Knowledge sharing is a difficult task for most organizations, and there are many reasons for this. In this article, we propose that the nature of the knowledge shared and an individual's social network influence employees to find more value in person-to-person knowledge sharing, which could lead them to bypass the codified knowledge provided by a knowledge management system (KMS). We surveyed employees of a workman's compensation board in Canada and used social network analysis and hierarchical linear modeling to analyze the data. The results show that knowledge complexity and knowledge teachability increased the likelihood of finding value in person-to-person knowledge transfer, but knowledge observability did not. Contrary to expectations, whether the knowledge was available in the KMS had no impact on the value of person-to-person knowledge transfer. In terms of the social network, individuals with larger networks tended to perceive more value in the person-to-person transfer of knowledge than those with smaller networks.

In this study, we explored the relationship between changes in resident health outcomes, practitioner communication patterns, and practitioner perceptions of group effectiveness within a qualityimprovement collaborative of nursing home clinicians. Survey and interview data were collected from nursing home clinicians participating in a quality-improvement collaborative. Quality-improvement outcomes were evaluated using US Federal and State minimum dataset measures. Models were specified evaluating the relationships between resident outcomes, staff perceptions of communication patterns, and staff perceptions of collaborative effectiveness. Interview data provided deeper understanding of the quantitative findings. Reductions in fall rates were highest in facilities where respondents experienced the highest levels of communication with collaborative members outside of scheduled meetings, and where respondents perceived that the collaborative kept them informed and provided new ideas. Clinicians observed that participation in a quality-improvement collaborative positively influenced the ability to share innovative ideas and expand the quality-improvement program within their nursing home. For practitioners, a high level of communication, both inside and outside of meetings, was key to making measurable gains in resident health outcomes.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe a framework designed to assess the capacity of a knowledge management (KM) system to facilitate new knowledge creation. Design/methodology/approach – A longitudinal case study methodology, in a single company, Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), was used to test the framework. Findings – New knowledge creation is best supported through mature KM systems that include all four modes of knowledge creation: combination, externalization, socialization, and internalization. KM systems and environments as a whole reach maturity by progressing through stages, which is presented as a KM maturity model. Research limitations/implications – By combining Nonaka\u27s knowledge creation theory with Wittrock\u27s generative learning activities, the paper illuminates both the why and how of new knowledge creation, in a way that can be applied to KM technological initiatives. One of the limitations of this study is the generalizability of the findings, which may be limited by the single case study method used. Practical implications – The framework provides a rubric against which both old and new KM initiatives can be assessed to determine whether they are capable of generating new knowledge. The maturity model provides a template against which organizations can map their progress towards a mature KM environment. Originality/value – Much of the literature on KM systems has focused on capturing knowledge and disseminating it. Few studies have provided practical, theoretically based advice on how to create new knowledge and what aspects of information systems can facilitate that creation. The framework and maturity model can serve as guides in that process

For distributed teams to succeed, individuals must interact successfully within team social networks. To understand individual performance in distributed teams, we consider a multi-dimensional view of individual virtuality and its relationship with centrality in the team's face-to-face network and ICT network. We leverage social network theory and hierarchically analyze data from 254 individuals in 18 teams. We find that members with higher dispersion are less central in the face-to-face network while those with higher ICT use are more central in the ICT network. Centrality in the ICT network, but not centrality in the face-to-face network, is positively related to performance. The results provide insights for academics and practitioners on how to improve individual performance in distributed teams.

Background: Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is complex and consequently, even within organizations that have made efforts to promote EBP use, EBP is often underutilized by individual clinicians.

Purpose: The aim of our study was to better understand the relationship between self-efficacy and EBP implementation in clinical environments that have undergone efforts to increase EBP utilization. We suggest that EBP is a set of behaviors that result from individuals acquiring, applying, and sharing new knowledge with others in the organization. We hypothesize, based upon a social cognitive theoretical approach, that these behaviors are influenced by clinician perception of self-efficacy.

Methods: We analyzed data provided by a 2011 survey of clinicians working within a national sample of hospitals that were actively participating in the Clinical Practice Model Resource Center (CPMRC), a collaborative consortium of health care organizations working to guide the implementation of EBP into the work worlds of clinicians. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationships between the acquisition, application, and sharing of evidence, and self-efficacy.

Results: Self-efficacy increased the acquisition of evidence and application of evidence. Self-efficacy did not exert a significant influence on sharing evidence. Acquisition of evidence increased both application of evidence and sharing of evidence. Application of evidence then increased sharing of evidence among sampled clinicians.