge transfer is difficult. Apart from the nature of Govindarajan, 2000b). Tacit knowledge may be knowledge per se, there are a few factors that may transferred informally through socialization and inhibit the possibility for knowledge transfer. However, internalization mechanisms (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) knowledge is more crucial in the knowledge-based such as mentoring and storytelling (Swap, Leonard, economy due to the role of knowledge in promoting Shields, & Abrams, 2001). innovation. This is because the basis of today’s competition is on innovation. Knowledge also can be generated through sharing of experience among people (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Despite the difficulty of the knowledge transfer process, Leonard & Sensiper, 1998). Studies show that sharing knowledge is still essential in the economy. Policy through mentoring has a great effect on job satisfaction makers and sponsors of technology parks need to give and retention (Mullen, 1994) because people are better special attention to the following factors namely understood and absorb knowledge from their mentors knowledge specificity, organizational policy, employee rapidly (Mullen & Noe, 1999). motivation, knowledge networks, economic attributes of knowledge, the establishment of Malaysia’s technology The process of internalization related to learning by parks and the instrument for innovation. doing while socialization related to sharing of experience (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Before sharing 2.1 Knowledge Specificity of experience becomes knowledge, the learner should be familiar with the context (Schacter, 1996). Knowledge transfer process can be ineffective in the presence of knowledge specificity. Knowledge

643 People use storytelling as a method to narrate past management recognizes financial knowledge sought managerial actions, such as behaviors of the employees, through formal knowledge system the same applies to events occurred inside and outside organizations (Swap technical knowledge (Macdonald, 1992). Nevertheless, et al., 2001) in which tend to be common topics (Martin, if external knowledge is significantly crucial, firms may Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983). Even though resort to internalize it through formal collaboration storytelling enables those who possess experience to arrangements (Dodgson, 1993). In any collaboration, share some knowledge with greater contextual details employees will have more interaction (Whipp, (Swap et al., 2001), it may not be encoded closely to the Rosenfeld, & Pettigrew, 1989) – formal or informal intention of the storyteller (Schank, 1990). In addition, with electronic or face-to-face (Davenport & Prusak, critical skills are still transferred through formal 1998). Indeed, informal knowledge networks move education or training (Swap et al., 2001). In short, tacit faster than formal knowledge networks (Macdonald, knowledge transferability may well be categorized as 1996). ‘neither necessary nor possible’ which is not as easy as many people think (Lamberton, 1997, p.79). In general many organizations tend to believe that formal knowledge network is more reliable and less In summary, a technology park provides geographical worrisome than informal knowledge network proximity to allow more opportunities for knowledge (Macdonald, 1992a). This is apparent particularly the transfer. This approach is possible for people to transfer tacit or non codified knowledge because individual knowledge through socialization (interaction) manner. capability is practical than organizational capacity (Daft, Nevertheless, this is possible for common knowledge as Sormunen, & Parks, 1988). In addition, the process of specific knowledge requires more than a technology creating and sharing knowledge is natural to people. park. However, the sponsors of technology parks and the management of the firm can provide full support by Needless to say, it seems impossible for innovation just facilitating knowledge transfer among tenant firms. to rely solely on internal knowledge. This belief is true when organizations are not well equipped with 2.2 Organizational Policy sophisticated mechanism to stock all kind of knowledge. Furthermore, it is costly to do it alone. Therefore, it is more practical to use both internal and external Another difficulty that can reduce the effectiveness of knowledge sharing among firms is the organizational knowledge for innovation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). policy. There are two situations making the difficulty In a nutshell, organizational policy of tenant firms in intensified. On the one hand, some firms may regard knowledge as valuable asset to them, and thereby technology parks has a role in knowledge transfer becomes a source of organizational competitiveness. process. Accordingly, if tenant firms prefer to operate on restrictive management approach, then their presence Accordingly, if knowledge is exchanged among firms, even though it may be commercially advantageous, in technology parks will give less impact. many firms may be at competitive disadvantage in the 2.3 Employee Motivation long run. On the other hand, knowledge that is acquired through the knowledge sharing may not always be suitable and match the organizational system. Therefore, Apart from the difficulty to transfer knowledge caused many organizations pay extra caution to share by the policy of organizations; employees may knowledge with other firms . reluctantly or half-heartedly share knowledge with ‘outsiders’ (Lei, Slocum, & Pitts, 1999). This can be In formulating organizational strategy all sort of caused