What contributes to its success?THE IMPACT OF LEARNING PROCESS, CULTURE, LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY RELATED SUCCESS FACTORS ON THE KNOWLEDGE SHARING PROCESS.

THE IMPACT OF LEARNING PROCESS, CULTURE, LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY

RELATED SUCCESS FACTORS ON THE KNOWLEDGE SHARING PROCESS.

Master Thesis, MscBA, specialisation Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organisation

May 2010

Laura van den Hurk

Student-number: 1479865

University of Groningen

MscBA, Faculty of Management and Organisation

Supervisor/university

Supervisor: Dr. Ben Emans

Co-supervisor: Dr. Karin Prins

Supervisor/company:

THE IMPACT OF LEARNING PROCESS, CULTURE, LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY RELATED SUCCESS FACTORS ON THE KNOWLEDGE SHARING PROCESS.

May 2010

Master Thesis, MscBA, specialisation Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organisation

Laura van den Hurk Student-number: 1479865

University of Groningen

MscBA, Faculty of Management and Organisation Van Spilbergenstraat 96II

1057 RL Amsterdam M: 0031 (0)6 129 12 157

E: L.A.G.W.van.den.Hurk@student.rug.nl Supervisor/university

Supervisor: Dr. Ben Emans Co-supervisor: Dr. Karin Prins

Supervisor/company: Regional governance of North-Holland

Drs. Anne de Rooij

ABSTRACT

This research explores how knowledge sharing effectiveness in public sector organisations is influenced by eight success factors, structured in four categories, namely learning process, leadership, culture and technology. The research data are collected by a case study at the regional governance of North-Holland. The results of the case study show that every success factor is causally related with knowledge sharing effectiveness and that the factors ‘awareness’ and ‘leadership support for knowledge sharing’ are the main contributors to this variable. Furthermore, the results point out that the learning process success factors, ‘awareness’ and ‘readiness for knowledge sharing’, emerge to be crucial in realizing high knowledge sharing effectiveness in public organisations. This indicates the need for a specific approach for achieving high knowledge sharing effectiveness in public organisations, which thus includes a focus on a dynamic learning process.

Word count: 136

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter: Page number(s):

Abstract 3

1. Introduction 7

1.1 Value of knowledge sharing in the organisation 7

1.2 Research focus 8

1.3 Relevance 8

1.4 Main research question 9

2. Theoretical Framework 10

2.1 Theories on knowledge sharing 10

2.1.1 Classification of knowledge 10

2.1.2 Knowledge abstraction of existence 11

2.2 Success factors of knowledge sharing 12

2.3 Success factors of knowledge sharing: learning process 13

2.3.1 Awareness of the knowledge process 13

2.3.2 Readiness for knowledge sharing 14

2.4 Success factors of knowledge sharing: leadership 15

2.4.1 Leadership support 15

2.4.2 Shared vision 15

2.5 Success factors of knowledge sharing: culture 16

2.5.1 Climate of trust 16

2.5.2 Reciprocal relations 16

2.6 Success factors of knowledge sharing: technology 17

2.6.1 Type of knowledge channels 17

2.6.2 Media Richness 17

2.6.3 Effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge sharing channels 17

2.7 Knowledge management in public organisations 18

2.7.1 Characteristics of the public sector 18

2.8 Hypotheses 19 2.9 Conceptual model 20 3. Methods 22 3.1 Research setting 22 3.2 Data collection 22 3.2.1 Qualitative study 23 3.2.2 Interview 23 3.2.3 Participants 24 3.3 Data analysis 24 4. Results 26 4.1 Introduction 26

4.3 Learning process 28 4.3.1 Awareness of the knowledge sharing process – experienced causal relation 28 4.3.2 Awareness of the knowledge sharing process - experienced actual situation 28 4.3.3 Readiness for knowledge sharing - experienced causal relation 29 4.3.4 Readiness for knowledge sharing - experienced actual situation 30

4.4 Leadership 31

4.4.1 Leadership support for knowledge sharing - experienced causal relation 31 4.4.2 Leadership support for knowledge sharing - experienced actual situation 31

4.4.3 Shared vision - experienced causal relation 32

4.4.4 Shared vision - experienced actual situation 32

4.5 Culture 34

4.5.1 Climate of trust - experienced causal relation 34

4.5.2 Climate of trust - experienced actual situation 34

4.5.3 Reciprocal relationships- experienced causal relation 34

4.5.4 Reciprocal relationships - experienced actual situation 35

4.6 Level of significance of success factors 36

4.7 Technology 37

4.7.1 Type of knowledge sharing channels 38

4.7.2 Effectiveness en efficiency of knowledge channels 39

4.8 Additional results - time pressure 41

5. Discussion 42

5.1 Introduction 42

5.2 Learning process: awareness and readiness 42

5.3 Leadership: leadership support and vision 44

5.4 Culture: trust and reciprocal relations 45

5.5 Technology: type and effectiveness of knowledge channels 46

6. Conclusion 46

6.1 Future research 47

6.2 Limitations and quality of empirical research 48

6.2.1 Validity and reliability 48

6.2.2 Usefulness for PNH 49

7. References 50-58

8. Appendix

APPENDIX A: Interview - qualitative research 59

APPENDIX B: Research study participants PNH 60

APPENDIX C: Knowledge sharing tools used by members of PNH 61

INDEX OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURE 1: Abstraction of existence 11

FIGURE 2 Theoretical framework 13

FIGURE 3: Conceptual model 21

FIGURE 4: Significance of success factors affecting knowledge sharing 27

FIGURE 5: Knowledge channels efficiency-effectiveness fit 40

GRAPH 1: Match between knowledge channels and knowledge types 38

TABLE 1: Foremost barriers and contributors for effective knowledge sharing 25

TABLE 2: Results success factor AWARENESS 29

TABLE 3: Results success factor READINESS 30

TABLE 4: Results success factor LEADERSHIP 32

TABLE 5: Results success factor SHARED VISION 33

TABLE 6: Results success factor TRUST 34

TABLE 7: Results success factor RECIPROCAL RELATIONS 35

‘The improvement of understanding is for two ends: first, our own increase of knowledge; secondly, to enable us to deliver that knowledge to others’.

– John Locke

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Value of knowledge sharing in the organisation

Many researchers have written that knowledge is the key ingredient in gaining competitive advantage (Gnyawali et al., 1997; Kogut and Zander, 1992) and that knowledge is a firm’s main inimitable resource (Grant, 1996). In addition, knowledge sharing is assumed to be a critical factor in the success of organisations (Hansen et al, 1999). Knowledge sharing is defined as the communication processes where organisational members mutually exchange their knowledge (Rijt, 2007: 17). The effective management of knowledge sharing is, consequently, one of the most vital challenges facing today’s organisations (Davenport & Prusak, 2000).

On the one hand, there is an enormous increase in attention for knowledge sharing in scientific literature. In addition, a tremendous growth in financial support is visible in the knowledge management literature (Malhorta, 2005). Since the last decade, organisations make huge investments in information and communication technologies which are related to knowledge management (Malhorta, 2005; Malhorta & Galletta, 2004; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Besides this technological support, the social structures in which organisational members operate are considered to be important in facilitating the processes of knowledge sharing in organisations.

1.2 Research focus

This research study will consider knowledge sharing effectiveness from three different viewpoints. The first viewpoint is derived from knowledge management theories. These theories implicate that several categories of success factors influence the knowledge sharing process. According to Hooff, Vijvers & de Ridder (2003) and AQPC (2001), several categories of success factors can influence knowledge sharing. They structure these categories in learning process, leadership, culture and technology related success factors. This research study will explore whether these specific success factors truly contribute to knowledge sharing effectiveness.

(Sieminiuch & Sinclair, 2004; Seeley, 2000; Taylor & Wright, 2004). Knowledge sharing was no longer seen as a static activity, mostly driven by IT systems, but it involved a continuously process of learning, based on changes in human and organisational behavior (Swaak, 2005). This development implicated that knowledge sharing should be managed as a dynamic process in order to make it successful (Verwijen, 1999). Especially the recognition of awareness and readiness for knowledge sharing processes is highly essential in this development. This notion of integrating change management into knowledge management is supported by several researchers who indicate that success factors, like awareness and readiness for knowledge sharing, significantly influence knowledge sharing effectiveness (Taylor & Wright, 2004; Treleaven & Sykes, 2005). This underlines the need to apply the theory of change management on knowledge management as a core component. Particularly the learning process related success factors, that will be examined in this research, can contribute to the understanding that change management elements are required in realizing a high level of knowledge sharing effectiveness.

The third viewpoint of this research study is related to knowledge sharing in public sector organisations. Although knowledge management has been widely discussed by many academics and practitioners, knowledge management as an academic research topic has not yet entered the public sector literature (Bate and Robert 2002). According to Syed-Ikshan and Rowland (2004) this is because ‘knowledge management is implemented in public sector organisations more for providing services to the public than towards gaining profit’.

A comparison study between private and public sector organisations reveals that organisational knowledge is just as, if not more, important in the public sector than the private sector (Syed-Ikshan & Rowland, 2004). This is mainly because the employee has long been identified as the key knowledge repository in the public sector (McAdam and Reid, 2000). Another study on knowledge sharing in the public sector shows the awareness of the unique organisational design of public sector organisations (Liebowitz and Chen, 2001). First, the government agencies typically have a high hierarchical and bureaucratic level which makes knowledge sharing rather difficult (Willems and Buelens, 2007). Second, there is a knowledge storage culture in the public sector. Liebowitz and Chen (2001) argue that most people seem reluctant to share knowledge because they ‘keep knowledge close to heart as they move through ranks by the knowledge is power paradigm’. This research will try to contribute to the understanding of knowledge sharing in public sector organisations, taking into account their specific organisational characteristics.

1.3 Relevance

Effective knowledge sharing in this thesis means that knowledge is mutually exchanged by organisational members and that it creates value for the organisation. By means of achieving this research objective, two focus points will be taken into account. As explained in section 1.2, the necessities for an organisation to (1) embrace the need of the practice of change management in knowledge sharing effectiveness and (2) attend to the challenges in the public sector will be exposed.

In order to 1) embrace change management elements in knowledge sharing; the research will examine which dynamic learning process related success factors essentially impact knowledge sharing effectivenss. Moreover, the leadership and culture related success factors will be examined on the impact on this variable and the reason why these specific influences have great potential to create an effective knowledge sharing organisation. Thereafter, technology related success factors will be investigated in order to analyse the match between knowledge channels and knowledge type and in their effectiveness and efficiency of the knowledge channels.

Additionally, this research will 2) attend to the challenges of public sector characteristics in knowledge sharing. It is assumed that a range of success factors influence the effective knowledge sharing process positively (Taylor and Wright 2004; Bock, 2005; Zarraga & Bonache, 2008, Rogers, 1998), however it is not clear which of these success factors are most thriving for knowledge sharing effectiveness in public sector organisations. This causal relation will be examined in this research. Accordingly, this thesis will empirically explore how organisational employees experience and stimulate knowledge sharing effectiveness in a public sector context. The empirical study is conducted at the regional governance of North-Holland (PNH). A case study is done in order to investigate the success factors of the knowledge sharing process. Based on this case study, theory and practise have been compared and discussed on how learning process components and organisational characteristics influence knowledge sharing effectiveness.

1.4 Research question

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

‘Knowledge is what makes organizations go’ (Davenport and Prusak, 2000). This is what many researchers believe, but how knowledge is defined and how it relates to information and data has been subject of discussion for many years. Ambrecht, Chappelow and Postle et al. (2001) state that knowledge is considered to be that which is within and between the minds of individuals and is either explicitly or tacitly possessed. Moreover, knowledge has the capability to add value to the organisation or the individual.

This research study is focused on knowledge sharing effectiveness, which is part of the knowledge sharing process. The knowledge sharing process is defined as a communication process where knowledge is mutually exchanged by organisational members (Rijt, 2007: 19). This process basically involves four steps, namely finding, storing, sharing and developing knowledge. Because knowledge is human related and is the result of personal interpretation which can take place unconsciously (Boisot, 1995; Huysman & De Wit, 2000; Weggeman, 2001), contributed knowledge can never directly lead to one hundred percent similar received knowledge (Conner & Prahalad, 1996; Hislop, 2002). With this understanding in mind, the effective knowledge sharing process in this research is defined as a process where people try to make their personal knowledge explicit to other people by finding, storing, codifying, sharing and developing knowledge (Boisot, 1995: 92). This also includes processes to improve the willingness and ability of knowledgeable organisational members to share what they know in order to help others increase their own learning capacity and knowledge.

