ABSTRACT:
A
sociotechnical view of knowledge management is used to review the literature on
knowledge sharing. Aspects of ownership and
motivators for sharing knowledge are reviewed. It is only through the
participation of Human Resources departments and individuals that the sharing
of knowledge in organisations may succeed. Knowledge sharing is discussed and
its barriers are addressed. A series of strategies are presented from four
different contexts: social, organisational, managerial and technical. A
discussion on how to develop a knowledge sharing culture is presented. One
tool, Blogs, is discussed to formalise the knowledge sharing strategies
implemented as a way to develop an organisational culture in which knowledge is
shared.
Keywords: Knowledge Management, Knowledge
Sharing, Human Resources, Blogs.
1. Introduction
The
sociotechnical approach has enhanced the way we look at phenomena arising from
organisational settings in which technology is implemented as a way to assist
their members in achieving the mission and goals of those organisations. In the
last decade, knowledge management tools have been introduced aiming at facilitating
the sharing of knowledge among individuals. These efforts have received mixed
reviews (Alavi and Leidner, 2001, Bender and Fish, 2000, Coakes, 2004,
Davenport et al., 1998, Greengard, 1998a, Schultze and Leidner, 2002, Smith,
2003, Storey and Barnett, 2000).
It
is extremely important that organisations create a culture of knowledge
sharing. This way the organisation would not be dependent on the knowledge of a
few employees and everyone in the corporation would benefit from the knowledge
the firm has enabled, both individual and inter-subjective knowledge.
Individual knowledge is meant as the knowledge residing within a human subject,
while intersubjective knowledge is meant as the knowledge of individuals that
is shared among them (Goldkuhl and Braf, 2001). Institutionalised knowledge has
its origins in individual and intersubjective knowledge. Such knowledge is not
always deployed through an explicit and linguistic communication process. Much
knowledge (both individual and intersubjective) is kept in practical
consciousness (Giddens, 1984).
This paper looks at the
sociotechnical views on knowledge sharing that allow corporations to establish
a knowledge sharing culture. Coakes (2001) introduces this sociotechnical
perspective in which technology is only an enabler and the social aspects of
managing knowledge become pre-eminent. The paper looks at the social and human
sides of knowledge management. Knowledge sharing is discussed and its barriers
are addressed. Following Smith (2003), a series of strategies found in the
literature are presented from four different contexts: social, organisational,
managerial and technical, followed by a discussion on how to develop a
knowledge sharing culture. One tool, blogs, is presented as a way to enable a
knowledge sharing culture.
2. The Social And Human Sides Of The Management Of Knowledge
As part of the social
approach to knowledge management, it is important to understand the role that
both individuals and the human resources function play in the management of
knowledge in an organisation. Some analysts believe that information technology
is a key driver for knowledge management; others disagree with this view and
believe that knowledge management is about people not technology, and to start
from a computer perspective would
ensure the failure of knowledge management (Soliman and Spooner, 2000).
Researchers have argued
that people are important to the creation, capture, and sharing of knowledge.
Egan (2003) indicates that the effective flow of knowledge is only sustainable
through people. Geraint (1998) claims that too much faith has been
invested in technology at the expense of people issues. While Carter and
When the people dimension
is raised in knowledge management, it is often in the context of the human or
technology interface and in the capturing
and sharing of information (Brelade and Harman, 2000). The biggest contribution that human resources
can make to knowledge management is often not stated
- to bridge the gap between what people know (information and expertise)
and what they do. Brelade and Harman
(2000) essentially state that Human Resources departments can play a role in
ensuring that individuals can find and use the knowledge available in an
organisation. It is not just about
sharing knowledge, but making certain the right people get the knowledge they
need when they require it.
Brelade and Harman (2000)
indicate that Human Resources departments are perceived as having a minor role
in knowledge sharing while Egan (2003) claims that Human Resources departments
are not even perceived as having a role in knowledge management or knowledge
sharing. This may be due to the fact
that many early knowledge initiatives were led by information technology departments.
Knowledge management
ultimately depends upon people, but it is precisely the people aspect that has
been the most neglected while studying this field. Human Resources practitioners and analysts
have been slow in contributing to knowledge management. Therefore, the onus is not just on the
organisation to determine the role that Human Resources departments will have
in knowledge management, these departments should also recognize their
responsibility (Hislop, 2003, Greengard, 1998b).
