understanding knowledge sharing behaviours · knowledge sharing is considered one of the most...

July 2012

Understanding knowledge sharing behaviours

Understanding Knowledge Sharing Behaviours

Produced on behalf of Healthcare Improvement Scotland by:

Amaia Ibanez de Opacua – Knowledge and Information Skills Specialist

Acknowledgement to Emma Ritchie – Medical Writer for her contribution to the report

© 2012 Healthcare Improvement Scotland

First published July 2012

You can copy or reproduce the information in this document for use within NHSScotland and

for educational purposes. You must not make a profit using information in this document.

Commercial organisations must get our written permission before reproducing this document.

www.healthcare improvementscotland.org

Email: [email protected]


3

Executive summary

The importance of knowledge in the health service is widely recognised. Among the individual

employees of an organisation, there will be a wealth of knowledge and experience, but to

maximise its potential, this knowledge must be shared transforming individual knowledge into

organisational knowledge. Understanding people‟s behaviour in knowledge sharing will help to

improve the knowledge sharing behaviour culture.

The theory of planned behaviour provides a useful framework to understand the key factors

that play a role in people‟s behaviours. According to this theory, human behaviour is guided by

attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. This paper looks at these factors

in terms of why or why not people share knowledge.

Attitude describes an individual‟s inclination to perform a behaviour, knowing its

consequences. The main attitudinal factors that can influence knowledge sharing are:

rewarding and incentive mechanisms (eg whether knowledge sharing is part of

performance appraisal),

perceived benefits (eg connecting knowledge sharing to achieving core business objectives

and strategy),

perceived loss of power (eg introducing knowledge sharing as a criterion for promotion),

perceived reciprocal benefits (eg assuring that everybody else is contributing to the public

knowledge)

reputation enhancement (by individuals being seen as experts), and

the enjoyment of helping others (due to a personal interest in this activity).

Subjective-norm related factors, such as leadership and organisational culture, influence an

individual‟s perception of social pressure to behave in a certain way. As leaders of expected

behaviour, senior managers should play a key role in reinforcing the link between knowledge

sharing and business strategy and results. Senior managers are also key in ensuring that

knowledge sharing becomes part of everybody‟s daily work. An organisational culture is

decisive in knowledge sharing. Having a climate of trust, active empathy, offering help and

lenience is essential for enabling knowledge sharing. Social events, informal networks and

humour are ways to develop a positive knowledge sharing culture.

Perceived behavioural factors, such as information and communication technologies, non-

technological mechanisms and training, affect an individual‟s perception of how easy or

difficult it is to perform a specific behaviour. Information and communication technologies

provide powerful mechanisms of accessing, coordinating, and integrating knowledge, and

have the advantage of overcoming space and time barriers. Due to the nature of knowledge

and human interaction, interactive mechanisms (eg internet, forums) may be more suitable

than integrative mechanisms (eg databases) to enhance knowledge sharing. To ensure the

success of a technology in knowledge sharing, it is important that it is fit for purpose, users are

involved at the design stage, training is provided and it is promoted. However, it is important

that the focus on using technology to support processes in knowledge management should

not be at the expense of developing a suitable organisational culture. Less sophisticated

means of knowledge sharing ie non-technological mechanisms are equally important. Matrix

organisational working and working in groups with specific knowledge-related aims make it


4

easier to share knowledge. Documenting knowledge eg debriefs, use of common templates

and databases facilitate the analysis and collation of knowledge. In addition, mentoring,

tutoring, training and rotation are traditional methods of sharing knowledge which focus on

learning by doing and contact with experts. Office layout can also foster social interaction and

knowledge sharing. Whatever mechanisms (technological or non-technological) organisations

choose to share knowledge, individuals should be fully trained in their use.

Based on the findings of this report, a suite of interventions could be designed addressing

different factors that determine knowledge sharing behaviours and serve to develop a culture

of knowledge sharing for Healthcare Improvement Scotland.


