Page 251 -

234 Chapter 7

The study also elicited some information on what made it hard to share explicit
knowledge and suggestions as to how it could be made easier. The major diffi culties
mentioned were that it was hard to fi nd, there were different systems and no stan-
dards, the information was not where it should be, the tools were diffi cult to use, and
the database was diffi cult to access. Some suggestions that were made were to conduct
training on knowledge retrieval, to defi ne a knowledge strategy that would categorize
in a standard way, to standardize the information technologies, and to create project
web sites.
Next, the authors looked at how tacit knowledge was shared. The most popular
means used was face-to-face (90 percent), followed by informal networks (25 percent).
Some of the factors that made it diffi cult to share tacit knowledge included attitudes
that knowledge was power, not knowing who the expert was, not knowing if the
knowledge exists, and loss of knowledge when people left the company. Some sug-
gestions that were made to improve tacit knowledge sharing included recognizing
the value of tacit knowledge, improving relationships within the organization, and
increasing opportunities for people within different parts of the organization to
interact.
The ideal knowledge-sharing culture would thus emphasize communication and
coordination between groups, experts would not jealously guard their knowledge, and
knowledge sharing would be actively and visibly encouraged at all levels of the hier-
archy through the recognition and rewarding of knowledge sharing and through
embedding such statements in corporate and individual performance objectives. A
culture that promotes knowledge sharing would be one were tools and taxonomies
are standardized to make access and exchange easy, where there are a signifi cant
number of semi-social events such as workshops for sharing with experts and other
groups, where organizational goals explicitly include knowledge sharing, where trust
is prevalent in all interactions, and where the communication channels fl ow across
geographical, temporal, and thematic boundaries.
Gruber and Duxbury (2000) concluded that an environment that truly supports
the sharing of knowledge has the following characteristics:
Reward structure Recognition for knowledge sharing with peers
Openness/transparency No hidden agendas
Sharing supported Communication and coordination between groups
Trust Shared objectives
Top management support Upward and downward communication