Human Resources departments
should not necessarily have to lead knowledge management initiatives. Most
likely their representatives would not understand the complexities associated
with the development of the system.
However, they should have a role in the development of knowledge
management within the organisation.
Organisations have to
determine how to involve employees in knowledge management process, i.e., to
develop and implement strategies to motivate employees (or encourage them) to
create, capture, and share knowledge. In
addition, the role of Human Resources departments should not be taken
lightly.
Knowledge sharing enables
employees to share their insights and experiences in order to allow faster and
more cost effective project completions (Geraint, 1998). Employees can draw upon the experiences of
others in their pursuit of finding solutions to problems. Redundancy of work is decreased as employees
are not re‑creating knowledge (Arora, 2002). The overall results are cost and time savings,
which is the creation of value for the organisation. As practices and policies within an
organisation can importantly affect the motivation of workers to share
knowledge, it is important to examine the various strategies that organisations
employ to foster knowledge sharing, as they should drive the
organisation’s practices and policies (Hislop, 2003).
3.1. Obstacles To Knowledge Sharing
As with most problems, it
is difficult to determine the solution if one is not aware of the underlying issue
or the obstacles that one may face in trying to solve the problem, as such, an
understanding of the obstacles to knowledge sharing in organisations is
required in order to explore strategies to encourage knowledge sharing.
The view of knowledge as power hinders the sharing
of knowledge in organisation. Goman
(2002) states that employees at all levels in organisations report that they
believe that knowledge is power.
An alternative view of the knowledge is power struggle is the
inherent tension between workers and the organisation for which they work over
who owns and controls their knowledge (Hislop, 2003). This tension stems from the idea that
knowledge is a resource with a significant amount of potential status and
power, and results in turf wars.
By using other
people’s knowledge, employees may feel that they look less knowledgeable,
and that they are dependent on others to do their job (Greengard, 1998a). People are concerned with the perception of
inferiority in the organisation, and are concerned about their jobs. The result can mean delays in work processes
and innovation, and unnecessary time consuming and costly training and
development (Bender and Fish, 2000).
Job security concerns as
obstacle to knowledge sharing are further exacerbated when an organisation is
experiencing lay‑offs. Employees
are unwilling to share knowledge fearing lay‑offs. They are unwilling to
share mistakes and failures, despite the fact that this knowledge could prevent
other employees from making the same errors, and therefore save the company
money and time. They may not want to
share positive knowledge, as they believe their job security is inextricably
linked to their personal knowledge and expertise (Davenport et al., 1998).
People also like to
consider themselves as experts, and would prefer not to collaborate with others
(Bender and Fish, 2000, Greengard, 1998a).
When there is unhealthy competition and rivalry among organisational units,
people may not be willing to share their knowledge with other units (Arora,
2002).
If, however, people were willing to share their knowledge
but a disciplined collaborative process were not in place (such as communities
of practice), the employees may not have an avenue by which to share, in fact
the employees may not be aware of the knowledge needs of other individuals or
units. The sharing of knowledge in this
case would occur by chance (Arora 2002).
Employees may also not realise that their experiences would be valuable
to others (Martensson, 2000), or they may be insecure about the value of their
knowledge (Goman, 2002).
In addition, some corporate
cultures still discourage the kind of open communication that is the foundation
of effective collaboration, and as such, employees are more reluctant to share
what they know (Goman, 2002).
The unwillingness on the
part of some employees to share their knowledge may also be a question of
trust. People are reluctant to share
knowledge when they do not know other employees well enough personally to
evaluate their trustworthiness (Goman, 2002).
A lack of incentives is an
obstacle to knowledge sharing, as people are reluctant to share without
recompense either in the short or in the long term (
The final obstacle to
knowledge sharing identified in the literature is the issue of time. Employees
in this case are willing to share knowledge; however, if the organisation does
not make knowledge sharing a priority, and the time to share knowledge is not
built into the employees’ daily work life, most likely they will not
share their knowledge (Miller, 2002, Soo et al., 2002).
3.2. Knowledge Sharing Strategies
Strategies that
organisations can employ to promote knowledge sharing can be divided into
Social, Organisational, Managerial, and Technical contexts (Smith, 2003).
