Knowledge Sharing in a Collaborative Networked Environment

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170

Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2007) 105–114c© iKMS & World Scientific Publishing Co.

Knowledge Sharing in a CollaborativeNetworked Environment

Kathryn CormicanCIMRU, College of Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

[email protected]

Lawrence DooleyDepartment of Management and Marketing, O’Rahilly Building,

University College Cork, [email protected]

Abstract. Knowledge is a key resource that must bemanaged within organisations and across collaborative enter-prise networks. In particular, the two major challenges thatsuch organisations face are ensuring that they have the appro-priate knowledge to support their operations and ensuringthat they optimise these knowledge resources available tothem. In recent years, researchers, consultants and industrial-ists have developed approaches in an attempt to address theserequirements. Most of these approaches have been technologyoriented. In other words, the implementation of informationtechnology systems is seen as the solution to enterprise knowl-edge management problems. However, research indicates thatorganisations are still failing to convert individual skills andcompetencies into tangible products and services. Knowledgemanagement is an emerging discipline and it is still not verywell understood or managed in industry. Consequently, newknowledge initiatives are not exploited to their full potential.In other words, companies are not reaping the full benefits ofknowledge management projects. This paper explores the keyconstituents to managing knowledge and examines the mainproblems with sharing knowledge across teams and organisa-tional boundaries. Findings from a qualitative study suggestthat the key problems to managing knowledge across a collab-orative network are person centric and consequently managersshould focus their efforts on improving critical areas such asmotivation and trust as well as people oriented methods andtools.

Keywords: Enterprise knowledge management; knowledgesharing; problems and challenges; exploratory study.

1. Introduction

The competitiveness and sustainability of a modernorganisation depend on its ability to behave in anentrepreneurial manner and innovate successfully. Innova-tion is a continuous and cross-functional process involvingand integrating a growing number of different compe-tencies inside and outside the organisation’s boundaries.

Astute organisations are reconfiguring their businesssystems to promote these external linkages in order toinnovate successfully. Consequently, the balance of workis moving from stable, physically collocated functions todynamic, competency-based, business networks (Wrightand Burns, 1998; Walters and Buchanan, 2001; Voss,2003). Networks link organisations, customers and suppli-ers to create virtual organisations in order to exploitemerging opportunities (Venkatraman and Henderson,1998; Cormican and O’Sullivan, 2004). They generatevalue by synthesising information and knowledge acrosstraditional boundaries in order to create new products andservices and achieve innovations outside of their individualcapabilities (Pawar and Sharifi, 2000; Johnson et al., 2001;Ratcheva and Vyakarnam, 2001; Prasad and Akhilesh,2002). Ideally, networks share critical information andknowledge, exploit expertise and pool resources for thecollective benefit. Networks allow organisations to focusscarce resources on where they possess real competenciesand also enable them to acquire other capabilities thatthey lack from the marketplace (Richardson, 1995). Inthis modern era, competition is no longer between individ-ual organisations but instead between networks. There-fore, managing an organisation’s knowledge assets acrossa network and converting it into commercially successfulproducts and services through effective collaboration isfast becoming a critical component of competitive success.

Drucker (1993) notes that “knowledge is the onlymeaningful resource today” and adds that “the tradi-tional factors of production have become secondary,they can be obtained easily, provided there is knowl-edge”. In this view, the generation and implementationof new knowledge is fast becoming the only remain-ing sustainable source of competitive advantage for first

105

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170

106 K. Cormican and L. Dooley

world organisations. A company’s success depends onmaking the most of its collective knowledge and thatmeans supporting the people and the processes requiredto accumulate, structure and transfer knowledge effec-tively. Having immediate access to the latest informationincluding information from external sources can providea critical competitive edge. This is a view supported byother researchers (Davenport et al., 1996; Sveiby, 1997;Gunasekaran, 1999; Harris, 1999). According to Knocket al. (1997), “the single most important factor that ulti-mately defines the competitiveness of an organisation isits ability to acquire, evaluate, store, use and discardknowledge and information”. Thus, knowledge is a keyresource that must be managed if innovative efforts areto succeed and businesses are to remain competitive inglobal markets.

Effective knowledge generation and transfer arereplacing manual skills as the organisational basis foradding value (Wilson, 1996). This is depicted in the new,virtual value chain which views Porter’s physical valuechain (see Porter, 1985) being replaced by the intangibleactivities of the virtual value chain (Rayport and Sviokla,1995). Knowledge is a transferable unit, whose value isenhanced when it satisfies a practical need in a timely,cost effective manner. Therefore, organisations and thenetworks within which they operate must manage theirknowledge effectively in order to gain competitive advan-tage (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Grant, 1997; Stewart,1997; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Pan and Scarbrough,1998; Balasubramaniam and Tiwana, 1999; Gunasekaran,1999). This advantage can be realised in outputs suchas opening new markets, more innovative designs, fasterdevelopment times, reduced cost, creation of ancillaryintellectual property and even a more robust network.

