Knowledge Sharing Enablers

7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers

1/19

Journal of Knowledge ManagementEmerald Article: Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceuticalresearch and development

Anne-Mette Lilleoere, Ebba Holme Hansen

Article information:

To cite this document: Anne-Mette Lilleoere, Ebba Holme Hansen, (2011),"Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical

esearch and development", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 1 pp. 53 - 70

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108693

Downloaded on: 20-09-2012

References: This document contains references to 63 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 1785 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Charles Inskip, Andy MacFarlane, Pauline Rafferty, (2010),"Organising music for movies", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 62 Iss: 4 pp.

89 - 501

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531011074726

Hui Chen, Miguel Baptista Nunes, Lihong Zhou, Guo Chao Peng, (2011),"Expanding the concept of requirements traceability: The role

f electronic records management in gathering evidence of crucial communications and negotiations", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63

ss: 2 pp. 168 - 187

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135646

ames DeLisle, Terry Grissom, (2011),"Valuation procedure and cycles: an emphasis on down markets", Journal of Property

nvestment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 384 - 427

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150312

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by INSTITUTO TECNOLOGICO Y DE ESTUDIOS S

MONTERREYFor Authors:

f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

nformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit

www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

usiness society public policy and education In total Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series as


2/19

Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers

in pharmaceutical research and

development

Anne-Mette Lilleoere and Ebba Holme Hansen

Abstract

Purpose Because selling innovative products is crucial to its livelihood, the pharmaceutical industry

has a fundamental need to share knowledge to stimulate the process of knowledge creation. This study

seeks to explore knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical R&D.

Design/methodology/approach A case study was carried out in a pharmaceutical company in

Denmark. R&D professionals were asked to identify organizational enablers and barriers to knowledge

sharing. Their accounts were processed as text during workshops. Data were condensed thematically.

The analysis was combined with the conceptualization of tacit and explicit knowledge as proposed by

Nonaka and Takeuchi.

Findings The research shows that R&D professionals have different views and practices regarding

engaging in knowledge sharing. This reveals that knowledge sharing is multi-faceted and that one

standard for R&D professionals does not exist. The enablers identified recognized the use of tacit

knowledge. The existence of enablers and barriers with oppositional influence on knowledge-sharing

practices is evident. Furthermore, synergy is identified in the knowledge-sharing enablers provided that

the settings fostering personal closeness to colleagues are stimulated. Physical proximity to colleagues

therefore has obvious influence on knowledge-sharing practices.

Research limitations/implications This study was basedon a single case study. The extent to which

the findings can be generalized to other industries is unknown.

Practical implications The findings have implicationsfor R&D managers who must be aware of these

professional diversities in order to enhance knowledge-sharing practices.Attention should also be given

to the synergies hidden in knowledge-sharing enablers.Originality/value Focused implementationof enablers will increase knowledge-sharing practices and

minimize barriers.

Keywords Knowledge management, Pharmaceuticals industry, Research and development,Case studies, Quality, Research

Paper type Case study

1. Introduction

The pharmaceutical industry has been known for its creation of innovative products

(Horrobin, 2001). However, the industrys innovative pipeline has dried out over the last

decade. The pharmaceutical industry has unique characteristics such as a highly regulatory

environment, long development cycles, and a high level of risks and costs in the R&D

process. Time from discovery to marketing of a new drug requires on average 8-10 years(Ganguli, 2003). A main focus in the pharmaceutical industry is therefore to reduce

time-to-market. In order to stay competitive, companies have focused on other initiatives

such as maximizing the potential of existing product portfolios and practicing incremental

innovation (Tranter, 2000) with focus on life cycle management and technical solutions

particularly reducing time-to-market. This focus has meant that other aspects of this

innovative shortage have been overlooked or at least not fully discussed taken into account.

One of these aspects is the potential of individuals and their actions and interactions within

the R&D organization. The pharmaceutical industry has unique characteristics such as a

DOI 10.1108/13673271111108693 VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011, pp. 53-70, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 53

Anne-Mette Lilleoere is

based at Novo Nordisk A/S

Research & Development,

Gentofte, Denmark.

Ebba Holme Hansen is

based in the Faculty of

Pharmaceutical Sciences,

Section for Social

Pharmacy at the University

of Copenhagen,

Copenhagen, Denmark.

The authors would like to thankthe employees at Novo Nordisk

R&D, Denmark for participatingin this study, as well as NovoNordisk R&D for funding thisPhD project. The authors aregrateful forthe support of EjvindJensen, Director, Novo NordiskR&D, during the initiation of thisPhD project and throughout theprocess.

Received: 16 March 2010Accepted: 12 July 2010


3/19

highly regulatory environment, long development cycles, and a high level of risks and costs

in the R&D process. Time from discovery to marketing of a new drug requires on average

8-10 years (Ganguli, 2003).

One area where organizations may be able to increase their innovative performance is

knowledge sharing created through interactions among individuals. The value of knowledge

sharing is also related to the fact that organizational knowledge is a unique asset difficult to

imitate (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Sapienza and Lombardino, 2006). Knowledge

sharing is therefore believed to enhance the creation of knowledge, potentially enabling new

innovative products to be developed at greater speed. However, knowledge sharing does

not come about easily. Knowledge sharing is strongly dependent on the setting, various

personal beliefs, and the actions and practices among the individuals involved. In this

perspective, the understanding and acknowledgement of individual diversities in

knowledge sharing is fundamental to catalyzing the process within R&D organizations.

Therefore uncovering the knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers of different professional

groups and learning how they apply to pharmaceutical R&D is important to innovative

performance.

2. Aim

This article explores the knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical R&D as

experienced by different professional groups, i.e. scientists and laboratory technicians. The

research is based on a qualitative, single case study (Yin, 2003) conducted at Novo Nordisk

R&D, Denmark.