by at least two reasons: motivation and rewards knowledge are required, either acquired formally or (Greensberg, 1987; Alexender & Ruderman, 1987; informally because knowledge can be creatively Folger & Konovsky, 1989). In term of motivation, modified to fit in the system of organizations. Some employees may share knowledge based on what has firms are reluctant to allow knowledge creation outside been prescribed only. their organizational boundaries. This type of behaviour is called the ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome (Macdonald, Managers realize the importance of knowledge sharing 1996, p.222; 1998, pp.99-102), which may deprive the between employees, but many do not give appropriate senior management from using knowledge externally rewards (Lei, Slocum, & Pitts, 1999). Rewards include obtained from informal knowledge networks in extrinsic and intrinsic. Employees may not want to formulating strategy (Macdonald, 1996). Essentially contribute if they receive no rewards in return. Such firms are not so furious about informal knowledge as behavior has to do with economic exchange theory that long as it does not threaten the management control individuals will behave according to rational self- (Macdonald, 1993). interest (Bock & Kim, 2002). Social exchange theory includes intrinsic rewards to motivate employees to In addition, many firms regarded knowledge obtained share their experience, knowledge and insights with from informal networks as a supplement only others of within or without. (Macdonald, 1996). This is because if senior

644 Essentially, employees also play a significant role in the inventor chooses to patent each single invention, then knowledge transfer process. The geographical proximity there will be no further advancement (Macdonald, in a technology park is necessary to intensify knowledge 2004). interactions among employees. However, they need a close monitoring and facilitation from the management In term of knowledge exchange mechanism, knowledge of their firm to create more useful knowledge for is transferred rapidly through informal knowledge themselves and their firms. networks than formal networks because of formal knowledge networks are constrained by the policy of 2.4 Knowledge Networks organizations. Nevertheless, knowledge exchange through informal networks is not well addressed The nature of knowledge networks is related to (Macdonald, 1992). This is because of the economic telecommunications, and in turn, knowledge technology characteristics of knowledge also may create ‘buy and (IT). Then, the intensity usage of IT equipment sell’ activity (Macdonald, 1996, p.222). If it is represents the efficient handling of knowledge. Many considered as ‘economic good’, then it can be purchased countries tempted to measure IT usage by firms such as through knowledge networks (Macdonald & Williams, Japan, United Kingdom; however, such conviction lacks 1992, p.79). However, most firms often ‘jealously’ of evident (Macdonald, 1992). In addition, the concern protect their knowledge from becoming public good is heavily emphasized on ‘technology’ rather than (Macdonald & Williams, 1992, p.81). ‘knowledge’. For instance, in any technology transfer, the essence is the transfer of ‘know-how’ from those Needless to say, the commercial attribute of knowledge who have it to those who do not; not the machinery is commendable as long as it does not affect severely (Macdonald, Lamberton, & Mandeville, 1983). the knowledge transfer process. Nevertheless, the operation under a technology park is sufficient to The idea of Research and Development (R&D) has been convince tenant firms to exchange knowledge among institutionalized as innovative centre to discover new them because they stay in similar location. knowledge but the reality ‘is to see the whole innovative process as a judicious mixing of bits of knowledge from 2.6 Malaysia’s Technology Parks diverse sources both within and without the organization’(Macdonald, 1992, p.153). Malaysia is a trading country historically even before the colonization. This is apparent because of its strategic If knowledge is crucial in innovation process, then location as trading gateway in Asia. Malaysia retains its knowledge networks are important; however, export orientation trading, which is apparent in its knowledge received from external knowledge networks national economic planning where fiscal policy is an into organizations is hardly accepted (Macdonald, important source to attract foreign direct investment. 1992). The reluctance to accept external knowledge for The government established a dedicated place for innovation is much related to organizational policy as foreign firms to operate on capital intensive activities in ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome (Macdonald, 1998, p.99). industrial parks, industrial estates, and free trade zones (FTZ) (Sarif & Ismail, 2005). The recent venue for In short, a technology park has to provide more than operation is called a technology park. The national technology facilities to its tenant firms. Indeed, a good technology park for Malaysia started in 1996 is known management practice by the sponsors of a technology as the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC). Apart from park and tenant firms is essentially important to the MSC, there are a few technology parks, namely facilitate knowledge networking among tenant firms for Kulim Hi-Tech Park, Seri Iskandar Technology Park, better results of knowledge transfer and innovation. Technology Park Malaysia, Selangor Science Park, Johor Technovation Park, MTDC-UPM Park, and 2.5 Economics Characteristics of Knowledge Cyberjaya Park.