Thus, it is critical to their future success thatorganisations focus attention on how knowledge maybe optimised and exploited across enterprise networks.However, this process is intricate and complex and is diffi-cult to manage (Jaffe, 1989; Cormican and O’Sullivan,2003a; Balconi et al., 2004). To date many of theproposed solutions to knowledge management are tech-nology driven and focus on managing existing knowl-edge (Warner and Witzel, 2004; Nonaka and Takeuchi,1995). In other words, information technology orientedapplications such as decision support systems, expertsystems and groupware systems are seen as the key tosolve knowledge management problems. However, a signif-icant quantity of an organisation’s knowledge is personaland only resides in the minds of employees (Nonaka andTakeuchi, 1995). Research indicates that existing enter-prise knowledge management approaches and systems arenot effective since knowledge does not flow seamlessly

between individuals and network nodes (Wiig, 1995). Asa consequence, many organisational networks encountersituations where knowledge sharing is impeded, learningopportunities missed and innovations remain unexploited(Kruat et al., 1990; Kiesler and Cummings, 2002).

Knowledge must be explicated and separated fromthe knowledge workers, so that the critical knowledge istrapped and not forgotten (Tidd, 2001; Kreiner, 2002). Tothis end organisations must seek to transform employees’tacit knowledge into a collective asset that is owned bythe entire network and improve the processes by whichknowledge is shared and exploited (Hildreth et al., 2000;Warkentin et al., 2001). Leaders must facilitate a cultureof collaboration and knowledge sharing across the network(Hussler and Ronde, 2002; Cormican and O’Sullivan,2003b; Dooley and O’Sullivan, 2003). They must alsoaddress potential conflicts that may exist between thedesire to protect the organisations intellectual competi-tive advantage from their competitors and the need toshare this knowledge freely within the network, whichmay contain past competitors. This paper seeks to exam-ine knowledge sharing within the context of a collabora-tive environment and attempts to address the key issuesconstraining its development. The goal of our researchis to provide a better understanding of the dynamics ofknowledge sharing within collaborative networks. It aimsto help researchers and practitioners effectively manageorganisational knowledge and enhance the effectiveness oftheir collaborative networks. The paper seeks to defineand classify knowledge. It highlights problems associatedwith sharing knowledge across collaborative networks.It also explores the human and technical dimensionsto knowledge management. The remainder of the paperfocuses on identifying the critical impediments to knowl-edge sharing both within and across organisational bound-aries. The results of a qualitative study are presented anddiscussed. By understanding where the impediments toeffective knowledge sharing exist, practitioners can focustheir efforts on avoiding the pitfalls and thus facilitateeffective knowledge exchange and exploitation.

2. Understanding OrganisationalKnowledge

2.1. Defining knowledge

Knowledge is an elusive concept and therefore it is impor-tant to define it within its context in order to under-stand it. The term is used in several different ways inthe literature. For example, Nonaka and Takuechi (1995)two of the early researchers in this field adopt a philo-sophical angle and define knowledge as “justified truebelief”. In this view, knowledge is an opinion, idea or

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170

Knowledge Sharing in a Collaborative Networked Environment 107

theory that has been verified empirically and agreed uponby a community. According to Wilson (1996), knowl-edge at the most basic level is “that which is known”.Quinn et al. (1996) associate knowledge with profes-sional intellect, where professional intellect in organisa-tions’ focus on know-what, know-why, know-how and self-motivated creativity. Stewart (1997) also considers knowl-edge in terms of intellectual capital. On the other hand,Bohn (1994) examines knowledge in terms of a company’sprocesses. He believes that an organisation’s knowledgeabout its processes may range from total ignorance abouthow they work to very complex and formal mathematicalmodels. According to Davenport et al. (1998), knowledgeis information combined with experience, context, inter-pretation and reflection. It is a high value form of infor-mation that is ready to apply to decisions and actions.Knowledge can be defined as the integration of ideas,experience, intuition, assertions, skills and lessons learnedthat have the potential to create value for a business byinforming decisions and improving performance. In thisview, knowledge is a key enabler to organisational success.However, in order for knowledge to be useful it must beavailable, accurate, effective and accessible.

2.2. Classifying knowledge

Many types of knowledge have been suggested in the liter-ature. These are summarised in Table 1. This list is not

exhaustive but it does provide some indication of theintricacy of the topic. Considerable attention has beenpaid to the distinction between explicit (codified) knowl-edge and tacit (implicit) knowledge (Grant, 1996a, b;Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Hildreth et al., 2000; Kreiner,2002). Explicit or codified knowledge refers to knowl-edge that can be communicated in a formal or systematiclanguage. Such knowledge can be captured in formulae,designs, manuals or books and it is normally easy toshare. The term tacit knowledge was originally coinedby Polanyi (1966) and is personal knowledge, consist-ing of highly subjective insights, intuitions and instincts(Wilson, 1996). Tacit knowledge has a personal qualitythat makes it hard to formalise and communicate. It isobtained by internal individual processes like experience,reflection or individual talents deeply rooted in action andinvolved in a specific context.

