KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER PROCESSESTRANSFER PROCESSES

Lect. univ. dr. Ivona OrzeaFaculty of Business Administration

The Bucharest University of Economic Studies

A LITTLE HISTORY Knowledge transfer inside the firm was viewed as being mainly

one way - out from research and development to the divisions, then out from the country of origin to the rest of the world.

If only HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times more productive! (Lew Platt, CEO HP).

The large size of many enterprises, their global reach, the importance of knowledge to competitiveness, the distributed nature of competence within the firm and the availability of tools to assist knowledge transfer has sharpened the competitive importance of accomplishing knowledge transfer inside the firm.

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is a fuzzy concept.

Knowledge does not have direct references in the real world.

Therefore, people use metaphors to represent elements of things we are familiar with in the real world and transfer them in concepts like knowledge to make them understandable.

PROBLEM ??

KNOWLEDGE The main problems of dealing with knowledge:

- Subjectivity;- Embeddedness.

Knowledge is not primarily about facts and what we refer to as ‘content’. Rather, it is more about ‘context’.

Knowledge, which is trapped inside the minds of key employees, in filing drawers and databases, is of little value if it is not supplied to the right people at the right time.

KNOWLEDGE The knowledge transfer or sharing process implies that at a

certain point in time one party implied in the process to have more knowledge than the other party.

Knowledge sharing/ Knowledge transfer??? The word transfer is preferred to sharing in order to underline the

fact that within organizations the movement of knowledge depends onto the characteristics of the involved parties.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER PROCESS

The knowledge transfer process implies that the message transmitted by the emitter to be de-codified by the receiver to be able to be transformed in knowledge.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER BARIERS Tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are complementary;

the explicit integration cannot be replaced by its tacit complement.

Tacit knowledge is integrant component of all knowledge.

The tacit components contributes to a great extent to what in literature is known as knowledge stickiness.

The concept of stickiness was introduced to underline the difficulty of transferring knowledge. The knowledge stickiness has its origins in the context dependency, but also cultural dependency.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER BARIERS

Causes for knowledge stickiness: Lack of absorptive capacity

Depends on the level of knowledge of the receiver. The lack of absorptive capacity comes from the discrepancy

of knowledge between the parties of the knowledge transfer process.

Causal ambiguity Reflects the depth of the receivers knowledge.

Nature of relationship between emitter and receiver.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER - DETERMINANTS Four categories of factors that have an influence on

knowledge sharing processes:

1. Emotional factors;2. Socio-cultural factors.3. Cognitive factors;4. Experience based factors;

1. EMOTIONAL FACTORS

Closely related to the interactions that people have inside the group, the organization.

The identity of the people can have a say in the process of knowledge sharing due to the existence of stereotypes, racism, negative emotions.

The level of trust that exists between the organization, its subunits, and its employees greatly influences the amount of knowledge that flows both between individuals and from individuals into the firm’s databases, best practices archives and other records.

2. SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS

Denote the culture in which the person developed.• cultures that are high on individualism may have more difficulty in

knowledge transfer than cultures that are high on collectivism;

• cultures that are high on power distance may have a more top-down flow of knowledge than cultures that are low on power distance;

• cultures that are high in masculinity may have less knowledge transfer between organizational members if the competitiveness is individually based, then there may be no difference if competitiveness is organizationally based;

• knowledge transfer between heterogeneous cultural groups may be more difficult or require more time and effort than knowledge transfer within a homogenous cultural group.

3. COGNITIVE FACTORS

Refer to frames of reference or cognitive structures shared by the members of the same group, organization.

Due to constant interactions at the workplace the members of the same profession develop a specific language that influences the way problems are addressed and resolved.

Three most important origins of stickiness are the lack of absorptive capacity of the recipient, causal ambiguity and an arduous relationship between the source and the recipient.

4. EXPERIENCE-BASED FACTORS

Refer to the knowledge that each member of the organization, of the group gained over the years at work. It represents the stock of accumulated knowledge that was developed over the years.

The background of the individual shapes the interpretation of the work situations and individual perspectives.

Unfortunately the past experience can also contribute to the development of stereotypes with respect to the relations that the employee has with other cultures, organizations or even co-workers.

POTENTIAL INDIVIDUAL BARRIERS1. The general lack of time to share knowledge, and time to identify colleagues in

need of specific knowledge;2. Apprehension of fear that sharing may reduce or jeopardize people’s job

security;3. Low awareness and realization of the value and benefit of possessed knowledge

to others;4. Dominance in sharing explicit over tacit knowledge such as know-how and

experience that requires hands-on learning, observation, dialogue and interactive problem solving;

5. Use of strong hierarchy, position-based status, and formal power (‘‘pull rank’’);6. Insufficient capture, evaluation, feedback, communication, and tolerance of past

mistakes that would enhance individual and organisational learning effects;7. Differences in experience levels;8. Lack of contact time and interaction between knowledge sources and recipients;9. Poor verbal/written communication and interpersonal skills;

POTENTIAL INDIVIDUAL BARRIERS

1. Age differences;2. Gender differences;3. Lack of social network;4. Differences in education levels;5. Taking ownership of intellectual property due to fear of not receiving

just recognition and accreditation from managers and colleagues;6. Lack of trust in people because they may misuse knowledge or take

unjust credit for it;7. Lack of trust in the accuracy and credibility of knowledge due to the

source; 8. Differences in national culture or ethnic background; and values and

beliefs associated with it (language is part of this).

POTENTIAL ORGANISATIONAL BARRIERS

1. Integration of km strategy and sharing initiatives into the company’s goals and strategic approach is missing or unclear;

2. Lack of leadership and managerial direction in terms of clearly communicating the benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices;

3. Shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect and generate (new) knowledge;

4. Lack of a transparent rewards and recognition systems that would motivate people to share more of their knowledge;

5. Existing corporate culture does not provide sufficient support for sharing practices;

6. Knowledge retention of highly skilled and experienced staff is not a high priority;

POTENTIAL ORGANISATIONAL BARRIERS1. Shortage of appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing practices;2. Deficiency of company resources that would provide adequate sharing

opportunities;3. External competitiveness within business units or functional areas and

between subsidiaries can be high (e.g. not invented here syndrome);4. Communication and knowledge flows are restricted into certain directions

(e.g. top-down);5. Physical work environment and layout of work areas restrict effective sharing

practices;6. Internal competitiveness within business units, functional areas, and

subsidiaries can be high;7. Hierarchical organization structure inhibits or slows down most sharing

practices; and8. Size of business units often is not small enough and unmanageable to enhance

contact and facilitate ease of sharing.

POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS1. Lack of integration of IT systems and processes impedes on the way people do

things;2. Lack of technical support (internal or external) and immediate maintenance of

integrated IT systems obstructs work routines and communication flows;3. Unrealistic expectations of employees as to what technology can do and

cannot do;4. Lack of compatibility between diverse IT systems and processes ;5. Mismatch between individuals’ need requirements and integrated IT systems

and processes restricts sharing practices;6. Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with

them;7. Lack of training regarding employee familiarization of new IT systems and

processes; and8. Lack of communication and demonstration of all advantages of any new

systems over existing ones.

ROMANIAN BACKGROUND

For more than 40 years Romania was part of the Communist bloc.

The rights and freedom of people were severely affected.

A permanent tension was induced to people and a organizational culture based on fear was created.

The economy, the value system and the beliefs were affected by changes.

OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH

When changes takes place in society the formal rules change but the informal constraints are still present, opposing change.

Main objective: What is the impact of the factors enhancing knowledge

sharing in an inertial organizational culture. Can they be considered barriers to knowledge sharing?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Hypothesis: ◦ H1: There is a positive impact of factors at the individual

level (trust, prior experience to knowledge sharing and intrinsic motivation) in relation to knowledge sharing in a given organizational culture.

◦ H2: There is a positive impact of factors at the organizational level (rewarding systems, communication process and the willingness of the company to invest in people) in relation to knowledge sharing in a given organizational culture.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (CONT.)

Quantitative research – survey 6 independent variable (trust level, personal experience,

intrinsic motivation, rewarding system, organizational communication, opportunity for personal development in company).

1 dependent variable (knowledge sharing) 600 questionnaires distributed to youngsters in public

and private companies. Rate of response 45.8%.

RESULTS

4 identified factors:1. Trust and knowledge transfer rewarding system 2. Previous experience with knowledge transfer.3. Employees’ motivation with regard to knowledge

transfer.4. Organizational communication system and promotion

within the organization of knowledge transfer processes.