Benefits of Knowledge Sharing

– Does it Deliver?

For nearly two
decades, consulting firms, technology companies, R&D-driven corporations
and other knowledge-intensive organizations have made significant investments
in "knowledge management" initiatives. These initiatives are intended
to facilitate the capture and transfer of company expertise as a way to spur
learning and innovation.

But research by
Wharton management professor Martine Haas and
Morten Hansen, professor of entrepreneurship at INSEAD, indicates that
knowledge sharing efforts often fail to result in improved task outcomes inside
organizations — and may even hurt project performance. However, organizations
that plan carefully before launching a knowledge-sharing initiative, and
support these efforts along the way, have a much better chance of adding value,
the researchers say.

Haas acknowledges
that, initially at least, the premise of their research appears to contradict
accepted wisdom. "The expectation has been that knowledge gathering should
be beneficial for project teams," Haas says. "This thinking is
consistent with strategic management theories [suggesting] that knowledge
resources provide a critical source of competitive advantage for firms."

Yet in practice,
according to Haas, the types of knowledge shared and the design of the
organization's project teams are likely to influence the success or failure of
a knowledge-sharing effort.

In a paper titled,
"Different Knowledge, Different Benefits: Toward a Productivity
Perspective on Knowledge Sharing in Organizations," Haas and Hansen
identify two distinct ways in which knowledge sharing usually occurs in
organizations.

"The first way
is through direct contact between individuals, typically when one person
advises another about completing a specific task," says Haas. "The
defining characteristic of this mode is that the handover of knowledge requires
direct contact between the provider and receiver — through meetings, by phone or
via e-mail." Direct contact allows for the transmission of tacit or
non-codified knowledge that may be difficult to put in writing.

Using Codified Knowledge

In a study of 182
sales teams that were bidding for new client contracts in a management consulting
company, Haas and Hansen found that using personal advice from experienced
colleagues can improve work quality.

Having colleagues
attend meetings or appear on client documents can backfire if these colleagues
are unwilling to exert the effort needed to fully understand the client's
situation, adapt their knowledge to the task at hand or respond to client
demands.

One way around this
is to utilize codified knowledge, typically electronic documents. "We find
that using codified knowledge in the form of electronic documents saved time
during the task, but did not improve work quality or signal competence to
clients, whereas in contrast, sharing personal advice improved work quality and
signaled competence, but did not save time,"

Haas says. "This
is interesting because managers often believe that capturing and sharing
knowledge via document databases can substitute for getting personal advice,
and that sharing advice through personal networks can save time.

While part of the
challenge is to use knowledge appropriate for the task, Haas notes that
organizations also face the problem of setting up teams in ways that help them
take full advantage of the knowledge they use.

'Time Famine'

In a study of 96
teams in a financial institution, other researchers investigated design
features that can help teams avoid such problems by enhancing their processing,
sense-making and buffering capabilities. "

Slack time is the
amount of time and attention the team members can commit to the project beyond
the minimum required."

Research points to
the conclusion that prior experience generates tacit knowledge that enhances a
team member's ability to interpret external knowledge appropriately and apply
it effectively, notes Haas in a 2006 paper titled, "Knowledge Gathering, Team
Capabilities, and Project Performance in Challenging Work Environments."

In addition to
staffing teams with experienced members, if possible, and giving them
sufficient slack time, Haas argues that an organization's project teams should
be given sufficient autonomy to make their own decisions.

Finally, the
buffering advantages of autonomy also can enhance the processing and
sense-making capabilities of project teams by freeing the team members to focus
more energy on their activities.

Leveraging Knowledge Successfully

Subsequent research
on project teams emphasized the importance of going beyond the team's
boundaries to find valuable information for the task.

Haas' most recent
research efforts draw upon studies in the consulting and financial industries,
but she says the underlying issues may be found in many organizations that
depend on knowledge sharing efforts, including research and development teams
in consumer goods, pharmaceuticals and other manufacturing settings, as well as
legal, accounting and other professional service firms.

The difficulties
inherent in performing successfully on innovative projects are increased
further by the rapid pace of change in many knowledge-intensive industries, she
adds.

Overall, research by
Haas and Hansen suggests that organizations that care about knowledge sharing
must look beyond intermediate goals — such as promoting knowledge capture,
search and transfer — when setting up and supporting initiatives in this area.
To effectively leverage knowledge sharing activities, they must consider the
costs as well as the benefits of knowledge sharing processes, and make sure
they understand the implications for task-level performance outcomes.

Moving beyond a focus
on knowledge sharing itself as the outcome that firms are trying to maximize,
Haas and Hansen's research has identified three dimensions of task performance
— work quality, time savings and signals of competence — that are often
critical to the productivity of knowledge work.

The first key
implication is that it is unsafe to assume that more knowledge sharing is
always better. In fact, the researchers note, using too much of the wrong type
of knowledge can harm project performance because there are costs as well as
benefits involved. It is not uncommon for organizations to install costly
knowledge management systems, such as document databases, or to spend time
promoting knowledge-sharing forums among employees and others.

Source
: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu