A value frequency model of knowledge sharing: an ...

A value frequency model of knowledge sharing: an exploratory study on knowledge sharability in cross-organizational collaboration Imed Boughzala & Robert O. Briggs

Electronic Markets The International Journal on Networked Business ISSN 1019-6781 Volume 22 Number 1 Electron Markets (2012) 22:9-19 DOI 10.1007/s12525-011-0080-0

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted author’s version for posting to your own website or your institution’s repository. You may further deposit the accepted author’s version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication.

1 23

Author's personal copy Electron Markets (2012) 22:9–19 DOI 10.1007/s12525-011-0080-0

SPECIAL THEME

A value frequency model of knowledge sharing: an exploratory study on knowledge sharability in cross-organizational collaboration Imed Boughzala & Robert O. Briggs

Received: 7 April 2011 / Accepted: 13 December 2011 / Published online: 12 January 2012 # Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2012

Abstract Collaborators on cross-disciplinary, cross-organizational teams must decide what knowledge is sharable. The sharability of a set of private knowledge is defined as the degree to which one feels willing to reveal that knowledge to people who are not members of one’s own organizational unit. This paper proposes a Value Frequency Model of Knowledge Sharing (VFMKS) to explain knowledge sharability attitudes and knowledge sharing behaviors. It reports qualitative findings from an exploratory field study of the degree to which constructs and relationships proposed by the model were consistent with the attitudes, opinions, and reported actions of professional Chief Knowledge Officers (CKO) from 16 organizations in France. CKO’s were consistent with most aspects of the model, suggesting quantitative investigation of the model may be useful. Critical incidents and utterances of the CKO’s did not address two constructs in the model during this study. Further investigation may show whether these effects manifest in other contexts, or whether they are extraneous to the model. Keywords Knowledge sharing . Knowledge management . Sharability . Cross-organizational collaboration . Value frequency model . Focus group . Exploratory field study JEL classification D8 Responsible editor: Nicholas C. Romano I. Boughzala (*) Telecom EM Research Centre, Institut TELECOM, Evry, France e-mail: imed.boughzala@it-sudparis.eu R. O. Briggs The Center for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA e-mail: rbriggs@mail.unomaha.edu

Introduction With the globalization of the digital economy, many organizations now regularly rely on teams that span the boundaries of professional training, work units, organizations, and countries (Gardenswartz and Rowe 1994; Anand et al. 1998; Boughzala 2002, 2007; Romano et al. 2010). Supply Chain collaborations (Skjoett-Larsent et al. 2003) and outsourcing activities (Kern and Willcocks 2000) are examples of this kind of collaboration. Cross-disciplinary, cross-unit, and cross-organizational, collaboration inevitably leads to circumstances where collaborators must consider sharing confidential knowledge in order to move the group toward its goals (Dyer and Nobeoka 2000; Hsiao 2008; Koh et al. 2004). At that point, a team member may deem their knowledge to be sharable or unsharable. Knowledge Sharability, the first of two phenomena under study in this paper, is an attitude involving beliefs, feelings, values and dispositions (propensities) to share particular knowledge with particular people. An attitude is a mental position, feeling, or emotion with respect to a fact or state (Webster 2010). We define the sharability of an individual’s knowledge as the degree to which that individual feels willing to share that knowledge with specific people who are not members of the indivdual’s own work unit. An upstream supply chain partner, for example, may know that expected shipments to the downstream partner will be delayed because the upstream partner is having credit difficulties. The upstream partner may be willing to reveal the expected delay (high sharability), but may not want to reveal the credit difficulties (low sharability). Knowledge Sharability (KS) has two objects – the private knowledge one considers sharing and the person or people with whom one contemplates sharing it. Thus, an individual may deem a given body of knowledge to be highly sharable with one partner, but un-sharable with a different partner.

Author's personal copy 10

I. Boughzala, R.O. Briggs

The unit of analysis for Knowledge Sharability is the individual, because sharability is an attitude formed by an individual. Knowledge sharability issues typically manifest in an organizational setting, because until an individual is a member of an in-group, the question of what should and should not be shared with outsiders cannot arise. The organization, however, is not the unit of analysis for knowledge sharability, because the individual, not the organization, forms the attitude. Knowledge sharing the second of two phenomena under study in this paper, is a different construct than knowledge sharability. Knowledge sharing is an activity through which knowledge (i.e. information, skills, or expertise) is exchanged among people or organizations. Thus, where knowledge sharability is an attitude, knowledge sharing is a behavior. It is said to occur when group members voluntarily exchange knowledge with the purpose of reaching a broader understanding of their group goal and its accomplishment (Gigone and Hastie 1993). Knowledge sharing can be a critical success factor for collaboration and innovation (Grant 1996). Knowledge is an intangible asset that can nonetheless have economic value (Penrose 1959; Wernerfelt 1984). It can be important for developing skills and competencies in organizations (Spender 1996b) and so can contribute significantly to organizational performance (Argote et al. 2000). It can be a strategic resource for creating a competitive advantage (Grant 1996; Nanda 1996; Spender 1996a). Knowledge sharing can be, therefore, an important consideration for cross-disciplinary and crossboundary teams (Nonaka 1998; Osterloh and Frey 2000; Skjoett-Larsent et al. 2003). At the individual level, there can be economic, social, and political dilemmas associated with knowledge sharing, which may impact knowledge sharability attitudes. The acquisition of knowledge may require the sacrifice of time, effort, money, and opportunities. In some cases, privately held knowledge can confer power or influence on its holder. Income some cases social and economic value may be gained by keeping the knowledge private. In cases where sharing knowledge could reduce its value to its holder, or confer advantage to its receiver, an indidvudal may be unwilling to share that knowledge when it is unclear what one could gain in exchange (Cabrera and Cabrera 2002; Boughzala and Briggs 2011). At the organizational level, there are also certain economic issues associated which impact the Fig. 1 A value frequency model of knowledge sharing

