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

1. Message Received and Understood?Professor John S. EdwardsKIM2013, 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. 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 People, processes and technology 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) CREATE STORE FORGET ACQUIRE 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. same time, same place same time, same place same time, same place same time, same place same time, same place same time, same place same time, same place same time, same place different time, same place different time, same place different time, same place different time, same place different time, same place different time, same place different time, same place different time, same place same time, different place same time, different place same time, different place same time, different place same time, different place different time, different place different time, different place different time, different place different time, different place De Sanctis and Gallupe

17. Grudin’s extension to 3x3 matrix (1)

18. Grudin’s extension to 3x3 matrix (2)

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

20. Context: same

21. Context: different but predictable

22. Context: different and unpredictable

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…