Knowledge can have ‘economic’ attributes when it is In order to encourage foreign companies to locate and regarded as commercial good. As an economic good, it register their operations in these clusters, the can have characteristics of public and private good government provides tax break and other financial (Macdonald & Williams, 1992). In addition, an incentive through a scheme known as ‘Bill of economic good can be tangible and intangible. Guarantee’. Therefore, until today, there are 1,340 Nevertheless, knowledge is intangible. This attribute companies already registered with MSC and 70 of them does not mean knowledge is a free good. Even when it are world-class companies (MDC, 2006). The initial is diffused freely, it is costly to those who produce the target was (in 2003) to have 500 companies registered knowledge (Von Hippel, 1987). When knowledge is with MSC and out of these 30 of them will be world- characterized as private good, the owner can impose a class companies. This is remarkable target for fee through a patent. By having patent, ownership of Malaysia’s technology parks in attracting firms. knowledge can be determined but it creates problem for the knowledge to be used for innovation. If every

645 In summary, Malaysia’s technology parks are essential across locations (Gupta & Govindarajan, 1994, 2000a, to rejuvenate Malaysian economy through knowledge 2001). base. Its traditional economic operations are inadequate to sustain its economic prospect in the long run. Governments tend to set up technology parks by giving greater emphasis on good physical buildings and 2.7 Instrument for Innovation sophisticated knowledge technology equipment. However, they pay little attention on the role knowledge Technology parks are the most popular instrument for to assist innovation (Joseph, 1994). Accordingly, a high high technology development in many countries technology area may give location advantageous to the (Joseph, 1994, p.47). Therefore, it is timely for the key employees to be part of the local knowledge policy makers to revive the role of technology park as networks but not the firms. Ultimately, they will regard an instrument to promote innovation globally (Joseph, their knowledge as their personal property rather than to 1994, pp.52-58). Table 1 summarizes some of the key use knowledge for innovation (Macdonald, 1992). success and failure factors of a technology park. Furthermore, knowledge transfer particularly specialized knowledge is done faster through individual Table 1: Success and failure factors of technology parks. knowledge networks (Von Hippel, 1987).