5

Introduction

Healthcare Improvement Scotland aims to support healthcare providers in Scotland in

delivering high-quality, evidence-based, safe, effective and person-centred care 1. To do this,

Healthcare Improvement Scotland employs more than 250 employees who work in different

areas around the quality improvement cycle. Although these individuals generate a wealth of

knowledge and experiences, this is not widely shared across the organisation. The lack of

effective sharing of knowledge may reduce effectiveness and efficiency of Healthcare

Improvement Scotland efforts (eg re-inventing the wheel, missing synergistic opportunities, not

being responsive and agile). The importance of knowledge in the health service has been

recognised at a national level2.

‘Knowledge in the health service is as important as the nervous system in the

human body.’2

There is a plethora of literature on knowledge sharing, however this literature review will focus

on knowledge sharing behaviours. The purpose of this paper is to have a better understanding

of the key elements affecting knowledge sharing behaviours and learn from other

organisations‟ experiences. The findings will assist in making informed proposals on initiatives

to influence and improve the knowledge behaviour culture within Healthcare Improvement

Scotland.

Why should we share knowledge

This paper defines knowledge sharing as the process in which ideas and experiences flow

among people. It is important to note that knowledge sharing is not the same as information

exchange. Knowledge is a more complex concept, which can be defined as information

integrated with experience and judgement3. Some knowledge is explicit and easy to transfer,

but some is also tacit and difficult to be expressed4,5. From a constructionist perspectivea, we

see the world based on our previous experiences and senses, thus, knowledge is not

universal and is highly inherent to individuals.

Knowledge sharing is considered one of the most critical activities within knowledge

management for several reasons. First, knowledge sharing is required in order to transfer tacit

knowledge among individuals (through socialisation) and to try to make it as explicit as

possible (through externalisation eg articulating experiences on reports). However, given the

richness of tacit knowledge and the difficulty in codifying it, the focus of knowledge sharing is

usually placed on the socialisation processes.

Second, knowledge sharing is considered a precedent of knowledge creation, hence

innovation.

a ‘Constructivism is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own

understanding of the world we live in. Each of us generates our own "rules" and "mental models," which we use to make sense of our

experiences. Learning, therefore, is simply the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences.’ 6


6

Last but not least, knowledge sharing is the vehicle to transform individual knowledge into

organisational knowledge. It is the only way to prevent personal knowledge from residing

exclusively in individuals' heads:

„Knowledge sharing is a key process in translating individual learning into

organisational capability (Frey and Oberholzer-Gee, 1997; Nahapiet and

Ghoshal, 1998.‟7

Nonaka and Takeuchi3 argue that knowledge is created through its conversion from tacit to

explicit and vice versa, across the different levels of the organisation (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Knowledge spiral conversion8

Therefore, knowledge sharing is essential for enabling the continuous knowledge conversion

spiral (Figure 2) required in effective knowledge management.

Figure 2. Knowledge spiral conversion9


7

Knowledge sharing process

The process of knowledge sharing process involves the sharer and the seeker (see Figure 3).

This paper will concentrate on the figure of the sharer, given that the sharer is the one that

initiates the knowledge sharing process.

However, the effectiveness of knowledge sharing will also depend on the receiver. Even if the

sharer is willing to impart his or her knowledge effectively, its impact will depend on the

seeker‟s ability to absorb and retain the new knowledge (absorptive capacity) and other issues

such as „competency trap‟ (people or organisations who master a specific area might be

reluctant to leave this behind and adopt new practices eg late arrival of Kodak film to the

digital industry).

This paper will assume that the more knowledge sharing happens in an organisation, the more

effectively recipients will internalise new knowledge and the more receptive they will be to new

ideas.

