Investigating Knowledge Diffusion in a South

African Telecoms organization.

by

Mr Riedewaan Davids

A mini-thesis submitted in partial full-fillment of the

requirements for the degree of Bachelor of

Commmerce(Honours) in Information Systems in the Faculty of

Economic and Management Sciences(EMS)

(IFS717)

SUPERVISOR: DR. G. WHYTE

ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR: DR. Z. MITROVICZ

1

July 2010

Declaration

1.          I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is

to use another’s work and pretend that it is one’s own.

2.          Each contribution to, and quotation in, this

thesis “Investigating Knowledge Diffusion in a South

African Telecommunications company”…from the work(s) of

other people has been attributed, and has been cited

and referenced.

3.          This thesis “Investigating Knowledge Diffusion

in a South African Telecommunications company”……… is my

own work.

4.          I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone

to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as

his or her own work.

2

5.          I acknowledge that copying someone else’s

assignment or essay, or part of it, is wrong, and

declare that this is my own work.

Signature              __davidsr______________________

Name                    Riedewaan Davids_______________

Student No            2956062_______________________

Date                       31st July 2010_________________

Acknowledgement

1. I would first and foremost need to thank the “ALMIGHTY”

for granting me the ability to complete this task.

2. A heartfelt thanks to my wife for the selfless support

throughout this study period. To my children , who felt

the brunt of my neglect, for their patience and support.

3. To my parents for their support and words of

encouragement.

3

4. To Dr Grafton Whyte and Dr Zoran Mitrovic for their

professional guidance and support.

5. Encouragement from my immediate and extended families.

6. To my colleagues and fellow students who always had a

word of encouragement and willingness to assist.

7. To those participants who so willingly responded, I’m

forever grateful.

8. My management for allowing me the flexibility of time to

complete this task.

Table of Contents

4

i. Title……………………………….….………………………………………………1

ii. Declaration……………………….….………………………………………………2

iii. Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..4

iv. Acknowledgement………….….………….………………………………………..4

1. Chapter 1:Introduction………………………………………………………………5

2. Chapter 2:Literature Review.….…….………………………………………………6

2.1 Knowledge Definition ……………………….

……………………………6

2.2 Knowledge Types ….………………………….

………………………….6

2.3 Knowledge Diffusion Definition

……………………….…………………6

2.4 Knowledge Diffusion Benefits..………..

…………………………………6

2.5 Knowledge Diffusion

Blocking…………………………………………….6

2.6 Knowledge Models …….

………………………………………………….6

2.7 Conclusion …………………………..…. …………………………………6

3. Chapter 3: Research design…………………………………………………………5

3.1 Research Methodology & Objectives…..

…………………………………6

3.2 Research Approach…….

………………………………………………….6

3.3 Data Collection Method….………………………………………………….6

3.3.1 Types of

interviews…………………………………………………..6

5

3.3.2 Demographics..

………………………………………………………6

3.3.3 Sample……………………………………………………………….6

3.3.4 Reliability & Validity

……………………………………………..6

3.3.5 Limitations……………………………………………………………6

3.3.6 Survey Instrument Design …………………………..

……………...6

3.3.7 Pilot Study and Feedback.

…………………………………………..6

4. Chapter 4: Data Presentation

4.1 Survey Response Results…………..……………….……….6

4.2 Results…………………………….……………………..……….6

4.3 Analysis…………..……….…………………………………………….6

5. Chapter 5: Discussion,Recommendation & Conclusion

5.1 Discussion…………………………..………………………..……….6

5.2 Recommedations…………………………….……………………..……….6

5.3 Conclusion…………..……….…………………………………………….6

6. References:………………………………………………………………………...15

7. Appendices:………………………………………………………………………..22

6

Abstract

The purpose of this paper will be to identify knowledge

diffusion within a Johannesburg Stock Exchange listed South

African Telecommunications Company. Knowledge diffusion

techniques were investigated and compared. The common

entities and factors were extracted and theorized. A

questionnaire was administered and distributed via email.

The aim was to identify the commonalities that exist across

divisional and departmental boundaries.

The literature illuminated the importance of organizational

culture and the individual meta-abilities in knowledge

diffusion. The findings highlighted factors like

reward,trust,leadership,chief-knowledge officer within the

organizational and some “soft-skills” lacking in individuals

and concludes with recommendation to mitigate those

inefficiencies.

7

Although the research crossed group, divisional and

departmental boundaries it was limited only to a certain

region within the organization. This region lacked the

cultural diversity, which entails major ethnicity factors,

as it’s mentioned as a primary factor for knowledge

diffusion. The research also lacked the major geographical

proximity due to recent restructuring and relocation of

offices. While these important factors are not evident in

the research it still yields compelling information to

implicate organizational culture and individual meta-

abilities.

1.Introduction

1.1. OverviewOrganizations find themselves in very challenging times

where phenomenon, like globalization, changed the way

business operates as business extends now across national 8

and international boundaries. Innovations are key to remain

competitive in this globalized economy(Porter,1990).

Convergence is another phenomenon that changed activities in

nearly every sphere of business. This resulted in new ways

of communication, learning and conducting business and was

enabled through the progressive pace of technological

innovations, such as the rapid integration of the internet

and other telecommunications. The 21st century now talks of

global information or knowledge economy. The workforce is

also now renowned as knowledge-workers.

This knowledge-economy emphasizes the importance of

knowledge management(KM) as it ensures competitive advantage

(Grant, 1996). Matley(2000) infers that organizations

realized that through learning and successfully managing

knowledge and human resources ,they were more responsive to

technological and socio-economic changes.

Organizations are now also recognized for their superior KM

activities through a research program called” Most Admired

Knowledge Enterprise(MAKE)”. The Asian program was started

in 2002 and it was aimed to ensure shareholder value. The

panel consists of senior executives of the Asian-based

Fortune Global 500 companies,like Toyota & Sony, and leading

knowledge management and intellectual capital experts.

Knowledge is now confirmed by researchers as the livelihood

of organizations and worth much more than it’s tangible

9

assets. Economist value Microsoft higher than it’s book

value due to the importance of the knowledge they possess in

this knowledge era with strong emphasis on intellectual

capital(IC)(Petty and Guthrie, 2000; Skyrme, 1999).

The contrary to that was when the World Development

Report(World Bank,1999) commented that Ghana and South Korea

deficit in income per capita for that year was due to

knowledge not being efficiently diffused amongst nations and

it’s people. This comment was based on the six times higher

income per capita South Korea enjoyed at the time compared

to the equal value recorded in the 1960’s.

In South Africa we’ve seen the value of individual knowledge

with the huge retainer fees paid to retiring CEO’s. First

was when retired CEO of Vodacom was paid a R7million

retainer over two years . The latest was on the 15th July

2010 when MTN shareholders agreed that outgoing CEO would be

paid a whopping R33million restraint of trade settlement

over a three year period due to the size of the organization

and his international relations(Fin24.com posted on 15th

July 2010@17h07).

Handy(1995) asserts that integration of individuals and the

organization is important to the learning organization(LO).

Scarbrough (1998) defines a LO by the way it values, manages

and harnessing the development of each of his individual

workforce to ensure its’ continuous transformation. Shins,

10

Holden & Schmidt (2001) asserts that proper management of

internal knowledge will only benefits and enhances the use

thereof in future strategy. Individual knowledge is core to

the prosperity of an organization as it’s through this

knowledge an organization will render a superior service or

produce a product that is profitable.

One has a situation where organizations are more

geographically dispersed and employ a multi-cultural

workforce. South African organizations are faced with a

multi-cultural workforce with added complexity of 11

officially recognized languages due to it’s unique

history(Littrel & Nkomo,2005).

As external forces impacts the business organizations are

still faced with creating an environment conducive to

learning and sharing of knowledge. This is emphasized by

increased research in organizational behavior with focus on

the workforce(individual) and workplace(organization)

interaction(Muchinsky,2006).

1.2. Objective

The purpose of this research is to:

(a) Identify factors that influence knowledge

diffusion

(b) Identify techniques to overcome it

11

(c) Apply these techniques within the organization

.

Chapter 2 is the Literature Review and will start to define

knowledge diffusion and then to position it within the

knowledge chain. Benefits of knowledge diffusion will be

discussed. Major factors that influence knowledge diffusion

will be elaborated on by discussing knowledge diffusion

models and techniques with the aim to extract the common

entities involved. The common entities and factors will be

theorized and will form the basis for the questions for

research.

Chapter 3 contains the Research Methodology. It includes

descriptions of the Strategy

for the research, the development of the Survey Instrument

(Questionnaire), the Target

Population and sample size, and the method employed to

gather data.

Chapter 4 contains the presentation and results of the

captured data. It also includes the demographics of

respondents .

12

Chapter 5 ends off with discussion,conclusion and

recommendations . It also includes the limitation of

research .

13

2.Literature Review

2.1.Overview

The importance of knowledge is amplified by the avalanche of

interest conducted by a multitude of researchers and the

value it adds to the companies as per the “MAKE” report. The

management of the knowledge has been adopted as strategies

to ensure competitive advantage. David Skyrme(1999) defines

KM as follows:

“Knowledge Management is the explicit and systematic

management of vita l knowledge and its associated processes

of creation, organization, diffusion, use and exploitation.”

2.2.Knowledge Diffusion Defined

In order to address knowledge diffusion one need to

understand that knowledge is multi-dimensional and each

dimension will have a direct effect on the knowledge that

will be transmitted during the diffusion process. For the

purpose of this research I’ve adopted Davenport and Prusak’s

(1998) definition of knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed

experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight

that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating

new experiences and information”.