strategic positioning of an enterprise. an enterprise were to incur significant expense to develop a specific knowledge or know-how, it might be to the organization’s advantage to keep that knowledge private, or to share it with caution. A general nomological model of knowledge sharing could yield deeper understandings of knowledge sharability and knowledge sharing phenomena, which, in turn, could inform the development of better work practices for crossdisciplinary, cross-organizational teams. It could give rise to better techniques for reflecting on sharability, for example, which could give rise to deliberate, rather than unexamined knowledge-sharing choices. A better understanding of sharability could be useful for remediating barriers to knowledge sharing that, in turn, could yield more successful collaborative efforts. Many studies have described knowledge sharability, knowledge sharing, and their correlates. Individual perceptions of knowledge sharability (Cabrera and Cabrera 2002), have been shown to correlate with a number of factors, among them: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Osterloh and Frey 2000); awareness of conflicts of interest or vulnerability (Argote et al. 2001); physical capability to share (Argote et al. 2003), and certain personality traits including self-interest and investment and a personal disposition to knowledge sharing (Matzler et al. 2008). Other studies consider knowledge sharing as a management process for learning and sharing understanding, sometimes supported by information and communication technologies (Kluge et al. 2001). To date, however, no general nomological model of knowledge sharing has been advanced. Because cross disciplinary and boundary-spanning teams may be critical to organizational success, and because the success of these teams may depend on knowledge sharing behaviors, and because knowledge sharing behaviors can, in some cases result in great value to both partners, but in other cases result in great harm, and because knowledge sharability attitudes may impact knowledge sharing behaviors, it is therefore important to develop better understanding of the antecedents of knowledge sharability and of the relationship between knowledge sharability and knowledge sharing. In this paper, we propose a Value Frequency Model of Knowledge Sharing (VFMKS) (cf. Fig. 1), a deductive nomological model to explain variations in knowledge sharability as an attitude, and knowledge sharing as a behavior.

Value Of Expected Outcomes of Sharing Economic Political Social Cognitive Affective Physical

Perceived Frequency of Value

Knowledge Sharability

Certainty about ValueFrequency Judgments

Knowledge Sharing

Capacity To Share Knowledge

Author's personal copy Value frequency model of knowledge sharing

It seeks to account for correlations reported by earlier researchers, to provide a foundation for further scientific inquiry, and to inform the work practices of practitioners. We synthesize the KS-specific model from earlier theories from other literatures that propose explanations for attitudes and behaviors. We then conduct an exploratory field study to see whether the constructs and relationships proposed by the model are consistent with the attitudes, opinions, and reported actions of professional CKO from 16 organizations in France.

A value frequency model of knowledge sharing

11 Table 1 A comparison of the similarities and differences among the constructs of VFM and VFMKS Consequent constructs

VFM

Willingness to Change Work Practices

x


x

Knowledge Sharing Causal Constructs

x

Perceived Net Value of Change

x

Perceived Net Value of Sharing Outcomes Perceived Frequency of Value

x

x x

Certainty about Value Frequency Judgments

x

x

Transition Value

x

Capacity to Share Knowledge

Expectancy Value Theories (EVT) of motivation (Westaby 2002) and theories that build upon them may provide a useful theoretical foundation for understanding perceptions of knowledge sharability and its relationship to the actual knowledge sharing. In expectancy value theories, an expectancy is defined as a projection of the likely outcomes of a contemplated action, and a value is a perception of the degree to which the projected outcomes would be instrumental or detrimental to one’s interests (Rosenberg 1956; Vroom 1964; Westaby 2002). These theories posit that motivation for a contemplated action is a function of expectancy value. The more positive the value ascribed to an expectancy the more motivated one will be to act. The more negative the value ascribed to an expectancy, the more demotivated one will be to act. VFKMS draws key concepts from the Value Frequency Model (VFM) of Willingness to Change Work Practices (Briggs 2006), a domain-specific instantiation of EVT in the IS literature. Although VFKMS seeks to explain a different construct than does VFM, some of its concepts can be adapted to explain Knowledge Sharability and Knowledge Sharing. VFM posits that one’s willingness to change (C) is a positive function of perceived-magnitude of the net value (V) one perceives in the proposed change, defined as “an overall sense of the degree to which a proposed change of work practice would be good or bad for the individual.” VFM proposes that the primary relationship between V and C is moderated by the frequency perceived-frequency-of value (F) defined as “the overall sense of how often value would be realized” (Briggs 2006). VFM also posits that the primary V-C relationship is also moderated by certaintyabout-perceptions (C) defined as “a subconscious assessment of the likelihood that ones value-frequency judgments are accurate.” VFM proposes that C is also a direct function of perceived-value-of transition (T), defined as “an overall sense of the positive or negative value that would derive from the change of process itself” (Briggs 2006). Table 1 illustrates the differences and similarities between VFM and VFMKS.

VFMKS

x

In the context of this study, the behavior of interest is knowledge sharing. Like EVT’s VFMKS assumes that: & &

&

Assumption 1. Sharing Outcome Projection: An automatic, subconscious mechanism of the mind projects the likely consequences of sharing knowledge. Assumption 2. Value of Expected Outcomes: An automatic, subconscious mechanism of the mind ascribes some value (positive or negative) to projected outcomes of sharing. Assumption 3. Knowledge Sharability. An automatic, subconscious mechanism of the mind derives a sharability attitude (positive or negative) with respect to sharing particular knowledge that is proportional to value of expected outcomes of sharing.

VFM (Briggs 2006) proposes six dimensions along which people may perceive value: economic, political, social, cognitive, affective, and physical. VFMKS likewise assumes that: &

Assumption 4: Dimensions of Value. Value judgments may pertain to any or all of the economic, political, social, cognitive, affective, and physical dimensions of value.

Reasons theories (RT) of motivation build on EVTs (Ajzen and Fishbein 1973; Ajzen 1991; Westaby 2002) by proposing that the relationship between attitude and action is mediated by intention. Analogous to RTs, VFMKS proposes Knowledge Sharability as a mediator between Value attitudes and Knowledge Sharing actions. It further proposes that the sharability-sharing relationship must be moderated by Capacity to Share. An intention to act can only be carried out if actors are capable of executing the intended action. Issues of aptitude, ability, and/or access could prevent knowledge sharing even if sharability were positive. VFMKS draws on EVTs further by assuming automatic, subconscious mechanisms of the mind assess the frequency


with which one might obtain value from expected outcomes, and proposes that perceptions of Frequency of Value would moderate the value-sharability relationship. The larger the magnitude of the frequency perception, the larger would be the effect of Value perceptions on Knowledge Sharability. VFMKS, like VFM, also posits that intentions may be affected by the degree of certainty people ascribe to their judgments. VFMKS therefore proposes that the valuesharability relationship is moderated by Certainty about Value Judgments.

An exploratory field study of knowledge sharability Using VFMKS as a guiding framework, we conducted an exploratory field study of Knowledge Sharability among CKOs from organizations in France. There were several research questions: R1: To what extent does value of expected outcomes correlate with knowledge sharability R2: To what extent is the value-sharability relationship moderated by perceived frequency of value? R3: To what extent does certainty about judgments moderate the value-frequency relationship? R4: To what extent does capacity-to-share moderate the relationship between sharability and sharing?


ranged from 15 to 34 years. Half the participants had more than 5 years experience as a CKO. The average age of CKOs was 47 and 68% were male. All of the participants were French by birth. All sessions were conducted in French. The experts reported a variety of reasons for participating in the Focus Groups. The reasons were consistent with the CKO mission to improve knowledge sharing in organizations (Benson et al. 2007), and so with a business need. They assumed that an optimal knowledge sharing in crossdisciplinary and cross-organizational collaboration could lead to improved skills, better work practices and so to higher performance. They reported that current knowledge sharing practices in their organizations seemed random and dependent on the goodwill of individuals. They are interested to explore the possible the determinants of knowledge sharing and sharability. In fact, they faced issues of knowledge sharing in their own companies and in crossorganizational collaborations. These issues became more pressing with the proliferation of web 2.0 and social networking technologies. Some of their top managers were concerned about protecting critical and competitive knowledge held by their companies. Researchers were perceived as likely to make their effort to explore knowledge sharing sharability issues productive, and to enhance the legitimacy of the results. Procedures

Participants A total of 16 CKOs and 4 surrogates participated in the four focus groups. A minimum of 14 and a maximum of 16 experts were present at each of the four meetings (cf. Table 2). In four cases, a CKO sent a surrogate to a meeting. The involvement of experts in focus groups (Kitzinger 1995) allowed us, in the words of Hevner et al. (2004, 80), “to combine relevance and rigor by meeting a business need with applicable knowledge.” Each CKO worked for a different company. Companies were in various sectors, including Automotive, Software, Audiovisual, Civil Engineering, and Telecommunications. Companies ranged in size from approximately 1,000 to 200,000 employees. Ten were multinational firms. The names of the companies were withheld to protect their privacy, but companies are identified by their sector. The names of CKOs were likewise withheld for privacy reasons. Statements by participants were identified only by the industry sector in which they worked. All participants (cf. Table 3, Appendix) held master degrees (MSc or MBA), and four had earned Ph.D.s. Their degrees were in a variety of disciplines: Industrial Design, Mechanical Engineering, Human Resources, Management, Computer Science and Ergonomics. Their work experience

Participants met in four focus groups over a four-month period between November 2007 and February 2008 to gather insights about knowledge sharability issues from KM and collaboration experts. The focus groups took place during four consecutive regularly scheduled meetings of a professional business association for CKOs. Focus groups were conducted by one of the authors. Recording devises were not allowed in the sessions. A graduate assistant recorded all sessions and made field notes about critical incidents and oral statements during meetings. Participants recorded their key contributions on Post-it notes, and gave them to the research team at the end of each session. The moderator made field notes immediately following every session. To minimize the possibility of biasing the observations, we did not seed the focus groups with questions pertaining to the model. Rather, we observed and documented interactions among subjects who were already deeply interested in issues of knowledge sharability, and who were motivated to discuss it by issues they experienced in the workplace. The participants devised their own goals and their own questions created deliverables of their own design during these sessions. The researchers who observed and documented the sessions were not briefed on the model until after the sessions were over. After the sessions, the


13

Business need

observers were briefed on the model, and were asked to code their observations in terms of the constructs of the model. Focus group process Focus groups were announced with the theme “KM and Collaboration.” Each session focused on a different aspect of Knowledge Sharability (KS) as a success factor in crossorganizational collaboration. In these meetings participants were to a) brainstorm on kind of shared knowledge in crossorganizational collaboration, conditions for successful knowledge sharing processes and antecedents of knowledge sharing and sharability; b) brainstorm on the difference between knowledge criticality and knowledge sharability; c) build a preliminary questionnaire, which came to be called the Knowledge Sharability Grid, to assess knowledge sharability on the ground; and d) Validate the Knowledge Sharability Grid as a framework for better understanding of knowledge sharing among companies. Each meeting was held at a different site volunteered by one of the CKO participants. Tables and chairs were arranged in a U shape so participants could make eye contact. Each session opened with a presentation by an outside expert about some aspect of information/knowledge sharing and crossorganizational collaboration from professional and research perspectives. Participants then participated in a three-hour session almost to generate, clarify, organize, evaluate, and reduce a set of ideas about Knowledge Sharing - Sharability. At the beginning of each interactive session, participants received these guidelines: & & & & &

All members should read the minutes of the previous meeting. The group should focus/concentrate its work only on the knowledge sharing-sharability concerns. Members should respect the time fixed by the facilitator (the researcher) for each activity. Members should write their ideas on Post-it notes before sharing them with the group. They should argue/justify each of their ideas by giving practical examples.

Figure 2 summarizes topics of the four working meetings as the focus group process steps. The final deliverable from the four sessions was a questionnaire instrument that the participants came to call the Knowledge Sharability Grid. Each focus group built on the results of the previous focus group’s session. Session details Each session had a different goal and a different work practice.

Generating antecedents of Knowledge Sharing-Sharability

Dstinguishing Knowledge Criticality / Knowledge Sharability

Converging on the Knowledge Sharability Grid proposal

Validating the Knowledge Sharability Grid proposal

Knowledge Sharability Grid Fig. 2 The topics of four successive focus groups with 16 CKOs to develop understandings of knowledge sharing - sharability

Session 1 An IT Consulting Firm hosted the first session in November 2007. Participants were asked to brainstorm possible antecedents of Knowledge Sharing -Sharability in crossorganizational collaboration. Participants used a directed brainstorming technique. The brainstorming responded to these questions, determined before the session considered important by the group as a starting point: & & & & & & &

What kind of knowledge could be shared in crossorganizational collaboration? What could increase the willingness to share? What makes some people share more than others? What is knowledge sharability? What are its characteristics? Why is it important for companies? When does it become critical?

Session 2 An Audiovisual & Communication Firm hosted the second session in December 2007. The focus of this session was to distinguish between Knowledge Criticality (Ermine et al. 2005; 2006) and Knowledge Sharability. In sessions predating this study, the association had worked on defining Knowledge Criticality, which they had defined as the degree to which a knowledge domain was critical to an organization’s success. In this meeting, the distinction between knowledge criticality and knowledge sharability was clarified. At the end of the session, the group agreed that knowledge criticality is the



degree to which the sharing of a knowledge set held by a group (organizational unit, organization or group of partners) with outsiders would make the knowledge holders vulnerable. The group determined, however, that criticality was not sufficient to explain sharability of knowledge within a group. Knowledge Criticality was deemed a group phenomenon, while Knowledge Sharability was deemed an individual phenomenon. The group decided to consider Knowledge Sharability according to three points of view: & & &

The knowledge itself: Does the individual deem the knowledge sharable, given the risk it may impose? Is the individual willing to share? The individual: Is the individual capable of sharing? Can the knowledge be made explicit? Should it be? What could happen? The group: Will sharing knowledge serve business objectives or enhance cross-organizational collaboration? What makes the group willing to sharing knowledge? What are the risks?

Session 4 The fourth meeting in February 2008 occurred at a Telecommunications Firm. The goal was to validate the Knowledge Sharability Grid. The objective was to make sure that there was no redundancy among criteria, and to assure that the set was sufficiently comprehensive to address the antecedents and criteria they had generated in earlier session. Sixteen criteria were retained; two were eliminated. Then, the group drafted one question for each remaining criterion. Table 4 (cf. Appendix) presents the Knowledge Sharability Grid. It is offered here to clarify the work the participants did during their focus group. This grid helps to ask the questions to understand issues related to the knowledge sharing and identify knowledge which could be shared in the context of the collaboration. The analysis of such knowledge is done individually (individuals) and collectively (for the group engaged in the collaboration) by domain before engaging in the collaboration. It avoids the risk of sharing inappropriate knowledge.

Session 3 The third session occurred in January 2008 at a Transport & Freight Firm. The goal was to generate criteria by which people judged knowledge sharability from three perspectives: The individual, the group to which an individual belongs, and the partners with whom the group collaborates. The group was divided into three subgroups of five or six CKOs, each from a different industry. Each subgroup brainstormed for an hour to compile a list of criteria for one of the three points of view: knowledge, individual, and group. Groups then rejoined and worked for 2 h to consolidate their concepts into 18 criteria, which they organized into an array they dubbed the Sharability Grid.

Analysis methods The moderator and the graduate assistant, native French speakers, transcribed Post-its and field notes into a collection of utterances identified by contributor. They then anonymized the transcript. The moderator/researcher then coded and clustered the French-language utterances according to the concepts of VFMKS. The transcripts were then translated into English and validated by a native English speaker. An English-speaking researcher then coded the utterances according to the concepts of VFMKS. Coders had substantial concurrence.

Table 2 Participation of CKOs in focus group meetings Sector

Number of companies

1st meeting

2nd meeting

3rd meeting

4th meeting

Automotive Software Edition Audiovisual and communications Civil Engineering IT Consulting Research and Development Aeronautic Telecommunications Energy Transport and freight Total:

3 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 16

P1 + P2 P4 + P5 P6 P7 P8 + P9 P11 P12 P13 + P14 P15 P16 14 CKOs

P1 + P2 + P3 P4 + P5 P6 P7 P8 + P9 P11 P12 P13 + P14 P15 + P15′ P16 16 CKOs

P1′ + P2 + P3 P5 P6 P7′ P8 + P9 + P10 P11 P12 P13 + P14 P15 P16 15 CKOs

P1 + P3 P4 + P5 P6 P7 P8 + P9 + P10′ P11 P12 P13 + P14 P15 P16 15CKOs

NB: P 0 Person, x 0 its number, P′ 0 its surrogate from the same organization - this is to show the presence of each person for the 4 meeting


Analysis of session transcripts in light of VFMKS This section presents an analysis of the session transcripts in light of the constructs and relationships proposed by VFMKS. Many of the utterances from the CKO participants about knowledge sharing and sharability were consistent with the constructs and relationships proposed by VFMKS. This section presents qualitative evidence to support that assertion.

15

They stated that knowledge sharing could also produce negative outcomes that threaten the long term viability of the organization, reducing motivation to share knowledge: & & &

Value of expected outcomes of sharing & The transcripts contained many comments showing that the CKOs perceived knowledge as valuable. Some typical examples were: & & & & &

“Knowledge is an intangible asset that has an economic value.” (R&D CKO) “Having experience in a situation will not make you sure to solve the problem, but it gives you an advantage.” (IT consulting CKO) “Knowledge is often considered as power within collaborations.” (R&D CKO) “Knowledge is a strategic asset and a competitive advantage for companies on the market.” (Automotive CKO) “Knowledge is a strategic resource of productivity.” (R&D CKO)

Such comments are consistent with the VFMKS assumption that individuals ascribe value to knowledge, and are consistent with the definition of the Perceived Value of Knowledge Sharing Outcomes construct of the theory. No comments emerged in the transcripts to suggest that any CKO did not ascribe value to knowledge.

&

&

The CKOs appear to assume a close association between value and sharability by trying to motivate knowledge sharing with intrinsic and extrinsic rewards: & & & &

The value-sharability relationship Analysis of the transcripts revealed that the CKOs perceived that the outcomes of Knowledge Sharing could have positive economic, political, social, or cognitive value that motivated people to share knowledge: & & &

&

“Using social computing, experts can find each other more easily and collaborations start with a few clicks.” (IT Consulting CKO) “With the complementarily of knowledge and experiences, the problem-solving become easier.” (R&D CKO) “Sometimes we spend a lot time trying to find good knowledge, and we have to ask for external help, while the guys in the back office already had it … so we lose time and money…” (IT Consulting CKO) “Sharing knowledge enhances the capability of firms to perform and to respond to client demands” (Telecoms CKO)

“We can outsource everything…only our core business knowledge capital has to be preserved…it determines our existence.” (Aeronautic CKO) “Imitation is our big problem, comes from all the world.” (Automotive CKO) “Some believe that when sharing, they lose their importance in the group …it is an old myth of the old generation of computer scientists.” (Software edition CKO) “A partner with whom we share today could become a competitor tomorrow. This sharing allows may be to increase the short-term value of a service or a product which we create, but may be with means and long terms a source of loss.” (Aeronautic CKO) “Sharing efforts are seen as a kind of volunteer action impinging on the performance of their daily tasks. A more explicit recognition should be putted in place.” (Transport CKO) “Working transparently with others reduces their and our autonomy.” (Transport CKO)

&

“We try to find more tangible rewards to promote that (peer recognition, financial, etc.) “(Civil eng. CKO) “Peer recognition is more important in our field” (Automotive CKO) “Lack of time and recognition from Top management is widely cited as barriers to knowledge sharing” (R&D CKO) “With all the efforts we did, their attitudes toward sharing knowledge seem to remain unchanged.” (R&D CKO) “The more a firm is revealed in a extended enterprise, the more she loses its independency towards others partners.” (Aeronautic CKO)

Sometimes both positive and negative value can arise from the same knowledge-sharing event, giving rise to conflicting interests that must be resolved: &

“In our field/activity, there is a contradiction/paradox: sharing knowledge is rewarded- keeping knowledge is advised to keep you self competitive on the market.” (IT consulting CKO)

These quotations directly support the Value – Sharability proposition of VFMKS, showing that the CKOs perceived possible positive or negative outcomes from knowledge sharing, and that sharability attitudes could affect sharing behaviors. No comments were found in the transcript that conflicted with the Value – Sharability proposition.



Frequency moderation of value – sharability relationship Participating CKOs did not make any comments with respect to the degree to which perceived frequency of value moderates the Value-Sharability relationship posited by VFMKS. Thus, this study provides no evidence to support or refute the Frequency Moderation proposition. Certainty moderation of the value-sharability relationship The CKOs made a number of statements to the effect that people’s willingness to share depends on the degree to which they are certain about the value they may obtain from sharing outcomes. They did not typically use the word, “certainty,” but alluded to with other terms, for example: & &

& & & & &

“Knowledge sharing relies on the goodwill of people when there is no conflict of interest … it is based on ad hoc initiatives.” (IT consulting CKO) “Collaboration requires trust … but when it is question to share their knowledge, people feel like dispossessed. A basic survival instinct arises to protect themselves.” (IT consulting CKO) “Vulnerability is a criterion of sharability…when someone feels vulnerable, (s)he does not share to protect him/ her self.” (Energy CKO) “The vulnerability of the organization is linked to the vulnerability of its knowledge.” (R&D CKO) “It depends on people. There are who they have the habit of taking without giving.” (IT consulting CKO) “Criticality and sharability are linked. If I do not share my knowledge because I believe that is critical … doing that is risky.” (Aeronautic CKO) “A partner with whom we share today could become a competitor tomorrow. This sharing allows may be to increase the short-term value of a service or a product which we create, but may be with means and long terms a source of loss. “Should we speak her about Inter organizational KM?” (Aeronautic CKO)

VFMKS posits that the Value-Sharability relationship may be moderated by the degree to which people feel certain that they will attain the value they perceive in a knowledgesharing opportunity. The CKO’s comments provided evidence of such a moderating relationship in their discussions of goodwill, trust, vulnerability, and risk, all terms that directly or indirectly allude to the certainty construct. The sharability-sharing relationship The CKOs did not comment directly on the SharabilitySharing relationship posited by VFMKS. This study therefore provided no evidence by which the Sharability – Sharing proposition could be supported or refuted. The CKOs

appeared, however, to assume the existence of such a relationship, because they made a number of statements related to ways that capacity to share would affect sharing, as reported in the next section. Capacity moderation of the sharability-sharing relationship The CKO participants made a number of statements to the effect that that touched on the degree to which Capacity to Share moderated the proposed relationship between Knowledge Sharability and Knowledge Sharing. &

“These should be balanced: willingness to share and being able to do it.” (Telecoms CKO) Some highlighted the challenge of sharing tacit knowledge:

& &

&

“Some knowledge can never be elicited. It remains tacit in the head of experts…socialization is the best way to transfer it.” (Audiovisual CKO) “Before, when the work was manual, it was possible to learn by observation and imitation. Now everyone is working behind his/her own computer…” (Automotive CKO) “How you can ask people to share…if they don’t know that they know or what they have to share.” (Audiovisual CKO)

Some focused on physical and cognitive barriers to sharing, or drew attention to those barriers by noting that technology could, but does not always make sharing easier: & & & &

“Generally people have a positive attitude in respect of knowledge sharing but in the facts they have no time…” (Transport & freight CKO) “Some tools are available but these resources are generally under used.” (Civil eng. CKO) “Before to use tools [it was hard]. It was easier in this case not to share.” (Audiovisual CKO) “By enabling people to share content (slides, proposals, documents, etc.) through our collaborative platform, the time we gain up to 70% in time savings…imagine what will happen now that we have wikis and blogs.” (IT consulting CKO)

Others touched on the degree to which ethical or legal constraints could constrain sharing: & &

“Sometimes [knowledge remains unshared] not for a lack of willingness, but rather because of rofessional obligations.” (Aeronautic CKO) “Some knowledge can never be elicited, they remain tacit in the head of experts…socialization is the best way to transfer it.” (Audiovisual CKO)

The CKOs also touched on ethical and legal constraints that could block sharing among people willing to share:


& &

17

“Sometimes, it’s not for lack of willingness but it is by professional obligations…or the damage that may result.” (Aeronautic CKO) “Consultants shall not speak of what they saw working for a given client. It is a pact of confidence that we have with them.” (IT Consulting CKO)

Statements like these support the VFMKS proposition that capacity-to-share moderates the Sharability-Sharing relationship. No statements were found in the transcripts that conflicted with this proposition.

Discussion of findings and future directions This exploratory study showed that CKO statements corresponded closely to the constructs and relationships proposed by VFMKS. They did ascribe value to knowledge. They identified the possibility for both positive and negative outcomes from knowledge sharing, and asserted that these expectancies were closely associated with knowledge sharability attitudes. The CKOs did not directly discuss a relationship between Knowledge Sharability attitudes and Knowledge Sharing actions. They appeared to assume such a relationship, however, because they discussed the degree to which Capability to Share moderated this relationship. Further exploratory and experimental research will be required to investigate this effect. The CKOs said little about the degree to which perceptions of frequency moderated the value-sharability relationship. It could be that, in this sample, frequency issues did not emerge. It is also possible, though those perceptions of frequency are inextricably linked to perceptions of value. Rather than making value judgments that are moderated by frequency judgments, it may be that a cognitive mechanism synthesizes a single value-frequency judgment. Further exploratory and experimental research will be required to investigate this effect. Figure 3 summarizes the exploratory findings of this study: light items are supported and dark ones are not (or partially). Limitations and future directions This study has several limitations. Although the qualitative data collected in this study are consistent with aspects of the Fig. 3 Summary of findings. Qualitative data supported propositions 2, 4, and 5, but neither supported nor refuted Propositions 1 and 3

theory, further qualitative and quantitative research will be required to fully validate the causal relationships proposed by the theory. The study did not garner evidence one way or the other with respect to two aspects of the model: the potential for perceived frequency to moderate the value-sharability relationship, and the sharability-sharing relationship. It would not be sound to reject the proposed relationships based on a single exploratory study. Further exploration would therefore be useful to discover whether these relationships are indicated in other kinds of qualitative observation and conversation. Next, although this study was conducted across 16 organizations spanning several industry sectors, the data were gathered from only one class of knowledge worker at level of management in one country. Further explorations among other kinds of workers in a variety of organizational positions and in other countries to explore whether the relationships proposed by the theory generalize to the many contexts where knowledge sharing and sharability are important issues. Finally, while exploratory research is instructive in the early phases of theory testing, the most rigorous test of the relationships proposed by the model must be conducted through formal experimentation. Given the findings of this paper, such quantitative experimental validation of VFMKS may be useful.

Conclusion This paper advances a Value Frequency Model of Knowledge Sharing as an explanation for variations in attitudes toward sharing knowledge with people outside one’s own work group or organization. It then reports on an exploratory field study with 16 CKOs to investigate the degree to which their experiences and understandings of Knowledge Sharability were consistent with or different from the constructs and relationships proposed by the model. Where CKO has made statements about topics addressed by the model, their statements were consistent with the logic of the model. CKOs, however, were silent on two aspects of the model – the Frequency construct and the direct effect of Knowledge Sharability attitudes on Knowledge Sharing behaviors. Further research will be necessary to explore these and other aspects of the model more fully.

Value Of Expected Outcomes of Sharing Economic Political Social Cognitive Affective Physical


2

1

3

4

5

Perceived Frequency of Value

Certainty about ValueFrequency Judgments

Capacity To Share Knowledge

Knowledge Sharing



Appendix Table 3 Expert focus group characteristics Sector

Firm size

Firm type Person

Nationality Age

Gender Background

Level Years of work Year of work experience as CKO

Automotive Automotive

100 000–200 000

M

P1 (P1′)

FR

10 000– 20 000

M

P2

FR

45–49

M

Industrial Design

MSc

20–24

0–4

50–54

M

Mechanical Eng.

MSc

25–29

Automotive

5 000– 10 000

M

P3

FR

5–9

50–54

F

Math. Eng.

PhD

25–29

Software Edition

50 000 – 100 000 M

P4

5–9

FR

40–44

M

Computer Science

MSc

15–19

Software Edition

1 000 – 5 000

N

0–4

P5

FR

35–39

M

Ergonomics

PhD

10–14

Audiovisual and communications Civil Engineering

1 000 – 5 000

0–4

N

P6

FR

55–59

F

Human Resources

MBA 30–34

IT Consulting

5 000– 10 000

M

P7 (P7′)

FR

50–54

M

Cognitive sciences MSc

25–29

5–9

5 000– 10 000

M

P8

FR

45–49

M

Management

MBA 20–24

IT Consulting

0–4

1 000 – 5 000

M

P9

FR

40–44

M

IT

MSc

15–19

0–4

IT Consulting

500 – 1 000

N

P10 (P10′) FR

35–39

F

IT

MSc

5–9

0–4

Research and Development Aeronautic

1 000 – 5 000

N

P11

FR

50–54

F

Management

PhD

25–29

5–9

10 000– 20 000

M

P12

FR

50–54

M

Knowledge eng.

MSc

25–29

5–9

Telecommunications

100,000–200,000

M

P13

FR

40–44

M

Management

MBA 15–19

0–4

Telecommunications

1 000 – 5 000

N

P14

FR

45–49

F

IT

MSc

20–24

0–4

Energy

100,000–200,000

N

P15 (P15′) FR

50–54

M

Knowledge eng.