The focus of the empirical analysis is on the project level, because this level provides the

primary context for the performance of knowledge creation modes in the organization. In

addition, the lack of prior empirical research into the diversity of knowledge-sharing enablers

and barriers of different professionals groups in R&D makes findings relevant to R&D

managers in the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore this research contributes to the present

knowledge gap. The findings are suggested to be highly relevant as knowledge sharing in

organizations can contribute reducing time-to-market in pharmaceutical R&D hereby

creating competitive advantage.

3. Knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing can be conceptualized in various ways ranging from the exploration of

new knowledge through renewed combinations of existing knowledge to the exploitation of

existing knowledge (Szulanski, 1996; Uzzi and Lancaster, 2003). Knowledge sharing can

also be seen as a process of knowledge exchange. It has been argued that the motivation

for these different exchanges is related to the expectation of receiving something in return

(Fiske, 1991). Grant (1996) also argues that knowledge sharing is about ensuring that

existing knowledge is distributed within or across organizational boundaries.

A key task for R&D organizations is to ensure that knowledge is captured and shared for the

continuous knowledge creation processes (Berends et al., 2006). Different approaches

dealing with knowledge sharing exist such as the SECI model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

The SECI model deals with two knowledge dimensions; tacit knowledge and explicit

knowledge, respectively. Knowledge that can be shared easily is referred to as explicit

knowledge, while knowledge that is difficult to share is referred to as tacit knowledge

(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Tacit knowledge is thus inherently difficult to share acrossorganizational units such as departments, functions and groups due to its stickiness. Tacit

knowledge is hard to communicate because it is socially embedded and based on personal

experiences (Von Hippel, 1994; Nonaka, 1994; Szulanski, 1996; Osterloch and Frey, 2000).

Knowledge sharing can positively influence organizational performance through sharing

both tacit and explicit knowledge, which emerges into a knowledge creation spiral as

proposed by Nonaka and co-worker (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). According to these

authors, knowledge is dynamically created through the interaction between individuals,

ultimately through the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. This

PAGE 54 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011


4/19

conceptualization is often referred to as SECI, an acronym specifying four knowledge

creation modes: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995).

The elements in the SECI model address core aspects of knowledge. However, the model

has not previously been applied in published, empirical studies conducted in

pharmaceutical R&D. Different aspects of knowledge is also essential in pharmaceutical

R&D, and hence the SECI model has been a central element for the analysis of this present

study.

Chou discussed the link between knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (Chou, 2005).He argues that three kinds of issues may have an impact on knowledge creation: the

individuals ability to absorb and share knowledge, organizational learning mechanisms,

and the ability to store and retrieve knowledge. Absorptive capability refers to the

individuals ability to utilize available knowledge (Griffith et al., 2003; Cohen and Levinthal,

1990).

Published empirical studies dealing with the exploration of knowledge-sharing enablers and

barriers in pharmaceutical R&D are scare. The enablers of organizational creativity in

pharmaceutical R&D were explored earlier in an empirical study by Sundgren et al. (2005).

This study suggested that information sharing and intrinsic motivation were important

enablers for organizational creativity. Another empirical study explored the role of

knowledge sharing measured as the number of patents in pharmaceutical R&D (Cardinal

and Hatfield, 2000). This study showed that industries with more than one R&D laboratory

created more patents than others. Furthermore, R&D laboratories close to headquarters, i.e.

within 100 miles, did not stimulate patent activity but did enhance new drug productivity.

These findings provided evidence that corporate interference in firms was harmful to basic

research as represented by patents.

In another empirical study, Styhre et al. (2008) demonstrated the positive impact of utilizing a

knowledge-sharing facilitator in meetings between clinical research teams in

pharmaceutical R&D. By paying careful attention to participants, the facilitator was able to

help them create a joint sense of confidence and purpose. Brachos et al. (2007) also studied

different factors relevant for transferring knowledge between units (in the pharmaceutical

industry among others). Brachos and co-workers found that contextual factors such as trust,

motivation, management support and learning were crucial for fostering knowledge transfer.

In addition, an empirical study conducted by Schulze and Hoegl (2006) showed the

importance of the socialization mode to the concept phase of new product development inseveral industries, including mechanical equipment, electrical products, medical devices,

automotive, and information technologies. Empirical studies conducted in the

pharmaceutical industry have found that sharing of tacit knowledge is important for

knowledge creation (Cardinal and Hatfield, 2000; Kneller, 2003; Nerkar, 2003; Thompson

and Heron, 2006; Chang et al., 2007).

3.1 Knowledge-sharing enablers

The creation of a knowledge-sharing culture is thought to be one of the most important

knowledge-sharing enablers (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Thus, one key challenge may

be to facilitate effective knowledge sharing in the organization by ensuring adsorptive

capacity and a culture that supports knowledge sharing (Nielsen, 2006). In an R&D

environment, Dewett (2007) demonstrated empirically that employee creativity is related to

self-efficacy and interest in ones work. Incentives can also facilitate an individualswillingness to participate in knowledge sharing (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Chang et al.,

2007).

Knowledge sharing has a strong social dimension in which knowledge work may best be

practiced in informal settings that assimilate social exchanges (Alvesson, 2004). Corti and

Lo Storto (2000) highlight that common coffee and lunch breaks are settings that enable

knowledge sharing due to the fostering of personal closeness. Physical proximity was

stimulated through job-rotations in pharmaceutical marketing enabling knowledge sharing

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 55


5/19

and hence knowledge creation (Leenders and Wierenga, 2002). In an empirical study,

Cardinal and Hatfield (2000) found that human networks were one of the key vehicles for

sharing knowledge and that trust among individuals was related to informal networks. Tsai

and Ghoshal (1998) emphasized the role of social ties as channels for knowledge sharing.