2.1.1 Classification of knowledge. It is essential to understand the classification of knowledge,

which can be divided in information explicit knowledge (information) and tacit knowledge (know-how) (Nonaka, 1991). Knowledge as information implies knowing what something means, and that it can be written down (Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994). Explicit knowledge can be expressed in formal and systemic language, and can easily be shared by codifying it through many sorts of data, which can be stored (Faucher, Everett & Lawson, 2008). Tacit knowledge is more complex than information (Selamat and Choudrie, 2004). Tacit knowledge is the practical skill or experience that is highly personal and subjective. Moreover, know-how has a personal quality that makes it difficult to formalise and to communicate because it involves both cognitive and technical elements and is not easy to write down (Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994). In this thesis both types of knowledge will be examined in order to create a compete view of the knowledge sharing processes.

2.1.2 Knowledge abstraction of existence. The knowledge abstraction of existence provides

process. Davenport and Prusak (2000), state that ‘knowledge is neither data nor information, though it is related to both, and the differences between these terms are often a matter of degree’. According to the Ackoff (1989), ‘knowledge is part of the traditional knowledge pyramid and consists of data, information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom’.

FIGURE 1:

Abstraction of existence

Based on: Ackhoff’s abstraction of existence

The hierarchical model in figure 1 provides evidence that data, information, knowledge and wisdom are all constructs and based on the same process: abstraction of existence. What really differentiates these constructs is the level of understanding they require (Faucher, Everett & Lawson, 2008). Even though the focus of this research is knowledge (sharing), it is important to create an overall picture and understand the difference between the phases of the abstraction of existence. The bottom of the pyramid is data. Because of the relatively objective nature of data, it can be conceptualized as ‘raw material’ (Boisot, 1985). Processes of selecting, interpreting and evaluating can transform raw material into information (Weggeman, 2000: 47). Information can be regarded as meaningful data. In other words, experiences, skills and attitudes are necessary to give meaning to data and to generate information. (Davenport & Prusak, 2000, Weggeman, 2000: 48).

collection of information. Both transformation processes described are personal and do require interpretation. This way of thinking is also supported by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). They argue that ‘both information and knowledge are about meaning: they are a result of human interaction and are context-dependent’. Besides this similarity, the researchers make a distinction between the two concepts by arguing that ‘knowledge is about beliefs and commitment and that information is not’, which in other words indicates that knowledge, is strongly related to human perspectives and intentions. The top of the pyramid is labelled as wisdom, which is defined as the ability to discern or judge what is true and creates insights. It is the sum of learning through the ages, which is the ultimate level of the abstraction of existence.

2.2 Success factors of knowledge sharing effectiveness

In this thesis the research blueprint is derived from the knowledge management assessment tool (KMAT) which enables organisations to diagnose their ‘state of the art’ regarding knowledge sharing, and to identify opportunities and threats for further improvement of professional knowledge management (Hooff, Vijvers, & de Ridder, 2003). The knowledge management analysis is developed to provide insight into the present knowledge sharing processes of the organisation. As explained in the introduction section, this research will focus on one specific element of the knowledge sharing process, namely knowledge sharing effectiveness. A number of success factors must be valued fruitfully in order to realise knowledge sharing effectiveness. These categories of success factors involve learning process, leadership, culture, technology and measurement contextual factors and they ultimately influence the performance of the organisation.

subsequent sections of this chapter, this theoretical framework will be examined on the content of the success factor categories and the causality and type of relations towards knowledge sharing effectiveness. FIGURE 2: Theoretical framework Success factors Learning process Knowledge storing effectiveness Knowledge sharing effectiveness Knowledge developing effectiveness Knowledge finding effectiveness Organisational performance Knowledge sharing process performance Culture Technology Leadership

Based on: KMAT AQPC, 2001 and Alavi & Leidner, 2001

2.3 Success factors of knowledge sharing: learning process

The learning process success factors are crucial for knowledge sharing effectiveness because they observe knowledge sharing as an iterative learning process instead of a cross-sectional event. In other words, these success factors indicate that knowledge sharing is a continuous learning process. The awareness of the knowledge process and the readiness for knowledge sharing are part of the learning process precondition; that is the reason why these two factors will be examined in this research.

2.3.1 Awareness of the knowledge sharing process. The knowledge sharing process refers to

and Wright, 2004). Consequently, taken together these definitions, awareness of the knowledge sharing process implicates the understanding and perception one has of the individual or organisational contribution towards effective knowledge sharing.

Processes that can possibly characterise the knowledge management discipline are numerous. Many authors (for instance, Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Nissen et al., 2000; Wong and Aspinwall, 2003; Bhatt, 2000; Despres and Chauvel, 1999; Marshall et al., 1997; Demarest, 1997), have suggested a number of activities or process components associated with knowledge management. The execution of each knowledge sharing process essentially lies at the heart of creating a successful knowledge-based enterprise by changing the organisation. Thus, it is important that organisations adopt a process-based view to knowledge management and detect it as a continuous learning development and change process.

Most researchers consider that organisational learning is the product of organisational members’ involvement in the interaction and sharing of experiences and knowledge (Curado, 2006). As a result superior knowledge sharing processes are, resulting from continuously organisational learning, connected to superior firm performances (Senge, 1990; Garvin, 2000). The understanding of this connection is of great importance to understand how the awareness of the knowledge sharing processes will influence the effective knowledge sharing.

2.3.2 Readiness for knowledge sharing. According to Drucker (1999) and Sandler & Hudson

(1998), organisations underestimate the size and scale of the ‘challenge of change’, that seems to be a hallmark of successful knowledge sharing initiatives. This challenge of change is related to the readiness for knowledge sharing which employees of an organisation need to feel and act upon in order to share knowledge successfully.

In order to emphasize the need of change readiness in effective knowledge sharing, the concept of grass root desire will be explained. According to Hauschild et al. (2001), successful knowledge management requires the development of a ‘grass root desire among employees to tap into their company’s intellectual resources’. When individuals do not feel the readiness to learn or practise knowledge sharing, no amount of investment, infrastructure and technological intervention will be effective. Hence, one of the important factors is to establish change-readiness or motivational aids to encourage people to share and apply knowledge (Hausschild, 2001). In addition, Rowden (2001) purported that for an organisation to truly become a knowledge sharing organisation, employees and the organisation as a whole must be in constant state of readiness.

