a) Inter-unit KS/KT (or Cross-Functional)
Tsai (2001) believes that the positions of the inter-unit networks promote social interactions and synergize the units’ KT practices. A unit’s network position determines its ability to utilize the knowledge that lies outside of it and manifests its strength by gaining access to new knowledge. The influence on organizational performance of the network’s position and its absorptive capacity is solidly linked. Tsai (2002) states that inter-unit KS/KT benefits from collective learning, information exchange, and expertise among competing units in synergizing and applying knowledge. Coordination, which is achieved through low hierarchical constraints and higher inter-unit social interaction, is necessary for the even distribution of knowledge across organizational units.
b) Intra-unit KS/KT
KT and KS occur within organizational units (intra-organizational) and across the organization and, sometimes, beyond the organization. Intra- organizational KS/KT seems to be influenced by formal and informal coordination processes, and it enhances the overall organizational performance.
Intra-organizational competition seems to play a moderating role in organizational capability (Tsai, 2002). Earlier theories have depicted KT as ineffective, as these theories viewed intra-organizational KT as frictionless or highly context-specific.
As tacit internationalization of knowledge is most probably carried out via rich communication, while explicit knowledge is communicated through written media, managers should be vigilant to ensure that the specific type of knowledge is communicated through the appropriate medium and thus mismatches are avoided (Pedersen, Petersen, & Sharma, 2003). Some research suggests that a unit’s internal learning capacity and its access to knowledge from other units, as determined by its network position, are crucial to enhancing its performance.
Accessing other networks and contributing to them offers opportunities for KS/KT and information exchange; therefore, the position of the intra- organizational network influences the extent to which knowledge is gained, shared, and used. However, this may require high administrative costs and intensive coordination efforts (Tsai, 2001).
Internal learning capacity sets the limit for the extent to which a unit can benefit from new knowledge gained from other units for its own use; in other words, the unit’s absorptive capacity for new knowledge impacts its performance and, thus, it should be addressed in the unit’s strategic approaches to knowledge use (Tsai, 2001).
According to Lee and Ahn (2007), contribution of valuable knowledge by individuals in the organization should be rewarded through individual-based reward depending on the amount and usefulness of the contributed knowledge.
Contributions by the group are to be acknowledged by group-based rewards as per the same principle. However, individual contributions are easier to measure, while group contributions may be contested, since some experts may not share all that they know, and it is less efficient than individual-based rewards.
Knowledge can be embedded in various knowledge reservoirs (i.e., some form of combined networks) of which there are several types. The social network is the member-member sub-network; the sequence of tasks or routines constitutes the task-task sub-network, while the division of labor creates the member-task sub-network, and assigning members to tools creates the member-tool sub- network. When tools are used to perform specific tasks, it creates the task-tool sub-network and, by assigning members to perform tasks with specific tools, the member-task-tool sub-network is realized. Therefore, successful KT requires a fit between the sub-network and the context in which it is being used, and KT will be most difficult without fitting interactions between people, tasks, and tools and new contexts (Argote & Ingram, 2000).
No single employee, expert group, or department in the organization is solely and exclusively charged with creating new knowledge. It is the responsibility of all employees and work units. An employee’s value in KC is
determined by the significance of the information they contribute to the entire knowledge-creating system, and other employees adapt this knowledge to fit their own situations. Managers are the knowledge engineers whose role is to synthesize tacit knowledge and process it in order for it to become explicit knowledge that can be applied to new technologies and products (Nonaka, 2007).
Argote and Ingram (2000) argue that the impact of knowledge sharing and transfer can be determined by measuring the changes in the levels of knowledge or performance in the organization. It can also be measured by assessing the recipient unit’s knowledge changes, but this approach is difficult to apply as the major part of the knowledge may be tacit and not easily observed. Knowledge resides in multiple repositories, i.e., individual employees, organizational structures and functional roles, in the standard operating procedures, and in the workplace structure. Measuring knowledge changes in all these – and other – repositories can be quite challenging.
In Japanese companies, for instance, the locus of success in creating new knowledge is their investment in producing new tacit knowledge rather than focusing on objective information. These companies capture employees’
subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches and experiment with them in the entire company, as the Japanese believe that new knowledge originates from individual employees. This approach creates commitment and an identity with the company and its mission among employees. Japanese companies embrace self-knowledge:
a common understanding of the company’s mission, its direction and envisioning the world the company wants to be in, and translating that vision into a reality (Nonaka, 2007). Hendriks (1999) calls for matching the individual’s ambitions and expectations with those of the team because this is instrumental for achieving successful KS/KT.
KS attitudes are influenced by behavioral intentions that are motivated by three factors: reciprocal benefits, knowledge self-efficacy, and joy in assisting others. However, organizational incentives have the least impact on KS behavioral intentions and attitudes (Lin, 2007). Almahamid, McAdams, and Kalaldeh (2010) state that employee KS capacity, adaptability, and learning commitments are influenced by organizational KS practices.