knowledge sharing enablers
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
1/19
Journal of Knowledge ManagementEmerald Article: Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceuticalresearch and development
Anne-Mette Lilleoere, Ebba Holme Hansen
Article information:
To cite this document: Anne-Mette Lilleoere, Ebba Holme Hansen, (2011),"Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical
esearch and development", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 1 pp. 53 - 70
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108693
Downloaded on: 20-09-2012
References: This document contains references to 63 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents
To copy this document: [email protected]
This document has been downloaded 1785 times since 2011. *
Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Charles Inskip, Andy MacFarlane, Pauline Rafferty, (2010),"Organising music for movies", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 62 Iss: 4 pp.
89 - 501
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531011074726
Hui Chen, Miguel Baptista Nunes, Lihong Zhou, Guo Chao Peng, (2011),"Expanding the concept of requirements traceability: The role
f electronic records management in gathering evidence of crucial communications and negotiations", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63
ss: 2 pp. 168 - 187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135646
ames DeLisle, Terry Grissom, (2011),"Valuation procedure and cycles: an emphasis on down markets", Journal of Property
nvestment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 384 - 427
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150312
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by INSTITUTO TECNOLOGICO Y DE ESTUDIOS S
MONTERREYFor Authors:
f you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
nformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
usiness society public policy and education In total Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series as
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
2/19
Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers
in pharmaceutical research and
development
Anne-Mette Lilleoere and Ebba Holme Hansen
Abstract
Purpose Because selling innovative products is crucial to its livelihood, the pharmaceutical industry
has a fundamental need to share knowledge to stimulate the process of knowledge creation. This study
seeks to explore knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical R&D.
Design/methodology/approach A case study was carried out in a pharmaceutical company in
Denmark. R&D professionals were asked to identify organizational enablers and barriers to knowledge
sharing. Their accounts were processed as text during workshops. Data were condensed thematically.
The analysis was combined with the conceptualization of tacit and explicit knowledge as proposed by
Nonaka and Takeuchi.
Findings The research shows that R&D professionals have different views and practices regarding
engaging in knowledge sharing. This reveals that knowledge sharing is multi-faceted and that one
standard for R&D professionals does not exist. The enablers identified recognized the use of tacit
knowledge. The existence of enablers and barriers with oppositional influence on knowledge-sharing
practices is evident. Furthermore, synergy is identified in the knowledge-sharing enablers provided that
the settings fostering personal closeness to colleagues are stimulated. Physical proximity to colleagues
therefore has obvious influence on knowledge-sharing practices.
Research limitations/implications This study was basedon a single case study. The extent to which
the findings can be generalized to other industries is unknown.
Practical implications The findings have implicationsfor R&D managers who must be aware of these
professional diversities in order to enhance knowledge-sharing practices.Attention should also be given
to the synergies hidden in knowledge-sharing enablers.Originality/value Focused implementationof enablers will increase knowledge-sharing practices and
minimize barriers.
Keywords Knowledge management, Pharmaceuticals industry, Research and development,Case studies, Quality, Research
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
The pharmaceutical industry has been known for its creation of innovative products
(Horrobin, 2001). However, the industrys innovative pipeline has dried out over the last
decade. The pharmaceutical industry has unique characteristics such as a highly regulatory
environment, long development cycles, and a high level of risks and costs in the R&D
process. Time from discovery to marketing of a new drug requires on average 8-10 years(Ganguli, 2003). A main focus in the pharmaceutical industry is therefore to reduce
time-to-market. In order to stay competitive, companies have focused on other initiatives
such as maximizing the potential of existing product portfolios and practicing incremental
innovation (Tranter, 2000) with focus on life cycle management and technical solutions
particularly reducing time-to-market. This focus has meant that other aspects of this
innovative shortage have been overlooked or at least not fully discussed taken into account.
One of these aspects is the potential of individuals and their actions and interactions within
the R&D organization. The pharmaceutical industry has unique characteristics such as a
DOI 10.1108/13673271111108693 VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011, pp. 53-70, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 53
Anne-Mette Lilleoere is
based at Novo Nordisk A/S
Research & Development,
Gentofte, Denmark.
Ebba Holme Hansen is
based in the Faculty of
Pharmaceutical Sciences,
Section for Social
Pharmacy at the University
of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
The authors would like to thankthe employees at Novo Nordisk
R&D, Denmark for participatingin this study, as well as NovoNordisk R&D for funding thisPhD project. The authors aregrateful forthe support of EjvindJensen, Director, Novo NordiskR&D, during the initiation of thisPhD project and throughout theprocess.
Received: 16 March 2010Accepted: 12 July 2010
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
3/19
highly regulatory environment, long development cycles, and a high level of risks and costs
in the R&D process. Time from discovery to marketing of a new drug requires on average
8-10 years (Ganguli, 2003).
One area where organizations may be able to increase their innovative performance is
knowledge sharing created through interactions among individuals. The value of knowledge
sharing is also related to the fact that organizational knowledge is a unique asset difficult to
imitate (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Sapienza and Lombardino, 2006). Knowledge
sharing is therefore believed to enhance the creation of knowledge, potentially enabling new
innovative products to be developed at greater speed. However, knowledge sharing does
not come about easily. Knowledge sharing is strongly dependent on the setting, various
personal beliefs, and the actions and practices among the individuals involved. In this
perspective, the understanding and acknowledgement of individual diversities in
knowledge sharing is fundamental to catalyzing the process within R&D organizations.
Therefore uncovering the knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers of different professional
groups and learning how they apply to pharmaceutical R&D is important to innovative
performance.
2. Aim
This article explores the knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical R&D as
experienced by different professional groups, i.e. scientists and laboratory technicians. The
research is based on a qualitative, single case study (Yin, 2003) conducted at Novo Nordisk
R&D, Denmark.