2.4 Success factors of knowledge sharing: leadership

Numerous studies have confirmed the importance of managerial behaviour in the knowledge sharing process. Cabrera and Cabrera (2005) cite several management practices which support knowledge sharing. Also, MacNeill (2004) argues that ‘supervisors play an important role as facilitators of knowledge sharing processes’. The role leaders have in an organisation and the vision leaders convey are argued to be highly influential for effective knowledge sharing. That is why leadership support and shared vision will be explored as the leadership related success factors of knowledge sharing effectiveness.

2.4.1 Leadership support for knowledge sharing. Leadership support plays a key role in

influencing the success of knowledge sharing processes (Horak, 2001; Holsapple and Joshi, 2000). Leaders are important in acting as role models to exemplify the desired knowledge sharing behaviour and creating awareness for knowledge sharing being a continuous process. They should for example, exhibit a willingness to share and offer their knowledge freely with others in the organisation, to continuously learn, and to search for new knowledge and ideas (Sveiby, 2006). Moreover, according to Nonaka and Takeuchie (1995), ‘managerial effort should be directed towards the context where knowledge is created instead of ‘managing’ knowledge per se’.

Leadership support influences effective knowledge sharing processes by creating the space and encouraging the time for knowledge sharing (Davenport, Long, & Beers, 1998). This influence or urge for commitment extends to encouraging internal connections and external networks by allowing for networking outside the organisation itself (Wenger, 1998). Moreover, leaders have an important role in deciding on priorities in knowledge management.

2.4.2 Shared vision. One of the five success factors which contribute to knowledge sharing

effectiveness, according to von Krogh et al (2001), is instilling a vision. A vision provides a valued direction for designing, implementing and assessing organisational changes (Cummings & Worley, 2005: 556). A shared vision emphasizes the necessity for moving from the mechanics of business strategy to creating an overall vision in the organisation. It implies communicating an organisation’s vision until the organisation’s members actually execute that vision.

combination of strategic resources can only be realised if the firms have systems and cultures that are compatible enough to facilitate coordinated action’, according to Dyer and Singh (1998). Drawing on Nahapiet and Ghoshal's (1998) study, Yli-Renko et al. (2001) further emphasize that a shared vision enhances relative absorptive capacity, which is the theory used to measure a firm's ability to value, assimilate and apply new knowledge.

Since the development of a compelling and shared vision in an organisation is necessary in order to pursue effective knowledge management, it is essential that employees support this vision and are committed to imply it in their daily work.

2.5 Success factors of knowledge sharing: culture

A number of literature studies in the field of knowledge management describe how an organisation’s culture influences knowledge sharing effectiveness. Organisational culture is defined as the pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group of organisational members learned as it solved problems of external adaptation and internal integration (Schein, 1993: 373). Among others, Rogers (1998) argues that culture is the most important factor in managing effective knowledge sharing. This indicates that there is a necessity of understanding how cultural factors influence the effective knowledge sharing. An open organisational culture promotes knowledge sharing. A climate of interpersonal trust and reciprocal relations are part of an open organisational culture (Hooff, Vijvers, & de Ridder, 2003). For that reason, the success factors trust and reciprocal relationships are taken into account in study in order to examine the effectiveness of knowledge sharing.

2.5.1 Climate of trust. In this thesis, a climate of trust refers to interpersonal trust where

employee’s positive expectations about the supervisor and colleagues’ intentions and actions toward him or her in risky situations (Lewicki and Bunker 1996). Literature studies on organisational trust in knowledge exchange relationships suggests that trust exists when one party has confidence in an exchange partner's reliability and integrity (e.g. Morgan and Hunt, 1994 and Gulati et al., 2000). A certain level of trust is needed among communities of organisational members; trust that is critical to the relationships which allow individuals to discuss with each other in the development of new knowledge and the sharing of tacit knowledge (VonKrogh, Ichijo & Nonaka, 2000). According to Stewart (1998), ‘a climate of trust should be created in an organisation through competence, communities and networks, through shared commitment and compensation, noting that compensation can be both tangible and intangible’.

exchange and several exchange conditions, like the role of human networks, are necessary for knowledge sharing to take place.

2.5.2 Reciprocal relations. Relations between knowledge sources and recipients are an

important determinant of knowledge sharing (Strang and Soule, 1998). Furthermore, cohesion through strong ties such as close and reciprocal work relations supports knowledge sharing effectiveness. This is acknowledged by Orzano et al. (2008) who argue that, ‘the quality of work relationships has been noted as a factor which influences the knowledge sharing process and as a result performance differences’. Moreover, employees are considered to be a valuable source of the organisational knowledge, especially information gathered by employees working on the front line, those who deal directly with routine work and problems in their work units (Nonaka, 1991). According to Gephart & Marsick (1996), employees should be encouraged to develop reciprocal relationships and build teams. If a work team represents ‘a shared context in which individuals can interact with each other, and engage in the constant dialogue on which reflection depends, it is said to be an important forum for the creation and transfer of tacit knowledge occurring’ (Nonaka, 1991). This indicates the success factor reciprocal relations influences knowledge sharing effectiveness.

2.6 Success factors of knowledge sharing: technology

Choo (1998), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Weggeman (2001: 19) all emphasize the importance of a solid information infrastructure in knowledge sharing. The information infrastructure (technology) available in the organisation and the experience employees have with the use of knowledge instruments can seriously influence the knowledge sharing process as a whole. The match between the type of knowledge and knowledge channels and the efficiency and effectiveness of the knowledge instruments and channels are important estimates for knowledge sharing effectiveness in particular; that is why these factors are taken into account in this research.

2.6.1 Type of knowledge channels. As explained in paragraph 2.1.1, the type of knowledge

research will examine which medium is useful or necessary in organisations and whether there is an optimal match is between the knowledge sharing channels and the type of knowledge.1

2.6.2 Media Richness. According to Boisot (1995: 93), ‘the process of codifying a message

for transmission involves a loss of information that can only be discovered in a situation where the receiver associates the same cluster of meaning with the chosen symbols as does the sender’. Several researchers perceive knowledge communication in terms of media richness as a determinant of the extent to which knowledge is transferred in a successful way (Daft 1986, Boone, 1997). Media richness can be defined in terms of two underlying dimensions: (1) the diversity of cues that the medium can transmit and (2) the quickness of feedback that the medium can provide. In other words, the media has altering capacities for resolving ambiguity, meeting interpretation needs and transferring knowledge (Koskinen, 2004).

