KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND
COMPUTER SUPPORTED
COLLABORATIVE WORK: THE ROLE
OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND
TRUST
Neneh Akamavi
MIS Group, Department of Computer Science, University of York
e-mail: neneh@[Link]
Tel: +44 (0)1904 432733
Fax: +44 (0)1904 432767
Chris Kimble
MIS Group, Department of Computer Science, University of York
e-mail: [Link]@[Link]
Tel: +44 (0)1904 433380
Fax: +44 (0)1904 432767
The University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5DD
UK
Knowledge Sharing, Computer Supported Collaborative Work, CSCW,
Organisational Culture, Trust.
1
Abstract
Knowledge management and especially knowledge sharing are popular topics in the
management literature. Sharing and accessing knowledge wherever it is located and
whenever it is required is crucial to organisations operating in a business environment
characterised by globalisation. We argue that computer supported collaborative work
will enhance and facilitate knowledge sharing. However, we also acknowledge that
successful knowledge sharing is not primarily dependent on collaborative technologies.
Thus, in addition this paper examines organisational culture and trust and their role on
knowledge sharing.
Key words: Knowledge Sharing, Computer Supported Collaborative Work, CSCW,
Organisational Culture, Trust.
1. INTRODUCTION
The current business environment is characterised by globalisation where hyper-
competition, speedy technological changes and shorter product life cycles are the norm
(McEvily and Chakravarthy, 2002). Therefore, the focus is shifting from hierarchical
organisations, to organic and nurturing types of working. The latter form of organisation
would enhance the harnessing and sharing of organisational knowledge to collective
solve problems or provide quick responses to customer demands (Abell and Oxbrow,
2001). Organisations in the industrial economy depended on the combination of labour
capital, and machines; tangible assets that do not provide sustainable competitive
advantage in the current business environment, where knowledge and information are the
main sources for a sustainable competitive advantage. The “knowledge economy” largely
concentrates on the ability of the organisation to utilise information and communications
technology and manage the harnessing and sharing of knowledge (O’Dell, Wiig, and
Oden, 1999; von Krogh, Nonaka and Aben, 2001).
Whilst knowledge sharing is popular, an examination of knowledge sharing, computer
supported collaborative work, organisational culture and trust in an interrelated manner is
scant in the management literature: Therefore, this paper seeks to fill in this gap. The
paper is organised as follows, we start with a brief overview of the literature on
knowledge management, section two describes knowledge sharing and its importance,
section three briefly explains computer supported collaborative work and its importance
to knowledge sharing. Sections four and five discuss organisational culture and trust
respectively. We subsequently outline further research avenues.
2. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
The notion of managing knowledge expanded rapidly during the 1990’s (Despres and
Chauvel, 1990). Numerous journal articles have appeared on the subject, as well as
special issues of journals devoted to the concept (see for example the Winter Special
Issue of the Strategic Management Journal, 1996; and the California Management
Journal, 1994). In the academic world the interest in knowledge management crosses
disciplines, namely: computer science, sociology, management science, psychology and
2
philosophy (McAdam and McCreedy, 1999; Martensson, 2001; Argote, McEvily and
Reagans, 2003). Resulting in a large volume of published articles, and a variety of
descriptions and explanations of knowledge management (Swan, Newell, Scarbrough and
Hislop, 1999; Lanteenmaki, Toivonen and Mattila, 2001).
Knowledge management is making sure that the right information reaches the right
people at the right time (Davenport, 1994). This definition adopts the view of knowledge
as stock that can be captured, packaged and delivered where and when it is needed (Dove,
1999). However, other scholars describe knowledge management as the identification and
harnessing of knowledge and or of supporting people and structuring technology. These
definitions acknowledge the input of individuals in making knowledge management and
its sharing effective (Davenport and Volpel, 2001).