Success Failure Firms may be at a severe disadvantage when key Technology park is established The set up of technology park gradually over the industrial should not focus too much on employees quit together with their expertise because experience. infrastructure and facilities crucial technology competency is embedded in those buildings. personnel. When these people work for another firm, Technology park should have Technology park may not their knowledge will be beneficial to the new firm direct industrial links before its always advantageous simply establishment. because close to universities or (Macdonald, 1992). research institutions because of different objectives. The influence of national culture on knowledge Technology park must be able to ‘Technology spillovers’ or networks may be substantial, both advantages and link up with internationally technology information flow recognized institutions/industry. from science and engineering disadvantages to firms. When knowledge is highly departments in valued as any other economic goods, then the tendency university/research instit utions to hoard will prevail (Macdonald & Williams, 1992). may not be effective through Accordingly, this mercantilist attitude will create formal networks. Technology park also must be There is lack of evidence a economic imbalance (Macdonald, 2004). This attitude attractive to both local and global technology park can be becomes worse when firms decide to refrain from companies. profitable. giving training to employees. For example, British firms Technology park should not Technology park may not at one time were reluctant to train their employees highly depending on few effective to achieve its because they were afraid that employee mobility to universities or research objectives because of the institutions for a specific strength. government intervention. other firms will leak their trade secrets (Macdonald, Source: Joseph (1994, p. 53). 1992). In fact, in many cases firms more often learn from their employees rather than developed ideas Accordingly, technology parks should facilitate themselves (Truran, 1998). knowledge transfer for innovation. Furthermore, with sophisticated knowledge mechanisms, the innovation Not all knowledge is available in public domain. process can be more radical instead of incremental Strategic knowledge that is crucial to policy formulation (Macdonald, 1998). Otherwise, the term ‘technology will be sealed and hoarded. Not only private firms do park’ will no longer be appropriate and should be so, the government may hoard knowledge and replaced with ‘business’ or ‘enterprise’ park if it sometimes urge the private firms to follow its footstep malfunctioned to promote knowledge transfer among its (Macdonald & Williams, 1992, p.85). tenants (Joseph, 1994, p.55). In short, knowledge is essential for innovation. A If knowledge is crucial for innovation, then why is it technology park has a role to encourage tenant firms to difficult transfer knowledge among firms? Broadly participate in knowledge transfer for innovation. speaking, there are many reasons that underlie knowledge transfer among firms. In fact, the most 3.0 METHODOLOGY crucial reason may be attributed to the notion of knowledge itself. Besides the specificity attribute of 3.1 Objectives of the Study knowledge, there are also related factors such as the choice of knowledge networks, economically attributed The objectives of the study are to explore the views on knowledge, convergence of knowledge and innovation tenant firms operating in seven technology parks in policy, inflexible organizational policy and managerial Malaysia, namely Kulim Hi-Tech Park, Seri Iskandar attitude towards knowledge exchange between firms. Technology Park, Technology Park Malaysia, Selangor Therefore knowledge transfer should be maximized Science Park, Johor Technovation Park, MTDC-UPM

646 Park, and Cyberjaya Park regarding the role of not reply the e-ma il. In total, there were fifteen technology parks in promoting knowledge transfer and informants from seven technology parks in Malaysia. innovation among tenant firms. The answers from the Out of fifteen, there was one senior manager, five stakeholders would give us some insights into managers, and nine business executives (Table 2). Their knowledge transfer within the context of Malaysia’s training background is shown in Table 3. technology parks. Table 2: Technology parks and informants (N=15) 3.2 Importance of the Study Technology Parks Informants Kulim Hi-Tech Park, Two business This study is significant to understand how proximity in Kedah (KTP) executives a technology park enables knowledge transfer among Seri Iskandar Technology Two business tenant firms. This is because proximity promotes greater Park, Perak (STP) executives Technology Park Two managers and trust and confidence among tenant firms to participate in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur two business knowledge transfer. If the firms are still skeptical, the (TPM) executives sponsors of Malaysia’s technology park may have to Selangor Science Park, One senior manager revise their policies on technology parks and innovation. Shah Alam (SSP) and two business In the