Figure 3. Elements in knowledge sharing processes

Sharer Recipien

t

Knowledge

Repository

Internalisation

Socialisation

Externalisation


8

Behavioural theories

Understanding what makes people behave in certain ways is complicated and cannot be

explained scientifically due to the uniqueness of each person and the influences of contextual

circumstances. However, behavioural theories have attempted to model behaviours and

understand the key factors that play a role in people‟s behaviours. These theories are

commonly used in many disciplines (eg marketing studies in order to predict customer

behaviour) and even in healthcare (eg in the context of patient safety practices to predict hand

washing behaviour9).

A theoretical framework derived from behavioural theories has been adopted aiming at helping

to understand knowledge sharing behaviours. Among the main behavioural change theories,

the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is one of the most influential when trying to explain

and predict human behaviour in specific situations. TPB was developed by Ajzen10,11 and

based on his previous work, the Theory of Reasoned Action.

TPB poses that human behaviour is guided by three different factors:

Attitude: an individual‟s inclination to perform a behaviour, knowing its consequences,

Subjective norm: an individual‟s perception of social pressure to behave in a specific way,

and

Perceived behavioural control: an individual‟s perception of how difficult or easy is to

perform a specific behaviour. This is often related to the term „self-efficacy‟, or the

perceived ability of oneself to perform a specific behaviour.

Ajzen10,11 also states that intention is an immediate antecedent of behaviour. An intention will

become behaviour depending on how much control the individual has over the behaviour.

Figure 4 summarises the key elements of the TPB. When designing interventions to change

behaviours, we should take into account factors that could potentially affect intentions, and

therefore behaviours. For example, if our aim is to design a strategy to change hand washing

behaviours, we should consider the model shown in Figure 5 and define actions to affect one

or more of factors determining hand washing intention.


9

Figure 4. Theory of Planned Behaviour10,11


10

Figure 5. Example of how TPB is applied to hand washing behaviour12

One limitation of TPB is that it overlooks individuals‟ emotions (eg mood) that can have an

impact on behaviours. In spite of this, the theory provides a very useful framework to analyse

what interventions could influence knowledge sharing behaviours within Healthcare

Improvement Scotland. In fact, some authors13-15 have already studied knowledge sharing

behaviours based on behavioural theories.


11

Knowledge sharing behaviours

In this section, the different factors that explain why people share knowledge or not will be

briefly discussed. Examples from the literature will be included to illustrate the importance of

these factors.

Attitudinal factors

- Reward and incentive mechanisms

- Perceived benefits - Perceived loss of power - Perceived reciprocal benefits - Reputation enhancement

- Enjoyment in helping others

An individual’s inclination to perform a behaviour, knowing its consequences.

Reward and incentive mechanisms

Acknowledging contributions to knowledge sharing can influence people‟s attitudes, as it demonstrates the importance of knowledge sharing in a visible way. Therefore, the existence of specific reward and incentive mechanisms (such as including knowledge-sharing criterion as part of the performance appraisal) can be crucial in affecting people‟s attitudes towards knowledge sharing. The literature demonstrates that extrinsic motivation (eg financial rewards) is not as effective as intrinsic motivation.

Examples: American management systems (AMS) realised of the importance of motivation in order

to promote knowledge sharing and included sharing knowledge as a parameter to achieve the highest rating on their appraisal system. Information on how often people use reports from their knowledge base was monitored and this information was fed into promotion discussions. They also hold „annual high-visibility invitation-only event for knowledge centre contributors‟ where „annual awards, such as the knowledge in action‟ and „best practices awards‟ are announced in order to recognise people‟s contributions to their knowledge centres.16

At the car manufacturer Ford, the performance review includes a key question „how well

does ___ share?‟16 Rewards should be awarded at different levels. It is important to reward collaborative efforts over individual achievements. People should also be given recognition for sharing what they know and similarly, for re-using existing knowledge.