Social ties have also been found valuable; empirical findings by Levin and Cross (2004)

demonstrated that individuals are five times more likely to contact other individuals than to

use technical systems.

Von Krogh et al. (2000) proposed relationships exhibiting a high degree of care for the other,

i.e. mutual trust, active empathy, access to help, leniency in judgment, and courage asenablers of knowledge sharing. In another study, Styhre et al. (2002) suggested that care

was the underlying key factor behind knowledge-creation in team-based organizations

involving tacit knowledge. An employee feels motivated to share knowledge once he or she

has a good relationship with another person (Deci and Flaste, 1995), or social relations have

proven to be helpful (Von Krogh et al., 2000). In addition, an empirical study suggests that

social dilemmas are also embedded in knowledge-sharing practices, because

organizational knowledge is more likely to be shared with a person who is highly likeable

rather than with someone who is highly competent (Casciaro and Lobo, 2005). Furthermore,

common identity often facilitates knowledge sharing as individuals within one group

understand each other better than people from outside the group, i.e. people are embedded

in the same practice, speak the same technical language and have a similar identity (Adler

and Kwon, 2002; Borgatti and Cross, 2003; (Currie and Kerrin, 2003).

3.2 Barriers to knowledge sharing

The opposite of a knowledge-sharing enabler often also exists as a barrier. Some of these

barriers are: no knowledge of where knowledge is available, no knowledge about the

existence of valuable knowledge (ODell and Grayson, 1998; Gupta and Govindarajan,

2000), not having access to knowledge (Hansen et al., 1999), the epistemological

differences between tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Szulanski,

2003), the assumption that knowledge equals power (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002), and

large physical and social distance between individuals (McLaughlin et al., 2008). Cabrera

and Cabrera (2002) had described how a certain belief, such as not having valuable

information that was relevant to others, was an obstacle to engaging in knowledge-sharing

practices.

Szulanski (1996) found that knowledge sharing is inhibited by three major factors:

1. lack of absorptive capacity of the recipient;

2. casual ambiguity concerning the knowledge itself; and

3. an arduous relationship between the sender and the receiver (the latter point has also

been made by Albrams et al. (2003)).

Szulanski also found that motivational factors played only a minor role in connection with

transferability of knowledge. These findings indicate that successful knowledge sharing

requires more than just transferring knowledge. In addition, knowing that knowledge exists is

not enough to initiate knowledge sharing, as it presupposes a relationship among those

involved (Szulanski, 1996). Napier and Ferris (1993) describe how physical distance

between colleagues makes it more difficult for them to share dimensions of tacit knowledge.Tacit knowledge is socially embedded and increasing its potential would require settings

that simulate physical proximity (Cardinal and Hatfield, 2000).

This present study will uncover knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers among different

professional groups working in pharmaceutical R&D. Insights into knowledge-sharing

enablers and barriers is a foundation for the application of a successful knowledge

management approach in an organization (Birkenshaw, 2001).



6/19

4. Methods and data

4.1 Settings

The present study was designed as a single case study exploring enablers and barriers to

knowledge sharing among professionals working with pharmaceutical development at Novo

Nordisk R&D, Denmark (Yin, 2003).

Novo Nordisk is a health care company and a world leader in diabetes care. The company

has the broadest diabetes product portfolio in the pharmaceutical industry, including the

most advanced products in the area of insulin delivery systems. Novo Nordisk has a leading

position in areas such as haemostasis management, growth hormone therapy and hormone

replacement therapy. In addition, Novo Nordisk has created a drug pipeline for chronic

inflammatory and autoimmune disorders. With headquarters in Denmark, Novo Nordisk

employs approximately 26,000 full-time employees in 80 countries, and markets its products

in 179 countries. More than 4,600 people work in R&D (Novo Nordisk A/S, 2009).

4.2 Participants

The participants were staff from the two departments responsible for developing new drug

products. The key focus of the two departments is to develop the drug product and the drug

product manufacturing process for further up-scaling in production facilities. These

responsibilities are allocated throughout the development phases, i.e. preclinical, phases 1,

2, and 3. The manager empowers the development activities through the team leaders on to

the scientists and again to the laboratory technicians. The two departments are located at

different sites approximately 5 km apart.

The population consisted of professional staff in the two departments, i.e. managers, team

leaders, principal scientist, scientists, and laboratory technicians. The laboratory

technicians employed in Department Y were not invited to participate in the workshop.

Managers, team leaders, principal scientists, and scientists are referred to as scientists in

the following. The group of scientists has an educational background corresponding to a

Master of Science or PhD, whereas the group of laboratory technicians in general has a

three-year long education. In total 60 participants were invited and 47 participated in the

study. The participants are presented in Table I.

4.3 Data collection

The first author carried out the data collection. The participants were invited to workshops

during normal working hours through Microsoft Outlook. Separate workshops were held for

the scientists and the laboratory technicians. The agenda item was called knowledge

sharing. Workshops lasted approximately one hour. During the workshops documentary

accounts were processed as text. At the workshop participants produced data as text that

were documented anonymously on post-its (Hodson, 1999). The text was produced

anonymously in hard-copy as a response to well-defined questions from the first author.

Participants were asked to identify two organizational knowledge-sharing enablers and

barriers, respectively. The enablers and the barriers identified were to be related to their

everyday work life. Lack of time was not allowed for inclusion as a barrier to knowledge

Table I Participant information

Department X Department Y Department X & Y Professional group Invited Participated Invited Participated Number of participants

Managers 1 1 1 1 2Team leaders 3 3 2 2 5Principal scientists and research scientists 18 11 17 14 25Laboratory technicians Not applicable Not applicable 18 15 15

47



7/19

sharing (Hendriks, 1999). Additionally, at the workshop, knowledge sharing was explicitly

defined according to Grant (1996):

Individuals or groups in an organization that share and combine existing knowledge differently

with the purpose of creating new knowledge.

