Knowledge Sharing Mechanism

A knowledge sharing mechanism is a method, procedure or process involved in knowledge sharing within the organization and there is distinction between information technology (IT) mechanisms and a personal mechanism approach (Chai et al., 2003). Different organisations implement different knowledge sharing mechanisms. Some organisations classify knowledge-sharing mechanisms into four types: informal vs. formal and personal vs. impersonal mechanisms (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). An informal knowledge-sharing approach can be seen in an unscheduled meeting, informal seminar or coffee break conversation, while formal mechanisms are training sessions, formal procedures, rules, manuals and formal processes (Willem & Buelens, 2007). Personal approaches include apprenticeships and personnel transfers. A knowledge repository is an impersonal mechanism. Many organisations employ codification and personalization strategies for knowledge sharing through databases and person to person contact (Hansen et al., 1999). Barton and Srivastasa (2002) proposed four mechanisms for the sharing of individual knowledge: sharing knowledge through interaction among employees, sharing knowledge via formal channels within or across teams, sharing knowledge in informal ways and sharing knowledge within practice communities.

58

This study focuses on individual codification, institutional codification, individual personalization and institutional personalization as mechanisms for knowledge sharing (Boh, 2007). The argument is that public sector employees gain working experience through practices, whereas disseminating knowledge relies on the human and technological approach, although knowledge sharing mechanisms are not mutually exclusive (Barton & Srivastava, 2002). Technology is adopted in this study because of its capacity to store knowledge and to exchange knowledge globally across time and geographical distance (Cho et al., 2007), as local governments are located throughout Malaysia. Some individuals also prefer to share their valuable knowledge in electronic networks, as they perceive that it enhances their professional reputations and they enjoy helping others (Constant et al., 1996; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). These mechanisms have their own function in tapping individual knowledge for collective use, although organisations use different strategies. A study on knowledge sharing in the Malaysian public sector indicates that the most widely-used knowledge sharing initiatives were e- mail systems, inter-agency activities and the use of ICT, followed by support of top management (Sandhu et al., 2011).

Both the human approach and electronic knowledge repositories are used to facilitate individuals’ knowledge contributions. Selection of the appropriate knowledge sharing mechanism within an organisation is dependent on the type of knowledge, either tacit or explicit (Dixon, 2000). According to Argote and Ingram (2000), explicit knowledge is much easier to share than tacit knowledge. Nevertheless, this study argues that tacit knowledge can be shared through different mechanisms, as hypothesized below:

H3: There is a positive relationship between the knowledge sharing mechanisms and managerial tacit knowledge.

1. Codification versus personalization

This study identifies knowledge sharing mechanisms through codification or personalization (Hansen et al., 1999). Codification refers to knowledge codified and stored in databases and documents. It is more applicable to technology based storage and the exchange of global knowledge (Cho et al., 2007). If knowledge is shared through a personalized mechanism, it will be closely tied to the person who developed it and it will be shared mainly through direct person-to-person contact. Personalization provides a rich medium for communication, as it is concerned with the use of people as

59

a mechanism for sharing knowledge through knowledge providers and the search for information. This is because knowledge sharing involves direct communication between individuals.

2. Institutionalization versus individualization

These two techniques are used by organisations to socialize newcomers into the organisation. The institutionalization dimension describes socialization tactics that are collective and through which organisations provide information to newcomers, whilst the individualization dimension describes socialization tactics that are individual and informal (Boh, 2007).

Thus, knowledge sharing can take place at individual and institutional level. Organisations are able to implement knowledge sharing between individuals through codification and personalization (Boh, 2007).

Individual personalization mechanism

At the individual level, the mechanisms are employed among employees to share knowledge and information through ad hoc and informal sessions, word-of-mouth sharing through senior staff, personal networks and collaboration tools (e.g., e-mail, telephone calls) (Boh, 2007; Hansen, 1999; Krackhardt, 1992). Many organisations take advantage of the various forms of technology such as mechanisms in individual personalization, including e-mail and instant messaging to share knowledge (Massey & Montoya-Weiss, 2006). This social network becomes a place of storage and retrieval to obtain information from other people rather than documents (Allen, 1977). Informal interaction between individuals (person-to-person) also encourages the transfer of knowledge. However, this depends on the individuals who have the appropriate knowledge such as ‘who knows what’ in the organization (Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000) and the accessibility of the knowledgeable employees (Borgatti & Cross, 2003).