3.2.1. Social Context
Establish Opportunities
for Interactions
Most
knowledge is shared socially, e.g., face‑to‑face or telephone
conversations. However, often the
sharing of knowledge happens via electronic communications, and document
repositories (Smith, 2003).
Organisational efforts should be focused on creating opportunities for
employees to interact, whether formally or informally, to foster knowledge
sharing. Creating these opportunities
should aid in building trust among employees, to overcome the knowledge sharing
obstacle whereby employees are not comfortable sharing their knowledge with
people they do not know (Goman, 2002).
Informal
opportunities would include unscheduled meetings, informal seminars, or coffee
break conversations. Formal
opportunities would include training sessions, plant tours, and scheduled
debriefings. While knowledge sharing may
be facilitated through formal opportunities, this may stifle creativity (Alavi
and Leidner, 2001).
Organisations
can develop communities of practice to promote knowledge sharing (Arora, 2002,
Carter and Scarborough, 2001, Geraint, 1998).
These communities of practice are a group of people sharing experiences
and knowledge in a free flowing way and fostering new approaches to problem
solving (Arora, 2002). Communities of
practice are forums where employees share best practices (Arora, 2002). The groups may be developed informally and
become self-selecting (Carter and
Establish a Mentorship
and/or Coaching Program
An
organisation can develop a mentorship program to gently transfer “subtle
and private skills and experiences” to others (Cope 1998,
p. 29). The mentor is not explicit
in the sharing of knowledge, but they will role-model the behaviours the mentor
found to be effective. Mentors also
introduce mentees to their network, in a low pressure, and informal setting
(Egan, 2003). Coaching is not just for
employees, but also for managers, to aid them in dealing with day‑to‑day
issues, and to aid them to become better coaches to their staff (Egan,
2003).
3.2.2. Organisational Context
Establish Incentive
Schemes
Desouza
and Awazu (2003) have identified the need for incentives to motivate employees
to share their knowledge, as opposed to hoarding it. To properly encourage
knowledge contributions, organisation must re‑align incentive schemes to
accurately account for these vital contributions. Greengard (1998a) in the same line claims
that creating appropriate rewards, recognition, and compensation to drive
knowledge management is essential (Burtha, 2001, Brelade and Harman, 2000, Chase,
1997, Martensson, 2000, Yahya and Goh, 2002).
In a study of organisations’ knowledge management practices 46% of
respondents cited rewards and recognition as an obstacle to creating a
knowledge‑based organisation (Chase, 1997).
One
of the obstacles to sharing, as identified previously in Obstacles to Knowledge
Sharing, are improper incentives (whether they be to enter knowledge in a
repository, or to share in face‑to‑face discussions), where
employees are rewarded on an individual basis, as opposed to being rewarded for
team efforts. Rewards should be based on
contributions towards the group’s performance, and should not be based on
internal competition or individual rewards (Yahya and Goh, 2002, Goman, 2002.
The
incentives provided to employees should be both short‑term, e.g.,
bonuses; and long‑term, e.g., salaries, promotions, etc.; to reflect the
organisation’s short and long‑term focus (Brelade and Harman, 2000,
Davenport, 1997). An example of a short‑term
incentive was Ernst and Young’s plan of offering prizes of ₤1,000
to ten staff members whose submissions in the knowledge repository were
randomly picked over a three‑month period. The number of submissions increased from
approximately 50 per month, to 500 by the end of the three‑month period. Eventually the number of submissions settled around 200 to 300 per month (Geraint,
1998). The incentives given should also not be trivial.
Davenport et al. (1998) suggest that short‑term incentives
should be highly visible.
Long‑term
incentives, as mentioned above, involve tying knowledge sharing in with the
organisation’s evaluation and compensation structure (Davenport et al.,
1998). Organisations can develop
knowledge sharing competencies to use during the appraisal process (Geraint,
1998). Knowledge management skills, including knowledge sharing, should form
part of employees’ performance evaluations (Greengard, 1998). Employees can be assessed based on the
acquisition of new skills and knowledge, undertaking new projects or responsibilities,
contributions to a community or team, or contributions to the development of
another employee (Brelade and Harman, 2000).