2.6.3 Effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge sharing channels. In order to maximize

competitive advantage arising from knowledge, it must be effectively transferred within organisations. Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) state that, ‘effectiveness and efficiency of the knowledge sharing channel is determined by the connection between the chosen knowledge sharing channel and the type of knowledge to be shared’. Knowledge is transmitted through codes with an efficiency that varies with the features of the knowledge channels used for such transmission. Therefore, the value of the effectiveness of the knowledge channels transfer is determined by the connection between the chosen transfer channel and the type of knowledge to be shared.

2.7 Knowledge management in public organisations

As explained in the introduction section, there is little research and literature on knowledge management in the public sector (McAdam & Reid 2000). The reason for relatively small amount of scientific literature on this topic is that private sector companies can be easily identified and measured in their achievement of implementing a knowledge management programme. The public sector on the other hand, will implement a knowledge management programme for a wider need, which is providing societal services (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). As a result, the measurement of effective knowledge management in public sector organisations is remarkably complex. The societal impact of knowledge sharing cannot be measured objectively, that is why the measurement preconditions of the knowledge management assessment tool (KMAT) are not be taken into account in this thesis.

2.7.1 Characteristics of the public sector. In order to create insights in the knowledge sharing

processes of the public sector, the sector features should be emphasized. Knowledge is crucial in the public sector, since employees have long been identified as the key contributors for knowledge storage

1

and development (LaMont and Lesser, 1999). Moreover, public sector organisations are mainly knowledge-intensive organisations, and in order to exploit their knowledge, effective knowledge sharing among the different departments is required (Drucker, 1993).

The specific values of public organisations have strong implications for organisation design (Posner & Schmidt, 1996). The relatively high importance of values such as fairness, honesty and equity compared to more economic and cost-conscious values demand a fundamentally different organisational design. As a result, according to Willems and Buelens (2007) ‘particular organisational design and coordination mechanisms are more appropriate and more frequently present in public sector organisations’. Mintzberg (1989) argues for instance, that public sector organisations are characterised by a high level of formalisation and standardisation of organisational processes. Several studies support the existence of more bureaucratic chararacteristics in the public sector (Boyne, 2002; Perry and Rainey, 1988). Finally, a major distinction in private-public organisations is that public organisations have a higher ambiguity in their organisational goals. In addition, the environmental and political demands ask for a wider organisational mission and vision than private organisations strive for.

2.8 Hypotheses

The theoretical framework explicated the need to investigate whether learning process, leadership, culture and technology related success factors lead to knowledge sharing effectiveness. Hereafter, this thesis will focus on the empirical phase of the research and answer the question, which success factors are most fundamental for effective knowledge sharing in a public organisational context. In other words, 1) do employees experience that there is a causal relation between a certain success factor and knowledge sharing effectiveness and 2) how significantly do these success factors impact the dependent variable knowledge sharing effectiveness.

In order to emphasize the testing phase of this research study, hypotheses are set up instead of research questions (Veldman, 2004). The hypotheses will be accepted or rejected based on numerical data and quotes, derived from interview outcomes. Only when the two data sources indicate the same relation, the hypothesis will be answered in the result section of this research study.

Learning process

H1a. Organisational members experience that the higher the awareness of the knowledge process in the organisation, the higher the level of knowledge sharing effectiveness

Leadership

H2a. Organisational members experience that the higher the leadership support for knowledge sharing in the organisation, the higher the level of knowledge sharing effectiveness.

H2b. Organisational members experience that the higher the awareness and propagation of a shared organisational vision, the higher the level of knowledge sharing effectiveness.

Culture

H3a. Organisational members experience that the higher the climate of trust in an organisation, the higher the level of knowledge sharing effectiveness.

H3b. Organisational members experience that the higher the intensification level of reciprocal relations is, the higher the level of knowledge sharing effectiveness.

Technology

H4a. The better the match between knowledge type and knowledge channel, the higher the level of knowledge sharing effectiveness.

H4b. The higher the level of knowledge transfer channel effectiveness and efficiency, the higher the level of knowledge sharing effectiveness.

2.9 Conceptual model

FIGURE 3: Conceptual model Awareness of the knowledge sharing process Reciprocal relations Readiness for knowledge

sharing

Shared Vision Leadership support

Trust

Match between type of knowledge and knowledge

channel Efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge channel Culture Technology Learning process Leadership _Knowledge sharing effectiveness

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

3. METHODS

The empirical research was conducted at the regional governmental institution of North-Holland (PNH). At the moment the research took place, there were no knowledge management strategies in the organisation. Several problems however were observed related to ineffective knowledge sharing. For instance, a number of departments worked on their own projects instead of working together and being aware of what other departments were doing. This phenomenon is called ‘silo’ thinking and resulted in ineffective project results. Therefore, the organisation wanted to create insights in knowledge sharing and recommendations on future knowledge management policy.

At the moment the research was conducted, the organisation consisted of circa 1205 employees. Their mail goal is to support the Provincial Council in implementing the Regional development Program. The clients of the PNH are citizens, businesses, social organizations and co-authorities and their main tasks involve guiding policies on spatial planning, transport and traffic, environment, water and nature conservation, economics, culture and welfare. Once every four years the inhabitants of North-Holland elect a new council. The councillors elected represent the interests of the inhabitants. Next to the council, there is the Provincial Executive. The Provincial Executive is in charge of the day-to-day running of the province. Its members are appointed every four years by the members of the Provincial Council.

This research is carried out at the policy division which consists of twelve sectors and circa 300 full time employees.2 The research is conducted at the Policy Directorate because this division employs only highly educated people and the employees generally work on similar projects. The task of the policy division is to ‘build’ the infrastructure and develop societal policies, while other directorates execute them. This explains why only highly educated employees are working in this division. The time dimension of this research is cross-sectional, which means that the data of this research is collected at one moment in time and therefore it represents a snapshot of one point in time (Cooper & Schindler, 2003: 230). The analysis is aggregated on the individual level, because behavioural factors are the research focus.

3.2 Data collection

The data in this study have been collected through interviews, participative studies and the analysis of employee satisfaction studies of PNH. The reason for the variety of sources is related to the following

2

statement. According to Kaplan & Duchon (1988: 575), ‘collecting different kinds of data by different methods provides a wider range of coverage that may result in a fuller picture of the study than would have been achieved otherwise’. In the following section, the motive for the type of data collection will be discussed. Later on in this chapter, the content of the interview, the selection of interviewees and choice of research participants are described.