The focus of the empirical analysis is on the project level, because this level provides the
primary context for the performance of knowledge creation modes in the organization. In
addition, the lack of prior empirical research into the diversity of knowledge-sharing enablers
and barriers of different professionals groups in R&D makes findings relevant to R&D
managers in the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore this research contributes to the present
knowledge gap. The findings are suggested to be highly relevant as knowledge sharing in
organizations can contribute reducing time-to-market in pharmaceutical R&D hereby
creating competitive advantage.
3. Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing can be conceptualized in various ways ranging from the exploration of
new knowledge through renewed combinations of existing knowledge to the exploitation of
existing knowledge (Szulanski, 1996; Uzzi and Lancaster, 2003). Knowledge sharing can
also be seen as a process of knowledge exchange. It has been argued that the motivation
for these different exchanges is related to the expectation of receiving something in return
(Fiske, 1991). Grant (1996) also argues that knowledge sharing is about ensuring that
existing knowledge is distributed within or across organizational boundaries.
A key task for R&D organizations is to ensure that knowledge is captured and shared for the
continuous knowledge creation processes (Berends et al., 2006). Different approaches
dealing with knowledge sharing exist such as the SECI model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
The SECI model deals with two knowledge dimensions; tacit knowledge and explicit
knowledge, respectively. Knowledge that can be shared easily is referred to as explicit
knowledge, while knowledge that is difficult to share is referred to as tacit knowledge
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Tacit knowledge is thus inherently difficult to share acrossorganizational units such as departments, functions and groups due to its stickiness. Tacit
knowledge is hard to communicate because it is socially embedded and based on personal
experiences (Von Hippel, 1994; Nonaka, 1994; Szulanski, 1996; Osterloch and Frey, 2000).
Knowledge sharing can positively influence organizational performance through sharing
both tacit and explicit knowledge, which emerges into a knowledge creation spiral as
proposed by Nonaka and co-worker (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). According to these
authors, knowledge is dynamically created through the interaction between individuals,
ultimately through the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. This
PAGE 54 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
4/19
conceptualization is often referred to as SECI, an acronym specifying four knowledge
creation modes: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995).
The elements in the SECI model address core aspects of knowledge. However, the model
has not previously been applied in published, empirical studies conducted in
pharmaceutical R&D. Different aspects of knowledge is also essential in pharmaceutical
R&D, and hence the SECI model has been a central element for the analysis of this present
study.
Chou discussed the link between knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (Chou, 2005).He argues that three kinds of issues may have an impact on knowledge creation: the
individuals ability to absorb and share knowledge, organizational learning mechanisms,
and the ability to store and retrieve knowledge. Absorptive capability refers to the
individuals ability to utilize available knowledge (Griffith et al., 2003; Cohen and Levinthal,
1990).
Published empirical studies dealing with the exploration of knowledge-sharing enablers and
barriers in pharmaceutical R&D are scare. The enablers of organizational creativity in
pharmaceutical R&D were explored earlier in an empirical study by Sundgren et al. (2005).
This study suggested that information sharing and intrinsic motivation were important
enablers for organizational creativity. Another empirical study explored the role of
knowledge sharing measured as the number of patents in pharmaceutical R&D (Cardinal
and Hatfield, 2000). This study showed that industries with more than one R&D laboratory
created more patents than others. Furthermore, R&D laboratories close to headquarters, i.e.
within 100 miles, did not stimulate patent activity but did enhance new drug productivity.
These findings provided evidence that corporate interference in firms was harmful to basic
research as represented by patents.
In another empirical study, Styhre et al. (2008) demonstrated the positive impact of utilizing a
knowledge-sharing facilitator in meetings between clinical research teams in
pharmaceutical R&D. By paying careful attention to participants, the facilitator was able to
help them create a joint sense of confidence and purpose. Brachos et al. (2007) also studied
different factors relevant for transferring knowledge between units (in the pharmaceutical
industry among others). Brachos and co-workers found that contextual factors such as trust,
motivation, management support and learning were crucial for fostering knowledge transfer.
In addition, an empirical study conducted by Schulze and Hoegl (2006) showed the
importance of the socialization mode to the concept phase of new product development inseveral industries, including mechanical equipment, electrical products, medical devices,
automotive, and information technologies. Empirical studies conducted in the
pharmaceutical industry have found that sharing of tacit knowledge is important for
knowledge creation (Cardinal and Hatfield, 2000; Kneller, 2003; Nerkar, 2003; Thompson
and Heron, 2006; Chang et al., 2007).
3.1 Knowledge-sharing enablers
The creation of a knowledge-sharing culture is thought to be one of the most important
knowledge-sharing enablers (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Thus, one key challenge may
be to facilitate effective knowledge sharing in the organization by ensuring adsorptive
capacity and a culture that supports knowledge sharing (Nielsen, 2006). In an R&D
environment, Dewett (2007) demonstrated empirically that employee creativity is related to
self-efficacy and interest in ones work. Incentives can also facilitate an individualswillingness to participate in knowledge sharing (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Chang et al.,
2007).
Knowledge sharing has a strong social dimension in which knowledge work may best be
practiced in informal settings that assimilate social exchanges (Alvesson, 2004). Corti and
Lo Storto (2000) highlight that common coffee and lunch breaks are settings that enable
knowledge sharing due to the fostering of personal closeness. Physical proximity was
stimulated through job-rotations in pharmaceutical marketing enabling knowledge sharing
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 55
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
5/19
and hence knowledge creation (Leenders and Wierenga, 2002). In an empirical study,
Cardinal and Hatfield (2000) found that human networks were one of the key vehicles for
sharing knowledge and that trust among individuals was related to informal networks. Tsai
and Ghoshal (1998) emphasized the role of social ties as channels for knowledge sharing.
Social ties have also been found valuable; empirical findings by Levin and Cross (2004)
demonstrated that individuals are five times more likely to contact other individuals than to
use technical systems.