When
establishing an incentive scheme, organisations should take into consideration,
as a minimum requirement, the quality of the knowledge shared. Brown and Duguid (2000) suggest a
process of submission, refinement, revision, and posting in the knowledge
repository. This process can be very
time consuming, and costly to the organisation, however in the long run, may
save the organisation money.
Not
all incentives will motivate employees to share in the same way. Geraint (1998) indicates that salespeople may
respond to financial or other material incentives, whereas systems engineers
may be motivated by the sense of pride they feel when their knowledge is shared
and used. Therefore, when designing an
incentive scheme, it must be developed with the participation of employees to
some degree, to maximise its acceptance, (Brelade and Harman, 2000), much
the same as you would try to get employee buy‑in when effecting
organisational change.
Use Recruitment,
Selection, Training and Development
Recruiting
and selecting employees that fit well with the knowledge sharing culture
fosters knowledge sharing (Hislop, 2003).
In addition, through recruitment and selection strategies, the
organisation can fill the organisation’s knowledge gaps, as opposed to
just fill jobs (Brelade and Harman, 2003).
The organisation can use tools such as personality and aptitude tests to
determine how well those recruited would fit in with the organisation. They
should also be evaluated on their propensity to share knowledge.
The
training process can also influence knowledge‑sharing. Often workers do not use knowledge‑sharing
technology and tools simply because they are not sure how they work or do not
understand what behaviours they are expected to practice. Organisations should ensure that employees
are provided with training regarding the technology tools to support knowledge
sharing, as well as the behaviours that they are expected to exhibit (Smith,
2003). Employees should be trained how
to use the knowledge management systems, as well as educated with respect to
the value of sharing knowledge.
Organisations have to assist employees in understanding what the system
is, what it does, and how it can benefit them personally (Greengard, 1998a).
Bender
and Fish (2000) suggest a new way of fostering knowledge sharing through global
assignments where employees can transfer their skills and knowledge to various
parts of the organisation as they move from place to place. Alavi and Leidner (2001) also discuss
personnel transfers from one group to another as a means of sharing knowledge.
Match Structure With
Strategy
The
literature suggests that a hierarchical structure does not foster interactions among employees, and
therefore does not foster knowledge sharing (Bhatt, 2001, Hwang, 2003, Manasco,
1996, Smith 2003, Soo et al., 2002). In
fact, Smith (2003) states that research has repeatedly shown that
organisational demographics, particularly large size and formal status
differentials, have a negative influence on knowledge sharing. As such, the organisation should be organised
so that the structure is matched with the knowledge sharing strategy. For example, creating teams that cut across
organisational functions, in order to share, and perhaps create new knowledge.
3.2.3 Managerial Context
Establish Management
Support
Management
plays an especially critical role in leading knowledge‑sharing efforts
(Smith, 2003). Management needs to
support knowledge‑sharing in the organisation and provide visible support
(Geraint, 1998, Goman, 2002). Management
has to motivate the employees to share their knowledge, and can do so by
ensuring staff:
Ø
are allocated sufficient time for knowledge sharing;
Ø
are recognised and rewarded for sharing;
Ø
are hired and promoted in part based on knowledge sharing;
Ø
are provided with sufficient time to train on how to use knowledge
management systems and how to discern and exhibit knowledge sharing behaviours;
and
Ø
understand the value of knowledge sharing not only to the organisation,
but to them as well.
One
of the most important conditions under which people are willing to share their
knowledge is visible support of senior management (Goman, 2002). Senior
managers should also be seen as committed to the knowledge sharing efforts and
to role model this behaviour.
A
lack of time to share knowledge, whether it is to enter knowledge into a
repository, or for informal interactions, was previously identified as a
knowledge sharing obstacle. It is not a
question of the employees’ lack of motivation per se, but rather that
other matters have been identified as priorities. Organisations need to make it quick and easy
to share knowledge (Miller, 2002).
Management should identify knowledge sharing as a priority, and allow
employees sufficient time to share knowledge.
Another
obstacle to knowledge sharing was a lack of open communication. In addition, as some employees were not aware
of the value of their knowledge, they did not share. Management should create an environment where
open communication is encouraged (Goman, 2002), and should take the time to
explain to the employees the value of sharing knowledge. Organisations with a more sophisticated view
of knowledge management are making great efforts to persuade staff that
effective knowledge sharing can make their jobs easier and more satisfying, and
can enhance their reputations (Geraint, 1998).