knowledge-based economy context, knowledge executives transfer among firms plays a crucial role to promote Johor Technovation Park, One manager and one innovation. Johor Baru (JTP) business executive MTDC-UPM Park, One manager 3.3 Research Questions Serdang (MUP) Cyberjaya Park, One manager In general, knowledge is produced with a set of data and Cyberjaya (CBP) information. Technical and commercial knowledge is useful for innovation, resulting in commercialization. In Table 3: Informants’ training background the technology parks’ setting, tenant firms should (N=15) optimize their presence in the technology parks to Informant Academic Background acquire, exchange, and use knowledge for innovation. A 1. BE 1, KTP Business (IT) 2. BE 2, KTP Marketing few questions were formulated based on the literature 3. BE 3, STP Marketing and assumptions about the role of a technology park in 4. BE 4, STP Information Security promoting knowledge transfer and innovation among 5. MG 1, TPM Sales Management tenant firms: (a) how could a technology park assist 6. MG 2, TPM Accounting tenant firms for knowledge transfer? (b) what benefits 7. BE 5, TPM Marketing are available in a technology park but not elsewhere? 8. BE 6, TPM Customer Services and (c) how to comprehend the difficulties of 9. SM 1, SSP Business knowledge transfer among tenant firms? 10. BE 7, SSP Business 11. BE 8, SSP Administration Services 3.4 Data Collection Method 12. MG 3, JTP Business Management 13. BE 9, JTP Sales & Marketing The study used personal interviews. The method is 14. MG 4, MUP Marketing adopted to help us understand the underlying context, 15. MG 5, CBP Business Services which could not otherwise have been conveyed by the use of quantitative methods, such as survey The interview used a note-taking approach and took (Wainwright, 1997; Patton, 1990). Interview also place at various places (often outside the office). After enables the research to continue probing and verifying the interview process, the notes were typed and the knowledge from the same interviewees. The findings hardcopy sent to the interviewees for verification. The from interviews help generalizations and theories (Ezzy, copy was considered final after the expiration of two 2002). By interviewing the stakeholders, the study is weeks, as indicated in the transmittal letter to the able to learn about various issues, especially in relation interviewees. to the social and cultural contexts (Myers, 2000). 4.0 FINDINGS The interviews were conducted with tenant firms located in Malaysia’s technology parks, from May The findings did not reveal the actual name of the through June 2005. The informants in this study were interviewees and their respective organizations to approached by visiting technology parks and prompted maintain anonymity. to give their views regarding knowledge transfer among tenant firms. This method seems to be practical due to Technology parks seem to have a little role to promote the geographical location of technology parks. Prior to knowledge transfer among the tenants due to their the visit, potential informants were contacted through e- business objectives. Informant 1 says ‘the management mail, but the method was not successful when they did of this technology park does its own job,’ which is

647 described by Informant 7 as ‘sorts of town council for reviewed to enable meaningful knowledge transfer to high technology clustering.’ There could be real materialize . Each firm should differentiate between knowledge transfer, argues Informant 9 if ‘they [the knowledge critical for their survival and that contributes parks] know more about high technology.’ For instance, toward the longevity of the industry. Restrictive secrecy Informant 1 relates his technology park as ‘the idea of policies may disable knowledge transfer, which is the state government only.’ Informants 5, 6, 7, 8, 14 crucial for innovation. and 15 pointed out that the firms operate in technology parks under ‘the MSC status’ in order to quality for The immediate policy implication is that the current government tenders and tax cuts. policies related to Malaysia’s technology parks are inadequate to promote knowledge transfer and Each tenant firm has its own goals and objectives innovation among tenant firms. Likewise, the although doing similar business activities (Informants 3, management approach with individual tenant firms also 4, and 13). While acknowledging the role of employees requires substantial review so that the tenants can gain and knowledge networks in knowledge transfer, knowledge and engage in innovation while stationing at Informant 3 emphasizes that ‘an informal network is the technology park, instead of relying primarily on important not only for companies, but also to fiscal incentives (i.e. tax cuts). employees.’ Informant 13 points out that ‘people will go for higher pay, and they are not concerned much about 6.0 CONCLUSION knowledge transfer.’ Regarding informal networks, Informant 10 says ‘if the management wants us to share, In conclusion, technology parks in Malaysia play a very we will share whether inside our company or outside.’ little role to promote innovation through knowledge In this regard, the policy of each tenant firm may be the transfer among tenant firms. Knowledge specificity may obstacle for knowledge transfer. However, informants 2, only reduce the effectiveness of knowledge transfer, but 11, and 12 disagree because knowledge resides with the strict organizational policy will disable knowledge employees. Informant 11 says ‘our skilled employees transfer. Employee plays an important role in activating share their experience with customers in exhibitions or knowledge transfer due to his ability to integrate formal conferences without any reward.’ There are people who and informal networks. Government officials, the love knowledge and they will share with others managers of technology parks, and tenant firms should voluntarily. Informant 12 argues ‘monetary rewards do review the current policies, and formulate options that not always motivate us to share our knowledge.’ would make technology parks a place that promotes ‘Money is good, but not always good,’ concludes innovation via knowledge transfer. Informant 11. REFERENCES

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The 5.0 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice .in Organizational Behavior. Social Justice The government has done a good job by establishing Research, 1, 117-198. technology parks in Malaysia to encourage knowledge Berrell, M., Gloet, M., & Wright, P. (2002). transfer for innovation. The job however seems partially Organisational Learning in International complete when the management of technology parks has Joint Ventures: Implications for not made bold initiatives to create higher value among Management Development. The Journal of tenant firms. It appears that each technology park has its Management Development, 21(2), 83-85. own goals, which is not synchronous with the national Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking policy (i.e. the knowledge economy). The dynamic idea the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory of the government remains excellent only on paper Study of Attitudes about Knowledge when it receives low level of support from the industry Sharing. Information Resources and tenant firms. The industry inevitably should be Management Journal, 15(2), 14-21. interested to benefit from fiscal incentives and tax cuts Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). but these should not distract them from intensifying Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective knowledge transfer initiatives for their long-term on Learning and Innovation. survival. Clearly, the government should review the Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), matter together with the management of various 128-132. technology parks. Daft, R. L., Sormunen, J., & Parks, D. (1988). Chief Executive Scanning Environmental The debate whether the employees would transfer Characteristics and Company Performance: knowledge if they get higher pay is not the main issue An Empirical Study. Strategic Management because some employees may exchange knowledge Journal, 9(2), 123-139. voluntarily if they perceive benefits for the country or Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). themselves (i.e. to get a better job opportunity). Working Knowledge: How Organizations ‘Confidentiality’ policy within tenant firms needs to be Manage What They Know. Boston, Mass:

648 Harvard Business School Press. Joseph, R. A. (1997). Political Myth, High Dodgson, M. (1993). Technological Technology and the Information Collaboration in Industry : Strategy, Policy, Superhighway: An Australian Perspective. and Internationalization in Innovation. Telematics and Informatics, 14(3), 289-301. London: Routledge. Lamberton, D. M. (1997). The Knowledge- Drucker, P. F. (1995). Managing in a Time of Based Economy: A Sisyphus Model. Great Change. Oxford: Butterworth- Prometheus, 15, 73-81. Heinemann. Lei, D., Slocum, J. W., & Pitts, R. A. (1999). Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. Designing Organizations for Competitive (2002). Management Research: An Advantage: the Power of Unlearning and Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Learning. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), Edwards, R., Ahmad, A., & Moss, S. (2002). 24-38. Subsidiary autonomy: The Case of Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The Role of Multinational Subsidiaries in Malaysia. Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, California Management Review, 40(3), 112- 33(1), 183-187. 115. Ezzy, D. Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Macdonald, S. (1992). Information Networks Innovation. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & and the Exchange of Information. In Unwin, 2002. Antonelli, C. (Ed.) The Economics of Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects Information Networks. Amsterdam: North of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Holland, 51-69. Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Academy Macdonald, S. (1992a). Formal Collaboration of Management Journal, 32, 115-130. and Informal Information Flow. Foong, S.Y. (1999). Effect of End-User International Journal of Technology Management, Personal and Systems Attributes on 7(1-3), 49-60. Computer-Based Information System Macdonald, S. (1993). Noting either Good or Success in Malaysian SMEs. Journal of Bad: Industrial Espionage and Small Business Management, 37(3), 81-86. Technological Transfer. International Greensberg, J. (1987). Reactions to Procedural Journal of Technology Management, 8(1-2), Justice in Payment Decisions: Do the Means 95-105. Justify the Ends? Journal of Applied Macdonald, S. (1996). Informal Information Psychology, 72, 55-61. Flow and Strategy in the International Firm. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. V. (1994). International Journal of Technology Organizing for Knowledge Flows within Management, Special Issue on Informal MNCs. International Business Review, 3(4), Information Flow, 11(1-2), 219-232. 443-457. Macdonald, S. (1998). Information for Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. V. (2000a). Innovation:Managing Change from an Knowledge Flows within Multinational Information Perspective. New York: Corporations. Strategic Management Oxford University Press. Journal, 21(4), 473-479. Macdonald, S. (2004). When Means Become Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. V. (2000b). Ends: Considering the Impact of Patent Knowledge Management's Social Strategy on Innovation. Information Dimension: Lessons from Nucor Steel. Economics and Policy, 16(1), 135-158. Macdonald, Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 71-80. S., Lamberton, D. M., & Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. V. (2001). Mandeville, T. D. (Eds.). (1983). The Converting Global Presence into Global Trouble with Technology: Explorations in Competitive Advantage. The Academy of the Process of Technological Change: New Management Executive, 15(2), 45-58. York: St. Martin's Press. Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. Macdonald, S., & Williams, C. (1992). The (1999). What's Your Strategy for Managing Informal Information Network in an Age of Knowledge? Harvard Business Review, Advanced Telecommunications. Human 77(2), 106-116. Systems Management, 11(2), 77-87. Jabnoun, N., & Balakrishnan, V. (2000). Mani, S. (2002). Government, Innovation and Participation and Job Performance in the Technology Policy: An International Malaysian Public Service Department. Comparative Analysis (New Horizons in International Journal of Commerce & the Economics of Innovation). Cheltenham, Management, 10(3/4), 56-60. UK: Edward Elgar. Joseph, R. A. (1994). New Ways to Make Martin, J., Feldman, M., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, Technology Parks More Relevant. S.(1983). The Uniqueness Paradox in Prometheus, 12(1), 46-61. Organizational Stories. Administrative

649 Science Quarterly, 28(3), 438-453. in the Knowledge Economy? Networks and McEvily, S. K., Das, S., & McCabe, K. (2000). Boundaryless Jobs as a Career Strategy in Avoiding Competence Substitution the ICT and Multimedia Sector. through Knowledge Sharing. Academy of Communications & Strategies, 49(1), 81- Management Journal, 25(2), 294-311. 106. Mohannak, K. (2004). Innovation and Truran, W. R. (1998). Pathways for Clustering among Information Technology Knowledge: How Companies Learn Through firms in Melbourne. Prometheus, 22(1), 81- People. Engineering Management Journal, 98. 10(4), 15-20. Mullen, E. J. (1994). Framing the Mentoring Von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperation between Relationship as an Information Exchange. Rivals: Informal Know-How Trading. Human Resource Management Review, Research Policy, 16(6), 291-302. 4(3), 257-281. Wainwright, D. (1997). Can Sociological Mullen, E. J., & Noe, R. A. (1999). The Research Be Qualitative, Critical, and Mentoring Information Exchange: When Valid? The Qualitative Report 3. Do Mentors Seek Information from Their Whipp, R., Rosenfeld, R., & Pettigrew, A. Proteges? Journal of Organizational (1989). Managing Strategic Change in A Behaviour, 20(2), 233-242. Mature Business. Long Range Planning, Multimedia Development Corporation (MDC) 22(6), 92-99. (2006). MSC Status Application. Retrieved on 5 January from http://www.mdc.com.my Myers, M.D. (2000). Qualitative Research in Information Systems . MIS Quarterly 21: 241-42. Nonaka, I. (1995). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-20. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create The Dynamics of Innovation? New York: Oxford University Press. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Sarif, S.M. & Ismail, Y. (2005). The Search for Indigenous Technology within Malaysian Economic Policies. National Conference on Management of Technology and Technology Entrepreneurship (MOTTE), Johor Bahru, 31 May -2 June. Schacter, D. L. (1996). Searching for Memory. New York: Basic Books. Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell Me a Story. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using Mentoring and Storytelling to Transfer Knowledge in the Workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 95-114. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-521. Ticehurst, G. W., & Veal, A. J. (2000). Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach. New South Wales, Australia: Pearson Education Pty Ltd. Tremblay, D.-G. (2003). New Types of Careers

650