Many researchers note that that tacit knowledge isdifficult to articulate and share (Bennett and Gabriel,1999; Zack, 1999; Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). However, it isalso argued that it is tacit rather than explicit knowl-edge that is typically more valuable to organisations(Holthouse, 1998; Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Nonakaand Konno, 1998).

Many of the problems associated with knowledgemanagement relate to its lack of an absolute definition.For example, many computer scientists define knowledgemanagement in terms of understanding the relationshipsof data, identifying and documenting rules for managing

Table 1. Classification of knowledge types.

Classification Description Reported by

Tacit knowledge Implicit, personal knowledge Polanyi (1966)Explicit knowledge Codified knowledge, can be communicated

Migratory knowledge Shared knowledge can move Badaracco (1991)Embedded knowledge Cannot be separated knowledge from an entity

Experiential knowledge Knowledge that is pragmatic and practical Wikstrom et al. (1994)Reported knowledge Knowledge that is published or disclosedIntimate knowledge Knowledge that is deep seated or experiencedDeclared knowledge Knowledge that is professed or purported

Cognitive knowledge Know what something is about Stewart (1997)Advanced skills Know how to do somethingSystems understanding Know why something should be doneSelf-motivated creativity Care why something should be done

Process knowledge Methods for doing things well Ruggles (1997)Factual knowledge Basic information about people and thingsCatalogue knowledge Knowing where things areCultural knowledge Understanding values, rules and norms

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170


data and assuring that accuracy and integrity of the dataare maintained (Davies et al., 2003). On the other hand,other researchers propose a community or social-basedmodel of knowledge management (Blackler, 1995; Kreiner,2002). They believe that interpreting knowledge in termsof rules and procedures embedded in technology does nottake into consideration critical elements such as emotions,values or instincts. The social model implies that knowl-edge is “embedded in and constructed from and throughsocial relationships and interactions” and is “achievedthrough shared understandings and attitudes” (Scarbor-ough and Swan, 1999). Sharing and exchange of knowl-edge across organisational boundaries is seen as the keyto the effective exploitation of knowledge (Gibbons et al.,1994) and sustainability of the collaborative network.

2.3. Sharing knowledge

Knowledge sharing and collaboration facilitate the crossfertilisation of ideas and enhanced creativity (West et al.,1997; Cormican and O’Sullivan, 2003b). According toJones and Jordan (1998), knowledge sharing and exchangedepend on personal networks and the willingness of indi-viduals to participate in the process. A great deal ofwhat people learn and therefore what the organisationcomes to know, results from personal interaction (Ruggles,1998; Ulrich, 1998). Organisations leverage individualtalents into collective achievements through collaborativenetworks. Consequently, organisational reporting linesand structures are being reorganised not around tradi-tional tasks or functional departments, but around thesecommunities of practice. Collaborative networks are self-directed groups of people, bound together by a commonmission and passion for a joint enterprise (Wenger, 1998).These networks are not only mechanisms for communi-cating they also help to advance collective understandingby providing a forum for sense making. In doing so, theycreate value for their individual members as well as theorganisation. They are organic networks in the sense thatthey evolve as a result of the informal interaction of themembers over time as the knowledge base evolves as well.Organisations that create an environment that supportstheir formation are gaining significant benefits in the areasof knowledge transfer, response times and innovation(Wenger, 1998; Hildreth, 2000; Brown and Duguid, 1991;Warkentin et al., 2001). Thus, organisations can createsynergies by enabling network participants to build oneach other’s ideas, deepen their thinking and understand-ing and ultimately result in more effective innovation.

A fundamental problem that inhibits effective knowl-edge sharing and integration across networks is “distance”between the stakeholders, in particular geographic and

cognitive distance (Balconi et al., 2004). Numerousresearchers have suggested that physical distance betweennetwork stakeholders can seriously impact on the successof collaborative efforts (Kruat et al., 1990; Kiesler andCummings, 2002). It has been noted in relation toacademic–industry collaboration that scientific and tech-nical knowledge is often tacit and uncodifiable, and soclose geographic proximity between the partners is neces-sary (Jaffe, 1989; Balconi et al., 2004). The issue of cogni-tive distance between the various network stakeholderscan also seriously impede effective knowledge integration(Balconi et al., 2004). Different outlooks and mindsetsof stakeholders engaged in collaboration can also resultin misunderstanding and disagreement since “their ideasand behaviour are grounded on different tacit and codi-fied knowledge stocks, [and] also their incentives andmotivation differ” (Hussler and Ronde, 2002). Thus toachieve cognitive proximity, significant cultural move-ment on the part of all stakeholders is required (Currall,2003). In fact, Hussler and Ronde (2002) suggests thatwhile geographic and cognitive distance may in fact besubstitutes, “geographic proximity is not needed withincognitive communities” and hence achieving cognitiveproximity may be of highest priority.