PhD

25–29

5–9

Transport and freight 10 000– 20 000

M

P16

FR

55–59

M

Cognitive sciences MSc

30–34

5–9

10 Sectors

Total: 16

16 FR

35–39 (2)

5 F –11 M

16 firms: 10 Multinational 6 National

10–14

4 PhDs

40–44 (3) 45–49 (3) 50–54 (6) 55–59 (2)

Table 4 Knowledge sharability grid: an instrument for evaluating the knowledge sharability From the knowledge point of view: Explicitness: To what extent could this knowledge be made explicit or be elicited? Usefulness: Is this knowledge useful for group collaboration? Responsiveness: Does sharing this knowledge improve responsiveness within the group? Effectiveness: Does sharing this knowledge make collaboration more effective? Quality: Is the knowledge of sufficient quality to be shared? What are the criteria for judging quality? Added Value: Does this knowledge allow value creation? From the individual point of view: Substantiality: Is this knowledge substantial to the individual i.e., important to his/her core business? Confidentiality: To what extent must the individual keep this knowledge confidential (e.g. trade secret, fiduciary responsibility, etc.)? Reusability/Reuse: To what extent can this knowledge be reused? Subsidiarity: Is there other knowledge that can be substituted for this knowledge in this collaboration? Transferability: To what extent is this knowledge transferable? Frequency of Value: How often could this knowledge be a source of value? From the group point of view: Autonomy: Does the sharing of this knowledge affect the autonomy/independence of the individual in the group? Vulnerability/Risk: Does the sharing of this knowledge make the individual vulnerable in the group (from a strategic point of view, current place in the group, overtime, etc.)? Shared Values: What are the moral values that govern the group and that protect the knowledge (deontology, ethics, intellectual integrity/property, etc.)? Incentive Policy/Motivation: What could encourage the individual to share this knowledge with others? What could (s)he expect in an exchange (i.e. expectancy) or what does this knowledge bring to the group (i.e. value)?


References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41–57. Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1998). An organization memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 796–809. Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1–8. Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582. Benson, R., Stacie, F., & Richard, B. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36 (3), 259–273. Boughzala, I. (2002). Methodology for designing interenterprise cooperative information system, SCI'2002: the 6th World Multi Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, July 14-18, 2002, Orlando, USA. Boughzala, I. (2007). Ingenierie de la collaboration: theories, technologies et pratiques, Paris: Hermes-Lavoisier, 2007. Boughzala, I., Briggs, R. O. (2011). Knowledge sharability in crossorganizational collaboration: an exploratory field study, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 44), IEEE Computer Society, January 4–7, 2011, Kauai, Hawaii. Briggs, R. O. (2006). The value frequency model: toward a theoretical understanding of organizational change. In S. Seifert and and C. Weinhardt (eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 Group decision and Negotiation International conference (GDN 2006), Karlsruhe, Germany, June 25–28, 2006, 36–39. Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687–710. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a highperformance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345–367. Ermine, J-L., Boughzala, I., & Tounkara, T. (2005). Using Cartography to sustain Inter-Generation Knowledge Transfer: The M3C Methodology, ICICKM 2005: 2nd International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning, Dubai: UAE, November 21–22, 2005. Ermine, J.-L., Boughzala, I., & Tounkara, T. (2006). Critical knowledge map as a decision tool for knowledge transfer actions. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 129–139. Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (1994). Diverse teams at work: Capitalizing on the power of diversity. New York: McGrawHill. Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974.

19 Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1/March. Hsiao, R.-L. (2008). Knowledge Sharing in a Global Professional Service Firm, MIS Quarterly executive, 7(3). Kern, T., & Willcocks, L. P. (2000). Exploring information technology outsourcing relationships: theory and practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(4), 321–350. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299–302. Kluge, J., Stein, W. & Licht, T. (2001). Knowledge unplugged: the McKinsey & Co. global survey on knowledge management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Koh, C., Ang, S., & Straub, D. W. (2004). IT outsourcing success: a psychological contract perspective. Information System Research, 15(4), 356–373. Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Muller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 301–313. Nanda, A. (1996). Resources, capabilities and competencies. In B. Moingeon & A. Edmonson (Eds.), Organizational learning and competitive advantage (pp. 93–120). London: Sage. Nonaka, I. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3). Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of Growth of the Firm. London: Basil Blackwell. Romano, N. C., Jr., Pick, J. B., & Roztocki, N. (2010). A motivational model for technology-supported cross-organizational and crossborder collaboration. European Journal of Information System, 19 (2), 117–133. Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(3), 367–372. Skjoett-Larsent, T., Thernoe, C., & Andersen, C. (2003). Supply chain collaboration. Theoretical perspective and empirical evidence. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 33(6), 531–549. Spender, J. C. (1996a). Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge? In B. Moingeon & A. Edmonson (Eds.), Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage (pp. 56–73). London: Sage. Spender, J. C. (1996b). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45– 62. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Webster.com, (2010). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ attitude. Accessed 9/3/2010. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. Westaby, J. D. (2002). Identifying specific factors underlying attitudes toward change: using multiple methods to compare expectancyvalue theory to reasons theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(5), 1083–1106.