6 Knowledge Sharing in Organizations—Research Results from a Study of KM in New Jersey Companies
6.2 Methodology
A self-administered questionnaire was developed that contained questions relating to the development of knowledge management practices, the support for the programs, and the involvement of information professionals in those practices. The survey instrument sought to develop as detailed a description as possible of the organizational elements that influenced the success or failure of such efforts: use of formal and informal programs, levels of funding, support from senior management, the roles played by librarians
and information technologists, the use of consultants, and, importantly, the role played by human resource management policies, including rewards and recognition that might facilitate the exchange of organizational knowledge.
A pilot study of the survey was conducted by each research associate who asked a working professional to complete the survey and to offer advice for improvements. After the pilot results were analyzed, information professionals in the identified population of companies received a postcard indicating that a survey questionnaire would follow. A revised paper questionnaire and cover letter were prepared and mailed to each firm in care of the director of the corporate library or information center. A Web-based survey incorporating the cover letter was sent via e-mail.
Responses were received from the following types of firms: telecommunica- tions, petrochemical, manufacturing, materials science, pharmaceutical, and food products. Fourteen of those surveyed completed a questionnaire indi- cating that their corporation had a formal knowledge management program.
Of those who responded to the survey, individuals from five organizations indicated that they would be available for follow-on, in-depth, interviews.
Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interview data were then analyzed and coded in accordance with grounded content analysis theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
It is not the intention of the authors to give a complete report on this preliminary study of knowledge management programs in New Jersey;
however, they do wish to report on the qualitative and quantitative results of this study that point to factors of trust related to establishing a favorable climate for knowledge sharing. The results showed that librarians or other information services professionals played important roles in supporting KM/KS programs, but their work was not central to knowledge sharing and knowledge management initiatives. Other individuals were perceived as being more important, e.g., information technologists, the Chief Information Officer, and/or senior management.
At a summary level, all of the fourteen organizations showed some level of engagement in formal knowledge management programs (Table 1) with the methods used most often being tele- and video-conferencing for information exchange and e-mail for the distribution of information to targeted audiences (12 organizations). Half of the organizations indicated that they have formal knowledge management programs. Informal methods of knowledge sharing included general-use e-mail and instant messaging and bulletin boards. See Table 1 for detailed results of the types of KM/KS methods used.
Assessment of the organizations’ planned and unplanned benefits was done through a seven-point Likert scale; Fig. 1 indicates the perceptions of the benefits by participants completing the questionnaire. The most significant planned benefits were improved information flow (mean of 4.43), capture of potentially lost knowledge (mean of 4.33), and improved access to organizational knowledge (mean of 4.07). The lowest average score was 3.00 for both better management decision making and improved manufacturing. The
Table 1.Utilization of Formal and Information Knowledge Management Strategy
Type of Strategy Formal or
Informal
Number of Organizations with Programs
Breakfast meetings F 3
Other formal programs F 4
Formal knowledge sharing programs F 6
Use of facilitating groupware F 7
Structured meetings F 7
E-mail distribution of news F 12
Tele- and video-conferencing F 12
Chat rooms, forums I 3
Other informal programs I 5
Bulletin boards I 6
E-mail and instant messaging I 11
only unplanned benefit with a score over 4.00 was general awareness (4.21).
General awareness may seem insignificant, however, if organizational members can become aware of knowledge sharing and knowledge management, that is a step in the direction of increasing the useful knowledge in an organization as well as the initial stage in the change process.
Participants also noted that unplanned benefits were accrued through the use of knowledge management programs. Additionally, information was collected about the factors that contributed to the success of the programs (Fig. 2). In this question, a score of one indicated “negatively impacted,” a
Planned and Unplanned Benefits of KM
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Improved information flow (P) General awareness (U) Capture lost knowledge (P) Improved access to org. knowledge (P) Improved product design (P) Inter-group sharing of information (U) Future cost avoidance (P) Improved competitive position (P) Cost reduction (P) Improved cycle time (P) Improved revenues (P) Improved manufacturing/operations (P) Better decision making (P) Organizational cohesiveness (U) Improved morale (U) Other (U) and (P)
Type of Benefit
Average Score
Fig. 1.Assessment of Planned and Unplanned Benefits
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Understanding KM concepts
Senior management support Line management support Training Funding Availability of staff Realistic timelines, schedules Human resources policies and practices Technology resources and applications
srotcaFgnicneulfnI
Average Score Fig. 2.Factors Influencing KM Program Development
score of four indicated “neutral” and a score of seven indicated “positively impacted.” The three benefits that received the highest average scores, and the only ones with positive influences, were technology resources (4.64), line management support (4.46) and human resource practices and policies (4.0). The lowest average score was 3.33 for realistic timelines and schedules indicating some negative impact of these factors on the development effort.