It has been proposed that geographic distance isbecoming less of an impediment to distributed inno-vation and diverse collaboration as a consequence ofinformation communication technology (ICT) develop-ments (including email, intranets and e-groups). Thesenew developments provide a ready infrastructure forsharing knowledge and experience between disparateentities (Finholt, 2002). They enable communication,enhance social networks and promote strategic knowl-edge exchange in order to achieve mutually beneficialobjectives (Mandviwalla and Khan, 1999; Nadler andTushman, 1999; Warkentin et al., 2001). However, tech-nology alone cannot overcome the problems of geographicdistance between stakeholders since “distance sensitivetransmission means exchange mechanisms such as face-to-face clarifying discussions and on-site demonstrations”are often necessary to achieve integration (Balconi et al.,2004). ICT must be considered as a mere tool to facilitatethe process and if the human element is ignored knowl-edge integration will not occur (Hussler and Ronde, 2002;Cormican and O’Sullivan, 2003a; Dooley and O’Sullivan,2003).

3. Methodology

To identify where the barriers currently exist with respectto knowledge sharing in a collaborative environment, astudy was undertaken using focused workshop techniques.

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170


The workshop was targeted at European researchers andindustry leaders who collaborate on large and complexresearch projects and operate in a knowledge intensiveenvironment. A total of 19 experts participated in theworkshop, consisting of management consultants, researchand development managers and academic researchersrepresenting seven European countries and five individualprojects. The aim of the workshop was not to focus on thespecifics of the projects but instead to identify and priori-tise the current problems and future challenges associatedwith sharing knowledge across a collaborative networkenvironment. A socio-technical systems approach ofanalysing both hard (information technology infrastruc-ture and enabling technologies) and soft (culture, beliefsand management of people) issues was undertaken, util-ising a hands-on participative approach to illicit the keybarriers to effective knowledge sharing and integration.

The primary research mechanism used to organiseand correlate the workshop output was nominal grouptechniques. Nominal group techniques provide a reliablestructure for a group discussion (see de Ruyter, 1996;Oakland, 2000; McDaniel and Gates, 2001, 2000; Lang-ford, et al. 2002). This method is particularly useful when(a) the issues that surrounding the problem appear largeand complex, (b) the information relevant to the prob-lem appears in unorganised thoughts and ideas and finally(c) where group consensus is required (or desired). Thisapproach is an effective use of both time and effort andalso facilitates the cross fertilisation of ideas. During theworkshop each team member, in turn, identified key barri-ers to knowledge sharing and transfer across organisationsin a network. Participants were then invited to reflect andrecord their suggestions on paper. Team members thendiscussed the merits of each item. Further discussions forthe purpose of clarification also took place. Each itemwas then reviewed and duplications were eliminated bythe facilitator who also ensured that all suggestions wereclearly understood by all participants. Individual barrierswere then grouped into related categories. The groupinghelped to develop a common understanding of the prob-lem. A voting procedure was used to rank all categoriesin order of priority. Here each participant was asked toselect the top three items that (s)he considered to be themost important and rank them in order of priority. To dothis they were each given three votes: one had a value ofthree points, the second had a value of two points andthe third had a value of one point. They then assignedscores of three, two and one in order of importance tothe categories they felt were the key barriers to knowl-edge sharing. Finally, the results were compiled and eachcategory was assigned an aggregate score on the basis ofthe individual scores.

4. Findings

While it is apparent that there are many factors thatfacilitate and impede effective knowledge transfer acrossorganisations some issues came to the fore by mutualconsensus (see Table 2). These include (in order of impor-tance) (a) motivation and skills, (b) trust (c) method andtools (d) resources and finally (e) information capture andaccess. These categories are not exclusive or exhaustivebut rather blended and interlinked. They are discussed inmore detail below.

4.1. Motivation and skills

Motivation and skills was identified and ranked as themost important challenge for effective knowledge sharingacross organisations in a network. According the findingsof the workshop, many participants who participated ininter firm collaboration are often unclear about the ratio-nale and associated benefits of knowledge sharing. In otherwords, they are uncertain about the drivers, goals, advan-tages, rewards and returns for sharing information andknowledge with others. This makes it difficult for lead-ers to initiate successful inter firm collaboration. Further-more, many participants feel that their employees andcolleagues are not equipped with the appropriate skillsfor sharing knowledge. In other words, they are uncertainas to what information and knowledge to share and theformat in which it could or should be transferred. There-fore, unless mutual benefits to collaboration are estab-lished and communicated to all parties from the outset,people will remain unwilling to participate and reluctantto learn new procedures for information exchange. Theestablishment of clear goals provides the form and focusfor knowledge generation and transfer. Long-term goalclarity is achieved when all employees know where theorganisation is attempting to go in the future and whyknowledge transfer is important to get there. Short-termgoal clarity is achieved when managers set tangible andmeasurable goals for employees’ work, which are in align-ment with the overall goals of the organisation.

4.2. Trust

According to our discussions people often lack the confi-dence and certitude to share propriety information withother organisations. They often fear that competitors maygain access to proprietary data if they share informa-tion such as sales forecasts, proprietary intellectual prop-erty or promotional plans with collaborating partners.Nevertheless this kind of real-time sharing of vital opera-tional information is essential if companies want to worktogether towards a common goal. Establishing trust is

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170


Table 2.

Barrier Description Score

Motivation Lack of clear purpose or common vision within the network 41 Pointsand skills Lack of clarity of purpose at operational level

Fear of loss of power if knowledge is sharedFear to invest in the networks long-term value added at the expense of short-term

benefit for the individual organisational nodeContext-specific knowledge sharing values is not encouragedInadequate management competencies to prepare the organisation for knowledge

managementKnowledge sharing not recognised or rewarded by node organisationsDifficulty understanding and negotiating with various personalities and cultures across

the networkInsufficient ability to listen and empathise with others

Trust Lack of trust between individuals within the organisational node and across the network 36 PointsIndividuals are afraid of sharing proprietary informationResistance to change

Methodology andtools

Tools are too generic and do not align with the context specific needs of the organisationor network

25 Points

Tools available are not sufficiently user friendlyLack of criteria for evaluating the relevance and appropriateness of knowledge

management toolsNo clear methodology for efficient and effective knowledge exchange across the network.Technology is not person centric

Resources Lack of time for sharing knowledge and relationship building 10 PointsNo additional resources allocates to organisation or network

Information Too much information is captured 2 Pointscapture and Difficult to capture and classify information for other usesaccess Information is often not stored in the correct format to facilitate sharing

potentially the greatest barrier to overcome in collabo-ration, and it must be established from the outset toallow knowledge sharing. The issue of intellectual prop-erty contribution and eventual ownership is somethingthat should be decided on as part of the strategic part-nership agreement and should be communicated to allnetwork participants prior to beginning any collaborativeinitiative. Trust is something that cannot be imposed ona network but instead must be “normed and formed” overtime, as with any group dynamic. However, an organisa-tions culture (i.e. values, norms and beliefs) and climate(i.e. policies, practices and procedures) have a signifi-cant impact on nurturing trust and therefore knowledgesharing (Cormican and O’Sullivan, 2003b). It is possi-ble to create an organisation that has an appropriateculture to enable knowledge creation, transfer and reuse.This is achieved by developing a culture of opennessand dependence, by motivating and engaging people andembedding knowledge management activities in the day

to day business processes, internal systems and structures.Employees who are actively encouraged to share ideas,take risks, and initiate change are more inclined to besuccessful at inter firm collaboration. Thus, it is the lead-ership of the network nodes that must communicate tothe participants a mindset of shared partnership as wellas the value-adding joint benefit and long-term future ofthe network in order to facilitate participants to engagewith each other and collaborate within the network.

4.3. Methods and tools

Knowledge management initiatives are just beginning toappear in organisations and there is little research andsupport systems to guide the development and implemen-tation of such initiatives. Participants in the workshopbelieve that in many instances there is a tendency to buygeneric tools rather than diagnose the core problems andchallenges. In other words, off the shelf tools and methods

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170


are often bought and deployed in an attempt to addresssome of the organisation’s deficiencies. These tools areoften not appropriate to the problem at hand and arenot sufficiently user friendly or person centric. Diagnosingthe real problem and understanding the root problemor cause of failure may be more appropriate to effec-tive knowledge transfer. Furthermore, implementing toolsthat align with existing processes and workflow is imper-ative. In other words, methods and tools must be contextspecific and considered to be a means to an end (i.e.,an enabler to an existing process) rather than an endin itself (i.e., an additional or separate activity in theorganisation). From this analysis, an effective and struc-tured approach to knowledge sharing can be designedand deployed. Such methods and tools can enable knowl-edge transfer to happen quickly and predictably. It isimportant to remember that a methodology and asso-ciated systems for effective and successful knowledgetransfer should:

• Address and align with existing business processes notfunctions.

• Be context specific and focus on the user.• Be aligned with organisational goals, strategies and

measures.• Help provide information and arguments to decision

makers.• Make appropriate use of proven and available manage-

ment techniques and tools.• Take into consideration the organisations culture and

value systems.

4.4. Resources

All participants asserted that effective knowledge shar-ing and transfer demands time, energy and resources.However, these resources are often in short supply andmost employees do not have sufficient time and supportto rethink and redesign their knowledge processes. Organ-isational resources may be categorised as tangible such asmoney and equipment or intangible which would includetime and support. Management demonstrates tangiblesupport for effective knowledge transfer through a specificbudget location. For example, management can demon-strate their support by providing funding for support-ing mechanisms such as face-to-face meetings that allowthe network members to “norm and form”. Time is alsocited as an important resource. Employees need suffi-cient time to capture and transfer critical knowledge.Furthermore time and attention must be paid to redesign-ing and restructuring internal processes to supporteffective knowledge transfer.