Von Krogh et al. (2000) proposed relationships exhibiting a high degree of care for the other,
i.e. mutual trust, active empathy, access to help, leniency in judgment, and courage asenablers of knowledge sharing. In another study, Styhre et al. (2002) suggested that care
was the underlying key factor behind knowledge-creation in team-based organizations
involving tacit knowledge. An employee feels motivated to share knowledge once he or she
has a good relationship with another person (Deci and Flaste, 1995), or social relations have
proven to be helpful (Von Krogh et al., 2000). In addition, an empirical study suggests that
social dilemmas are also embedded in knowledge-sharing practices, because
organizational knowledge is more likely to be shared with a person who is highly likeable
rather than with someone who is highly competent (Casciaro and Lobo, 2005). Furthermore,
common identity often facilitates knowledge sharing as individuals within one group
understand each other better than people from outside the group, i.e. people are embedded
in the same practice, speak the same technical language and have a similar identity (Adler
and Kwon, 2002; Borgatti and Cross, 2003; (Currie and Kerrin, 2003).
3.2 Barriers to knowledge sharing
The opposite of a knowledge-sharing enabler often also exists as a barrier. Some of these
barriers are: no knowledge of where knowledge is available, no knowledge about the
existence of valuable knowledge (ODell and Grayson, 1998; Gupta and Govindarajan,
2000), not having access to knowledge (Hansen et al., 1999), the epistemological
differences between tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Szulanski,
2003), the assumption that knowledge equals power (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002), and
large physical and social distance between individuals (McLaughlin et al., 2008). Cabrera
and Cabrera (2002) had described how a certain belief, such as not having valuable
information that was relevant to others, was an obstacle to engaging in knowledge-sharing
practices.
Szulanski (1996) found that knowledge sharing is inhibited by three major factors:
1. lack of absorptive capacity of the recipient;
2. casual ambiguity concerning the knowledge itself; and
3. an arduous relationship between the sender and the receiver (the latter point has also
been made by Albrams et al. (2003)).
Szulanski also found that motivational factors played only a minor role in connection with
transferability of knowledge. These findings indicate that successful knowledge sharing
requires more than just transferring knowledge. In addition, knowing that knowledge exists is
not enough to initiate knowledge sharing, as it presupposes a relationship among those
involved (Szulanski, 1996). Napier and Ferris (1993) describe how physical distance
between colleagues makes it more difficult for them to share dimensions of tacit knowledge.Tacit knowledge is socially embedded and increasing its potential would require settings
that simulate physical proximity (Cardinal and Hatfield, 2000).
This present study will uncover knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers among different
professional groups working in pharmaceutical R&D. Insights into knowledge-sharing
enablers and barriers is a foundation for the application of a successful knowledge
management approach in an organization (Birkenshaw, 2001).
PAGE 56 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
6/19
4. Methods and data
4.1 Settings
The present study was designed as a single case study exploring enablers and barriers to
knowledge sharing among professionals working with pharmaceutical development at Novo
Nordisk R&D, Denmark (Yin, 2003).
Novo Nordisk is a health care company and a world leader in diabetes care. The company
has the broadest diabetes product portfolio in the pharmaceutical industry, including the
most advanced products in the area of insulin delivery systems. Novo Nordisk has a leading
position in areas such as haemostasis management, growth hormone therapy and hormone
replacement therapy. In addition, Novo Nordisk has created a drug pipeline for chronic
inflammatory and autoimmune disorders. With headquarters in Denmark, Novo Nordisk
employs approximately 26,000 full-time employees in 80 countries, and markets its products
in 179 countries. More than 4,600 people work in R&D (Novo Nordisk A/S, 2009).
4.2 Participants
The participants were staff from the two departments responsible for developing new drug
products. The key focus of the two departments is to develop the drug product and the drug
product manufacturing process for further up-scaling in production facilities. These
responsibilities are allocated throughout the development phases, i.e. preclinical, phases 1,
2, and 3. The manager empowers the development activities through the team leaders on to
the scientists and again to the laboratory technicians. The two departments are located at
different sites approximately 5 km apart.
The population consisted of professional staff in the two departments, i.e. managers, team
leaders, principal scientist, scientists, and laboratory technicians. The laboratory
technicians employed in Department Y were not invited to participate in the workshop.
Managers, team leaders, principal scientists, and scientists are referred to as scientists in
the following. The group of scientists has an educational background corresponding to a
Master of Science or PhD, whereas the group of laboratory technicians in general has a
three-year long education. In total 60 participants were invited and 47 participated in the
study. The participants are presented in Table I.
4.3 Data collection
The first author carried out the data collection. The participants were invited to workshops
during normal working hours through Microsoft Outlook. Separate workshops were held for
the scientists and the laboratory technicians. The agenda item was called knowledge
sharing. Workshops lasted approximately one hour. During the workshops documentary
accounts were processed as text. At the workshop participants produced data as text that
were documented anonymously on post-its (Hodson, 1999). The text was produced
anonymously in hard-copy as a response to well-defined questions from the first author.
Participants were asked to identify two organizational knowledge-sharing enablers and
barriers, respectively. The enablers and the barriers identified were to be related to their
everyday work life. Lack of time was not allowed for inclusion as a barrier to knowledge
Table I Participant information
Department X Department Y Department X & Y Professional group Invited Participated Invited Participated Number of participants
Managers 1 1 1 1 2Team leaders 3 3 2 2 5Principal scientists and research scientists 18 11 17 14 25Laboratory technicians Not applicable Not applicable 18 15 15
47
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 57
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
7/19
sharing (Hendriks, 1999). Additionally, at the workshop, knowledge sharing was explicitly
defined according to Grant (1996):
Individuals or groups in an organization that share and combine existing knowledge differently
with the purpose of creating new knowledge.