It is useful to ensure that the purpose and reason of knowledge sharing
is clarified and understood by everyone involved (Storey and Barnett, 2000).
3.2.4. Technical Context
Use TechnologyAs A
Knowledge Sharing Enabler
The
technical context encompasses the technology tools supporting the knowledge
sharing effort. Smith (2003) draws a
very clear relationship between technology and knowledge sharing. One must
remember that information technology makes possible the connections that enable
knowledge sharing, but it does not motivate employees to share their
knowledge. Technology should be viewed
as an enabler of knowledge sharing.
While organisations can put the tools in place, there is no guarantee
that employees are going to use them, or use them effectively, so there is
still a human aspect to the knowledge sharing tools.
An
organisation can develop knowledge maps, whereby fields
for area of expertise and mode of communication are added to a Human Resource
Management system. This allows employees
to find individuals that possess the expertise that they are seeking in trying
to solve their problem (Desouza and Awazu, 2003). In addition, this tool can overcome
geographical boundaries enabling employees to benefit from the expertise of
employees in other parts of the organisation anywhere in the world (Desouza and
Awazu, 2003).
Technology
tools for knowledge sharing include electronic bulletin boards, discussion
forums, knowledge directories, groupware, databases, intranets, intelligent
search engines, personal web pages, electronic mail, virtual conference rooms,
libraries, corporate yellow pages, among many others (Alavi and Leidner, 2001,
Bender and Fish, 2000, Chase 1997, Geraint 1998). E-learning is a training tool which can be
used to train employees to use the knowledge sharing systems, and to recognize
knowledge sharing behaviours (Wild et al., 2002). Recently a new technology,
Blogs, has been discussed as a new medium for Social interaction and discourse
and it has been argued that it has an emerging role in the sharing and building
of knowledge (Vaast et al., 2006). In Blogging and Sharing we discuss more in
detail this tool.
4. Developing A Knowledge Sharing Culture
Culture is a term that
encompasses the values, attitudes and behaviours of an organisation (Smith
2003), and is an overarching mechanism, constraining all other aspects of
organisational life. An
organisation’s culture affects knowledge management initiatives, and
guides employees regarding knowledge sharing behaviours. Greengard (1998a) offers the solution of creating
a culture change to once and for all eradicate the idea that knowledge is
power, which was identified as one of the most important obstacles to knowledge
sharing.
A culture of knowledge
sharing is one where teamwork and trust are valued (Arora, 2002, Bhatt, 2001,
Geraint, 1998). A knowledge sharing
culture can also be described as one where people share openly, individuals are
willing to teach and mentor others, where ideas are freely challenged, and
where knowledge gained from various sources is utilised (Smith, 2003).
In order to create a
knowledge sharing culture, an organisation should first focus on motivating
knowledge sharing behaviours in employees (Smith 2003). The strategies identified in three of the
sections above – social, organisational, and managerial – are all
ways in which to motivate employees to exhibit knowledge sharing behaviours,
and therefore influence a culture change to a one based on knowledge
sharing. Note that the technical aspect
was not identified as a motivator, as technology is only an enabler, and
probably the least important motivator of knowledge sharing behaviour
(Smith 2003).
Vaast et al., (2006) argue
that knowledge depends on the different communities we belong to, and that
members of different communities do not interpret the same events or objects in
the same way. Obviously this has consequences for communication at different
levels as well as for knowledge sharing. So, we need to have a tool that adapts
to these constraints and works effectively and efficiently depending upon the
community in which it is used. In the next section we present and discuss a
tool that seems to be well-suited to overcome these constraints, Blogs.
5. Blogging And Sharing
According to Wikipedia a
‘Blog’ is a website where entries are made in journal style and
displayed in a reverse chronological order. This term was derived from
‘Web log,’ a term that indicates an entry on a web site. As of
November 2006, Technorati, a blog search engine, was tracking nearly 60 million
blogs (http://technorati.com/about).
