The content for this presentation slides were taken from Nancy Dixon's Common Knowledge. This presentation slides were created by students from Essential of Knowledge Management, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.

1. Group Members:
Muhammad Naim Lau 13730
Teh Hong Teng 13923
Sara Shafrina binti Azaman 13910

2. 1. Introduction of Far Transfer
2. One example of Far Transfer from the book by
Nancy Dixon
3. Personal example for Far Transfer
4. Criteria related to Far Transfer based on personal
example
5. The design guidelines of the Far Transfer

4.  Far transfer is the transfer of expert
knowledge from a source team to a receiving
team that are doing similar work
 The task in far transfer is frequent and non-
routine in nature
 Knowledge transferred is largely tacit than
explicit

5. Definition Tacit knowledge a team has gained from
doing a non-routine task is made available
to other teams doing similar work in another
part of the organization.
Similarity of task and The receiving team does a task similar to
context that of the source team but in a different
context that of the source team but in a
different context
Nature of the task Frequent and non routine
Type of Knowledge Tacit
Example Peers travel to assist a team dealing with a
unique oil exploration site. The collaboration
provides new approaches.

7. British Petroleum’s
Barden Exploration
Helen’s Team Peer Assist Team
Petroleum 3 From Norway 1 From South
2 Geophysicist Geologist 1 From Scotland 2 From London
Engineer Office Africa

8. 1. Identify possible candidates for experts
2. Finalize list of candidates and set meeting
date and send relevant data and information
to peer assist
3. Define objectives needed from the peer
assist on meeting day
4. Discussion, explanation and clarification of
problem
5. List of possible solutions and evaluation
6. Finalize decision

11. Team A shares their
Team A from Germany Team B from Malaysia
knowledge with Team B
Team A in Germany consists of several Team A from Germany will then come to
When a new model is launched in
members who responsible for the new Malaysia to share their knowledge and
Malaysia, local mechanics of Team B
model (e.g. engine, transmission, experience with the Team B from
lack of knowledge on this new model
suspension, etc.) Malaysia

13. 1. Who the intended receiver of the knowledge
is in terms of similarity of task and context
2. How routine and frequent the task is
3. The kind of knowledge that is being
transferred

14.  How similar are the task and the context of the
receiving team(s) to those of the source team?
◦ Both of the teams are doing the similar task where they
are going to train other mechanics on the new
model, but in a different context with differing
cultures, climate, etc.
 Does the receiving teams(s) have the absorptive
capacity to implement what source team has
developed?
◦ The absorptive capacity of teams may vary by the
experience level of the team members. However, they
have at least a common knowledge base where it is
related to the automotive.

15.  How frequently does this task occur? Daily?
Monthly? Yearly?
◦ This task occurs frequently in a year as there are a
few models have to be introduced in a particular
year. As a result, it is considered as frequent.
 Is the task routine or non-routine? Are there
clear steps, or is each next step variable?
◦ The task is non-routine. Mechanism of a new model
is never done the same way twice. Each new model
has its own unique characteristics (e.g. different
engine horsepower, gear transmission, etc.)

16.  Is the knowledge of the source team primarily tacit
or explicit?
◦ The knowledge is primarily tacit. It is in the heads of the
team members where they share their experiences and
knowledge on the particular new model
 How many functional areas of the organization will
be impacted by implementing the knowledge? One
team? One division? The whole organization?
◦ The whole organization is going to be impacted by the
knowledge received in the transfer. It impacts how the
receiving team understand about the new model and in
turns, benefits the company by training other mechanics
better, which result better customer service and increase
profits.

18. 1. Exchange is reciprocal
2. Source team knowledge is translated
3. People carry the knowledge across the
organizations
4. Process is given a recognizable name

19.  Both way learning, not one way
 Both teams can benefit each other through
problem or issue solved

20.  Can be in different form to suit receiving
team
• “How can what we did be translated into something
that is usable in your situation”
 Knowledge is not usable until it has been
customized by either:
◦ Receiving team
◦ Source team

21.  People = Living database
 Has the ability to understand a specific
situation and then tailor their response to
that situation
 Can relate past similar experiences to present
situation to come up with ideas and
solutions.

22.  Every project has been given a specific name
for reference purposes
 It removes a request for knowledge from the
category of favors and places it in the realm
of legitimate business processes that produce
faster and more effective results
 Peer assist>Help team