組織特性對知訊分享之影響

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系圖書資訊研究所碩士論文 Graduate Institute of Library & Information studies National Taiwan Normal University Master dissertation. 組織特性對知訊分享之影響. The influence of organizational factors on knowledge sharing – a case study in Research Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3), Vietnam. 武氏莉 Vu Thi Le 指導教授: 陳昭珍博士 Advisor: Chao-Chen Chen, Ph.D. Taipei,Taiwan January, 2011.

(2) 國立臺灣師範大學社會教育學系圖書資訊研究所碩士論文 Graduate Institute of Library & Information studies National Taiwan Normal University Master dissertation. 組織特性對知訊分享之影響. The influence of organizational factors on knowledge sharing – a case study in Research Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3), Vietnam. 武氏莉 Vu Thi Le 指導教授: 陳昭珍博士 Advisor: Chao-Chen Chen, Ph.D.

(3)

(4)

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor Prof. ChaoChen Chen, who give me the opportunity to study in Taiwan as well as the guidance to pursue this research. Her guidance, support, and encouragement have been invaluable to me throughout my studying in Taiwan. I also thank Prof. Hsiao-Tieh Pu and Prof. Hsueh-Hua Chen for their reading of the manuscript, giving me invaluable feedback, and being the committee members to approve my thesis. During my studying time in Taiwan, my sweet and lovely classmates and staffs at Graduate Institute of Library & Information studies in NTNU help me adapt to life and take care of me. Thanks to all my friends for spending your spare-time with me. Furthermore, I want to thank all my colleguaes at RIA3 who assisted me in getting material and information to write this thesis. Particularly to RIA3’ leaders who give me a chance for complement my knowledge. Last but not least I wish to thank my family who supported me all life long and gave me the chance to do what I have done – even in bad time. Special thanks go to you mom and dad!. I .

(6) ABSTRACT. Knowledge sharing has become more and more important and become a key concern to organizations. The sharing of knowledge between individuals or within organization is one of the conditions for development of an organization. A case study in Research Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3), Vietnam will be examined in this research. First, this study aims to investigate the interactions and communications of employees to get knowledge in scientific community. Because the process of knowledge sharing are dynamic and complex, and there is no a well-defined framework, an explorative research that used qualitative research method was carried out. Second, from literature review, it is founded that knowledge sharing is affected by many factors. In order to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and experience among scientific communities, the purpose of project is to explore how the organizational factors affect knowledge sharing processes. Hence, this study emphasizes the influence of three main factors: working environment, leadership, and technology. The qualitative research consists of in-depth interviews to explore the relationship between organizational factors and knowledge sharing in academic researchers. The results of this research present the limitations of organizational factors which impact on knowledge sharing. These results can help RIA3 bridge the gaps in management way in order to create, share, and use knowledge more effectively. Furthermore, they will be a dynamic in creating a good working environment to meet. II .

(7) demands of institutional researchers in science, technology, culture, society, economy, etc. by fast searching, exploring and sharing information and knowledge.. Key words: Knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, organizational characteristic, organizational factor.. . . III .

(8) CONTENTS. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................... I ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ II CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 1.. Background of the study .......................................................................................... 1. 2.. Motivation of the study ............................................................................................ 2. 3.. Objectives of the study............................................................................................. 4. 4.. Research questions ................................................................................................... 4. 5.. Importance of the study ............................................................................................ 5. 6.. Scope and limitation of the Study ............................................................................ 6. 7.. Definition of terms ................................................................................................... 7. CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 9 1.. Knowledge flows and knowledge sharing.............................................................. 10. 1.1. Knowledge flows .................................................................................................... 10. 1.2. Knowledge sharing ................................................................................................. 12. 1.3. Employees’ behaviors of knowledge sharing ......................................................... 14. 2.. Organizational supports and knowledge sharing.................................................... 16. 2.1 Working environment and knowledge sharing ........................................................... 17 2.2 Leadership and knowledge sharing ............................................................................. 18 2.3 Information communication technology (ICT) and knowledge sharing..................... 19 1.. Research structure .................................................................................................. 21. 2.. Research method .................................................................................................... 23. 3.. Research respondents ............................................................................................. 24. 4.. Data analysis process.............................................................................................. 28. 5.. Research design ...................................................................................................... 30. 6.. Research questions design ...................................................................................... 32. CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................................... 33 IV .

(9) PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................... 33 DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................... 35 1.. The current state of knowledge sharing and academic communication in Research. Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3)............................................................................... 35 2. The organizational factors influence knowledge sharing ....................................... 43. CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 59 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 59 IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 62 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 63 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 69 APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................................... 73 . V .

(10) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Knowledge life cycle………………………………………………………………...11 Figure 3.1: Research structure……………………………………………………………………………………..222 Figure 3.2: Map of Ria3’s scale activities. …………………………………………………………………..226 Figure 3-3: Organizational structure………………………………………………………… 24 Figure 3.4 Example of Open- Coding………………………………………………………... 28 Figure 3.5 Introduction category……………………………………………………………. 29. Figure 3.6 Introduction of theme……………………………………………………………….29 Figure 3-7: Research design……………………………………………………………………31 Figure 4.1 Summary of formal flows…………………… …………………………………….38 Figure 4.2 Summary of informal flows…………………………………………………………41 Figure 5.1Tha favorite channels in knowledge sharing of RIA3's scientific community..61 Figure 5.2 The impact of leadership factor on the others working environment and ICT……………………………………… …………………………………………………………62. . VI .

(11) . VII .

(12) LIST OF TABLES. Table 3.1 Example of coding list………………………………………………………………..29 Table 4.1Profile of participants………….……………………………………………………..33 Table 4.2 Coding of knowledge formal flows…………………………………………………35 Table 4.3 Coding of informal flows…………………………………………………………….38 Table 4.4 Coding of Perceptions of academic researchers………………………………...41 Table 4.5 Coding of working environment…………………………………………………….44 Table 4.6 Summary of working environment………………………………………………….47 Table 4.7 Coding of leadership…………………………………………………………………47 Table 4.8 Summary of perception of leader…………………………………………………..49 Table 4.9 Summary of policies and strategies………………………………………………..51 Table 4.10 Coding of Information communication technology………..…………….........51 Table 5.1 Results of knowledge sharing……………………………………………………...56 Table 5.2 Results of organizational characteristics………………………………………..58. VIII .

(13) CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION. 1. Background of the study. Since the 1990s, the field of knowledge management has developed quickly all over the world. Some organizations have established their own knowledge management system in order to facilitate knowledge transferring and sharing. There are many definitions of knowledge management (KM); according to Sijing (2002) knowledge management is the process of capturing and utilizing knowledge and skill. However, in order to develop the strategy of knowledge management not only merely depends on the type of knowledge to be shared but also on the organizational environment (Greiner, Bohmann, & Krcmar, 2007). This means those factors of organizational culture will play part of important role for storing and holding knowledge. KM is most effective when it tightly integrated within the organization’s processes; organizational characteristics greatly determine the relevant types of KM initiatives and shape the film’s KM policy (Magnier-Watanabe, & Senoo, 2008). This study will focus on organizational culture factors that influence knowledge sharing of fishery factor in Vietnam. According to FAO's statistic in 2002, fishery production develops more than other agricultural products. Global aquaculture production increased from 3,9% in 1970 to 27,3% in 2000 and grew to 29% in 2001. In Asian, during the past three decades from 1970, aquaculture has been extended and diversified. The technology investment has been paid more attention. The purpose of development in these countries aims to ensure regional food, contribute to poverty reduction and improve 1 .

(14) the rural life. Strategy of aquaculture development in Asia –Pacific (FAO, 2000) emphasizes the urgent need in expanding network for supplying valuable nutrient food, ensuring the essential food, and promoting economic growth. Furthermore, in “The strategic framework for FAO, 2000- 2015”, the strategy is built on 5 major corporate strategies and one of them is to improve decision making through the provision of information, assessments and fostering of knowledge management for food and agriculture (Salokhe, G.,et al, 2005). That is to say, information and knowledge management is one of the five keys in a period of 15 years of FAO.. 2. Motivation of the study As other countries in Asian region, the economy of Vietnam develops mainly based on natural resources, especially from the East Sea (South China Sea). The sea area of Vietnam is over 1 million km2 of Exclusive Economic Zone, threefold larger than the land area. The coastal line of Vietnam is more than 3260 km long, over 3 million ha of wetlands, over 3000 islands nearly 200 rivers running toward the sea. All of them relate closely to every socio-economic and national security activities of Vietnam. Exploiting marine resources is increasingly developing in quality and quantity as well. Seafood product rank fourth in export article just after oil, textile and garment. Turnover from seafood is much higher than other agriculture products. These achievements have raised Vietnam to top 10 fishery exporting countries in the world. Fishery is one of the spearhead industries of the Vietnamese economy, the need to modernize the fisheries sector is to enhance profitability, and prepare for the challenges of globalization. It can be seen, aquaculture is one of the prominent field in agriculture in Vietnam. 2 .

(15) Practically, with such the rapid development of the Vietnam fishery, many of organizations realize the importance of intellectual property and it plays integral role in the development of organization, however it is not easy to answer: How to utilize, share and store valuable knowledge? Furthermore, researchers and managers in Vietnam are now concerned about the integration of information into organizations; and it is important to build a good mechanism for collecting and sharing information and experience. Therefore, the selection of a suitable strategy for developing knowledge management activities in each organization is necessary.. Obviously, in order to find solutions for developing the. knowledge management activities, it is important to know about the organizational characteristics, and researcher would like to study about its influences on knowledge sharing. In addition, the main motivation of this project is to learn more about knowledge management in general and knowledge sharing in particular of RIA3 where the author has been working about for 6 years. Finally, the purpose of this study is to bring manager’s attention to knowledge management that is one of the key factors supporting for development of organization, particular in scientific communities. Thus, Research institute for aquaculture No.3 (RIA3) will be chosen as a case study of the project, being typical organizations. RIA3 are research institutions under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development, Vietnam. With tens of years since their foundations, they have implemented many research and development projects on aquaculture.. 3 .

(16) 3. Objectives of the study. The study’s general objective was to present the impact of organizational culture factors on knowledge sharing in fishery sector, particular in aquaculture, and encourage the sharing of knowledge and experience among scientific community, such as researchers, academic scientists and management information specialist who serve as major players in generation and processing of information into useful knowledge. Specifically, based upon the above research background and motivation, the research objectives of this study are as follows: 1) Understand knowledge sharing activities at Research Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3), Vietnam. 2) Investigate critical factors that influence the knowledge sharing within RIA3. Namely, the influences of the following organizational supports: a. Working environment; b. Leadership; c. Information communication technology. 3) Study on the relationship between organizational support and knowledge sharing at RIA3.. 4. Research questions This study attempts to analyze the key factors of organizational culture, as well the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge sharing of Fisheries research institutes in Vietnam. 4 .

(17) Specifically, it was an attempt to answer the following issues: 1) a. The current state of knowledge sharing process of academic researchers in aquaculture. b. How do academic researchers share knowledge and experiences? 2) a. Are there supports from organization in knowledge sharing process? b. How do these following organizational factors support knowledge sharing process in RIA3? Namely, working environment, leadership and Information communication technology 3) The behavior and perception of researchers about knowledge sharing.. 5. Importance of the study This study focuses on the influence of organizational factors on knowledge sharing of fishery factor in Vietnam. The Research Institutes for Aquaculture No3 is chosen in this study, and it is located in central Vietnam. Therefore, this study sought to learn about the organizational factors and knowledge sharing activities, simultaneously it will be considered as background for further researches on knowledge management in fisheries and other related scientific fields of aquaculture. Researcher would like to emphasize the importance of information and knowledge management that have contributed part of the growth of aquaculture. It provides a good working environment to increasing demands of institutional researchers in science, technology, culture, society, economy, etc. by fast searching and exploring and sharing information and knowledge. The results of this research will present 5 .

(18) organizational factors that can help an organization create, share, and use knowledge more effectively.. 6. Scope and limitation of the Study This study explores knowledge sharing activities as well as investigates the impact of organizational characteristics on knowledge sharing. However, this study like many other studies also faces some limitations. Two limitations regarding literature review and sample were noted as follow.. Limitation of literature review Researches that have been reviewed in this study are written in English. Other languages are not used to examine. Furthermore, the existing literature does not explicitly address the questions of knowledge sharing in aquaculture as well as fishery area with focus on the organizational factors; Therefore there are limitations on literature analysis.. Limitation of sample and inference In addition, the author mainly emphasizes one small aspect of knowledge management activities, it is knowledge sharing. Other activities in knowledge management such as, obtainment, storage, or utilization are excluded. The study is based on a case study, hence research participants are limited to RIA3, it would not be generalized to other organization. Moreover, the results of this study might have different outcomes to the possibility of making general conclusions. It was conducted in only one Research Institute for Aquaculture. Hence, the findings of the study to other Fishery research institutes should be caution.. 6 .

(19) 7. Definition of terms Knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing is capturing and generating experience between the senders to the recipient. Therefore, knowledge sharing is a process in which an individual generates acquired knowledge to others winthin a community (Wann-Yih, 2009). Knowledge flow The exchange of information is increasingly supported by many channels, such as learning, meeting, face to face discuss and social network. Knowledge flow is the movement of knowledge from an individual or group to other individuals or groups (Woodill, 2008) Organizational factors Organizational factors “are features originating both from the management model adopted by the organization, through its structure or strategy, and from the company culture embodied in the nature of its membership and relationships” (Watanabe and Senoo, 2008) Leadership This study emphasizes the role of leaders in knowledge management in organization. The role of leader is to provide strategic vision, motivate others, effectively communicate, act as a change agent, create a good environment for exchanging knowledge within organization (Singh, 2008). Working environment Working environment is considered as a catalyst of sustained improvements in collaborative performance (Bradley and Osborne, 1998). It includes people, process, place and technology issues. In this study negative factors (unfriendliness, envy) and 7 .

(20) positive factors (leadership, professional environment, interpersonal relationship) of working environment are mentioned. . 8 .

(21) CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW. In order to participate in the global economy, and along with the exploisive growth of science and techology, many companies and organizations have been facing challenges and chances in competitive stragety. One of the challenges is human resource develpoment, it becomes. the most valuable, important property for existence and. develpoment of organization. In the extent of this study, a respect of human resource develpoment focused here is to increase knowledge of individuals in organization. How we can manage and develop experts’ knowledge or highly educated workforce is an important issue. Knowlegdeable individual must be passed from their expertise to other people. This means that knowlegde management must in large part be concerned with establishing, maintaining, and facilitating communication between employees. In addition, in a competitive environment employees might to move to the organizations that offer them the best opportunites to use and develop their expertise. In oder to keep this workforce or is also a difficult situation in almost organization. Therefore, many companies pay greater attetion to manage knowledge and to build the their own culture to foster knowledge sharing in organization. Many organizations are increasingly seen as knowledge-base enterprise in which proactive knowledge management is important for competitiveness (Holsapple, & Joshi, 2000), and according to their synthesis in reviewing the literature, a very broad range of factors possibly influence the success of knowledge management (KM) initiatives in an organization, these are culture, leadership, technology, organizational adjustment, evaluation of knowledge activities, ect. However, this study emphasizes organizational culture factors as crucial characteristics that support on knowledge sharing. 9 .

(22) The focus of this review is on research published from 1962 to 2009 and it supports to the influence of organizational culture factors on knowledge sharing, a case study in Research Institute for aquaculture, Vietnam. Each section will begin with a brief note on the structure and scope of section and ends with a summary and findings of current problems.. 1. Knowledge flows and knowledge sharing 1.1 Knowledge flows 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 10 .

(23) 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. 11 .

(24) 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 12 .

(25) 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, 13 .

(26) 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. 14 .

(27) 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 15 .

(28) 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.. 2. Organizational supports and knowledge sharing Knowledge is considered a power. The most important element in knowledge management is to share knowledge. People also desire to store something as an individuals’ initiative and they do not want to share with others. Therefore, the prerequisite of knowledge management is to set up an environment and culture of knowledge sharing in organization. Presently, more and more organizations have begun to focus attention on characteristic of organizational culture affecting knowledge sharing. Consequently, organizational culture is considered a core factor in the KM area, and as a determinant of knowledge sharing. Organizational culture, however, is complex and multi-faceted. It consists of many factors that affect knowledge sharing in organization, such as organizational structure, leadership, information system, reward systems, etc. However, this study aims to identify a set of factors that appear to support the knowledge sharing within organization. The author focus on three factors in which cultural characteristic influence knowledge sharing process among employees.. 16 .

(29) 2.1 Working environment and knowledge sharing The working environment is not a small factor. Most of employees expect to work in companies that have a professional, modern environment with employment policies and equal opportunities of career promotion. A friendly working environment helps to reduce the pressure of work as well as to promote the communication between individuals in organization. Developing a good environment of knowledge sharing between the employees and managers and creating dynamic working environment are one of the crucial characteristic that support knowledge sharing process. Consequently, creating innovative environments which meet employees’ need as well as acquiring manager’s goal is the challenge of organization (Bradley and Osborne, 1999). In study of Holsapple and Joshi, (2000), the authors indicated some factors that derived from environmental influence, such as competition, technology, time and organizational climate. For example, it is important to distribute time for individual learning, co-operate, knowledge creation and sharing activities (Oliver and Kandadi, 2006). These factors must support learning and sharing of knowledge by building an environment that foster conversation, relationships and trust among employees (Holowetzki, 2002). In addition, interpersonal trust was viewed as a key factor of experience exchanging. Not everyone is willing to share knowledge each other because they provide information and expect the provision of information will be reciprocated in the future. In Hsiu-Fen (2006) study, they noted that interpersonal trust promotes effective knowledge sharing and eliminates resistance barriers to knowledge sharing. Trust plays a crucial role in knowledge sharing between communities. When member trust each other, they tend to increase exchange of knowledge and this has clearly affected on knowledge sharing 17 .

(30) activities (Wann-Yih, Badri, 2010). Another a view of point was discussed in Neish and Mann’s research (2010) is interaction between trust and relationship. According to their study, trust will enhance relationships and in turn, relationships will create trust within organization.. 2.2 Leadership and knowledge sharing Leadership is verbal and nonverbal communication that facilitates a team’s transactional and task process in achieving members’ and the team’s and goals. (Gay and Donaldl, 1997) The role of leader is extremely important in creating a knowledge sharing environment. According to the research of Holowetzki (2002), leadership provides strong and dedicated commitment to knowledge management initiatives. Additionally, it creates the vision, mission, and objectives for the organization as it develops its knowledge management system. The leadership factor has virtually played an important facilitator in knowledge sharing environment in which employees are encouraged to apply their knowledge to solve problem. Based on the results of their study, Oliver, & Kandadi (2006) pointed out some of positive leadership characteristics, namely empowering subordinates, allocation of resources, openness toward change and experimentation, developing trust, tolerance to mistake and building long-term perspective of the organizational goals among employees. Common set of above attributes are necessary aspect in most of managers for developing knowledge management. In addition, Hsiu Fen and Gwo-Guang, (2004) noted that the importance of senior managers who are key decision makers is to promote a culture of knowledge sharing. They emphasized the. 18 .

(31) perception of senior managers toward knowledge sharing and their intention to encourage knowledge sharing. Furthermore, a few scholars have studied on the difference between top managers and middle managers in supporting knowledge sharing process. Kumar Singh (2008), as cited by Greengard (1998), senior managers need to understand the value of knowledge management and be willing to support and play aggressive role in decision making. However, Singh also stressed that it has generally been found that the role of middle managers for knowledge management is to bridge the gaps that may exist between top managers and front-line workers. Along with actively sharing knowledge, the managers encourage and support employees for increasing local knowledge resource. This process not only promotes individuals’ knowledge but also enhances organizational learning capacity. Consequently, leadership style is also emphasized in creating the success of organization. A leader acts as a catalyst or coordinator so that employees readily share knowledge together (Holsapple, Joshi, 2000). 2.3 Information communication technology (ICT) and knowledge sharing . In order to effectively operated knowledge sharing activities, the role of technology, namely infrastructure, is very necessary. Technology is a key tool for sharing, storing, updating and using in knowledge management. For example, a company has a head quarter and other branches in over the world, the knowledge sharing activities through face to face meeting between too many places will be take a lot of time and fee, whereas, with a good online service and infrastructure knowledge can be easily transformed. 19 .

(32) Knowledge is always created and this leads to knowledge resource in organization increase more and more. That is to say, develop a knowledge-sharing network base on knowledge portals is necessary for most of organization nowadays. Therefore, Oliver and Kandadi (2006) recommended that knowledge portals, in the form of intranets and extranets, are the most common type of infrastructure. The authors proposed technologies that should be integrated into systems and artificial intelligence tools, such as groupware, search engine, content management systems and virtual conferencing tools. Based on their research results, infrastructure is central for virtual communities and an essential part of all KM programs, making it a crucial for developing knowledge culture. This can be considered as wisdom that facilitate access to research results On the other way, another tool that can diffuse and exchange data and publish information is intranet. It is considered as private network of organization where stored internal information. In order to clarify the importance of intranet, Stoddart (2001) asserted that effective intranets are based on internet concepts and technology to communicate internally and share information. Moreover, knowledge resources in organization derive from distribution of employees and groups. In order to effectively connect and use these resources, knowledge should be codified and stored in databases and documents where employees can conveniently use and access in organization (Boh, 2006). As a result, technologies for providing infrastructure need to be updated for accessing the organizational knowledge resources. In Hsiu-Fen (2007) study, researcher believes that Information and communication technology (ICT) play effective role in knowledge management activities. The use of ICT in facilitating new methods and applications allow organization to extend knowledge networks within organization. 20 .

(33) CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD. This chapter will give an introduction of research structure, research method, research respondents, and research design. Finally, the author drafts question design. 1. Research structure The study’s general objective was to present the current state of knowledge sharing process in RIA3 and investigate impact of organizational culture factors on knowledge sharing in fishery sector, particular in aquaculture. The author hope that these objectives will encourage the sharing of knowledge and experience among scientific community, such as researchers, academic scientists and management information specialist who serve as major players in generation and processing of information into useful knowledge. Specifically, it was an attempt to answer the following issues: . The current state of knowledge sharing process of academic researchers in aquaculture.. . How do academic researchers share knowledge and experiences?. . Are there the supports from organization in knowledge sharing process?. How do these following organizational culture factors support knowledge sharing process in RIA3? Namely, working environment, leadership and technology information communication technology . The behavior and perception of researchers about knowledge sharing.. 21 .

(34) Therefore, based on literature review and objective of this study, the framework is divided into three constructs, knowledge sharing, organizational supports, and perception of employees. See the figure 3-1 below. Knowledge flows: - Formal flow - Informal flow. RIA3’s academic researchers. Knowledge sharing of RIA3’s academic researchers. Organizational supports: - Working environment - Leadership - Technology. Figure 3-2: Research structure Source: This study. 22 .

(35) 2. Research method RIA3 does not employ any knowledge-management support staff, except for a group of information department (5 individuals) who were responsible for the content of the intranet, library and website. This is a case study that aims to study on the relationship between organizational factors and knowledge sharing in scientific communities, particular in academic researchers in aquaculture. The author also identifies these factors influencing knowledge sharing in fishery sector as well as at Research institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3), Vietnam. Therefore, the research method that was used in this study is to understand the how academic researchers share know-how from work experience with each other in RIA3 and the factors that impact on this process as well. First, this study based on related literatures in order to study the theory of knowledge sharing and organizational supports. Simultaneous, it proposed the research framework and interview structure. Second, the qualitative research consists of in-depth interviews to explore the academic knowledge sharing processes, the flows of knowledge and cultural factors influence within RIA3. The interviews submitted to the academic researchers. Base on the literature review the questions included the following issues referring to: 1) Explore the current state of researchers’ knowledge sharing process a.. How the communication between employees is carried out. b. How the organization promotes knowledge sharing 2) The knowledge flows in RIA3 3) Whether the organization supports knowledge sharing; 23 .

(36) 4) How the behavior and perception of researchers about knowledge sharing is. 5) Identify and emphasize three organizational factors that support knowledge sharing process. 3. Research respondents The sea area of Vietnam is over 1 million km2 of Exclusive Economic Zone, threefold larger than the land area. The coastal line of Vietnam is more than 3260 km long, over 3 million ha of wetlands, over 3000 islands nearly 200 rivers running toward the sea. Consequently, aquaculture is one of the key economic sectors of Vietnam. The Research Institute for Aquaculture No.3 (RIA3) is a scientific and technological institution for aquaculture research and development of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. It has been founded in 1984. Since the establishment, it has implemented many studies that have contributed significantly to the development of aquaculture. RIA3 structure consists of three divisions, namely administrative departments, technical departments and national centers (Figure 3-3: organizational structure). Total staff is 182 people; Doctorate 05, Master’s degree 39, Bachelor 102 and others 36. 113 people are work as academic researcher and there are 20 administrative staffs. Interviews were carried out at all levels of participant in RIA3. A total of 14 respondents were between 23 and 52 year olds while the average year old of the sample was 33. In this project, the selection of the sample has identified by work experience, department activities as key elements for assessment. There is an effort to select only those researchers who have at least one year of work experience in the present organization. With such working time, they can clearly understand the characteristic as well as climate of organization. Second, because of emphasizing of sharing knowledge in 24 .

(37) academic researchers, this survey focused on staffs who work at technical departments and centers (three technical department and 4 centers, see figure3-2), so the author will ignore administrative staffs. One to three samples will be collected in each division. The three samples will be chosen in case of the number of academic researcher in that division has more than other divisions. RIA3 is one of four Research Institutes for Aquaculture governed by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development to implement fisheries and aquaculture development in the Central Vietnam. Main tasks and responsibilities of RIA3 include the following: -. Investigation of environmental and aquatic resources;. -. Research on aquatic seed production, aquaculture, fishing, processing, and aquatic resources protection;. -. Application of advanced aquaculture techniques and provision of instructions on natural resources management to farmers in the coastal provinces (from Da Nang to Binh Thuan province) and in the Central Highlands; and. -. Education, training, technology transfer, and execution of international cooperation.. The functions and duties of RIA3 have mainly undertaken in Central and highland provinces of Vietnam; hence some of National Centers under RIA3 have located far from headquarter. For example National center for marine seed production research and development in central Vietnam and National center for freshwater animal seed production in central Vietnam.. 25 .

(38) Central andd highland provinces Figure 3.2 Map of RIA F A3’s scale aactivities. 26 6 .

(39) Organizational structure – RIA3. Figure 3-3: Organizational structure Source: This study . 27 .

(40) 4 Data an 4. nalysis proccess Thiss study usees in-depth interview. All the coontent of these t intervviews was r recorded. Prrocess of daata analysis is presented in six stepps as follow w. In the firsst step, all i interview ccontents thaat recorded were transformed ass transcriptss. Further, important c contents in V Vietnamesee transcripts were transllated into Ennglish by reesearcher. S Second, thee software oof visual qualitative datta analysis N NVIVO (veersion 7) waas used to c code the intterview conntents. In thee assistant of o the softw ware, the trannscripts werre showed i the below side andd the researrcher gave codes in thhe above siide (see Figgure 3.3). in I Important concepts werre highlightted and codeed in open-ccoding by thhe researcheer.. Figure 3.4 Examplee of Open- Coding C 28 8 .

(41) I the third step, some concepts w In were identifieed in a categgory. For exxample, the authors t to find cconcepts relaated to inforrmal flows aand put intoo the same catetory. Succh as, try s social netwoork, observaation and im mitation, andd group-worrking. K Key conceppt. Category. Sociial network Innformal flow ws. Obseerve and Im mitate Grouup working. Figuree 3.5 Introd duction cateegory C Categories were put innto one theme in the fourth f step. Accordingg the above example, c categories oof formal floows, inform mal flows annd perceptioon were placced in the kknowledge s sharing them me (see Figuure 3.5) Category. Theme. Form mal flows Knoowledge shaaring. Inforrmal flows Percception. Figuree 3.6 Introd duction of th heme F Finallly, folllowing stepp was to com mbine key conceptd, cattegories andd theme togeether to t form thee list of codiing (see Tabble 3.1). the Tab ble 3.1 Exam mple of cod ding list Them me 1.Knowledgge. 11.1 Formal flows f. s sharing 29 9 . Key concept. Category 1.1.1. Conferencee. 1.1.2. Discuss.

(42) 1.2 Informal flows. 1.3 Perceptions. 1.1.3. Formal meeting. 1.2.1. Social network. 1.2.1. Observe and Imitate. 1.2.2. Group working. 1.2.3. Others. 1.3.1. Transparence. 1.3.2. Willingness. 5. Research design In-depth interviews are submitted by academic researchers in aquaculture. Simultaneous, the author observes the internal activities in organization. Before carrying out the interviews, the literatures are reviewed in order to provide a more comprehensive mapping the statement of this study. The research questions are mainly designed via the analysis from reviewing literature. Based on the profile of personnel department, 15 researchers in RIA3 were chosen to participate in the interviews. Most of interviewees have attended many projects, so they have significant experience in fishery area. The data will be analyzed after finishing the interview. The study will followed by the author’s conclusion. Refer to research design on figure 3-4. 30 .

(43) Research begin. Determine thesis topic and research respondent. Collect and analyze literature. Design interview question. Academic researchers in Aquaculture. Determine interviewees. In-depth interview Observation. Interview recording. Write thesis. Research results. Figure 3-7: Research design Source: this study 31 .

(44) 6. Research questions design As the author discussed in research method, a draft question design was developed to obtain the respond from academic researchers in aquaculture. The interview method in this study bases on a semi-structure instrument developed through a literature review. It contains three sections. The first section gathers demographic data on the respondents including gender, age, and position within RIA3. The second section is the current state of knowledge sharing in academic communication. The last part includes the organizational factors influence knowledge sharing. In the interviews, the participants were asked a number of open-ended questions, which were intended to generate rich descriptions of knowledge sharing and problemsolving situation and strategies. The 34 tems in the interview are designed to evaluate the respondents’ perception regarding three factors of organization that influence knowledge sharing process. . 32 .

(45) CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS. In this chapter, the results of the research are presented as well as the description of the finding. This chapter consists of four sections, the profile of research respondents; the current state of knowledge sharing and academic communication in Research Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3); the organizational factors influence knowledge sharing; and discussion is the last section. As the above mentioned in chapter 3, this study uses qualitative research method to collect data from interviews. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with an open framework, which allow for focused, conversational, two-way communication. Author used both of them to receive information. PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS Data was collected in RIA3, Nha Trang city, Vietnam. There were total 14 participants taking part in this interview. These interviewees seemed to be very interested in the subject and were enthusiastic to share experience. The selection of the sample has identified by work experience, department activities and at least one year of work experience as key factor. These conditions make sure that the respondents can understand the climate as well as culture of present organization. Table 4-1 presents the profile of the participants of the study. The youngest interviewee was 23 years old with 1-year work experience while the oldest was 52 years old with 17 years work experience. Because of the specific characteristics of aquaculture, the number of male researcher in RIA3 ranks 2/3 among academic researchers, therefore this study will not emphasize on the rate of sex. 33 .

(46) Table 4-1 Profiles of participants No. Age. Gender. Division. Seniority Academic level. A. 23. Female. Central monitoring center for. 1. Bachelor. 20. Master. 10. Master. 2. Bachelor. 4. Bachelor. 8. Master. 6. Bachelor. 12. Doctoral. 17. Doctoral. 9. Master. 12. Master. aquaculture environment and epidemic B. 51. Male. National center for fresh water animal seed production in central Vietnam. C. 35. Male. Science & Technology Center for Aquatic Production and Consultancy. D. 26. Male. National center for fresh water animal seed production in central Vietnam. E. 27. Male. Dept. of Fisheries Exploitation and Aquatic resources management. F. 35. Male. National center for marine seed production research and development in central Vietnam. G. 31. Male. Dept. of Processing and Post – product Technology. H. 37. Male. Dept. of Biology and Applied Aquaculture. I. 41. Male. National center for marine seed production research and development in central Vietnam. J. 37. Female. Dept. of Biology and Applied Aquaculture. K. 38. Male. Dept. of Biology and Applied Aquaculture. 34 .

(47) L. 23. Female. Central monitoring center for. 1. Bachelor. 5. Master. 7. Bachelor. aquaculture environment and epidemic M. 28. Male. Dept. of Fisheries Exploitation and Aquatic resources management. N. 31. Female. Central monitoring center for aquaculture environment and epidemic. DATA ANALYSIS Based on the research questions, data were consisted of two main sections, knowledge sharing and organizational characteristic. 1. The current state of knowledge sharing and academic communication in Research Institute for Aquaculture No3 (RIA3) This section will present the knowledge sharing process as well as communication manners of academic researchers. The data collection mainly gets from in depth interviews. First part is the formal flows, second part is informal flows, and the last part is perceptions of academic researchers about knowledge sharing 1.1 Formal flows Table 4.2 Coding of knowledge formal flows Theme 1.Knowledge. Category 1.1 Formal flows. Key channels 1.1.1 Conference. sharing. 1.1.2 Discuss (face to face) 1.1.3 Formal meeting. 35 .

(48) 1.1.1. Conference. All of participants proposed that their knowledge would increase through attending the conferences or workshops. They feel very interesting and helpful from these activities. For example, one researcher expressed ideal I have attended conference biannually. These chances offer a lot of benefit. Firstly, it was easy to implement more knowledge that to be very useful for my professional. Secondly, I would have new relationships from these networks and this was very necessary in my research activities (B). However, some interviewees believed that the attendance of conference not only merely collected new knowledge but also they could promote their image through these activities. One employee stated that, I have also attended international and national symposium once to twice a year. I think this channel is a good way to promote my image. For example, if you want to be known in your area you should write good paper and participate in workshops. As a result, you have many chances to expand your relationships in your area (H) 1.1.2. Face to face discussing. Totally, of researchers usually study the experience from other people or share know-how from work experience with each other by discussing. For example, one of interviewed expressed his thinking’s, When I want to get more experience from experts I usually discuss even argue with them about my problems (H). Furthermore, there are divisions which are far from head quarter might cause difficulties in obtain knowledge. Hence, several participants exposed their desire, I have exchanged ideals mainly via email. Because we cannot be in face to face discussing, there are many limitations in obtaining new knowledge or experience from colleagues. Therefore, face to face communication will be better than through other implement (E).. 36 .

(49) 1.1.3. Formal meeting. There are different schedules for meeting among departments. Seven interviewees proposed that they always are required for repairing meeting reports. As an interviewee explained, I am always far from institution in assignments. Hence, in order to update information and presently situation each other, meetings have been held fortnightly (E). Some interviewees revealed that they only had to attend meeting biannually, “…not much, only in the beginning and the end of the year. Meetings are mainly for reporting the finished and ongoing activities of individual. We have not yet had a lot chances to share information officially” (C) However, it was very interesting to hear that there was no any formal meeting in their community. Two out of fourteen interviewees admitted. One of them explained, Because the number of staff members in our department is too few, it is very easy to solve problems anytime, anywhere that not necessary get a meeting (G).. Summary According to the respondents, it can be seen that the entire above channel is considered as common channels to get more knowledge. Further, the most favorite channel that all of them are interested in is face to face discussing. However, it still exist some differences between departments in holding meeting for employees.. 37 .

(50) Formal flows 120% 100% 80% 60% Formal flows. 40% 20% 0% Face to Conference Formal face meeting. Figure 4.1 Summary of formal flows 1.2 Informal flows Table 4.3 Coding of informal flows Theme 1.Knowledge. Category 1.2 Informal flows. sharing. 1.2.1. Key channels 1.2.1. Social network. 1.2.2. Observe and Imitate. 1.2.3. Group working. 1.2.4. Others. Social network. In term of social network, author emphasized on the online externalization communities. These are one of the implements of knowledge repository, such as Google group, Facebook, or Wordpress, etc. It was very surprised that there were only five interviewees joining in these networks. One of them expressed,. 38 .

(51) I have rarely used Facebook or something like that, but the most regularly access is Vifisnet – an academic online community. This online network links to abroad students who can exactly provide and introduce the situations of research in others country, since I can share and get knowledge from foreign academic researchers. I mean I can study more about the other communities all over the world (I). Furthermore, one of employees had a noticeable ideal, I like to join in these networks very much. I think it is one of the activities that young people like us are interested. Second, because we have just graduated and time for working is not much, life experience and work experience have still limitations. Furthermore, we can expand interpersonal relationship through these networks. 1.2.2. Observe and imitate. However, there were five participants those who not only discussed to collect experience but also observed and imitated from other people. In research process, discussing with colleagues is the best way when I encounter difficulties. However, there are still many ways to study experience from other people. For example, regarding scientific knowledge and scientific research method (or experience of processing data), I mainly study from other experts by imitating and observing their process then selecting the method that best suitable for me (H).. 1.2.3. Group working. Team working was paid attention by all participant, the ways of interaction between colleagues by working group is one of the effectively way to solve problem. As one interviewee explained, All employers are keen solve problems together and work in teams. Working in a group gains more effectively than working independently. For example, my group has five members, each member take over only one mission, they are not able to look overview all of mission. Hence, it will be easier to discuss and solve solutions together (A).. 39 .

(52) In my opinion, working in a group or working independently each of them has both strong and weak points. Nonetheless, I like to work in-group rather than individual. Because your own ideal is one-dimensional opinion, I will get more knowledge that is useful when discuss in-group. Working in a discussion group is the best choice for exchange knowledge and experiences. (J). However, several interviewees also had this ideal, Regarding gather information and knowledge, I will be in-group working. When come in an affair I wish to work independently (K).. 1.2.4. Others. Moreover, the way that people use to increase their knowledge is from documents of finished projects. One participant stated, In order to get more knowledge, I usually synthetize documents and data from projects, then directly contact to editor of documents, and the last is discussion. (M). In addition, learning through experience is usually the good method. Hence, increasing knowledge and understanding by learning is one of the common ways that everybody usually thinks of, People can gain new knowledge and increase their understanding of specialty by learning. I think this is an easy way to implement knowledge for my own experiences (B).. Summary In conclusion, it is interesting to note that although there are differences between employees about working group, all of them like to discussing and working in-group. Furthermore, it can be seen that the influence of online platforms such as social network affects not much in exchanging knowledge of staff members. Beside, the selection of preferences through imitation is one of the good ways that is chosen by employees. 40 .

(53) Informal flows 120.00% 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00%. Informal flows. 20.00% 0.00% Social Observe Group Others network and working imitate. Figure 4.2 Summary of informal flows 1.3 Perceptions of academic researchers about sharing knowledge. Table 4.4 Coding of Perceptions of academic researchers Theme 1.Knowledge. Category 1.3 Perceptions. Key concept 1.3.1 Transparence. sharing. 1.3.1 Willingness. 1.3.1 Transparence In term of transparence, author emphasized that whether or not they shared knowledge with people who they did not particularly like in everyday life. Academic researchers clearly ascertained activities in research and social life. Except only one person, he said, “It is very difficult to share as well as receive experience from those who they don’t like because they will be afraid of that recipient will be more expertise than them”. Most of researchers shared knowledge even with people they do not like. One of them expressed his opinion, 41 .

(54) Of course, it is necessary to identify collective and private affair. Scientific information is very important, I willing ignore something to approach or share knowledge with people who I do not like (C) Two of them have not also yet encountered this situation, however they think that this issues is not complicated, I think we should eliminate resistance barrier to share knowledge. I provide and expect that the provision of information will be reciprocated in the future. (G) Furthermore, when employees discussed with those who are more senior or expertise than them, most of them felt that “It is very interesting when I have chance to discuss with them, because I will get more information and experience from them.” (A). One employee expressed clearer his ideal, As far as I am concerned, I am very confident when exchange knowledge with senior employees. However, it is difficult to share knowledge with same old people, because they are usually very haughty. Hence discussing with those who are older or younger 15 to 20 year olds will be easier. (H) Conversely, few of employees felt that it was not comfortable, It is difficult to share knowledge with people who are more senior. Firstly, there will be limitations when communicate. If they have a higher level of education, I am afraid of not enough level to approach their expertise. Secondly, I will have a feeling of fear when talk to people who are in higher position (F). 1.3.2. Willingness All employees willingly shared new knowledge to everyone. One employee stated. that, Knowledge, which is got from training course, will be diffused to everyone. Otherwise, we will join in meeting if these are specialist knowledge (E). Consistent with the above ideal, employee (H) explained more about which kinds of knowledge that can be shared, 42 .

(55) This also depends on kind of knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be share anytime, anywhere, implicit knowledge is my own knowledge. However, I only share to foreign colleagues except Vietnamese, because I do not trust Vietnamese colleagues. When they get knowledge from you, this knowledge will be used against you. For example, other colleagues copy my invention, and then this technology is considered as their own knowledge. Furthermore, I have many years of experience in research with technique of Babylonia snail. I am willing to share these experiences to those who are interested in, because it is merely technological information. However, I will not share knowledge that I get from PhD course. I think that specialist knowledge should be store for my own experience. I will share knowledge with a person whom I can trust. These are my own intellectual capital. Therefore, it depends on kind of knowledge, implicit and explicit. In addition, a specific attitude was exposed as below, My point of view, knowledge that gets from ongoing project should not be shared. For example, raw data that has just explored will not share (D).. Summary It is also interesting to note that in neither case there was a significant view of all participants. Perception on knowledge sharing of them is very clear. Most of them willing eliminate barriers to exchange knowledge even thought difficulties may still exist. 2. The organizational factors influence knowledge sharing After exploring the knowledge sharing status of academic researchers in RIA3, the author further investigated the factors influencing knowledge sharing in this scientific community. The results are presented in the following sections, working environment, leadership and information communication technology.. 43 .

(56) 2.1 Working environment Table 4.5 Coding of working environment Theme 2.Organizational characteristic. 2.1.1. Category. Key concept. 2.1 Working. 2.1.1 Negative factors. environment. 2.1.2 Positive factors. Negative factors. Unfriendliness Four out of fourteen interviewees answered that the unfriendliness is one of the reason reducing knowledge sharing activities. Like interviewees’ ideals below, “Relation between employees is not enough friendly to exchange experiences and information” (B) or “colleagues is not friendly and create difficulties for each other.”(H) Envy Besides unfriendliness, envy was considered as an element influencing knowledge transfer. Four interviewees revealed that the competition in research created the envy between individual. For example, Sharing knowledge should also limit because competition always exist in all areas. Jealousy between employees is one of reason for reducing knowledge sharing. Because research environment always increases pressure and competition, therefore I have to keep something for my own; and it can be seen as an advantage of mine (H).. 2.1.2. Positive factors. Leadership. 44 .

(57) Several interviewees (5 out of 14) realized the importance of leaders in planning strategies for knowledge management. This factor was well described by one researcher, “Leadership is the most influent factor in knowledge sharing. They should create a good working environment to promote sharing of knowledge within RIA3” (I). However, this seem to be ignored by RIA3’s leader one interviewee stated that, Leader does not pay attention, interfere as well as encourage sharing knowledge. They consider this issue as individual problem (B). Therefore, one of interviewees offered a suggestion “Leader should concentrate on creating regulations to force employee to share knowledge” (J) Professional environment Most of employees expect to work at organizations where build good environment and good climate. In this section, author focused on the organization of seminars and difficulties in research process of employees. Seminars A surprising number of employees (all of employees) noted that their department did not organize any seminars. People merely reported situation of ongoing projects. Just like one employees said, “In my department, instead of holding seminars, formal meeting are replaced in beginning and the end of year. For example, orientations for culturing some kinds of mollusk” (J). Or “… My department usually held periodic meetings except unforeseen matters (B). Another employee stated that, We meet every day more than in meetings. For example, informal meeting (e.g. go to coffee shop, chatting in relax time). Formal meeting will be organized when collect ideals about submitting projects (I). Difficulties 45 .