Participation was voluntary and confidentiality with regard to all responses was assured. The
participants were told that the data were being collected as part of a research study on
organizational knowledge creation. The documentary accounts were documented
anonymously on post-its, which were collected later. Following data production on
post-its the documentary accounts were collected by the first author. Data were collected in2008.
5. Analysis
During analysis researcher triangulation was employed. The documentary accounts were
listed and ordered in groups, themes were labelled and thereafter concepts appeared. To
increase validity concept building was carried out independently by the researchers. The
qualitative data were analyzed using meaning condensation: the meanings of the
documentary accounts were structured around thematic concepts following identification
of relations between concepts (Kvale, 1996), (Christensen et al., 2008). A description of the
essence of the documentary accounts was drawn up and given a heading, thus being
considered a concept before the final concepts were proposed (Christensen et al., 2008).
Phenomenology was selected as the tradition of inquiry for analyzing the data (Kvale, 1996).Analysis within a phenomenological framework attempts to describe the content and
structure of the participants consciousness in order to grasp the qualitative diversity of their
experiences and their essential meanings in relation to the phenomenon (Kvale, 1996). The
two researchers carried out building of thematic concepts on their own. Figure 1 illustrates
the procedure for data production, collection, and analysis.
Thematic concepts were combined with the conceptualization of tacit and explicit
knowledge as proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995).
The concepts that emerged through condensation represent common characteristics of the
documentary accounts within each concept. Initially several of the documentary accounts
were shown to represent one or more concepts; condensation was limited to one concept
per documentary account, however. As a result, some of the concepts may represent a
broader perspective than that actually expressed. Furthermore, when similar conceptsemerged in both professional groups, they were given the same notation.
The validity of the research process was assessed by applying the seven stages as
proposed by Kvale (1996):
1. theme;
2. design;
Figure 1 Procedure for data production, collection and analysis. KS: knowledge sharing
PAGE 58 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
8/19
3. interview (adapted for this study);
4. transcription;
5. analysis;
6. validation; and
7. reporting.
6. ResultsIn the following, the dominant knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers identified for the two
professional groups are highlighted before the findings are integrated and contrasted. Four
dominating concepts of knowledge sharing enablers and barriers were identified for each of
these professional groupings. The group other covered data where no similarities to other
documentary accounts could be proposed. In Figures 2 and 3 the results are listed in order
of dominance with the most prevalent concept presented first, illustrated as different sizes of
circle. The concept other combined single documentary accounts where similarities to
other documentary accounts could not be proposed. The documentary accounts are
presented in Tables II-V. Five documentary accounts are presented in each concept where
possible.
6.1 Knowledge-sharing enablers scientists and laboratory technicians
As illustrated in Figure 2, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers
among the group of scientists were: social relations and network, physical proximity to
colleagues, no stupid question culture, and meetings and informal spaces. Documentary
accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table II. For instance, the concept
Figure 2 Concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers scientists and laboratory technicians
working in pharmaceutical R&D. KS: knowledge sharing
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 59
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
9/19
social relations and network is exemplified by the following: To know each other. Easier to
share/give knowledge to someone you know.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers
among the group of laboratory technicians were: work involvement and interest, things that
make the job easier, the satisfaction of helping colleagues, and being listened to and taken
seriously. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table III.
For instance, the concept work involvement and interest is exemplified by the following:
When I seesomething interesting, exciting or new in my task I become involved and want to
share my knowledge.
6.2 Knowledge-sharing barriers scientists and laboratory technicians
As illustrated in Figure 3, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers among
the group of scientists were: no physical proximity to colleagues, no one can use the
knowledge/fear of being considered foolish, knowledge as power, and do not know who
knows. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table IV. For
instance, the concept no physical proximity to colleagues is exemplified by the following:
Silo thinking due to physical barriers, e.g. dislocation isolation.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers among
the group of laboratory technicians were: lack of appreciation and attention, no one can use
the knowledge/fear of being considered foolish, do not know who knows, and knowledge as
power. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table V. For
instance, the concept lack of appreciation and attention is exemplified by the following: If I
know people around me do not need my knowledge or I know they do not care about what I
have found.
Figure 3 Concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers scientists and laboratoryr technicians
working in pharmaceutical R&D. KS: knowledge sharing
PAGE 60 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
10/19
6.3 Relations between concepts and groups
After integrating and relating the findings, it was possible to illustrate the associations
relations between the concepts and groups as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 shows that concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers were not the same for the
groups of scientists and laboratory technicians, although the concepts in both
professional groups had mutual characteristics. We could see interdependency
between the concepts related to settings fostering personal closeness, in which
synergistic influence on knowledge-sharing practices was evident, was seen for the
scientists. However, we could not see any similar interdependency between the concepts
identified for laboratory technicians could not be seen. Identical concepts of
knowledge-sharing barriers (Figures 2 and 3): no one can use the knowledge/fear of
being considered foolish, knowledge as power, and do not know who knows emerged
from both professional groups. Contrasting concepts with inverse influence onknowledge-sharing practices were identified for the group of scientists. Oppositional
influence on knowledge-sharing practices was observed between the concepts social
relations and network versus do not know who knows and no stupid question culture
versus no one can use the knowledge/fear of being considered foolish. Contrasting
concepts for the group of laboratory technicians were not found.
