Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers

[EN] Nowadays, collaborative knowledge management (CKM) is well accepted as a decisive asset in the field of networked enterprises and supply chains. However, few knowledge management initiatives have been performed successfully because, in most cases, the barriers that hinder the CKM process are unknown and misunderstood. Currently, the research reveals different uni- and bi-dimensional barriers' classifications, however multi-dimensional approaches provide a better view of the complexity in the area of CKM. Therefore, this paper proposes the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers taking into account: (i) perspectives; (ii) levels and (iii) barriers blocks to provide a reference way to audit the CKM barriers, and thus, in further research, focus on the corrections and adjustments to guarantee the success while implementing a CKM project.Sanchis, R.; Sanchis Gisbert, MR.; Poler, R. (2020). Conceptualisation of the three-dimensional matrix of collaborative knowledge barriers. Sustainability. 12(3):1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031279S125123Rajabion, L., Sataei Mokhtari, A., Khordehbinan, M. W., Zare, M., & Hassani, A. (2019). The role of knowledge sharing in supply chain success. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 17(6), 1222-1249. doi:10.1108/jedt-03-2019-0052Sanguankaew, P., & Vathanophas Ractham, V. (2019). Bibliometric Review of Research on Knowledge Management and Sustainability, 1994–2018. Sustainability, 11(16), 4388. doi:10.3390/su11164388Zhang, J., Dawes, S. S., & Sarkis, J. (2005). Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e‐government knowledge sharing. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 548-567. doi:10.1108/17410390510624007Riege, A. (2005). Three‐dozen knowledge‐sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35. doi:10.1108/13673270510602746Yih‐Tong Sun, P., & Scott, J. L. (2005). An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 75-90. doi:10.1108/13673270510590236Solli-Sæther, H., Karlsen, J. T., & van Oorschot, K. (2015). Strategic and Cultural Misalignment: Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Project Networks. Project Management Journal, 46(3), 49-60. doi:10.1002/pmj.21501Kukko, M. (2013). Knowledge sharing barriers in organic growth: A case study from a software company. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 24(1), 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2013.02.006Mazorodze, A. H., & Buckley, S. (2019). Knowledge management in knowledge-intensive organisations: Understanding its benefits, processes, infrastructure and barriers. SA Journal of Information Management, 21(1). doi:10.4102/sajim.v21i1.990Vuori, V., Helander, N., & Mäenpää, S. (2018). Network level knowledge sharing: Leveraging Riege’s model of knowledge barriers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(3), 253-263. doi:10.1080/14778238.2018.1557999Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. (2020). Coopetition in innovation ecosystems: A comparative analysis of knowledge transfer configurations. Journal of Business Research, 115, 307-316. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.005General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda. (2001). Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21. doi:10.1080/07421222.2001.11045672Gupta, S., & Bostrom, R. (2006). Using peer-to-peer technology for collaborative knowledge management: concepts, frameworks and research issues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(3), 187-196. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500103Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2007). Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex organizational environments. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(2), 93-109. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500131Brandt, D., & Hartmann, E. (1999). Editorial: Research topics and strategies in sociotechnical systems. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 9(3), 241-243. doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6564(199922)9:33.0.co;2-bKim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370-385. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.xArgote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings. Management Science, 36(2), 140-154. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.2.140Gupta, N., Ho, V., Pollack, J. M., & Lai, L. (2016). A multilevel perspective of interpersonal trust: Individual, dyadic, and cross-level predictors of performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1271-1292. doi:10.1002/job.2104Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative Alliances: Moving from Practice to Theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3-22. doi:10.1177/0021886391271001Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation at the State Level. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 209-227. doi:10.1177/0021886391272004Scheff, J., & Kotler, P. (1996). Crisis in the Arts: The Marketing Response. California Management Review, 39(1), 28-52. doi:10.2307/41165875Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493. doi:10.1086/210179Maitlo, A., Ameen, N., Peikari, H. R., & Shah, M. (2019). Preventing identity theft. Information Technology & People, 32(5), 1184-1214. doi:10.1108/itp-05-2018-0255Bolloju, N., Khalifa, M., & Turban, E. (2002). Integrating knowledge management into enterprise environments for the next generation decision support. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 163-176. doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(01)00142-7Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A., & Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148-160. doi:10.1108/13673270910971897Yew Wong, K., & Aspinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing knowledge management in the small business environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 44-61. doi:10.1108/13673270410541033Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing for Requirement Engineeringhttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/28916Practical Tools and Methods for Corporate Knowledge Management—Sharing and Capitalising Engineering Know-How in the Concurrent Enterprisehttps://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/IST-1999-12685Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27-43. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 341-357. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.002Schiavone, F., & Simoni, M. (2011). An experience‐based view of co‐opetition in R&D networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(2), 136-154. doi:10.1108/14601061111124867Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2010). Co-opetition, distributor’s entrepreneurial orientation and manufacturer’s knowledge acquisition: Evidence from China. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1-2), 128-142. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.07.006McGaughey, S. L., Liesch, P. W., & Poulson, D. (2000). An unconventional approach to intellectual property protection: the case of an Australian firm transferring shipbuilding technologies to China. Journal of World Business, 35(1), 1-20. doi:10.1016/s1090-9516(99)00031-0Ilvonen, I., & Vuori, V. (2013). Risks and benefits of knowledge sharing in co-opetitive knowledge networks. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 13(3), 209. doi:10.1504/ijnvo.2013.063049Martinez-Noya, A., Garcia-Canal, E., & Guillen, M. F. (2012). R&D Outsourcing and the Effectiveness of Intangible Investments: Is Proprietary Core Knowledge Walking out of the Door? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 67-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01086.xROSEN, B., FURST, S., & BLACKBURN, R. (2007). Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259-273. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.007Hislop, D. (2005). The effect of network size on intra-network knowledge processes. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(4), 244-252. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500073Abou-Zeid, E.-S. (2005). A culturally aware model of inter-organizational knowledge transfer. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(3), 146-155. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500064Balle, A. R., Steffen, M. O., Curado, C., & Oliveira, M. (2019). Interorganizational knowledge sharing in a science and technology park: the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10), 2016-2038. doi:10.1108/jkm-05-2018-0328Baccarini, D., Salm, G., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Management of risks in information technology projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 286-295. doi:10.1108/02635570410530702Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445-460. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007Peltokorpi, V. (2006). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context: Nordic expatriates in Japan. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(2), 138-148. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500095Solitander, M., & Tidström, A. (2010). Competitive flows of intellectual capital in value creating networks. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 23-38. doi:10.1108/14691931011013316Khamseh, H. M., & Jolly, D. (2014). Knowledge transfer in alliances: the moderating role of the alliance type. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(4), 409-420. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.63Corallo, A., Lazoi, M., & Secundo, G. (2012). Inter-organizational knowledge integration in Collaborative NPD projects: evidence from the aerospace industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(4), 354-367. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.25Salvetat, D., Géraudel, M., & d’ Armagnac, S. (2013). Inter-organizational knowledge management in a coopetitive context in the aeronautic and space industry. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(3), 265-277. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2012.6Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The contexts of knowing: natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(5), 547-587. doi:10.1002/job.259Korbi, F. B., & Chouki, M. (2017). Knowledge transfer in international asymmetric alliances: the key role of translation, artifacts, and proximity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1272-1291. doi:10.1108/jkm-11-2016-0501Faerman, S. R., McCaffrey, D. P., & Slyke, D. M. V. (2001). Understanding Interorganizational Cooperation: Public-Private Collaboration in Regulating Financial Market Innovation. Organization Science, 12(3), 372-388. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.3.372.10099Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23-39. doi:10.1177/002224298805200303Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The «real» success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(01)00067-9Santos, V. R., Soares, A. L., & Carvalho, J. Á. (2012). Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(1), 27-38. doi:10.1002/kpm.1379Tiwari, S. R. (2015). Knowledge Integration in Government-Industry Project Network. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(1), 11-21. doi:10.1002/kpm.1460Mariotti, F. (2007). Learning to share knowledge in the Italian motorsport industry. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(2), 81-94. doi:10.1002/kpm.275Ardichvili, A. (2008). Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 541-554. doi:10.1177/1523422308319536Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. (2003). SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 3-17. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000439Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. V. den, Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123-144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A., & Wilemon, D. (2004). Working Together Apart? Building a Knowledge-Sharing Culture for Global Virtual Teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15-29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00290.xKatz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.xGupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200004)21:43.0.co;2-iBarkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What Differences in the Cultural Backgrounds of Partners Are Detrimental for International Joint Ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 845-864. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490122Sanchis, R., & Poler, R. (2019). Enterprise Resilience Assessment—A Quantitative Approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4327. doi:10.3390/su11164327Vaara, E., Sarala, R., Stahl, G. K., & Björkman, I. (2010). The Impact of Organizational and National Cultural Differences on Social Conflict and Knowledge Transfer in International Acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00975.xRichards, D., Busch, P., & Venkitachalam, K. (2007). Ethnicity-based cultural differences in implicit managerial knowledge usage in three Australian organizations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(3), 173-185. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500145Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (s. f.). Structure and Spontaneity: Knowledge and Organization. Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization, 44-67. doi:10.4135/9781446217573.n3Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of «Ba»: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. doi:10.2307/41165942Bocquet, R., & Mothe, C. (2010). Knowledge governance within clusters: the case of small firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(3), 229-239. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2010.14Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: the contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414-430. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.006Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806-818. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.012Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2015). Information encountering on social media and tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of Information Science, 42(4), 539-550. doi:10.1177/0165551515598883Bisbal, J., Lawless, D., Bing Wu, & Grimson, J. (1999). Legacy information systems: issues and directions. IEEE Software, 16(5), 103-111. doi:10.1109/52.795108Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge Management: A Threefold Framework. The Information Society, 18(1), 47-64. doi:10.1080/01972240252818225Lee, M. R., & Chen, T. T. (2012). Revealing research themes and trends in knowledge management: From 1995 to 2010. Knowledge-Based Systems, 28, 47-58. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.11.016Sieber, J. E. (1988). Data sharing: Defining problems and seeking solutions. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 199-206. doi:10.1007/bf01073128Pauleen, D. J., & Wang, W. Y. C. (2017). Does big data mean big knowledge? KM perspectives on big data and analytics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 1-6. doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2016-033