14

2.2.1. Knowledge

Nonaka(1994) classifies knowledge into explicit and tacit

knowledge . Explicit knowledge is formally articulated and

manifested in documents and databases as procedures for

corporate practices (Alter, 2002). Tacit knowledge is the

practical wisdom possessed by experts and difficult capture

and varies amongst industries (Crowley, 2000).Tacit

knowledge also refers to intuition,gut feeling and talent,

which sportsman possess. Structured knowledge can be

diffused in different ways today as there are multiple

technologies available (Haldin-Herrgard,2000)

The knowledge-based based economy demands continuous

knowledge creation processes in organizations to remain

competitive(Leonard & Straus,1997). Winter & Szulanski(2002)

contends that knowledge creation is worthless without proper

knowledge diffusion processes. Edquist(1997) further

contends that innovation only takes place in the context of

a system where there’s a network of actors in a social

system.

Lundvall (1992)asserts that interactions amongst actors in

the system are fundamental to

Innovations. A number of researchers are concerned about how

knowledge from outside get disseminated the organization but

the focus of this study is how knowledge diffuses within the

organization. The focus is definitely on the individual’s

15

ability and organizational environment to ensure that

knowledge continuously flow through the organization.

2.2.2. Knowledge Categories

Blackler (1995) argues that there are different kinds of

knowledge needed based on individual or collected efforts in

an organization. Five types of knowledge are identified in

his framework :embrained, embodied,encultured, embedded and

encoded knowledge.

1. Embrained - Knowledge based on cognitive abilities and

skills.

2. Embodied – Knowledge that is exercised through action.

3. Encultured – Knowledge dependent on a process of

achieving shared understanding.

4. Embedded – Knowledge understood as standard operating

procedures.

5. Encoded – Explicit knowledge as represented in

books,databases,websites.

Winter(1987) continues to distinguish knowledge that is

teachable, articulable, observable, simple and independent

of a system as more easily transferable.

2.2.3. SECI Model

Nonaka’s SECI( socialization , externalization ,combination

and internalization)-model(1994) are based on cycles that

knowledge is created through conversion between tacit and 16

explicit knowledge of individuals and it’s most widely

recognized knowledge management model. The model was

constructed from empirical evidence gathered in case studies

of Japanese firms like Honda, Canon ,Sharp ,NEC ,Matsushita

and Kao.

The SECI model in figure 1 can be interpreted:

(a) Socialization : Tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer

from expert to learner

(b) Externalization : Conversion to explicit group knowledge

(c) Combination : Combining new explicit knowledge

with other existing explicit knowledge

(d) Internalization : Conversion back to individual

tacit knowledge

Figure 1: SECI Model

Diffusion is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “spreading

out”.

17

Huang, et.al, (2007) identifies knowledge diffusion as a

mechanism to deliver tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge

in order to deliver a valuable product. Others,Augier and

Vendelo (1999), define knowledge diffusion as the process of

externalising and sharing tacit knowledge. Appleyard &

Kalsow(1999) defines knowledge diffusion as the “movement of

usefull ideas between organizations”.

The knowledge chain explains how knowledge flows through the

organization.

Appleyard & Kalsow(1999) simplifies the knowledge chain

(Holsapple & Singh,2001 ) into three activities(previously

knowledge acquisition, knowledge selection, knowledge

generation, knowledge assimilation and knowledge emission)

illustrated in figure 2. In an innovative community an

organization create knowledge first. The processing and

packaging of these ideas is defined as diffusion in the chain.

Implementation is deemed as the means of operationalizing

the new knowledge. There are huge variances in the way

organizations and industry manages knowledge and it’s

progression through the value chain.

Figure 2: Knowledge Chain18

2.3.Knowledge Diffusion Benefits

Al-Sayed and Ahmad(2006) asserts that the terminology

sharing may act as a metric for knowledge sharing and

knowledge diffusion among different (sub-) communities.

Inept knowledge management strategies adopted by

organizations affect not only internal creation and transfer

abilities but also the interaction with other organizations

and individuals(Canals,et.al,2004). Knowledge diffusion

enables new staff to rapidly acquire new skills and

techniques through discussion and sharing of knowledge

amongst all experienced staff members (Huang,et.al,2007)

Internal knowledge transfers need to form part of

strategically management of knowledge (Bou-Llusar & Segarra-

Cipres, 2006).

Ernest & Kim(2001) embraces the knowledge diffusion process

as it allows multi-national companies to interact with local

suppliers in their global production network echoing the

fact that globalization and convergence liberalized all

types of boundaries.

This paved the way for knowledge to flow to the local

supplier quite rapidly. 19

The hard disk drive (HDD) industry is another good example

as the US was the predominant manufacturer of this product

in the early 1980’. Due to knowledge spillover most of the

production is done today in the Southeast Asia . A

“spillover” is defined as an improvement in knowledge that

positively influences other industries Appleyard &

Kalsow(1999) . Knowledge spillovers underscore the

importance of knowledge flows between departments or

divisions in an organization and can prevent reinventing the

wheel scenarios(Srikantaiah & Koenig,2000). The “spill-over”

is a resulting factor in overcoming cognitive distance.

Knowledge diffusion enables new staff to rapidly acquire new

skills and techniques through discussion and sharing of

knowledge amongst all experienced staff members

(Huang,et.al,2007) .

Knowledge diffusion can benefit organization by

collaboration activities and utilizing social capital.

(Nahapiet & Ghosal, 1998) :

Reduces transactions costs

o Trust makes networks and communities effective and

increases the efficiency of action between teams and

organizations. Senior executive role in this regard

in thus very important.

Produces higher quality knowledge

20

o Trust within teams and people allow for rigorous

debate rather than critical “off-line discussions”

in corridors,etc.

Source of competitive advantage

o With the rapid change in regulation and growing

competition organizations depend on collaborative efforts

for competitive advantage.

2.4.Knowledge Diffusion Factors

Most theorists highlight proximity in cognitive,

geographical and organizational cultural as factors that

influence effective knowledge diffusion. These factors are

both enablers and inhibitors of knowledge diffusion.

2.4.1. Cognitive distance

The cognitive distance refers to the knowledge gap between

actors. The cognitive process refers to “how” actors

interact and states that “actors can exchange information

via simple process of barter exchange” (Cowan & Jonard

(1999),cited by Morone & Taylor). The barter exchange infers

both actors will gain from each others knowledge through

social interaction. Cowan & Jonard (1999) infer that there

should be some starting level of cognitive proximity for

effective knowledge diffusion. They also cautions against 21

cognitive lock-in when the same knowledge levels are

reached. Morone & Taylor(2000) that their should only be an

initial knowledge-gap between actors as it’ll influence the

rate of diffusion.

Theorist,Morone & Taylor(2000), highlights through

empirical evidence that a prerequisite to bridging the

cognitive gap is to establish an initial starting point to

ascertain a knowledge gap threshold (Petruzzelli

et.al ,2009) .The bigger the cognitive gap the lower the

diffusion rate and likewise the smaller the cognitive gap

the higher the diffusion rate.

South Africa has eleven official languages, emanating from

the traditional tribes geographical dispersed, and prides

itself on its diversity. Organizations are filled with

language diversity in their workforce. The language

abilities of both actors will affect the knowledge transfer.

It’s best for both actors to have a common language during

transmission as it increased the understanding ability ( Doz

et al.,1997b). It’s also imperative that the sender has the

ability to emit properly and for the receiver to elicit

questions properly to avoid ambiguity. Haghirian(2003)

asserts that a lack in language ability makes even codified

knowledge inaccessible. Haldin-Herrgard(2000) asserts that

perception and language are considered main factors in diffusing

tacit knowledge. The perception is about not being awareness

22

of your knowledge and language refers to not articulating

properly and losing intrinsic value.

Goleman(1995) infers that emotional intelligence guides

intelligence and skills. Harvey & Butcher(1998) concurs that

lack of confidence, anxiety, confusion, unwillingness and strong feeling also

prevent an individuals’ sharing ability. Selamat &

Choudrie(2004) suggests that the meta-abilities influence

skill and sharing attitudes in an individual. They concur

with Buther,et al(1997) to the four main meta-abilities:

Congnitive skills - ability to read,comprehend and

resolve situations

Self-knowledge - self-actualization and better judgment

Emotional resilience - ability to emotion and balance

feelings

Personal drive - self-motivated ,target-driven and

ability to motivate others

Developments of these meta-abilities enhance personal

influence skills such as communication, assertiveness,

dealing with conflict and persuasion abilities. This

ultimately leads to influencing skills and sharing attitudes

(Buther,et al(1997) as cited by Selamat &

Choudrie(2004).Haldin-Herrgard(2000) states that value of an

individual’s knowledge could be underestimated. In certain

instances employees hoard their knowledge and most often

believe that “knowledge is power”.

23

2.4.2. Geographical distance

The geographical distance refers to the physical distance

between actors. Distance is also perceived as a prerequisite

for knowledge diffusion(Holtshouse,1998). It today’s global

village virtual teams has become more the norm and face-to-

face interaction an exception(Haldin-Herrgard,2000).

Empirical evidence from Appleyard & Kalsow (1999)

demonstrates knowledge spillovers between organizations and

universities through patents and geographic proximity.