Individual codification mechanism

The individual codification mechanism refers to the ways in which documents or other project artefacts are shared at individual level, in an informal or ad hoc manner such as sharing prior project documents informally and manuals written voluntarily (Boh, 2007). Most documentation is useful only when knowledgeable managers are directly available

60

to explain and supplement its written content. Normally, groups using a codification mechanism involve technology and ideas in their work (Katz, 1982). For instance, knowledge that is recorded in a codebook serves as a storage depository, reference point, and possibly as an authority. However, information written in a code can only perform those functions when people are able to interpret the code. Successfully reading the code in this sense may involve prior acquisition of considerable specialised knowledge that possibly includes knowledge not written down anywhere. There is as a rule, no reason to pre-suppose that all people in the world possess the knowledge needed to interpret the codes properly. This means that what is codified for one person or group may be tacit for another, and a mystery for a person who has no idea about it (Cowan et al., 2000).

This mechanism links and connects between the problems and potential solutions across time, projects and geographical boundaries (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997) and also facilitates the reuse of the intellectual capital that is produced from any project in another engagement. Thus, in completing a project, individuals or groups convert their ideas, experiences and learning into various types of documentation such as projects proposals, project plans, client presentations, client reports, and lessons learned about what works and what does not for different types of jobs. These types of intellectual capital codify the experience and learning that organisations can accumulate across different engagements. The value of reusing intellectual capital is that the organisation can build upon prior experience, invest in making improvements in the existing intellectual capital and avoid wasted efforts.

Institutional codification mechanisms

This mechanism describes the codifications of knowledge sharing that are institutionalised in the routine and structure of an organisation. The purpose of this mechanism is to capture specialist knowledge in knowledge bases that other specialists can access. In this mechanism, knowledge held by individuals or groups has been captured and made the wider property of the organisation (Earl, 2001). Codification is for ‘knowledge as possession’, which focuses on making knowledge explicit; thus others can acquire this knowledge rather than having to develop it for themselves (Hansen et al., 1999). This mechanism is most related to organisations that emphasise use of information technology in knowledge management to create electronic

61

repositories for storing, searching and retrieving intellectual capital. It includes databases, use of templates, broadcast emails and forums, an expertise directory and standardised methodology (Boh, 2007).

People who believe that they can improve mutual relationships with others through the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms tend to use reciprocal mechanisms (Cho et al., 2007). They consider that, as employees work with and gain experience of one another over a long period, group members become specialised in their particular job areas and project assignments and there is less interaction between project members. They come to know each other well, know what to expect from each other and there is simply less need to talk and interact among all the project members. Their perceptions of each others’ capabilities, interests and contributions become clearer and better-defined, with members functioning with regularity and stability (Katz, 1982). Therefore, managers specialise and prefer to store their capabilities in a repository device. Traditionally, people have subjective experiences at different times in lives and sometimes prefer to store these in devices that can be codified by others. This is known as personal past and involves recollecting a wealth of information about a person or place or at other times just knowing that someone or something is familiar. Psychologists have begun to explore these two forms of subjective experience, which are referred to as remembering and knowing the past (Schacter, 1996).

Institutionalized personalization mechanisms

This mechanism focuses on personalization of knowledge sharing that is institutionalized in the routine and structure of the organisation. This mechanism needs an organisation to recognise that individuals play an integral role in the learning and knowledge sharing processes within the organisation. These people or groups have direct interaction with individuals or groups by restructuring their knowledge across different tasks and facilitating person to person knowledge sharing. In personalization, knowledge is viewed as a practice that encourages participation in networks and where people can learn through dialogue. This strategy accepts that knowledge is closely tied to the daily activities of employees and needs to be shared mainly through face to face contacts and informal networks (Hansen et al. 1999; Spring, 2003; Rashman & Hartley 2002; Yao et al., 2007; Zhou, 2004) informal conversations and meetings conducted around the water cooler at work.

62

Methods of institutionalized personalization by institutionalizing an organisational structure such as through individuals who have the necessary knowledge and experience, provide guidance to less experienced professionals (Halverson, 2004). Thus, experts in particular project work would naturally share knowledge and experience among the team; for instance, in meetings with high level staff, project reviews, one senior person coordinating all staffing needs, having a common project director shared across projects, cross staffing across projects, setting up a community, support centres and staff deployment policies.

However, personalization may incur cost and risks to both seekers and providers of knowledge (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). This is probably because seeking information from others in the organisational settings may be perceived by some individuals to involve risks of admitting ignorance on a given topic (Menon & Pfeffer, 2003).

Swap et al. (2001) suggested that knowledge about skills, managerial system and norms and values, termed core capabilities, are shared in the dimension of tacit knowledge that is transmitted through a process of socialization and internalization similar to personalization are critical to any organisation.

Through social processes it is easy to grasp certain new ideas and practices through learning activities, in which the context is clearly defined and the learning process is related to practical experience by sharing knowledge created through tacit experiences and explicit rules and procedures, which are the basis of a commonly understood organisational culture (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).