Knowledge Sharing Differences Between Engineering Functional Teams: An Empirical Investigation

Abstract

Studies on organisations have indicated the significance of acknowledging subcultures across an organisation. It is therefore important to consider dedicated Knowledge Management (KM) strategies for different "entities" within each ontology level to suit their unique characteristics. However, a review of the literature indicates that this concept so far appears to have only been applied down to departmental level. There is little research exploring the next level down, to whether or not different "teams" require different KM strategies to remain competitive. In order to answer this question, this research explores what differences there are between teams in the context of KM by using a case study of a medium-sized high-tech manufacturer in New Zealand. Different KM practices between homogeneous teams of design engineers from different technical disciplines within the same department were investigated. The findings confirmed that in the context of KM, teams within a department do not always behave homogeneously. Four factors that caused different tacit knowledge sharing practices between the functional teams in the Engineering Department of the case company were identified: The nature of the technical discipline, team resources, departmental structure design and team culture. Based on these findings, a KM approach defining a specific KM strategy for each team was then proposed. This approach provides managers with an alternative perspective on KM implementation, which may help mitigate the high failure rate of KM among businesses reported in the literature.

Back to the future of Knowledge Management Systems off the beaten paths

“…Du Plessis (2008) underlines the usefulness of communities of practice for knowledge sharing and learning in improving innovation and responsiveness. Other authors (Desouza and Awazu, 2006; Pillania, 2008; Chong, 2011; Yao et al , 2011; Lin et al , 2012a, b; Noblet and Simon, 2012; Whyte and Classen, 2012) underline the importance of man-focused practices, e.g. formal meetings, informal networks, project groups, storytelling, interactions with providers / customers.…”

“…Knowledge creation and transfer practices can contribute to improve organisational capacity in human resource development (Akdere, 2009), also they mediate between HRM practices and improved organisational capabilities, which in turn lead to superior organisational performance (Theriou and Chatzoglou, 2008). From an external perspective, collaborative KM practices – like knowledge mapping, problem solving or collaborative groups – can improve the quality of the relationship with supply chain partners (Lin et al , 2012a, b).…”

“…The variety of gaps emerging from both these contributions underlines how the knowledge framework in the field of KMSs, in networks populated by large companies (LCs) and SMEs, is still fragmented, and the main research directions on the topic are still unexplored. In particular, the specificity of the heterogeneous KMSs adopted in the specific phases of the KM and the difference between LCs and SMEs in adopting KMSs are still overlooked (Thorpe et al , 2005; Durst and Edvardsson, 2012; Lin et al , 2012a, b; Cerchione et al , 2016). Furthermore, despite the literature proposes a variety of contributions concerning the adoption of KMSs supporting knowledge transaction and collaboration among LCs, only in recent years literature has been focusing on the use of KMSs in SMEs.…”

The Spread of Knowledge Management in SMEs: A Scenario in Evolution

“…Thus, it is not surprising that most of the practices are oriented toward the management of tacit knowledge. Some authors [16,21,[74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] suggest a variety of people-centered practices such as: Focus groups, formal meetings, communities of sharing, virtual communities, informal networks, project teams, interactions with clients, interactions with suppliers, interactions with partners, communities of practices, job rotation, training. Moreover, even though Hutchinson and Quintas (2008) [83] underline that small firms are more likely to adopt informal processes to manage knowledge, other authors [84][85][86][87][88] also suggest the importance of more formal techniques and methods (such as: casual mapping, knowledge maps, balance scorecards, formal manuals), while others suggest establishing a chief knowledge officer [78] or a project team [80,89].…”

Evaluating current practice and proposing a system to enhance knowledge assets within a small software development unit

“…Reference [17] differentiate between KM tools and KM practices used to support KM initiatives. Evidence suggests that KM practice at SMEs engaged in processes such as capturing, storing, mapping, disseminating, and creating information focus mainly on managing tacit knowledge and people-centred practices: [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. SMEs are also likely to adopt informal KM processes, however [23], [24] and [25] stress the importance of formal practices e.g.…”