3.2.1 Qualitative study. The basic form of this research is a case-study. According to Darke,

Shanks and Broadbent (1998), ‘a case-study is the most used qualitative research method in knowledge systems research and is well suited to understanding the interactions between technology factors and their organisational context’. As a consequence, this research was conducted in a qualitative manner and information is collected by topic and semi-structured interviews. The reason for this type of data collection is because they are arguably the primary data sources where interpretive research can best access and reflect on case participants’ views and interpretations of actions and events (Walsham, 1995). Moreover, due to the complexity of the examined success factors, interview as data collection method was most desired, because during the interviews the definitions of success factors were explained and questions could be answered. As a consequence, organisational members understood the knowledge sharing success factors and this created objective data gathering and a low level of socially desirable answers.

As mentioned in section 2.8, in order to test empirical data from this research, hypotheses were set up. The choice to combine a qualitative study with hypotheses is relevant in this research because the hypotheses are needed to test the experienced causal relations (see figure 3: conceptual model). Accordingly, the outcomes of these hypotheses are going to be compared to the actual experienced impact of the success factors on knowledge sharing effectiveness. This actual experienced impact is based on assumptions and examples presented by employees during the interview sessions. The results are presented in chapter 4 and will elaborate on the observed causal relations by exploring the actual experienced impact in a qualitative manner. This deepens the research study, because on one hand assumed causal relations can be confirmed. And on the other hand, the experienced actual impact reveals why certain success factors could be a possible limiting factor on knowledge sharing effectiveness.

3.2.2 Interview. The data was obtained through face-to-face interviews. The semi-structured

Each factor was discussed on the assumed causal relation with knowledge sharing and experience in the employee’s working environment.

The interview had a funnel approach and consisted of both open and closed questions. A funnel approach interview begins with broad open question and than moves to more specific questions. This establishes a frame of reference and makes the interview easier to understand (Neuman, 1997). For that reason, the interview started with open questions on what knowledge and sharing knowledge meant in employees daily tasks and how it contributed to their job competences. This way, it became clear how interviewees defined knowledge (sharing) and which value knowledge sharing it has in their work. Thereafter, the success factors were explained so that interviewees understood how these determinants were defined and they could, openly and in mutual understanding, convey their knowledge sharing experiences. Subsequent questions related to the knowledge sharing learning process, organisational culture and leadership skills were closed questions so data could be gathered on each specific precondition. All of the success factors were discussed during the interview on the assumed causal relationship and the empirical experience organisational members had with the success factor at the current moment. Only when participants could support the preconditions with experiences or examples of their personal work environment, the answers were accepted in the data analysis.

3.2.3 Participants. Three employees from each sector in the Policy Directorate were selected

to participate in the research. Out of every sector, one sector manager, one policy advisor and one employee with a deviant job content than policy advisory (for instance: trainee or account manager) were randomly selected in order to create an objective and varied reflection of the sector. Two pilot interviews were held in order to refine the questions accordingly, before starting the interview sessions. Next to that, the interviews were taped using a voice recorder and they were transcripted after the interviews were held.

The interviews were conducted with 35 employees of the directorate Policy in the regional governance of North-Holland; 22 of them are policy employees and 7 of them sector managers and 6 are experts on research methods or knowledge sharing processes. A list of the participants’ function is added in Appendix B. The participants were informed that the published data would be used anonymously. This confidentiality allowed the participants to answer all the questions openly and honestly.

3.3 Data analysis

would you define knowledge?’ will be described. The knowledge sharing definition was analysed and ranked by how employees defined knowledge. For the open question, ‘what contributes or hinder effective knowledge sharing in this organisation?’, a similar analysis took place. The answers were examined and ranked by their experience and number of notice.

Thereafter the analysis of the closed questions was conducted. The first topic of the data collection involved knowledge channel infrastructure (technology). With the aim of reducing the amount of information objectively, the answers on the knowledge channels were labelled and divided in unnecessary, useful and needed information channels. Next to that, each interview outcome of the knowledge channels was divided in explicit and tacit types of knowledge. An example: an employee stated that he/she used e-mail for discussion on complex policy questions. As a result, the information channel e-mail is analysed as tacit type of knowledge, because discussion requires know-how instead of only scanning or reading information.

The second interview topic concerned questions on learning process, culture and leadership skills. The answers on questions concerning these success factors, which were spontaneously mentioned by employees, were coded in order to indicate which success factors were most frequently addressed. Afterwards, each learning process, culture and leadership related success factor was analysed by causality of the relation (positive – negative – absent) and the experienced actual impact of the success factor (positive - negative – absent). The reason for the clear distinction between the experienced causal relation and experienced actualised situation on the impact of success factors is made because this dissimilarity explicates the gap of what employees experience as a causal relation and how they feel like the success factors impact to knowledge sharing in the present moment. In addition, in order to truly understand and improve the effectiveness of knowledge sharing process, both the causal relation and the level of impact in the actualised situation should be examined.

4. RESULTS

This chapter will outline the results obtained from the data analysis for the four categories of success factors in knowledge sharing. The results chapter will first elaborate on the results of the dependent variable knowledge sharing effectiveness, by presenting the interview outcomes of the open question on how employees define knowledge sharing and what contributes to or hinders effective knowledge sharing. Thereafter, the results derived from the learning process, leadership, culture and technology related success factors will be explicated and the hypotheses will be answered. This chapter will thereby present whether the experienced causal relations exist between the described success factors and effective knowledge sharing. Moreover, results of the experienced actual impact, either positive, negative or absent, on knowledge sharing effectiveness in PNH will be presented. In the following chapter, discussion section, the discrepancy of these result outcomes will be explained.

4.2 Spontaneously mentioned knowledge sharing influences

Table 1 shows which factors were mentioned spontaneously by interviewees before they were informed about the knowledge sharing success factors that are investigated in this research. As shown in table 1, readiness exchanging knowledge, time pressure, awareness of the knowledge sharing process and leadership support for knowledge sharing are the four most frequently mentioned factors as foremost knowledge sharing barriers or contributors.