One obvious concept of knowledge-sharing barriers among scientists mirrored a concept of
knowledge-sharing enablers, i.e. close versus no physical proximity to colleagues (Figures 2
Table II Knowledge-sharing enablers for the group of scientists
Concept Documentary accounts
Social relations and network Good work collaborations/good personal
chemistry/personal relationsContact with other people for other purposes
opportunities to talk about something interestingSeminar outside Novo Nordisk site on relevant specific andnon-specific subjects where there are plenty of breaks
Social arrangements allow easier contact in futureKnowing each other. Easier to share/pass on knowledge to
someone you knowPhysical proximity to colleagues Sharing office space with more than two people enforced
social contact provides opportunities for sharing
experience makes it more informal to come and ask
questionsPhysical proximity, e.g. shared officeSitting close together, i.e. along same corridorHaving a work space/desk close to each otherProximity to co-workers and project group members
No stupid question culture Openness a work environment that stimulates your
intentionsWhen there is no such thing as stupid questionsOpen atmosphere in the department where it is allowed to
ask questions
That it is OK to ask questions to have aknowledge-sharing cultureThat it is legitimate in the present situation/culture to ask
stupid questions/provide input, even if you dont know
whether it is relevantMeetings and informal spaces Unplanned meetings, shared facilities/coffee rooms
Informal culture for personal interactionCoffee rooms and other informal meeting spaceShort face-to-face meetings (or that people sit close
together knowledge will be shared)Meetings between one or more persons
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 61
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
11/19
and 3). It was not possible to find a similar pattern of mirroring concepts among the group of
laboratory technicians (Figures 2 and 3).
7. Discussion
7.1 Main findings
This is the first study to investigate knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in
pharmaceutical R&D. The main findings of this study were: important knowledge-sharing
enablers and barriers were present in the organization and they have become explicit.
Scientists and laboratory technicians had different views and practices for engaging in
knowledge-sharing, which revealed that enabling knowledge sharing is multi-facetted and
that one standard for R&D professionals does not exist. The enablers identified recognizedthe use of tacit knowledge and hence this study has demonstrated that knowledge sharing
takes place during socialization where individuals interact. This finding suggests that
individuals in pharmaceutical R&D are an important asset with regard to knowledge sharing
and hence new knowledge creation in the organization potentially reducing time-to-market.
The majority of the barriers for engaging in knowledge sharing were similar for the two
groups. The existence of enablers and barriers with oppositional influence on
knowledge-sharing practices was evident. Synergy could be identified in the
knowledge-sharing enablers for the scientists, provided that the settings fostering
Table III Knowledge-sharing enablers for the group of laboratory technicians
Concept Documentary accounts
Work involvement and interest When I see something interesting, exciting or new in my
task, I become involved and want to share my knowledgeIt is very educational to share knowledge, for me as well as
the person I am helping. Increased motivation and
involvementInvolvement/interest from colleagues makes me want to
share knowledgeDesire to share information wanting to share knowledge
with othersI need to see the larger meaning in my tasks and to know
that what I dowillbe used byothers/ to support our common
goals. That makes me feel involved and I share my
knowledge and experiencesThe satisfaction of helping colleagues Would like to help
Like to teach othersTo please others with such little effort, e.g. helping to solve
an Excel problem. It is good to see their relief after you
remove the barrierDependency if I know that others are dependent on my
knowledge before they can continue with their workIf I see that a colleague could do things differently or in an
easier way, e.g.in the laboratory or in Excel. Then I share my
knowledgeWhen it gives others an AHA experience
Things that make the job easier When I have handled a task faster/easier than usualA clever trick to make work easierUtilizing all resources makes daily work easierThe more people who know how my equipment works, the
more people who can help out when I am ill or on holidayIt is possible to delegate when more people have similar
knowledge, i.e. more people can handle the same taskBeing listened to and taken seriously Good communication that someone listens to what I have
to sayIf you come to a person who is open and willing to answer
questions
PAGE 62 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
12/19
Table IV Knowledge-sharing barriers for the group of scientists
Concept Documentary accounts
No physical proximity to colleagues No physical proximity, e.g. placed at different sitesGeographic distances between officesGreat physical distance between people that are to share
knowledgeSilo thinking due to physical barriers, e.g. dislocation
isolation
Great physical distanceNo one can use my knowledge/fear of Too proud. Do not want to show your ignorancebeing considered foolish Culture where foolish questions are not accepted
A work environment where employees are insecure about
expressing themselves an insecure work environmentThinking that others already have the knowledge/cannot
use your knowledgeDoes anyone need my knowledge? Maybe others alreadyknow? No knowledge of where knowledge is located
Knowledge as power Wanting to keep your expertise to yourself Opposition to sharing knowledge risk of not feeling
special anymorePurposely withholding knowledge in order to take the
creditArrogance/snobbery to make an explanationcomplicated and unintelligible in order to be special
I know better/people who know it allDo not know who knows Do not know the person who has the knowledge
Closeddoor do not know the organization who is doing
what?Too little knowledge about others tasks and goalsIf people do not know or meet each other do not know
that the others know somethingSpecific groups (project groups or teams) not knowing
that useful knowledge exists
Table V Knowledge-sharing barriers for the group of laboratory technicians
Concept Documentary accounts
Lack of appreciation and attention If there is no openness to questions refusalIf I know people around me do not need my knowledge or I
know they do not care about what I have discoveredIf people do not use my knowledgeIf I forget to send an e-mail containing knowledgeInattention to the value of knowledge sharing
No one can use my knowledge/fear of
being considered foolish
The more people have studied, the more intelligent they
are I probably dont have anything to contributeIf other people take up too much space with all their
knowledge then I cannot be heardScared of saying something wrong will look a foolI feel that I do not have all the facts and that prevents me
from sharing knowledgeMy experience is not that important or useful to share with
othersKnowledge as power I f you do not share al l the information if you hold
something backA know-it-all attitudeKnowledge is power
Do not know who knows Youhavetohavesome knowledgetoknow whattoask or
know what others might need. Otherwise no knowledge is
sharedFinding the right target groupHearing about the problem when its too late
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 63
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
13/19
personal closeness to colleagues were stimulated. The impact of physical proximity to
colleagues on knowledge-sharing practices was therefore noteworthy.