Morone & Taylor(2000) asserts that cliquishness does

influence the rate knowledge diffuses.

2.4.3. Cultural distance

Organizational culture is defined as the values and views in

the company that influences behavior and attitudes of

employees (Haghirian,2003). All companies need some degree

of structural capital and one undermined the significant

influence an organizational performance based on its

underlying process capital (procedures and systems) and

innovation capital (culture and research and development)

(Bontis et al, 2000).

24

Davenport et.al(1998) asserts that a knowledge orientated

corporate culture is one of the most important factors in

knowledge transmission. Szulanski(2000) states that mere

possession of valuable knowledge does not necessarily

renders it beneficial to other parts of the organization .

Inappropriate culture is key element to effective knowledge

sharing but also regarded as the key inhibitor.(McDermott &

O’Dell ,2001).

An atmosphere that promotes knowledge flows can only

positively influence inventiveness, creativity and

willingness to change (Miles,1978;Menon et al.,1992).

Communities of practice (CoP) serve as a mechanism of

networking knowledge in organizations. The CoP serve as a

“knowledge bridge” where people with common interest share

knowledge in the confines of “social learning”(Lave &

Wegner,1991). CoP also fosters collaboration and is important

today where organizations are extended via outsourcing.

Cowan et.al (2004) asserts the importance of knowledge

endowment through collaboration and how the success therein

fosters future alliances. Actors should be willing to share

and learn within a CoP.

Cowan et.al (2004) asserts the importance of knowledge

endowment through collaboration and how the success therein

fosters future alliances.

25

Summarizing the process of bridging the cognitive gap within

a CoP by:

First establishing the knowledge level of the

actors(individuals).

Determine the willingness to share by the provider.

Monitor knowledge flow that occurs between individuals.

Calculate the knowledge growth rate.

Assess the new knowledge level of learner.

Compute the cost and time of sharing and verify that

doesn’t exceed budgets.

Determine final level of knowledge level of learner.

The Dynamic Knowledge Transfer Capacity model(DKTC) model

asserts the importance and relevance of communities-of-

practice . The DKTC is a framework for social systems

emphasizing the importance of social interactions (Parent

et.al,2007). A quick synopsis of the capacities within the

DKTC model :

The generative capacity is the discovery of new

knowledge with particular benefit to improve

processes, technologies, products, services or

just improve current knowledge by linking

researchers and practitioners.

Disseminative capacity is the diffusion of

knowledge enabled through social capital and

26

allows knowledge to be adapted and shared amongst

stakeholders.

Absorptive capacity is contextualizing the new

knowledge. The latter are assimilated and applied

based on prior knowledge.

DKTC and the face-to-face interaction methods definitely

address the individual’s ability and social interactions

influence on knowledge diffusion.

The importance of the individual was emphasized with the

common thread throughout is based on the individual’s

knowledge with an encompassing organizational environment.

Weick’s(1995) sense-making model(Figure 3) in knowledge

management emphasizes the fact that the individual’s

knowledge, gained by interpretation and interaction, is very

important in making the other levels possible.

27

Figure 3 : Weick’s Sense-making model.

2.5.Knowledge Diffusion Issues

Theorist used Bass model (Bass,1969)as knowledge and

products displayed similar characteristics as its important

at a certain period and that it depreciates over time. In

knowledge management it means that innovators or experienced

staff will disseminate new knowledge based on social face-

to-face interaction with acquirers.

2.5.1. Barriers for knowledge diffusion

Diffusion blocking is prevalent when collaboration or

partnerships are established and one actor wants to restrict

the information that flows. Lucas and Ogilvie (2006)

highlight diffusion blocking factors that affect knowledge

transfer:

Reputations of both acquirer and provider are important

as it will enhance facilitation and progress of

knowledge transfer. An example is that where both

acquirer and provider have good reputations they’ll

ensure that it is protected and preserved and will

positively affect knowledge transfer.

Incentives will encourage more knowledge transfer

activities and likely more cooperation.

28

Teece(1976) cautions that knowledge transmission

internal to organizations may take years based on the

stickiness of the knowledge for the individuals.

2.5.2. Knowledge sharing barriers

Riege(2005) in his journal article,”Three-dozen knowledge-

sharing barriers managers must consider”,categorized

knowledge sharing barriers between individual people (e.g.

lack of interpersonal skills); structures, processes and

systems in the organisation (e.g.

deep-layered hierarchical structure); or technology (e.g.

shortage of appropriate software

tools) as per the knowledge management framework.:

Individual:

1. general lack of time to share knowledge, and time to

identify colleagues in need of

specific knowledge;

2. apprehension of fear that sharing may reduce or

jeopardise people’s job security;

3. low awareness and realisation of the value and benefit of

possessed knowledge to

others;

4. dominance in sharing explicit over tacit knowledge such

as know-how and experience

29

that requires hands-on learning, observation, dialogue

and interactive problem solving;

5. use of strong hierarchy, position-based status, and

formal power (‘‘pull rank’’);

6. insufficient capture, evaluation, feedback,

communication, and tolerance of past

mistakes that would enhance individual and

organisational learning effects;

7. differences in experience levels;

8. lack of contact time and interaction between knowledge

sources and recipients;

9. poor verbal/written communication and interpersonal

skills;

10. age differences;

11. gender differences;

12. lack of social network;

13. differences in education levels;

14. taking ownership of intellectual property due to fear of

not receiving just recognition

and accreditation from managers and colleagues;

15. lack of trust in people because they may misuse knowledge

or take unjust credit for it;

16. lack of trust in the accuracy and credibility of

knowledge due to the source; and

17. differences in national culture or ethnic background;

and values and beliefs associated

with it (language is part of this).

30

Organizational:

1.integration of km strategy and sharing initiatives into

the company’s goals and

strategic approach is missing or unclear;

2. lack of leadership and managerial direction in terms of

clearly communicating the

benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices;

3. shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect

and generate (new) knowledge;

4. lack of a transparent rewards and recognition systems that

would motivate people to

share more of their knowledge;

5. existing corporate culture does not provide sufficient

support for sharing practices;

6. knowledge retention of highly skilled and experienced

staff is not a high priority;

7. shortage of appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing

practices;

8. deficiency of company resources that would provide

adequate sharing opportunities;

9. external competitiveness within business units or

functional areas and between

subsidiaries can be high (e.g. not invented here

syndrome);

10. communication and knowledge flows are restricted into

certain directions (e.g.top-down);

31

11. physical work environment and layout of work areas restrict

effective sharing

practices;

12. internal competitiveness within business units,

functional areas, and subsidiaries can

be high;

13. hierarchical organisation structure inhibits or slows down most

sharing practices; and

14. size of business units often is not small enough and

unmanageable to enhance contact

and facilitate ease of sharing.

Technology:

1. lack of integration of IT systems and processes impedes on the

way people do things;

2. lack of technical support (internal or external) and

immediate maintenance of

integrated IT systems obstructs work routines and

communication flows;

3. unrealistic expectations of employees as to what

technology can do and cannot do;

4. lack of compatibility between diverse IT systems and

processes ;

5. mismatch between individuals’ need requirements and

integrated IT systems and

processes restricts sharing practices;

32

6. reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity

and experience with them;

7. lack of training regarding employee familiarisation of

new IT systems and processes;

8. lack of communication and demonstration of all advantages

of any new systems over

existing ones.

2.6. Conclusion

Chase,as cited by Lucas and Ogilvie (2006), provided

empirical evidence that organizational culture affects

knowledge transfer. A culture that encourages sharing will

assist knowledge-acquiring employees and will also herald

the success of prior knowledge transfer activities.

Jorgenson(2004) emphasize the importance of a tolerant

culture that values diversity and recognizes the needs of

the individual.

33

The cultural proximity is addressed mainly within the social

and structural organization of a company. Jorgenson (2004)

states that modern organizations need to be characterized by

the traits below in order to deal with rapid changes:

A commitment to life-long learning;

Organic organizational arrangements that

emphasize community, the mutually supporting

themes of social capital and human capital;

Worker participation and engagement;

A tolerant culture that values diversity and

recognizes the needs of the individual;

Purposeful and consistent leadership across the

longer term; and

Enhanced autonomy

The literature provided sufficient factors for a positive

organizational culture,ie

incentives,trust,technology,CoP’s,leadership. Organizational

culture need to be the control system,social glue and

sensemaker for effective knowledge management practices. The

literature also identified meta-abilities (emotional and

intelligence) of individuals for successful knowledge

diffusion. The theory obtained by this chapter will now be

tested in the research.

34

35

3.Research Design

This section focuses on the methodology employed in

conducting this research (Strauss and Corbin (1998). It

continues to describe the selection of the population and

sample size and explains the construction of the survey

instrument.

3.1. Research Objectives

The purpose of the research is to ascertain the status of

knowledge diffusion in the company. The literature concluded

that the individual as the most important entity in

knowledge diffusion and can be influenced in many ways. The

focus of the research is now to elicit the meta-abilities of

the individual and which organizational factors influence it

as per figure 1.

Figure 3.1

3.2. Research Approach

36

Empirical research can be categorised into experiment,

survey and case study (Robson ,1993). This will be single-

case research that undertakes to do an empirical case study

on knowledge diffusion across divisional boundaries in a

South African Telecommunication organization after

restructuring occurred. A major strength though is that the

case study enables one to draw from multiple resources

(Yin ,1994).

Three general subcategories exist for case studies

(Yin,1994):

1. Exploratory is undertaken when the situation at hand

was not researched or no information is

available(Sekaran,2003).

2. Descriptive is undertaken to profile the relevant

aspects of the phenomena against

research(Sekaran,2003).

3. Explanatory undertake the research of relations between

causes and symptoms in a certain phenomonen (Fuchs &

Hanning,2001).

The research strategy chosen is a case study in the context

of a single organisation where a contemporary phenomenon

within it’s real-life context are investigated(Yin ,1994).

The case study are the preferred strategy when posing

questions of “how” and why” with little control over

events. This case study strategy is adopted due to

37

explanatory and exploratory elements present (Saunders et

al.,2007) . The descriptive study characteristic is also

present due to the establishment of the current situation of

knowledge diffusion in the organization.

3.3. Research Strategy

Social science research can be conducted either using a

qualitative or quantitative method (Fuchs & Hanning,2001).

The quantitative method focuses on statistics and where

research is deemed to be more objective. Payne and Roberts

(2002) claims that quantitative research operates on less

detail but for a wider scope of participants. Qualitative

method focuses on the social aspect of life where meaning of

people is considered.)

The main purpose in choosing the quantitative method was to

get an overall view where the causal relations in the

organizational culture or the individual meta-abilities

impact on the efficiency of knowledge diffusion (Bertrand

and Fransoo, 2002). The study will also use a deductive

approach as the theory was based on literature whereas an

inductive approach is where new theory is formed after

analysis (Saunders et al., 2007).

3.4. Data Collection Method

38

Yin(1994) infers that its mandatory for methodological

versatility to be maintained when collecting data for a case

study and should ensure that formal procedures and quality

control adhered to during the collection process. The data

for a case study can be attained through 6 different sources

as agreed by Stake(1995) and Yin(1994):

Archival records

Documents

Participant observation

Interviews

Direct observations

Physical artifacts

Primary data will be specifically collected for the purpose

of this research as appose to secondary data that can be

obtained that was already recorded (Lundahl & Skärvad,

1992). The author use structured interview questions for

survey data collection.

3.5. Types of interviewsThis research is specifically geared on primary data through

“ Structured Interviews”.

Yin(1994) iterates that interviews are an important source

in a case study and are divided into three types:

Structured :- close-ended questions that provides

uniform information(Kumar,2005)

39

Semi-structured :- conducted to cover a set of open-

ended questions and will normally make use of notes or

recording devices(Saunders,2000).

Unstructured:- normally done face-to-face and allows

the interviewee to speak and discuss in detail to the

topic of discussion.

3.6. Survey Instrument

The structured interview technique that is often used in

gathering quantitative data was therefore adopted in this

research (Yin, 1994) and will be supported by questionnaire

attached. The questions were derived from

literature ,”Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers

by Riege (2005) and “Receiver Influences on Knowledge

Sharing” byLichtenstein & Hunter(2005) . The researcher

will send the questionnaire via email to the sample

recipients

3.7. Demographics of organizationThis multinational organization in question has grown quite

significantly in workforce and geographically. Each

permanent employee (level 6,5 & 4) belongs in a department

that is headed by a manager. Multiple departments make a

40

division that is managed by a head-of-division(level 3). A

group comprises of multiple divisions and thus multiple

groups make up the organization.

Figure 3.2

3.8. Sample Group

41

The structured interview does require a fixed set of close-

ended question be asked to all participants. The

questionnaire was distributed amongst multiple departments

across multiple groups and divisions known to the

researcher. The sample size will be a database

administration department(DBA),system administration(SA)

department and an application support(AS) department

(APP)with each in their respective divisions and groups.

The intention of this research would be to ascertain the

different departmental and divisional perceptions of

organizational culture and attitude towards sharing across

these boundaries. The sample group is also justified as

these three departments are dependent on one another to

deliver a common service to business where by the

application will run on a platform and will need the

database as a repository in fulfilling a particular task as

per Figure. This also illustrates that how each department

can interact independently with the other departments.

42

Figure 3.3

Restructuring over the years changed the reporting lines of

the respective departments as per Table 3.1

9 yrs

ago

All departments were once part of the same

group and the same division6 yrs

ago

The application department was split off to a

newly formed division4 yrs

ago

Then the database team were moved into this

division as well4 months

ago

Then a database and system were moved into

another division and group Table 3.1

43

The Survey Instrument was prefixed with a covering letter

(see Appendix A), explaining the reason for the survey, and

assuring the participants of confidentiality.

The Survey Instrument employed the 5 point Likert Scale

ranging from Strongly Agree,Agree,Uncertain,Disagree to

Strongly Agree. Mail and telephonic survey are evident of

quantitative methods to survey data with closed format

questions(Israel,1992).

The Survey Instrument was geared towards gathering

information about:

Individual views on knowledge diffusion

Individual views in the existing organizational culture

Individual views on strategies to overcome barriers in

this phenomenon.

3.9. Reliability and Validity

Reliability is necessary to validate the research undertaken

(Lundahl and Skärvad, 1999). The author used existing peer-

reviewed literature and pilot exercise amongst the target

population to ensure reliability. Bell (2006) infers that

validity can be achieved if the stated interview questions

succeed in describing what they are meant to do describe.

This concept means that if questions have the intention to

lead to a specific empirical findings, it will be consider

44

valid, if that specific empirical finding came out of that

question. To achieve that, the right kind of question must

be asked to a fitting respondent. Items listed in the survey

was obtained from a previous research and modified to

highlight specific factors in knowledge diffusion as

obtained from the literature.

3.10. Limitations

The interviews for the case study was undertook after

restructuring took place and just prior to another company

wide survey and participants not quite keen in indulging in

more “survey-type” questions. The organizational restructure

also changed divisional and departmental boundaries and

these organizational boundaries also affected the response

to the surveys.

Questionnaire was only distributed to departments that the

researcher was previously involved with or has immediate

inter-action with daily. Subesequent to the proposal and

sample groups earmarked,organiszation boundaries changed the

3.11. Pilot

45

A pilot study was conducted amongst the some of the authors

peers who also formed part of the designated sample group.

The pilot exercise highlighted some syntax and grammatical

errors.

4.Data Presentation and Discussion

Primary data will be specifically collected for the purpose

of this research as appose to secondary data that can be

obtained that was already recorded (Lundahl & Skärvad,

1992). The author use structured interview questions for

survey data collection.

A brief summary of the demographic starting from the bottom-

end of the hierarchy:

Each permanent employee (level 6,5 & 4) belongs in a

department that is headed by a manager. Multiple departments

make a division that is managed by a head-of-division. A

group is constructed by multiple divisions.

4.1. Presentation of ResultsAll returned questionnaires were examined for completeness

and accuracy. The data collected was in the form of ordinal

data. Excell spreadsheet was used as a tool to gather stats.

4.2. Data Analysis

46

The data was quantitatively analysed by means of tables &

percentages and explanations. The aim of analysing the data

in tables and graphs is to provide a compressed

representation of the data collected and to give adequate

coverage in words. The tables will show how evidence was

collected by the author. According to Neuman (2000), data

analysis is a search for patterns in data. Once these

patterns are found, they must be interpreted by means of

tables and percentages.

4.3. Demographic Data

Detail app %A dba %D sys %S Sum Sum%                                       

Level 4 25.1 2

5.1 0 0 4 10.26

                 

Level 5 6 15 25.1 5 13 13 33.33

                 

Level 6 4 10 25.1 3

7.7 9 23.08

Error     25.1 1

2.6 3 7.692

Did not participate         2

5.1 2 5.128

Not resp(All L6) 1   3

7.7 5 13 9 20.51

Total 13 31 11 28 15 41 39 100

Table 4.1

Table 4.1 reports these counts and percentages.

47

4.3.1. Response Rate

The questionnaire was distributed to 39 employees ranging

from level 4 to 6. Executive management was not considered

as the survey is a part reflection on them. 29 responded but

only 26 was correct which gives one a 66% correct response

rate. 2(5.1%) did not want to participate. 9(20,7%) did not

respond at all and 3(7,6%) questionnaire’s were. The

erroneous questionnaires were discarded and not requested to

be rectified due to time constraints.

4.3.2. Divisional/Departmental Breakdown

The hit rate for department and division will be same as

each department was in it’s own division post the

restructuring. The best statistics was obtained by the

application support department with a 30% “usefull” data

compared to the system support team that had the most

members that made up 41% of the total recipients.

4.3.3. Levels

Level 5 yielded the best response(33.3%) overall.

4.3.4. Demographic Profile Setup

The demographic make-up of sample unit:

48

The respondents were mostly English speaking thus no

language barrier.

The majority of the respondents were male.

The greater part of the respondents was aged between 30-

40 years.

A large amount of the respondents had either a diploma or

degree.

Minority of respondents on level 4

Majority of respondents over 7 years

Majority of respondents more than 3 years in same

position

4.4. Research Questionnaire ResultsThis survey was undertaken by 39 participants throughout 2

groups(Billing and IT & Data Management) 3 divisions(Billing

Management,IT Systems Support & IT Data Support) and 3

departments(Database Administration Support,System

Administration Support & Application Support) within the

organization. What follow are the responses of the

participants to the survey.

Q 1 – There is general lack of trust among staff in my

organizationApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               1 20 0 0 60 20 0 0 0 50 50 0 75 0 25 0

49

According to the research findings 60%of respondents within

the Application Support Department agree that there is a

general lack of trust among staff members in the working

environment. Similarly, in the Systems Support Department

50% of the respondents agree and others strongly agree that

there is a lack of trust among staff. However, in the Dba

Department the general response to question one differed to

a large extent in comparison to the Application Support

Department and the Systems support Department. More

specifically, 75% of respondents within the Dba department

reported and or were of the view that there is not a lack of

trust among staff members.

Q 2 – Staff are reluctant to seek knowledge from their

seniors because of the status fearApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               2 20 40 0 40 0 0 50 25 25 0 0 50 0 25 25

In response to question two a range of data was compiled. In

each department the data collected varied. In the

Application Support Department only 40% of respondents

agreed that staff members are reluctant to seek help and

knowledge from their senior counterparts because of a

general status fear. However, 60% of the people within the

same department disagreed and were of the view that there is

no ‘status fear’, and that staff members are not reluctant

to seek help from authoritative figures. In the Systems 50

Support and DBA Departments the response was more or less

the same but there were generally a few instances of

difference. In both these two departments 50% of respondents

disagreed that there is a general ‘status fear’ circulating

within the department and the working environment. Whilst,

the data accumulated confirmed that there were 25% of

respondents within these two departments that still feel

that the ‘status fear’ exist and that there are staff whom

are reluctant to approach senior level individuals.

Q3- There is general lack of time to share knowledgeApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               3 20 20 20 40 0 0 50 25 25 0 25 0 50 25

Most respondents agree that in the Application Support

Department and the DBA Department there is a general lack of

sufficient time for staff members to share and exchange

knowledge and information. Similarly, there is a sense of

equilibrium with regard to the Systems Support Department,

as 50% of respondents share the same view as others’ which

is clearly indicated by the accumulative responses to this

particular question if one refers to the Application Support

and DBA Departments.

Q4- There is lack of interaction between those who need

knowledge and those who can provide knowledgeApps Sys Dba

51

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               

4 20 40 0 40 0 0 0 0100 0 0 25 0 75 0

In the Systems Support Department 100% of the respondents

agreed that there is a lack of interaction between staff

members, particularly between those who require knowledge

and those who are able to provide knowledge. Secondly, In

the Dba Department 75% of response also agreed that there is

a lack of interaction between staff in this regard. Thirdly,

in the Application Support Department only about 60% of

respondents shared the same view, whilst the remaining 40%

in this respective department disagreed.

Q5 and Q10- There is a shortage of formal and informal

spaces to share, reflect and generate new knowledge Apps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               5 40 20 0 40 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 25 0 75 0

In the Application Support Department 60% of respondents

disagreed in response to question five. However, 75% of

respondents in the Dba Department agreed that there is a

shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect and

generate new knowledge. Furthermore, in the Systems Support

Department 50% of respondents agreed that a shortage of

formal and informal spaces exist within the department

whilst the other 50% remained uncertain.

52

Similarly, with response to question ten 100% of respondents

in the Dba department agree that there is a lack of formal

and informal activities to cultivate knowledge sharing. And

75% of people in the Systems Support Department also agree

with the question posed whilst, 40% of others in the

Application Support Department disagreed being of the view

that formal and informal activities were sufficient and

provided adequate knowledge sharing.

Q6- The best way to keep your job is to make sure that you

are the only one who knows how to do itApps Sys Dba

 Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                                                              6 80 20 0 0 0 0 0 25 75 0 25 25 25 0 25

In the Systems Support Department there was a clear

indication of the position and views shared within this

department with regard to this particular question. In this

department 75% of the respondents agreed that ‘the best way

to keep one’s job is to make sure that you are the only one

who knows how to do it’. However, in the Application Support

Department an opposing view was brought to the fore, as 80%

of the staff disapproved of the essence of withholding

knowledge. There was a similar response from the Dba

department as 50% of staff members disagreed with the view

53

that, ‘the best way to keep one’s job is to make sure that

you are the only one who knows how do it’.

Q7- Knowledge retention of highly skilled and experienced

staff is not a high priority in my organizationApps Sys Dba

 Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                                                              

7 20 60 20 0 0 0 0 0100 0 25 50 0 25 0

In the Application Support and Dba Departments the

accumulative response was based on members’ disagreement

with the question and or statement posed by the researcher.

More specifically 80% of people in the Application Support

Department and 75% of the staff in the Dba department shared

the view that knowledge retention of highly skilled staff

and experienced staff was in fact a high priority their

department. However, in the Systems Support Department 100%

of staff members agreed with the statement and or question

and hence the data collected indicates that knowledge

retention of highly skilled and other experienced staff is

not a priority in their department.

Q8- Employees in my organization do not share knowledge

because they think that ”knowledge is power’

54

Apps Sys Dba

 Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                                                              8 20 40 0 40 0 0 25 0 75 0 0 50 0 50 0

In the Systems Support Department 75% of respondents agreed

in response to the question. In this department 75% of the

staff members are of the view that employees and their peer

counterparts do not share knowledge because, there is a

common belief amongst staff that “knowledge is power”.

Furthermore, there was a general stance of equilibrium

brought to the fore within the Dba Department, as the

response to this question seems even handed because 50% of

people agreed with the statement and or question posed

whilst the remaining 50% disagreed. However, in the

Application Support department a different response was

compiled, as 60% of the staff disagreed in their response to

the question.

Q9- IT systems and processes are lacking in my organization

to share knowledgeApps Sys Dba

 Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                                                              9 40 60 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 25 50 0 25 0

55

According to the research findings it was indicated in most

departments that there was not a lack of IT systems and

processes. In the Application Support department 100% of the

respondents indicated that there was no lack whatsoever with

regard to the IT systems and sharing of knowledge within the

department. In the other departments, such as the Dba

department 75% of the response supported the views of staff

members in the Application Support department. However, 50%

of the staff in the Systems Support Department identified

that IT systems and processes were lacking in their

organization.

Q11- There is a lack of rewards and recognition systems that

would motivate people to shareApps Sys Dba

 Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                                                              11 0 40 40 0 20 0 25 0 50 25 25 0 0 50 25

In response to question eleven the data collected indicated

that two of the departments shared the same views’ and that

the accumulative data corresponded in this instance. In both

the Systems Support and Dba Departments 75% of staff members

agreed that there is a lack of rewards and recognition that

would encourage and or serve as a means of an incentive to

motivate the staff to share knowledge. However, in the

Application Support department 40% of the respondents 56

disagreed whilst, only 20% agreed in response to the

question posed here.

Q12- There is no system to identify the colleagues with whom

I need to share my knowledgeApps Sys Dba

 Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                                                              12 20 60 20 0 0 0 25 25 50 0 0 25 0 75 0

In the Dba department 75% of people agreed that there is no

system to help them identify with whom they need to share

their knowledge. Others however, in the Application Support

department disagree, as 80% reported that a system exists

and that they are aware of whom they need to share their

knowledge with. People in the Systems Support department

also share the same view as 50% of them disagreed with the

statement and or question put forth in this regard.

Q14- People with expert knowledge are willing to help others

in the organizationApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                                                              14 0 0 40 40 20 0 25 75 0 0 0 50 25 0 25

In response to this question 60% of staff members in the

Application Support department are of the view that people

with expert knowledge are willing to help others in the 57

organization. Whilst 50% of people in the Dba department

disagree in response to the question. And 75% of others’ in

the Systems Support department remain uncertain.

Q15- I am willing to share information with my colleaguesApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               15 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 75 25

In response to question fifteen, from the data collected and

the findings presented that in all three departments there

is a general agreement and willingness to share information

with colleagues and staff members in the department. In the

Application Support, Systems Support and Dba departments

there was a 100% agreement and willingness from respondents

to share information with their respective colleagues.

Q17- I have confidence in my ability to solve problems

creativelyApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               17 0 0 0 60 40 0 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 75 25

Similarly, the response was precisely the same with this

question as all three departments shared the same views’ and

beliefs. In the Application Support, Systems Support and

Dba departments there was a 100% correspondence that

58

individuals’ have and had confidence in their ability(s) to

solve problems creatively.

Q18- I have a knack for further developing the ideas of

othersApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               18 0 0 0 80 20 0 0 25 75 0 0 0 0 75 25

In both the Application Support and Dba departments, 100% of

respondents thought and or believe they had a ‘knack for

further developing the ideas of others’. There was however,

a 25% difference in the data findings, as only 75% of

respondents in this department believed they had or have a

knack for developing the ideas of others.

Q 24- I have the freedom to decide how my job tasks get doneApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               24 0 0 0 80 20 0 25 25 50 0 0 25 0 25 50

According to the data accumulation people in the Application

Support and Dba departments bring forth the same ideals. For

instance, 100% of respondents in the Application Support

department and 75% of others’ in the Dba department think

that they are at liberty and have the freedom to decide how

their job related tasks should be executed. However, there

59

is a 25% disagreement in the Systems Support department with

the view shared by the two departments discussed above.

Q27- To protect our reputation, we share information

cautiously with othersApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               

27 40 20 20 20 0 0 0 0100 0 0 50 0 50 0

With regard to this question the findings indicate that 100%

of the respondents in the Systems Support Department agree

that their reputations should be protected and that

information should be shared with caution. In the Dba

department, however, there is an even-handed account and

response to this question as 50% of the staff agree with

respondents in the department previously mentioned and the

other 50% disagree and do not believe that information

should be shared cautiously. Furthermore, there is a greater

sense of disapproval with the common view shared by the

respondents in the Systems Support Department by the

Application Support department. There were 60% of the staff

members in the Application Support Department that did not

think that information should be shared cautiously in order

to protect their reputations.

60

Q28- in Non monetary rewards (such as appreciation,

recognition) shall be more effective encouraging knowledge

sharing than monetary rewardsApps Sys Dba

Q %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA %SD %D %U %A %SA                               28 20 40 40 0 0 0 25 50 25 0 0 0 0 75 25

In the Application Support department 60% of the respondents

disagree with regard to their response to question twenty

eight. In essence, in this department most people believe

that monetary rewards would be more effective than non-

monetary rewards and hence monetary rewards would encourage

knowledge sharing more adequately. Furthermore, 25% of

respondents in the Systems Support Department are of the

same view that monetary rewards would be more effective

whilst, 100% of people in the Dba department however,

disagree and support the view that non- monetary rewards

would be more effective and would thus encourage effective

knowledge sharing in this department and the working

environment.

5.Summary and Recommendation

5.1. Summary61

The literature review provided the answers to the research

questions as rendered by the initial research proposal. The

literature provided the bases for the collection of data and

provided recommendations.

Dı´ez .et al(2005) quotes the following with regards to

learning organizations

“The idea that the competitive advantages of the company are

based on its resources

and expertise has made the acquisition and exploitation of

knowledge a key factor; one

that leads us to design new flat structures, decentralize

divisions and generate flexible

incentive systems, in order to recognize effort and

satisfaction at work well done.”

The research complied with what it set out by uncovering

knowledge diffusion barriers within the organizations. The

survey sample size ensured that more than one group,division

and department was sampled. Not all barriers were uncovered

due to time and sample ,hence also the reason for a

quantitative approach. The multi-cultural factor with eleven

official languages could also not be explored due to the

sample unit did not have any participants from different

cultures with a different mother-tongue. The study was also

done within a snapshot as at this phase in the restructuring

62

everybody in the sample unit was co-located and distance was

thus nullify as a factor. The validity of generalizing these

results still need to be determined if the sample unit are

more geographically and culturally diverse. The study

revealed some findings on organizational culture as

perceived by the workforce which ranged from a “novice” of 3

years employment to a veteran of 16 years. More time and

employment of the mixed method(qualitative and quantitative)

would render more significant results.

5.2. RecommendationsKnowledge diffusion can be fostered when employees have a

healthy emotional intelligence. The literature already

ascertained that how negatively emotional intelligence can

affect the employee ability.

Important factors from an organizational aspect are the

investment in social and relational capital.

That would include a healthy work-life balance

Leadership should cultivate an environment of knowledge

sharing

Knowledge sharing activities, like brainstorming

sessions

Structures should be known on career advancement paths

Appoint knowledge stewards instead of assuming

management to fulfill the task

Non-monetary rewards is always a good as praise can

only encourage innovative thinking

63

These recommendations will assist in talent retention but

will also attract the best talent and serve as factor for

organizations to retain their talented employees. In so

doing, employee turnover causes such as stress, work

overload, low job satisfaction and little organization

commitment can be alleviated and retention rates of good

employees improved.

Future research can be directed at “Time” as it highlighted

as a common factor throughout. Time affects the rate when

diffusion between individuals is measured. Cowan & Jonard

(1999) infers that the longer two individuals is each others

company the knowledge diffusion rate will drop as the

knowledge shrink. Time is also notable when covering a

distance and it’s prevalent within structural capital for

innovation.

64

Appendix A: Covering letter and Questionnaire

Dear Participant:

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy life to

respond to the attached questionnaire as part of my theses.

This process will take approximately 15 minutes. I am

required to conduct a survey of individuals and their

opinion on Knowledge Diffusion in this environment.

Companies are experiencing quite challenging times due to

globalization, recession, regulatory, etc. and depend more

each day on their employees with their knowledge to give

them the competitive advantage. Davenport and Prusak (1998)

define knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed experience, values,

contextual information, and expert insight that provides a

framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences

and information”. Various literature confirmed that core to

this diffusion of knowledge are the individuals and the

environment. It’s thus important that we address

collaboration efforts and spread the knowledge now across

65

provincial and possibly international borders. The questions

are focused on the meta-abilities of the individuals and

their perception of the culture of the company that has a

direct influence on them.

Your answers should indicate what actually happens in your

environment and only take account of your views.

There are no right or wrong answers. Your participation is

voluntary and your responses will be kept completely

confidential and all responses will be reported in the

aggregate. You have my assurance that you will not receive

any commercial solicitation from me or from your

participation in this survey. The data will only be required

for analysis and not retained once completed as participants

will referred to as a respondent A,B,C,etc. To ensure

anonymity I would recommend that the attached questionnaire

not be emailed but printed and delivered to my desk.

This research is conducted under the supervision of Grafton

Whyte, BCOM (Honors) Senior Lecturer and Course Convener in

the Department of Information System, University of Western

Cape.

Thank you for your participation. Your answers are of great

importance to the success of this study. We look forward to

your responses by 24th July 2010 or sooner if possible.

66

With appreciation.

Riedewaan Davids

Student number: 2956062

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

A. INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR DESIGNATION

Marital Status : _______________________________________

Years of Service at Organization :_________________________

Years in same position:_________________________________

Gender : ____________________________________________

Race : ______________________________________________

Age : _______________________________________________

Highest Education Level Reached : _______________________

Position Level:

[ ] Executive/Director

[ ] Senior Management – Executive Head of Division

[ ] Middle Management

[ ] Senior Specialist

[ ] Specialist

[ ] Senior Administrator

[ ] Administrator

[ ] Other, please specify _______________________________

67

Department:

[ ] Application

[ ] Database

[ ] System

[ ] Development

[ ] Other, please specify _______________________________

68

69

   

Strong

ly

Disagr

ee

Uncerta

in

Agre

e Strongly

   

disagr

ee       Agree  B: Barriers to knowledge sharing          

1

There is general lack of trust among staff in my

organization          2 Employees in my organization do not share knowledge          

 

because of the fear of it being misused by taking unjust

credit for it          

3

Staff are reluctant to seek knowledge from their seniors

because of the status fear          4 There is general lack of time to share knowledge          

5

There is lack of interaction between those who need

knowledge            and those who can provide knowledge          6 There is a shortage of formal and informal spaces to          

70

share, reflect and generate   new knowledge          

7

The best way to keep your job is to make sure that you

are the only one            who knows how to do it          

8

Existing organization culture does not provide

sufficient support for sharing knowledge          

9

Knowledge retention of highly skilled and experienced

staff is not a high priority            in my organization          

10

It is difficult to convince colleagues on the value and

the benefits of the knowledge            that I may possess          

11

Employees in my organization do not share knowledge

because they think            that ”knowledge is power’          

12

There is lack of infrastructure in my organization to

support sharing practices          

71

13

IT systems and processes are lacking in my organization

to share knowledge          

14

There is lack of formal and informal activities to

cultivate knowledge sharing in my organization          

15

There is lack of rewards and recognition systems that

would motivate people to share            their knowledge in my organization          

16

There is no system to identify the colleagues with whom

I need to share my knowledge                          C:Individual views on knowledge sharing          17 I am willing to share information with my colleagues          18 I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas          

19

I have confidence in my ability to solve problems

creatively          

20

I have a knack for further developing the ideas of

others          21 I am good at finding creative ways to solve problems          

72

22 I have the talent and skills to do well in my work          23 I feel comfortable trying out new ideas          

24

I have opportunities to use my creative skills and

abilities at work          

25

I am invited to submit ideas for improvements in the

workplace          26 I have the opportunity to participate on team(s)          27 I have the freedom to decide how my job tasks get done                         D: Individual views on organizational culture          

28

Employees in my organization are willing to share

knowledge with others          

29

People in this organization keep their best ideas to

themselves          

30

People with expert knowledge are willing to help others

in the organization          

31

I discuss new practices with my collegues to promote the

adoption of new ways to do our jobs          

73

32

I am always happy to tell my colleagues of my

involvement in finding new ways to do things          

33

To protect our reputation, we share information

cautiously with others            regarding new ways of doing things                         E: Strategies for promoting knowledge sharing          

34

Non monetary rewards (such as appreciation, recognition)

shall be more effective in            encouraging knowledge sharing than monetary rewards          

35

Technology plays a significant role in promoting

knowledge sharing          

36

Knowledge sharing can be encouraged if there is a

designated knowledge officer            in the organization          

37

Knowledge sharing can become a culture in the

organization if top management regularly            displays and reinforces the theme that “knowledge is the          

74

lifeblood of an organization”

38

Knowledge sharing can be encouraged if it is linked with

the performance appraisal of the staff          

39

Knowledge sharing can be encouraged if it is clearly

linked with rewards                       

40

I will only share my knowledge if there is a specific

question.          

41

I will document my knowledge my only when directed to do

so by my manager.          

42

A person’s enthusiasm to learn affects how much knowledge

I will share with them.          

43

I would share my knowledge more if I did receive more

recognition.          

44

A prior relationship does affect how much I will share

knowledge.          45 In order to share my advanced knowledge,the recipient          

75

need to know the basics.

46

Face-to-face communication are more often used in

troubleshooting.          47 I do feel a sense of reward when I share my knowledge          48 I will publish the information in order to be disturbed                       

REFERENCES:

Fuchs M, Hanning C, 2001, Ethical Capability as a Competitive Advantage - Three

Case Studies within the Volvo Corporation, MSc Thesis, Lulea University of Technology.