Perceived benefits:

The literature highlights the importance of people valuing sharing knowledge. People need to believe that is worth enduring the time and effort involved in knowledge sharing. They need to see how sharing knowledge is connected to the business, that is, how it contributes to achieving business strategy, objectives and results or to solving problems. Alternatively, knowledge sharing could be tied to core organisational values.


12

Examples: Lotus embedded knowledge management in the way the company solved problems on

a daily basis. Checking with other parts of the organisation was part of their standard process and collaboration was seen as one of its core competencies, from where the collaboration platform Lotus Notes resulted.16

Ford included sharing knowledge as part of other key business initiatives. It was

connected to a strategic objective „Reducing complexity‟, that is, „reducing the product development cycle time by avoiding “reinvention of the wheel”‟.16

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) incorporate

knowledge sharing into their strategic activities.17

Failure to make the connection to the business can be detrimental since people might not see the value of sharing knowledge. In fact, some argue that this is the main reason why knowledge management programmes fail.15

Examples: Chua and Lam18 illustrate the importance of connecting sharing knowledge to practical business objectives with some case studies: A European manufacturing company launched a knowledge management project called

'production project' which had little success as some business units „were unconvinced of the value created from applying new knowledge‟.18

A pharmaceutical company implemented an organisation-wide groupware called

‟warehouse‟. However, this initiative failed as it „seemed irrelevant to day-to-day operational processes‟. Similarly, they implemented a platform called „café‟ where people could share their personal experiences and reflections. However, few people adopted it due its lack of practicality and open-ended nature of the system.18

Some organisations choose not to refer to ‟knowledge management‟ or ‟knowledge sharing‟ as these are concepts that people might not identify with and then be discouraged to participate. Instead, they incorporate the principles within other projects or tasks where people can see the benefits.

Example: „Ford‟s product development group does not talk about “knowledge management” or “sharing knowledge”. Instead, sharing knowledge is part of another large-scale company initiative, Ford 2000.‟16


13

Perceived loss of knowledge power:

The traditional mindset of 'knowledge is power' is still prevalent in most organisations, especially in those where career progression depends on the expertise of an individual. This is one of the main factors why people tend to hoard knowledge rather than share it with others.

Example:

Davenport19 describes the case of the failure of new knowledge sharing system within a professional services firm because employees perceived the new initiative as giving away their expertise so other colleagues could use it to get promoted instead of them.

Introducing initiatives whereby knowledge sharing is a criterion for promotion will help to change people‟s attitudes and to develop a 'knowledge is powerful' mindset.

Perceived reciprocal benefits:

The literature shows that people are willing to share knowledge as long as it is reciprocated. Knowledge sharing might be seen as a transaction, where individuals expect some kind of return. According to Cabrera and Cabrera20, most individuals would prefer to bear the cost of sharing their knowledge, as long as there is „an assurance that everybody else was going to pay his or her share‟. Introducing mechanisms to share knowledge across organisations can help make knowledge sharing a daily activity. This will ensure public contribution and awareness. Senior management can also influence employees by taking an active role in knowledge sharing and ensuring staff engagement.

Reputation enhancement:

Although reciprocity is usually expected when sharing knowledge, in some cases this is not a requirement. Individuals will contribute to the public knowledge if this enhances their professional reputation and helps to be seen as experts.21

Examples:

In Lotus, respect is gained by expertise, not by position. Teams are self-formed, therefore having a good image is considered essential to get chosen for interesting projects. Therefore, contributing to discussions and sharing knowledge enhances reputation.16

„The initial extrinsic motivation through recognition is reinforced by a desire to retain status: “It is a great honour to be asked to join this think tank. Joining the group has transformed the behaviour of some individuals who do not normally share their ideas‟‟ (Morris and Empson, 1998, p. 617)‟.7


14

Enjoyment in helping others

In contrast, some people might be willing to share knowledge freely22 as they have a personal interest in knowledge sharing and enjoy doing so. This is related to the person‟s values and characteristics. In the recruitment and induction processes, inclination for knowledge sharing should be included as part of the candidates‟ desired qualities.


