Knowledge sharing

In this research, as was indicated in Chapter 1, knowledge sharing is a point to analyse.

However, from the description of the previous processes and the literature review, the differentiation between knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing is not clear. For that differentiation the literature analysis of different KM aspects has been used to indicate relationships with other KM processes, identify the different levels of knowledge transfer/sharing and understand enablers or barriers of the transfer/ sharing knowledge process.

The differentiation between knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing can start with the vision of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) which relates knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. It indicates that knowledge is amplified and internalized based on the interactions between individuals in an organisation. In 1997, Davenport expressed the

idea that knowledge sharing is a volunteer process and thus, distinguished it from formal actions like reporting or structured knowledge-related interactions. Von Krogh et al.

(2000) complemented Davenport‟s (1997) point by indicating that there are steps and enablers in order to convert knowledge into a competitive advantage. The steps include:

sharing tacit knowledge that require action from internal people through conversation, fostering the development of a capacity for analysing problems equally through conversation, and creating context for the knowledge sharing process. These two observations about knowledge sharing show a clear indication that knowledge sharing is a support to other processes and relates to people‟s interactions. This is an important point because knowledge sharing refers to the exchange of ideas, that which does not have to be codified.

Moreover, Alavi and Leidner (2001) talked about knowledge transfer and identify the different levels of knowledge transfer among individuals, individuals to groups and individuals and groups to the whole organisation. These authors indicate that the four main processes can be subdivided into other sub-processes and knowledge sharing, internally and externally, can appear as one. Thus, the two terms, sharing and transfer knowledge, are needed and each require time to get a better understanding.

On the one hand, in 2001, Grover and Davenport defined knowledge transfer as a movement of knowledge from an initial point to a final point under context. Maier et al.

(2005) complemented this by saying that it was not only the knowledge movement between two points but also the interpretation capacity. They stated: “Transfer of knowledge implies that the sender is quite certain that the receiver will interpret the data accordingly, (re-) construct the knowledge and use it to actualize the receiver‟s knowledge in a way that the sender intends.”

On the other hand, in 2003, Ipe presented a framework about knowledge sharing, that looked for the clarification of the concept. He expressed the idea that knowledge sharing was distinguished from knowledge transfer, and considered the first as the movement of knowledge among individuals, whereas knowledge transfer was more between organisational areas, departments, teams or groups. Therefore, knowledge sharing has an important influence on KM implementation because it provides connection between

people and organisation, and produces dissemination, collaboration, innovation and the acquisition of knowledge (Ipe, 2003). The point with Ipe‟s (2003) analysis is that knowledge sharing is presented as a process which is influenced by human interaction.

However, the review of the differences between knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing, finds another level of analysis, such as that of Cress and Martin (2006). They express that there is a difference in knowledge sharing between small and large groups.

In large groups, knowledge sharing using questions is not very efficient because similar questions come from different people. This means there is a need to create repositories of experience, data and collaboration tools in order to enhance the knowledge sharing;

this could be converted into knowledge transfer where the means are more structured.

Small and Sage (2006) carried out a review on KM and knowledge sharing, and included the concept of the human factors as part of the processes of knowledge sharing. They regarded knowledge sharing as critical in knowledge creation and found that factors influencing knowledge sharing included: business context, organisational structure and roles, business processes, motivation, means, ability, etc. The study also found that many factors enabled knowledge sharing, such as the strategy link with knowledge sharing and the proper adjustment to leadership, human networks, organisational culture and learning processes.

Size and human factors are not only the points that generate differentiation between knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing, but also between the organisational structures. Knudsen (2006) compared three different organisations and concluded that knowledge transfer is affected by different organisational structures. This is because an incentive system may be required or because a team based organisation design indicates the basis for transferring only within the team or at organisation level, when a collaborative environment is present.

In summary, knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing has been used in the literature in a mixed way; the difference lies in the way that people interact to communicate and whether they use the knowledge in their activities through formal methods or technologies. King (2006a) identifies the main difference between knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer as: “knowledge transfer implies focus, a clear objective, and

uni-directionally, while knowledge may be shared in unintended ways multiple directionally without specific objective.” Knowledge can be shared as well with specific purposes when the organisation is looking to create a common understanding of a process, a problem or particular action.

In this research, the concept used is knowledge sharing and the construct is based on the people interaction, the willingness to collaborate and use knowledge of different people. The human factor is thus aligned with the work of Bosua and Scheepers (2007) in that: ”Knowledge sharing is a more subtle concept, and is seen as a dual process of enquiring and contributing to knowledge through activities such as learning-by-observation, listening and asking, sharing ideas, giving advice...” In particular, knowledge sharing has bases in the culture and trust of the organisation in order to develop an informal learning process (Singh and Premarajan, 2007).

One of the issues of knowledge sharing is how to motivate people to share knowledge.

Some motivators have been identified as: self-esteem enhancement, or the improvement of understanding of the knowledge; the importance of social exchange, and probably the support from the organisation (King, 2006a). King (2006a) argues that there are some issues with knowledge sharing, such as knowledge factors acquisition and the reception of knowledge, motivation and communication. Moreover, Land et al. (2006) state that the political process of the organisation, where people can have different agendas to develop their work, can affect the KM processes.

Besides, not only motivation is needed for knowledge sharing but also knowledge sharing needs to overcome some barriers. Regarding this Keith (2006) identified an exhaustive list of barriers that include technological and cultural factors and mainly individual ones that relate to communication and people interactions. Keith‟s work (2006) is complemented by that of McKinnell (2006) on knowledge sharing between individuals.

The article presents a model of knowledge sharing that has components, such as:

source, message channel, and receiver feedback channel resources. With this model, the article indicates that there are circumstances, events and actions that modify the potential of sharing knowledge. These are the perceived value of knowledge credibility and motivation from the source, the message, the types of knowledge, scope of

knowledge and nature of tasks blended with channel characteristics, degree of formality, direction of the sharing, and whether or not the receiver has the motivation and absorptive capacity.

Now, independent of the discussion of knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing differentiation, there are methods and techniques that support knowledge sharing and transfer; capturing knowledge, in particular tacit knowledge; sharing and then making the knowledge available. Personal experiences, the development of organisational capacity and the capacity of the organisation to avoid the lost of expertise promote many different actions in organisations to capture knowledge. The interest in this research is to understand that the methods application requires a willingness of the source to share as well as the receptor to take the value of the knowledge that it is looking for.

In summary, this section indicates that the KM process can involve technology or not and the difference between knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing. This difference is fundamentally in that knowledge sharing is associated with the willingness of people and not the formal way of using knowledge from different people when they are working together or more defined organisational actions to mobilize knowledge within the organisation. Both transfer and sharing have both barriers and enablers that provide the value; however, the difference is that the knowledge sharing is associated more with the individual, whereas the knowledge transfer works more with the organisation.

There is an open interest in observing the use of technology to support KM processes, particularly knowledge transfer/sharing. Technology that increases the capacity for connecting people through intranets, develops better web functionality or improves information system functionalities. Technology, according to Alavi and Leidner (2001), is involved in the transformation of the information systems to manage the organisational knowledge, and it has been used more to support knowledge that has been codified.

However, the interest in supporting KM process implies that it “... must provide the means of capturing all types of knowledge...” In the next section the bases of that evolution of information system to KMS are introduced.

2.3.5. Evolving from information systems to Knowledge Management