4.5. Information capture and access

It is widely accepted that knowledge is generated byselecting and combining information. To do this, the rightinformation must be made available to the individual atthe right time and in the right format. In other words,critical information must be captured and leveraged tothe point of action and/or decision. The participants ofthe workshop noted that the barriers to sharing infor-mation have been dramatically reduced by ICTs such asthe internet and structured groupware systems. They alsonoted that these systems often produce too much infor-mation that is of marginal value. It seems that there isa lack of a common language between representativesfrom different organisations and consequently there canbe many different interpretations of the same statement.Therefore, information is often misinterpreted between itscreation and incorporation. Furthermore, information isoften incorrectly formatted in documents and files andpeople are unable to communicate effectively. People oftendo not know what information to share, where criticalinformation can be found and how to transfer it to others.Therefore, a common and agreed language and formatmust be finalised from the outset in order to allow themembers to understand each other.

4.6. Discussion

Despite the fact that the majority of the participants orig-inated from technological background, the core problemsthey highlighted were on the “softer” side of knowledgesharing and integration rather than the technical infras-tructure. It seems that the key problems with knowledgesharing lie with the individual and organising the individ-ual in an organisational setting. Consequently, attentionmust be paid to redesigning and restructuring internalprocesses to support this new collaborative business envi-ronment. Astute changes in the work environment canmake substantial improvements in knowledge sharing.Therefore, if organisations wish to either encourage oroptimise knowledge sharing they must explore the rangeof identifying factors. However, the task of managing aclimate conducive to sharing is not trivial. Managementcan influence what the company wants to do and whatit can do. By focusing on specific new strategies andmeasures, the employees can change their motivation andgoals, and by generating better resources the companycan improve its sharing potential. Successful initiativesrequire support and backing from key leaders in orderto overcome the natural resistance of organisations tochange. Inter firm collaboration may demand even greaterleadership and support than previous internally focused

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170


initiatives. Therefore, leaders must focus on the specific,tangible business benefits of these efforts, and partici-pants across collaborating organisations must understandand support those benefits. Such foundation buildingwill be critical in overcoming the barriers to inert firmcollaboration.

5. Conclusion

Progressive organisations are changing their businessmodels on order to compete in dynamic markets. Organ-isations with specific and complementary competenciesare working together in a network in order to design,develop and deploy products and services for mutualgain. To do this they must seamlessly share knowledge,expertise and resources. However, reaching end-to-endsynchronisation is not an easy task and organisationsare experiencing many knowledge management orientedproblems. Specifically, they find it difficult to identifyrelevant information and knowledge and leverage it tothe point of action and/or decision. This paper attemptsto provide a better understanding of knowledge andknowledge-related issues. It examines the key problemswith sharing knowledge across organisational boundariesin a collaborative network. An exploratory study wasconducted using focused workshop techniques. The aimof the study was to identify and prioritise the currentproblems and future challenges associated with sharingknowledge across organisations. The findings of this studysuggest that the key challenges to effective knowledgetransfer are person oriented. Knowledge workers often donot understand the need or rationale for sharing relevantinformation and knowledge with others. They often feelthat knowledge is power and they do not trust others withthis power. Many knowledge workers feel that the currentmethods and tools are inappropriate and unwieldy andthey believe that there are insufficient resources in termsof time and money available to effectively restructureinternal processes to support effective knowledge trans-fer. Finally, we found that attention must be paid to themanner in which information is captured so that it canbe effectively leveraged to the point of decision. In lightof this, it seems that more attention must be paid tocreating suitable work environments and structures thatpromote, enable and support effective knowledge trans-fer. Such systems must add value, be person centric andmeet the real needs of the individual and/or team. Morespecifically, leaders and decision makers should considerhuman aspects such as the organisations culture, climateand value system as well as technical factors such asinformation technology solutions to facilitate successfulknowledge transfer. Developing an effective knowledge

management strategy depends on adopting a holisticapproach to all aspects of the organisation. This includespeople, process as well as technology related issues.

References

Badaracco, JL (1991). The Knowledge Link – How FirmsCompete Through Strategic Alliances. Boston: HarvardBusiness Press.

Balasubramanian, R and A Tiwana (1999). Supportingcollaborative process knowledge in new product devel-opment teams. Decision Support Systems, 27(1/2),213–235.

Balconi, M, S Breschi and F Lissoni (2004). Networks ofinventors and the role of academia: an exploration ofItalian patent data. Research Policy, 33/1, 127–145.

Bennett, R and H Gabriel (1999). Organizational factorsand knowledge management within large marketingdepartments: An empirical study. Journal of Knowl-edge Management, 3(3), 212–225.

Blackler, F (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and orga-nizations: An overview and interpretation. Organiza-tion Studies, 16, 6.

Bohn, R (1994). Measuring and managing technologicalknowledge. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 61–73.

Brown, JS and P Duguid (1991). Organizational learn-ing and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified viewof working, learning, and innovation. OrganizationScience, 2(1), 40–57.