15

Subjective norm-related factors - Leadership - Organisational culture

An individual’s perception of social pressure to behave in a specific way.

Leadership:

Leaders are living examples of expected behaviours. They set the values and norms in a subtle or direct way. Leaders at all levels should take any opportunity to emphasise the need to share knowledge. The unconditional support of senior managers was seen by best practice companies as a key enabler of knowledge management.15

O‟Dell and Hubert 22 found that „organizations with successful KM [knowledge management] programs have leaders from the CEO to mid-level management who regularly reinforce the need to share and leverage knowledge at every opportunity‟.

Example:

Senior leaders from the oilfield services provider, Schlumberger, understood this and practised it whenever possible: „When senior leaders visited the field service operations, they asked to see not only where best practices were identified but also where employees have adopted the identified best practices.‟ They also actively tracked training via scorecards22.

Senior managers play a key role in reinforcing the link between knowledge sharing and the business strategy, objectives and results16.

Example:

McDermott and O‟Dell16 describe how the Chairman in AMS highlighted the strategic importance of knowledge sharing in the annual senior staff conference: „The Chairman stated that AMS will leverage knowledge across the company as a part of its overall business strategy‟.

True buy-in from senior management is essential in showing that knowledge sharing is expected as part of everyday work. Failure to do this might condemn knowledge management initiatives.

Example:

Chua and Lam18 describe how a knowledge management project failed as „the top management was committed only up to a point. The KM [knowledge management] initiative was perceived as a “nice-to-have” rather than mission-critical activity‟.

Organisational culture:

There is a plethora of literature that suggests that organisational culture is decisive in knowledge sharing22. Von Krogh5 argues that a social norm of care is required in knowledge sharing and creation, as a climate of trust, active empathy, help offer and lenience enables human relationships. These values should be ensured by consistent and adequate


16

communication, by leading by example and by recognising activities/people. Not doing so might lead to potential misconceptions which are detrimental for knowledge sharing.

Examples: In an American-owned pharmaceutical company, contributing to their knowledge

repository „“warehouse” was perceived as a loss of personal expertise while accessing “warehouse” was perceived as a sign of inadequacy‟.18

The CGIAR worked on facilitating internal communication as they recognised the

importance of building trust. They also organised open discussions on the core values by all staff.17

In bigger and hierarchical organisations, the climate of trust and active empathy might be more difficult to achieve due to the greater dynamics of command and control, and the formalisation of communications:

„… when lower level workers are ordered to “share” information with those higher up the corporate ladder, a cutthroat information culture of meddling micromanagement can result‟.19

A positive knowledge sharing culture is more likely to be found in smaller organisations.23

It needs to be pointed out that culture is not homogenous. Different subcultures can be observed within an organisation. The bigger the organisation is, the more subcultures there will be. Von Krogh5 highlights the importance of social events, „ranging from informal chats around the water cooler to holiday parties‟ in developing a culture of trust and care. Building on existing informal networks is advisable, as the climate of trust has already been achieved naturally. Existing networks could be formalised by providing them with a more official aim and structure, but maintaining their informality and self-governance. The use of humour can help to create an environment where people feel at ease sharing their experiences and to gain more adopters in knowledge sharing activities. Fun encourages innovation and cooperation.22

Examples: „IBM secured high adoption rates for KM [knowledge management] through fun

campaigns that garner attention. For example, it created a video to convey the top 10 reasons to use its practitioner portal. It‟s a quick, humorous video designed to drive adoption‟.22

In relation to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, „the audience learned about

collaboration tools in a fun setting ... such as networking events humorously styled like speed dating‟.22


17

Perceived behavioural factors - Information and communication technologies - Non-technological knowledge-sharing mechanisms - Training

An individual’s perception on how difficult or easy it is to perform a specific behaviour. This is often related to the term self-efficacy, or the perceived ability of oneself to perform a specific behaviour.