Few extrinsic rewards were present for knowledge sharing in these organizations. On a Likert scale from one (no rewards) to seven (extensive reward systems), the average response was ‘2’ with only three organizational representatives marking ‘4,’ indicating some utilization of rewards. These results bolster the argument presented earlier that knowledge sharing is done based on the good will of the individual with the main rewards for knowledge sharing being intrinsic ones where the person sharing the knowledge feels good about being able to do it. Similar to research on trusting and trust-worthy behavior, those who have a personal ethic of sharing also exhibit behavior that demonstrates the willingness to share knowledge within an organizational setting. The presence of knowledge communities may be a contributing factor, with knowledge exchanged through the reciprocal contributions of members.
The interview data yielded rich results, especially concerning how the organizations collaborate and share knowledge. Taxonomies emerged as significant in the information systems being able to represent knowledge
objects adequately and accurately. The interviewees indicated that to sustain knowledge management/knowledge sharing programs, managers would need to establish clear linkages between the KM/KS program and the strategies and objectives of the larger organization.
As to the question of a climate of trust, the following dialog ensued between an informant at a large telecommunications firm and the researcher.
Researcher: What about rewards and recognition? Are there incentives for people to share information? Is it an organizational or institutional belief that you ought to share? Are people encouraged to work in communities?
Subject A: We have these values, there are a set of values that we have developed as a company so, this is our DNA, and as part of that, we have sharing your knowledge, learning, which is very, very close, to make sure we’re doing the right thing. It’s part of the DNA, so it’s part of the. . .values. At this point there’s no formal recognition of knowledge sharing, but it’s part of it, it’s implied.
Researcher: Were there any issues related to sharing information that can demonstrate trust across organizational boundaries, across the business? Was trust ever an issue?
Subject A: With us, it’s more like, we are a very, very personal organization, and we talk about this all the time. We like to talk face to face.
We like to communicate. We like to get together. So there is no problem with trust, we trust talking to each other. What the problem was, was capturing what we were talking about, and sharing that.
The responses here indicate that the organization has a climate of knowledge sharing (it is ingrained in the organization), and they have trust among one another. The information professionals, however, had problems with knowledge sharing, because knowledge artifacts could not be re-used.
There was not an effective system in place to do that. A large barrier was already overcome—the environment of trust. With some help and commitment, no doubt, systems could be put in place to help the staff save some representations of what is learned in documents and other means of expression and make them accessible to all.
Issues related to trust and the sharing of knowledge are not always expressed in exactly those terms, however, but may be discernable in participants’ descriptions of actual knowledge sharing behaviors in organizations. Several of the interviewees talked about the role of informal information sharing sessions that were often conducted over coffee. These sessions occasionally gained the status of a regular meeting, but they were not formalized into scheduling tools like online calendars. The value of these
meetings is revealed in comments such as “. . .several of the research groups do that (informally meet), like on a Friday afternoon, they’ll just wander in and people talk about what’s going on,” clearly implying a level of trust in the other members of the knowledge sharing community where trust is implicit in the open exchange of information (from an interview with a telecommunications firm representative). The characteristics of communities of practice, noted by McDermott (1999), include an open exchange of knowledge among members as an integral part of the fabric that binds work communities together. Enabling technologies can facilitate conversations that can only take place virtually when communities are not geographically proximate, replacing afternoon coffee and dialog with electronic discussion groups(from an interview with a pharmaceutical firm representative). These dialogs also implicitly reflect the level of trust that exists in organizations and would not take place without the perceived conviction and support of middle and upper management.