biostudies-literatureLim HMErasmus+e0274771https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9488788biostudies-literatureUnknown17(9)<h4>Background</h4>Effective knowledge transfer of eLearning objects can hasten the adoption and dissemination of technology in teaching and learning. However, challenges exist which hinder inter-organisational knowledge transfer, particularly across continents. The ACoRD project aimed to transfer knowledge on digital learning development from UK/EU (provider) to Malaysian (receiver) higher education institutions (HEIs). This study explores the challenges encountered during the knowledge transfer process and lessons learned.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a qualitative study involving both the knowledge providers and receivers in focus group discussions (n = 25). Four focus group discussions were conducted in the early (n = 2) and mid-phase (n = 2) of the project by trained qualitative researchersPloS oneKnowledge transfer of eLearning objects: Lessons learned from an intercontinental capacity building project.PMC9488788598935-EPP-1-2018-1-UK-EPPKA2-CBHE-JPYong PVCYap WHAyub EStathakarou NNasharuddin NAShariff Ghazali SAbu Hassan ZFHassan NJahn Kassim PSIdris FLee YKSellappans RPoussa CWharrad HTaylor MMordt PLee PYNg CJKrishnan KKarlgren KTeo CHKonstantinidis SLim HMfalseKnowledge transfer of eLearning objects: Lessons learned from an intercontinental capacity building project.<h4>Background</h4>Effective knowledge transfer of eLearning objects can hasten the adoption and dissemination of technology in teaching and learning. However, challenges exist which hinder inter-organisational knowledge transfer, particularly across continents. The ACoRD project aimed to transfer knowledge on digital learning development from UK/EU (provider) to Malaysian (receiver) higher education institutions (HEIs). This study explores the challenges encountered during the knowledge transfer process and lessons learned.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a qualitative study involving both the knowledge providers and receivers in focus group discussions (n = 25). Four focus group discussions were conducted in the early (n = 2) and mid-phase (n = 2) of the project by trained qualitative researchers2022-01-01T00:00:00Z20222025-07-25T03:07:57.79Z2025-02-19T01:38:01.262ZS-EPMC94887883612603610.1371/journal.pone.0274771