Participation was voluntary and confidentiality with regard to all responses was assured. The

participants were told that the data were being collected as part of a research study on

organizational knowledge creation. The documentary accounts were documented

anonymously on post-its, which were collected later. Following data production on

post-its the documentary accounts were collected by the first author. Data were collected in2008.

5. Analysis

During analysis researcher triangulation was employed. The documentary accounts were

listed and ordered in groups, themes were labelled and thereafter concepts appeared. To

increase validity concept building was carried out independently by the researchers. The

qualitative data were analyzed using meaning condensation: the meanings of the

documentary accounts were structured around thematic concepts following identification

of relations between concepts (Kvale, 1996), (Christensen et al., 2008). A description of the

essence of the documentary accounts was drawn up and given a heading, thus being

considered a concept before the final concepts were proposed (Christensen et al., 2008).

Phenomenology was selected as the tradition of inquiry for analyzing the data (Kvale, 1996).Analysis within a phenomenological framework attempts to describe the content and

structure of the participants consciousness in order to grasp the qualitative diversity of their

experiences and their essential meanings in relation to the phenomenon (Kvale, 1996). The

two researchers carried out building of thematic concepts on their own. Figure 1 illustrates

the procedure for data production, collection, and analysis.

Thematic concepts were combined with the conceptualization of tacit and explicit

knowledge as proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995).

The concepts that emerged through condensation represent common characteristics of the

documentary accounts within each concept. Initially several of the documentary accounts

were shown to represent one or more concepts; condensation was limited to one concept

per documentary account, however. As a result, some of the concepts may represent a

broader perspective than that actually expressed. Furthermore, when similar conceptsemerged in both professional groups, they were given the same notation.

The validity of the research process was assessed by applying the seven stages as

proposed by Kvale (1996):

1. theme;

2. design;

Figure 1 Procedure for data production, collection and analysis. KS: knowledge sharing



8/19

3. interview (adapted for this study);

4. transcription;

5. analysis;

6. validation; and

7. reporting.

6. ResultsIn the following, the dominant knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers identified for the two

professional groups are highlighted before the findings are integrated and contrasted. Four

dominating concepts of knowledge sharing enablers and barriers were identified for each of

these professional groupings. The group other covered data where no similarities to other

documentary accounts could be proposed. In Figures 2 and 3 the results are listed in order

of dominance with the most prevalent concept presented first, illustrated as different sizes of

circle. The concept other combined single documentary accounts where similarities to

other documentary accounts could not be proposed. The documentary accounts are

presented in Tables II-V. Five documentary accounts are presented in each concept where

possible.

6.1 Knowledge-sharing enablers scientists and laboratory technicians

As illustrated in Figure 2, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers

among the group of scientists were: social relations and network, physical proximity to

colleagues, no stupid question culture, and meetings and informal spaces. Documentary

accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table II. For instance, the concept

Figure 2 Concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers scientists and laboratory technicians

working in pharmaceutical R&D. KS: knowledge sharing



9/19

social relations and network is exemplified by the following: To know each other. Easier to

share/give knowledge to someone you know.

As illustrated in Figure 2, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers

among the group of laboratory technicians were: work involvement and interest, things that

make the job easier, the satisfaction of helping colleagues, and being listened to and taken

seriously. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table III.

For instance, the concept work involvement and interest is exemplified by the following:

When I seesomething interesting, exciting or new in my task I become involved and want to

share my knowledge.

6.2 Knowledge-sharing barriers scientists and laboratory technicians

As illustrated in Figure 3, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers among

the group of scientists were: no physical proximity to colleagues, no one can use the

knowledge/fear of being considered foolish, knowledge as power, and do not know who

knows. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table IV. For

instance, the concept no physical proximity to colleagues is exemplified by the following:

Silo thinking due to physical barriers, e.g. dislocation isolation.

As illustrated in Figure 3, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers among

the group of laboratory technicians were: lack of appreciation and attention, no one can use

the knowledge/fear of being considered foolish, do not know who knows, and knowledge as

power. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table V. For

instance, the concept lack of appreciation and attention is exemplified by the following: If I

know people around me do not need my knowledge or I know they do not care about what I

have found.

Figure 3 Concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers scientists and laboratoryr technicians

working in pharmaceutical R&D. KS: knowledge sharing



10/19

6.3 Relations between concepts and groups

After integrating and relating the findings, it was possible to illustrate the associations

relations between the concepts and groups as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 shows that concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers were not the same for the

groups of scientists and laboratory technicians, although the concepts in both

professional groups had mutual characteristics. We could see interdependency

between the concepts related to settings fostering personal closeness, in which

synergistic influence on knowledge-sharing practices was evident, was seen for the

scientists. However, we could not see any similar interdependency between the concepts

identified for laboratory technicians could not be seen. Identical concepts of

knowledge-sharing barriers (Figures 2 and 3): no one can use the knowledge/fear of

being considered foolish, knowledge as power, and do not know who knows emerged

from both professional groups. Contrasting concepts with inverse influence onknowledge-sharing practices were identified for the group of scientists. Oppositional

influence on knowledge-sharing practices was observed between the concepts social

relations and network versus do not know who knows and no stupid question culture

versus no one can use the knowledge/fear of being considered foolish. Contrasting

concepts for the group of laboratory technicians were not found.

One obvious concept of knowledge-sharing barriers among scientists mirrored a concept of

knowledge-sharing enablers, i.e. close versus no physical proximity to colleagues (Figures 2

Table II Knowledge-sharing enablers for the group of scientists

Concept Documentary accounts

Social relations and network Good work collaborations/good personal

chemistry/personal relationsContact with other people for other purposes

opportunities to talk about something interestingSeminar outside Novo Nordisk site on relevant specific andnon-specific subjects where there are plenty of breaks

Social arrangements allow easier contact in futureKnowing each other. Easier to share/pass on knowledge to

someone you knowPhysical proximity to colleagues Sharing office space with more than two people enforced

social contact provides opportunities for sharing

experience makes it more informal to come and ask

questionsPhysical proximity, e.g. shared officeSitting close together, i.e. along same corridorHaving a work space/desk close to each otherProximity to co-workers and project group members

No stupid question culture Openness a work environment that stimulates your

intentionsWhen there is no such thing as stupid questionsOpen atmosphere in the department where it is allowed to

ask questions

That it is OK to ask questions to have aknowledge-sharing cultureThat it is legitimate in the present situation/culture to ask

stupid questions/provide input, even if you dont know

whether it is relevantMeetings and informal spaces Unplanned meetings, shared facilities/coffee rooms

Informal culture for personal interactionCoffee rooms and other informal meeting spaceShort face-to-face meetings (or that people sit close

together knowledge will be shared)Meetings between one or more persons



11/19

and 3). It was not possible to find a similar pattern of mirroring concepts among the group of

laboratory technicians (Figures 2 and 3).

7. Discussion

7.1 Main findings

This is the first study to investigate knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in

pharmaceutical R&D. The main findings of this study were: important knowledge-sharing

enablers and barriers were present in the organization and they have become explicit.

Scientists and laboratory technicians had different views and practices for engaging in

knowledge-sharing, which revealed that enabling knowledge sharing is multi-facetted and

that one standard for R&D professionals does not exist. The enablers identified recognizedthe use of tacit knowledge and hence this study has demonstrated that knowledge sharing

takes place during socialization where individuals interact. This finding suggests that

individuals in pharmaceutical R&D are an important asset with regard to knowledge sharing

and hence new knowledge creation in the organization potentially reducing time-to-market.

The majority of the barriers for engaging in knowledge sharing were similar for the two

groups. The existence of enablers and barriers with oppositional influence on

knowledge-sharing practices was evident. Synergy could be identified in the

knowledge-sharing enablers for the scientists, provided that the settings fostering

Table III Knowledge-sharing enablers for the group of laboratory technicians


Work involvement and interest When I see something interesting, exciting or new in my

task, I become involved and want to share my knowledgeIt is very educational to share knowledge, for me as well as

the person I am helping. Increased motivation and

involvementInvolvement/interest from colleagues makes me want to

share knowledgeDesire to share information wanting to share knowledge

with othersI need to see the larger meaning in my tasks and to know

that what I dowillbe used byothers/ to support our common

goals. That makes me feel involved and I share my

knowledge and experiencesThe satisfaction of helping colleagues Would like to help

Like to teach othersTo please others with such little effort, e.g. helping to solve

an Excel problem. It is good to see their relief after you

remove the barrierDependency if I know that others are dependent on my

knowledge before they can continue with their workIf I see that a colleague could do things differently or in an

easier way, e.g.in the laboratory or in Excel. Then I share my

knowledgeWhen it gives others an AHA experience

Things that make the job easier When I have handled a task faster/easier than usualA clever trick to make work easierUtilizing all resources makes daily work easierThe more people who know how my equipment works, the

more people who can help out when I am ill or on holidayIt is possible to delegate when more people have similar

knowledge, i.e. more people can handle the same taskBeing listened to and taken seriously Good communication that someone listens to what I have

to sayIf you come to a person who is open and willing to answer

questions



12/19

Table IV Knowledge-sharing barriers for the group of scientists


No physical proximity to colleagues No physical proximity, e.g. placed at different sitesGeographic distances between officesGreat physical distance between people that are to share

knowledgeSilo thinking due to physical barriers, e.g. dislocation

isolation

Great physical distanceNo one can use my knowledge/fear of Too proud. Do not want to show your ignorancebeing considered foolish Culture where foolish questions are not accepted

A work environment where employees are insecure about

expressing themselves an insecure work environmentThinking that others already have the knowledge/cannot

use your knowledgeDoes anyone need my knowledge? Maybe others alreadyknow? No knowledge of where knowledge is located

Knowledge as power Wanting to keep your expertise to yourself Opposition to sharing knowledge risk of not feeling

special anymorePurposely withholding knowledge in order to take the

creditArrogance/snobbery to make an explanationcomplicated and unintelligible in order to be special

I know better/people who know it allDo not know who knows Do not know the person who has the knowledge

Closeddoor do not know the organization who is doing

what?Too little knowledge about others tasks and goalsIf people do not know or meet each other do not know

that the others know somethingSpecific groups (project groups or teams) not knowing

that useful knowledge exists

Table V Knowledge-sharing barriers for the group of laboratory technicians


Lack of appreciation and attention If there is no openness to questions refusalIf I know people around me do not need my knowledge or I

know they do not care about what I have discoveredIf people do not use my knowledgeIf I forget to send an e-mail containing knowledgeInattention to the value of knowledge sharing

No one can use my knowledge/fear of

being considered foolish

The more people have studied, the more intelligent they

are I probably dont have anything to contributeIf other people take up too much space with all their

knowledge then I cannot be heardScared of saying something wrong will look a foolI feel that I do not have all the facts and that prevents me

from sharing knowledgeMy experience is not that important or useful to share with

othersKnowledge as power I f you do not share al l the information if you hold

something backA know-it-all attitudeKnowledge is power

Do not know who knows Youhavetohavesome knowledgetoknow whattoask or

know what others might need. Otherwise no knowledge is

sharedFinding the right target groupHearing about the problem when its too late



13/19

personal closeness to colleagues were stimulated. The impact of physical proximity to

colleagues on knowledge-sharing practices was therefore noteworthy.