Information and communication technology (ICT):

The existence of mechanisms to share knowledge can influence knowledge sharing behaviours. The literature demonstrates that information and communication technologies can provide powerful mechanisms to share knowledge and, in general, to enhance knowledge management24,25. Zack25 classifies technologies into two groups:

integrative technologies (eg use of databases) which enhance organisational declarative memory, and

interactive technologies (eg intranet, forums), which allow formal and informal contacts among individuals across spatial, temporal and functional boundaries25.

Though both types of technologies support knowledge sharing, due to the characteristics of

knowledge interactive applications might be more suitable than integrative applications26.

„Although IT [information technology] is a wonderful facilitator of data and information transmission and distribution, it can never substitute for the rich interactivity, communication and learning that is inherent in dialogue. Knowledge is primarily a function and consequence of the meeting and interaction of minds.‟ 27

Organisational knowledge systems are not homogenous but dispersed.28 Thus, organisations should make sure there are mechanisms to access, coordinate and integrate knowledge and technology can facilitate this with the advantage of overcoming space and time barriers (eg informative web pages of the management and all business units, blogs).

Examples:

„Networks start when a PwC [PricewaterhouseCoopers] staff member forms discussion groups on Lotus Notes and the firm‟s intranet‟.16

Companies can „ electronic “yellow pages”, directories or maps of knowledge-holders

across the company so people can make connections.‟23

It is undeniable that technology can support knowledge sharing, but at the same time it is wrong to assume that technology is the immediate solution to knowledge management. There is plenty of empirical evidence about failed application of technologies for knowledge management purposes29,30. Often, a strong focus on ICT is at the expense of the development of a suitable organisational culture31. Other issues such as technology being fit for purpose, involving the users at the design stage, training users and promoting the system are also determinants of the success of technological mechanisms.


18

Examples: A knowledge management project called Alpha failed because „there was an over-

reliance on IT systems in Alpha. Tacit knowledge and behavioural issues, on the other hand, received insufficient attention‟.18

In an American-owned global pharmaceutical company, the 'lessons' project, where

project debriefs were stored, failed because „there was no mechanism to sift through the lessons compiled‟. At the same time, their 'warehouse' system, an organisation-wide groupware, failed because it „could not be adapted to the specific context of each workgroup‟.18

A European manufacturing company‟s 'Supply-chain' project was launched with the aim

of providing a better understanding of the products offered, from design issues to logistics. However, the system „was under-utilised because users found that the software merely provided them with information they already possessed‟.18

Technology should support the processes that encourage employees to share their knowledge so that other colleagues increase their capabilities. Regardless of how well the technology is built, a trust-based culture is required to succeed.

Non-technological knowledge sharing mechanisms

In spite of the potential of existing technology, less sophisticated means of knowledge sharing

are of equal, if not of greater importance. As McDermott and O‟Dell16 state, „human networks

are one of the key vehicles for knowledge sharing‟.

Organisations can introduce structural arrangements to facilitate knowledge sharing. In matrix organisations (like the company, Ford), people find it easier to share knowledge as they are used to working and interacting across departments with a common objective. Also, groups with specific knowledge-related aims or communities of practice can be institutionalised.

Examples: AMS created a Best Practices Group, a centre for advanced technologies and several

knowledge centres.16 Ford created global product development teams which were technologically linked

together.16 Knowledge sharing should be embedded in the way organisations work. People should consider knowledge sharing as part of their work rather than an extra task (eg carrying out debriefs at different stages of the project as a compulsory part of the standard project management process). Documenting the knowledge generation activities could also be part of the standard process. The use of common templates and systems such as databases to capture knowledge helps to guide the process and it facilitates the analysis and combination of the knowledge captured. Some organisations such as CGIAR have introduced the concept of 'Storymercials', short podcasts that combine visual resources to tell a story „the oldest most proven way humans learn and remember information‟.17


19

Traditional mechanisms such as mentoring, tutoring, training and rotation should be considered. These methods focus on sharing tacit knowledge by learning by doing and by having personal contact with experts.