3. KNOWLEDGE SHARING
The complexities of knowledge and the lack of a common definition are well documented
in the management literature (Spender, 1996; Blackler, 1995). For example, Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995) define knowledge as justified true belief and Sveiby (2001) describes
knowledge as the capacity to act. In addition, organisational knowledge is often classified
as tacit and explicit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is easily codified, articulated
and objective. In contrast, tacit knowledge is not easily codified, difficult to express and
subjective (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Knowledge sharing, and not just owning knowledge is linked to the competitive
advantage of the firm in the organisation literature (von Krogh, Nonaka and Aben, 2001).
As noted by (Mueller and Dyerson, 1999) Knowledge that is not shared slows innovation
in organisations (Teece, 1998). In addition, Hendriks, (1999:92) states that “Knowledge
sharing presumes a relationship between at least two parties” The owner of the
knowledge shares through the process of externalisation, and the recipient internalises
knowledge. The former can involve writing books, meetings and or performing tasks,
whilst the later, can take the form of observing others, learning on the job, reading books
and accessing and assimilating knowledge from knowledge data bases (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995; Hendriks, 1999). Tacit knowledge cannot be shared, as it never leaves
the brain of the individual where it resides. When an individual leaves the firm, the tacit
knowledge goes with them (Tsoukas, 1996). On the other hand, knowledge can be
acquired and shared through the processes of externalisation and internalisation,
voluntarily or unconsciously (Hendriks 1999). Firms are encouraging individuals to share
knowledge, so that when an employee leaves, the knowledge remains in the firm for
future reuse (Tsoukas, 1996).
Focus in western organisations had been on the codification of knowledge (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995). Organisations invested in technologies to store hard knowledge for use
at a future date (Davenport, 1994). However, Sutton (2001) noted that explicit knowledge
is not sufficient to impact on the bottom line of the organisation. Yet, explicit knowledge
remains relevant to organisations because it is easily transferred (Kogut and Zander,
1992). Hildreth and Kimble (2002) emphasised the importance of combining tacit and
explicit knowledge in delivering positive results for the organisation. Organisations
3
should therefore seek and share a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge with
suppliers and other parties in the value chain to satisfy customer demands in a highly
competitive environment (Lam, 1997). The dissemination of knowledge would require
not just new forms of organising work but also the effective and efficient use of
information and communications technologies to support the new forms of working with
other parties that are geographically dispersed.
4. COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE WORK
Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) is referred to as a ‘new field of
scientific research and information technology application’ (Bannon, 1992:1). However,
Computer supported co-operative work lacks a common definition (Wilson, 1991). An
attempt by Schlichter, Koch and Burger, (1997) refer to CSCW as a generic term
covering application of information technology in the support of co-operative work
groups. This definition captures the essence of computer supported collaborative work.
As Grudin, (1994) revealed, it is a research area attracting scholars from several
disciplines such as computer science, cognitive science, psychology, sociology and
management information systems. This paper whilst not dwelling on finding a common
definition, argues that computer supported collaborative work present organisations and
individuals opportunities of sharing knowledge whenever it is required and wherever it is
located (Lipnack and Stamps, 1997). However, successfully exploiting these
opportunities would depend largely on an organisational culture and trust that supports
knowledge sharing. The next sections describe organisational culture and trust.
5. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Organisational culture is a complex concept that has been researched extensively,
spurning various perspectives (Ogbonna and Harris, 2002). In addition, no commonly
agreed definition of organisational culture exists in the management literature (Alvesson,
2002). For example, organisational culture is historical and reflects the beliefs of the
owners of the firm and it is the glue that binds individuals together (Mwaura, Sutton and
Roberts, 1998). Furthermore, some aspects of organisational culture are highly visible,
while others are salient; other aspects are taken for granted by members of the
organisation and often difficult to change (Alvesson, 2002). Schein, (1996:231) noted,
“organisational culture is shared tacit, taken for granted ways of perceiving, thinking and
reacting”. It is debatable that accepted ways of thinking are passed on to new members
through socialisation, informally through story telling and gossip and formally through
induction training. Yet, if it occurs and if for example the way of thinking is against
sharing knowledge outside the department or amongst themselves, organisations will
have a mammoth task in trying to make individuals share knowledge.
