Knowledge sharing in multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and BusinessMSc BA – Change Management
Peter Bosch MSc Student number 1333747
Brekken 6 8032XK Zwolle
Knowledge sharing in multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers
Abstract
Authors argue that Shared Service Centers lead to knowledge sharing. This research investigates whether multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers lead to knowledge sharing as well. This is done by asking HR, IT and Facility managers whether they share knowledge. Furthermore, hypotheses with knowledge sharing factors are posed in order to see whether these factors are promoting or inhibiting factors. The conclusion is that knowledge sharing in multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers does not occur and that organizational structure, organizational culture, structural social capital and cognitive social capital influence the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT managers, HR managers and Facility managers.
Acknowledgement
Content
1. INTRODUCTION... 4
2.1 SHARED SERVICE CENTERS... 7
2.1.1 Shared Service Centers versus other business models... 7
2.1.2 Advantages and disadvantages of a Shared Service Center ... 9
2.1.3 Multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers ... 10
2.2 KNOWLEDGE SHARING... 12 2.2.1 Objectivist perspective... 12 2.2.2 Subjectivist approach... 14 2.2.3 Conceptual Framework ... 17 3. METHODOLOGY ... 19 3.1 TYPE OF RESEARCH... 19 3.2 RESEARCH APPROACH... 19 3.3 RESEARCH STRATEGY... 20
3.4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS... 20
3.5 QUALITY OF THE RESEARCH... 22
4. CASES OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY SHARED SERVICE CENTERS... 23
4.1 THE CASE OF THE SHARED SERVICE ORGANISATIE... 23
4.1.1 Introduction to the Shared Service Organisatie ... 23
4.1.2 Knowledge sharing within the Shared Service Organisatie ... 24
4.1.3 Conclusion ... 27
4.2 THE CASE OF THE COMMANDO DIENSTENCENTRA... 28
4.2.1 Introduction to the Commando DienstenCentra ... 28
4.2.2 Knowledge sharing within the Commando DienstenCentra ... 29
4.2.3 Conclusion ... 32
4.3 THE CASE OF THE SERVICEDIENST ROTTERDAM... 33
4.3.1 Introduction to the Servicedienst Rotterdam ... 33
4.3.2 Knowledge sharing within the Servicedienst Rotterdam ... 33
4.3.3 Conclusion ... 36
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION... 37
5.1 CONCLUSION... 37
5.2 DISCUSSION... 42
1.
Introduction
Sourcing is increasingly popular in today’s business, and there are various forms of sourcing that can be implemented by organizations, such as insourcing, outsourcing or shared service centers. These forms are result from the trend that organizations in many industries are concentrating on core businesses (Beulen, Ribbers and Roos, 2006).
Shared services centers (SSC) can be seen as one of the new promising forms of gaining efficiency and quality improvements (Janssen & Joha, 2006; Strikwerda, 2003; Bergeron, 2003). SSCs are a result responsible unit within an organization, in which the leverage of (parts of the) services on a specific specialization (administration, IT, finance, human resources) towards the operational units of an organization is done on the basis of a contract (Strikwerda, 2003). Bergeron (2003) states that shared services are a collaborative strategy in which a subset of existing business functions are concentrated into a new, semi-autonomous business unit that has a management structure designed to promote efficiency, value generation, cost savings, and improved service for the internal customers of the parent corporation.
Shared service centers are therefore a new way of organizing and can occur in different settings. It is however striking to see that in the literature shared service centers mostly contain activities from one single service, such as IT, Finance, procurement, HR, or Facility Management (Bergeron, 2003, Strikwerda, 2003). Within these SSCs it is argued that the concentration of IT, Finance, Procurement, HR or Facility Management employees enhance knowledge sharing within these shared service centers (Strikwerda, 2003). However, there are also cases in which these different services are bundled, which imply that these shared service centers do contain activities from e.g. IT, Finance, Procurement, HR, and Facility Management. According to Bergeron (2003) all these activities can be seen as back-end functions. Therefore they can be bundled in a shared business unit in which they all interact with the customers of the parent organizations, although offering different services. Hence, these shared business units include different kinds of services. These shared service centers can therefore be best typified as multidisciplinary shared service centers, while these centers contain different services.
center is the ability to share knowledge. Therefore, it is interesting to see whether multidisciplinary shared service centers will lead to knowledge sharing among the various disciplines as well. As stated by Huysman and de Wit (2001), the success of knowledge management is related to the degree to which sharing knowledge has become a taken-for-granted part of the routine practices within the organization.
Twynstra Gudde Consultants and Managers is a leading consultancy firm that has provided result-oriented consultancy services and has filled management positions in different market segments for more than forty years. They provide consultancy services within the field of IT, HR and Facility Management. Twynstra Gudde wants to gain a deeper understanding of eventual crosslinks between shared service centers of IT, HR and Facility Management. Therefore, the focus of this research will be on multidisciplinary shared service centers that at least contain activities of IT, HR and Facility Management. Because IT, HR and Facility Management can all be seen as back-end functions of the organization, in which they offer services to the customers of the parent company, it is of interest to see whether there can be found knowledge sharing practices among these functions. Furthermore, it is of interest to see which factors influence the relationship between the multidisciplinary shared service center and knowledge sharing. This leads to the following research question:
Do multidisciplinary shared service centers lead to knowledge sharing among the disciplines of IT, HR and Facility Management?
Sub questions:
1. What are (multidisciplinary) Shared Service Centers? 2. What is knowledge sharing?
3. Do multidisciplinary shared service centers lead to knowledge sharing?
4. What are the promoting factors of knowledge sharing between the disciplines of HR, IT and Facility Management?
5. What are the inhibiting factors of knowledge sharing between the disciplines of HR, IT and Facility Management?
2.
Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, in the first paragraph I will discuss the concept of Shared Service Centers (SSC). Within this paragraph, I will discuss the concept of Shared Service Centers in comparison with other business models. Furthermore, I will discuss the advantages of a Shared Service Center and the existence of multidisciplinary shared service centers. In the second paragraph I will discuss two broad alternative perspectives on knowledge that can arise within organizations, namely the objectivist perspective and the subjectivist perspective. Furthermore, I will identify and discuss various variables that influence knowledge sharing within these two perspectives on knowledge. In the third paragraph I will discuss the conceptual model that can be derived from the theoretical research, which is the basis for the research whether these multidisciplinary shared service centers which contains activities from IT, HR and Facility Management will lead to knowledge sharing among the various disciplines.
2.1 Shared Service Centers
The move towards Shared service centers (SSC) began in the 1980s and was introduced in the United States in which it started out in the area of finance and accounting. Because it was successful, it later became active in private organizations and governmental institutions in Europe and the Netherlands as well.
2.1.1 Shared Service Centers versus other business models
The definitions discussed above imply that a SSC is a semiautonomous unit in which a subset of services is concentrated. Janssen and Joha (2006) have positioned SSCs in contrast to centralized models, outsourcing and distinguish two kinds of shared service centers, namely the interorganizational shared service centers and the (intraorganizational) shared service center, as can be seen in figure 1. As can be seen in figure 1, SSCs can be used to share services between departments within an organization or between organizations. The former kind of SSC type can be called an intraorganizational SSC, while the latter kind is called an interorganizational SSC. This study is demarcated to intraorganizational SSCs only, because the focus of this study is on knowledge sharing between Human Resources, IT and Facility Management.
Figure 1: SSC versus other business models
arrangements address the relationship between many clients and one internal vendor, both belonging to one and the same organization (Janssen and Joha, 2006). Moreover, the outsourcing model is different because of its external orientation, which involves a formal contractual relationship, where clearly defined responsibilities are legally shifted to the outsourcing vendor (Janssen and Joha, 2006).
2.1.2 Advantages and disadvantages of a Shared Service Center
According to Beulen, Ribbers and Roos (2006) the most important advantages of shared service centers are cost savings and quality improvements and both improvements can be seen as the result of concentration. As stated by Bergeron (2003) the goal of shared services is to improve the bottom line of the parent corporation. This implies that the creation of a more internally streamlined shared business unit is not a goal per se. Furthermore, Bergeron (2003) makes a distinction between the parent corporation’s perspective and the shared business unit perspective with regards to potential benefits of a shared service center.
From a parent corporation’s perspective, there are four potential benefits of a shared service center. First, it promises cost savings in which there is a constant pressure from internal corporate clients to provide cost effective products and/or services (Bergeron, 2003). Second, the usage of a shared service center secures that the management of the parent company can focus on its core competencies. Therefore the parent corporation faces fewer distractions from core competency activities, while the back office and other non-critical activities are now done by the shared service center. Third, the shared business unit’s customer-oriented focus should result in improved service to internal customers (Bergeron, 2003). Fourth, a shared service center can act like a nearly autonomous business unit, with other paying outside clients. Therefore, a shared service center can be seen as a potential for creating an externally focused profit center (Bergeron, 2003). However, this potential benefit is not applicable for the focus of this study, while it focuses on intraorganizational shared service centers.
methodologies and efficiency improvements allow junior staff to take over tasks once controlled by more expensive senior staff (Bergeron, 2003). Third, like the more traditional centralized approach, shared service centers concentrate purchasing and other formerly dispersed business activities, which result in greater buying power and greater concentration of specialized resources, such as specialists in certain aspects of Facility Management, IT or HR. Therefore, this concentration results in increased economies of scale, in comparison to the original corporate structure (Bergeron, 2003).
On the other side, there are also disadvantages of a shared service center. A disadvantage that can arise is that the business processes must confirm to the standards of the shared service center. Therefore, the flexibility is hindered, which is especially the case in large organizations with many different operations (Krempel, 1999, Opheij en Willems, 2004). Furthermore, communication problems can arise as well by having a service center far away from the business (Beulen, Ribbers and Roos, 2006). Finally, when an organization sets up a shared service center it might lead to personnel problems, especially when the shared service center is moved to another country. This is because many employees will not be willing to move to another country simply because their activities move there (Beulen, Ribbers and Roos, 2006).
2.1.3 Multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers
A shared service center can be applied in a variety of disciplines ranging from IT, HR, Finance and Facility Management. However, as can be seen in Strikwerda’s (2005) overview of shared service centers in the Netherlands, not all shared service centers contain activities from one single service only, while there are shared service centers that include different kinds of services. These shared service centers can therefore be best typified as multidisciplinary shared service centers, while these centers contain different services. Opheij and Willems (2004) state that these shared service centers can be defined as shared support services, in which a service contains activities from Facility Management, HR and IT.
Figure 2: Organizational structure of the multidisciplinary shared service center of the ministry of Defence
It shows that within this multidisciplinary shared service various subunits are active, which represent all kind of services. According to Strikwerda (2005) it is by 2003 that DICO also offers services dealing with HR, Facility Management and IT within the shared service center. Within these services, different activities can be found, which can have a more generic part and a more specific part with regards to the service they offer.
2.2 Knowledge Sharing
In the last decade, knowledge management has become a popular topic in the field of management. It is however interesting to see why knowledge management has become the focus of attention. Empson (2001) argues that the current emphasis on knowledge management can be assigned to two developments that stem from a practical point of view. First, capital and labour-intensive industries have continued to decline within developed economies and the relative importance of information-intensive industries has increased. Second, advances in information technology have created incentives for identifying sources of knowledge within organizations and for developing systematic procedures for disseminating knowledge more widely among organizational members.
According to Huysman and de Wit (2004) knowledge management can be seen as “organizational practices that facilitate and structure knowledge sharing among knowledge workers, in which the success of knowledge management is related to the degree to which sharing knowledge has become a taken-for-granted part of the routine practices within the organization”.