Example: In Unilever, a consumer-products company, „at regular intervals, as well as at project completion, the whole project team will be engaged in a debriefing about what and how they have learned and made new knowledge explicit‟.5

Organisations should create opportunities for interaction and socialisation. Factors like the office layout and the availability of spaces can foster social interactions and knowledge sharing.

Examples: „A lot of knowledge gets generated and transferred while having a cup of coffee with a

colleague in the hallway ... (after noticing this), some Japanese companies have instituted “talk rooms” where workers are expected to spend time each week, talking to colleagues about their work (Prusak, 1999)‟.23

„The knowledge debriefs, project start-up, and knowledge–sharing sessions are usually

performed off-site, thereby creating time for people to chat and get to know each other better, resulting in deeper and more trusting relationships‟.5

„Some companies have recognized the value of social interaction, and are beginning to

provide complimentary food and drink in an attempt to have their employees interact more frequently (Flaherty, 2000)‟.23

Training

Whatever mechanisms organisations choose to enable knowledge sharing, people should know what they are used for and be extensively trained in using them fully.

„Although knowledge sharing must be voluntary (Kelloway and Barling, 1999), it is not necessarily spontaneous‟.23

People should be able to use technological and non-technological mechanisms confidently. Training becomes a key issue in ensuring peoples‟ 'self-efficacy. The topics could cover the use of technological solutions, but also the development of skills such as facilitation skills, presentation skills and storytelling. Online toolbox could also support people in knowledge sharing.

Example: At Ford, „if during the performance appraisal an individual is described as knowledge hoarder, (s)he is referred to training to overcome this issue‟.16


20

Failure to provide appropriate training might lead to the abandonment or misuse of the available tools and getting undesirable results.

Examples: In an American-owned global pharmaceutical company, the 'lessons' project was „a list

of dissatisfaction… and became a ritualised reinforcement of routines‟.18 In a European manufacturing company, the „design‟ project „was perceived to be too

cumbersome and difficult to be understood.‟ Since designers neglected the system, „it was not updated and after a while became obsolete‟.18

The literature identifies different methods to promote the knowledge sharing mechanisms, ranging from carrying out pervasive communication to identifying and training knowledge champions.

Examples: In order to promote the use of their Intranet, Ford run a „large-scale awareness

campaign and made face-to-face presentations to more than 25,000 people in less than a year‟, to introduce its Intranet strategy and tools for sharing knowledge.16

In CGIAR, knowledge champions are trained in knowledge sharing and collaborate

virtually.17


21

Conclusions

This report has summarised the key elements in determining knowledge sharing behaviours

identified in the literature. Figure 6 illustrates how these key factors fit in with the theory of

planned behaviour.

Even if behaviours can be observed at an individual level, this review has demonstrated that

organisational values and practices can be of great influence on people‟s knowledge sharing

behaviours and should be considered when designing interventions.

The findings of this report will serve as a basis to identify methods of developing a culture of

knowledge sharing for Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Taking into account its context, a

suite of interventions should be designed in order to affect the different factors that determine

knowledge sharing behaviours. A paper on this will follow.


22

Figure 6. TPB applied to Knowledge Sharing (Based on Chennamanemi‟s work13)


23

Reference List

1. Healthcare Improvement Scotland Local Delivery Plan 2012-2013 [online]. 2012 Apr 18 [cited 2012 Apr 18]; Available from: http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/about_us/plans_and_policies.aspx.

2. Exploiting the power of knowledge in NHS Scotland – a national strategy. Edinburgh; NHS Education for Scotland [online]. 2003 [cited 2008 Jun 16]; Available from: http://www.elib.scot.nhs.uk/news/documents/nhss_knowledge_strategy.pdf.