According to (Alvesson, 2002), organisational culture is difficult to change as it evolves
over a period of time. In addition, within the organisation individuals develop sub
cultures that may work against the existing corporate culture. Where the norm is not to be
receptive to knowledge from other parts of the organisation, emphasis will be on
developing knowledge within the unit. Subsequently, this encourages the 'not invented
here' syndrome, and prevents knowledge from cascading amongst other individuals in the
organisation (Mwaura, Sutton and Roberts, 1998). The problem of sharing knowledge
4
outside the organisation is magnified by the number of different subcultures individuals
have to contend with (Doherty and Perry, 2001).
Organisational culture over a period of time conveys a sense of identity to individuals in
the organisation; and helps to sustain a sense of shared meanings (Deal and Kennedy,
1982). Differences in shared meaning amongst individuals would be problematic. The
lack of a common perspective, and not seeing where their jobs fit in with the whole
picture of the organisation will make if difficult for individuals to want to share
knowledge. Furthermore, the absence of shared meanings will leave words and terms
used in knowledge sharing open to numerous interpretations, as the context and situations
in which knowledge is shared is different from ones where the knowledge originates
from. A common purpose and a sense of shared meanings help in building trust to share
knowledge (Bechky, 2003). The next section describes trust and its importance to
knowledge sharing in the organisation.
6. TRUST
A review of the literature shows trust to be well discussed amongst researchers (Mayer,
Davis and Schoorman, 1995). Ghoshal and Barlett, (1994), noted that trust is fundamental
to an organisation. Trust is also said to be crucial to strategic alliances and for successful
relationships (Peters and Waterman 1982). Furthermore, it is suggested that trust
enhances positive behaviour (Gambetta, 1988); promotes organisational informal and
formal network relations (Miles and Snow, 1992); reduces harmful conflicts, transaction
costs and enhances the formulation of informal groups (Meyerson, Weick and Kramer,
1996). Due to various approaches, it is very difficult to find a common definition of trust
in the literature (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer, 1998). Trust is defined as “as an
expectancy held by an individual or group that the word, promise, verbal, or written
statement of another individual or group can be relied on” (Rotter, 1980:1). In addition,
trust is the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to
the trustier, irrespective of the ability of the trustier to monitor or control the actions of
the other party (Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995). We argue that if the recipient of
knowledge is not convinced that the source is competent and trustworthy, it is unlikely
knowledge from that particular individual will be accepted (Huber, 1991).
In addition, if on the other hand the owner of the knowledge is not confident or does not
trust the seeker of the knowledge to reciprocate in the near future, they may choose to
hoard their valuable tacit knowledge. Knowledge that is unarticulated, salient and
valuable is reported to be very difficult to share (Szulanski, 1996). Tacit knowledge
requires a lot of effort to be invested by the owner of the knowledge and the seeker of the
knowledge to enable its flow from one party to the other (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Where experience is being shared, it amounts to a lot of time and effort spent observing
and learning on the job, explicit knowledge on the other hand is codified and in the form
of written documents or stored in databases. The sharing of explicit knowledge in this
instance depends on the willingness of the individual to use the technology to access the
databases (Hansen, 1999). Grudin, (1994) noted, that whilst the benefits of using
technology are not always equal for individuals using the technology. Its success often
depends on the collective contributions of individuals involved in the use of the
technology to complete a project or task.
5
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
This paper sought to examine knowledge sharing, computer collaborative work and the
role of trust and organisational culture. We noted that whilst technology is in no doubt
important in supporting knowledge sharing, the role of the individual, organisational
culture and trust are no less important and are interrelated. In addition from our
discussions above we came to the conclusions that:
Organisations are yet to encourage cultures that support knowledge sharing and
individuals within organisations are still reluctant to share especially tacit knowledge.
This is because knowledge is still seen as a security against job loss. In acknowledging
that knowledge is crucial, it is important that organisations share knowledge with
suppliers, customers and other organisations. If the knowledge gaps left by downsizing
and trying to create lean organisations are to be filled.
We also argued there is a link between organisational culture, trust and knowledge
sharing. If culture is the way individual do things in the organisation, encouraging and
reinforcing a culture that supports knowledge sharing will ensure knowledge sharing
becomes 'the way things are done' in the organisation. In addition developing a sense of
shared meanings and a common goal will help develop the trust that is needed and vital in
sharing knowledge. We revealed that information and communications technology would
play a vital role in knowledge sharing. This is important as knowledge sharing is not
limited to physically co-located individuals but open to individuals that are required to
partake in knowledge sharing and are geographically dispersed all over the world.
There are however obvious limitations to the above conclusions. Further empirical
research needs to be undertaken to accept or reject the above conclusions. In addition,
more examinations utilising case studies are required to get an in-depth account of
knowledge sharing, organisational culture, trust and computer supported collaborative
work and how they are interrelated.
6
REFERENCES
Abell, A. and Oxbrow, N. (2001) Compete with knowledge. The information professional
in the knowledge management age. Library Association Publishing. London.
Alvesson, M. (2002) Understanding organisational culture. Sage Publications. London.
Argote, L. McEvily, B. Reagans, R. (2003) “Managing knowledge in organisations: An
integrative framework and review of emerging themes”. Management Science,
Vol. 49 No. 4 pp. 571-582.
Bannon, J. L. (1992) Perspectives on CSCW: From HCI and CMC to CSCW, in
proceedings International conference on Human –Computer Interaction (EW-
HCI’92), pp.148-158.
Bechky, A. B. (2003) “Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The
transformation of understanding on the production floor”. Organisation Science,
Vol. 14 No. 3 May-June pp. 312-330.
Blackler, F. (1995) “Knowledge, knowledge work and organisations: An overview and
interpretation”. Organisation Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6 pp. 1021-1046
Davenport, T. H. (1994) “Saving IT’s sole: Human centred information management”.
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp.119-131.
Davenport, T. H. (2001) “The rise of knowledge towards attention management”.
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 3 pp. 212-221.
Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1988) Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate
life. Penguin. Harmondsworth.
Despres, C. Chauvel, D. (1999) “Knowledge management(s)". Journal of Knowledge
Management, vol. 3 No. 2 pp. 110-120.
Doherty, F. N and Perry, I. (2001) “The cultural impact of workflow management
systems in the financial services sector". The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 21
No. 4 pp. 147-166.
Dove, R. (1999) “Knowledge management, response, ability, and the agile enterprise".
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 1 pp. 18-35
Gambetta, D (Ed) (1988) Trust making and breaking co-operative relations. Basil
Blackwell.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1994) “Linking organisational context and managerial
action: the dimension of quality management”. Strategic Management Journal.
Vol. 15 Special Issue (Summer) pp. 91-112.
Grudin, J. (1994) CSCW: History and Focus, http:
[Link]/~grudin/Papers/IEEE94/[Link]. Accessed
25/08/2004.
Grudin, J (1994) Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for developers,
http:[Link]/~grudin/Papers/CACM94/[Link]. Accessed
25/08/2004.
Hansen, T. M. (1999) “The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organisation sub-units”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
44 pp. 82-111.
Hendriks, P. (1999) “Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for
knowledge sharing”. Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6. No. 2 pp. 91-
100
7
Hildreth, P and Kimble C (2002) “The duality of knowledge". Information Research, Vol.
8 No.1 pp. 1-27 October. [Link] Accessed
18/01/2005.
Huber, G. P. (1991) “ Organisational learning: the contributing processes and the
literatures”. Organisation Science, Vol. 2 pp. 88-115.
Kogut, B and Zander, U. (1992) “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and
the replication of technology". Organisation Science, Vol. 3 No. 3 pp. 3383-3397.
Lam, A. (1997) “Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems of collaboration and
knowledge transfer in global co-operative ventures”. Organisation Studies, Vol.
18 No. 6 pp. 973-996.
Lanteenmaki, S., Toivonen J, and Mattila M. (2001) “Critical Aspects of Organisational
Learning Research and Proposals for Its Measurement". British Journal of
Management, vol. 12 No. 113-129
Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1997) Virtual teams: reaching across space, time and
organisations with technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Martensson, M. (2000) “A critical review of knowledge management as a management
tool". Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 204-216.
Mayer, R. C. Davis, J. H. and Schoorman, D. (1995) “An integrative model of
organisational trust". Academy of Management Review, Vol.10 pp. 709-734.
McAdam, R. McCreedy, S. (1999) “A critical review of knowledge management models".
The Learning Organisation, Vol. 6 No. 3 pp. 91-100.
McEvily, K. S. and Chakravarthy, B. (2002) “The persistence of knowledge-based
advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological
knowledge”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 pp. 285-305.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E. and Kramer (1996) “Swift trust and temporary groups". In
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler (Eds), Trust in organisations, Frontiers of theory and
research. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, CA, pp. 166-95.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1992) “Causes of failure in network organisations".
California Management Review. Summer, pp. 72-93.
Mueller, F. and Dyerson, R. (1999) “Expert humans or expert organisations".
Organisation Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2 pp. 225-256.
Mwaura, G. Sutton, J. and Roberts, D. (1998) “Corporate and national culture – an
irreconcilable dilemma for the hospitality manager”? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10 No. 6 pp. 212-220.
Nonaka, I. And Konno, N. (1998) “The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for
knowledge creation”. California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3 pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University
O’Dell, C. Wiig, K. and Odem, P. (1999) “Benchmarking unveils emerging knowledge
management strategies". Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3
pp. 202-211.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, C. L. (2002) “Managing organisational culture: insights from
the hospitality industry”. Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1.
pp. 33-53.
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, H. R. (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from
American's best-run Companies. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
8
Rotter, J. (1980) “Generalised expectancies for interpersonal trust". American
Psychologist, Vol. 26 pp. 443-52.
Rousseau, D. M. Sitkin, S. B. Burt, R. S. and Camerer, C. (1998) “Not so different after
all: a cross discipline view of trust”. Introduction to special topic forum. Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3 pp. 393-404.
Schein, H. E. (1996) “Culture: The missing concept in organisation studies”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 41, No. 2 June. pp. 229-240
Schlichter, J. Koch, M. and Burger, M. (1997) Workspace awareness for distributed
teams. [Link]
Accessed 25/08/2004
Spender, J. (1996) “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm".
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 pp. 45-62.
Sutton, D. C. (2001) “What is knowledge and can it be managed”? European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 10 pp. 80-88.
Swan, J. Newell, S. Scarbrough, H. Hislop, D. (1999) “Knowledge management and
innovation: networks and networking”. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.
3 No. 4 pp. 262-275.
Sveiby, K. E. (2001) “A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy
formulation". Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 344-358.
Szulanski, G. (1996) “Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (Winter Special
Issue), pp. 27-43.
Teece, D. (1998) “Capturing Value from knowledge Assets: The New Economy Markets
for know-how and intangible assets”. California Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 3 pp. 55-79.
Tsoukas, H. (1996) “The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist
approach”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (winter Special Issue) pp. 11-
25.
Von Krogh, G. Nonaka, I. and Aben, M. (2001) “Making the most of your company’s
knowledge: A strategic framework”. Long Range Planning, Vol. 34, pp. 421-439
Wilson, P. (1991) Computer Supported Cooperative Work: An introduction. Intellect
Books. Oxford.