2.2.1 Objectivist perspective
The objectivist perspective seeks to identify valuable knowledge within the organization and tries to develop mechanisms for managing this knowledge effectively (Empson, 2001). Therefore, this perspective sees knowledge as an asset and an important source of competitive advantage (Grant 1996, Nelson and Winter, 1982, Teece, 1991). The objectivist perspective can be best described by making use of the tacit-explicit dichotomy. However, the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is not unique to this particular perspective, but the specific way the distinction is theorized is quite particular and has important consequences for explaining the ways in which tacit and explicit knowledge are shared (Hislop, 2002). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) argue that explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be codified in a tangible form whereas tacit knowledge can be seen as knowledge that people possess, but which is inexpressible. According to van den Hooff and Huysman (2009) researched three variables that can be related to knowledge sharing from an objectivist perspective, namely organizational structure, organizational culture and technical infrastructure. However, results show that only organizational structure and organizational culture are related to knowledge sharing. Therefore, technical infrastructure is not a variable within this research.
(2001) structural elements have often unintended consequences of inhibiting collaboration and sharing of knowledge across internal organizational boundaries. Therefore, if the organizational structure focuses on individualistic behaviour and is designed for rigidity, knowledge sharing and collaboration across boundaries within the organization can be a difficult operation. Hereby, it is not the individualistic behaviour itself that is important, because it is about how structural elements have an influence on this. Therefore, as stated by Kim and Lee (2006) an organizational structure that emphasizes centralization, rules and regulations, and control systems serve as a barrier for knowledge sharing. Van den Hooff and Huysman (2009) state that a hierarchical or a functional division structure impedes knowledge sharing. This is also stated by Robbins (2000) in which he found two organizational structure characteristics that influence the degree of knowledge sharing. First, formalization in which internal limitations with respect to rules, standardization of procedures and other formal norms impose the level of knowledge sharing. Effective knowledge management requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules. Second, centralization in which the distribution of decision making power within an organization is influential to the degree of knowledge sharing. For instance, a narrow delegation and a one-way communication line impose the degree of knowledge sharing. Furthermore, this can imply that the staff in this organization is not approachable. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: an organizational structure that promotes individualistic behaviour and rigidity impedes the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center (reversely coded)
inhibit knowledge sharing and constrain employees in using various sources of knowledge for developing new products and services. The second type is an innovative culture, in which the work is challenging and where members are encouraged for initiative and where interaction between different departments is encouraged. Furthermore, members within this culture are encouraged to innovate, to investigate and to experiment. Therefore, the organizational culture can be seen as a learning culture and there are no regulations that hinder knowledge sharing between departments. The third type is a supportive culture, which contains an open and harmonious working environment. Within this culture, participation, teamwork and interpersonal relationships are emphasized. Therefore, interaction between different departments is encouraged within this culture and members are encouraged to ask others for help whenever necessary. Furthermore, within a supportive culture there is a sense of belonging. That means that employees have a sense of a ‘corporate family’ and a shared purpose. Therefore, the following hypothesis can be posed:
H2: an innovative and supportive organizational culture supports knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center
2.2.2 Subjectivist approach
According to van den Hooff and Huysman (2009) four variables can be found which can be related to knowledge sharing from a subjectivist perspective, namely the three dimensions of social capital, which are structural dimension, the relational dimension and the cognitive dimension and a fourth variable which is task equivocality. However, research showed that task equivocality was not found to influence knowledge sharing (van den Hooff and Huysman, 2009) and therefore task equivocality is not a variable within this research.
According to the subjectivist perspective whether or not individuals share their knowledge is much more determined by the interpersonal and group relationships than by management interventions in terms of organizational or technical infrastructures (van den Hooff and Huysman, 2009, Tsai, 2001). It is however dependant on how the organizational units are connected (Tsai, 2001). According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) social capital can be seen ‘as the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possesses by an individual or social unit’. Therefore, the strength of the relations indicates how well an individual knows his or her exchange partners. According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) there are three dimensions that reside within social capital, namely a structural dimension, cognitive dimension and relational dimension
H3: a high degree of access, referral and timing between actors supports knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center
Second, the relational dimension covers accessibility of resources from people or units to each other, the expected value from knowledge sharing and the motivation of parties to participate in knowledge sharing activities. Therefore, through interactions, individuals are able to access and leverage resources embedded in relationships. The strength of relations indicates how well an individual knows his or her exchange partners and therefore influences the level of knowledge sharing. Key facets with respect to this relational dimension are trust, norms, obligations and identification (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Therefore, high relational social capital means that actors view the organization as a group they belong to, in which they feel connected to their colleagues. With regard to this relational dimension Kennan and Hazleton (2000) argue that there are three components, namely obligations, trust and the strength of ties that exist between relational partners. They argue that obligations emerge where connections form between individuals. One is obligated to repay a debt, return a call, or offer help when it had previously been extended. Furthermore, trust is an expectation that individuals will exhibit behaviour that is consistent with expectations. A strong connection between people, groups, or organizations would include time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocity. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posed:
H4: a high degree of relational social capital supports knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center
Third, the cognitive dimension provides the shared context that is essential for intellectual capital. According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) this sharing of context takes place through shared language, codes and shared collective narratives. This means that actors from different departments speak the same ‘technical language’ and that they understand their colleagues when they talk about issues about work. Therefore, it influences the level of knowledge sharing.
H5: shared language, codes and shared collective narratives supports knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center
to the value of others knowledge as well as one’s own contributions, sharing a ‘common know-how’ which facilitates understanding of others’ knowledge and as well as a correct interpretation and assessment of one’s own knowledge (van den Hooff and Huysman, 2009).
This results in figure 3 in which the posed hypotheses are related to knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary SSC. These five hypotheses will be researched and as can be seen there will be four hypotheses that can be promoting variables with regards to knowledge sharing of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary SSC. Hypothesis 1 (H1) is reversely coded and therefore this can be seen as an inhibiting factor of knowledge sharing.
Figure 3: Hypotheses related to knowledge sharing
2.2.3 Conceptual Framework
The previous paragraphs have given insight in (multidisciplinary) shared service centers and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, the hypotheses that are related to knowledge sharing have been researched as well. This leads to the conceptual framework of this research, which can be seen in figure 4:
Knowledge sharing of IT, HR and FM managers within a Multidisciplinary SSC H2: an innovative and supportive
organizational culture
H5: shared language, codes and shared collective narratives H4: a high degree of relational
social capital H3: a high degree of access, referral and timing between actors
+
+
+
+
_
H1: an organizational structure that promotesFigure 4: Conceptual Model
As can be seen within the conceptual model the goal of this research is to see whether knowledge sharing occurs in multidisciplinary shared service centers. Furthermore, now that the various variables that lead to knowledge sharing are discussed and formed into different hypotheses it is of interest to see how these variables are related to knowledge sharing within multidisciplinary shared service centers. Therefore, can these hypotheses be accepted or rejected. Hence, the acceptance or the rejection of the hypotheses will give insight of whether these five variables promoting or inhibiting factors for knowledge sharing between IT, HR and Facility Management within a multidisciplinary shared service center are.
