Page 250 -

CONCLUSIONS 239

project could be exploited and used by another and should therefore be shared.
Intermediaries are often in a position to do this as they are able to translate the
experience of particular individuals and groups into the language understood by
other individuals and groups.
Projects spanning different functions and organizations which are character-
ized by complex project ecologies and high interactivity which were discussed
in Chapter 5 have the greatest need to share knowledge across the sub-projects
which are separated by both time and space. In these particular contexts the
knowledge that is produced across projects needs to be mutually constituted
through a more continuous form of collaboration which is far more elaborate
than simply knowledge sharing. The Theragnostic and Skin cases in Chapter 5
highlighted the problems and outcomes associated with problems around poor
knowledge sharing in complex project ecologies.
Enabling knowledge sharing was an important motivation for the develop-
ment of KMS – the recycling of knowledge being highly cost-efficient – but it
is often difficult to achieve in practice via KMS. As we noted in Chapter 7, the
use of ICTs is often most effective when used dialectically, helping to connect,
engage and develop communities rather than to try and share knowledge. More-
over, where knowledge sharing does happen, it often takes place accidentally or
through the sharing of embodied knowledge that accompanies movements of
personnel between project teams and between assignments, as illustrated in the
ScienceCo and LiftCo cases. This suggests that staff rotation and career develop-
ment systems may be key in facilitating knowledge sharing. Yet these elements
often remain unrecognized in initiatives to manage knowledge work, maybe
because they appear unexciting or mundane compared to new KMS. How-
ever, such staff movements crucially impact on personal networks, widening the
range of contacts of an individual, and thus increasing his or her social capital
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). These personal networks influence knowledge
share in at least two ways. First, personal networks can be important in identify-
ing and accessing the knowledge needed for a given activity. Second, personal
networks can enhance the informal sharing of learning by helping to develop the
relationships and trust that underpin it, as discussed in Chapter 4.
Knowledge sharing can also take place, of course, via the sharing of docu-
mentation and through electronic means (intranet and e-mail). However, we
have already discussed how such codified knowledge sharing is only effective in
situations where there is some common understanding and a sufficiently well-
defined task. Given this, ICTs may link geographically diverse teams but may
inhibit knowledge sharing if it becomes a substitute for face-to-face interaction,
as demonstrated in the BankCo and Research Team cases.
Aside from these questions of the mode of knowledge sharing, the orga-
nizational imperatives and political environment will also crucially influence
the efforts individual’s place on knowledge sharing. For example, at the orga-
nizational level, the time horizons of management objectives and political
agendas exert a strong influence on the willingness of individuals and groups
to capture learning and share knowledge across internal boundaries. This was

6/5/09 7:21:37 AM
9780230_522015_11_cha10.indd 239 6/5/09 7:21:37 AM
9780230_522015_11_cha10.indd 239