Electronic Markets

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 9–19 | Cite as

A value frequency model of knowledge sharing: an exploratory study on knowledge sharability in cross-organizational collaboration

Special Theme


Collaborators on cross-disciplinary, cross-organizational teams must decide what knowledge is sharable. The sharability of a set of private knowledge is defined as the degree to which one feels willing to reveal that knowledge to people who are not members of one’s own organizational unit. This paper proposes a Value Frequency Model of Knowledge Sharing (VFMKS) to explain knowledge sharability attitudes and knowledge sharing behaviors. It reports qualitative findings from an exploratory field study of the degree to which constructs and relationships proposed by the model were consistent with the attitudes, opinions, and reported actions of professional Chief Knowledge Officers (CKO) from 16 organizations in France. CKO’s were consistent with most aspects of the model, suggesting quantitative investigation of the model may be useful. Critical incidents and utterances of the CKO’s did not address two constructs in the model during this study. Further investigation may show whether these effects manifest in other contexts, or whether they are extraneous to the model.


Knowledge sharing Knowledge management Sharability Cross-organizational collaboration Value frequency model Focus group Exploratory field study 

JEL classification



  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1998). An organization memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 796–809.Google Scholar
  4. Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benson, R., Stacie, F., & Richard, B. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boughzala, I. (2002). Methodology for designing interenterprise cooperative information system, SCI'2002: the 6th World Multi Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, July 14-18, 2002, Orlando, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Boughzala, I. (2007). Ingenierie de la collaboration: theories, technologies et pratiques, Paris: Hermes-Lavoisier, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. Boughzala, I., Briggs, R. O. (2011). Knowledge sharability in cross-organizational collaboration: an exploratory field study, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 44), IEEE Computer Society, January 4–7, 2011, Kauai, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  11. Briggs, R. O. (2006). The value frequency model: toward a theoretical understanding of organizational change. In S. Seifert and and C. Weinhardt (eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 Group decision and Negotiation International conference (GDN 2006), Karlsruhe, Germany, June 25–28, 2006, 36–39.Google Scholar
  12. Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ermine, J-L., Boughzala, I., & Tounkara, T. (2005). Using Cartography to sustain Inter-Generation Knowledge Transfer: The M3C Methodology, ICICKM 2005: 2nd International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning, Dubai: UAE, November 21–22, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Ermine, J.-L., Boughzala, I., & Tounkara, T. (2006). Critical knowledge map as a decision tool for knowledge transfer actions. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 129–139.Google Scholar
  16. Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (1994). Diverse teams at work: Capitalizing on the power of diversity. New York: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  17. Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1/March.Google Scholar
  20. Hsiao, R.-L. (2008). Knowledge Sharing in a Global Professional Service Firm, MIS Quarterly executive, 7(3).Google Scholar
  21. Kern, T., & Willcocks, L. P. (2000). Exploring information technology outsourcing relationships: theory and practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(4), 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kluge, J., Stein, W. & Licht, T. (2001). Knowledge unplugged: the McKinsey & Co. global survey on knowledge management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Koh, C., Ang, S., & Straub, D. W. (2004). IT outsourcing success: a psychological contract perspective. Information System Research, 15(4), 356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Muller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nanda, A. (1996). Resources, capabilities and competencies. In B. Moingeon & A. Edmonson (Eds.), Organizational learning and competitive advantage (pp. 93–120). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Nonaka, I. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3).Google Scholar
  28. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of Growth of the Firm. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Romano, N. C., Jr., Pick, J. B., & Roztocki, N. (2010). A motivational model for technology-supported cross-organizational and cross-border collaboration. European Journal of Information System, 19(2), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(3), 367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skjoett-Larsent, T., Thernoe, C., & Andersen, C. (2003). Supply chain collaboration. Theoretical perspective and empirical evidence. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 33(6), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spender, J. C. (1996a). Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge? In B. Moingeon & A. Edmonson (Eds.), Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage (pp. 56–73). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Spender, J. C. (1996b). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45–62.Google Scholar
  35. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Webster.com, (2010). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attitude. Accessed 9/3/2010.
  37. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Westaby, J. D. (2002). Identifying specific factors underlying attitudes toward change: using multiple methods to compare expectancy-value theory to reasons theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 1083–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Telecom EM Research CentreInstitut TELECOMEvryFrance
  2. 2.The Center for Collaboration ScienceUniversity of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations