knowledge sharing case study

Transform teamwork with Confluence. See why Confluence is the content collaboration hub for all teams.  Get it free

• The Workstream
• Knowledge sharing
• Knowledge sharing culture

How to create a culture of knowledge sharing

Put an end to information hoarding and set the stage for open communication.

Browse topics

Do you work on a truly open team? Or are employees at your company just competing with one another in a gauntlet-style brawl for who can capture and hoard the most information?

Knowledge sharing in the workplace is the process of creating space for open communication about the wins, losses, and lessons that employees are collectively experiencing. Without a comfortable environment in which teammates can share openly, actual output is jeopardized.

Effective knowledge sharing happens when a company’s culture and technical infrastructure are aligned toward open communication.

Ironically, these fluid, open environments are achieved by implementing process; effective knowledge sharing happens when a company’s culture and technical infrastructure are aligned toward open communication. So when implementing better knowledge sharing practices, it’s important to develop a strategy that includes both cultural and technical infrastructure.

Streamline company culture for knowledge sharing

While company culture can take time to change, building the right knowledge sharing practices into the way that teams, leadership, and individual employees work will set you in the right direction.

What is your company’s relationship to information?

Understanding how your company relates to information is an essential first step when implementing knowledge sharing. Ask yourself:

• Are teams encouraged to be secretive or generous with what they’re learning?
• Do office politics play a major role in who is privy to which conversations, or what information?

These are the differences between a closed-fist and open-handed approach to knowledge, and it’s important to determine where your company lands.  

At Atlassian, our teams openly share what they’re learning. This includes divulging wins and failures from experiments, sharing data from team research initiatives, and being transparent about both the good and bad results of campaigns or product launches so everyone can grow and benefit from the knowledge a team is gathering.

Are your employees information hoarders?

As you become more in tune with your team’s culture, it’s critical to determine whether or not employees are encouraged to be generous or greedy with information. If team members see it as advantageous to hoard information, this is most likely behavior that has been reinforced through the company or team culture. You can counteract this by developing practices that encourage generous sharing from employees.

Regular recognition and promotion of people’s work within your organization can be a powerful motivator for more knowledge sharing. Additionally, giving team members a sense of ownership of and accountability for their projects shows that they are trusted, and empowers them to share what they need and what they’re learning.

Try this : Identify a project or regularly occurring task that you know a team member would be keen to take on and that complements their strengths. Be sure to communicate that this person now owns the initiative and is empowered to be decisive. Model open communication by encouraging them to share wins, losses, progress, AND setbacks. This normalizes the idea of sharing responsibility and knowledge, while empowering an employee to take the next step in their development.

If team members see it as advantageous to hoard information, this is most likely behavior that has been reinforced through the company or team culture.

What kind of example does your leadership model?

Transparency starts with leadership. It’s important for leaders to understand that how they act will inevitably be imitated by those they manage, for better or worse. Self-awareness about how you’re perceived by your team will help inform areas in which you may need to improve. It’s not possible to develop effective knowledge sharing without modeling the necessary behaviors and practices.  

At Atlassian, founders and managers at all levels share information related to company announcements, team changes, and product implementations. Leadership also makes a concerted effort to celebrate work that teams accomplished over the previous quarter. This culture of sharing and celebration at the leadership level instills trust and transparency throughout the company, empowering employees to do the same.

 Try This: At the end of the next quarter, plan a company-wide town hall event where you give updates and commemorate the successes of a few teams. If you’re a project manager, set aside a time at the end of your next big project to update team members on the results of their work, and call out the wins.

Designing your company infrastructure for knowledge sharing

Infrastructure can be summed up as the systems (both digital and physical) that directly and indirectly shape our behavior, so it’s important to design environments that move people towards openness instead of away from it. Here are three practical areas where a company’s infrastructure can help align teams for better knowledge sharing:

Select the right tools

One of the core pillars of a company’s infrastructure is the technical tools they lean on to get the job done. This means finding the right combination of software to point the company towards knowledge sharing. The two tools that we rely on for knowledge sharing are Confluence (surprise!) and Slack.

We utilize Confluence for internal blogging; sharing information; cutting down on meetings ; creating strategy and planning docs; and updating each other on wins, failures, and learnings across the company. We keep all of our work open by default instead of road-blocking access with automatic permissions, so every employee has access to the company’s collective knowledge.