Cormican, K and D O’Sullivan (2003a). A collabora-tive knowledge management tool for product innova-tion management. International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 26(1), 53–67.

Cormican, K and D O’Sullivan (2003b). A scorecardfor supporting enterprise knowledge management.International Journal for Information and KnowledgeManagement, 2(3), 191–201.

Cormican, K and D O’Sullivan (2004). Groupware archi-tecture for R&D managers. International Journal ofNetworking and Virtual Organisations, 2(4), 367–386.

Currall, SC (2003). Observations and RecommendationsRegarding University Technology CommercializationPrograms in England and Scotland. Houston, TX: RiceUniversity (Sponsored by Invest-UK).

Davenport, TH and L Prusak (1998). Working Knowl-edge: How Organisations Manage What They Know.Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Davenport, TH, SK Jarvenpaa and MC Beers (1996).Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan Manage-ment Review, Summer, 53–65.

Davenport, TH, DW De Long and MC Beers (1998).Successful knowledge management projects. SloanManagement Review, Winter, 43–57.

Davies, J, D Fensel and F Van Harmelen (2003).Towards the Semantic Web: Ontology Driven Knowl-edge Management. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170


de Ruyter, K (1996). Focus versus nominal group inter-views: A comparative analysis. Marketing Intelligenceand Planning, 14(6), 44–50.

Dooley, L and D O’Sullivan (2003). Developing a soft-ware infrastructure to support systemic innovationthrough effective management. The International Jour-nal of Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship(Technovation), 23(8), 689–704.

Drucker, P (1993). Post Capitalist Society. New York:Harper Business.

Finholt, T (2002). Collaboratories. Annual Review ofInformation Science and Technology, 36, 73–107.

Gibbons, M, C Limoges, H Nowotny, S Schwartzman,P Scott and M Trow (1994). The New Production ofKnowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research inContemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Grant, R (1996a). Prospering in dynamically competitiveenvironments: Organisational capability as knowledgeintegration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.

Grant, R (1996b). Toward a knowledge based theoryof the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,109–122.

Grant, R (1997). The knowledge-based view of the firm:Implications for management practice. Long RangePlanning, 30(3), 450–454.

Gunasekaran, A (1999). Agile manufacturing: A frame-work for research and development. International Jour-nal of Production Economics, 62(1/2), 87–105.

Haldin-Herrgard, T (2000). Difficulties in diffusion oftacit knowledge in organizations. Journal of Intellec-tual Capital, 1(4), 357–365.

Harris, K (1999). So, yor’re a knowledge worker: What doyou do all day. Gartner Report.

Hildreth, P, C Kimble and P Wright (2000). Communi-ties of practice in the distributed international environ-ment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 27–38.

Holthouse, D (1998). Knowledge research issues. Califor-nia Management Review, 40(3), 277–800.

Hussler, C and P Ronde (2002). Proximity and academicknowledge spillovers: New evidence from the networksof inventors of a French university. European Networkon Industrial Policy (EUNIP) Conference 2002, Turku,Finland, December 5–7.

Jaffe, AB (1989). Real effects of academic research. Amer-ican Economic Review, 79, 697–970.

Johnson, P, V Heimann and K O’Neill (2001). The“wonderland” of virtual teams. Journal of WorkplaceLearning, 13(1), 24–30.

Jones, P and J Jordan (1998). Knowledge orientations andteam effectiveness. International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 16, 152–161.

Kiesler, S. and J Cummings (2002). What do we knowabout proximity and distance in work groups? InDistributed Work, P Hinds, and S Kiesler (eds.)Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Knock, N, R McQueen and J Corner (1997). The natureof data, information and knowledge exchanges in busi-ness processes: Implications for process improvement.The Learning Organization, 4(2), 70–80.

Kreiner, K (2002). Tacit knowledge management: The roleof artefacts. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2),112–123.

Kruat, R, C Egido and J Galegher (1990). Patternsof contact and communication in scientific researchcollaboration. In Intellectual Teamwork: Social andTechnological Bases for Cooperative Work, J Galegher,R Kruat and C Egido, (ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Publishing.

Langford, BE, G Schoenfeld and G Izzo (2002). Nomi-nal grouping sessions vs focus groups. QualitativeMarket Research: An International Journal, 5(1),58–70.

Leonard, D and S Senipser (1998). The role of tacitknowledge in group innovation. California Manage-ment Review, 40(3), 112–132.

Mandviwalla, M and S Khan (1999). Collaborative objectworkspaces (COWS): Exploring the integration ofcollaboration technology. Decision Support Systems,27, 241–254.

McDaniel, CD and RH Gates (2000). Contempo-rary Marketing Research, 4th Ed. Cincinnati, OH:Southwestern College Publishing.

McDaniel, CD and RH Gates (2001). Marketing ResearchEssentials, 3rd Ed. Cincinnati, OH: SouthwesternCollege Publishing.

Nadler, DA and ML Tushman (1999). Organization ofthe future: Strategic imperatives and core compe-tencies for the 21st century. IEEE EngineeringManagement Review, 27, 96–107.