TABLE 1:

Foremost barriers and contributors for effective knowledge sharing Categories of

knowledge sharing success factors

Spontaneous reactions on the question: ‘What contributes to or hinders effective knowledge sharing?’3

Number of notice by interviewees

Learning process ‘Readiness for exchanging knowledge’

12 out of 27

Other ‘Time pressure’ (work overload) 11 out of 27

Learning process ‘Awareness of knowledge sharing as a learning process’

8 out of 27

Leadership ‘Management support’ 7 out of 27

Learning process ‘Awareness of high level of implicit knowledge in the organisation’

5 out of 27

Culture ‘Open attitude of employees’ 5 out of 27

Technology ‘Entry to knowledge sharing

channels’

4 out of 27 Technology ‘Level of storage and transfer of

knowledge (mentor system)’

4 out of 27

Culture ‘Need to work integrally and

work in teams’

4 out of 27

Before explaining how the spontaneous reactions of the employees on what contributes or hinders effective knowledge sharing were constituted, the answers on how employees defined knowledge sharing in their working atmosphere will be described. Based on their own definition of knowledge sharing, the interviewees created a complete picture on how knowledge is shared and what behaviour or action triggered the knowledge sharing process. Some employees argued that knowledge is shared in the organisation ‘when learning from colleagues and organisational theories takes place’. Other employees defined it as, ‘being aware of what is important and keeping up to date with the newest developments in their work field’. Furthermore, ‘wanting to make connections with internal and external stakeholders’ was mentioned as an important indication of how knowledge sharing is defined. All of these definitions, which employees brought forward during the interviews, were similar to theoretical definitions of knowledge sharing.4 This implicated that the employees understood the essence of knowledge sharing and therefore the follow up interview questions could be asked.

The outcomes of the question, what contributes to or hinders effective knowledge sharing, revealed some interesting results. Table 1 shows the foremost spontaneous reactions. Though, some of these reactions require an explanation. For instance, as shown in this table, readiness appears the most important success factor that contributes to effective knowledge sharing. Readiness is defined in this study as the willingness of employees to take action or participate in effective knowledge sharing. Employees also related readiness to communication and how employees work together. Another factor derived from table 1, is the awareness of the knowledge process as a learning process, which was repeatedly mentioned as an obstruction for effective knowledge sharing because it did not appear to be of any direct value in work or project outcomes. Employees had a hard time directly identifying the added value of awareness of the knowledge sharing in the learning process.

The spontaneous reaction, awareness of high level of implicit (tacit) knowledge, was related to organisational members who kept knowledge to themselves. In other words, it concerned how knowledge is retrieved from the ‘right’ people involved. Organisational members were not aware how they could benefit colleagues or the organisation by explicating implicit knowledge. Furthermore, a

4

success factor that was mentioned spontaneously significantly during the interviews was an open attitude of employees. Employees argued that an open attitude is created when there is a willingness to work integrally. An understanding of which organisational members are aware of what specific knowledge in the organisation must be present, according to the employees, when one can speak of an open attitude between employees.

4.3 Learning process

As explained in the literature section, 1) the awareness of the knowledge sharing process and 2) the readiness towards knowledge sharing are the learning process success factors (hypotheses 1a/b). The first success factor, awareness of the knowledge sharing process involves being aware of knowledge sharing as a learning process. The second factor, readiness towards knowledge sharing is defined by the grass root desire among employees to tap into their personal and organisational knowledge. The interview outcomes regarding these factors indicate that awareness and readiness are crucial factors that influence effective knowledge sharing. However, the awareness of the knowledge sharing process is not experienced as a positive success factor regarding knowledge sharing in PNH in the current situation. Readiness towards knowledge sharing on the other hand is positively related towards effective knowledge sharing processes, both in the causal relation as in the experienced actualised situation of PNH.

4.3.1 Awareness of the knowledge sharing process – experienced causal relation. According

to this case study, the hypothesized awareness of the knowledge sharing is a fundamental condition for effective knowledge sharing (see figure 3, average score: 5 out of 6). In other words, employees5 considered that awareness has the greatest impact on achieving effective knowledge sharing. Next to that, the majority of employees experienced that there is causality between the success factor and knowledge sharing. The main message came down to the following phrase: ‘Awareness of the knowledge sharing process is decisive for actual sharing knowledge’.

4.3.2 Awareness of the knowledge sharing process - experienced actual situation at PNH.

Even though a strong relation is assumed and needed by the interviewees, only a minor part of the employees experienced that awareness had positive impact on knowledge sharing in the organisation. Seventy percent of the interviewees argued that the awareness of the knowledge sharing process is not a success factor for effective knowledge sharing at the moment. This is exemplified by the following phrase: ‘We call ourselves a learning organisation, but we are certainly not one’ and ‘the wish to create awareness for the knowledge sharing process is there, but we are not handling it according to our wishes.’

The remaining twenty-six percent of the case study participants argued that the success factor, awareness of the knowledge process does affect knowledge sharing positively. Only one employee did not experience a relationship between the two factors. The reason that the majority of employees experienced a lack in awareness of knowledge sharing is at the present moment, according to an interviewee, due to ‘a lack of training and facilities to create urgency and priority for awareness on knowledge sharing processes’. Moreover, one of the employees argued on this topic that, ‘it is not related to the unwillingness to involve the ‘right’ people and resources, but there is no structural process in the organisation’.

Table 2 shows a numerical overview of how employees experienced the relation between awareness of the knowledge sharing problem and effective knowledge sharing and how they experienced the actual situation at PNH. Based on these numbers (see appendix D for complete numerical overview on interview outcomes) and the quotations derived from the interviews, the hypothesis is answered.

TABLE 2:

Results success factor AWARENESS Experienced causal relation between SF * and KSE** Experienced actual situation at PNH***

% of employees who assume there is a causal relation.

96,30% % of employees who experience no impact. 3,70% % High impact of SF awareness 81,48% % of employees who experience a positive impact of SF. 25,93% Level of significance in knowledge sharing effectiveness % Low impact of SF awareness 14,82% % of employees who experience a negative impact of SF. 70,27% * SF = success factor

** KSE = knowledge sharing effectiveness *** PNH = Regional Governance North-Holland

According to the results derived from the interview outcomes, hypothesis 1a is accepted. Employees indicate that there is a causal connection between the success factor awareness and effective knowledge sharing. In the present situation of PNH however, there is a low awareness of the knowledge sharing process, which leads to a low effective knowledge sharing level in the organisation.

4.3.3 Readiness for knowledge sharing - experienced causal relation. Readiness for

knowledge sharing.6 This is also supported in the follow up questions, which indicates that every one of the study participants assumed that there is a positive relation between readiness and effective knowledge sharing. Furthermore, the outcomes from the case study revealed that the readiness for knowledge sharing is not the most crucial success factor according to two-third of the interviewees. This is illustrated by the following quotation: ‘Knowledge sharing is not something you do on purpose, it just happens’.

4.3.4 Readiness for knowledge sharing - experienced actual situation at PNH. Readiness for

knowledge sharing is observed as a success factor for effective knowledge sharing. This is exemplified by the following phrase: ‘you can experience that the readiness to share information is high by the way teams integrally work together’. Furthermore, several employees point out that ‘there is no power misuse of knowledge’, which implicates that the readiness to share is high at the present moment in PNH. An interesting result of readiness for knowledge sharing was the number of times employees mentioned readiness as a success factor in effective knowledge sharing (27 out of 27 interviewees) compared to how these employees actually behaved in what they conceived as knowledge sharing readiness. Only half of the employees supported their readiness by an example. As one of the employees stated, ‘I only save my documents on my personal disc. I realise I should be more active with this, but it is almost impossible to find the right documents on the organisational disc. That is why I am not motivated to share mine’.

Table 3 shows a numerical overview of how employees experienced the relation between readiness towards knowledge sharing and the knowledge sharing process and how they experienced the actual situation at PNH. Based on these numbers and the quotations derived from the interviews, the results of the readiness success factor analysis shows whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected.

TABLE 3:

Results success factor READINESS Experienced causal relation between SF and KSE* Experienced actual situation at PNH

% of employees who assume there is a causal relation.

In general, based on the outcomes of the results of both the open and closed questions; it can be assumed that hypothesis 1b is accepted. Thus, organisational members experience that the higher the readiness towards knowledge sharing in the organisation, the higher the level of an effective knowledge sharing process will become.

4.4 Leadership

The way managers behave was hypothesized to be crucial for the effective knowledge sharing process. In this study, two types of leadership factors were hypothesized to contribute to effective knowledge sharing. The first one, called leadership support (hypothesis 2a) involves leader’s encouragement and facilitation of knowledge sharing processes. The interview outcomes with regard to this factor show that the success factor is a strong causal indicator for effective knowledge sharing. The second leadership factor that is hypothesized is shared vision (hypothesis 2b). Shared vision is referred to shared values and mutual goals and understanding in a cooperative relationship in an organisation. Results derived from the case study indicated that the success factor shared vision is causally although not a strongly related to effective knowledge sharing in the examined organisation.

4.4.1 Leadership support for knowledge sharing - experienced causal relation. According to

this study, organisational members indicate that leadership support has a strong impact on effective knowledge sharing. Furthermore, every one of the interviewees observed a positive relation between leadership support and effective knowledge sharing and argued that it could lead to higher organisational performance. Most employees perceived managers as role models in the organisation. One interviewee stated that ‘management is responsible for the level of effectiveness in the organisation’. This emphasized that the employees demand great responsibility and commitment of the management team. Consequently, they agreed that support for knowledge sharing must be one of the focal points of management responsibilities.

4.4.2 Leadership support for knowledge sharing- experienced actual situation at PNH.

Table 4 shows a numerical overview of how employees experienced the relation between leadership support and the knowledge sharing process and how they acknowledged the actual situation at PNH. Based on these numbers and the quotations derived from the interviews, the hypothesis on leadership support is answered.

TABLE 4:

Results success factor LEADERSHIP SUPPORT Experienced causal relation between SF and KSE* Experienced actual situation at PNH

% of employees who assume there is a causal relation.

100,00% % of employees who experience no impact. 0,00% % High impact of SF leadership support 67,67% % of employees who experience a positive impact of SF. 37,04% Level of significance in knowledge sharing effectiveness % Low impact of SF leadership support 33,33% % of employees who experience a negative impact of SF. 62,96%

To conclude, according to the PNH employees the experienced causal relationship between leadership support and effective knowledge sharing is present in the organisation. In other words, hypothesis 2a is accepted. However, at the moment, the organisational members did not experience that the success factor leadership support has a positive impact; as a result a lower level of effectiveness of the knowledge sharing process is observed.

4.4.3 Shared vision - experienced causal relation. According to a noteworthy group of

organisational members of PNH there is no shared vision in the regional government of North-Holland. However the majority of employees experienced that there is a causal relationship between having a propagated shared vision and effective knowledge sharing. A little more than fifty percent of the interviewees argued that having a shared vision is a strong success factor for effective knowledge sharing. One third of the interviewees believed that a shared vision positively affects effective knowledge sharing, but it is not the most significant factor for an effective knowledge sharing process. The remainder of the group of interviewed employees argued that there is no direct relation between a shared vision and the knowledge sharing process at all. The reason for this ambiguous outcome, according to interviewees, is related to ‘the political field of force’. This is also pointed out by one of the organisational members, who argued that ‘there is no univocal vision, because the social goal in this organisation is very complex; as a result, considering a connection with knowledge sharing is not likely in this sense.’

4.4.4 Shared vision - experienced actual situation at PNH. Organisational members of PNH

present circumstances. Almost fifty percent of the employees indicated a negative impact on knowledge sharing. Moreover, almost fifteen percent of the interviewees argued that there is a no impact of shared vision on knowledge sharing. Employees had some remarks on the clarity of the organisational vision due to the political background of the organisation. Most employees found it difficult to confine their tasks to the overarching vision of the sector or organisation as a whole. As one the managers explained; ‘Currently there is a lack of clarity on where the strategic direction of the organisation is heading to and what we will be in 5 years time. This development has had a major impact in the goals and vision we endeavour in the upcoming years’.

Table 5 shows a numerical overview of how employees experienced the relation between a shared vision and the knowledge sharing process. Based on these numbers and the quotations derived from the interviews, the outcome of the shared vision success factor analysis indicates whether the hypothesis on shared vision is accepted or rejected.

TABLE 5:

Results success factor SHARED VISION Experienced causal relation between SF and KSE* Experienced actual situation at PNH

% of employees who assume there is a causal relation.

85,18% % of employees who experience no impact. 14,82% % High impact of SF shared vision 51,85% % of employees who experience a positive impact of SF. 37,03% Level of significance in knowledge sharing effectiveness % Low impact of SF shared vision 33,33% % of employees who experience a negative impact of SF. 48,18%