REIS, Ingrid Weingärtner. CAZARINI, Edson Walmir. The Role of Knowledge Sharing From Knowledge Management. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento. Year 06, Ed. 06, Vol. 10, pp. 136-160. June 2021. ISSN: 2448-0959, Access link: https://www.nucleodoconhecimento.com.br/business-administration/role-of-knowledge-sharing
In the organizational circumstance, the relevance of knowledge is a subject on which there are no more debates. Knowledge has a strategic duty to create products and jobs or that respond to the continuous changes in the needs and wills of customers. This knowledge as such is not found in the institutions, but rather is a portion of the individuals, of the people who constitute them. Although something clear appears, the transfer of knowledge from the individual to the organization is, in fact, a challenge. This is because people’s knowledge is not necessarily aligned with the needs of the organization. This research aimed to identify which resources or strategies can be used to develop sharing acts, based on knowledge training procedures. He also sought to explain the theoretical divergence that exists between transference and distribution of knowledge, demonstrations several times confused in the action. The distribution of knowledge is an act of the individual within organizations. It was essential to know the important barriers that make such acts impossible. These obstacles may be related to the way of behaving of the subject’s own or happening at the organizational level. For the execution of this study, action research was adopted as the main characteristic of the individuals involved in the study. Thus, from the research methodology developed, one can identify important barriers, both individual and organizational that affect the sharing of knowledge.
Keywords: Knowledge management, knowledge sharing, individual barriers, organizational barriers.
The important role of knowledge in the performance of organizations can be considered as consensus, since several disciplines have been dealing with this theme in recent years. The search for differentiation in the market and innovation has led entrepreneurs to invest in these issues. The way organizations acquire, generate and share knowledge is part of the possible response to the scenario that is now being lived. This process of knowledge creation is accomplished through conversation between people, exchange of information and experience, in an environment in which the relationship between them is stimulated, fostering collaboration and trust.
However, it is necessary to consider that in addition to the institutional mechanisms of how this management can be done, there is a key piece in this discussion that is the subject that is part of the organization. Knowledge is of the subject, not of the organization. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct the discussion on knowledge management from the perspective of how to extract or better take advantage of this individual knowledge.
Adopting as a paradigm the eastern view that the subject who learns must appropriate the object of learning, we seek to identify with this research the importance of sharing for knowledge management. What resources or strategies can support sharing actions, what relationship can be established between these and the phases of the SECI knowledge creation process (TAKEUCHI and NONAKA, 2008) and, finally, what barriers can impact this whole process.
Considering the importance it has in the process of knowledge creation, it will be essential to understand how knowledge sharing happens in organizations, what elements, what actions can be identified, treated and improved aiming at Knowledge Management.
To carry out this research, action research is adopted as a methodology, where the participation of the people involved is considered fundamental, from the moment of planning to the demonstration of results. Participation is a way to carry out the practice of social relationship where the parties involved have knowledge that, even if they are different, can be integrated. Every person who is able to recognize and evaluate their experience is capable of producing knowledge (TENÓRIO, 1990; THIOLLENT, 1996; GIL, 2008; GILBERTONI, 2012; SAMPIERI; COLLADO; LUCIO, 2006).
This study will be carried out in a Private Higher Education Institution, located in andean country, involving staff of directive level and administrative technical team that manages processes of academic services, pedagogical support and university extension. Traditional processes that are being structured and formalized at this historical moment of the Institution will be considered, that is, they exist, but informally. It is understood that the knowledge and activities carried out are isolated in people or groups of people separated by departments.
A bibliographic research will be carried out to understand the fundamentals of knowledge sharing actions as well as to know the main barriers identified today.
As methodological tools for the development of research will be applied participatory observation, focused interview (GIL, 2008) and application of research.
As structuring elements for action research, the following dimensions will be considered in the observation:
Table 1 – Dimensions of participatory observation.
|dimension||definition||Application in action research|
|Space||The physical place||Private Technical University of Store – UTPL – located in 84 cities – Ecuador.|
|Actors||People involved||Operations Direction, Academic Directorates, Directors of Regional Centers and Sub-centers, technical and functional team.|
|Activities||The set of actions that people take||Realization of processes to support academic, pedagogical and university extension management.|
|Objects||The physical things that are part of the observed reality||Use of resources and application of strategies for knowledge sharing.|
|Acts||Simple actions that people do||Definitions of actions in each process; joint planning of actions; application and controls.|
|Events||The set of activities that people perform||Events defined in institutional calendar.|
|Time||The sequence that takes place over time||The times are defined according to the planning of activities and institutional calendars.|
|Goals||The things that people are trying to accomplish||Align and promote improvements in outcomes to students.|
|Feelings||The emotions felt and expressed.||Dissatisfaction with results; frustration with the perpetuation of poor performance.|
Source: personal collection.
Knowledge Management – Fundamental Knowledge
Knowledge Management is part of the global context of a world without borders, where traditional territorial boundaries are no longer as relevant to the management of organizations. According to Ishikura (2008, p. 165) “National borders mean less today than before, because customers can access information and buy products from around the world”.
This global economy, ‘connected’ and founded on knowledge gains strength with each generation, transferring importance to what is intangible, to the detriment of what is tangible and concrete. “The indispensable asset for today’s companies is not the factory and the equipment, but the accumulated knowledge and the people who own it” (ISHIKURA, 2008, p. 166). Companies start competing in the market based on their knowledge and intellectual assets (MASSARO, 2013; ISHIKURA, 2008).
In the context of organizations, knowledge is defined as ‘a justified belief’ that enhances a company’s ability for effective action. This definition is considered more appropriate than a philosophical definition of knowledge, as it provides a clear description of the underlying knowledge in organizations (PEE, 2009; NONAKA, 1995). Knowledge Management, on the other, can be understood as the process of identifying and leveraging collective knowledge in organizations to help the organization remain competitive in the market (TAKEUCHI; NONAKA, 1995; PEE, 2009).
The model of knowledge creation presented by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) considers it essential to rely on tacit knowledge of the subjects as a starting point to create a new organizational knowledge. This model presents the transition of knowledge into two dimensions: the ontological dimension, which is the transition of knowledge from the individual level to the organizational level, and the epistemological dimension, which presents the transition between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. The authors called this movement the Spiral of Knowledge. It represents the possible changes for the creation of knowledge considering 4 modes of conversion: Socialization, Outsourcing, Combination and Internalization – SECI.
In each of these modes there is the transition of the types of knowledge, generating a movement of evolution. In Socialization there is the relationship between tacit and tacit knowledge; in Extenalization, from tacit to explicit; in combination, from explicit to explicit; and internalization: from explicit to implicit.
Tacit knowledge for Polonyi (1966) is the apprehension of a given entity, constituted by the parts that form it and its entirety, that is, when the observer understands the object observed considering its parts and characteristics – proximal term – and its integrality – distal therma. Although not detailed, specified and with this level of consciousness, tacit knowledge is what the subject knows through his perception and intuition, and is therefore not formalized or systematized. Also according to the same author, the perception is individual, unique, because it is influenced by personal experiences.
In contemporary studies, the tacit knowledge of the subjects is a differentiated resource, which, becoming conscious and spread throughout the organization, leads to innovation and the solution of concrete problems. Tacit knowledge of the subject is the basis of the creation of organizational knowledge (NONAKA and TAKEUCHI, 1995).
Therefore, it can be understood that in the organizational context that there is the moment of knowing about something, then a awareness and its respective direction or application and then the possibility of sharing this knowledge.
According to Castañeda, (2015), knowledge sharing is a fundamental behavior in the creation and application of knowledge, especially for organizations. It is a common and essential behavior, identified in the organizations that learn. However, this is not an automatic behavior, depending on the will of the subjects involved, stimuli and spaces consciously prepared for this.