Knowledge Sharing Multidisciplinary Shared Service Center (mSSC) Organizational Structure Organizational Culture
Relational Social Capital
Cognitive Social Capital
3.
Methodology
The following methodology chapter explains how and under what conditions this research will be done. This is done in order to enable the reader to trace how the author went about when conducting the research.
3.1 Type of research
According to Yin (1994) there are three different categories of research: exploratory, descriptive and explanatory. Exploratory research is used when there is little or restricted research available on the topic. Exploratory research is most commonly used in the initial stages of a study when the researcher aims at finding a research problem or developing his research problem and making it more explicit. It is especially useful when a clear understanding of a problem is desired. Descriptive research includes a complete description of a phenomenon within its context. Explanatory research explains causal relations between cause and effect, thus it aims at explaining why one event leads to the other. The purpose of this paper is research whether multidisciplinary shared service centers lead to knowledge sharing among the disciplines of IT, HR and Facility Management. Therefore this research can be best typified as an exploratory research.
3.2 Research approach
knowledge sharing in relationship with multidisciplinary shared service centers can be explored in a more detailed manner when conducting qualitative research.
3.3 Research strategy
There are several research strategies to use when conducting a study. Yin (1994) mentions and discusses case studies, experiments, surveys, histories and the analysis of archival information. A key question that the researcher has to deal with is which of the above mentioned strategies to choose from in order to answer a research problem as favourably as possible. Each one of them implies a different way of collecting data and analyzing the empirical findings. The selection of which research strategy should be used, depends on three conditions: 1) the type of research question asked 2) the extent of control the investigator has over actual behavioural events 3) the degree of focus the research questions have on contemporary or historical events.
The use of case studies is considered the most appropriate strategy. I want to gain a deeper understanding whether multidisciplinary shared service centers lead to knowledge sharing among the disciplines of IT, HR and Facility Management. Therefore, I have searched for shared service centers that contain at least the disciplines of IT, HR and Facility Management. Strikwerda (2005) mentions two multidisciplinary shared service centers that can be selected for this research, namely the shared service centers at Albeda College and the Ministerie van Defensie. However, an inquiry showed that the shared service center at Albeda contains no HR discipline. Searching the internet led to other possibilities of Shared Service Centers in which IT, HR and Facility Management are active. This resulted in the following list of multidisciplinary shared service centers, which can be used for this research:
- Servicedienst Rotterdam (Gemeente Rotterdam)
- Shared Service Organisatie (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat) - Commando DienstenCentra (Ministerie van Defensie)
I have found no appropriate shared service centers in the private domain. In most private shared service centers there can not be found a HR discipline, because it shows that this discipline is mostly centralized near the top.
3.4 Data collection and analysis
partly or even wholly, since the collection of primary data is usually a costly operation. Secondary data sources include market resources, governmental publications, periodicals and books, the Internet and commercial data provided by certain companies. In this study I made use of secondary and primary data.
I have conducted interviews with managers from the several disciplines that are active in the multidisciplinary shared service center. This means I have conducted interviews preferably with the HR manager, IT manager and the Facility manager within the multidisciplinary shared service centers. The questions asked in the interviews with the HR Manager, IT manager and the Facility manager contained adaptations of the survey questions on knowledge sharing by Gold et al (2001) and Van Hooff and Huysman (2009). Furthermore, I have asked questions about the multidisciplinary shared service center as well, in order to see how the context looks like in which the research is conducted. The interview question can be found in appendix 2. In order to minimize the chances of representation I have used other sources as a way of collecting data about the case studies. However, secondary data on multidisciplinary shared service centers is rather limited, which indicates that research in this specific topic is very relevant.
This results in the following list of persons that have been interviewed for this research as can be seen in Table 1:
Organization Function Duration
Servicedienst Rotterdam Director Development 1.5 hour Shared Service Organisatie Manager Advice and Development
Facility Management
1 hour
Shared Service Organisatie Advisor Facility Management 1 hour Shared Service Organisatie Manager Support Service IT 1 hour Shared Service Organisatie Manager HR advice 1.5 hour Commando DienstenCentra Senior Advisor Facility Management 2 hours Commando DienstenCentra Senior Advisor Facility Management 2 hours Commando DienstenCentra Head Board of Assistance 1 hour Commando DienstenCentra Manager HR advisory 1 hour
Table 1: List of interviewees
contain factors that influence knowledge sharing behaviour in a positive or negative way. These factors give guidance to the interview questions and demarcate the amount of factors that have an influence on knowledge sharing, because prior studies showed that these factors influence knowledge sharing behaviour.
3.5 Quality of the research
4.
Cases of Multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers
In this chapter the cases of the Shared Service Organisatie (SSO), Commando DienstenCentra (CDC) and the Servicedienst Rotterdam will be introduced as cases in which a multidisciplinary shared service center can be found. I will analyse whether these multidisciplinary shared service centers lead to knowledge sharing. Furthermore, I will analyse how the variables previously discussed are related to knowledge sharing within multidisciplinary shared service centers. Hence, are these variables in a multidisciplinary shared service centers promoting or inhibiting factors for knowledge sharing between IT, HR and Facility Management.
4.1 The Case of the Shared Service Organisatie
In this first paragraph I will present the Shared Service Organisatie (SSO). In the second paragraph knowledge sharing between IT, HR and Facility Management will be discussed, followed by a conclusion.
