Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organizational environments

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

Effective knowledge sharing underpins the day-to-day work activities in knowledge-intensive organizational environments. This paper integrates key concepts from the literature towards a model to explain effective knowledge sharing in such environments. It is proposed that the effectiveness of knowledge sharing is determined by the maturity of informal and formal social networks and a shared information and knowledge-based artefact network (AN) in a particular work context. It is further proposed that facilitating mechanisms within the social and ANs, and mechanisms that link these networks, affect the overall efficiency of knowledge sharing in complex environments. Three case studies are used to illustrate the model, highlighting typical knowledge-sharing problems that result when certain model elements are absent or insufficient in a particular environment. The model is discussed in terms of diagnosing knowledge-sharing problems, organizational knowledge strategy, and the role of information and communication technology in knowledge sharing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agar MH (1996) The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography (2nd edn). Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M and Leidner DE (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville RL and Dulipovici A (2006) The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 4, 83–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binney D (2001) The knowledge management spectrum – understanding the KM landscape. Journal of Knowledge Management 55 (1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackler F (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation. Organization Studies 16 (6), 1021–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland RJ and Tenkasi RV (1995) Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science 6, 350–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosua R and Scheepers R (2002) IT support for communities of practice in organisational settings. In Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (WENN A, MCGRATH M and BURSTEIN F, Eds), pp 369–378, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Collins A and Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18 (1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (1991) Organizational learning and communities of practice: towards a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science 2 (1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (2000) Organizing knowledge. In Knowledge, Groupware and the Internet (SMITH DE, Ed), Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social practice perspective. Organization Science 12 (2), 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon M (1986) The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle. In Mapping the Dynamic of Science and Technology (CALLON M, LAW J and RIP A, Eds), pp 19–34, Macmillan Press, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2004) A sensemaking model of knowledge in organisations: a way of understanding knowledge management and the role of information technologies. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 2, 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciborra CU (1996) Introduction: What does groupware mean for the organizations hosting it?. In Groupware and Teamwork: Invisible Aid or Technical Hindrance (CIBORRA CC, Ed.), pp 1–19, John Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook SDN and Brown JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science 10 (4), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damsgaard J and Scheepers R (2001) Harnessing intranet technology for organisational knowledge creation. Australian Journal of Information Systems 8 (Special Edition on Knowledge Management), pp 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport E and Hall H (2001) New knowledge and micro-level online organization: ‘Communities of Practice’ as a Development Framework. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (SPRAGUE R, Ed), pp 1–10, Los Alamitos, IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH, De Long DW and Beers MC (1998) Building successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39 (2), 43–57.

  • Davenport TH, Probst GJB and von Pierer H (2002) Knowledge Management Case Book: Best Practices (2nd edn). Publics Corporate Publishing and John Wiley & Sons, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH and Prusak L (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus HL and Dreyfus SE (1986) Mind over Machine. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus HL and Dreyfus SE (1988) Making a mind vs modeling the brain: artificial intelligence back at a branchpoint. Dædalus 117, 15–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekbia HR and Kling R (2005) Network organizations: symmetric cooperation or multivalent negotiation? The Information Society 21, 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover V and Davenport TH (2001) General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT, Nohria N and Tierney T (1999) What is your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review (March–April), 77 (2), 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanseth O and Monteiro E (1998) Chapter 6: socio-technical webs and actor-network theory. Retrieved February 2007, from http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~oleha/Publications/bok.6.html.

  • Helms RW, Brinkkemper S, Van Oosterum S and De Nijs F (2005) Knowledge entry maps: structuring of method knowledge in the IT industry. In Proceedings of the 15th European Japanese Conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases (KIYOKI Y, KANGASSLO H, JAAKOLA H and HENNO J, Eds), pp 12–25, IOP Press, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks P (1999) Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management 6 (2), 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollan J, Hutchins E and Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human–computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7 (2), 174–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1991a) Chapter 13: the social organization of distributed cognition. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (RESNICK LB, LEVINE JM and TEASLEY SD, Eds), pp 283–307, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1991b) Organizing work by adaptation. Organization Science 2 (1), 14–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the Wild. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huysman M and Wulf V (2006) IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology 21, 40–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston RB (2001) Situated action, structuration and actor-network theory: an integrative theoretical perspective. In Proceedings of the ninth European Conference on Information Systems (SMITHSON S, GRICAR J, PODLOGAR M and AVGERINOU S, Eds), pp 232–242, Bled, Slovenia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh D (2000) A few thoughts on cognitive overload. Intellectica 30, 19–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling R (2000) Learning about information technologies and social change: the contribution of social informatics. The Information Society 16 (3), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakomski G (1999) Symbol processing, situated action and social cognition: implications for educational research and methodology. In Issues in Educational Research (KEEVES JP and LAKOMSKI G, Eds), pp 280–301, Pergamon, Elsevier, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakomski G (2003) Moving knowledge: the problem of transfer and how to reframe it. Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, pp 12–13, Barcelona, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1999) Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Law J (1992) Notes on the theory of the Actor Network: ordering, structuring and heterogeneity. Retrieved February 2007, from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/sociology/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf.

  • Markus LM (2001) Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), 57–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott R (1999) Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California Management Review 41 (4), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Journal 23 (2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell A and Simon H (1972) Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell S, Swan J, Galliers R and Scarbrough H (1999) The intranet as a knowledge management tool? Creating new electronic fences. In Proceedings of the Information Resources Management Association International Conference, Managing Information Technology Resources in Organizations in the Next Millennium (KHOSROWPOUR M, Ed.), Hershey, PA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Konno N (1998) The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review: Special Issue on Knowledge and the Firm 40 (3), 40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Reinmoeller P (2000) Dynamic business systems for knowledge creation and utilization. In Knowledge Horizons (DESPRES C and CHAUVEL D, Eds), pp 89–112, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Toyama R (2003) The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 1 (1), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Toyama R and Konno N (2000a) SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning 33, 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Toyama R and Nagata A (2000b) A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change 9 (1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3 (3), 398–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science 13 (3), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ and Iacono CS (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research – a call to theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Systems Research 12 (2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patriotta G (2004) On studying organizational knowledge. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 2, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative Research Evaluation Methods (2nd edn). Sage Publications, Inc., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton S (2005) Who knows whom, and who knows what? How social network analysis can unlock your hidden information assets. CIO, The magazine for Information Executives, June 15, 42–45.

  • Pepper SC (1942) World Hypotheses. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1985) Contextualist research: a natural way to think In Doing Research that is Useful for Theory and Practice (LAWLER III EE, MOHRMAN Jr. AM, MOHRMAN SA, LEDFORD Jr. GE and CUMMINGS TG, Eds), pp 223–274, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organization Science 1 (3), 267–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers Y and Ellis J (1994) Distributed cognition: an alternative framework for analysing and explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology 9 (2), 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1990) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. The Institute of Management Sciences 2, 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegler I (2000) Knowledge management: a new idea or a recycled concept? Communications of the Association for Information Systems 3 (Article 14), 2–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson MPA and Walsham G (2004) Placing knowledge management in context. Journal of Management Studies 41 (5), 725–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal 17, 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turoff M and Hiltz SR (1998) Superconnectivity. Communications of the ACM 41 (7), 116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyre MJ and Von Hippel E (1997) The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science 8 (1), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen J (1979) The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4), 539–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham G (1995) Interpretivist case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman B and Starr RH (2004) Sociological rob: how Rob Kling brought computing and sociology together. The Information Society 20, 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger EC (2001) Chapter 10: communities of practice: the structure of knowledge stewarding. In Knowledge Horizons: The Present and The Promise of Knowledge Management (DESPRES C and CHAUVEL D, Eds), pp 205–224, Butterworth Heinemann, Boston, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger EC and Snyder WM (2000) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, Jan–Feb, 78 (1), 139–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd T and Flores F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd edn). Sage Publications, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zack H (1999) Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review 41 (3), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Rachelle Bosua & Rens Scheepers

Authors
  1. Rachelle Bosua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rens Scheepers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachelle Bosua.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bosua, R., Scheepers, R. Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organizational environments. Knowl Manage Res Pract 5, 93–109 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500131

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500131

Keywords

Search

Navigation