Knowledge sharing definitions abound and vary across perspectives. Some authors have equated knowledge sharing to knowledge transfer (e.g. Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Bock & Kim, 2002; Darvish & Nikbakhsh, 2010). For example, Darvish and Nikbakhsh (2010, p. 33) described knowledge sharing as an equation where knowledge sharing (transfer) = Transmission+ Absorption (in use). Such definition of knowledge sharing suggests that knowledge sharing involves two actions which are the recipient’s transmission and absorption and use of the knowledge. Gupta and Govidarajan (2000) definition suggested that knowledge sharing and knowledge flow are intertwined, they described it as the process of identification, outflow, transmission, and inflow of knowledge within an organization. Knowledge sharing has also been described as a learning process whereby there is an adaptation of ideas (Hutchings &
Michailova, 2004; Mian, Takala, Kekale, 2008). It is also referred as the ‘set of behaviors that involve the exchange of information or assistance to others’ (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Lin (2007a) suggested that knowledge sharing refers to a social interaction culture which involves the exchange of employee knowledge, experiences, and skills through the whole department or organization.
Various approaches have been used to examine knowledge sharing. Most studies measured knowledge sharing using either willingness or intention to share knowledge (e.g. Chen, Chen, &
Kinshuk, 2009; Cho et al., 2007). Others authors have depicted knowledge sharing as having two facets. For example, Quigley, Tesluk, Locke, and Bartol (2007) proposed a theoretical model connecting two perspectives: the knowledge sender and the knowledge recipient. Several measures have been used to assess knowledge sharing as a combined process of receiving knowledge and sending knowledge (e.g. Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen, & Reinholt, 2009) and utilizing knowledge and/or seeking knowledge (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2006). Other studies have also conceptualized and measured knowledge sharing as a process involving knowledge donating and collecting (e.g. de Vries et al., 2006; van den Hoof & de Ridder, 2004; Wong et al., 2009).
Finally others studies have measured knowledge sharing as knowledge quality and quantity of knowledge (e.g. Chui, Hsu, & Wang, 2006; Ju, Su, Chao, & Wu, 2009).
Ho, Hsu, and Oh (2009) noted that the difficulty in setting a standard definition of knowledge sharing is due to the fact that it includes key elements such as the ways of sharing,
16
levels of sharing and the type of knowledge shared. Although research on knowledge sharing is increasing and indicates that knowledge sharing is complicated due to the fact that it can take different forms, little attention is given to the types of knowledge shared. Knowledge is generally conceived as having two aspects, both tangible and intangible in nature. Tacit knowledge is characterized as intangible whereas explicit knowledge is described as tangible. With that said, each would necessitate different method of sharing. As Guzman and Trivelato (2008) pinpointed
‘overlooking the nature of knowledge weakens any serious examination of the process of transferring knowledge since the process to transfer explicit and tacit knowledge is distinct’.
Abdullah et al. (2009) further stressed that the ‘nature of knowledge is a key factor in effective knowledge sharing’. Ma, Qi, and Wang (2008) pointed that wherever knowledge sharing takes place, it is necessary to understand the characteristics of the knowledge itself, such as tacit knowledge or explicit knowledge, in order to obtain effective knowledge sharing.
Various researchers have acknowledged the existence of knowledge types in knowledge sharing (e.g. see table 2.1) and some studies have also analyzed knowledge sharing from either a tacit or explicit perspective. For example, Hislop (2002) referring to the transmitter-receiver conduit model of knowledge sharing prioritized explicit knowledge over tacit knowledge.
According to the model, the knowledge shared is explicit and is transferred from an isolate sender to a separate receiver (see figure 2.1). Other studies related to knowledge sharing have increasingly emphasized on the importance of tacit knowledge sharing rather than explicit knowledge sharing (e.g. Lin, 2007a; Yang & Farn, 2009). Only a few have addressed both types of knowledge sharing (e.g. Holste, 2003; Lu et al., 2006). Tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge if shared may yield considerable benefits to organizations. Therefore it is important to analyze the knowledge types in knowledge sharing as Bechina and Ndlela (2008/ 2009) noted:
‘recognizing the distinction between knowledge types is necessary to reveal their potential contribution to organization performance’.
Knowledge sharing is commonly perceived as a human behavior. It may reflect the degree to which individuals engage in knowledge sharing related activities. It may also reflect the extent to which people are willing to communicate to others their knowledge (i.e. tacit and explicit). For example, Zheng and Bao (2006) described knowledge sharing as the behavior of disseminating and assimilating one’s acquired knowledge with other members within the organization. This
17
sharing can be carried through different mechanisms. Bartol and Srivasta (2002) noted that individuals can share knowledge: (1) through organizational databases; (2) in formal interactions within or across team or work units; (3) in informal interactions with individuals; and (4) through community of practice. Similarly, Chang, Ho, and Lau (2009) proposed two ways of sharing knowledge which include closed network sharing (i.e. person to person sharing) and open network sharing (i.e. sharing through a KMS).
Since the researcher is interested in identifying the impact of knowledge sharing behavior on KMS and innovation, this study adopts the tacit and explicit knowledge sharing behavior approaches of (Aulawi et al., 2009; Holste, 2003; Lu et al., 2006) and the definition of knowledge sharing from Staples and Webster (2008, p.620) which the authors described as an exchange where one party gives some knowledge that she/ he has (explicit or tacit) to another party (a person or a repository).
Figure 2.1 Postal model of knowledge sharing. Adapted from “Mission impossible?
Communicating and sharing knowledge via information technology” by D. Hislop 2002, Journal of Information Technology, 17(4), p.168. Copyright 2002 by Rootledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Table 2.1
Knowledge sharing definitions based on knowledge types
Authors /Years Definitions
Aulawi, Surdiman, Suryadi, &
Govindaraju (2009, p.2239)
Knowledge sharing is explained into tacit knowledge sharing behavior and explicit knowledge sharing behavior.
(continued)
Sender Explicit
Knowledge
Receiver
18 Table 2.1 continued
Knowledge sharing definitions based on knowledge types
Authors /Years Definitions
Bercerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal (2010)
Knowledge sharing is defined as the process through which tacit or explicit knowledge is communicated to other individuals.
Hislop (2002, p. 167 ) Knowledge is shared by the transferral of explicit and codified knowledge (in the form of text, a diagram or an electronic document) from an isolate sender to a separate receiver.
Lee (2001)
Siakas & Georgiadou (2006); Van den Hoof & de Ridder (2004)
Staples & Webster (2008)
Knowledge sharing refers to activities of transferring or disseminating knowledge (including implicit and explicit knowledge) from one person, group of organization to another.
Knowledge sharing is the process where individuals mutually exchange both tacit and explicit knowledge, and jointly create new knowledge.
Knowledge sharing is an exchange where one party gives some knowledge that she/ he has (explicit or tacit) to another party (a person or a repository).