Knowledge-sharing perspectives

Knowledge sharing can take place at individual and collective level. Knowledge is produced by individuals and should be translated into organisational knowledge (Jain et al., 2007). This requires knowledge sharing. A review of the literature revealed that there are no well-defined knowledge-sharing theories. Most of the views on knowledge

sharing are embedded in knowledge management theories (Sharrat and Usoro, 2003) and are rooted in various disciplines under different perspectives such as the theoretical reviews and classification the knowledge, the interaction perspective (Wang 1999; Nonaka, 1994), the learning perspective (Wang and Ahmed, 2003; Senge, 1998;), the communication perspective (Cummings, 2003; Hendriks, 1999), the communities of practices (Brown and Duguid, 1991), and the knowledge market perspective (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Apart from the lack of solid theories, there is also a dearth of empirical evidence (Ryan et al., 2010).

The knowledge interaction perspective of Wang (1999) and Nonaka (1994) define knowledge sharing as the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge and vice versa. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) considered that knowledge sharing could be converted via individuals or different mechanisms within an organisation. Nonaka (1994) identified four modes of knowledge conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge and vice versa. Nonaka expected this four modes of knowledge conversion can enhance knowledge sharing effectiveness and play a key role in knowledge sharing amongst individuals, as he assert “the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge will tend to become larger in scale and faster in speed as more actors in and around the organisation become involved”. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) argue that during shared activity, four modes of knowledge conversion can take place by the exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge leading to a spiral effect of knowledge creation. There are named as socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation. Figure 2.2 present the SECI knowledge conversion model that developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) demonstrate the dynamic interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge.

Tacit knowledge To Explicit knowledge

Tacit knowledge

From

Socialisation Externalisation

Explicit knowledge

Internalisation Combination

The SECI model can be explained as follows (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Socialisation mode emerges when tacit knowledge is added to tacit knowledge through, for example, on-the-job training, sharing experiences, observation, brainstorming, imitation and practices. This creates technical skills and shared mental models, for instance. Externalisation mode is take place when tacit knowledge converted to explicit knowledge. This process transforms one’s idea, experience or insight into readily understandable form or formal models (Seufert et al., 2003). Also externalisation is most prevalent when concept is created in new product development. Combination is adding explicit knowledge by bringing together a variety of sources such as, for example, databases and memorandums. Lastly, internalisation is a process focussed on adding to personal, tacit knowledge by examining explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is, thus, converted to tacit knowledge. This requires learning and acquiring new tacit knowledge in practice by experiencing what others go through. When explicit knowledge is internalized into an individual’s tacit knowledge, a shared mental model is formed within the firm, thereby starting a new spiral of knowledge conversion. These methods have a variety of implications for an organisation and highlight the importance of knowledge sharing. Seeing the knowledge conversion methods as synonymous to knowledge sharing methods suggest that every activity based on developing tacit or explicit knowledge is really a method of sharing. Socialisation is nothing more than someone sharing tacit knowledge with someone else, whether deliberately or not. The same is true for externalisation-a person willingly shares his/her tacit knowledge so that it can form part of an organisation’s explicit knowledge.

Sharing knowledge develops new capacities for action; it is about creating learning processes (learning perspective). Senge (1998), Argyris and Schon (1978) considered knowledge sharing from the perspective of organisation learning as effective mechanisms for assisting others to convert knowledge into effective actions. The communication perspective, on the other hand, argues that for learning to occur in organisations, knowledge must be communicated and shared effectively. According to this theory, knowledge is shared through communication from the source to the recipient (Shannon and Weaver, 1949, cited in Cummings, 2003, p 6). Hendriks (1999) defines knowledge sharing as something other than, but related to, communication and information distribution.

The communities of practices perspective which developed in the “organisational learning” movement, posits that knowledge flows best though networks of people who may not be in the same part of the organisation, but have the same work of interest (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Some organisations have attempted to formalise these communities, even though theorists argue that they should emerge in a self-organising fashion without any relationship to formal organisational structures. The knowledge market perspective of Grover and Davenport (2001), and Davenport and Prusak (1998) further states that knowledge sharing is a process that involves exchanging knowledge between individuals and groups. This perspective recognises the interest that individuals have in holding onto the knowledge they possess. In order to part with it, they need to receive something in exchange (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Any organisation is a knowledge market in which knowledge is exchanged for other things of value (e.g. money, respect, promotions, or other knowledge). These perspectives are useful and allow us to create a common vocabulary for research and practice.