Knowledge sharing emerges as a chain of events based on the identification of the necessary key knowledge, the people who need this knowledge and the resources that can support it, all based on the social interaction of those involved. Communication is therefore the basis for the sharing of knowledge. (LÓPEZ-FRESNO and SAVOLAINEM, 2015; ŠÁRKA, 2014).
By its own characteristics, communication cannot be avoided, but one can act directly on it to limit or improve the learning opportunities that are generated from it (ŠÁRKA, 2014).
It is also found that knowledge sharing refers to the provision of information about activities and knowledge to help others in the organization, collaborating in problem solving, developing new ideas, or implementing policies and procedures (WANG and NOE, 2010, GAÁL 2015 and IPE 2003).
From these concepts, it is understood that the sharing of knowledge is a human act, intentional, directed to the creation of knowledge, which uses collaboration for this construction and that can be identified in each of the modes of knowledge conversion or within each step of the process of knowledge creation.
From the research conducted on specialized bibliography, some common elements are identified in several authors that contribute to the sharing of knowledge. These elements are both structural and individual elements. These elements are organised in the following table.
Table 2 – Elements necessary for the sharing of knowledge.
|Confidence||López-Fresno and Savolainen (2015), Nesheim and Gressgardm (2014) and Šárka (2014)|
|Space for formal (meetings) or formal (social networks) relationships||López-Fresno and Savolainen (2015), Wenger (2002), Caimo and Lomi (2015), Gáal (2015)|
|Shared values||Šárka (2014)|
|Promoting dialogue between high and middle management||Massaro et al (2014), Simons (1995)|
|Storytelling||Šárka (2014), Takeuchi and Nonaka (2008)|
|Presence||Probst, Raub, and Romhardt (2000), Nesheim and Gressgard (2014)|
|Repetition of actions (good examples)||Šárka (2014)|
|Virtuality||Nesheim and Gressgard (2014)|
Source: personal collection.
Difference between knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing
Although there is some confusion between them, knowledge transfer is not confused with actions for the sharing of knowledge. In the transfer of knowledge there is a focus, a clear objective, and the unidirectionality of the action, while in sharing actions can take place unintentionally in multiple directions without a specific objective (BELLEFROID, 2012; IPE, 2003).
Therefore, the transfer has always an intentionality and occurs as a result of a research process or the generation of new knowledge that will be applied in certain realities. On the other hand, sharing is a means, it is a way and a step for the generation of knowledge. It is the common actions of sharing among the subjects of the organization that generate each of the stages of the SECI process.
Sharing is an action or set of actions that can happen at any stage of the knowledge creation process, using means for sharing. The sharing takes place through a dialogical and collaborative relationship from the initial moments of the process of knowledge creation, when the subjects involved in the process exchange their tacit knowledge or even those that are already explicit, conscious and already applied.
Barriers to The Creation of Knowledge
Despite the growing importance of knowledge-sharing activities for organizational competitiveness, several barriers make it difficult to achieve goals and improve competitiveness in the global market of organizations, affecting their profitability (CHONG, 2014; LINDSEY, 2006). The main barriers identified in the bibliography and current research are presented below.
Two levels of barreas are identified, individual ones and organizational barriers. The former are related to the behavior and actions of the subjects and are identified.
Table 3 – Relationship of individual and organizational barriers to the creation and sharing of knowledge and their respective sources.