Nonaka, I and H Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge Creat-ing Company: How Japanese Companies Create theDynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Nonaka, I and Konno (1998). The concept of BA — build-ing a foundation for knowledge creation. CaliforniaManagement Review, 40(3), 40–54.

Oakland, JS (2000). Total Quality Management: Text withCases, 148–149. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.

Pan, SL and H Scarbrough (1998). A socio-technical viewof knowledge sharing at buckman laboratories. Journalof Knowledge Management, 2(1), 55–66.

Pawar, KS and S Sharifi (2000). Virtual collocationsof design teams: Coordinating for speed. Interna-tional Journal of Agile Management Systems, 2(2),104–113.

Polanyi, M (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul,

Porter, M (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creatingand Sustaining Superior Performance. New York:Free Press.

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

June 27, 2007 3:36 00170


Prasad, K and KB Akhilesh (2002). Global virtual teams:What impacts their design and performance. TeamPerformance Management, 8(5), 102–112.

Quinn, J, P Anderson and Finklestein (1996). Manag-ing professional intellect: Making the most of the best.Harvard Business Review, 74, 71–80.

Ratcheva, V and Vyakarnam, S (2001). Exploring teamformation processes in virtual partnerships. IntegratedManufacturing Systems, 12(7), 512–123.

Rayport, JF and JJ Sviolka (1995). Exploiting the virtualvalue chain. Harvard Business Review, November–December.

Richardson, B (1995). How to administrate the networkedorganization: Tips from the theory and practice ofmanagement. The Learning Organization, 2, 4–13.

Ruggles, R (1998). The state of the notion: Knowl-edge management in practice. California ManagementReview, 40, 80–89.

Ruggles, RL (ed.) (1997). Knowledge Management Tools.Boston: Butterworth Heinenmann.

Scarbrough, H and J Swan (1999). Cases in KnowledgeManagement. People Management Series. London:Institute of Personnel Development.

Stewart, TA (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealthof Organizations. New York: Doubleday.

Sveiby, KE (1997). The New Organizational Wealth:Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets, SanFransisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Tidd, J (2001). Innovation management in context:Environment, organization and performance. Inter-national Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3),169–183.

Ulrich, D (1998). Intellectual capital = competence∗commitment. Sloan Management Review, Winter,15–26.

Venkatraman, N and N Henderson (1998). Real strategiesfor virtual organizing. Sloan Management Review, Fall,33–48.

Voss, CA (2003). Rethinking paradigms of service.International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement, 23(1), 88–104.

Walters, D and J Buchanan (2001). The new economy,new opportunities and new structures. ManagementDecision, 39(10), 818–834.

Warkentin, M, R Bapna and V Sugumaran (2001). E-knowledge networks for inter-organizational collabo-rative e-business. Logistics Information Management,14(1), 148–163.

Warner, M and M Witzel (2004). Managing in VirtualOrganisations. Thompson Learning.

Wenger, E (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning,Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press.

West, MA, S Garrod and J Carletta (1997). Groupdecision-making and effectiveness: unexplored bound-aries. In Tomorrow’s Organizations, CL Cooper and SEJackson (eds.), pp. 293–317. New York, NY: Wiley.

Wiig, KM (1995). Knowledge management: Where did itcome from and where will it go? Expert Systems withApplications, 13, 1–14.

Wikstrom, S, R Normann, B Anell and G Ekvall (1994).Knowledge and Value: A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation. London: Routledge.

Wilson, DA (1996). Managing Knowledge. Oxford:Butterworth Heinnmann.

Wright, DT and ND Burns (1998). New organisationstructures for global business: An empirical study.International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement, 18(9), 896–923.

Zack, M (1999). Managing codified knowledge. SloanManagement Review, 45–58.

Kathryn Cormican is a Lecturer in the College of Engi-neering at the National University of Ireland, Galway. Herresearch interests lies in the areas of enterprise integra-tion and product innovation. Kathryn leads a number ofEuropean Union and industry funded R&D projects inthis area. She has published over 40 papers at interna-tional conferences and peer reviewed journals. Kathrynalso works closely with many leading organisations andSMEs helping them to design, develop and deploy newprocesses and systems.

Lawrence Dooley is a College Lecturer in Enterpriseand Innovation at University College Cork, Ireland. Priorto joining University College Cork, he was based atthe Centre for Enterprise Management in the Univer-sity of Dundee, Scotland. His core research interests focuson organisational innovation and issues related to inter-enterprise collaboration and university–industry knowl-edge exchange. He has published widely over recent yearsand actively liaises with industry both through appliedresearch projects and consultancy.

J. I

nfo.

Kno

w. M

gmt.

2007

.06:

105-

114.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.w

orld

scie

ntif

ic.c

omby

UN

IVE

RSI

DA

DE

DE

BR

ASI

LIA

on

04/2

3/14

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Documents

Knowledge Sharing in a Collaborative Networked Environment