7.2 Enablers to knowledge sharing
The enablers identified recognized the use of tacit knowledge. Although similar or related
concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers can be found in the literature, the perspectives of
scientists and laboratory technicians in pharmaceutical development have not been
explored specifically in qualitative research (Cardinal and Hatfield, 2000; Leenders and
Wierenga, 2002; Thompson and Heron, 2006; Kneller, 2003; Nerkar, 2003; (Chang et al.,
2007). In one empirical study, Sundgren et al. (2005) have identified that information sharingplays an important role in creativity in pharmaceutical R&D. The questionnaire used in that
study did not uncover the enablers of information sharing, however.
In the SECI model, the socialization mode refers to sharing tacit knowledge requiring some
kind of connection between the persons involved. For the scientists in the present study, the
most dominant concept of knowledge-sharing enablers was related to social relations and
network. These findings indicate that knowledge-sharing practices in R&D primarily take
place through human interactions. Sharing of tacit knowledge as a key component in
Figure 4 Overview of knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers and their contrasts KS: knowledge sharing
KS enablers Scientists KS barriers Scientists
KS enablersLaboratory technicians
Work involvementand interests
Things that makethe job easier
The satisfaction ofhelping colleagues
Being listened to
and taken seriously
Knowledge
as power
Do not knowwho knows
Mirrored concepts
Identical concepts
Contrasting conceptswith oppositionalinfluence on KS
Contrasting conceptswith oppositionalinfluence on KS
Interdependency withsynergistic influence
on KS
No one can usemy knowledge/fear
of being foolish
Lack of attentionand appreciation
Do not knowwho knows
Knowledgeas power
No one can usemy knowledge/fear
of being foolish
No physical proximityto colleagues
KS barriersLaboratory technicians
Social relationsand network
Physical proximityto colleagues
No stupidquestion culture
Meetings andinformal spaces
PAGE 64 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
14/19
knowledge creation processes has also been confirmed in pharmaceutical R&D (Nerkar,
2003; Kneller, 2003), and in biotech (Sapsalis et al., 2006). In an empirical study carried out
in various non-pharmaceutical industries, McDermott and ODell (2001) found that a network
for sharing knowledge builds on existing networks people use in their daily work. Another
empirical study, this one conducted by Schulze and Hoegl (2006), reported similar findings.
Their study showed that the socialization mode was crucial in the concept phase of new
product development in different industries (automobile and medical devices). Here
knowledge sharing can be interpreted as the seed of new knowledge creation.
The knowledge-sharing enablers in this study demonstrate interdependencies withsynergistic influence on knowledge sharing. These links are valuable as it may take very
little effort to significantly increase the impact on knowledge-sharing practices, e.g. common
open space to increase personal closeness, which then reinforces the frequency of informal
meetings and the exchange of tacit knowledge. These findings are to some extent consistent
with those in the empirical literature. Here the importance of meetings and informal spaces in
relation to knowledge-sharing practices were proposed as important settings for fostering a
certain level of personal closeness to help overcome distance. Once again this finding
stimulates the dimension of sharing tacit knowledge (Corti and Lo Storto, 2000; Napier and
Ferris, 1993; Schulze and Hoegl, 2006). Open-space offices in pharmaceutical R&D have
demonstrated to enable sharing of tacit knowledge (Boutellier et al., 2008).
Interdependencies with synergistic influence between the identified knowledge-sharing
enablers for the group of laboratory technicians were not found. In addition, the concepts
that emerged were different from those of the scientists. The divergence inknowledge-sharing enablers between the two professional groups indicates different
goals, job responsibilities, personal views, and practices for participating in
knowledge-sharing activities. This supposition is supported by the finding of mutual
characteristics of knowledge-sharing enablers within each professional group. The
characteristics of knowledge-sharing enablers for the laboratory technicians were related
to soft values and to a work smarter not harder mind-set. For scientists, enabler
characteristics were more closely related to work settings. Different views on
knowledge-sharing practices and their characteristics have not previously been studied in
a qualitative study in pharmaceutical R&D.
The dominant concept of knowledge-sharing enablers identified for the laboratory
technicians was related to work involvement and job interest. Although in an empirical
study Dewett (2007) found self-efficacy and work interest to be fundamental to creativity, the
study did not deal with knowledge sharing. The R&D employees in Dewetts study included
both scientists and technical staff. The present study suggests additionally that
knowledge-sharing practices are enhanced if the activity makes the job easier and helps
colleagues. These findings indicate that knowledge-sharing practices also have a strong
collegial focus. In pharmaceutical R&D softer values such as employee commitment and
care have earlier been suggested as knowledge-sharing enablers (Thompson and Heron,
2006; Styhre et al., 2002). In other industrial fields such as consulting employee commitment
has also been identified as a knowledge-sharing enabler (Van den Hoof and de Leeuw van
Weenen, 2004).
7.3 Barriers to knowledge sharing
In the pharmaceutical industry where development cycles are long, knowledge-sharingbarriers are suggested to be an obstacle to the creation of new knowledge. The majority of
the identified barriers to knowledge sharing were similar in the two professional groups.
Although on the whole similar views of barriers to knowledge sharing have not been
described earlier, the individual concepts can be related to recent literature. Bartol and
Srivastava (2002) and ODell and Grayson (1998), respectively, described the power of
knowledge and knowledge about who knows. Concern about who can use ones knowledge
and the fear of being considered foolish has previously been proposed as barriers. A
mistrustful atmosphere has been proposed as a barrier (Von Krogh et al., 2000) as well as
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 65
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
15/19
beliefs such as not having valuable information relevant to others (Cabrera and Cabrera,
2002).