Blogging is a form of
amateur journalism; therefore blogs often provide commentary or news on a
particular subject; others function as personal diaries. Typically blogs
combine text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media
related to a topic. It allows readers to leave comments in an interactive
format. These aspects make them well-suited to store knowledge from individuals
that can be shared by a community. This alleviates the concern expressed by
Alavi and Leidner (2001) regarding knowledge storage, i.e., obtaining the
knowledge from organizational members and/or external sources, coding and
indexing the knowledge for later retrieval, and capturing it. It also helps to
overcome the barriers of a corporate culture that has historically not rewarded
contributing and sharing of insights (Brown and Duguid, 1998) since these
insights will be posted voluntarily but there will be a way to trace back the
history and identify those individuals that are participating.
Blogs also alleviate the
issue of how much context to include. When the context surrounding the
knowledge creation is not shared, it is questionable whether storing the
knowledge without sufficient contextual detail will result in effective uses
(Alavi and Leidner, 2001). But since there is a way to communicate back and
forth while blogging, the aspect of context will ‘emerge’ as part
of the conversation. Once it is in a blog, it should be easy to retrieve the
captured knowledge. Creation of easy to use and easy to remember retrieval
mechanisms are important aspects for an organizational knowledge management
strategy (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
Since it is critical to
regard technology as a potential enabler of human effort (Sage and Rouse,
1999), blogging blends itself as an almost transparent tool that supports the
efforts of incipient knowledge sharing. Other tools seldom address the basic
issue of what information users really need, how this information should be
processed and presented, and how it should be subsumed into knowledge that
reflects context and experiential awareness of related issues (Sage and Rouse,
1999). It has no high cognitive overload on the part of participants, since if
you have the right tool you can start blogging in a mere 10 minutes. It
requires no coding skills and it is as easy as writing on a word processor (
Nardi et al., (2004) found
out that people blog to document their lives, to comment on issues of their
interest, as a way of catharsis, as a muse metaphor, and as a community forum.
Cayzer (2004) explores the role of blogs to decentralise knowledge management.
He and his colleagues at HP Laboratories at
6. Conclusion
This paper looks at
knowledge sharing from the sociotechnical perspective. It presents a synthesis
of strategies that managers and organisations can and have developed and
implemented to promote the creation, capture and sharing of knowledge,
including creating opportunities for interaction, garnering top management
support, creating a knowledge vision, fostering a knowledge culture, and aligning
the knowledge strategy with the organisation structure.
This synthesis of
strategies was developed with the purpose of creating a framework that
organisations and managers can use to develop and implement knowledge
management in their organisations. Through
a focus on people, and by using technology as an enabler of knowledge
management, these strategies should assist organisations and managers in the
promotion of the creation, capture and sharing of knowledge in the
organisation.
We looked at blogs as an
enabling tool for knowledge sharing. Organisations can evaluate this tool and
see if it brings opportunities for them. We offer this tool as a way to help
managers to make sense of knowledge sharing. As Sage and Rouse (1999, p. 209)
reminded us “what matters is the ability to make sense of market and
technology trends, quickly decide how to take advantage of these trends, and
act faster than other players.”
7. References
Alavi, M. and D. Leidner,
2001, Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues, MIS Quarterly, 25, (1), 107‑136.
Arora, R., 2002,
Implementing KM – A Balanced Score Card Approach, Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, (3), 240‑249.
Bender, S. and A. Fish,
2000, The Transfer of Knowledge and the Retention of Expertise: The Continuing
Need for Global Assignments, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 4, (2), 125‑137.
Bhatt, G., 2001, Knowledge
Management in Organisations: Examining the Interaction between Technologies,
Techniques, and People, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 5, (1), 68‑75.
Brelade, S. and C. Harman,
2000, Using Human Resources to Put Knowledge to Work, Knowledge Management Review, 3, (1), 26-29.
Brown, J.S. and P. Duguid,
1998, Organizing Knowledge,
Brown, J.S. and P. Duguid,
2000, Balancing Act: How to Capture
Knowledge without Killing It, Harvard
Business Review, May‑June, 73‑80.
Burtha, M., 2002, Working
with Leaders, Knowledge Management Review,
5, (1), 7.
Carter, C. and H. Scarborough,
2001, Towards a Second Generation of knowledge management: The People
Management Challenge, Education and
Training, 43, (4/5), 215‑224.
Cayzer, S., 2004, Semantic
Blogging and Decentralized Knowledge Management, Communications of the ACM, 47,
(12), December, 47-52.
Chase, R., 1997, The
Knowledge Based Organization: An
International Survey, The Journal of
Knowledge Management, 1, (1), 38‑49.