3. Enabling knowledge sharing to promote innovative organizations in Africa [online]. 2012 [cited 2012 Apr 10]; Available from: www.uneca.org/trid/events/Harnessing/presentations/TEMTIM.ppt.

4. Nonaka I,Takeuchi H. The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxfor University Press; 1995.

5. Von Krogh G. Care in knowledge creation.

6. Constructivism [online]. 2012 [cited 2012 Jul 2]; Available from: http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/IT/Learning/MA(Ed)IPD/constructivism.htm.

7. Lam A, Lambermont-Ford J-P. Knowledge sharing in organisational contexts: a motivation-based perspective.

8. Skyrme DJ. Knowledge Conversion and the Knowledge Spiral [online]. 2011 Mar 1 [cited 2012 Apr 26]; Available from: http://www.skyrme.com/kmbasics/kspiral.htm.

9. Nonaka I. The knowledge creating company. 1991.

10. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Action control: From cognition to behavior. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1985. p. 11-39.

11. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior.

12. Foy R, Ovretveit J, Shekelle P, Pronovost P, Taylor S, Dy S, et al. The role of theory in research to develop and evaluate the implementation of patient safety practices.

http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/about_us/plans_and_policies.aspx.

http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/about_us/plans_and_policies.aspx.

http://www.elib.scot.nhs.uk/news/documents/nhss_knowledge_strategy.pdf.

http://www.elib.scot.nhs.uk/news/documents/nhss_knowledge_strategy.pdf.

http://www.uneca.org/trid/events/Harnessing/presentations/TEMTIM.ppt.

http://www.uneca.org/trid/events/Harnessing/presentations/TEMTIM.ppt.

http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/IT/Learning/MA(Ed)IPD/constructivism.htm.

http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/IT/Learning/MA(Ed)IPD/constructivism.htm.

http://www.skyrme.com/kmbasics/kspiral.htm.

http://www.skyrme.com/kmbasics/kspiral.htm.


24

13. Chennamanemi A. Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Behaviors: Developing and testing an integrated theoretical model.

14. Chen IYL, Chen N-S, Kinshuk. Examining the Factors Influencing Participants' Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Virtual Learning Communities.

15. Tohidinia Z, Mosakhani M. Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and its Predictors.

16. McDermott R, O'Dell C. Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge.

17. Knowledge Sharing and Innovation in the CGIAR, ICT-KM Program Interventions [online]. 2012 [cited 2012 Apr 26]; Available from: http://ictkm.cgiar.org/document_library/program_docs/SharingKnowledge_booklet.pdf.

18. Chua A, Wing L. Why KM projects fail: a multi-case analysis.

19. Davenport TH. Saving IT's soul: human-centered information management. Harvard Business Review on the Business Value of IT. Harvard Business School Press; 1999. p. 1-34.

20. Cabrera A, Cabrera EF. Knowledge Sharing Dilemmas.

21. Wasko MM, Faraj S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice.

22. O'Dell C, Hubert C. Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture.

23. Connelly CE, Kelloway EK. Predictors of employees' perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures.

24. Alavi M, Leidner DE. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues.

25. Zack MH. Developing a Knowledge Strategy.

26. Davenport TH,Prusak L. Working knowledge: how organisations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.

http://ictkm.cgiar.org/document_library/program_docs/SharingKnowledge_booklet.pdf.

http://ictkm.cgiar.org/document_library/program_docs/SharingKnowledge_booklet.pdf.


25

27. Fahey L, Prusak L. The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management.

28. Tsoukas H. The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructivist Approach.

29. Tsoukas H, Mylonopoulos N. Introduction: knowledge construction and creation in organizations.

30. Damodaran L, OW. Barriers and facilitators to the use of knowledge management systems.

31. Leibowitz J, Chen Y. Developing knowledge-sharing proficiencies.

understanding knowledge sharing behaviours · knowledge sharing is considered one of the most...

Documents