4.1.1 Introduction to the Shared Service Organisatie
In 2003 Verkeer en Waterstaat started with the bundling of supporting business functions into a new business unit, namely the Shared Service Organisatie (SSO). The bundling of these supporting functions must lead to quality improvement, synergy advantages, efficiency and more effective control. The SSO employs about 520 people and provides specific pre-defined services to operational units such as the various Verkeer en Waterstaat divisions and the Water Management Inspectorate (Inspectie Verkeer en Waterstaat).
In figure 5 the organizational structure of the SSO is shown.
Figure 5: Organizational structure of the SSO
It shows that there are four business units within the SSO and each business unit focuses on specific supportive aspects.
First, Facility Management contains products and services such as housing, workplaces, security, catering, cleaning and information delivery. Furthermore, relation and supply management, advice and development of facility management concepts are activities that are accomplished as well within this business unit. Hence, the business unit contains operational, tactical and strategic functions.
Second, IT contains products and services such as application management, system and network management, multimedia, e-services and advice. Furthermore, relation and supply management, account management and governance are tasks that are accomplished as well within this business unit. Hence, the business unit contains operational, tactical and strategic functions.
Third, HRM contains products and services such as career management, compensation and salary administration, personnel administration and HR and business-advice. Within the HR business there can be made a distinction between generalists and specialists. Specialists are more active on an operational level and the generalists tend to be more active on a tactical and strategic level.
The fourth business unit is Finance and Purchasing in which for example purchasing activities, contracting and budgeting are accomplished.
4.1.2 Knowledge sharing within the Shared Service Organisatie
There are four business units within the SSO, as can be seen in figure 5. It shows that there is a functional structure in which the different components can be found. According to the manager Support Service IT, ‘knowledge sharing behaviour and cooperation goes beyond the structure of the SSO’. For instance, in 2006 the SSO started with nine integral projects in which people and devices were assigned from the different business units. Therefore, knowledge sharing between HR managers, IT managers and Facility Managers is not something which occurs on a structural basis and is mainly imbued by the necessity of cooperation in projects and mainly instructed by the top management.
other’. As stated by the manager Support Service IT, ‘the disciplines of Facility Management and IT do have some joint procedures and processes, although this is more on an operational and tactical level’. For instance, in order to provide workspaces it is necessary to make this a joint effort of IT and Facility Management. Furthermore, with regards to contracts and tenders it is more likely that an IT manager and Facility manager share knowledge about this, because IT and Facility Management contracts are more similar to each other with regards to complexity. Therefore, there is in some way a supportive culture but there is no real proactive mindset for knowledge sharing behaviour. The mission is to share knowledge on strategic level as well, although this is not yet realized.
The manager advice and development Facility Management, states that ‘the formation of the SSO began with IT and Facility Management, because these disciplines were more ready and mature to move towards the SSO’. Within HR there were more individual groups and therefore the reorganization was far more difficult. Because IT and Facility Management faced more similar issues and because of the natural link between IT and Facility Management, in terms of procedures and processes, the strength of this tie is far more obvious and this influences the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT managers and Facility managers. According to the advisor Facility Management, ‘there is more recognition between IT and Facilty advisors’. As an example she states that advisors from the SSO followed a course about interpersonal capabilities. Within this course it became clear that FM advisors and IT had more shared narratives and a stronger relation with each other. As stated by the advisor Facility Management ‘during the course it became clear that HR advisors were different and that the examples used in the course were different from ours. There was a higher recognition when the IT manager brought in a case and this led to the knowledge that we shared similar problems’. However, such a course increases the recognition of the whole SSO vision and therefore it fosters the relationship with HR as well, because such a course makes you aware of the other business units. Therefore, such this course helps the knowledge sharing behaviour, because it strengthens the relationship between the various business units. As stated by the manager advice and development Facility Management,, ‘when talking about cooperation it was always IT of whom you think of, but now Facility Management becomes more accustomed to HR as well’. Furthermore, the course helped to overcome language issues as well, because managers try to comprehend each other whereas before the course this was not the case.
whether one was allowed to interact with clients on several disciplines and this resulted in a lot of resistance between IT managers, HR managers and Facility Managers. As stated ‘everybody wants to remain responsible for their own specific unit and therefore a form of distrust leads to difficulties in knowledge sharing behaviour’. The manager Support Service IT states that ‘these integral projects were difficult because of a form of distrust’. Furthermore, ‘these experiences, in which every discipline blamed the other, made it harder to share knowledge in future projects. There were neither real obligations nor trust and therefore knowledge sharing behaviour was difficult’.
However another reason why knowledge sharing behaviour is not very prominent, except for the several integral projects, is because of the different trajectories of the three disciplines. As stated by the manager HR advice ‘the formation of the HR discipline of the SSO was a difficult operation, with an immense change for the personnel. The personnel of HR had to make a shift from a more internal perspective towards a stronger client centred perspective’. Furthermore, the personnel had to move towards another building. Therefore, the HR discipline is still developing their own organization in which quality improvement is important in order to serve the clients even better. According to the manager Support Service IT, ‘the internal development of the IT discipline is already accomplished’ and therefore IT is looking for other possibilities to develop its businesses and does not think that HR is a usable connection to share knowledge with. Therefore, the IT SSO is now occupied with the insourcing of parts of other IT organizations from other departments, such as the ministry of VROM. This insourcing is a total different trajectory and brings about unique problems and challenges with regards to knowledge sharing. According to the manager advice and development Facility Management, the SSO of Facility Management is looking for other opportunities as well. The possible formation of a cooperation of Facility Management organizations between four ministries is on the way.
influential factor for the knowledge sharing behaviour within the multidisciplinary shared service center.
4.1.3 Conclusion
As can be concluded, knowledge sharing behaviour between IT, HR and Facility managers is very difficult and not very prominent within the SSO. The promoting and inhibiting factors of knowledge sharing in relation to the hypotheses are listed in table 2.
Hypotheses Quotes from SSO case Accept/Reject Hypotheses H1 ‘No joint procedures and processes which hindered the
knowledge sharing behaviour’
Accept
H2 ‘Every discipline has its own culture which is dependant on the development of its own business unit’. ‘Culture is a driver why knowledge sharing is very difficult’
Accept
H3 ‘IT is looking for other possibilities to develop its businesses and does not think that HR is a usable connection to share knowledge with’
Accept
H4 ‘These experiences, in which every discipline blamed the other, made it harder to share knowledge in future projects. There were neither real obligations nor trust and therefore knowledge sharing behaviour was difficult’
Accept
H5 ‘HR advisors were different and that the examples used in the course were different from ours. There was a higher recognition when the IT manager brought in a case and this led to the knowledge that we shared similar problems’
Accept
4.2 The case of the Commando DienstenCentra 4.2.1 Introduction to the Commando DienstenCentra
The Commando DienstenCentra was introduced in 1996 under the name Defensie Interservice Commando (DICO) and led to the bundling of various supporting business functions into a new business unit. In 2004, DICO changed the name into Commando DienstenCentra (CDC) and because of the expansion of supporting business functions an organizational structure was developed, as can be seen in figure 6.
Figure 6: Organizational structure of the CDC
Figure 6 shows that there are eight business units within the CDC and each focuses on specific specialized supporting services. As can be seen CDC makes a distinction between various Facility Management, IT and HR services separated into different business units. As can be seen in figure 6, a separation has been made. The different corporate groups that focus more on human related issues can be seen on the right side where the corporate groups that focus more on the process related issues can be seen on the left side.
Facility services are found in three corporate groups. First, the corporate group Facility Services contains services and products such as workplaces, security, office supplies and reprographics. Furthermore, the corporate group catering (Paresto) supplies catering devices
for the whole army. Last, the corporate group Real Estate involves the maintenance of real estate objects for the whole army.
IT services are bundled in the corporate group IVENT and this business unit contains planning and control activities within IVENT, IT products and services, procurement of IT, information supply, documentary information, research and innovation on IT infrastructure and IT services.
HR services are bundled in the corporate group Army Human Services and the corporate group health care. These corporate groups contain products and services like health care, recruitment, payroll, legal assistance and personnel psychology.
The reason for the bundling of supporting functions within the CDC is mainly because of efficiency. CDC provides specific pre-defined services to the operational units within the army, namely the Koninklijke Landmacht, Koninklijke Luchtmacht, Koninklijke Marine and Koninklijke Marechaussee.
4.2.2 Knowledge sharing within the Commando DienstenCentra
There are several business units within the CDC, as can be seen in figure 6. It shows that there is a functional structure in which the different components can be found. According to the Head Board of Assistance, ‘knowledge sharing behaviour and cooperation goes beyond the structure of the CDC’. For instance, the CDC started with integral activities with regards to the integral workspace, in which facility management and IT are active, although this is still in a pilot phase. Next to these interdisciplinary projects, knowledge sharing between IT managers, HR managers and Facility managers does not occur on a regular basis and there are different factors that hinder this knowledge sharing behaviour.
According the senior advisor Facility Management, the CDC is a bundling of civilians and military people and this is a unique mixture and influences the culture within the CDC. The culture within the CDC is in some way supportive, but it is not proactive. With regards to the culture within the CDC the interaction between departments is therefore not encouraged, because as stated by the senior advisor Facility Management, there is no real need to comprehend each other. The trigger needs to be that knowledge sharing is not something that has been done in the past but it needs to evolve in something in which people believe in the fact that it is an ongoing process. However, as stated by the Head Board of Assistance initiatives such as the integral workspace, foster the participation and within these projects he does not think that there are cultural differences between the project members. The manager HR advisory argues that the culture of CDC (and the Army) leaves no room for such factors, because after a definite decision the action will be executed in a straightforward manner. However, in these examples it can be seen that knowledge sharing does not occur on a free basis, but it is more like a necessity when you deal with people from a different specialization within a project and without these projects there is no encouragement to share knowledge.
According to the manager HR advisory, several corporate groups are designed as departmental agencies, such as a part of the corporate group of IVENT, corporate group Real Estate and Paresto. As a result, these departments are more interrelated to each other, because these (IT and Facility) managers within these corporate groups see this as a relevant and usable connection, because they suffer similar problems and deal with similar issues whereas this is not the case for the HR manager. This leads to the fact that Facility Management and IT managers have a high degree of access and shared narratives and this supports knowledge sharing behaviour whereas this is not the case for HR.
One of the senior advisors Facility Management states that the usability of the network is another driver for knowledge sharing behaviour. He states that within the CDC there are military and civilian employees and especially the military employees have a widespread network’. For instance, managers within the CDC with a military background can have a usable relationship because they all passed the Dutch Army Academy (Koninklijke Militaire Academie). This relationship is very strong and it is more likely that knowledge sharing behaviour will occur between these managers. Because these managers make use of their network and that they can find information they need through this network.
One of the senior advisors Facility Management argues that the cognitive dimension of knowledge sharing influences the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT managers, Facility managers and HR managers within the CDC as well. As an example he states that ‘between the IT manager and a Real Estate manager there was a discussion about datacenters and it showed that both people had difficulties to share knowledge, because both people did not speak the same ‘technical language’. This resulted in a lot of incomprehension and because of this incomprehension relational aspects that hinder knowledge sharing evolved as well’. As a result of the example, the senior advisor Facility Management argues that incomprehension leads to resistance and as a result distrust evolves, as it happened between the two managers. As a result knowledge sharing was hindered. The CDC feels the necessity to overcome issues like this and therefore actions were taken. For instance, as stated by the other senior advisor Facility Management, ‘mediation activities take place in which managers are put together in order to overcome problems with regards to differences in narratives, codes and language’. Furthermore, the need to understand each other must be developed and therefore relation management between the various corporate groups is something which might be interesting for the future. Hence, the cognitive dimension in which no shared languages, codes or narratives negatively influences the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT managers, HR managers and Facility managers.
with his own corporate group and therefore there is no shared context’. Furthermore, because of the high amount of vacancies within these corporate groups it is even more likely that managers focus on internal processes and procedures. Therefore, development time can be seen as an influential factor for the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT managers, Facility managers and HR managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center.
4.2.3 Conclusion
As can be concluded, knowledge sharing behaviour between IT, HR and Facility managers on a regular basis is very difficult and not very prominent within the CDC. The promoting and inhibiting factors of knowledge sharing in relation to the hypotheses for the CDC are listed in table 3.
Hypotheses Quotes from CDC case Accept/Reject Hypotheses
H1 ‘The structure of the CDC does influence the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT managers, HR managers and Facility managers, because the corporate groups are divided by functionality’
Accept
H2 ‘The culture within the CDC is in some way supportive, but it is not proactive. With regards to the culture within the CDC the interaction between departments is therefore not encouraged’
Accept
H3 ‘This relationship is very strong and it is more likely that knowledge sharing behaviour will occur between these managers. Because these managers make use of their network and that they can find information they need through this network’
‘Time plays a crucial role in the knowledge sharing behaviour, because managers of IT, HR and Facility management tend to chose to do things themselves when time is on their side’
Accepted/Reject
H4 ‘Incomprehension leads to resistance and as a result distrust evolves, as it happened between the two managers. As a result knowledge sharing was hindered’
Accept
H5 ‘These departments are more interrelated to each other, because managers within these corporate groups see this as a relevant and usable connection, because they suffer similar problems and deal with similar issues. This leads to the fact that Facility Management and IT managers have a high degree of access and shared narratives whereas this is not the case for HR’.
‘Every manager is mainly occupied with his own corporate group and therefore there is no shared context’
Accept
4.3 The case of the Servicedienst Rotterdam 4.3.1 Introduction to the Servicedienst Rotterdam
The Servicedienst Rotterdam was introduced in 2004 and started as a result from reorganization. However, from 2006 the Servicedienst Rotterdam can be typified as a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center in which the Servicedienst Rotterdam provides different services, such as Facility Management, HR and IT, to various operational units in the district of Rotterdam. The bundling of these supporting functions must lead to quality improvement, knowledge sharing advantages, efficiency and more effective control.
In figure 7 (Appendix I) the organizational structure of the Servicedienst Rotterdam is shown. It shows that the Servicedienst Rotterdam offers services in the field of Facility Management, HR and IT. The business unit Facility Management provides products and services such as security, cleaning, real estate, catering and contract management. The business unit HR provides products and services such as HR advice, career management, payroll and personnel administration. The business unit IT provides products and services such as application management, system and network management, infrastructure management, workspaces and IT advice.
4.3.2 Knowledge sharing within the Servicedienst Rotterdam
There are eleven business units within this Servicedienst Rotterdam, as can be seen in the organizational structure of the Servicedienst Rotterdam (Appendix I). However, not all business units can be typified as Shared Service Centers, because not all units are separate, authorized and accountable semi-autonomous units, according to the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam. There can be found five different Shared Service Centers (SSCs) within the Servicedienst Rotterdam, according to the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam. These are SSC IT, SSC Facility Management, SSC Procurement, SSC personnel and salary administration (a substance of HR services) and a SSC Finance.
As can be seen in Appendix I the Servicedienst has a functional structure. However, according to the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam, this does not necessarily hinder the knowledge sharing behaviour between the IT, HR and Facility Manager, because knowledge sharing occurs mainly within project teams. This means that there are some integral projects in which HR, IT and Facilty Management reside. Hence, knowledge sharing goes beyond the structure of the Servicedienst Rotterdam. However, knowledge sharing behaviour does not occur on a broad scale between the various managers of these Shared Service Centers.
Shared Service Centers of IT, Facility Management and HR (personnel and salary administration) are formed in different periods and are still in a development phase. The establishing of the IT SSC started in 2006 and will be fully operational in 2010. The establishing of the Facility Management SSC started in 2006 and is fully operational from November 2008. The HR SSC (personnel and salary administration) started in 2008 and will be fully operational in 2010. According to the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam knowledge sharing between the Facility Manager, IT manager and HR manager occurs on a marginal scale and this is mainly because of ‘the focus on internal procedures’. The formation towards a SSC brought about a major individual change for the employees in terms of procedures, behaviour and workstyle within the different services. As stated by the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam, the development of the IT SSC led to the fact that 17 municipal services were bundled into one SSC. This bundling occurred step by step in which several services were bundled in 2006 and paved the way for more services, which followed later on. These municipal services all had an individual policy and therefore the formation of a SSC with one policy had a major impact. According to the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam ‘this internal change program led to a situation in which managers from the different business units (Facility Management, IT and HR) focused on their own business, because of this continuous change and in order to accustomate to new procedures’. This all resulted in the fact that these managers are unfamiliar with the development of the other components.
Another driver what influences knowledge sharing behaviour is that the various business units reside in different buildings. Although the various managers are located quite near to each other it does hinder knowledge sharing behaviour. As stated by the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam, ‘the Servicedienst wants to foster the idea that the Servicedienst is one brand. Therefore, the Servicedienst strives to bundle the various business units into one building.’
The sense of belonging to a corporate culture is slightly active, but the focus on own subcultures within the Servicedienst is very prominent as well. According to the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam, this strong link with a subculture is because the sense of belonging to the IT, FM or HR SSC needs to be developed first. Therefore, this formation of subcultures imposed the knowledge sharing behaviour between IT, FM and HR managers. Furthermore, the reason for the establishment of the different departments, such as the IT SSC and the Facility Management SSC is different. As stated1, the reason for the bundling of Facility Management was more on cost savings, while the bundling of IT focuses more on
1
business continuity. As a result, knowledge sharing behaviour is more focused on departments that have a similar background and therefore have a common ground to share experiences. Therefore knowledge sharing activities between IT managers, Facility managers and HR managers is not very likely to occur. For instance, the IT managers from the Servicedienst Rotterdam shared their knowledge with IT managers from the SSC in Den Haag, in order to exchange ideas on how to set up a Shared Service Center. As stated by the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam this knowledge sharing initiatives occur on a broad scale. However, this is also because IT and Facility Management can be typified as early movers and therefore knowledge sharing behaviour occurred mainly between managers from other organizations who are in the same development cycle and with the same expertise. In that way they see each other as a usual connection. The HR SSC was formed in a later period of time and therefore experiences from the early movers (IT and Facility Management) were adapted by managers from the HR business unit. As stated2, the formation of the IT component gave HR managers insight in the organizational design of their own SSC. Where the design and optimalization of IT processes were done within the SSC, HR managers chose a different perspective in which they optimalized HR processes before the formation of the SSC. This results in less resistance in the transition towards the SSC in that case. Therefore, with regards to the formation, knowledge sharing did occur, although this example shows that it was more a learning process for the HR business unit instead of knowledge sharing between the IT manager and the HR manager.
Furthermore, the IT manager, HR manager and Facility manager come from the business unit of Bureau Rotterdam Interim Management (BRIM) and this influences the likelihood of knowledge sharing as well. Within the business unit of BRIM various consultants and interim managers are available for project management, program management, process management or change management. They are all trained professionals and therefore especially capable in management practices. As a result, this business unit can be seen as a resource pool. According to the Director Development Servicedienst Rotterdam this should make it for these managers easier to share knowledge in the future, because ‘they know each other from management training and development programs and because they have a managerial background instead of a more expert driven background of the service’. This implies that they could make use of this referral in order to solve problems at hand. Furthermore, there is a strong tie between these managers and therefore this can be typified as a relationship which should enhances the knowledge sharing behaviour of the IT, Facility and HR-manager. However, because the likelihood of knowledge sharing is low it means that this resource pool
2
does not necessarily enhances the knowledge sharing activities of the IT, Facility and HR manager.
4.3.3 Conclusion
As can be concluded, knowledge sharing behaviour between IT, HR and Facility managers does not occur on a broad scale between the various managers within the Servicedienst Rotterdam. The promoting and inhibiting factors of knowledge sharing in relation to the hypotheses for the Servicedienst Rotterdam are listed in table 4.
Hypotheses Quotes from SdR case Accept/Reject Hypotheses
H1 ‘Knowledge sharing between the Facility Manager, IT manager and HR manager occurs on a marginal scale and this is mainly because of the focus on internal procedures’
‘They focused on their own business, because of this continuous change and in order to accustomate to new procedures’
Accept
H2 ‘This strong link with a subculture is because the sense of belonging to the IT, FM or HR SSC needs to be developed first. Therefore, this formation of subcultures imposed the knowledge sharing behaviour between IT, FM and HR managers’
Accept
H3 ‘knowledge sharing behaviour is more focused on departments that have a similar background and therefore have a common ground to share experiences. Therefore knowledge sharing activities between IT managers, Facility managers and HR managers is not very likely to occur’.
‘They know each other from management training and development programs and because they have a managerial background instead of a more expert driven background of the service’. This implies that they could make use of this referral in order to solve problems at hand….However ‘the likelihood of knowledge sharing is low’
Accept/Reject
H4 ‘There is a strong tie between these managers and therefore this can be typified as a relationship which should enhances the knowledge sharing behaviour of the IT, Facility and HR-manager. However, because the likelihood of knowledge sharing is low it means that this resource pool does not necessarily enhances the knowledge sharing activities of the IT, Facility and HR manager. ‘
Reject
H5 ‘Knowledge sharing behaviour is more focused on departments that have a similar background and therefore have a common ground to share experience. Therefore knowledge sharing activities between IT managers, Facility managers and HR managers is not very likely to occur.’
Accept
5.
Conclusion and Discussion
Within this chapter I will conclude how the various factors discussed in the theoretical framework influence the relationship between the cases of multidisciplinary shared service centers and knowledge sharing.
Furthermore, I will discuss other findings that can have a promoting or inhibiting influence on the likelihood of knowledge sharing within multidisciplinary shared service centers.
5.1 Conclusion
If we compare the cases it can be concluded that knowledge sharing between IT managers, HR managers and Facility managers within multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers is very difficult and it only occurs on a marginal level and resides mainly on an operational level. It is of interest to see how the various cases are related to each other with respect to the posed hypotheses that influence the likelihood of knowledge sharing between IT, HR and Facility managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center.
The first variable which can be seen as a promoting or inhibiting factor of knowledge sharing within multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers is the organizational structure, in which the following hypothesis was posed:
H1: an organizational structure that promotes individualistic behaviour and rigidity impedes the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center (reversely coded)
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
‘No joint procedures and processes which hindered the knowledge sharing behaviour’
‘The structure of the CDC
does influence the
knowledge sharing behaviour of IT managers, HR managers and Facility managers, because the corporate groups are divided by functionality’
‘Knowledge sharing between the Facility Manager, IT manager and HR manager occurs on a marginal scale and this is mainly because of the focus on internal procedures’ ‘They focused on their own business, because of this continuous change and in order to accustomate to new procedures’
Hypothesis accepted Hypothesis accepted Hypothesis accepted
If we look at table 5 in which the various outcomes of the cases of hypotheses 1 are listed, it shows that an organizational structure that promotes individualistic behaviour and rigidity impedes the knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center and therefore this hypothesis can be accepted.
The second variable which can be seen as a promoting or inhibiting factor of knowledge sharing within multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers is the organizational culture.
Therefore, the following hypothesis was posed:
H2: an innovative and supportive organizational culture supports knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
‘Every discipline has its own culture which is dependant on the development of its own business unit’. ‘Culture is a driver why knowledge sharing is very difficult’
‘The culture within the CDC is in some way supportive, but it is not proactive. With regards to the culture within the CDC the interaction between departments is therefore not encouraged’
‘This strong link with a subculture is because the sense of belonging to the IT, FM or HR SSC needs to be developed first. Therefore, this formation of subcultures imposed the knowledge sharing behaviour between IT, FM and HR managers’
Hypothesis accepted Hypothesis accepted Hypothesis accepted
Table 6: Outcomes Hypothesis 2
If we look at table 6 in which the various outcomes of the cases of hypotheses 2 are listed, it shows that culture is a driver why knowledge sharing is difficult, because there is not a real shared purpose. Furthermore, there are subcultures within the multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers and therefore it can be seen that there is no innovative and supportive organizational culture and therefore knowledge sharing behaviour of IT, HR and FM managers within a multidisciplinary Shared Service Center is inhibited by the organizational culture.
The third variable which can be seen as a promoting or inhibiting factor of knowledge sharing within multidisciplinary Shared Service Centers is the structural social capital.
Therefore, the following hypothesis was posed:
