*The Management, Sharing and Transfer of Knowledge in the Oil Districts - The Case Study… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86298*

of the district companies ensure that within these realities, over time, collaborative relationships are born and strengthened, which become incubators of learning processes and knowledge sharing [14]. In IDs there is the presence of a third learning dynamic, peculiar to these realities: collective learning [47]. It differs from other types, because its scenario is represented precisely by the local context, in which unique knowledge production processes are made that cannot be reproduced in different territories. The productive vocation of the district communities is the result of specialized skills, accumulated over time, which constitute the intangible assets on which the competitiveness of the district is based. This contextual knowledge is an integral part of the competitive advantage of companies and the system. In identifying the phenomenon, the "Groupe de Recherche Européen sur les Milieux Innovateurs" (GREMI) asserts that "contextual knowledge" is an integral part of the competitive advantage of companies within the district system and that local synergies favor further innovation [48, 49]. According to some scholars [46], "Also significant in these mechanisms are the social relations between the individuals employed in different companies, in particular when the companies are not linked through organized relations. In fact, it is difficult to 'lock up' information within the companies when everything to do with productive activity takes a central position in the conversations that take place in the homes and gathering places of the district. In this way, further indirect relations are created between the contexts of the individual companies in the district." Therefore, the territorial and organizational closeness between the district actors and the network of relations that bind them stimulate collective learning mechanisms [50]. In this environment, the continuous transfer and diffusion of knowledge are in large part unplanned and unintentional. Learning takes place both through training, mobility and turnover of personnel and through processes of imitation between the companies.

In ID, the main mechanisms for knowledge transfer originate in three broad phenomena:

**Imitative behaviors**: learning from the observed examples is fundamental, particularly for highly innovative activities and products [46]. These products and activities represent packets of explicit and tacit knowledge. The two forms of knowledge can be seen as different states of the same knowledge rather than as distinct goods. Indeed, much knowledge will remain in the tacit state, awaiting the potential for future expression, codification and application [3]. In the transfer due to imitative behaviour, to be successful, the observer of the product—or the activity—must have a knowledge base and skills similar to those of the individual or team that produced the innovation.

**Mobility or human resources among local companies**: individuals within the district serve as knowledge incubators and also as "carriers" [46]. The tacit knowledge acquired and assimilated by a worker becomes part of the person and accompanies him, even in the transfer to another workplace. If the new context is similar, then this knowledge can be activated; otherwise the transfer is only apparent, without effect. The knowledge transfer mechanism can be implemented only when the corporate environments of origin and destination have a minimum level of similarity, including cognitive juxtaposition. Similarly, cognitive specificity has also been identified as a factor that inhibits inter-contextual knowledge transfer [51]. Therefore, people can play the role of knowledge carriers in a similar way to products. The activation of knowledge in the new context can only involve its owner, or the same knowledge is transferred to other people who work in the company context, through communication and imitative behaviors. The "exclusive competences" accumulated in the districts have a highly specific character, because best practices and innovations are easily appropriated within the district but spread in a limited way outside its boundaries.

*Current Issues in Knowledge Management*

**Figure 3.**

*Hub-and-spoke district.*

Furthermore, the economies of scale must be relatively large, while the turnover of companies and personnel will be relatively low, with the exception of contacts with external suppliers [45]. Economic and financial decisions regarding operations in the hub-and-spoke district are usually made at the local level; however they arise and influence situations globally. Commercial relationships between smaller suppliers and larger companies, generally, involve long-term contracts [45]. The "hub" companies can develop a certain depth of understanding and relationships with both local and external societies, which can include the exchange of personnel. However, these will not be characterized by the integration and intensity typical of the relations that characterize the Marshallian district. In the theoretical conception of the hub-and-spoke district, labour markets are usually internal to large companies—for managerial personnel—and within the district as a whole for other employees. In this sense, the situation would be less flexible than the Italian model, in which workers of all types circulate among the large and small companies of the district. Both the original Marshallian and Italian models present a situation in which the district gives rise to a single local identity and culture, with a very close

and dependent relationship of the entire district [45].

**3. Types and mechanisms of district knowledge transfer**

To understand the learning dynamics that take place in ID, it is necessary to make a distinction between learning within the company and the external one. There is a difference between production and the development of knowledge within the business environment and that which is absorbed by the external environment to it. This difference must be emphasized to clarify that the two contexts are two different generation spheres, even if they are connected in some way. In fact, the acquisition of knowledge from the outside can be functional to the improvement of the potential existing in the company, bearing in mind that this acquisition necessarily requires the existence in the company of a cognitive asset [46]. Internal learning is favored by the high level of specialization and poor formalization that characterizes the organization. The formation of the knowledge assets of the district firms is based, mainly, both on mechanisms of "learning by doing" and on interaction, the exchange of experiences and information, which arise due to the presence of stable and lasting relationships—formal and informal—which characterize the businesses of the ID and are closely linked to the high division of intercompany work. Furthermore, the strong interdependencies between the activities

**114**

**Relations between companies**: the relationships between the district companies that are part of the production chain are often vertical and involve companies that carry out different phases of a single production process [3]. More rarely they can be horizontal, between companies operating in the same phases or in similar phases of the production process. Some districts take the form of intersectoral clusters, in which there are also relationships between the companies of the district core business and the suppliers of materials and other services used in the production process [3]. The different contacts can give rise to social relations between individuals from different societies. The industrial districts therefore function as meta-contexts, characterized by a strong information transparency, in which the boundaries between company contexts are poorly defined. The phenomenon of information transparency in IDs is best represented by the Marshallian model of the industrial-social environment [45].
