This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
This study investigates (i) differences in knowledge intermediation strategies among knowledge and technology transfer organizations (KTTOs) and (ii) the factors that explain such differences. It uses data from 212 Canadian KTTOs. When knowledge delivery capacity (KDC) and knowledge integration capacity (KIC) dimensions of knowledge intermediation are simultaneously accounted for, four categories of KTTOs emerge, namely, (1) knowledge stores; (2) knowledge match providers; (3) knowledge integrators; and (4) knowledge brokers. This heterogeneity results in a differentiation in KTTOs' service delivery strategies. Factors that are conducive to custom-made solutions include (i) increased innovativeness; (ii) higher absorptive capacity; (iii) stronger information search and storage capabilities; (iv) effective customer knowledge management (CKM); and (v) increased networking capabilities. Larger knowledge intermediaries suffer from internal organizational stickiness that prevents them from delivering custom-made services. KTTOs with a low degree of formalization and centralization in decision-making are likely to adopt intermediation strategies aimed at reaching the largest possible number of users. Some managerial and public policy implications are drawn.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Traoré et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: