Measuring the Effect of KnowledgeSharing and Knowledge Transfer on the Survival and Competitiveness of TaiwanICDF

全文

(1)Measuring the Effect of Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Transfer on the Survival and Competitiveness of TaiwanICDF. by Ulyses Augustine. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Cheng-Ping Shih, Ph.D.. Graduate Institute of International Human Resource Development National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June, 2013.

(2)

(3) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost I would like to thank God for granting me the health, strength and opportunity, and mental ability to complete this research. I also sincerely thank my best friend, Alan Genitty, my dearest and loving mother, Leonarda Augustine, and my brother and sisters for supporting me towards the completion of this research. I also thank all my friends who have supported on this two year journey. I express special and sincere gratitude and appreciation to my advisor Dr. Tony Shih for his time, patience, guidance, and encouragement towards this task and my personal growth. Thank you so much! Also thanks to every professor of International Human Resource Development (IHRD), especially Dr. Pai-Po Lee, Dr. Ted Tsai, and Dr. Wei-Wang Chang, all to whom contributed in someone way to my success as a graduate student. Without their support, the accomplishment of my master degree program would not have been possible. I also wish to thank each committee member, Dr. Pai-Po Lee and Dr. Wei-Wang Chang for contributing very heavily on the process of writing this thesis. I am especially grateful to the Ministry of Education in Belize for their support of my two year leave. I am equally gratefully to Vicky Chi Yeh, Olli Hung, Andrei Chell, Ma-Yen Ma, and Chi-Tang Lin who made my stay in Taiwan a home away from home. Finally, a special thanks goes to the International Cooperation Development Fund (TaiwanICDF) for the scholarship opportunity and for the new step I have achieved in my education.. I.

(4) ABSTRACT Researches and studies on non-profit organizations (NPOs) strongly suggest that NPOs stand out as a critical actor in politics, economics and social welfare. Knowledge management (KM) has found strong support in For-Profit Organizations (FPOs), especially large organizations that require large scale application; however, little attention has been given to KM in Non-Profit Organizations. Even less focus has been given to the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF. Since, large NPOs and FPOs have similar operational needs, such as human resources, IT resources, and customer services. The purpose of this study is to build a theoretical model for knowledge sharing, and knowledge transfer. Second, this study aims to identify several difficulties of knowledge sharing which may affect the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF. Lastly, this study aims to utilize a system equation modeling to assess knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. In order to achieve these objectives a KST Structural Model was built by Shih and Augustine, 2012. The sample of this study was drawn from 103 employees working in the International Cooperation and Development Fund (TaiwanICDF) in Taipei, Taiwan. Of useable questionnaire, 97 were included in the data analysis. Given the importance of knowledge sharing in today’s global knowledge economy, the PLS research findings indicates that there is a strong and positive effect between knowledge sharing culture, knowledge transfer, difficulties of knowledge sharing on survival and competitiveness. Also, the PLS findings reveal a moderately strong and negative effect between knowledge sharing culture and survival and competitiveness of non-profit organizations. The empirical finding in this study establishes the importance of this KST Structural Model in encouraging a knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer for the survival and competitiveness of non-profit organizations. Our PLS results clearly contribute to the existing management literature, as they offer empirical evidence of the impact of knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer on the survival and competitiveness of non-profit organization. Therefore, the four null hypotheses proposed in this study were rejected, so this research accepts the alternative hypotheses.. Keywords: Survival and competitiveness, knowledge sharing culture, transfer and difficulties of knowledge sharing.. II.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... I Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... II Table of Content ...................................................................................................................... III List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ V List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ VII CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ ..... 1 Background of the Study ....................................................................................................... 1 Purposes of the Study ............................................................................................................ 2 Questions of the Study .......................................................................................................... 3 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3 Delimitations and Limitations ............................................................................................... 5 Definition of Key Terms ........................................................................................................ 6 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 9 Literature on the Concept of Knowledge ............................................................................... 9 Literature on Knowledge Management ............................................................................... 17 Literature on Knowledge Sharing ....................................................................................... 23 Literature on Knowledge Transfer ....................................................................................... 29 Literature on Survival and Competitiveness ........................................................................ 32 Literature on Difficulties of Knowledge Sharing ............................................................... 38 Literature on Employees Attitude ....................................................................................... 40 Literature on Knowledge is Power ..................................................................................... 42 Literature on Organization Culture Prospect ...................................................................... 44 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLODY ................................................................. 47 Research Hypothesis ............................................................................................................ 47 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................ 47 Research Procedure ............................................................................................................. 49 Measurement Instrument .................................................................................................... 52 Validity and Reliability ....................................................................................................... 54 Data Analysis Method ......................................................................................................... 58 Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling ............................................................ 62 Structural Model Testing ..................................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTIVE RESUTLS AND STATISTICS ......................................... 67. III.

(6) Descriptive Statistics............................................................................................................ 67 Descriptive Statistics Analysis ............................................................................................ 69 Discussion for Descriptive Statistics Analysis ................................................................... 78 Correlation Analysis ........................................................................................................... 79 Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Instrument ................................................... 82 CHAPTER V PLS EMPIRICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................... 87 Research Instrument Validity ............................................................................................. 87 Cronbach’s Alpha and Individual Item Reliability ............................................................. 88 Test the Measurement Model .............................................................................................. 89 PLS Findings Summary ...................................................................................................... 95 CHAPTER VI RESEARCH CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 97 Research Review ................................................................................................................. 97 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 98 Research and Theoretical Implication ................................................................................ 98 Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................................ 105 REFERENCE ........................................................................................................................ 107 APPENDIX A: COVER LETTER ..................................................................................... 129 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE PART A ..................................................................... 131 APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE PART B .................................................................... 137 APPENDIX D: PLS PROCEDURE ................................................................................... 142. IV.

(7) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Definition of Knowledge ......................................................................................... 10 Table 2.2 Classification of Knowledge ................................................................................... 14 Table 2.3 Reasons for Managing Knowledge in Firms ........................................................... 16 Table 2.4 Definition of Knowledge Management .................................................................. 18 Table 2.5 Definition of Knowledge Sharing ............................................................................ 20 Table 2.6 Table Definition of Culture in Knowledge Sharing ................................................ 22 Table 2.7 Importance of Trust ................................................................................................. 24 Table 3.1 Pilot Cronbach Alpha Results for All Dimensions ................................................. 54 Table 3.2 Pilot Outer Loading ................................................................................................ 55 Table 3.3 Pilot Average Variance, Internal Consistency and R2 ............................................ 56 Table 3.4 Data of Variable by Entry and Values .................................................................... 57 Table 3.5 Coding System used in SPSS Data Analysis ........................................................... 58 Table 3.6 PLS Codes ............................................................................................................... 66 Table 4.1 Summary Distribution of Respondents Based on Demographics ........................... 67 Table 4.2 Knowledge Sharing Culture by Likert Scales ........................................................ 69 Table 4.3 Knowledge Transfer by Likert Scales .................................................................... 70 Table 4.4 Survival and Competitiveness by Likert Scales ..................................................... 72 Table 4.5 Difficulties of Knowledge Sharing by Likert Scales .............................................. 74 Table 4.6 Top Eight Responses .............................................................................................. 77 Table 4.7 Bottom Five Responses from TaiwanICDF............................................................. 78 Table 4.8 Correlation Table ..................................................................................................... 80 Table 4.9 Factor Analysis ....................................................................................................... 82 Table 4.10 Cronbach Alpha Results ....................................................................................... 83 Table 4.11 Individual Cronbach Alpha Results ...................................................................... 84 Table 5.1 Main Study Construct Reliability Analysis for this Study ..................................... 87 Table 5.2 PLS Outer Loadings................................................................................................. 87 Table 5.3 PLS Cronbach Alpha, Internal Consistency and R2 ................................................ 89 Table 5.4 PLS Path Analysis and Results ................................................................................ 92 Table 5.5 Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effect ........................................................ 92 Table 5.6 Research Hypotheses Results .................................................................................. 94. V.

(8) VI.

(9) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 The Hierarchical View of Information .................................................................. 12 Figure 2.2 Components of Collaborative Climate ................................................................... 25 Figure 2.3 Knowledge Development Cycles .......................................................................... 30 Figure 2.4 The SECI Model ..................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 48 Figure 3.2 Research Procedures .............................................................................................. 51 Figure 3.3 Methodological Approaches to Test Hypotheses ................................................... 62 Figure 5.2 KST Structural Paths ............................................................................................. 91. VII.

(10) VIII.

(11) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This section provides an overall understanding of this research and will set the theoretical framework upon which the researcher will address the research questions. This chapter includes the background of the study, the problem statement, the purposes of the research, the research questions, the hypothesis, the significance of the study, the delimitations and limitations, definitions of the terms to be used in the study, and finally key assumptions used to simplify the research process.. Background of the Study The international financial crisis of 2008 underlines a new era for extreme international competition, ubiquitous computing and higher consumer demands (Renshaw & Krishnaswamy, 2009; Schwartz, 2005) prompting for-profit and non-profit organizations to look for competitive advantages just to manage their survival. These international shifts in the companies environment signify causes which have forced non-profit organizations to look at commercial business designs and models (Helmig, Jegers, & Lapsley, 2004) or utilize forprofit companies as their designs (Leiter, 2005).. Followings this new business trend,. researchers now consider knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer as vital vessels for the long term survival and sustainability within the Global Knowledge Economy (Renshaw & Krishnaswamy, 2009). However, the management literature reveals that there is a lack of clarity regarding how knowledge sharing culture can be developed and their influences on the survival and competitive of the organization; in the context of non-profit organization. There is also a lack of empirical evidence in regards to how knowledge sharing culture, and knowledge transfer strategy can be used to managed or develop a knowledge sharing organization. Furthermore, there is also a lack of empirical results grouping the difficulties of knowledge sharing, specifically employees attitude, employees ability, knowledge is power and organizational culture prospect which may influence the survival and competitiveness of an organization. Therefore, this study proposes a Structural KST Model addressing the current gap in the literature. For non-profits to stay competitive and manage their survive, the management literature emphatically suggest that organizations must guarantee that knowledge is being created, transferred and shared throughout the organization (Lee & Choi, 2003). To promote. 1.

(12) knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer, this study assumes that non-profits knowledge sharing culture, knowledge transfer, difficulties of knowledge sharing and survival and competitiveness plays an important role. Since researchers argued that best practices in knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer can assist organizations in significantly boosting better goals and performances (Riege, 2005). For instance, some cases studies and best practices within the top hundred organizations and multinational companies. like IBM,. Xerox, 3M, Daimler Chrysler, and General Electric have pledged to build a knowledge sharing culture “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expensive pattern of thinking is nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people care continually learning how to learn together” (Garvin, 1993, p. 79; Riege, p. 19). These case studies in these top hundred organizations all share a number of common characteristic each of which is largely lacking in non- profit organizations. When applied to the non-profit sector (also known as the “third sector”). It is evident that there is undeniably a lack of mature process management; lack of professional staff who understand the benefits of knowledge sharing practices; lack of investment in economies of scale; and lack of proficiency and maturity in implementing a knowledge management change all which contributes to low levels of adaptation, practice and understanding of KM (Riege, 2005). Whilst knowledge sharing is popular in many for-profit organizations (Bock, Zikmund, Kim & Lee, 2005), an examination of knowledge sharing culture, knowledge transfer, difficulties of knowledge sharing and survival and competitive in an interrelated manner is very scant in the management literature. Therefore, this research study seeks to fill in this gap. Hence, the key purpose of this study is to determine which factors a knowledge-sharing culture and knowledge transfer and difficulties of knowledge sharing influences the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF.. Purpose of the Study Knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer in non-profit organizations has not been widely studies. However, it is becoming more and more popular in this era of knowledge based economies. Furthermore, non-profits qualify under ‘knowledge intense organizations’ because of their reliance on human capital to produce outputs (Alvesson, 2000). Therefore, to. 2.

(13) effectively assess the effects of knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer of TaiwanICDF the following purposes of this study were devised. The purposes of this study are: 1. To build a theoretical model that supports knowledge-sharing and knowledge transfer within TaiwanICDF. 2. To identify the difficulties of knowledge sharing that may influence the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF 3. To utilize a system equation modeling (PLS) and applied on the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF.. Questions of the Study Based on the intentions to measure the effects of knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer at TaiwanICDF, this research aims to answer the following questions: 1. What aspects of knowledge sharing culture affect knowledge transfer in TaiwanICDF? 2. What aspects of knowledge transfer affect the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF? 3. What aspects of knowledge-sharing culture affect the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF? 4. What aspects of difficulties of knowledge sharing affect the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF?. Significance of the Study The justification for this thesis is twofold: First, it addresses a key gap in the research and theory on knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer and difficulties of knowledge sharing through identifying the key variables linked with increasing survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF which results to better organizational performance. This is particularly important in non-profit context where there is a scarcity of contemporary research in the area. Second, and related to the first, the thesis is justified as it will assist HR (Human Resources) 3.

(14) practitioners of TaiwanICDF with the tools to enhance sharing and transferring of knowledge and thus increase their return on investment on a knowledge sharing designs. There are four primary points of significance: 1. This study is significant to academicians in that it provides a structural KST model for effective knowledge sharing and knowledge management within non-profits. This KST model is the first attempt of its kind addressing the limitations of many scholars in the non-profit sector. The KST model adopts various finding in knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer for building a theoretical framework to effectively manage knowledge. Therefore, this study is significant because it expands the concept of knowledge sharing in a structural way that has not yet been achieved in previous research. This is due to the limited comprehensive frameworks in knowledge management (Hasan 2008; Renshaw & Krishnaswamy, 2009). A knowledge management framework is defined as a guide to implementing knowledge management strategies in an organized way. 2. Next, this study is also significant since it seeks to address the current research gap that currently exists in the knowledge management spectrum on how to manage knowledge sharing difficulties. The work of Seba, Jennifer and Delbridge (2012) indicates that there is a lack of clarity demonstrating how knowledge sharing culture can be developed and how it can influence knowledge sharing in organizations. In addition; the management literature reveals that there is a lack of empirical evidence on how different organizational, technological and individual factors can be used to manage and to develop a knowledge sharing culture that enhances the understanding of knowledge sharing in the organization. Previous research on knowledge sharing has been concentrated on environment and managerial process (e.g., Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1995). It is the view of Matzler, Renzl, Mooradain, Von Krogh, and Muller (2011) that there is a need to evaluate individual factors which may affect knowledge sharing. Therefore, this research makes relevant contribution to the literature on knowledge management, as these links between knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, difficulties of knowledge sharing and survival and competitiveness have never been studied before as a whole. 3. This study is also significant for HR practitioners and academicians; since, it utilizes a system equation modeling for assessing the effects of knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. HR practitioners acknowledge that knowledge is a prime 4.

(15) economic resource in the knowledge economy. They affirm that the international economy has fundamentally change transformed the global economic activities. Therefore, HR practitioners need to effectively capture, use and reuse knowledge to manage their survival. As some researchers continue to find that knowledge sharing having a positive effect on organizational performance (Du, Ai, & Ren, 2007). 4. Lastly, this study will significantly benefit non-profit organizations as it seeks to use a system equation modeling to empirical test predictors for capture knowledge from within the organization. This will allow the organization to properly channel and adopt innovate strategies for knowledge management and knowledge strategies. In addition, the empirical predictors will allow HR practitioners to effectively match their organizations objectives to better manage their survival and competitive.. Delimitations and Limitations This study has three delimitations and three corresponding limitations that served to set the scope of this research. This scope is necessary in order to make the research more feasible.. Delimitations 1. The study is delimited to the Taiwanese culture. 2. The study is delimited to language translation between English and Mandarin. 3.. The study is delimited to one non-profit organization, the International Cooperation and Development Fund (TaiwanICDF) which may not fit for-profit organizations.. Limitations It should be noted that this study had some limitations. In fact, the identification of these limitations should provide direction for future studies. 1. The first limitation is that since the study is delimited to the Taiwanese culture this means that it is culturally bound. This is an acceptable limitation since as Hsieh (2007) points out, “a more homogenous sample, and…limits the influence of other extraneous variables such as culture that may impact the knowledge management process.” 2. Second, achieving satisfactory survey responses rate was quite challenging partly because this study employs thirty three (33) variables and hundred and six (106) questions which needed to be translated from Chinese to English. Therefore, our approach for assessing. 5.

(16) individual options was subordinated to presumptions that the meanings of scales would be consistent across region and that any numerical expected reaction should reflect the endorsement degree across regions (Srite & Karahanna, 2006). Research by Wang (2004) suggests that neither is it true that respondents from different cultural background consider the question in the same manner. 3. Thirdly, since the study is delimited to a non-profit organization, it has limited the target population. Given the amount of time and resources available, this limitation does help to narrow the scope of this research in order to facilitate a more manageable research process. Thus it could be concluded that the results stemming out from this sample should not be generalized beyond the conditions of this study. Since the sample was voluntary and might have self-selection bias (Wang, 2004).. Although this research has these limitations, it has provided the theoretical and empirical justification for knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer for the survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF.. It would also be worthwhile to conduct comparative. analysis among organizations from different industries.. Definitions of Key Terms This section of the study provides both the theoretical definitions of the key terms used. The theoretical definitions outline how variables will be measured within the scope of this study. The following is the definition of variables in this study:. 1. Knowledge Knowledge in an organization is the collection of expertise, experiences, and information that individuals and work groups use during the execution of their task. It is produced and stored by individual minds, or implicitly encoded in documents in organizations processes, services, and systems (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1995).. 6.

(17) 2. Knowledge Management The process, by which an organization creates, captures, acquires and uses knowledge to support and improve the performance of the organization (Kinney, 1998). Or A process if collecting and identifying useful information (i.e., knowledge acquisition), enabling employees to retrieve organizational knowledge including orphaned knowledge (i.e., organized knowledge), exploiting and usefully applying knowledge (i.e., knowledge leverage), disseminating it through the whole organization (i.e., KS) and storing the knowledge in a repository (i.e., organizational memory) (Nonaka, 1991; Rowley, 2000; Yang, 2007).. 3. Knowledge Sharing As an act in which employees diffuse relevant information to others across the organization (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Choi & Lee, 2000; Yang, 2007).. 4. Culture The control of behavior, setting the norm of behavior, values and belief that leaders wish to encourage in their subordinates (Schein, 1986).. 5. Knowledge Transfer Degree of internalization, externalization, socialization, combination (Lee & Choi, 2003).. 7.

(18) 8.

(19) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This section provides a comprehensive evaluation of the appropriate literary works that helped the research to deal with the issues--- the effect of knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer on non-profit organizations. First it provides an understanding about the origins and definitions of knowledge. Next it details the requirement for knowledge sharing and then looks at how knowledge can be transfers within an organization. Then it identifies the effects that knowledge transfer has on the survival and competitiveness of non-profits. Lastly, it takes a closer look at how individual variables are operationally defined in this study. Literature on the Concept of Knowledge The Concept of Knowledge and the Non-Profit Organizations The work of Alavi and Leidner (2001, p.109) indicates that knowledge is “validated personal perception that improves your capacity to take effective actions.” Researcher Du et al., (2007) has expressed a similar view, “knowledge has become key financial resources and the prominent and perhaps even the only resource of competitive advantage” (p. 38). As Lee (2012) points out the nature of knowledge for non-profit organizations are “operating regionally and specifically to their tasks, with limited resources and financial restrictions, tight methods of decision-making, regulation and limited sources and lack of funding for technology solutions” (p.234). Therefore, the search for a definition for the phrase “knowledge” can be tracked returning to Plato and Aristotle who created the first difference information as “know-what” and “know-how”. Today’s knowledge concept is highly different in terms of analysis interest and underlying disciplines. Moreover, there appears to be a lack of universal classification associated with knowledge, leading to significant controversy, disputes and resulting in the research gap in the management literature.. Definitions of Knowledge and Types There is number of definitions of knowledge in the exiting literature is diverse; as Debowski (2006) has drawn attention to the fact that knowledge is a “process of determining, catching, planning, and distributing an organization’s intellectual asset which are essential for. 9.

(20) long-term performance” (p.16). Therefore, this study assumes that knowledge is an intangible resource that prevails within the mind of an individual. Therefore, “Table 2.1. Definition of knowledge” gives an overarching view of the various definitions and uses of knowledge in the management literature for knowledge management.. Table 2.1. Definition of Knowledge Definition. Year. Source. Knowledge is something that comes from information 2009, p. 108 processed by using data and is applied in the minds of the knower.. Ling, San, and Hock. Knowledge outcomes from the connections of individuals’ 2005, p. 127 understanding (past encounter, instinct, and attitude), information and creativity (generating concepts and imagining futures).. Iske and Boersma. Knowledge is a liquid combination of experience, 1998, p. 2 principles, contextual details, and expert understands that provides a structure for analyzing and including new encounters and details.. Davenport and Prusak. An item that can be known as, allocated and recognized, 2003, p. 12 and applied to experience a set of goals. Al-Hawandeh. Validated true perception.. Takeuchi and. 1995, p. 16. Nonaka Knowledge is powerful, personal and remarkably different 2001, p. 345 from information (distinct, unstructured signs and information (a method for precise communication). Sveiby. Information is the result of decoding information 2000, p. 784 depending on one is aware of it is affected by the character of its owner since. Lee and Yang. (continued). 10.

(21) Table 2.1. (continued) Definition. Year. Source. it is depending on verdict and intuition; knowledge features values, mind-set and behavior. Knowledge decreases doubt by developing relationships 2007, p. 55 between information and perspective and benefits justified reason through effective activity, i.e. it is not enough to know what to do, the task is to know how to use knowledge to produce outcomes.. Tywoniak. The capability of understanding the relationship between 1998, p. 532 pieces of information and what to actually do with the information.. Jones and George. A selection of guidelines and information to meet a specific 2000, p. 14 function.. Den and Huizenga. Appropriate workable information based at least partially on 1998, p. 113 experience.. Leonard. Despite the various definitions for knowledge, one factor is obvious. Knowledge is a collection of expertise, experiences and information. Knowledge must be understood and processed to gain justification. The various denotations therefore allow us to accept knowledge as a strategic resource within non-profit organisation; one that must be effectively captured.. Different Perspectives of Knowledge The first differentiation into defining the concept of knowledge was adopted from Quink (2008). The research by Quink (2008) suggest breaking down the concept of knowledge into the following a) the hierarchical view of data, information and knowledge; and b) the operational levels of knowledge; and (know-what, know-how and know-why). According to Quink (2008) the hierarchical view of data, information and knowledge in relation to the concepts knowledge are similar to David and Voss (2002) who utilize a graphical description shown on “Figure 2.1. The Hierarchical views of Data, Information and Knowledge” which explains that: Data can be recognized as irrelevant facts, not yet considered by a person, whereas information created as data related to other data, thereby implementing meaning and. 11.

(22) being easy to understand. When data are incorporated into a current understanding and saved in memory, it becomes information that can be used for various reasons. Therefore data are built through a useful gathering or amassing of information (p.29).. Next, Quink (2008) refers to Bhatt (2001) research definition by defining the terms data, information and knowledge as a “recursive relations.” The researcher explains that, “in general data are raw facts, information is organized set of data, and knowledge is perceived as important information” (p. 329). The researcher maintains that “knowledge is meaning made by the mind” (Bhatt, 2001). Adding that only through meaning, information finds life and becomes knowledge (Bhatt, 2001, p.70). However, information has traditionally been viewed by economist as being a “public good—that once created it can be consumed by additional users to close to zero marginal cost.”. Figure 2.1. The hierarchical views of data, information and knowledge. Adapted from “Knowledge Management,” by C. David & P. Voss, 2002, Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(1), p. 24.. It is the view of Sandhu, Jain and Ahmed (2011) that the impeccable success of a knowledge-intensive organization is purely supported by the way in which organizations “distinguish between information and knowledge to effectively acquire, use, and leverage knowledge.” Ling (2011) notes that knowledge is incorporated within a set of rules, procedures, and operations gained from the course of experience skills and practices.. 12.

(23) A second approach to defining the concept of knowledge has been taken by Ling, San, and Hock (2009). These authors break the concept down into four operational levels of knowledge which were adopted from Bakker, Leender, Gabbay, Kratzer, and Engelen, (2006, pp. 588). i. ii. iii. iv.. Knowledge of how to do things and know-how techniques and processes, etc., Knowledge of who are the organization, for example whom to turn to with a particular question. Knowledge of the task itself, i.e. know-what, task-content related for example facts, designs, requirements, etc. Knowledge of why things are done, i.e. background knowledge. Different Classification of Knowledge Apart from the different perspectives of knowledge, further differences can be made when analyzing the dimensions of knowledge. Clarifying knowledge into different types is important because it can guide theoretical development in the knowledge management field, which is supported by (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). For example, (Konno & Nonaka, 1998; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1995; Polanyi, 1996) summarizes knowledge within an organization into two forms, namely 1) implicit knowledge and 2) explicit knowledge. Explicit or codified information can be indicated in words and numbers and can be easily distributed to others in various ways, such as data, formulae, requirements or guides. Therefore, explicit information represents information that can be saved in a mechanistic or technical way that can be indicated via hand books, computer or directories (Ling, San, & Hock, 2011). Tacit information is termed as personal features that is included in encounters and packed with feelings, principles and ideas which are challenging to formalize and share within an company. Tacit information is unorganized, casual, relatively unavailable and challenging to codify (Konno & Nonaka, 1998; Polanyi, 1996; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1995). It is believed that this type of knowledge is highly personal (Argote & Ingram, 2000) and cannot be easily formalized; as a result, it cannot be communicated or shared easily (Hlupic, Pouloudi, & Rzevski, 2002). “Table 2.2. Classification of Knowledge” shows the different classifications of knowledge by author, year and classification.. 13.

(24) Table 2.2. Classification of Knowledge Author(s). Year. Classification. Leonard. 1998. Scientific, Industry Specific, Firm Specific. Takeuchi and Nonaka. 1995. Tacit, Explicit. Jang and Lee. 1998. Task, Domain. De Long and Fathy. 2000. Human, social, and structured knowledge. Bock and Kim. 2002. Generality and Analyticity: Pattern, Theory, Case, Know-how Representativeness: Tacit, Implicit, Explicit. Tiwana. 2001. Tacit, Explicit. Note: Classification of knowledge. Adopted from “The knowledge integrated management model: A case study of international cooperation and development fund,” by J. P. Paul, 2011. (Unpublished master’s Thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan. The distinction between both explicit and tacit knowledge has been documented in the above “Table 2.2, Classification of Knowledge”. The “Table 2.2. Classification of Knowledge” helps us identify the different nature of knowledge within the organization. Therefore, knowledge sharing and transfer should focus on converting knowledge from one form to the other.. The Knowledge-Base Theory of the Firm The concept of knowledge-based theory has been adopted from Papoutski (2007) empirical findings which recognize knowledge as an important asset for sustaining competitive advantage. These authors (Allee, 2000; Grant, 1997; Von Krogh & Roos, 1995; Wernerfelt, 1995) recognize the Theory of the Firm which influences knowledge within the organization. The work of Papoutski (2007) asserts that the “transaction cost economics” explains the firm’s difficulties of creating value, transferring value and converting value: If we see the company as developing value from exchanges and alterations of information together with its clients the value sequence collapses; so the idea should better be seen as a Value Network; an connections between individuals in different tasks. 14.

(25) and connections who make both intangible value (knowledge, concepts, reviews, etc) and concrete income (p. 232). Next, the researcher describes the resource-based theory by means of cost for imitating or acquiring resources which gives other firms a competitive advantage. The resource-based view argues the following metaphor, “I put a stone on the ground and left it. When I looked back, others had put stones on top of it and next to it, building a part of a wall” (Wernerfelt, 1995, p.232 The knowledge based theory, argues the principal existence of the firms is its superior ability to integrate knowledge as well as the creation of knowledge. Thus, the knowledge base theory strategy formulation should start with the primary intangible resource: the competence of the people (Sveiby, 2001). The knowledge-based theory recognizes the organization a social institution that fulfills the needs of their stakeholders; rather than only existing for profit. In this context, the knowledge-based theory in nonprofit organizations makes knowledge relevant in this study.. Reasons for Managing Knowledge Since, non-profit organizations are knowledge intensive “hiring minds more than hands” Metaxiotis (2009, p.56) they often employ professionals such as psychologists, counselors, health-care professionals, and educational specialists. Some researchers agree that there is a need to manage knowledge in non-profit organizations. Hume, Pope and Hume (n.d.) claim that managing knowledge is fundamental to the effective performance of an organization. For example “Table 2.3. Reasons of Managing Knowledge in the Firms” gives various perspectives from different researchers on the need to manage resources. The researcher also underlines the notion that knowledge stored “minimizes duplication” of work or activities within the organization (p.57). However, searches on knowledge sharing and transfer further reveal its complexities in nature and its difficulties on how best to manage it. Nevertheless, there are a number of reasons for managing knowledge and they include:. 15.

(26) Table 2.3. Reasons for Managing Knowledge in Firms Reasons. Year. Source. Knowledge can be seen as an intangible source which is 1991, p. 4 most valuable to the organization because of the intensification of globalization, boosting in the quantity of change and growth in the use of information technology.. Badaracco. Knowledge is a potential source of competitive advantage 1996, p. 94 because it is unique, restricted, route dependent, carefully unclear, and hard to imitate or substitute by others.. Nanda. Knowledge is one of the most essential ideal sources 2005, p. through which the company can create and hold up against 118. Ke and Wei. Knowledge is critical for long term sustainability and 1995, p. 16 success for any organization. Takeuchi and Nonaka. Knowledge cannot be imitated or substituted, which makes 2002, p. it a key strategic asset resource to all business. 721. Cabrera and Cabrera. Considering that non-profit organizations qualify under knowledge intensive (Alvesson, 2000; Dobrai & Farkas, 2008; Miles, 2005; Skjolsvik, Lowendahl, Kvalshaugen, & Fosstenlokken, 2007); it is deemed critical to manage knowledge assets within the organization. Knowledge intensive organizations are those organizations that know how to do things. Renshaw and Krishnaswamy (2009, p. 70) qualitative research makes a clear distinction in explaining knowledge intensive organizations by adopting the following definition: Those engaged in delivering services and or products where there is a reliance on human capital to produce these outputs. Such organizations are reliant upon a qualified and educated workforce engaged in work related intellectual activity. These organizations rely upon human/ intellectual capital as opposed to physical capital to sustain a competitive edge within the market place. Reliance upon delivery of services that are knowledge specific (eg, delivery of counseling/psychological services) that require a skilled work force would qualify non-profit organizations, particularly in the community sector as knowledge intensive organizations (Swart & Kinnie, 2003, p.60). Non-profit organizations therefore depend on highly skilled employees to willingly contribute their knowledge for long-term survival of the organization. The management of those skills, competences and abilities makes non-profit organizations a critical part of our. 16.

(27) analysis. This knowledge intense organization is at “risk of knowledge loss held at the individual level” (Brown & Woodland, 1999, p. 176). In summary, this section introduced the different definitions of knowledge as well as different perspectives of knowledge. Further the classification of knowledge into explicit and tactic knowledge was explained briefly. Lastly, this section discussed the rising awareness of knowledge as an important asset which needs to be managed effectively and efficiently within non-profit organizations. Therefore, this study considers knowledge management as using knowledge for leveraging a competitiveness advantage over its competitors. However, in order to build a theoretical framework and utilize a system equal modeling for knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer, difficulties of knowledge sharing and survival and competitiveness of non-profits, previous empirical studies must first be considered.. Literature on Knowledge Management Knowledge-Sharing Culture A review of the literature reveals that there are many definitions for knowledge management, as there are for knowledge. In general “knowledge management is concern with the exploitation of knowledge.” The knowledge to be managed includes both explicit, documented knowledge, and tacit, subjective knowledge. In addition, knowledge management entails all those processes associated with the identification, sharing and creation of knowledge. Knowledge management requires systems for the creation and maintenance of knowledge repositories and to cultivate and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and organizational learning (Rowley, 2000). Since this study focuses on the aspect of knowledge sharing culture and knowledge transfer, knowledge management has been operational defined from the literature (Nonaka, 199; Rowley, 2000) as, “KM is a process of gathering and determining useful information, allowing employees to retrieve, taking advantage of and usefully applying knowledge, distributing it through the whole organization and saving the knowledge in a database.” The work of Yang (2007) asserts that no knowledge management agenda cannot succeed without a shift in culture of the organization at large. According to Yang (2007) an ideal culture for knowledge management is one where individuals within an organization are (as cited in Ling et al., 2009) research paper.. 17.

(28) 1. Constantly and continuously seeking, discussing, and learning knowledge to improve their job performance. 2. Propagate what they know throughout the organization; and, 3. Organize it in the KM reservoir Therefore, this study has been divided into the following statements for feasibility and understanding: 1. The concept of knowledge management, See “Table 2.4. Definitions of Knowledge Management.” 2. The concept of knowledge Sharing; See “Table 2.5. Concept of Knowledge Sharing.” 3. The concept of culture; See “Table 2.6. Concept of Culture.”. Knowledge Management Given the limited definition of knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer and knowledge management in the literature, the study utilizes various definitions from various authors in the management literature; see, “Table 2.4. Definitions of Knowledge Management.”. Table 2.4. Definitions of Knowledge Management Definition. Year. Source. KM is the planning, organizing, motivating, and 2007, p. 6 controlling people, processes and systematic in the organization to ensure that its knowledge related assets are continuously improved and effectively employed.. King. KM remains a tool that facilitates the collection, recoding, 2002, p. 14 organization, filtering, analysis, retrieval, and dissemination of explicit and tacit knowledge.. Tiwana. KM embedding KS practices in their daily work process in 2007, p. 12 achieving organization performance.. Al-Hakin and Hassm. KM is a systematic process of acquiring, organizing, and 2001, p. 108 communicating (KS) knowledge (both tacit and explicit) of organizational members so that others may use of it in order to be more effective and productive.. Alavi and Leidner. (continued). 18.

(29) Table 2.4. (continued) Definition. Year. Source. The art of transforming information and intellectual assets 1998, p. 3 into enduring value for an organization’s clients and its people.. Knapp. KM is based on applying the fullness of an organization’s 2009, p. 52 knowledge to its decisions, and this requires working hard to represent it, transfer it and make it accessible and encourage its use.. Metaxiotis. KM has been defined as the process by which an 2005, p. 2 organization creates, captures, acquires, and uses knowledge to support and improve the performance of the organization.. Hurley and Green. KM describes 'the primary focus of these efforts has been 1999, p. 45 organization’s explicitly documented knowledge. developing new applications of information technology to support digital capture, storage, retrieval and distribution of an organization’s explicitly documented knowledge.. Zack. Whatever definition is used for knowledge management; a few things are clear. First, knowledge management requires people, task, technology and structure. Hurley and Green (2005) suggest Leavitt’s model for organizational change as a framework for affecting cultural change. The model suggests that four subsystems—technology, people, task and structure—need to be balanced and coordinated and that the introduction of technology, alone, is not sufficient for development of KM programs. Leavitt’s (1965) provides insight to the following, task---this requires workers to create tacit knowledge though their regular tasks (i.e. learning by doing) and internalizing that knowledge so that it came become explicit. Structure---the structure of an organization can be defined simply as the sum total of the way in which it divides it labor into distinct task and then achieves coordination. People---as actors and those that are performing work in the organization. The strategies involved in organizational change via people rely on changing human behavior.. Technology--- technological infrastructure incudes access to a. comprehensive information and communication system that supports knowledge management activities. Drawing from the TAM (technology accepted model) research, norms encouraging technology use could also be important factor influencing knowledge management activities. Secondly, the definitions for knowledge management reveals the strategies and process for capturing the collective knowledge of the organization, analyzing it, and transforming it. 19.

(30) into easily recognizable forms for mass consumption and communicating. These strategies and processes make knowledge readily accessible for the organization to utilize.. Approaches to Knowledge Management Strategies Earl (2001) recognizes the importance of knowledge management suggesting codification strategy- where knowledge is carefully codified and stored into databases so that it can be accessed and easily retrieved by everyone in the company. Personalization strategy- where knowledge is closely tied to the person who has developed it and shared mainly through direct person-to-person contact within the organization.. Knowledge Sharing Knowledge sharing has a narrow definition in the management literature “Table 2.5. Definitions of Knowledge sharing” for further examples. Knowledge-sharing is a process of capturing knowledge an individual or organization’s expertise, no matter where it resides and distributing it in helping to produce the biggest returns possible. Table 2.5. Definitions of Knowledge Sharing Definition. Year. Source. KS a social interaction culture, involving the exchange of 2007, p. 111 employees knowledge, experience, and skills KS is an action of transferring, disseminating knowledge 2003, p. 17 by placing relevant knowledge into a good use.. Lin. KS is regarded as the informal communication process 2008, p. 426 involving the sharing of knowledge between co-workers.. Siemen et al.,. Knowledge sharing is individual based, or rather then 2005, p. 18 people-bases.. Riege. KS is the process intended to at exploiting existing 2007, p. 36 knowledge.. Christensen. KS is the process intended to at exploiting existing 2007, p. 36 knowledge.. Christensen. Lee and Choi. (continued). 20.

(31) Table 2.5. (continued) Definition. Year. Source. KS is a set of behavior that involves the exchange of 2003, p. 194 Connelly and information and assistance to others. Kelloway KS is individually sharing organizationally relevant 2007, p. experiences and information with one another. 112. Lin. KS can be defined as a process of conveying knowledge 2003, p. 50 from a person to another and also to collect shared knowledge through information and technology.. Hwie Seo, and Byung-Choon. Despite the variation in definition, knowledge sharing is seen as a deliberate act in identifying existing knowledge by making it accessible for others to reuse. Knowledge sharing is seen as mutually exchanging or jointly creating new knowledge. Debowski (2006) outlines a model of knowledge development that encompasses five phases crucial to knowledge management. Renshaw & Krishnaswamy (2009) discusses that the first stage is knowledge sourcing, which concerns itself with the identification of source and organizational knowledge gaps. Knowledge sourcing requires the bringing together of informed source of knowledge. The second phase of Debowski’s model is that of knowledge abstraction. This phase draws directly from the insights gained from the sourcing process and requires extrapolation/ critical explanation/framing of the issue uncovered in the preceding phase to be used in the construction of subsequent knowledge. Knowledge conversion, the following phase is concerned with the translation of the ideas and principles developed in preceding phase into specific outcomes. Knowledge diffusion is the next phase, focused on the dissemination of both codified and embodied knowledge respectively.. Codified. knowledge can be easily recording and accessed as opposed to the embodied knowledge which is held by individuals within the organization. The final phase of the knowledge development/refinement is crucial in ensuring that knowledge sustained currency and usefulness (p.56).. Culture is Important in Knowledge Sharing According to Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), culture is a significant aspect in facilitating knowledge sharing. Therefore, the literature strongly suggests that organizations must introduce and indoctrinate knowledge workers into a culture that accepts knowledge. 21.

(32) management as part of its everyday ritual. A study conducted by DeLong and Fathy (2000, p. 113), found that culture influences knowledge sharing by as much as 80 per cent. Researchers Yang (2007) study on knowledge sharing culture also suggest that a strong culture of knowledge sharing has a greater degree of overall organisational performance; see, “Table 2.6. Definition of culture in knowledge sharing.” Table 2.6. Definition of Culture in Knowledge Sharing Definition. Year. Culture is the collective programing of the mind. Source. 2001, p. 22. Hofstede. Culture that promotes knowledge and information sharing 2004,p. 12 are those that facilitate change, innovation, openness, and trust.. Amindon. Culture inculcates the sharing of knowledge among 2009, p. 115 workers (including both employers and employees) does facilitate the organization in creating its competitive edge. Culture refers to shared norms, beliefs, and behavioral 2006, p. 73 expectations that drive behavior and communicate what is valued.. Alam, Abdullah, Ishak, and Zain., Hemmelgarm, Glisson and James. Shaping culture is central for an organization’s ability to 2004, p. 3 manage its knowledge more effectively.. Karlsen and Gottschalk. Culture can defined as values, rules, practices, rituals and 2002, p. 15 norms through which an organization conducts business.. Brache. Culture as a community (communities are built on shared 1996, p. 22 belief, mutual obligation, and thrive on cooperation and friendships).. Goffee and Jones. Culture as the character or identity of an organisation on 2001, p. 34 how things are done in an organisation.. Ribière. Culture to encompass the values, beliefs, attitudes and 2005, p. behavior of an organisation. 1477. Levin and Cross. Given the diverse definitions for culture developing a knowledge sharing culture amongst organizations, there is a need for change in the behavioral aspect of an organization, in this case-- trust, collaboration, team, cooperation, mutual concern and asking questions as. 22.

(33) explained in this paper. The following variables have been identified as playing a key role in fostering and motivating knowledge workers towards the creation of a knowledge sharing culture in organizations.. Literature on Knowledge Sharing Hypothesis Development and Discussion Our hypotheses are largely derived theoretical statements and imperial research made within the literature on knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, difficulties of knowledge sharing, and organizational performance on knowledge management. We present our hypotheses through the following variables within the literature. In our study, knowledge sharing culture is assessed by the following constructs: trust, collaboration, team, cooperation, mutual concern and asking questions respectfully. Trust culture. Trust is defined “as positive expectations, such as integrity, capability, truthfulness, goodwill and ability that employees have about the competence and reliability of fellow employees as well as within the organisation” Ellonen, Blomqvist and Puumalainen(2008, p. 163). Researchers like (Lee & Choi, 2003, p. 16) and (Razi & Karim, 2011, p. 446) have operationally referred to trust as “the degree of reciprocal faith among the colleagues in terms of intention and behavior within the organization.” For that reason, researchers argue that trust has a strong and robust influence that acts as an important force behind the sharing of knowledge among employees (Ling, San, & Hock, 2009). In their research, trust facilitate employees openness to share, encourages the application and development of knowledge, and joint problem solving within teams (Bakker et al., 2006). In addition, the researchers claim that when relationships and conditions in a trusting climate are high employees are willing to collaborate and cooperate with each other which is supported by (Scott, 2000); thus allowing knowledge sharing to be less costly to the organization. However, some researchers maintain that a lack of trust can be very detrimental to the knowledge transfer process and the survival and competitiveness of organization.. Others insist that a lack of trust can be very. disadvantageous since knowledge resides in the individual’s willingness to share. Therefore, this study assumes that without a high degree of trust in cross-functional or interorganizational teams employees will be unwilling to share “without good reason of sensing. 23.

(34) the feeling of trust.” Therefore, it is assumed that a culture of sharing should consist of trust; see, “Table 2.7. The Importance of Trust, Reasons why Trust is Important.” Table 2.7. The Importance of Trust, and Reasons why Trust is Important Author(s). Year. Classification. Fukuyama. 1995, p. 7. Trust facilitates transactions and collaboration.. Nahapiet and Ghoshal. 1998, p. 24. Where relationships are high in trust, people are more willing to engage in … cooperative interactions.. Jarvenpaa and Staples. 2000, p. 129. Trust as seen by many, could possibly help in facilitating open and substantive knowledge sharing and creation due to the fact that lack of trust is a key issue that needs to be resolved especially in cross-functional or inter-organisational teams.. Lee and Choi. 2003, p. 17. Lucas. 2005, p. 87. the lack of trust can be detrimental to the knowledge creation process Trust creates “conditions for increased knowledge transfer and ensures its transferal is in a form that is useful…”. Collaboration culture. Simons and Sveiby (2002) empirical study refers to collaboration as “collaborative climate” where the researcher defines collaboration “as behaviors people can observe what people can do around here” (p.420). The researchers finding conclude that collaborative climate tends to improve with age, education level and managerial role.. “Figure 2.2. Components of. Collaborative Climate” identified by Simons and Sveiby (2001, p. 355) depicts the different levels of a collaborative climate within an organisation. Collaboration is operationally defined in (Lee & Choi, 2003, p.18) as the “degree to which people in a group actively help one another in their work.” Other studies refer to collaboration as “mutually shared norms of behavior” (Yang, 2007, p. 532).. Yet, it is important to classify the three levels of. collaboration, see Yang (2007) research for more details. The researcher illustrates how Tschannen-Moran (2001) expands on three levels of collaboration: a business unit, an immediate supervisor, and coworkers in a workgroup initiates knowledge sharing in an. 24.

(35) organizational culture. While other researchers strongly believe that collaboration maximizes knowledge sharing and transfer only when employees are willing share (Simons & Sveiby 2002, p. 432). Collaborative culture, according to some researchers fosters trust within the workplace, encourages knowledge sharing in actions and not only in words, promotes creativity, and develops innovative thinking. Most importantly, researchers all agree that collaboration improves on open communication channels throughout the organization. However, some researchers argue among themselves which is more effective for creating value, competition or collaboration? Researchers like Simons and Sveiby (2002) mention that competition has been at the forth front of creating value within organizations. Therefore, we assume that collaboration is essential in knowledge sharing.. Figure 2.2. Components of Collaborative Climate, Composition of Scales: Table adopted from “Collaborative Climate and Effectiveness of knowledge work—An Empirical Study,” by R. Simons, & K. E. Sveiby, 2002, Journal of Knowledge Management, 6 (5). 420-433. Team culture. In Hu, Horng and Sun (2009) study, knowledge sharing and team culture have have an important influence on innovation performance. The researcher’s quantitative findings support team culture’s role in maintaining and moderating the relationship between knowledge sharing and service innovation performance. Team culture is referred to in (Hu, Horng, & Sun, 2009) as an “emergent and simplified set of rules, norms, expectations, and roles that team members share and enact” (p.42). Researchers in Tourism Management. 25.

(36) observe that knowledge sharing and team culture has an important influence on service innovation performance of knowledge and information which results in better performance (Bank & Millward, 2000). The researcher also emphasize Bartol and Srivastava (2002) notion that “employees are able to diffuse relevant information across the organization through knowledge sharing” (p. 65).. In addition, team oriented culture provides. opportunities for employees to learn from colleagues with expertise who are supportive and willing to help one another through working together. Similarly, teams play a critical role in knowledge transfer in organizations such as creating new ideas through active discussions and dialogues (Nonaka, 1991). However, the presence of a strong team culture is derived from an “overlapping and preexisting characteristic” (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996, p. 307). within the organization. Therefore, team culture facilitates knowledge exchange through social interaction which enhances teamwork, creativity, and constructive dialogue. Cooperation culture. Knowledge being shared for cooperation may be useful for competitive purpose (Ghobadi & D’Ambra, 2011). The researchers, qualitative analysis is supported by Tsai (2002) suggesting that cooperative culture and competitive culture can benefits a knowledge sharing culture in the organization. Hence, cooperative culture is defined as the “collective use of the shared knowledge in pursuing a common interest” (Khanna & Gulati, 1998, p. 193). The researcher Ghobadi and D’Ambra (2011) are of the opinion that “those who possess specific knowledge can enjoy the same benefits and unique position, which might be lost by sharing knowledge” (p.307). Therefore, knowledge sharing involves a social dilemma which makes employees “hoarder their knowledge” due to its nature and social interaction with the knowledge source as a means of “perceived payoffs” (Von Hippel, 1994, p. 429). As a consequence, the researcher claims that ignorance into mixed characteristics of knowledge culture cooperative and competitive constructs results in ineffective knowledge management strategy for Knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. According to Ghobadi and D’Ambra (2011) empirical studies indicate “positive levels of interdependence induce cooperative interactions of higher expectations” which is supported by (Jehn, 1994; Lin, 2010). In contract, researchers claim a negative interdependence may result in competitive interactions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, p. 450). Therefore, positive or negative forms of cooperation (Bock et al., 2005, p. 87) can influence the creation of knowledge.. 26.

(37) On another research conducted by Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003) identifies antecedents of a knowledge-centered culture- those qualities that encourage knowledge creation and dissemination. Their study identifies several existing literature on organizational climate, job characteristics, and organizational learning (in the form of cooperative learning theory) which are linked to knowledge sharing and to develop a theoretical model explaining the levels of cooperative learning that takes place between knowledge workers, and the resulting level of knowledge created and disseminated by team performance and individual satisfaction. It was found that cooperative learning has an effective on work satisfaction and performance; whereas, autonomy and organization culture has an effect on cooperative learning. Hence, we have no reason to believe otherwise, that cooperative culture has no effect on knowledge sharing culture. Mutual concern culture. Casalo, Flavian and Guinaliu (2008) argue the importance of virtual communities based on rational theory to analyze what factors determine consumer’s commitment in a virtual community. The researcher’s conclusions suggest that trust [mutual concern] placed in a virtual community has a positive and significant effect on customer’s commitment in a community. The researcher’s practical implication has shown that managers may foster trust [mutual concern]. and commitment towards a virtual community in order to ensure the. community’s success and survival in the long term. Within the researcher’s literature, mutual concern is referred to as “one’s intension to care for the other’s well-being” (Casalo et al., 2008, p. 327). In addition, the researcher considers that communities or cultures are established for the sharing resources, establishing relationships and trading goods or services. The researcher also claims that “rational capital” (Wasko & Faraj, 2005, p 35) focuses on the affective nature of relationships within social groups for social exchange. To understand rational capital, the researcher chooses the concept of trust or mutual concern since it’s associated with the “achievement of long lasting and profitable relationships” (Anderson & Narus, 1990, p. 42). Despite the researcher’s interest in virtual communities, the researcher firmly considers that virtual communities are “always centered on mutual concern” (p.327). The researcher maintains that trust or mutual concern has been analyzed into different perspective both as a behavioral component and cognitive component (Geyskens, Steemkamp,& Scheer, 1996; Kumar, Scheer, & Steenkamp, 1995; Moorman, Despande, & Zaltman, 1993). Nevertheless, trust [mutual concern] is a cognitive component which is differentiated into three beliefs “honesty, benevolence, and competence” (p.327). Therefore, 27.

(38) taking into account the previous considerations, we proposed that the concept of benevolence placed in virtual communities to be considered as a construct for mutual concern in a sharing culture. Asking questions culture. Song and Chermack (2008) proposed a study to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement scores of learning organization culture, the Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ), in a Korean Context. The researcher characterizes the world as turbulent and fierce with competition due to technological advancements in the knowledge-based economy. Thus, the researcher is emphasizing that many organizations strive to have a learning organizational culture of creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge and to modify its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insight (Garvin, 1993). The researchers Song and Chermack (2008, p. 88) literature review indicates that a learning organization is an “organization that is continuously expanding its capacity to create its future” this concept is important in defining asking questions culture; however, the researcher considers learning originations as fundamental elements of success for the following reasons: (1) Systems thinking, (2) personal mastery, (3) mental models, (4) shared vision, and (5) team learning.. Furthermore, the researcher indicates that the learning. organization provides employees with an opportunity to expand their competency to lead desirable outcomes, and where new and expansive patterns of thinking can be nurtured (Song & Chermack, 2008, p. 89). In light of the previous discussion, this study is primarily concerned with Asking Questions Culture. In Song and Chermack (2008) the researcher identifies Marsick and Watkins Model (1997) the Seven Dimensions of the Learning Organization. There, this researcher studies the dimension of inquire and dialogue which shares similar concept for asking questions culture. The description used for the dimension of inquiry and dialogue claims that “people gain productive reasoning skills to express their views and the capacity to listen and inquire into others views;” by proposing a culture which “supports questioning, feedback and experimentation” (p. 89). Therefore, we hypnotize that asking questions culture facilitates the creating, acquiring and transferring of knowledge within the organization. In sum, this study assumes that the following variables-- trust, collaboration, team, cooperation, mutual concern and asking questions between employees will have no effect on knowledge transfer and survival and competitiveness of TaiwanICDF. Therefore, a. 28.

(39) knowledge sharing culture should consist of norms and practices that encourage the free flow of knowledge through the variables being discussed among knowledge workers.. Literature on Knowledge Transfer Next, in our study, knowledge transfer is assessed by the following constructs: socialization, externalization, internalization respectfully within the literature. Frist, we need to understand why knowledge transfer is essential for non-profit organizations. Hume, Pope and Hume (n.d.) paper examines the role of knowledge sharing in non-profit organizations. The researcher finding suggest that non-profit organizations are essential in developing sustainable communities providing many social, environmental, health, and human services required by a vast amount of stakeholders. The researcher’s paper offers a unique view of knowledge sharing, using in-depth interviews by exploring the importance of knowledge planning, capturing and diffusion in non-profit organizations. Nevertheless, the researchers literature review focuses on fostering a knowledge management framework which involves seeing, touching, experimenting with the understanding and the end–to-end process/ lifecycle of knowledge; “Figure 2.3 Knowledge development cycle within a non-profit community.” According to Lettieri, Borga and Savoldelli (2004, p. 16) study non-profits are in a “deep renewal process.” The researcher argues that non-profits are required to convey tailored and high-quality amenities in order to overcome complexities and shortage of resources. The researcher investigates the role of knowledge sharing in achieving excellences in the nonprofits sector. Takeuchi and Nonaka (1995) matrix of knowledge transfer provides the most practical illustration of the knowledge sharing implementation plan. The researcher’s model outline a process of knowledge transfer and knowledge creation; depicting it as a process continuum in which knowledge is “amplified’ through the four modes of knowledge development activities: socialization, internalization, externalization and combination.” See “Figure 2.3. Knowledge development cyle within a non-profit community” which illustrated how knowledge is transformed within the organization at higher levels, moving from individual through the group to organizational levels.. 29.

(40) Figure 2.3. Knowledge development cycle within a non-profit community. Adopted from “Knowledge Management Non-profit Organizations,” by E. Lettieri, F. Borga, & A. Savoldelli, 2004, Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(1), p.18. Lettieri, Borga and Savoldelli (2004, p.17) study suggest that non-profits must effectively capture and transfer knowledge within the organization. Therefore, the researchers call for “reengineering core processes” and organizational paradigms: Within in non-profit, information is produced and moves through different periods moving towards a wider discussing atmosphere. The first pattern offers with a personal stage, where information is created and utilized by the single person. The second pattern presents the actions of exchange and discussing describes how to move from the person to team stage. Though further initiatives to formalize and dissipate, information is made available to the whole company, while the forth pattern triumphs over the limitations of the NPO to accept the whole team after an effort of incorporation (p.18). Choi and Lee (2003, p. 174), however, focused on the knowledge transfer of the knowledge management processes. In their research, they pointed out that “among these processes, creation-related activities become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weapon in today’s global marketplace…increasingly… it seems that knowledge creation is gaining much attention as a potential source of competitive advantage” (p. 44). Choi and Lee (2003) have also shown that knowledge transfer can have a direct and indirect influence on. 30.