The purpose of the research was to explore the knowledge sharing practices of legal professionals in the Gauteng Legal Aid Board (LAB) Justice Centres. Self-administered questionnaires were used to survey legal professionals' opinions about their knowledge sharing practices.
Introduction
South African legal profession
The document entitled “Justice Vision 2000” (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 1999) recognized that the legal profession must be transformed to respond to the needs of all people in South Africa. It was also considered necessary to bring about rationalization and to bring the structure of the legal profession and the laws regulating it into line with the new constitutional dispensation.
Legal Aid Board
The function of the Council is to determine the conditions under which persons are eligible for legal aid and to then grant legal aid accordingly (McQuoid-Mason 1982:1). In the late 1980s the budget of the scheme was increased and the LAB became more proactive about the delivery of legal aid services (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development 1999).
Objectives of the study and research questions
The conceptual framework of the study is based on the GWU knowledge management model. To what extent management (at national, regional and justice center level) actively encourages and supports knowledge sharing in the LAB.
Justification for the study
In the legal realm, law firms represent an industry that seems well-suited to the investigation and implementation of knowledge management. Finally, the LAB's Business Plan (Legal Aid Board 2004) included a knowledge management component that demonstrates the organization's interest in knowledge management.
Original contribution of the study
A thorough review of the relevant literature revealed 'gaps' in the knowledge base between knowledge management and legal aid. In exploring the feasibility of this, the researcher proposed recommendations for the implementation of knowledge management at the LAB.
Research design
Review of the literature
Issues of knowledge management, knowledge sharing and legal aid were discussed in the literature review chapters.
Empirical research survey
Limitations of the study
LAB is a governmental organization and the issue of profit is not a goal of the organization.
Outline of the study
Summary
Introduction
- What is knowledge?
- Western knowledge versus Japanese knowledge
- How is knowledge created?
- Why is knowledge management necessary?
- Implementing a knowledge management strategy
Knowledge is the function that informs knowledge management, and it is to the management of knowledge that the discussion now turns. It is the researcher's opinion that implementing knowledge management gives a company a competitive advantage.
Knowledge workers
Measure the results of implementing a knowledge management program, i.e. become a knowledge evaluator. Another key role of knowledge officers is to establish a knowledge vision that defines the company's value system.
Fours pillars of knowledge management
As indicated in the introduction to the chapter, the research will be guided by the GWU model of knowledge management. Furthermore, to simplify the concept of knowledge management, they developed the GWU knowledge management model.
Benefits of knowledge management
Technology deals with the various information technologies that are specific to support and enable knowledge management strategies and operations (Stankosky 2005: 6-7). However, the researcher discussed knowledge management as a way of contextualizing the research within the knowledge management paradigm.
Introduction
The location of this research - the LAB - provides an ideal opportunity for the researcher to investigate knowledge management and knowledge sharing. It is the researcher's view that especially knowledge-intensive organizations can benefit from knowledge sharing, as knowledge sharing implies learning and can promote innovation.
What is knowledge-sharing?
Where knowledge sharing contains an element of reciprocity, information sharing can be unidirectional and unsolicited. Although knowledge sharing must be voluntary, it is not necessarily spontaneous and must often be consciously developed.
Leadership
Visionary
Management can influence the outcome of a knowledge management strategy by installing the mechanisms necessary to measure and evaluate organizational resources and knowledge management activities (Steyn and Kahn 2008). Companies and lawyers must be willing to invest a modest amount of capital to achieve their knowledge management goals.
Facilitate learning
The second characteristic of leaders that Schein (2004) mentions is that leaders can facilitate learning.
Leaders need to empower followers
Training and Mentoring Staff – Managers can provide training and mentoring to help lawyers work effectively and balance their professional and personal lives.
Challenges and opportunities
To encourage knowledge sharing, the rewards of workers' proprietary knowledge must outweigh the perceived costs of knowledge sharing, regardless of the type of incentive. Therefore, the researcher's point of view is that the purpose of learning is also the creation of new knowledge. The researcher believes that knowledge sharing cannot be separated from the learning process.
