Work Groups and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization.

Abstract

Groups incur a number of internal costs when members work in different geographic locations and represent different functional areas. For example, it can be difficult for distributed group members to develop a common understanding of the task, or for cross-functional group members to reconcile dissimilar points of view. Relatively little scholarly attention, however, has been given to the external benefits that distributed or cross-functional group members have available to them. These include access to diverse sources of knowledge, such as customers in a variety of locations or non-group employees from different functions. Past studies have shown a positive relationship between external knowledge sharing and work group performance. This paper extends previous research by examining whether distributed or cross-functional groups benefit from external knowledge sharing more than co-located or functionally homogeneous groups. I surveyed 182 work groups in a Fortune 500 corporation to assess how often members shared general overviews, specific requirements, analytical techniques, progress reports, and project results within and outside of the group. Members were located around the world, they represented numerous functional areas, and they worked on tasks ranging from product development to manufacturing operations. Senior managers in the company rated each work group on their performance. I hypothesized and found that both internal and external knowledge sharing were positively related to group performance. Building on social network theory, I also hypothesized and found that as geographic distribution and cross-functionality increased, the relationship between external knowledge sharing and group performance became even stronger.These results suggest that external networks can provide distributed or cross-functional group members with access to unique task information, know-how, and feedback.3

Relationship between quality management practices and knowledge transfer

“…We adapted the scale developed by Cummings (2001) and asked the company CEOs to indicate on a Likert-type seven-point scale (1 = ''never'', 7 = ''to a great extent'') the degree to which the different units in the firm transfer: (a) objectives and responsibilities; (b) specific requirements; (c) written procedures and the practical knowledge to use them; (d) superior practices for carrying out tasks; and (e) clear recommendations and tips to improve the performance of the tasks. The internal consistency (a = 0.89) was analyzed, as was the unidimensionality, using an exploratory factor study.…”

Role of Knowledge Management Within Innovation and Performance

“…Knowledge Transfer. Due to the fact that there is a closer link with our research and that the scale's validity was verified in detail, we used a Likert-type 7-point scale (1 "never", 7 "to a great extent") with three items from the scale developed by Darroch (2003) and Cummings (2001). These items have been duly adapted to the present study (see Appendix).…”

“…Organizations obtain more rich and diverse knowledge base by knowledge acquisition and it encourages innovation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990;Cassiman & Veugelers, 2006;Andreeva & Kianto, 2011). Knowledge transfer is focused in the exploitation and application of existing knowledge, especially supported on the innovation (Cummings, 2001;Savory, 2006;Kumar & Ganesh, 2009). And the appropriate use of knowledge is critical to stimulate innovation processes of organizations (Dits & Berkhout, 1999;Chilton and Bloodgood, 2010).…”

The Virtual Team Challenge: Is It Time for Training?

“…Communication of information and ideas are often more difficult when using electronic technology [Cummings (2001)]. E-mail, telephone, fax, and voicemail offer more restricted bandwidth than face-to-face communication [Handy (1995)].…”