Coakes, E., 2001, Knowledge
Management: A Sociotechnical perspective, in Coakes, E., D. Willis and S.
Clarke (Eds.) Knowledge Management in the
Sociotechnical World: The Graffiti Continues,
Coakes, E., 2004, Knowledge
Management: A Primer, Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 14, 406-489.
Cope, M., 1998, Developing
a Working Definition, Knowledge
Management Review, 1, (1), 26-31.
Desouza, K. and Y. Awazu,
2003, Knowledge Management, HR Magazine,
November, 107‑112.
Egan, M., 2003, Creating a
Knowledge Bank, Strategic Human Resource
Review, 2, (2), 30-34.
Geraint, J., 1998, Share
Strength, People Management, 4, (16),
44‑47.
Giddens, A., 1984, The
Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration,
Goldkuhl, G. and E. Braf,
2001, Organisational Ability: Constituents and Congruencies, in Coakes, E., D.
Willis and S. Clarke (Eds.) Knowledge
Management in the Sociotechnical World: The Graffiti Continues,
Goman, C., 2002, What
Leaders can do to Foster Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge
Management Review, 5, (4), 10‑11.
Greengard, S., 1998a, Will
Your Culture Support knowledge Management? Workforce,
77, (10), 93-94.
Greengard, S., 1998b,
Storing, Shaping, and Sharing Collective Wisdom, Workforce, 77, (10), 82-87.
Hislop, D., 2003, Linking
Human Resource Management and Knowledge Management via Commitment, Employee Relations, 25, (2), 182‑202.
Hwang, A., 2003, Training
Strategies in the Management of Knowledge, Journal
of Knowledge Management, 7, (3), 92‑104.
Manasco, B., 1996, Leading
Firms Develop Knowledge Strategies, Knowledge
Inc. webcom.com/quantera/Apqc.html [visited: 2005/05/19].
Martensson, M., 2000, A
Critical Review of Knowledge Management as a Management Tool, Journal of Knowledge Management, 4, (3),
204‑216.
Miller, R., 2002, Motivating
and Managing Knowledge Workers, Knowledge
Management Review, 5, (1), 16-21.
Nardi, B.A., D.J. Schiano,
M. Gumbrecht, and L. Swartz, 2004, Why We Blog, Communiations of the ACM, 47,
(12), December, 41-46.
Roberts, B., 2000, Pick
Employees’ Brains, HR Systems,
February, 115‑120.
Sage, A., and W. Rouse,
1999, Information Systems Frontiers in Knowledge Management, Information Systems Frontiers, 1, (3),
205-219.
Schultze, U. and D.
Leidner, 2002, Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions, MIS Quarterly, 26, (3), 213-233.
Smith, H., 2003, Instilling
a Knowledge‑Sharing Culture, Queen’s
Centre for Knowledge‑Based Enterprises, 1-17
www.business.queens.ca/kbe [visited: 2005/05/19].
Soliman, F., and K.
Spooner, 2000, Strategies for Implementing Knowledge Management: Role of Human
Resource Management, Journal of Knowledge
Management, 4, (4), 337-345.
Soo, C., T.M. Devinney and
D.F. Midgley, 2002, Knowledge Creation in Organizations: Exploring Firm and
Context Specific Effects, INSEAD 1-34
www.knoweldge.insead.edu [visited: 2005/05/19].
Storey, J. and E. Barnett,
2000, Knowledge Management Initiatives: Learning from Failure, Journal of Knowledge Management, 4, (2),
145-156.
Vaast, E., R. Boland, E. Davidson,
S. Pawlowski, and U. Schultze, 2006, Investigating the “Knowledge”
in Knowledge Management: A Social Representation Perspective, Communications of the AIS, 17, 314-340.
Wild, R., K.A. Griggs and T. Downing, 2002, A
Framework for e-learning as a Tool for Knowledge Management, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
102, (7), 371‑380.
Yahya, S. and W. Goh, 2002,
Managing Human Resources Toward Achieving Knowledge Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, (5),
457‑468.
Contact the Author:
Dr. Alex Ramirez, Sprott
School of Business - Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada; Email: Alex_Ramirez@Carleton.ca; Phone: (613) 520-2600 ext. 2397; Fax: (613)
520-2532