What is learning?
Argyris and Schön (1978) identified three types of learning: single-loop learning, double-loop learning, and deutero-learning. Deutero-learning is the type of learning where organizations learn how to learn, in other words how to realize one-loop and two-loop learning (Argyris and Schön 1978). In summary, single-loop learning is related to "survival learning" and double-loop learning is related to "generative learning."
Learning organizations
Building a shared vision – it involves the ability to have a shared picture of the future that the organization wants to create. For long-term success, organizations should be able to learn continuously, to exploit the knowledge they capture, to apply it to reality and to increase innovative knowledge. A learning organization is informed by a learning culture - one where knowledge sharing is part of the culture.
Learning culture
- Innovation
Employees' perception of management support for knowledge sharing significantly contributes to the use of knowledge sharing to create a learning culture. In their study Mei and Nie (2007) emphasize the importance of knowledge sharing for firm innovation. Changes in industry or market structure – the opportunity for an innovative product, service or business approach becomes available when the fundamental foundation of the industry or market changes;.
Ways of learning through knowledge-sharing
Communities of interest exist in the first phase of the life cycle of a community of practice. As mentioned in the discussion above, Connelly and Kelloway (2003) identified technology as one of the factors that influenced knowledge sharing. The rest of the discussion will look at technology in the context of knowledge sharing.
Technology
IT and knowledge-sharing
While IT solutions may be suitable for knowledge sharing in a knowledge-intensive organization, IT alone does not guarantee knowledge sharing (Davenport and Prusak 2000). It is the culture of knowledge sharing that will determine the extent of knowledge sharing in an organization (du Plessis 2004). Implicit in the above statement is the impact of globalization on knowledge sharing and technology.
Technology in knowledge-sharing: some criticisms
One of the stated advantages of communities of practice is that participants in the community develop a significant stock of common knowledge (such as tacit assumptions and values) by working intensively together, making knowledge sharing within a community relatively simple. It is the view of the researcher that technology has the potential to enable knowledge sharing. Organizational culture – led by the leadership of the organization – has a major influence on knowledge sharing.
Organization
Knowledge-sharing and organizational performance
According to Kim and Lee (2006) there is a growing emphasis on the importance of knowledge sharing for organizational performance and effectiveness in both the private and public sectors. As a result, knowledge sharing within organizations is very often not successful and thus organizational performance is not improved. While there is debate about improving organizational performance through knowledge sharing, there is little debate when it comes to the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge sharing.
Knowledge-sharing and organizational culture
The organizational culture of smaller organizations is suitable for knowledge sharing because the need dictates it. As with the bureaucratic organizational structure of public organizations, knowledge sharing can be slow and cumbersome. Rusanow (2009), however, believes that in introducing a culture of knowledge sharing in the organization, all stakeholders must participate.
Organizational structure and design: impact upon knowledge-sharing
The knowledge management mantra that indiscriminate sharing of knowledge is good does not make sense for this culture (Lambe 2003). The next part of this chapter will draw the link between organizational structure and design and knowledge sharing. Serenko, Bontis and Hardie (2007) believe that as the size of the organizational unit increases, the efficiency of internal knowledge flows decreases dramatically and the level of knowledge sharing within the organization decreases.
Challenges and critical conditions to knowledge-sharing
As the size of an organizational unit's workforce increases, organizational structures become more bureaucratic and formalized, interpersonal relationships deteriorate – the level of interpersonal trust decreases, the effectiveness of connections decreases, and interpersonal communication decreases. This effect is especially dramatic when the unit size exceeds one hundred and fifty (150) employees. This chapter so far has discussed the concept of knowledge sharing within the GWU model of knowledge management.
No common identity
No relation between the receiver and sender of knowledge
No willingness to share knowledge
Introduction
The purpose of the research was to investigate knowledge sharing in the context of knowledge management at the Gauteng Justice Centers of the LAB. A questionnaire was compiled and the research participants (that is the legal staff) were invited to complete it. This chapter provides a detailed account of the research methodology and the research trajectory that this research assumed.