Physical distance to colleagues was identified as a noteworthy barrier as well as being
mirrored as a knowledge-sharing enabler, obviously depending on proximity. Similar
findings have been found in the software industry (McLaughlin et al., 2008). These findings
of this present emphasize that physical proximity to colleagues has an obvious impact on
knowledge-sharing practices for the group of scientists. This supports the SECI model
confirming that knowledge sharing takes place during socialization as point of departure for
knowledge creation. The findings are further supported by the physical location of R&D
departments at different sites. Leenders and Wierenga (2002) have previously described
the importance of physical proximity to colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry and in
biotech (Zeller, 2001; Poti, 2001). Napier and Ferris (1993) have also confirmed these
findings in a non-pharmaceutical setting. Similar concepts for the group of laboratory
technicians were not found.
It is clear from this study that the knowledge-sharing barriers identified for the group of
scientists have an oppositional impact on some of the knowledge-sharing enablers
identified. For instance, if someone does not know who knows, perhaps he or she does not
have the proper network. Or if someone has a fear of being seen as foolish, that would
reinforce the knowledge-sharing enabler of a culture where no stupid questions exist. These
reinforcements are suggested to inhibit the socialization processes. The opposing impact on
knowledge-sharing practices that has been identified within the concepts of
knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers underscores the importance of these conceptsfor the group of scientists. These findings are in agreement with a study from the steel
industry demonstrating that lack of knowledge about where knowledge was available was a
knowledge-sharing barrier (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000).
It is suggested that appreciation is facilitated by informal networks, because they stimulate
appreciation of individuals. However, in this study the laboratory technicians did not
explicitly correlate appreciation from colleagues with informal networks.
7.4 Knowledge sharing in relation to the SECI model
The proposed enabling concepts were primarily related to aspects of tacit knowledge, i.e.
the socialization mode of the SECI model. Nonetheless, the findings of this study show there
is more to the SECI model than tacit and explicit knowledge. The SECI model does not
account for the actions of individuals such as their strategies, practices, and goals. Although
a relationship between individuals is a precondition for knowledge-sharing practices
(Szulanski, 1996; Hansen et al., 1999), this precondition is not part of the SECI model. With
regard to knowledge sharing in relation to SECI model, the model lacks the views and values
of the individuals for engaging in knowledge-sharing practices. Other authors have pointed
out similar shortcomings of the SECI model (Gourlay and Nurse, 2005). Gourlay and Nurse
(2005) argue that the theory cannot explain how the mind produces ideas or fails to do so. In
addition, Von Krogh et al. (2000) suggest that a high degree of caring among colleagues is
particularly important in the sense of sharing tacit knowledge, but neither dimension is
reflected in the SECI model.
8. Conclusions and implications
The results of the present study are based on a single case study and have relevant
managerial implications. This study adds to the understanding of knowledge sharingbetween different professional groups working in pharmaceutical R&D. The findings have
implications for both theory and practice.
Over the course of the research process, it became evident that tacit organizational
knowledge had become explicit. Important knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers were
present in the organization. This study showed that R&D professionals have experienced
different views and practices for engaging in knowledge-sharing, which reveals that
enabling knowledge sharing is multi-faceted and that one standard for R&D professionals
PAGE 66 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
16/19
does not exist. The identified knowledge-sharing enablers recognized the use of tacit
knowledge. Synergism was identified for the enablers and the existence of barriers with
oppositional influence on these enablers was clear. Implementing the synergistic enablers
therefore helps increase the knowledge-sharing practices and minimize the identified
barriers. Physical proximity to colleagues was an important factor for the identified
knowledge-sharing enablers.
The results of this research have practical relevance. First, managers should be aware of the
diversity of the professionals, such as their different views and practices regarding
knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers. The awareness and acknowledgement of these
diversities can positively influence knowledge sharing in R&D and hence the new knowledge
creation processes. Second, managers should focus on the value of the synergism of
knowledge-sharing enablers and the oppositional influence of the barriers that cause
knowledge-sharing practices to fail. Third, due to the social embedding of tacit knowledge,
managers should consider the location of their R&D employees. All these issues contribute
to the time a company spends on the development cycle. Focusing on knowledge-sharing
activities in pharmaceutical R&D may potentially reduce time to market. The SECI model was
found to have some limitations as the model does not include the actions of employees and
their inter-unit relationships. However, the SECI model inspired the data analysis and was
utilized for the conceptualization of tacit and explicit knowledge.
There are limitations to how far empirical findings can be generalized. Further research
should be conducted to investigate how knowledge-sharing practices are related to
knowledge creation processes during the development of new drug products. Moreover,studies should be carried out in other settings. A multiple case study in pharmaceutical R&D
could contribute to wider generalization of the findings.
References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S-W. (2002), Social capital: prospects for a new concept, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.
Albrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E. and Levin, D.Z. (2003), Nurturing interpersonal trust in
knowledge-sharing networks, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17, pp. 64-77.
Alvesson, M. (2004), Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizationalreward systems, Journal of Leadership and Organisation Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Berends, H., Van der Bij, H., Debackere, K. and Weggeman, M. (2006), Knowledge sharing
mechanisms in industrial research, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 85-95.
Birkenshaw, J. (2001), Why is knowledge management so difficult?, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 11-18.
Borgatti, S. and Cross, R. (2003), A relational view of information seeking and learning in social
networks, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 432-45.
Boutellier, R., Ullman, F., Schreiber, J. and Naef, R. (2008), Impact of office layout on communication in
a science-driven business, R&D Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 372-91.
Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Sonderquist, K.E. and Prastacos, G. (2007), Knowledge effectiveness,
social context and innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 31-44.
Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F. (2002), Knowledge sharing dilemmas, Organization Studies, Vol. 23,
pp. 687-710.
Cardinal, L.B. and Hatfield, D.E. (2000), Internal knowledge generation: the research laboratory and
innovative productivity in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 247-71.
Casciaro, T. and Lobo, M.S. (2005), Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social
network, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 6, pp. 1-9.
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 67
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
17/19
Chang, T.J., Yeh, S.P. and Yeh, I-J. (2007), The effects of joint reward system in new product
development, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3-4, pp. 276-97.
Chou, S-W. (2005), Knowledge creation: absorptive capacity, organizational mechanisms,
and knowledge storage/retrieval capacities, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 453-65.
Christensen, U., Schmidt, L. and Dyhr, L. (2008), The qualitative research interview, in Vallgaarda, S.
and Kock, L. (Eds), Research Methods in Public Health, Gyldendal Akademisk, Copenhagen.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.
Corti, E. and Lo Storto, C. (2000), Knowledge creation in small manufacturing firms during product
innovation: an empirical analysis of cause-effect relationships among its determinants, Enterprise and
Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1 No. 13, pp. 245-63.
Currie, G. and Kerrin, M. (2003), Human resource management and knowledge management:
enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company, International Journal of Resource
Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1027-45.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge. How Organizations Manage What they
Know, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
Deci, E.L. and Flaste, R. (1995), Why We Do What We Do: The Dynamics of Personal Autonomy, Putnam
& Sons, New York, NY.
Dewett, T. (2007), Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D
environment, R&D Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 197-208.
Fiske, A.P. (1991), Structures of Social Life, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Ganguli, P. (2003), Global pharmaceutical industry: intellectual wealth and asset protection,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 284-313.
Gourlay, S. and Nurse, A. (2005), Flaws in the engine of knowledge creation, in Buono, A. and
Poulfelt, F. (Eds), Challenges and Issues in Knowledge Management, Information Age Publishing,
Greenwich, pp. 293-315.
Grant, R.M. (1996), Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, pp. 109-22.
Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E. and Neale, M.A. (2003), Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the
love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 265-87.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), Knowledge managements social dimension: lessons from
Nucor Steel, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42, pp. 71-80.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), What is your strategy for managing knowledge?,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.
Hendriks, P. (1999), Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100.
Hodson, R. (1999), Analyzing Documentary Accounts, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Horrobin, D.F. (2001), Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine, Vol. 93, pp. 341-5.
Kneller, R. (2003), Autarkic drug discovery in Japanese pharmaceutical companies: insights into
national differences in industrial innovation, Research Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 1805-27.
Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA.
Leenders, M.A.A.M. and Wierenga, B. (2002), The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating
marketing and R&D, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19, pp. 305-17.
Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in
effective knowledge transfer, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1477-90.
PAGE 68 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
18/19
McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
McLaughlin, S., Paton, R.A. and Macbeth, D.K. (2008), Barrier impact on organizational learning within
complex organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107-23.
Napier, B.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1993), Distance in organizations, Human Resource Management View,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 321-57.
Nerkar, A. (2003), Old is gold? The value of temporal exploitation in the creation of new knowledge,
Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 211-29.
Nielsen, A.P. (2006), Understanding dynamic capabilities through knowledge management, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 59-71.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organizational Sciences,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Novo Nordisk A/S (2009), Novo Nordisk Annual Report 2008, Financial, Social, and Environmental
Performance, Bording A/S, Denmark.
ODell, C. and Grayson, J. (1998), If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal
best practice, California Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 154-74.
Osterloch, M. and Frey, B. (2000), Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms,Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 538-50.
Poti, B. (2001), Appropriation, tacit knowledge and hybrid social regimes in biotechnology in Europe,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 22 Nos 7-8, pp. 741-61.
Sapienza, A.M. and Lombardino, J.G. (2006), Recognizing, appreciating and capturing the tacit
knowledge of R&D scientists, Drug Development Research, Vol. 57, pp. 51-7.
Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and Navon, R. (2006), Academic versus industry
patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 1631-45.
Schulze, A. and Hoegl, M. (2006), Knowledge creation in new product development projects, Journal
of Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 210-36.
Styhre, A., Roth, J. and Ingelgard, A. (2002), Care of the other: knowledge-creation through care in
professional teams, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 503-20.
Styhre, A., Ollila, S., Roth, J., Williamson, D. and Berg, L. (2008), Heedful interrelating, knowledge
sharing, and new drug development, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 127-40.
Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J-E. and Selart, M. (2005), Drivers of organizational creativity:
a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 359-74.
Szulanski, G. (1996), Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of the best practice
within the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 27-43.
Szulanski, G. (2003), Sticky Knowledge Barriers to Knowing in the Firm, Sage Publications, London.
Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2006), Relational quality and innovative performance in R&D based
science and technology firms, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 28-47.
Tranter, D. (2000), Evolving to reflect the modern industrial life-science environment, Pharmaceutical
Science and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 399-400.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-76.
Uzzi, B. and Lancaster, R. (2003), Rational embeddedness learning: the case of bank loan managers
and their clients, Management Science, Vol. 49, pp. 383-99.
Van denHoof,B. andde Leeuw vanWeenen, F. (2004), Committed to share:commitment andCMC use
as antecedents of knowledge sharing, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 13-24.
VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 69
-
7/31/2019 Knowledge Sharing Enablers
19/19
Von Hippel, E. (1994), Sticky information and the locusof problem solving: implications for innovation,
Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 590-607.
Von Krogh, G., Kazou, I. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zeller, C. (2001), Clustering biotech: a recipe for success? Spatial patterns of growth of biotechnology
in Munich, Rhineland and Hamburg, Small Business Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 123-41.
About the authors
Anne-Mette Lilleoere was a PhD student (January 2007-January 2010) at The Faculty ofPharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Anne-Mette Lilleoere is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Ebba Holme Hansen is Professor at the Section for Social Pharmacy, Faculty ofPharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen since 1992 and the driving forcebehind the development of social pharmacy as an academic discipline. Professor HolmeHansen is an expert in both qualitative and quantitative research methods and has authored15 books and more than 200 scientific articles, chapters in books and reports.
PAGE 70 jJOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints