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

The Relationship Between Employee Perceptions of the Employment Game and Their Perceptions of Cooperative Knowledge Behavior in High Tech Firms

The relationship between knowledge sharing and organizational performance for high technology start-up companies is not well understood. Using game theory and the concept of competitive advantage through human resource management, I examine employee perceptions of the employment game relating to cooperative knowledge behavior and firm performance as an entry point into researching organizational knowledge utilization. I draw upon classical game theory to develop four measures of perceptions critical to game playing and apply these to organizational situations via a survey instrument. I propose that perceptions of the employment game held by organization members are determinants of cooperative knowledge sharing and subsequently firm performance. I analyze survey data gathered from high-tech workers using both regression and path analysis techniques. The results from this study offer new insights into methods for measuring both the connections between knowledge work and firm performance and the perceptions critical for fostering collaborative knowledge work in high tech firms. Results of the study show a significant relationship between the game theory construct of reciprocity, knowledge building behavior and firm performance. The mediation model was weakly supported but shows potential usefulness for further research in the field of strategic human resource management

SMEs; Virtual research and development (R&D) teams and new product development: A literature review

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are indeed the engines of global economic growth. Their continued growth is a major subject for the economy and employment of any country. Towards that end, virtual research and development (R&D) could be a viable option to sustain and ease the operations of SMEs. However, literature shows there has not been a great deal of research into the diverse characteristic of virtual R&D teams in SMEs. This article provides a comprehensive literature review on different aspects of virtual R&D teams collected from the reputed publications. The purpose of the literature review is to provide an outline on the structure and dynamics of R&D collaboration in SMEs. Specifying the rationale and relevance of virtual teams, the relationship between virtual R&D team for SMEs and new product development (NPD) has been examined. It concludes with identifying the gaps and feebleness in the existing literature and calls for future research in this area. It is argued to form of virtual R&D team deserves consideration at top level management for venturing into the new product development within SMEs

Knowledge Creation and Sharing in Organisational Contexts: A Motivation-Based Perspective

This paper develops a motivation-based perspective to explore how organisations resolve the social dilemma of knowledge sharing, and the ways in which different motivational mechanisms interact to foster knowledge sharing and creation in different organisational contexts. The core assumption is that the willingness of organisational members to engage in knowledge sharing can be viewed on a continuum from purely opportunistic behaviour regulated by extrinsic incentives to an apparently altruistic stance fostered by social norms and group identity. The analysis builds on a three-category taxonomy of motivation: adding ‘hedonic’ motivation to the traditional dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Based on an analysis of empirical case studies in the literature, we argue that the interaction and mix of the three different motivators play a key role in regulating and translating potential into actual behaviour, and they underline the complex dynamics of knowledge sharing and creation in different organisational contexts

Acquiring and Applying Knowledge in Transnational Teams: The Roles of Cosmopolitans and Locals

This paper examines the roles of cosmopolitans and locals in transnational teams that work on knowledge-intensive projects. I propose that cosmopolitan and local team members can help their teams to acquire and apply knowledge more effectively, by bringing both internal and external knowledge to their teams and enabling them to more successfully transform this knowledge into improved project performance. Findings from a study of 96 project teams at an international development agency reveal that the roles of cosmopolitans and locals were complex and sometimes valuable, but cosmopolitans offered greater benefits than locals and too many of each could hurt. Implications for theory and research on international management, virtual teams, exploration and exploitation, and organizational knowledge are discussed

Virtual R&D teams in small and medium enterprises: a literature review

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are the driving engine behind economic growth. While SMEs play a critical role in generating employment and supporting trade, they face numerous challenges, the prominent among them are the need to respond to fasting time-to-market, low-cost and rapid solutions to complex organizational problems. Towards that end, research and development (R & D) aspect deserves particular attention to promote and facilitate the operations of SMEs. Virtual R & D team could be a viable option. However, literature shows that virtual R & D teaming in SMEs is still at its infancy. This article provides a comprehensive literature review on different aspects of virtual R & D teams collected from the reputed publications. The purpose of the state-of-the-art literature review is to provide an overview on the structure and dynamics of R & D collaboration in SMEs. Specifying the foundation and importance of virtual teams, the relationship between virtual R & D team and SMEs has been examined. It concludes with the identification of the gaps in the existing literature's and calls for future research. It is argued that setting-up an infrastructure for virtual R & D team in SMEs still requires a large amount of engineering efforts and deserves consideration at top level management

Psychological contract and knowledge management mediated by cultural dynamics

Contact centres are the vital link in the value chain between the organisation and its customers because they offer essential front line sales and services of products. Evaluation of their success can be assessed in terms of customer retention, up selling and the promotion of the brand. This is brought into sharp focus if the centre is outsourced because of the impact of the strategic behaviour of the principal and its relation with its agents. The association of employees with the brand in outsourced operation is not as effective as in captive operations partly because communications from principal to agent are attenuated. Emotional connectivity, diagnostic skill set, requirement gathering, and knowledge are some of the most sensitive qualities required in agents working in the contact centres. These characteristics are found to differ according to whether this is in-house or outsourced operation and affect the psychological contract between the service provider and its employees. In addition, the employees are unlikely to achieve any rewards and are unable to offer any commitments to the customer in an outsourced operation; hence the “psychological contract” is breached. One of the consequences of this breach is on knowledge management. The knowledge of an employee regarding the products and services is lost with that employee’s attrition. Also employees’ then have little interest towards customer service and organizational welfare, which impacts on the customer centric goals of the principal. We argue that the psychological contract between employer and an employee and has positive influence on Knowledge Diffusion, mediated by cultural dynamics, which further contributes to the overall organizational effectiveness. This paper aims to investigate, as a pilot study, the elements of organisational culture and secondly its role in the diffusion of knowledge in contact centres, in-house and outsourced. We demonstrate how by deploying a blend of qualitative methods, it is possible to perceive the effect of each element of the cultural web on diffusion. Finally we propose a hypothesis of the role that Power Distance (Hofstede, 1980) can play, as a proxy for the Psychological Contract to leverage knowledge diffusion