By combining Slack with Confluence, we’ve eliminated reliance on email (which often slows or halts open communication processes). Quick back-and-forth discussions can occur in Slack, and then subsequent feedback is contextualized on Confluence for posterity. Utilizing Slack as our primary chat tool allows for immediate knowledge sharing, and synthesizing that information in Confluence ensures it’s never lost.

These are the tools that work effectively at Atlassian. Finding the tools that work best for you is critical to your team’s productivity.

Overhaul meetings to elevate human connection

Meetings are a reality of any workplace, but there are a few practical ways to redesign meeting structures to elevate connection, sharing, and openness. We recommend that you always start your meetings with a casual conversation – it’s okay to talk about what people did last weekend or what new restaurant they tried out last night!

Developing practices like this allows team members to acknowledge the human side of working together. Sharing on a personal level will reflect in the group’s working style and comfort level with each other.  

Try This : Set aside 10 minutes to implement an  icebreaker play  at the beginning of your meeting. Allowing the team to have a laugh and learn something about each other helps employees feel more relaxed and comfortable for the ensuing work discussion.

Arrange your office space to encourage sharing

One of the most practical things you can do to support knowledge sharing is consider your physical space. Is it cramped, closed off, or restrictive? This might be impacting people’s ability to meaningfully connect and share.

We recommend rearranging or designing your office space with openness in mind. This allows employees to have quick meetings in common spaces, learn from people that they might not normally be exposed to, and engage in walk-by conversations.

These small but impactful changes are simple ways to elevate your team dynamic and set your employees at ease. Great collaboration starts with a trust in your teammates, and a culture of knowledge sharing ensures that success.

You may also like

How-to article template.

Provide step-by-step guidance for completing a task

Confluence Templates

From product requirements to marketing plans, create it all in Confluence

Enable faster content collaboration for every team with Confluence

Copyright © 2024 Atlassian

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How Your Organization’s Experts Can Share Their Knowledge

• Dorothy Leonard
• James Martin

Amplify your team’s smarts.

Companies need a better way of ensuring that knowledge critical to their businesses is passed down from current experts to the next generation. An effective way to do that is through a knowledge cascade.  This process involves an expert sharing his or her “deep smarts” with one or a few learners, who then share it with others. There are several ways to make this happen:  training sessions that pay the knowledge forward, challenges or case studies, campfire-style meetings, and translation, which involves learners documenting the knowledge.

All companies have subject matter experts who hold knowledge critical to their businesses. As a leader, how can you make sure to not only preserve that know-how for future generations but also multiply its impact? Through something we call a knowledge cascade : the diffusion of experts’ “ deep smarts ” to and through multiple learners in a way that minimizes the burden on the experts.

• Dorothy Leonard is the William J. Abernathy Professor of Business Administration Emerita at Harvard Business School and chief adviser of the consulting firm Leonard-Barton Group , which conducts workshops on this and other related topics. She is the author or coauthor of four Harvard Business Review Press books, including  Critical Knowledge Transfer   (2015).  
• James Martin is the vice-president and chief information officer of the architecture firm Shepley Bulfinch.

Partner Center

Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study

• Published: 09 July 2003
• Volume 1 , pages 11–27, ( 2003 )

Cite this article

• Dianne P Ford 1 &
• Yolande E Chan 1  

Organizational culture has been shown to influence the success of knowledge management practices. Hofstede's theory specifies that organizational culture is not independent of national culture. A case study of an international subsidiary was conducted to explore the extent to which knowledge sharing is dependent on national culture. Results indicate that language differences can create knowledge blocks, and cross-cultural differences can explain the direction of knowledge flows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Study on the Influence of National Culture on Knowledge Sharing

An Empirical Model to Foster Innovation and Learning Through Knowledge Sharing Culture

Bridging the divide: intercultural competences to reconcile the knowledge transfer dilemma in multinational contexts, author information, authors and affiliations.

Queen's School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston, K7L 3N6, ON, Canada

Dianne P Ford & Yolande E Chan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dianne P Ford .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ford, D., Chan, Y. Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study. Knowl Manage Res Pract 1 , 11–27 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8499999

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2002

Revised : 21 February 2003

Accepted : 07 March 2003

Published : 09 July 2003

Issue Date : 01 July 2003

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8499999

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• knowledge sharing
• knowledge blocks
• knowledge management
• cross-cultural differences
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Knowledge Management Technology, Knowledge Sharing and Learning - A Case Study

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Educ Health Promot
• PMC11114535

Factors influencing knowledge sharing between scientific specialists in knowledge networks and communities of practice: A systematic literature review

Mina mahami-oskouei.

Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Medical Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Leila Nemati-Anaraki

Sirous panahi, shadi asadzandi.

Knowledge sharing is a competitive advantage and necessity for the success of any organization. Meanwhile, knowledge networks have been introduced as a way to enhance knowledge sharing between individuals and as an effective tool to facilitate knowledge exchange in clinical, educational, and commercial fields. The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that can affect the level of knowledge sharing and exchange between academic and scientific specialists in knowledge networks and Communities of Practice (COP). A systematic literature review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Four databases were searched, including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest. Google Scholar search was conducted to complete the search and ensure the tracking of the gray literature. Also, relevant sources, references, and reference lists of the related articles were reviewed. The studies were searched from April until August 2022 and finally the content analysis of the findings was done. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies. Data were extracted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist tool. Of the 1439 records, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. This study identified three main categories of factors affecting knowledge sharing in knowledge networks and COPs as individual factors, organizational, and structural. The results showed that knowledge networks provide opportunities to overcome professional barriers and complex systemic challenges and lead to knowledge sharing and exchange among scientific specialists. This article has important implications for managers, health policymakers, and academics who wish to expand knowledge sharing of scientific specialists through knowledge networks and CoPs in knowledge-based organizations.

Introduction

Knowledge sharing is a competitive advantage and a success factor in organizations,[ 1 ] that leads to faster deployment of knowledge in different parts of the organization from which people can take advantage.[ 2 ] Knowledge networks foster knowledge sharing and exchange among professionals,[ 3 ] and appearing in various forms such as Communities of Practice (CoPs), which offer opportunities to break down professional barriers, complex systemic challenges, and support individuals, especially newcomers. These networks provide the transfer and sharing of tacit knowledge between individuals and experts in scientific fields.[ 4 , 5 ] There is growing evidence that knowledge networks can be developed specifically to support knowledge in clinical, educational, and business contexts.[ 6 , 7 ] For this purpose, we can refer to examples of knowledge networks and CoPs that are managed by governmental organizations in various sectors of education, public services, and healthcare.[ 8 , 9 ] However, most of the studies conducted in this field mainly refer to theoretical issues, and few studies have addressed the factors influencing the formation of knowledge networks and CoPs and how to exchange knowledge among researchers and professionals.[ 10 ] On the other hand, it can be said that knowledge networks have become an effective tool to facilitate knowledge sharing in a wide range of organizational knowledge management.[ 11 , 12 ] This view is also supported by Wenger,[ 13 ] who argues that knowledge networks are the cornerstone of knowledge management and are a place where people can interact and share knowledge effectively. However, knowledge sharing in organizations is challenging, since transferring and transference and sharing of tacit knowledge is usually voluntary and cannot be forced.[ 14 ] Organizations can manage knowledge resources more effectively only if individuals are willing to share their knowledge. In other words, it is more challenging to convince people to share their knowledge to the organization, since knowledge is generally perceived as power and is private in nature. As a result, people are more likely to be reluctant to share their knowledge (power) with others, because they may lose their values and competitive advantage.[ 1 ] Zboralski[ 15 ] also studied the role of network members’ motivation to share knowledge and found that due to a lack of trust, cohesion, and positive communication less motivated individuals are willing to exchange their knowledge. Although motivating members to voluntarily share their knowledge is a challenge in sustaining knowledge networks, and the vital challenge is encouraging members to continue knowledge sharing in the network.[ 16 ] However, in knowledge networks, knowledge is shared asymmetrically between a minority of contributors and the majority of recipients.[ 17 ] For example, typically few people share knowledge, and many people use that knowledge. Since the two behaviors of sharing and seeking knowledge must happen together to ensure the expected benefits of knowledge networks, it is necessary to investigate the factors influencing these behaviors simultaneously in the research field.[ 1 , 18 ] So far, some studies have been conducted on factors that may influence knowledge sharing behavior in the organizations.[ 19 ] But it seems, the collection and classification of these factors, which may suggest practical concepts for researchers and practitioners, have not been considered in the literature. Therefore, this study is an attempt to fill this research gap.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that can affect the level of knowledge sharing and exchange between academic and scientific specialists in knowledge networks and Communities of Practice (COP). Since the underlying concept of CoPs and knowledge networks are well differentiated in the literature, the search terms and databases in this study were selected to include both concepts in the results. In addition, this review includes networks and CoPs that occur within an organization and networks As well as CoPs that link people across organizations.

Materials and Methods

Search strategy and database.

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement,[ 20 ] we systematically identified all potentially relevant articles From April 2022 to August 2022 through four electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest. Google Scholar search was conducted to complete the search and ensure the tracking of the gray literature. Also, relevant sources, references, and reference lists of the related articles were reviewed. The PRISMA flow chart and report of the study selection process are presented in Figure 1 .

PRISMA flow diagram and study selection

Search process

The search strategy used in the database from April 2022 until August 2022 was as follows:

• “Knowledge network” OR “Research network” OR “Knowledge exchange” OR “Information exchange network” OR “Exchange of information” OR “Exchange of knowledge” OR “Knowledge share” OR “Information share” OR “Knowledge transfer” OR “Information transfer”
• “Community of interest” OR “Network of practice” OR “Community of practice” OR “CoPs”

Eligibility criteria

The following inclusion criteria were considered in this review:

• Original Articles
• Gray literatures
• Papers in English and Persian languages
• Reporting knowledge networks and COPs
• Published until Aug 2022
• Availability of the article full text.

Screening process and data extraction

Titles and abstracts were double-screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text articles, which met the inclusion criteria, based on the title and abstract, were assessed by two research team members independently. Any discrepancies between researchers’ opinions were resolved through discussion and consensus so that if the agreement was not reached during the initial discussion, a review by a third researcher was included in the process.

The following data were extracted and summarized from the selected studies: Dimensions and components of knowledge networks and CoPs (including purposes, membership level, and type of interaction), study design, data collection method, participants, study results, and bibliographic information. Content analysis was used to review the articles. For this purpose, the articles were first read once to obtain an overall idea of how the effects of knowledge sharing in knowledge networks were described in the articles. After reading and re-reading the content for several times, preliminary themes emerged. After data clustering and thematization, the sub-themes and main themes were identified.

Quality assessment

In this review, two quantitative and qualitative study evaluation checklist tools of Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) were used.[ 21 , 22 ] Detailed information on criteria and quality assessment of studies are provided in the Appendix [ Tables A1 and ​ andA2]. A2 ]. For studies that used mixed methods, both checklists were completed. For each question, the articles were given a score of 0-1 based on the article's compliance with the requirements. This way, articles with a score of less than six were considered inappropriate and removed from the eligibility set.

Components of qualitative assessment

Components of quantitative assessment

Characteristics of the included studies

In the initial search of the target databases and Google search engine, 1439 related articles were retrieved. After removing 502 duplicates and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the number of articles was reduced to 615. Of these, the researchers selected 45 records after two stages of screening (title and abstract) to assess the content to be checked for eligibility. Afterwards, out of the remained 45 records, five articles were excluded due to the lack of access to the full texts, and 27 articles excluded due to ineligibility. Finally, 13 articles remained for data collection and content analysis. To retrieve more relevant documents, we reviewed the reference lists of the mentioned 13 articles, and the articles that cited them. Three articles were identified which were also removed due to non-compliance with the entry and eligibility criteria. Finally, the same 13 articles remained in the study, which were analyzed. Figure 1 shows an overview of the search process and study selection.

The main features of the 13 selected articles included in the study are described in Table 1 . According to this table, in terms of the subject area of the articles, two studies separately dealt with CoP and the influential factors in its formation in the field of health.[ 4 , 23 ] Four studies focused on modeling knowledge networks in industrial and specialized organizations,[ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ] and three studies focused on technology and software development with knowledge networks.[ 24 , 28 , 29 ] The rest of the papers were related to areas such as inter-university research partnership,[ 19 ] collective education and learning,[ 30 ] interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies,[ 31 ] the typology of different types of knowledge sharing and exchange networks in international organizations,[ 32 ] and the mechanisms of creating inter-organizational knowledge sharing communication.[ 3 ]

Overview of the studies included

The goal of all reviewed studies was to influence, improve or support the performance of CoPs and knowledge networks in knowledge exchange between members (intra-organizational and inter-organizational). Geographically, one study supported knowledge sharing in an international CoP (Italy, Finland, Norway, France, and the Netherlands), while the remaining studies focused on CoP and national and regional knowledge networks in Canada (n = 3), Iran (n = 3), the United States of America (n = 3), Sweden (n = 1), China (n = 1) and Saudi Arabia (n = 1). The highest frequency of the published articles was related to the years 2019 (n = 4) and 2017 (n = 2), respectively.