7.2 Enablers to knowledge sharing

The enablers identified recognized the use of tacit knowledge. Although similar or related

concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers can be found in the literature, the perspectives of

scientists and laboratory technicians in pharmaceutical development have not been

explored specifically in qualitative research (Cardinal and Hatfield, 2000; Leenders and

Wierenga, 2002; Thompson and Heron, 2006; Kneller, 2003; Nerkar, 2003; (Chang et al.,

2007). In one empirical study, Sundgren et al. (2005) have identified that information sharingplays an important role in creativity in pharmaceutical R&D. The questionnaire used in that

study did not uncover the enablers of information sharing, however.

In the SECI model, the socialization mode refers to sharing tacit knowledge requiring some

kind of connection between the persons involved. For the scientists in the present study, the

most dominant concept of knowledge-sharing enablers was related to social relations and

network. These findings indicate that knowledge-sharing practices in R&D primarily take

place through human interactions. Sharing of tacit knowledge as a key component in

Figure 4 Overview of knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers and their contrasts KS: knowledge sharing

KS enablers Scientists KS barriers Scientists

KS enablersLaboratory technicians

Work involvementand interests

Things that makethe job easier

The satisfaction ofhelping colleagues

Being listened to

and taken seriously

Knowledge

as power

Do not knowwho knows

Mirrored concepts

Identical concepts

Contrasting conceptswith oppositionalinfluence on KS

Contrasting conceptswith oppositionalinfluence on KS

Interdependency withsynergistic influence

on KS

No one can usemy knowledge/fear

of being foolish

Lack of attentionand appreciation

Do not knowwho knows

Knowledgeas power

No one can usemy knowledge/fear

of being foolish

No physical proximityto colleagues

KS barriersLaboratory technicians

Social relationsand network

Physical proximityto colleagues

No stupidquestion culture

Meetings andinformal spaces



14/19

knowledge creation processes has also been confirmed in pharmaceutical R&D (Nerkar,

2003; Kneller, 2003), and in biotech (Sapsalis et al., 2006). In an empirical study carried out

in various non-pharmaceutical industries, McDermott and ODell (2001) found that a network

for sharing knowledge builds on existing networks people use in their daily work. Another

empirical study, this one conducted by Schulze and Hoegl (2006), reported similar findings.

Their study showed that the socialization mode was crucial in the concept phase of new

product development in different industries (automobile and medical devices). Here

knowledge sharing can be interpreted as the seed of new knowledge creation.

The knowledge-sharing enablers in this study demonstrate interdependencies withsynergistic influence on knowledge sharing. These links are valuable as it may take very

little effort to significantly increase the impact on knowledge-sharing practices, e.g. common

open space to increase personal closeness, which then reinforces the frequency of informal

meetings and the exchange of tacit knowledge. These findings are to some extent consistent

with those in the empirical literature. Here the importance of meetings and informal spaces in

relation to knowledge-sharing practices were proposed as important settings for fostering a

certain level of personal closeness to help overcome distance. Once again this finding

stimulates the dimension of sharing tacit knowledge (Corti and Lo Storto, 2000; Napier and

Ferris, 1993; Schulze and Hoegl, 2006). Open-space offices in pharmaceutical R&D have

demonstrated to enable sharing of tacit knowledge (Boutellier et al., 2008).

Interdependencies with synergistic influence between the identified knowledge-sharing

enablers for the group of laboratory technicians were not found. In addition, the concepts

that emerged were different from those of the scientists. The divergence inknowledge-sharing enablers between the two professional groups indicates different

goals, job responsibilities, personal views, and practices for participating in

knowledge-sharing activities. This supposition is supported by the finding of mutual

characteristics of knowledge-sharing enablers within each professional group. The

characteristics of knowledge-sharing enablers for the laboratory technicians were related

to soft values and to a work smarter not harder mind-set. For scientists, enabler

characteristics were more closely related to work settings. Different views on

knowledge-sharing practices and their characteristics have not previously been studied in

a qualitative study in pharmaceutical R&D.

The dominant concept of knowledge-sharing enablers identified for the laboratory

technicians was related to work involvement and job interest. Although in an empirical

study Dewett (2007) found self-efficacy and work interest to be fundamental to creativity, the

study did not deal with knowledge sharing. The R&D employees in Dewetts study included

both scientists and technical staff. The present study suggests additionally that

knowledge-sharing practices are enhanced if the activity makes the job easier and helps

colleagues. These findings indicate that knowledge-sharing practices also have a strong

collegial focus. In pharmaceutical R&D softer values such as employee commitment and

care have earlier been suggested as knowledge-sharing enablers (Thompson and Heron,

2006; Styhre et al., 2002). In other industrial fields such as consulting employee commitment

has also been identified as a knowledge-sharing enabler (Van den Hoof and de Leeuw van

Weenen, 2004).

7.3 Barriers to knowledge sharing

In the pharmaceutical industry where development cycles are long, knowledge-sharingbarriers are suggested to be an obstacle to the creation of new knowledge. The majority of

the identified barriers to knowledge sharing were similar in the two professional groups.

Although on the whole similar views of barriers to knowledge sharing have not been

described earlier, the individual concepts can be related to recent literature. Bartol and

Srivastava (2002) and ODell and Grayson (1998), respectively, described the power of

knowledge and knowledge about who knows. Concern about who can use ones knowledge

and the fear of being considered foolish has previously been proposed as barriers. A

mistrustful atmosphere has been proposed as a barrier (Von Krogh et al., 2000) as well as



15/19

beliefs such as not having valuable information relevant to others (Cabrera and Cabrera,

2002).

Physical distance to colleagues was identified as a noteworthy barrier as well as being

mirrored as a knowledge-sharing enabler, obviously depending on proximity. Similar

findings have been found in the software industry (McLaughlin et al., 2008). These findings

of this present emphasize that physical proximity to colleagues has an obvious impact on

knowledge-sharing practices for the group of scientists. This supports the SECI model

confirming that knowledge sharing takes place during socialization as point of departure for

knowledge creation. The findings are further supported by the physical location of R&D

departments at different sites. Leenders and Wierenga (2002) have previously described

the importance of physical proximity to colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry and in

biotech (Zeller, 2001; Poti, 2001). Napier and Ferris (1993) have also confirmed these

findings in a non-pharmaceutical setting. Similar concepts for the group of laboratory

technicians were not found.