1α,25-Dihydroxycholecalciferol (Vitamin D3) induces NO-dependent endothelial cell proliferation and migration in a three-dimensional matrix.

Background/Aims: The 1α,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol (Vit. D) induces eNOS dependent nitric oxide (NO) production in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC). To our knowledge, there are no reports directly relating Vit. D induced NO production to proliferation and/or migration in endothelial cells (EC). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether Vit. D addition to porcine EC could affect their proliferation and/or migration in a three-dimensional matrix via NO production. Materials and Methods: Porcine aortic endothelial cells (PAE) were used to evaluate Vit. D effects on cell proliferation and migration in a three-dimensional matrix. Results: Vit. D induced NO production in PAE cells. Moreover, it induced a significant increase in cellular proliferation and migration in a three-dimensional matrix. These effects were NO dependent, as inhibiting eNOS activity by L-NAME PAE migration was abrogated. This effect was strictly related to MMP-2 expression and apparently dependent on Vit. D and NO production. Conclusions: Vit. D can promote both endothelial cells proliferation and migration in a three-dimensional matrix via NO-dependent mechanisms. These findings cast new light on the role of Vit. D in the angiogenic process, suggesting new applications for Vit. D in such fields as tissue repair and wound healing

Fibrin gel as a three dimensional matrix in cardiovascular tissue engineering

Objective: In tissue engineering, three-dimensional biodegradable scaffolds are generally used as a basic structure for cell anchorage, cell proliferation and cell differentiation. The currently used biodegradable scaffolds in cardiovascular tissue engineering are potentially immunogenic, they show toxic degradation and inflammatory reactions. The aim of this study is to establish a new three-dimensional cell culture system within cells achieve uniform distribution and quick tissue development and with no toxic degradation or inflammatory reactions. Methods: Human aortic tissue is harvested from the ascending aorta in the operation room and worked up to pure human myofibroblasts cultures. These human myofibroblasts cultures are suspended in fibrinogen solution and seeded into 6-well culture plates for cell development for 4 weeks and supplemented with different concentrations of aprotinin. Hydroxyproline assay and histological studies were performed to evaluate the tissue development in these fibrin gel structures. Results: The light microscopy and the transmission electron microscopy studies for tissue development based on the three-dimensional fibrin gel structures showed homogenous cell growth and confluent collagen production. No toxic degradation or inflammatory reactions could be detected. Furthermore, fibrin gel myofibroblasts structures dissolved within 2 days in medium without aprotinin, but medium supplemented with higher concentration of aprotinin retained the three-dimensional structure and had a higher collagen content (P≪0.005) and a better tissue development. Conclusions: A three-dimensional fibrin gel structure can serve as a useful scaffold for tissue engineering with controlled degradation, excellent seeding effects and good tissue developmen