Research design
- Limitations of the review of the literature
- Data collection
- Questionnaires
- Data analysis
- Preparing the data
- Qualitative data
- Presenting the data
- Evaluation of the research methodology
- Ethical considerations
- Reliability and validity
The researcher presents some of the issues explored in the literature chapters, i.e. chapters two and three. This chapter discussed knowledge sharing, especially in the context of the GWU model of knowledge management. Most of the questions asked in the instrument used in this study were closed questions.
Introduction
- Distribution of respondents
- Work Tenure
- Acquisition of information for work purposes
One hundred (100) percent of justice center managers claimed sharing at the LAB. Nevertheless, the opinion of the respondents (135 respondents, 94.4 percent) is that knowledge sharing does take place at the LAB. One hundred and thirty five (135) respondents were of the opinion that knowledge sharing took place at the LAB.
Benefit from increased sharing
However, 104 respondents (72.72 percent) believed that the benefits of increased sharing had been determined to a large extent. This means that most respondents believed that there could be significant benefits from knowledge sharing. Senge (1990) accepts Yang's definition but adds that knowledge sharing involves producing the outcomes one wants from life.
Knowledge-sharing is encouraged and promoted
Knowledge-sharing is facilitated
Four (4) (2.79 percent) of the respondents believed that they did not know if a climate of openness existed at LAB. This means that 5.59 percent of the respondents believed that there was absolutely no climate of openness at LAB. Eight of the respondents (5.59 percent) said they did not know whether increased recognition contributed to knowledge sharing at LAB.
Regularly communicating successes
Fifty-five (55) respondents (38.46 percent) stated that coaching and mentoring occurs in LAB to a large extent. The transfer of professional knowledge was answered by 63 respondents (44.05 percent), who claim that it happened to a moderate extent in LAB. Fifty-five (55) respondents (or 38.46 percent) believed that the organization of special focus meetings took place on a moderate scale.
Facilitating collaborative work by project teams
Fifty-five (55) respondents (38.46 percent) claimed that the arrangement of special focus meetings occurred to a moderate extent. Four (4) respondents (2.79 percent) claimed that they did not know whether the arrangement of special focus meetings had taken place at the LAB. Participation in cross-functional teams occurred to a moderate extent as reflected by 45 (31.46 percent) of the respondents, while 27 respondents (or 18.88 percent) claimed that it occurred to a large extent and 7 respondents ( 4.89 percent) claimed that they did. do not know.
Assistance with the acquisition of information
Fifty-three percent) of respondents maintained that a secretary did not help them obtain information. Nine (9) respondents (6.29 percent) of the respondents did not know if a secretary helped them to obtain information at the LAB. Fifty percent) of the respondents said that they did not use the services of a knowledge officer to obtain information.
Designation I don’t get assistance
Responsibility for knowledge-sharing
Forty-seven (47) respondents (32.86 percent of respondents) claimed that there was a high degree of shared commitment within the executive management team. Sixty-three percent of respondents claimed that there was a high degree of exchange between individuals in the LAB. Regarding the responsibility for sharing, 67 respondents believe that this is largely the responsibility of the Justice Center management team.
LAB as a knowledge-intensive organization
- Strong dependence on expert knowledge
- Strong dependence on esoteric knowledge
- Encouragement of experienced personnel to share their knowledge
- Provision of opportunities for continuing education (university-based)
- Access to computers
- Technology facilitates sharing of knowledge
Two (2) respondents (1.39 percent) commented that they do not know if there is creativity in LAB. Seven (7) respondents (4.89 percent) stated that they do not know whether professionalism prevails in LAB. Ten (10) respondents (6.99 percent) did not know whether technology enables knowledge sharing in LAB.
Twenty-eight (28) respondents (19.58 percent) said that LAB's organizational memory was accessible to all. Forty-three (43) respondents (30.06 percent) noted that LAB uses technology to create organizational memory. Ten (10) respondents (6.99 percent) claimed that LAB did not use technology to create organizational memory.