It is clear from this study that the knowledge-sharing barriers identified for the group of

scientists have an oppositional impact on some of the knowledge-sharing enablers

identified. For instance, if someone does not know who knows, perhaps he or she does not

have the proper network. Or if someone has a fear of being seen as foolish, that would

reinforce the knowledge-sharing enabler of a culture where no stupid questions exist. These

reinforcements are suggested to inhibit the socialization processes. The opposing impact on

knowledge-sharing practices that has been identified within the concepts of

knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers underscores the importance of these conceptsfor the group of scientists. These findings are in agreement with a study from the steel

industry demonstrating that lack of knowledge about where knowledge was available was a

knowledge-sharing barrier (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000).

It is suggested that appreciation is facilitated by informal networks, because they stimulate

appreciation of individuals. However, in this study the laboratory technicians did not

explicitly correlate appreciation from colleagues with informal networks.

7.4 Knowledge sharing in relation to the SECI model

The proposed enabling concepts were primarily related to aspects of tacit knowledge, i.e.

the socialization mode of the SECI model. Nonetheless, the findings of this study show there

is more to the SECI model than tacit and explicit knowledge. The SECI model does not

account for the actions of individuals such as their strategies, practices, and goals. Although

a relationship between individuals is a precondition for knowledge-sharing practices

(Szulanski, 1996; Hansen et al., 1999), this precondition is not part of the SECI model. With

regard to knowledge sharing in relation to SECI model, the model lacks the views and values

of the individuals for engaging in knowledge-sharing practices. Other authors have pointed

out similar shortcomings of the SECI model (Gourlay and Nurse, 2005). Gourlay and Nurse

(2005) argue that the theory cannot explain how the mind produces ideas or fails to do so. In

addition, Von Krogh et al. (2000) suggest that a high degree of caring among colleagues is

particularly important in the sense of sharing tacit knowledge, but neither dimension is

reflected in the SECI model.

8. Conclusions and implications

The results of the present study are based on a single case study and have relevant

managerial implications. This study adds to the understanding of knowledge sharingbetween different professional groups working in pharmaceutical R&D. The findings have

implications for both theory and practice.

Over the course of the research process, it became evident that tacit organizational

knowledge had become explicit. Important knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers were

present in the organization. This study showed that R&D professionals have experienced

different views and practices for engaging in knowledge-sharing, which reveals that

enabling knowledge sharing is multi-faceted and that one standard for R&D professionals



16/19

does not exist. The identified knowledge-sharing enablers recognized the use of tacit

knowledge. Synergism was identified for the enablers and the existence of barriers with

oppositional influence on these enablers was clear. Implementing the synergistic enablers

therefore helps increase the knowledge-sharing practices and minimize the identified

barriers. Physical proximity to colleagues was an important factor for the identified

knowledge-sharing enablers.

The results of this research have practical relevance. First, managers should be aware of the

diversity of the professionals, such as their different views and practices regarding

knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers. The awareness and acknowledgement of these

diversities can positively influence knowledge sharing in R&D and hence the new knowledge

creation processes. Second, managers should focus on the value of the synergism of

knowledge-sharing enablers and the oppositional influence of the barriers that cause

knowledge-sharing practices to fail. Third, due to the social embedding of tacit knowledge,

managers should consider the location of their R&D employees. All these issues contribute

to the time a company spends on the development cycle. Focusing on knowledge-sharing

activities in pharmaceutical R&D may potentially reduce time to market. The SECI model was

found to have some limitations as the model does not include the actions of employees and

their inter-unit relationships. However, the SECI model inspired the data analysis and was

utilized for the conceptualization of tacit and explicit knowledge.

There are limitations to how far empirical findings can be generalized. Further research

should be conducted to investigate how knowledge-sharing practices are related to

knowledge creation processes during the development of new drug products. Moreover,studies should be carried out in other settings. A multiple case study in pharmaceutical R&D

could contribute to wider generalization of the findings.

References

Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S-W. (2002), Social capital: prospects for a new concept, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.

Albrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E. and Levin, D.Z. (2003), Nurturing interpersonal trust in

knowledge-sharing networks, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17, pp. 64-77.

Alvesson, M. (2004), Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms, Oxford University Press,

New York, NY.

Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizationalreward systems, Journal of Leadership and Organisation Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76.

Berends, H., Van der Bij, H., Debackere, K. and Weggeman, M. (2006), Knowledge sharing

mechanisms in industrial research, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 85-95.

Birkenshaw, J. (2001), Why is knowledge management so difficult?, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 12

No. 1, pp. 11-18.

Borgatti, S. and Cross, R. (2003), A relational view of information seeking and learning in social

networks, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 432-45.

Boutellier, R., Ullman, F., Schreiber, J. and Naef, R. (2008), Impact of office layout on communication in

a science-driven business, R&D Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 372-91.

Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Sonderquist, K.E. and Prastacos, G. (2007), Knowledge effectiveness,

social context and innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 31-44.

Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F. (2002), Knowledge sharing dilemmas, Organization Studies, Vol. 23,

pp. 687-710.

Cardinal, L.B. and Hatfield, D.E. (2000), Internal knowledge generation: the research laboratory and

innovative productivity in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management, Vol. 17, pp. 247-71.

Casciaro, T. and Lobo, M.S. (2005), Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social

network, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 6, pp. 1-9.



17/19

Chang, T.J., Yeh, S.P. and Yeh, I-J. (2007), The effects of joint reward system in new product

development, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3-4, pp. 276-97.

Chou, S-W. (2005), Knowledge creation: absorptive capacity, organizational mechanisms,

and knowledge storage/retrieval capacities, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 453-65.

Christensen, U., Schmidt, L. and Dyhr, L. (2008), The qualitative research interview, in Vallgaarda, S.

and Kock, L. (Eds), Research Methods in Public Health, Gyldendal Akademisk, Copenhagen.

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and

innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.

Corti, E. and Lo Storto, C. (2000), Knowledge creation in small manufacturing firms during product

innovation: an empirical analysis of cause-effect relationships among its determinants, Enterprise and

Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1 No. 13, pp. 245-63.

Currie, G. and Kerrin, M. (2003), Human resource management and knowledge management:

enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company, International Journal of Resource

Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1027-45.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge. How Organizations Manage What they

Know, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.

Deci, E.L. and Flaste, R. (1995), Why We Do What We Do: The Dynamics of Personal Autonomy, Putnam

& Sons, New York, NY.

Dewett, T. (2007), Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D

environment, R&D Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 197-208.

Fiske, A.P. (1991), Structures of Social Life, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Ganguli, P. (2003), Global pharmaceutical industry: intellectual wealth and asset protection,

International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 284-313.

Gourlay, S. and Nurse, A. (2005), Flaws in the engine of knowledge creation, in Buono, A. and

Poulfelt, F. (Eds), Challenges and Issues in Knowledge Management, Information Age Publishing,

Greenwich, pp. 293-315.

Grant, R.M. (1996), Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal,

Vol. 17, pp. 109-22.

Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E. and Neale, M.A. (2003), Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the

love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2,

pp. 265-87.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), Knowledge managements social dimension: lessons from

Nucor Steel, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42, pp. 71-80.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), What is your strategy for managing knowledge?,

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.

Hendriks, P. (1999), Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge

sharing, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100.

Hodson, R. (1999), Analyzing Documentary Accounts, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Horrobin, D.F. (2001), Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of the Royal Society of

Medicine, Vol. 93, pp. 341-5.

Kneller, R. (2003), Autarkic drug discovery in Japanese pharmaceutical companies: insights into

national differences in industrial innovation, Research Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 1805-27.

Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications,

Newbury Park, CA.

Leenders, M.A.A.M. and Wierenga, B. (2002), The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating

marketing and R&D, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19, pp. 305-17.

Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in

effective knowledge transfer, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1477-90.



18/19

McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.

McLaughlin, S., Paton, R.A. and Macbeth, D.K. (2008), Barrier impact on organizational learning within

complex organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107-23.

Napier, B.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1993), Distance in organizations, Human Resource Management View,

Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 321-57.

Nerkar, A. (2003), Old is gold? The value of temporal exploitation in the creation of new knowledge,

Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 211-29.

Nielsen, A.P. (2006), Understanding dynamic capabilities through knowledge management, Journal

of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 59-71.

Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organizational Sciences,

Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New

York, NY.

Novo Nordisk A/S (2009), Novo Nordisk Annual Report 2008, Financial, Social, and Environmental

Performance, Bording A/S, Denmark.

ODell, C. and Grayson, J. (1998), If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal

best practice, California Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 154-74.

Osterloch, M. and Frey, B. (2000), Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms,Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 538-50.

Poti, B. (2001), Appropriation, tacit knowledge and hybrid social regimes in biotechnology in Europe,

International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 22 Nos 7-8, pp. 741-61.

Sapienza, A.M. and Lombardino, J.G. (2006), Recognizing, appreciating and capturing the tacit

knowledge of R&D scientists, Drug Development Research, Vol. 57, pp. 51-7.

Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and Navon, R. (2006), Academic versus industry

patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 1631-45.

Schulze, A. and Hoegl, M. (2006), Knowledge creation in new product development projects, Journal

of Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 210-36.

Styhre, A., Roth, J. and Ingelgard, A. (2002), Care of the other: knowledge-creation through care in

professional teams, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 503-20.

Styhre, A., Ollila, S., Roth, J., Williamson, D. and Berg, L. (2008), Heedful interrelating, knowledge

sharing, and new drug development, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 127-40.

Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J-E. and Selart, M. (2005), Drivers of organizational creativity:

a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 359-74.

Szulanski, G. (1996), Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of the best practice

within the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 27-43.

Szulanski, G. (2003), Sticky Knowledge Barriers to Knowing in the Firm, Sage Publications, London.

Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2006), Relational quality and innovative performance in R&D based

science and technology firms, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 28-47.

Tranter, D. (2000), Evolving to reflect the modern industrial life-science environment, Pharmaceutical

Science and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 399-400.

Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-76.

Uzzi, B. and Lancaster, R. (2003), Rational embeddedness learning: the case of bank loan managers

and their clients, Management Science, Vol. 49, pp. 383-99.

Van denHoof,B. andde Leeuw vanWeenen, F. (2004), Committed to share:commitment andCMC use

as antecedents of knowledge sharing, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 13-24.



19/19

Von Hippel, E. (1994), Sticky information and the locusof problem solving: implications for innovation,

Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 590-607.

Von Krogh, G., Kazou, I. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press,

New York, NY.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zeller, C. (2001), Clustering biotech: a recipe for success? Spatial patterns of growth of biotechnology

in Munich, Rhineland and Hamburg, Small Business Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 123-41.

About the authors

Anne-Mette Lilleoere was a PhD student (January 2007-January 2010) at The Faculty ofPharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Anne-Mette Lilleoere is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Ebba Holme Hansen is Professor at the Section for Social Pharmacy, Faculty ofPharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen since 1992 and the driving forcebehind the development of social pharmacy as an academic discipline. Professor HolmeHansen is an expert in both qualitative and quantitative research methods and has authored15 books and more than 200 scientific articles, chapters in books and reports.


To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lirolando
View:	232 times
Download:	0 times

Knowledge Sharing Enablers

Documents