Knowledge sharing mechanism in industrial research

組員： 張書維 M9401104 許明章 M9412203 吳炳煌 M9401204 莊承勳 M9401106

Agenda

• Introduction

• Methodology

• Characterizing the origination of knowledge sharing

• Mechanisms for the origination of knowledge sharing

• The Effectiveness of knowledge-sharing mechanisms

• Conditions for knowledge sharing

• Discussion and implications

Introduction （ 1/3）

The contributions of this study ：

• Introduce three dimensions to differentiate

between knowledge-sharing mechanism.

• Show that some of these mechanisms correspond to mechanisms assumed in particular streams of literature.

• Each of these knowledge-sharing mechanisms have a different value for industrial research practices.

Introduction （ 2/3）

The practice of knowledge management：

• Connecting those who need knowledge with those who have it.

• The contribution of information to a group discussion on one’s own initiative.

• Collecting knowledge and making it available at a central place.

• Finally, problem solving focus on the transfer of existing

information or knowledge and on the creation of new ideas during interaction.

Introduction （ 3/3）

• Research and develop of new technologies, products and processes require an enormous amount of knowledge.

• Knowledge management in R&D should facilitate and stimulate a broad portfolio of knowledge-sharing mechanisms.

• Members of an R&D organization need to share knowledge to create a common understanding of the problems, and to coordinate activities.

Methodology （ 1/3）

• The Buijs Group consisted of about 25 research scientists and research engineers, working in the fields of solid mechanics, fluid mechanics and thermal physics.

• Oil and Gas Innovation Research (OGIR), the exploratory research group of Shell Global Solutions. The mission of OGIR is to generate innovative technological options for sustainable development in the areas of energy and mobility.

• These field studies could be classified as passive participant observation (Spradley, 1980).

• One of the authors temporarily shared a room with different researchers, followed them to meetings and to their laboratories, joined them for coffee and lunch breaks and on other social occasions ,but did not actively participate in their research.

• Field notes, transcripts of interactions and interviews were analyzed in line with the grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss,1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

Methodology （ 2/3）

Methodology （ 3/3）

• The grounded theory approach is a systematic way of theory building. Interactions were constantly compared and codes were developed to capture similarities ,differences and relationships.

• 227 episodes were obtained.

• 129 from the Buijs Group and 98 from OGIR.

Characterizing the origination of knowledge sharing

• Dimension 1: existing content/new content

• Dimension 2: who determines?

• Dimension 3: orientation

Introduction of E1

A biweekly group meeting of the Buijs Group, Luke is given the floor to present his research. He starts off by talking about work he completed a couple of months ago.

Then he reports on the problems he is working on currently and describes some of his initial results.

Finally, he elaborates on his plans for the future.

Introduction of E37

Marc has a problem with the coating of an object. He tells Jason about the problem, who in turn asks for more details. Based on this, Jason forms a hypothesis about the cause of the problem.

At a certain point, Marc exclaims: I don’t understand. It’s the same liquid I normally use and then there’s no problem. Marc came up with a supplementary explanation for his own problem , which explains why has not noticed the irregularities before.

Dimension 1：existing content/new content

• In E1, Luke reported on his own research, he was merely expressing his knowledge about his own research.

• E37 Jason and Marc each came up with a new explanation. Their explanations of the coating irregularities did not exist before this interaction.

• We could conclude knowledge sharing that

originates from a selection of existing information

and knowledge sharing that involves the creative

development of new hypotheses, ideas, questions

or evaluations.

Dimension 2：Who determines?

• The person who is sharing his knowledge.

• The person one is sharing his knowledge with (‘the other’).

• The top Management

• We must find the orientation of knowledge sharing with what objective in mind is existing information selected or new information developed?

• orientation towards one’s own problem • orientation towards the other’s problem• orientation towards a shared problem• not oriented towards a particular problem.

Dimension 3：Orientation

Mechanisms for the origination of knowledge sharing （ 1/2）

• We apply these dimensions to create taxonomy of knowledge-sharing mechanisms.

Mechanisms for the origination of knowledge sharing （ 2/2）

1. Diffusion

2. Information retrieval

3. Informational pooling

4. Collaborative problem solving

5. Pushing

6. Thinking alone

7. Self-suggestion

Diffusion

• When members of an organization select and communicate existing information without being oriented towards a particular problem.

Information retrieval

• Someone who needs a particular piece of knowledge or information obtains it by asking someone who has it.

Informational pooling

• The person sharing information chose to do so because of a problem shared with others.

Collaborative problem solving

• This mechanism consists of developing new information with regard to a shared problem.

Pushing

• The sharing person chooses to provide someone else with existing information.

It is oriented towards someone else’s problem.

Thinking alone

• Someone developed new ideas with regard to someone else’s problem.

Self-suggestion

• In the same way as one can think about someone else’s problem, one can also think about one’s own problem during interaction.

They purposefully talked to others, neither to help them nor to obtain a useful reaction, but to force themselves to structure their own thoughts.

The Effectiveness of knowledge-sharing mechanisms (1/4)

• Is one type of mechanism more useful than another, or useful in a distinct way?

• A first-order distinction can be made between direct contributions and indirect contributions.

• knowledge-sharing oriented towards someone else’s problem or a problem shared by the interlocutors is more likely to yield direct contributions to research practices.

• Information retrieval is actually very effective in yielding factual information required.

• Information retrieval fits the traditional interpretation of communication as a process of uncertainty reduction.

The Effectiveness of knowledge-sharing mechanisms (2/4)

• However, other mechanisms contribute directly in ways that differ in three respects from the ‘traditional’ uncertainty reduction paradigm.

1.The sharing person frequently contributes to the development of the other person’s knowledge even though he had no prior question or was not uncertain about something.

The Effectiveness of knowledge-sharing mechanisms (3/4)

2. knowledge sharing that involves the creation of new ideas often does not yield factual information or knowledge.

tentative idea, dirty evaluations

3. knowledge sharing not only reduces uncertainty or ambiguity, it may also create uncertainty and ambiguity.

The Effectiveness of knowledge-sharing mechanisms (4/4)

Conditions for knowledge sharing (1/5)

• Dissimilar origination mechanisms require dissimilar pre-conditions. In a particular situation, one mechanism may be feasible while another may not be.

• We illustrate this by discussing the conditions for the knowledge-sharing mechanisms that were oriented towards someone else’s problem.

• Information retrieval and Pushing What is their pre-condition ?

• Different situations require a different emphasis on each of the mechanisms.

• We elaborate this point by using the distinction between exploration and exploitation.

Conditions for knowledge sharing (2/5)

• Exploration and Exploitation.

• In exploratory, management will be capable of directing knowledge sharing less frequently.

• In exploitation, standardized procedures for knowledge sharing will be more valuable.

Conditions for knowledge sharing (3/5)

Discussion and implications

• Our taxonomy can be a valuable device for the diagnosis of knowledge sharing problems. It can be used to determine which mechanisms are used predominantly and which are neglected.

• “Meta-knowledge”