Patton, M. (1990), Qualitative Research Methods, Sage, London.

76

Rhodes,J.O,Hung,R.,Lok,P., Lien,B.Y-H,Wu,C-M(2008),Factors influencing organizational

knowledge transfer: implication for corporate performance,JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT,VOL. 12 NO. 3 2008, pp. 84-100

Robson, C. (1993), Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-

Researchers, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Sekaran U, 2003, Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, Fourth

Edition, Southern Illinois Univ. at Carbondale ISBN:0-471-20366-1

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research; Design and Methods. Second Edition. Applied

Social Research Methods Series. Volume 5. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage

Publications

77

78

79

References

80

Agndal H, and Nilsson U (2006) “Generation of Human and Structural Capital: Lessons from

Knowledge Management” The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 4 Issue 2, pp

91 - 98,

Appleyard,M.M,Kalsow,G.A(1999),Knowledge diffusion in the semiconductor industry,

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 3, No. 4,pp 288-295

Augier, M. and Vendelo, M.T. (1999), ``Networks, cognition and management of tacit

knowledge'',

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 252-61.

Bass, Frank (1969). "A new product growth model for consumer durables". Management Science

15 (5): p215–227. http://www.bassbasement.org/BassModel/

Boggs, J.P. (1992), ‘‘Implicit models of social knowledge use’’, Knowledge: Creation,

Diffusion,

Utilization, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-62.

81

Bontis,N.,Keow,W.C.C,Richardson.S(2000),"Intellectual capital and business performance In

Malaysian Industries,

Journal of Intellectual Capital,Vol.1 No 1,pp. 85-100

Bhardwaj,M.,Monin,J.(2006), Tacit to explicit: an interplay shaping organization knowledge,

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 10, No. 3,pp 72-85

Bou-Llusar,J.C,Mercedes Segarra-Cipre´s,M.(2006),Strategic knowledge transfer and its

implications for competitive advantage: an integrative conceptual framework, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No. 4,pp 100-112

CANALS, Agustí; BOISOT, Max; MACMILLAN, Ian (2004) ,Evolution of Knowledge Management Strategies in

Organizational Populations: A Simulation Model [online working paper]. IN3:UOC. (Working Paper

Series;WP04-007) [Date of citation: 20/01/2010].

http://www.uoc.edu/in3/dt/eng/wp04007.pdf

82

Choo, C.W. (1998). The Knowing Organisation – How Organisations Use Information to

Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions. Oxford University Press, New York.

Chuang, S.Y. and Chang, Y.W. (2000), CEO & Management Theory, Commonwealth Publishing

Group, Taipei.

Cutler, R.S. (1989), “Survey of high-technology transfer practices in Japan and in the

United

States”, Interfaces, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 67-77.

Civi,E(2000). Knowledge management as a competitive asset: a review, Marketing Intelligence

& Planning,Vol 8,No. 4,pp. 166-174

Cowan, R. and N. Jonard (1999), 'Network Structure and the Diffusion of Knowledge',

MERIT,Working Papers, 99-028.

83

Cowan,R.,Jonard,N.,Zimmermann,J-B.(2004),Evolving Networks of Inventors,MERIT-Infonomics

Research Memorandum series

Crowley,B.(2000),"Tacit knowledge and quality assurance: bridging the theory-practice

divide,"in Srikantaiah, T.K. and Koenig, M.E.D. (Eds), Knowledge Managemnent for the

Information Professional, Information Today,Medford,NJ,pp.205-20.

Davenport, Th., Prusak, L. (1998) Working Knowledge: how organizations manage what they

know, Harvard Business School,Press, Boston.

Davenport, T., Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,

MA, .

Denning S. (2000), The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action In Knowledge-Era

Organizations, Boston, Butterworth Heinemann

84

Dess, G.D. & Picken, J.C. 1999. Beyond productivity: How leading companies achieve superior

performance by leveraging their human capital. New York: American Management Association.

Dı´ez,M.,Soler,C.,Sureda,M.,Visauta,B (2005),Exploring the “learning organization model” in

multinational companies Preliminary results according to the perception of Spanish

managers.

Journal of European Industrial Training,Vol. 29 No. 4, 2005,pp. 292-311

Disterer, G (2002), Management of projects knowledge and experiences, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 6, No.5, pp.512-520

Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), “The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge

management”,California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 265-76.

Franco,A.M,Filson,D.(2000),Knowledge Diffusion through Employee Mobility, Federal Reserve

Bank of Minneapolis, Research Department Staff Report 272

85

Gavigan, J., Ottitsch, M., Mahroum, S. (1999), "Knowledge and learning – towards a learning

Europe", The IPTS Futures Project Conference Proceedings 10/11 February 2000, available at:

http://futures.jrc.es/menupage-b.htm.

Garavan, T.N., Morley, M., Gunnigle, P. & Collins, E. (2001).

Human capital accumulation: the role of human resource development.

Journal of European Industrial Training,Vol 25,pp 48-68.

Guthrie, J. and Petty, R. (2000), “Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting

practices”,Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 241-51.

Haghirian,P.(2003),Does Culture Really Matter?,Vienna University of Economics and Business

Administration

Hamel, G. (1998), Strategic Flexibility: Managing in a Turbulent Economy, Wiley,

Chichester, UK.

Han, B. M. (2007); Knowledge sharing in large IT organizations: a case study.

86

VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol 37, No 4 pp 421-439

Handy, C. (1995) The Age of Unreason, London, Arrow Business Books.

Herkema, S. (2003), ‘‘A complex adaptive perspective on learning within innovation

projects’’,The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 340-6.

Hislop, D. (2003), “Linking human resource management and knowledge management via

commitment: a review and research agenda”, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 182-202.

Holsapple, J.W. and Joshi, K.D. (2000), “An investigation of factors that influence the

management of knowledge in organizations”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,

Vol. 9 Nos 2/3, pp. 235-61.

Huang,N-T.,Wei,C-C.,Chang,W-K(2007),Knowledge management: modeling the knowledge diffusion

in community of practice,Kybernetes,Vol.36,No.5/6,pp. 607-621

87

Jones,B.N,Herscel,T.R,Moesel,D.D(2003), Using “knowledge champions” to facilitate knowledge

management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7,no 1,pp 49-63

Jorgensen,B.(2004).Individual and organisational learning: a model for reform for public

organisations,Foresight,Vol 6,No. 2,pp.91-103

Kalkan,V.D.(2008) .An overall view of knowledge management challenges for global

business.Business Process Management Journal,Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 390-400

Lee-Kelly, L., Blackman, D.A., & Hurst, J.P. (2007). An exploration of the relationship

between learning organizations and the retention of knowledge workers. The Learning

Organization, 14(3), 204-21.

Lichtenstein,S.,Hunter,A.,2005,Receiver Influences on Knowledge Sharing,

http://www.deakin.edu.au/dro/view/DU:30005785,Accessed 1 July 2010

Liu,B.S-C,Madhavan,R.,Sudarshan,D(2005)

88

DiffuNET: The impact of network structure on diffusion of innovation, European Journal of

Innovation Management, Vol 8, No. 2,pp 240-262

Lucas,M.L.,Ogilvie,D.T(2006),Things are not always what they seem, The Learning

Organization, Vol 13, No. 1,pp 7-24

Marouf, L.N(2007),Social networks and knowledge sharing in organizations: a case study

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 11 NO. 6 2007, pp. 110-125,

Matlay, H. and Fletcher, D. (2000),"Strategic change and globalization: should British

entrepreneurs stick to knitting?", Strategic Change, forthcoming.

Matkey,H.,Organisational learning in small learning organisations: an empirical overview

Education + Training, Volume 42 . Number 4/5 , (2000) , pp. 202-210

McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing

knowledge”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.

89

Morone,P.,Taylor,R.(2001),Knowledge Diffusion Dynamics and Network Properties of Face-to-

Face Interactions, Nelson and Winter Conference, Aalborg, June 12-15, 2001

Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the

organisational advantage.Academy of Management Review, Volume 23 pp. 242-266.

Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge creating company”,Harvard Business Review, November-

December, pp. 96-104.

Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization

Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I, Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

90

Nory B. Jones, Richard T. Herschel, Douglas D. Moesel ‘Using knowledge champions to

facilitate knowledge management’ Journal of Knowledge Management vol.7 issue 1 2003

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1999).

Measuring and reporting intellectual capital: Experience, issues, and prospects – an

International symposium.

Parent,R.,Roy,M.,St-Jacques,D.(2007), A systems-based dynamic knowledge

transfer capacity model, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 11, No. 6,pp 81-93

Petruzzelli,A.M, Albino,V. & Carbonara,N.(2009),External knowledge sources and

proximity,JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT,VOL. 13 NO. 5 2009, pp. 301-318

Rhodes,J.,Hung,R.,Lok,P., Lien,BYH.,Wu,CM,2008,

Factors influencing organizational knowledge transfer: Implication for corporate

performance,

91

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT,VOL.12 NO. 3,pp. 84-100

Roling, N.G. (1992), ‘‘The emergence of knowledge systems thinking: a changing perception

of

relationships among innovation, knowledge process and configuration’’, Knowledge and

Policy, Vol. 5,No. 1, pp. 42-64.

Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1998),Knowledge Management: A Literature

Review, Institute of Personnel and Development,London.

Senge,P. (1990) – The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the Learning Organisation

SKyrme, D.J., 1999, From Measurement Myopia to Knowledge Leadership

Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory (SEDL)(1996),A Review of the Literature on

Dissemination and Knowledge Utilization,National Center for the Dissemination of Disability

Research (NCDDR)

92

Stiles, P., Kulvisaechana, S. (2003), Human Capital and Performance: A Literature Review,

Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, .

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing

grounded theory (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Sveiby, K.E., 1997, The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based

Assets, Berrett-Koehler Pub. Inc., San Francisco.

Szulanski, G. (1996), ‘‘Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best

practices within

the firm’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter (special issue), pp. 27-43.

Szulanski, G. (2000), ‘‘The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of

stickiness’’,

Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 9-27.

93

Takeuchi, H. (1998), “Beyond knowledge management: lessons from Japan”, available at:

www.sveiby.com/articles/LessonsJapan.htm

Tirpak, T.M. (2005), “Five steps to effective knowledge management”, Research-Technology

Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 15-6.

Tsai,M.C(2009),The knowledge diffusion model associated with innovative

Knowledge, Expert Systems with Applications ,Vol 36,pp 11323–11331

Tsai,C.M.,Kreng,V.B.(2003)The construct and application of knowledge diffusion model,

Expert Systems with Applications,Vol 25 ,pp 177–186

Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?

Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, Issue 7,pp. 973-993.

Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage.

94

Weick, K.E. and K.H. ROBERTS (1993). Collective Mind in Organisations: Heedful

Interrelating on Flight Docks. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol 38,pp 357-381.

Woodside,A.,Gupta,S.,Cadeaux,J.(2004), Diffusion process models and strategic performance

theory for new b2b electronic ventures,Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,Vol.

19,No. 1,pp.23-38

World Bank (1999), World Development Report 1998/1999, Oxford University Press: New York.

Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B., & Snell, S.A. 2001. Human resources and the resource-based

view of the firm. Journal of Management, Vol 27, pp 701-721.

Wu, J.H. and Chen, H.S. (2001), “A study on innovation diffusion and spatial interaction of

firms

in the industrial zones of Taiwan”, Sun Yat-Sen Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2,pp. 179-

200.

95

XU,J.,Quaddus,M.(2005),A reality-based guide to KMS diffusion, Journal of Management

Development, Vol 24, No. 4,pp 81-93

XU,J.,Quaddus,M.(2005),A six-stage model for the effective diffusion of knowledge

management systems ,Journal of Management Development, Vol 24, No. 4,pp 362-373

Zack, M. (1999), Competing on Knowledge. 2000 Handbook of Business Strategy, Faulkner & Gray, New

York, NY

Zhou, A. and Fink, D. (2003), ‘‘The intellectual capital web: a systematic linking of

intellectual capital and knowledge management’’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 4

No. 1, pp. 34-48.

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/

96

MTN boss bags R33m booty

(Fin24.com posted on 15th July 2010@17h07 by Cecile Nel & Simon Dingle).

97

Appendix B: Research Proposal

1. TITLE:Knowledge Diffusion

98

2. BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH PROBLEM:

The South African Telecommunication organization operates in a highly volatile environment

and are touched by challenges like globalization, technology, social and economic pressures

are part of the daily routine. The above challenges and increased share-holder demands

continually extends the organization to search for that sustainable competitive advantage.

Skyrme (1999) states that in these knowledge-driven economy organizations are continually

searching for that sustainable competitive advantage in order to outsmart, outpace, and be

more innovative and more agile to survive.

In order to sustain its competitive advantage in this ever-changing industry, the

organization needs to have dynamic knowledge management models in place across the

organization to adapt rapidly to the demands. Effective human resource and knowledge

management strategies across groups and divisions could ensure that the competitive

99

advantage can be sustained in response to the challenges (Matlay,2000). The organization

has implemented some knowledge strategies to address the dynamics that influence this

volatile environment.

It is clear that different knowledge management strategies were embarked upon across groups

and departments as some realised success in their knowledge strategies and others not .

Efficient knowledge diffusion will pave the way for innovation, externalising tacit

knowledge and transferring knowledge amongst employees. Vodacom encourages the network of

knowledge amongst specialist workers but there seems to lack successful implementation

across departments and divisions.

3. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM:

Investigating Knowledge diffusion in a South African Telecommunications organization.

4. RESEARCH QUESTION:

100

What tools and models exists to facilitate the effective diffusion of knowledge within an

organization?.

5. RESEARCH SUB-QUESTIONS:

• How do these tools and techniques compare?

• How applicable are the tools and techniques across divisions and sectors?

6. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

The goal of the research is to identify the current of knowledge diffusion within the

organization by comparing it across divisions and departments.

7. LITERATURE REVIEW / CURRENT STATUS OF LITERATURE:

101

This organization is driven by technology and information systems is thus core to its

existence and it needs to maximise it’s return on the data that flows through it’s systems.

The focus on knowledge in information systems has also increased significantly due to so

many software project failures and thus underscores how knowledge management becomes vital

throughout the software development lifecycle and effective knowledge transfer between

projects will avoid mistakes being repeated(Disterer, 2002).

The World development report (1999) suggests that Korea and Ghana higher income per capita

is due to greater success in acquiring and using knowledge as they were virtually the same

in the 1960’s. This seems to be a direct reflection on the wealth distribution amongst the

two countries.

Knowledge diffusion model of Cowan Jonard(1999) focuses on incremental innovation over a

network of heterogenous agents and could be applicable to the organization.

102

Jones et.al(2003) created an intra-firm knowledge acquisition and diffusion model adapted

through previous theories and highlights the fact institutionalizing external knowledge by

change agents/knowledge managers.

Wu and Chen (2001) discovered that enterprise development and creativity, and academic

research institutions can be closely related to better transfer knowledge.

Cutler (1989) states that communication amongst skilled workers are the most effective

means of knowledge transfer and higher level knowledge diffusion when members are willing

to share and learn.

Knowledge diffusion activities in a group elevate the knowledge of the entire group as

skills and techniques are shared amongst new members to avoid learning my mistakes (Chuang

and Chang, 2000).

Huang et. al(2007) emphasizes the importance of establishing communities of practice and

the efficiency of knowledge diffusion within this group based on distance.

103

8. RESEARCH DESIGN:

Research Statement Effective organizational controls to

diffuse knowledge within the

organization Research Question What tools and models exists to

effectively diffuse knowledge within

the organization effectively?.

Research Sub-questions Research method(s)

104

How does these tools and

techniques compare? Literature and Comparative Analysis

(via literature?)How generically

applicable are the tools

and techniques across

divisions and sectors?

Focus Group Interviews

• Identifying

“knowledge champions”

to facilitate the

process

Literature and Comparative Analysis

Philosophical

Perspective

e.g. Quantitative or qualitative?

Research Methodology e.g. Case Study or email survey

105

Research Approach

E.g.

Interviews

Observations

Document Reviews

Data Collection Method &

Unit of analysis

General discussion or questions

on how k is diffused through the

organization.

Data AnalysisExpected Results You will identify through lit rev

and data collected:

Different K diffusion strategies

The relative effectiveness of each

approach

Identify factors that enable

strategies to work better

106

Recommendations on how to improve

Vodacom’s approach•

9. Expected findings

The results should either confirm the effective presence of knowledge diffusion or should

highlight some of knowledge diffusion inhibitors..

Identifying “knowledge champions” to facilitate the process.

The research conducted will be of a quantitative nature and should survey the spectrum

across multiple divisions and multiple departments through all tiers within those

departments.

107

10. Limitations

The survey will only be limited to the Western Cape region and it might lack the diversity

or exploitation thereof or fail to prompt it.

108

11. DELINEATION OF THE RESEARCH:

109

The Entity Relationship model in Diagram 1 clarifies the boundaries of the research by

indicating what aspects will be covered by the research.

110

111

12. CONTRIBUTION OF THE RESEARCH:

Knowledge acquisition and diffusion models will assist the organization to transfer

knowledge effectively within the organization.

The generic model or framework would standardize external knowledge acquisition

and dissemination amongst division and could reduce repeatable mistakes.

It could establish communities of practice within the organization.

.

13. REFERENCES:

Disterer, G (2002), Management of projects knowledge and experiences, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 6, No.5, pp.512-520

112

Chuang, S.Y. and Chang, Y.W. (2000), CEO & Management Theory, Commonwealth Publishing

Group, Taipei.

Cowan, R. and N. Jonard (1999), 'Network Structure and the Diffusion of Knowledge',

MERIT,Working Papers, 99-028.

Cutler, R.S. (1989), “Survey of high-technology transfer practices in Japan and in the

United

States”, Interfaces, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 67-77.

Huang,N-T,Wei,C-C,Chang,W-K(2007),Knowledge management: modeling the knowledge diffusion in

community of practice,Kybernetes,Vol. 36 No. 5/6,pp. 607-621

Jones,B.N,Herscel,T.R,Moesel,D.D(2003), Using “knowledge champions” to facilitate knowledge

management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7,no 1,pp 49-63

113

Matlay, H. and Fletcher, D. (2000),"Strategic change and globalization: should British

entrepreneurs stick to knitting?", Strategic Change, forthcoming.

Skyrme, D.J., 1999, From Measurement Myopia to Knowledge Leadership

World Bank (1999), World Development Report 1998/1999, Oxford University Press: New York.

Wu, J.H. and Chen, H.S. (2001), “A study on innovation diffusion and spatial interaction of

firms

in the industrial zones of Taiwan”, Sun Yat-Sen Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2,

pp. 179-200.

114

115