Out of the 13 articles, six studies considered CoPs and knowledge networks to be applied in line with each other and CoPs as a foundation and as one of the success dimensions of knowledge exchange networks.[ 19 , 23 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 33 ] In terms of the methodology of the reviewed articles, qualitative studies (n = 7), quantitative-experimental studies (n = 1), and mixed methods (qualitative-quantitative) (n = 5) articles were classified. Qualitative studies often used interviews or debate as well as an evaluation checklist, and quantitative studies mainly used a questionnaire to get feedback on factors affecting the functioning of knowledge networks.

Factors affecting knowledge networks

In this study, we identified the influential factors affecting knowledge sharing in knowledge networks and CoPs from the reviewed literature and categorized them into three groups of individuals, organizational and structural factors [ Table 2 ].

Three main categories of factors affecting knowledge networks

Individual factors are related to individual culture of network members, such as trust, enthusiasm, and commitment to teamwork, sharing of specialized findings, learning, and individual skills that can affect knowledge sharing behavior in CoPs and knowledge networks. Mutual trust and commitment are among the factors that create a cooperative atmosphere among network members. To provide relationships based on trust and mutual recognition and active participation of people, it is necessary to spend appropriate time. Scheduling is essential for participation in sharing and collaboration activities, so people must be able to adapt to their daily schedule. In such a collaborative environment, people have frequent opportunities to interact and share knowledge to create their professional identity. Time limitation and lack of trust between participants can lead to a lack of interaction and less activity in knowledge networks.[ 19 , 24 ] Eagerness to exchange knowledge, understanding different views and experiences, eagerness for teamwork and continuous effort to apply effective and ethical methods are among the factors that facilitate the success of knowledge sharing in knowledge networks. On the other hand, concerns and uncertainties related to the financial budget and environmental instability limit the activity of knowledge sharing in knowledge networks.

In this study, organizational factors as the main elements of structured knowledge networks formation are related to strategic leadership, policy-making, organizational culture, network management, and items that coordinate the processes of development and innovation and sharing of organization resources. If these factors are implemented effectively, they can create inter-organizational trust among network members and facilitate knowledge sharing and transfer. In fact, development of management processes has the greatest impact on the successful formation of knowledge networks among members.[ 33 ]

Finally, structural factors include the structural facilities of networks in the organization, network size, geographic density of network members, information technology facilities, and knowledge brokers that might be effective communication channels in knowledge networks. In fact, for effective knowledge management in organizations, it is necessary to develop a set of knowledge management competencies, which in turn positively affect the performance of knowledge networks, including the implementation of appropriate information technology systems[ 24 ]. Although online interaction is an adaptation strategy, everyone agrees that nothing replaces face-to-face interactions, however, well-designed technological networks positively affect teaching and learning processes to educate members.[ 30 , 31 ]

This article was a systematic literature review of knowledge networks and their types, including CoPs, which was conducted to identify factors affecting knowledge sharing and exchange in various organizational and academic aspects among scientific specialists.

The present study showed that the factors affecting knowledge sharing in knowledge networks and CoPs could be classified into three organizational, individual, and structural groups, which are consistent with the results of the previous studies.[ 6 , 34 ] In addition, the results of this study indicate that one of the significant challenges of knowledge networks is to encourage the willingness of members to participate in knowledge sharing practices, which is in line with previous studies.[ 3 , 35 ] This study also determined that several factors affect knowledge sharing in a cooperative environment, such as CoPs and knowledge networks. Still, the most influential factor is the creation of trust among members. Trust plays a vital role in successful social interactions for publishing and sharing content in knowledge networks.[ 12 , 34 ]

Sensuse's[ 36 ] study showed that positive interaction between members of knowledge networks could increase trust. It is believed that trust has the greatest impact on knowledge sharing and can improve knowledge sharing performance. In addition, it can increase the closeness of relationships and thus scientific cooperation within a team and reduce possible conflicts that can hinder the achievement of the organizational goals. Therefore, the present study identified that trust is crucial in a collaborative environment.