The XTT cell proliferation assay applied to cell layers embedded in three-dimensional matrix

Abstract Cell proliferation, a main target in cancer therapy, is influenced by the surrounding three-dimensional (3D) extracellular matrix (ECM). In vitro drug screening is, thus, optimally performed under conditions in which cells are grown (embedded or trapped) in dense 3D matrices, as these most closely mimic the adhesive and mechanical properties of natural ECM. Measuring cell proliferation under these conditions is, however, technically more challenging compared with two-dimensional (2D) culture and other "3D culture conditions," such as growth on top of a matrix (pseudo-3D) or in spongy scaffolds with large pore sizes. Consequently, such measurements are only slowly applied on a wider scale. To advance this, we report on the equal quality (dynamic range, background, linearity) of measuring the proliferation of cell layers embedded in dense 3D matrices (collagen, Matrigel) compared with cells in 2D culture using the easy (one-step) and in 2D well-validated, 2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide (XTT)-assay. The comparison stresses the differences in proliferation kinetics and drug sensitivity of matrix-embedded cells versus 2D culture. Using the specific cell-layer-embedded 3D matrix setup, quantitative measurements of cell proliferation and cell invasion are shown to be possible in similar assay conditions, and cytostatic, cytotoxic, and anti-invasive drug effects can thus be reliably determined and compared in physiologically relevant settings. This approach in the 3D matrix holds promise for improving early-stage, high-throughput drug screening, targeting either highly invasive or highly proliferative subpopulations of cancers or both

Fiber Optical Tweezers for Applying and Measuring Forces in a 3D Solid Compartment

We developed an inclined dual fiber optical tweezers (DFOTs) for simultaneous force application and measurements in a 3D hydrogel matrix. The inclined DFOTs provide a potential solution for cell mechanics study in a three-dimensional matrix

Patterning and manipulating microparticles into a three-dimensional matrix using standing surface acoustic waves

A method based on standing surface acoustic waves (SSAWs) is proposed to pattern and manipulate microparticles into a three-dimensional (3D) matrix inside a microchamber. An optical prism is used to observe the 3D alignment and patterning of the microparticles in the vertical and horizontal planes simultaneously. The acoustic radiation force effectively patterns the microparticles into lines of 3D space or crystal-lattice-like matrix patterns. A microparticle can be positioned precisely at a specified vertical location by balancing the forces of acoustic radiation, drag, buoyancy, and gravity acting on the microparticle. Experiments and finite-element numerical simulations both show that the acoustic radiation force increases gradually from the bottom of the chamber to the top, and microparticles can be moved up or down simply by adjusting the applied SSAW power. Our method has great potential for acoustofluidics applications, building the large-scale structures associated with biological objects and artificial neuron networks

Verification of rotation methods of irradiation based on flats and volume matrix detectors

The results of a comparison of planar and bulk matrix detectors are presented in this paper to test irradiation techniques with intensity modulation. Verification was performed on two and three-dimensional matrix detectors MatriXX, Ocravius and ArcCHECK. And it was evaluated with gamma-inddeksa

A Three-Dimensional Matrix Model for Determining the Optimal Strategic Choice for a Company

This research develops a three-dimensional matrix model based on the principle behind the GE/McKinsey matrix and the hodograph method, providing a functionality to select a time series of the optimal strategies, which maximize the long-term competitive advantage and performance of a larger company in the rapidly changing business environment. The selection of such strategies is based on the comparative analysis of alternative trajectories of a company’s strategic position in the model space, which is formed by three coordinate axes: the ‘level of a company’s competitive advantage’ (x), ‘favorability of the business environment’(y), and ‘time’(t)

2-{3-Cyano-5,5-dimethyl-4-[4-(piperidin-1-yl)buta-1,3-dien­yl]-2,5-dihydro­furan-2-yl­idene}malononitrile

The title compound, C19H20N4O, crystallizes as twinned crystals containing two independent mol­ecules which pack into a three-dimensional matrix via several C—H⋯N(cyano) inter­actions, with a C⋯N range of 3.324 (8)–3.568 (8) Å and C—H⋯N angles in the range 147–166°