Knowledge flows and knowledge sharing

The role of knowledge flows is to facilitate and enhance the knowledge diffusion between employees or departments in organization. The flows of knowledge are viewed as powerful tools for enriching information resources of organization. Therefore, in order to increase knowledge sharing in organization, it is important to understand how knowledge flows are created.

a. Formal flows

One of the traditional ways to share information is communication. This can explain how knowledge moves or diffuses through organization. The exchange of information is increasingly supported by many common channels, such as learning, meeting, conferences and so on. Hence, Liberman, & Wolf (1997) stated that in order to foster scientific network, the sharing of information is increasingly formed by formal meeting and in face to face conversations.

In addition, in the knowledge transfer process, the tool that enables employees to share and find information is intranet. It can be seen as a network that is can be accessed only by members of an organization. In fact, intranet has been regarded with knowledge

banks, e-learning platforms, expert networks or online information sharing tools that facilitates knowledge sharing among members within a single organization (Boersma, &

Kingma, 2008).

b. Informal flows

Informal contact between employees is an important channel of communication in knowledge sharing process. As Dahl, & Pedersen (2004) stated that informal network of contacts emerge between individuals across firm boundaries, and act as channels of knowledge flows. In previous study, Nonaka (1994) proposed a circulation of knowledge flows, those are socialization, externalization, combination and internalization; this model is also considered as “first theory” of knowledge flows and it has been presented in many recent researches. Nonetheless, knowledge flows can be addressed through another process. For example, it is considered as a knowledge life cycle (Ribiere and Roman, 2008), beginning at creation and finishing at use.

Knowledge creation, discovery, capture Knowledge storage, retention, organization Knowledge transfer, sharing, distribution Knowledge use & maintenance

Forums (internal conferences/meetings)

Figure 2-1 Knowledge life cycle 

Source: Ribiere and Roman, 2008

Researchers found two main strategies for knowledge flows, codification and personalization. The codification strategy is collect, codify and diffusion information, meanwhile the personalization strategy is to expand networks for connecting people.

Additionally, organizations were defined as social communities in which knowledge was structured, coordinated, and shared (Marouf, 2007). Social network is also suggested that a network play a essential element in promoting organizational learning and it can become a source of information (Vithessonthi, 2010). Thus, it can be seen as a good environment that promotes knowledge creating and sharing. Alternatively, social communities can be seen an informal flow of knowledge. Relationships in these communities are available to create a lot of supports in order to facilitate knowledge sharing process.

Many models have been used to represent the flows of knowledge in organization.

Social network analysis is also a “sociological method” to identify and analyze the social relationships in networks (Muller-Prothmann, 2008; Behrend, & Erwee, 2009). For example, in the study of Behrend and Erwee (2009), they mentioned the use of snowball technique by identifying key actors, gathering information on their relationship and then about the later relationships with an expanding set of actors. Furthermore, social network analysis can also be used to map knowledge flows and assess the relationships between stakeholders in organization (Liebowitz, 2005).

1.2 Knowledge sharing

As a starting point of knowledge definition, Polanyi (1962) distinguished two dimensions that those are tacit and explicit knowledge and since then, this identification has been used by many researchers. For example, Spender (1996) began taking the

distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge and comparing the ways that other researchers have used in their theory. Knowledge resides within individuals and it is considered as tacit knowledge which is acquired through imitation and practices.

Meanwhile, explicit knowledge can be generated throughout an organization in the sequence of rules and guideline (Hsiu Fen and Gwo-Guang, 2004).

To enable effective sharing knowledge distributed across individual, two groups of knowledge sharing mechanism were highlighted - personalization versus codification and individualization versus institutionalization (Boh, 2006). The mechanism that enables the sharing of codified knowledge at personal knowledge and in the second group between the individual levels, or at a collective level. The knowledge sharing process is to explain how everyone shares their experience, expertise, know-how with others. However, what is knowledge sharing? Many researchers have mentioned and defined this term.

Literature on knowledge sharing appears not only extensive, but also highly diversified.

Knowledge sharing was defined as a social interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee knowledge, experiences and skills (Hsiu Fen, 2006). In another way, knowledge sharing is the process where individuals mutually exchange both tacit and explicit knowledge (Juan, Lillian and Felix, 2009).

Similar concepts such as knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange has also been mentioned in previous studies. Knowledge exchange is essential to maintain effectiveness in the modern organization where knowledge is a key factor of production (Mahesh, Suresh, 2009). This is necessary for organizations whose primary role is to research and create knowledge. They have struggled with the transfer of technologies, ideas and research results to other organization and individuals. Besides, in the terms of knowledge transfer, it is considered a process that knowledge is transferred from the senders (person,

group, team) to the recipient (Shizhong, Yangqing and John, 2008). In contrast, Kumar and Ganesh (2009) stated that knowledge transfer has been used in an inclusive sense, including the definitions of knowledge sharing and knowledge flow. Moreover, knowledge transfer can be distinguished between an individual, an intra-organizational and an inter-organizational level. (Wilkesmann, Fischer,).

In an organization, knowledge sharing is capturing, organizing, reusing, and transferring experience whereas for individual employees, knowledge sharing is communicating peers to help them get something done better (Hsiu Fen, 2007).

1.3 Employees’ behaviors of knowledge sharing

Although knowledge flows are important in sharing knowledge, nonetheless they are not the whole story. Knowledge sharing depends not only on information flow, but also on perception and behaviors of employees in organization. An organization can change employee attitudes and behaviors to promote willing knowledge sharing. The willingness of sharing knowledge of employees in organization is one of the best ways to increase the organizational knowledge resource.

In order to increase belief between employees and organization, managers should have to create a good working environment. This makes employee to share willingly knowledge not feeling to be forced to do. Consistent with this idea, Hinds, Pfeffer (2003) posed the individual’s relationship to the organization, not only trusting to others inside the organization, but also trusting the larger institution. The authors give an example that organization destroys trust of employee, such as downsizing, and as a result, this causes fear and decrease the willingness of sharing knowledge in organization. The employees though that the information sharing would be used against them.

In an earlier study Rivera, Ortiz-Fournier, & Rogelio Flores, (2009) said that collectivistic factor referred to awareness of employees that teamwork yields better results than individual work. Individuals are more cooperative with others which promote knowledge production and share with others in the organization. When the employees have trust in organization, the collectivistic factor in each of individual will increase, the distance between employees and organization will be small. Furthermore Renzl, (2008) proposed that trust in management increased knowledge sharing through reducing fear of losing one’s unique value and improving willingness to document knowledge.

Consequently, the building an environment of trust will contribute to part of changing employees’ attitude.

Another widely impact of perception in the organization is hierarchical level of employment. In fact, significant differences in perception of employees come from level in the organization (Helms, & Stern, 2001), According to author, comprehension about organizational culture in top level managers will differ from lower level manager.

However, based on the studies of (Hinds, & Pfeffer 2005) and (Kumar, & Ganesh, 2009), a question arises in the knowledge transfer process, cognitive has limitations on sharing knowledge. There is a difference between expert and those with less expertise of storing and processing information. In fact, In Hinds and Pfeffer’s study, they believe that the expert trend to simplify representations of the task and avoid getting detailed. This allows them to process information more rapidly, however it causes difficulties to share their expertise to others who have less expertise. Meanwhile, Kumar and Ganesh noted that one of options of cognitive dimension which inhibits knowledge transfer in organization is absorptive capacity. Here, absorptive capacity is defined as the ability of an individual to recognize the value of new knowledge and usefully apply it. For all these

above reasons, the perception of employees in sharing knowledge in organization is prerequisite element to combine cultural factors and support to knowledge sharing process.

To sum up, it can be seen each organization has its unique culture, hence this study based on literature review to pick up three organizational culture factors that influence knowledge sharing in Research Institute for Aquaculture, Vietnam.