Face-to-face communication is also one of the factors that affect the amount and intensity of communication among members and can ultimately affect the sharing and exchange of knowledge in networks and CoPs.[ 23 , 31 , 32 ] Some studies have indicated that effective social interaction is as important as professional learning for sharing and exchanging knowledge among people in a network. Mutual interactions in the form of verbal conversations or body language among network members can help develop and create knowledge. Lack of this social interaction leads to the loss of direct human communication and as a result, the reduction of transmission and sharing of hidden knowledge among members.[ 4 , 23 ] Another effective factor in this category is the experience of participating in specialized projects and the previous knowledge. In this regard, surveys pointed out that the presence of experienced people in specialized fields in knowledge networks is highly valuable, in fact, the knowledge and skills of these people are precious experiences that have been gained over years. Therefore, network members, especially young members, can benefit more from them.[ 4 , 23 , 28 ]

Another effective component from the category of individual factors is sufficient time for effective interaction. The results showed that timing is important for participation in team sharing and collaborative activities, because it is necessary to spend the right time to build relationships based on trust and mutual recognition and active participation of people.[ 4 ] Time limitation and as a result lack of trust between participants can lead to decreased activity of knowledge networks.[ 19 ] On the other hand, knowledge sharing requires a proper environment for knowledge sharing culture, which should be encouraged in the organizations as the results show, a certain level of trust is necessary for knowledge sharing, but it is not desirable to invest all efforts to reach a 100% trust level, because sometimes increasing trust will not lead to fully effective knowledge sharing, and there is a risk of blind trust.[ 37 ]

In addition to individual factors such as trust, this study showed that organizational benefits and incentives are important organizational factors that could widely affect knowledge sharing. Hernaus[ 38 ] stated that reward is one factor that affects knowledge sharing and cooperation among scientific specialists. Jeon and Lee's[ 3 ] study on knowledge networks has identified three main motivations for network members including anticipated benefits and rewards, moral obligation, and reliable altruistic behavior that is in line with the results of the present study.

Connelly et al .[ 39 ] also showed that members of CoPs and knowledge networks seek possible rewards for performing network activities. Hence, if knowledge is related to the interests of knowledge holders, their expectation of competitive advantage is likely to prevent knowledge sharing. On the other hand, in organizations, people expect to receive external incentives (such as salary increase, bonus, promotion, and job security) in exchange for knowledge sharing. In other words, organizations have provided reward systems to encourage people to share knowledge. In this regard, the willingness of members to share knowledge in knowledge networks will be affected by interpersonal competition. As a result, an organizational atmosphere that emphasizes individual competition may hinder knowledge sharing among individuals. In contrast, a cooperative environment may promote knowledge exchange among individuals by creating trust, which is necessary for knowledge sharing.[ 40 , 41 , 42 ] In addition, members of scientific knowledge networks have specific needs and motivations related to different knowledge sharing behaviors.[ 43 ] If incentives are designed within networks appropriately, they can influence knowledge sharing behavior among members and be used in the short and long term. When the motivations and goals of a scientific network are balanced, the sharing and exchange of knowledge between academic members also increase.[ 34 ]

The next influential factor in this category is culture. In knowledge-based organizations that lack attractive organizational culture to encourage knowledge sharing and exchange, members will not be willing to exchange knowledge in knowledge networks. Therefore, reforming and institutionalizing the culture of knowledge sharing and exchange, creating a space to transform knowledge sharing into valuable behavior in the organization, and spreading the culture of teamwork and collaborative learning will be effective in the formation of successful knowledge networks.[ 23 , 25 , 27 , 29 ]

