1. Message Received and Understood. Professor John S
Message Received and Understood? Professor John S. Edwards KIM2013, 4th June

2. Overview Knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer
Still need to learn to focus as much on the “recipient” as the “source”
That’s both of them, not one or the other
Why is it difficult? What have we learnt in 20 years of knowledge management (KM)?
“Back to the future” – some wheels that need to be reinvented
Suggestions from a process perspective

3. Knowledge Sharing
Easily the most researched topic in KM (see Ribière and Walter (2013) for KMRP)
Arguably the core of KM
Berends said in 2005 that it was often treated as a black box
Still true today

4. Knowledge Sharing or Knowledge Transfer?
Many authors use the two terms interchangeably
Others see knowledge sharing as the broader term – King (2006) contrasted them as:
‘transfer implies focus, a clear objective, and unidirectionality, while knowledge may be shared in unintended ways multiple-directionally without a specific objective’
We will use King’s definitions in what follows

5. Transfer is one-way and top-down – controlled by the source
Knowledge Transfer A
(Source)
Transfer is one-way and top-down – controlled by the source B
(Recipient)

6. Knowledge Sharing A A A B B
Sharing is a broader, interactive process, including transfer as a special case

7. Knowledge Sharing or Knowledge Transfer? (again)
Perhaps it’s unfortunate that Alavi and Leidner’s agenda-setting article (2001) included transfer as one of the four processes of KM (along with creation, storage and application)
More recently Heisig’s big review article (2009) used share (along with creation, acquisition, identification, storage and use)
Just to confuse matters further, Szulanski used transfer, but he clearly means the wider process we are calling sharing :
“Knowledge transfer is seen as a process in which an organization recreates and maintains a complex, causally ambiguous set of routines in a new setting.” (Szulanski, 2000, p.10)

8. “Process” is the key word
That last slide includes the first hints that it may be more helpful to think process than to think message…

9. Knowledge as a “Message”
This stems from viewing knowledge as an object…
…and the narrow view of knowledge transfer
Many articles cite Shannon and Weaver’s theory of communication as a foundation for this focus on “transmission”
In detail, this theory is NOT relevant even for information, never mind knowledge – see critique from Mingers (1996)
Szulanski had it right in 2000: use Shannon and Weaver’s work as a metaphor for knowledge sharing, but not a model
So that gives us the elements of source, recipient, and perhaps channel to think about…
…as well as the knowledge itself, the content – but remember that Shannon and Weaver assumed that all codes were equally likely to be transmitted

10. Barriers to Knowledge Sharing
Szulanski coined the idea of sticky knowledge - knowledge that is hard to transfer even when there is the willingness to do so on both sides
He modelled transfer of best practices, with it depending on the attributes of the knowledge, source, recipient and context
In 1996 and 2000 he tested for the effects of:
Causal Ambiguity (related to tacitness)
Unproven Knowledge
Source lacks Motivation
Source not perceived as Reliable
Recipient lacks Motivation
Recipient lacks Absorptive Capacity
Recipient lacks Retentive Capacity
Barren Organizational Context
Arduous Relationship
Spontaneity (2000 only)
But there’s more to consider… the wider question of “why”?

11. People, processes and technology in a KM system
Directories, Communities of Practice
New ways to work, build in what you want to achieve
Repositories, Knowledge-based Systems

12. Need to think process on two levels
What is the business process that the knowledge sharing activity is connected with?
What precisely is the role of the knowledge that is to be shared?

13. Knowledge lifecycles (1)
We have already seen two lists of knowledge-related activities:
Alavi & Leidner:
creation, storage, transfer, application
Heisig:
creation, acquisition, identification, storage, share, use
Naturally I prefer my own…

14. Knowledge lifecycle (2)
STORE
FORGET
ACQUIRE
CREATE
REFINE
USE
Note it does not include sharing or transfer as activities in themselves…

15. Describing Types of Knowledge Sharing
Let’s go back to the 80s and 90s and research on Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) and Computer- Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
DeSanctis and Gallupe started it in 1987 by focussing on time and place, producing a 2x2 matrix

16. different time, same place
De Sanctis and Gallupe
same time, same place
different time, same place
same time, different place
different time, different place

17. Grudin’s extension to 3x3 matrix (1)
Time
Same
Different but predictable
Different and unpredictable
Place

18. Grudin’s extension to 3x3 matrix (2)
Time
Same
Different but predictable
Different and unpredictable
Meeting facilitation
Work shifts
Team rooms
Place
Tele/video/ desktop conferencing
Electronic mail
Collaborative writing
Interactive multicast seminars
Computer bulletin boards
Workflow

19. Here we propose a third dimension – context
Again divided into same, different but predictable, different and unpredictable

20. Context: same Context: Same Time Different but predictable
Different and unpredictable
Face-to-face, similar expertise
Work shifts (1)
Machine operating sheets
Place
Video conferencing (1)
Pre-prepared slides?
Pokayoke ?
Guidelines for fellow professionals
Low-level admin procedures

21. Context: different but predictable
Time
Same
Different but predictable
Different and unpredictable
Face-to-face, different expertise (e.g. within one organisation)
Work shifts (2)
Team rooms
Place
Video conferencing (2)
Collaborative writing
Webcasts (with registration)
Computer bulletin boards (closed)
FAQs, workflow

22. Context: different and unpredictable
Time
Same
Different but predictable
Advice centre
Gideon bible?
Place
Patient visiting doctor’s surgery
Equipment manual
Webcasts (open)
Computer bulletin boards (open)
Blog post

23. Putting the pieces together
What are the business processes concerned?
What is the knowledge to be shared related to - knowledge use, knowledge acquisition, knowledge refinement, knowledge storage, or knowledge creation?
What does this mean for the time, place and context of the knowledge sharing?
Much research assumes same time: this is easier because of the interactivity
The “narrow” knowledge transfer literature always assumes predictability

24. An aside: Parallels with Teaching & Learning
There are many parallels with the Teaching & Learning agenda
Know what your students know (predictable context)
The differences between conventional f2f classroom teaching and the way that distance learning is done (different place)
Interestingly, most of the developments in distance learning have been about making it more interactive - again assuming that it is a “same time” process

25. Conclusions (1)
The question mark in the title is doubly important.
Just as the emphasis in KM generally needed to shift from the knowledge to the knower, a move from object to process, so the emphasis in knowledge sharing or transfer still needs to shift from the message (the knowledge) to the process of sharing
But NOT as a process in itself
Needs to be driven by the ultimate purpose, which is most probably knowledge use or knowledge acquisition, though it could be knowledge refinement, or knowledge storage, or even knowledge creation

26. Conclusions (2)
At the detailed level, consider the three attributes of time, place and context, not just the knowledge

27. If you do share knowledge well, the sky’s the limit…