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
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
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
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
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
The Entity Relationship model in Diagram 1 clarifies the boundaries of the research by
indicating what aspects will be covered by the research.
110
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
Top Related