Another important and effective organizational factor includes procedures and standards. In this regard, studies show that rules, standardization, and certain criteria are effective in sharing knowledge and creating specialized networks.[ 25 , 29 , 30 , 32 ] Another effective subset of organizational factors is management and leadership. In some studies, issues related to alliance and strategic leadership, and detailed policies for managing the space of knowledge sharing in knowledge networks have been proposed. Leadership and management play a key role in ensuring the success of sharing and exchanging knowledge and creating knowledge networks.[ 19 , 30 , 31 , 33 ] Leadership is responsible for directing efforts, motivating, and sustaining people's morale to effect change and create a culture that encourages effective knowledge exchange.[ 19 , 31 ] Another effective factor is the variety of knowledge and expertise. In some studies, attention has been paid to the use of different knowledge sources and expertise to increase efficiency and to form more successful knowledge networks.[ 23 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 ] Knowledge is enhanced when it is shared with others in any organization. Also, organizations that are more effective in transferring and exchanging knowledge have shown a higher level of productivity.[ 23 , 28 , 32 ] Allocation of resources and budget was an important subcategory in this category of studies. Allocation of sufficient financial resources and financial support in the implementation, coordination, and encouragement of collaborative programs accelerates the formation of networks.[ 23 , 27 , 31 ]

The results of this research on structural factors also showed that technological infrastructures such as information and communication technology, the use of innovative tools and technologies, interactive web, and social networks can be effective in the formation of knowledge networks. It has been mentioned in the conducted surveys that for the effective management of knowledge flow in networks, it is necessary to develop a series of capabilities, which in turn will have a positive effect on the performance of knowledge networks.[ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 ] Studies have shown that in terms of mechanisms and technologies used for knowledge sharing and collaboration in networks, the web, and web-based applications such as social networks are the most widely used technologies to support knowledge sharing and group collaboration.[ 4 , 31 ] Another important and effective structural factor is knowledge brokers. Some studies have pointed out the advantage of having knowledge brokers as the key to connecting decision-makers to knowledge sources, because they contribute to the knowledge infrastructure and the formation of strategic knowledge communication channels and facilitate the knowledge sharing process.[ 28 , 29 , 32 ]

Conclusion and Future Research

This article has important implications for scientific specialists who wish to expand knowledge sharing through knowledge networks and CoPs in organizations and universities. In other words, if knowledge-oriented organizations such as health organizations want to remain sustainable in today's competitive world, they must implement a dynamic method of social interaction and operational flexibility. Therefore, the main concern of the managers of medical organizations and universities should be to develop effective knowledge management initiatives such as the use of knowledge networks and CoPs, which help to improve knowledge sharing and exchange of ideas among academic members. This in turn can promote innovation, solve problems, and increase organizational competitiveness. The findings of this study show how CoPs and established knowledge networks can be managed in knowledge organizations and how the effect of three organizational, individual, and structural factors lead to the excellent performance of knowledge management in specialized and knowledge-oriented organizations. However, examining all organizational and non-organizational factors together is limited. In addition, further exploration is required to find important similarities and dissimilarities among factors that significantly contribute to knowledge networks and increase knowledge sharing in national and international organizations. Finally, to disclose other ways of exchanging knowledge in this field is suggested.

Financial support and sponsorship

This manuscript was done under the financial support of the Iran University of Medical Sciences.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment/Source(s) of support

This work is part of a thesis for the Ph.D. degree in medical Library and information sciences supported and funded by the Iran University of Medical Sciences, IUMS/SHMIS-1401-1-37-23099, and with the Ethical code: IR.IUMS.REC.1400.1082

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, job‐related knowledge sharing: comparative case studies.

Journal of Knowledge Management

ISSN : 1367-3270

Article publication date: 1 June 2004

This paper presents data from two case studies showing the enhancement of organizational effectiveness, which can proceed through knowledge sharing amongst employees. The main purpose of this paper is to elaborate the content of knowledge which employees share in two researched hotels, and to explore some key approaches which are utilized for sharing knowledge. It also investigates some key factors which can inhibit the effectiveness of the knowledge sharing process. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted in this study. The research sample consisted of 26 individual interviews with employees from the top to the front‐line levels of management hierarchy from two international five‐star hotels. The evidence shows that first, all interviewees agreed with the importance and necessity of sharing knowledge. Second, it shows that the sharing climate seemed to be informal. The implication of this research for senior managers is to reinforce their understanding that the stronger the knowledge sharing climate an organization has, the greater the degree of organizational effectiveness that it achieves.

• Hotel and catering industry
• Information exchange
• Knowledge management

Yang, J. (2004), "Job‐related knowledge sharing: comparative case studies", Journal of Knowledge Management , Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 118-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410541088

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2004, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here