|individual||Lack or low capacity to absorb and deal with new situations, events, information and different contexts; internal resistance.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka, Dixon (2000), Barson et al. (2000)|
|individual||Kind of lives.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka|
|individual||Individual experiences.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka|
|individual||Individual objectives at odds with organizational objectives; individual interest.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka, Barson et al. (2000)|
|individual||Personality, shyness, fear or insecurity (not being sure that personal knowledge is correct); Low confidence; difficulty or inability to realize that the proposed knowledge will add value.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka and Massaro, 2014 (p. 121 and 122), Dixon (2000), Levina (2001); Barson et al. (2000)|
|individual||Difficulty or inability to realize that knowledge fits into the current context.||Dixon (2000)|
|individual||Formal education level.||Nesheim and Gressgard, 2014, p. 29|
|individual||Professional experience; professional cultures.||Nesheim and Gressgard, 2014, p. 29, Levina (2001)|
|individual||Unwillingness to listen.||Levina (2001)|
|individual||Fear of exploitation; fear of contamination, or proprietary thinking.||Barson et al. (2000)|
|individual||Skepticism about sharing.||Barson et al. (2000)|
|individual||Become redundant.||Barson et al. (2000)|
|individual||Loss of power; loss of confidentiality; personal responsibility.||Barson et al. (2000), Cabrera & Cabrera (2002)|
|Organizational||Need for a legitimized language; absence of contextual clues, specialized languages and methodologies.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka, Levina (2001)|
|Organizational||Organizational histories; Paradigms of the company; factors of the operating environment, culture and national beliefs, local orientation; memory loss, discontinuity of progress toward goals, culture.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka; Okunoye (2002), Levina (2001)|
|Organizational||Procedures.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka|
|Organizational||Time dedicated to performing the work more significant than sharing; time constraints.||Massaro, 2014 (p. 121 and 122); Weiss (1999)|
|Organizational||The monitoring of work activities inhibits creativity and motivation for knowledge sharing; Control of activities and excess measurements; Culture, technology, measurement.||Massaro, 2014 (p. 121 and 122); KROGH, George Von; ICHIJO, Kazuo; NONAKA, Ikujiro, p. 591; 1996 APQC|
|Organizational||In the planning of projects and processes, no time is considered to perform knowledge sharing.||Massaro, 2014 (p. 121 and 122), McDermott & Odell (2001)|
|Organizational||There is no reward system identified for this activity; lack of rewards, lack of recognition, lack of reciprocity; Contribution, precision, recognition.||Massaro, 2014 (p. 121 and 122); Weiss (1999); Ellis (2001), McDermott & Odell (2001), Barson et al. (2000), Cabrera & Cabrera (2002)|
|Organizational||Dynamics of group operation; How the work is structured to be carried out and the definition of roles and responsibilities; Functions or positions with low level of autonomy; Degree of specialization of functions negatively affects the relationship; Membership, retribution (excluding reward); common practices in professional service; differences in unity: subculture, unit objectives, restrictions of a local problem; prevention of profiteers, reduction of knowledge search costs.||López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014, Nesheim and Gressgard, 2014, p. 29; Bock & Kim (2002); Weiss (1999), Levina (2001); Dyer & Nobeoka (2000), Cabrera & Cabrera (2002)|
|Organizational||Working climate.||López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014|
|Organizational||Limited management approach.||KROGH, George Von; ICHIJO, Kazuo; NONAKA, Ikujiro|
|Organizational||View that Knowledge Management is the manufacture of tools (tools and instruments); Knowledge Management based on detectable and quantifiable information.||KROGH, George Von; ICHIJO, Kazuo; NONAKA, Ikujiro|
|Organizational||Knowledge Management depends on a physical and organizational structure (Knowledge officer).||KROGH, George Von; ICHIJO, Kazuo; NONAKA, Ikujiro|
|Organizational||The lack of a knowledge sharing mechanism; Simplicity, access, usability, motivation to participate; ease of use.||Fraser, Marcella & Middleton (2000); Buckman Model (1998); Hall (2001), McDermott & Odell (2001), Barson et al. (2000), Barson et al. (2000)|
|Organizational||Network that motivates participation.||Dyer & Nobeoka (2000)|
|Organizational||distance.||Barson et al. (2000)|
|Organizational||Personality, shyness, fear or insecurity (not being sure that personal knowledge is correct); Low confidence; trust; risk; penalty.||Kazuo Ichijo – Takeuchi and Nonaka and Massaro, 2014 (p. 121 and 122), Dixon (2002), Levina (2001); Barson et al. (2000)|
Source: personal collection.
3. APPLICATION AND RESULTS
The research was carried out in a University that has as main characteristic distance education. The University, which has about 40,000 students, is located in an Andean country and in this context distance education plays a very important role, considering the difficulty of locomotion between cities. The University is located in 84 (eighty-four) cities in the country, with its units, serving the community and the social environment with teaching, research and linking actions (university extension).
If there is sought to identify the main individual and organizational barriers that influence the sharing of knowledge among people.
As part of the research objectives, is the identification of the main barriers found in the development of action research with the working group. In addition to the observation made throughout the research, it was necessary to validate with those involved the perception about barriers to sharing.
For this verification, the general relationship of individual and organizational barriers was taken and questions were created that, organized, were transformed into two questionnaires, whose objectives were to evaluate individual and organizational barriers, from the perspective of the people.
Evaluation of Individual Barriers
Individual barriers are those linked to the individual’s behavior in relation to the creation or sharing of knowledge. At this stage of the group’s work, the 30 (thirty) most influential people in the development of the actions were selected, located at the directive and tactical level. Fourteen of these population answered the questionnaire.
The following table shows the results obtained from the research conducted, with the indexes obtained from the evaluation, where TD is the most unfavorable position and TA the most favorable.
Table 4 – Questions applied in the action research and results of the application of the questionnaire.
|Question on Individual Barrier||TD||D||N D/N A||A||TA|
|1) Personally read well with new situations or events||7,14%||14,29%||64,29%||14,29%|
|2) The knowledge generated by the organization contributes to my personal training||21,43%||42,86%||35,71%|
|3) The organization’s objectives coincide with my personal and professional goals||14,29%||71,43%||14,29%|
|4) My personal knowledge contributes to the development of the organization||50%||50%|
|5) My professional knowledge fits with the context of the organization||21,43%||42,86%||35,71%|
|6) My academic background is sufficient to add value to discussions and the generation of organizational knowledge||14,29%||21,43%||57,14%||7,14%|
|7) My professional experience adds value to discussions and the generation of organizational knowledge||7,14%||64,29%||28,57%|
|8) In general, I feel encouraged to listen or learn about new topics or situations.||7,14%||14,29%||78,57%|
|9) I consider it important and feel calm when I comment on my ideas with the people in my working group and also with other groups||57,14%||42,86%|
|10) Although my ideas have already been shared by others in certain discussions, I consider it important to speak out on the topics.||7,14%||14,29%||57,14%||21,42%|
|11) I consider it important that knowledge is in some way centralised to ensure its integrity||14,29%||21,43%||28,57%||35,71%|
Source: personal collection.
In general, the answers show a positive trend in people’s behavior towards individual barriers. They perceive themselves open to new ideas and learn new subjects, understand that the professional profile is aligned with the needs of the University and that, individually, they see contributing to organizational growth and development.
This result represents people’s perception of their own behavior in relation to the sharing of knowledge. However, in the course of the observation, this was a confirmed trend, that is, from the individual point of view, of the subject’s action, positive actions are identified. Perhaps because it is an environment in which knowledge is the objective and mission of the organization, such a reaction was found in people.
The most impactful individual barriers observed during the research were mainly related to individual experiences and to the fact that people were aware that what they could share would actually add value to the work done. It was possible to identify this from questions two, four and nine, where we sought to know how people perceive knowledge within the organization and their own knowledge according to the whole and whether they feel free to manifest this individual knowledge. Similarly in questions three and five, where people affirmed an identification with organizational objectives and contexts, which can be a foundation or explanation of the freedom to share previously identified. There is also a high perception about individual professional experiences and how they contribute in the organizational context (question seven).
The most relevant individual barriers identified through research, questionnaire and observation were those listed in the following table:
Table 5 – List of individual barriers identified in the research as more relevant.
|Relationship between individual professional knowledge and organizational context|
|Individual positioning in new situations|
|Knowledge generated in the organization for individual training|
|Stimulus to listen and learn|
|Centralization of knowledge|
Source: personal collection.
Assessment of Organizational Barriers
The organizational barriers identified in the bibliographic research were grouped in the same way as the individual ones and served as the basis for the elaboration of the questionnaire applied to the same universe of people (sending the questionnaire to thirty people and 15 respondents).
Organizational barriers are possibly the easiest to identify and even the most difficult to be addressed, because they are part of the systems of each organization and its culture. Most of the barriers identified here are in the foundations of the management model and in the structure of organizations.
The following Table presents the questions applied about organizational barriers and the results obtained.
Table 6 – Questions applied in the action research and their answers.
|Question on Organizational Barrier||TD||D||N D/N A||A||TA|
|1) In the organization, it is possible to identify a formal and legitimate process to share knowledge.||6,67%||40,00%||13,33%||33,33%||6,67%|
|2) Documents that formalize processes, procedures or any other work instruction are standardized in the organization.||13,33%||26,67%||26,67%||20,00%||13,33%|
|3) In general, the operation and daily activities are so intense that we are unable to share the knowledge with our team or with other work teams.||6,67%||6,67%||53,33%||33,33%|
|4) In general, management controls over activities and results do not interfere in the creation or sharing of knowledge.||6,67%||33,33%||20,00%||33,33%||6,67%|
|5) Planning and work schedules do not determine times for sharing information and knowledge||20,00%||6,67%||40,00%||33,33%|
|6) It is possible to identify some kind of reward when working towards generating and sharing knowledge||13,00%||40,00%||20,00%||13,33%||13,33%|
|7) The team or group of people with whom I work, in general has the habit or predisposition to share knowledge.||6,67%||26,67%||33,33%||6,67%||26,67%|
|8) The organizational climate of the place where I work is favorable to the sharing of knowledge||13,33%||20,00%||13,33%||33,33%||20,00%|
|9) The leaders to whom I report directly encourage the sharing of recognition||13,33%||6,67%||40,00%||40,00%|
|10) In general the themes of information and knowledge are treated as information technology themes||14,29%||50,00%||35,71%|
|11) In general I use some technological means to share knowledge||20,00%||60,00%||20,00%|
|12) I am part of a network of a group of people with whom I can share knowledge and, likewise, receive knowledge.||13,33%||20,00%||6,67%||40,00%||20,00%|
|13) The distance between the number of units and the units (centers) does not represent a problem for the sharing of knowledge||20,00%||33,33%||6,67%||26,67%||13,33%|
Source: personal collection.
Regarding organizational barriers, there is a tendency in responses, pointing out that there is no consensus regarding organizational efforts to share knowledge. There is an equitable distribution of the answers between those who are totally in agreement and those who are totally at odds with the questions presented. It is noteworthy that this is based on the formalization and awareness of the processes of knowledge creation within organizations. Although they are not systematized, there are institutional actions of creation that encourage the sharing of knowledge.
According to the results of the questionnaire application, most respondents do not identify the formalization of knowledge within the organization. They also understand that activities aimed at the creation and sharing of knowledge are not prioritized in organizational activities. During the development of action research, in the observation, it was not possible to clearly identify the moments of sharing. The work planning does not include the evaluation of the activities performed. Regarding the question about reward systems (question six), most respondents cannot identify forms of reward for actions that lead to knowledge sharing. With regard to environmental aspects, most people understand that the climate of the environment in which they are inserted is favorable to the sharing of knowledge. That there is encouragement from immediate guardians (80%). By the nature of the institution, by the avant-garde with which it worked in the distance learning sector, it has a large set of technology resources that can be used for the sharing of knowledge. However, despite this scenario, the questionnaire respondents understand that the focus of Knowledge Management, knowledge sharing is not on the use of technological resources. But that, according to question eleven, understand the importance of using these resources as support for the sharing of knowledge.
Table 7 – List of organizational barriers identified in the research as more relevant.
|Time: non-prioritization and lack of activity planning for knowledge sharing|
|Lack of formal sharing process|
|Absence of a reward system|
|Vision linked between knowledge management and information technology|
Source: personal collection.
4. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Knowledge sharing is a social process (LIN, 2015), so more than any tool or resource depends on people’s initiative and organizational intent to make it happen and be effective.
When the research work was planned, the commonly used resources were surveyed. The initial categories were directed to collect information, control actions (execution of activities and tasks) and communicate (content base, blog, online community, evaluation criteria, organization of ideas and video and communication).
Being faithful to the inductive method, it was considered that the results can be universalized, however it is understood pertinent that the research be replicated in other contexts for deepening and validation.
The great challenge was to develop the vision that it was necessary to create a systematic with clear purposes and directed to the generation of knowledge. This went far beyond the use of resources, because it was about promoting the possibility of collaborating in the construction of something. In this perspective, creating the environment for the realization of the process of knowledge creation involved building trust among people, defining clear and shared objectives and participating in all decision-making.
The adoption of the SECI model of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) for the creation of knowledge guided the realization of research work and respected the development of scheduled actions.
Understood that the sharing of knowledge is a social process, it was fundamental to know from the literature the individual and organizational behaviors that to some extent could prevent such actions. These negative behaviors, or barriers, are easily recognized in organizational management. To a greater or lesser extent, these behaviors influence the entire process of knowledge creation. Barriers do not arise only when one is performing actions of the process of knowledge creation, logically. They are part of organizational behavior. However, it was possible to identify that the fact that the work was carried out collaboratively and openly transformed the organizational paradigm and that this, in a way, affected people’s perception of barriers.
Considering the assessment made about individual barriers, people feel institutionally welcomed. They perceive an important part of an organizational construction process, feeding the institution and being fed by it. However, when the evaluation falls under the organizational aspect, the same people point out that they do not identify a formal process of reward for the sharing of knowledge.
Within the context of organizational barriers, it is not yet possible to identify formal processes of knowledge sharing. Logically they exist within all organizational actions, but it is not part of the work system, it is not perceived in its entirety and thus cannot be enhanced. This was identified by the lack of reward – as already mentioned, by the lack of formalization of the work schedule and by the controls required in the execution of the activities. However, the predisposition of leaders for sharing was institutionally identified, as well as the perception of a favorable organizational climate.
The duty of knowledge distribution, for the study performed, was defined from the identification of its concept and application in each of the stages of the process of knowledge creation. The resources and strategies researched were identified as support for knowledge sharing. They are means that can make the process more agile, however they necessarily depend on an organizational and individual intention.
Organizational and individual barriers act to make the process of knowledge sharing more difficult or non-existent. It understands them will help to understand where to act in a way that preventor combat them.
It is understood that there are many other situations or contexts in which the same research logic can be applied, that is, to evaluate the barriers both at the individual and organizational levels.
ALMEIDA, Maria da Conceição. Cenários da reorganização do conhecimento. Complexidade, saberes científicos, saberes da tradição. São Paulo: Ed. Livraria da Física, 2010. (Coleção Contextos da Ciência).
ALVES, Luiz Roberto. Ciência e consciência, conhecimento e liberdade. Estudos Avançados – USP, v. 26, n. 75, 2012. Disponível em: <http://www.revistas.usp.br/eav/article/view/39501>. Acesso em: 27 maio 2015.
ANTATAMULA, Vittal S.; KANUNGO, Shivraj. Modeling enablers for successful KM implementation. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 14, n. 1, p. 100 -113, s/d.
BARSON, R. J., FOSTER, G. Struck, T. Ratchev, S. Pawar, K. Weber, F., et al. Inter – and – intra organizational barriers to sharing knowledge in the extended supply chain. Retrived December 2, 2002.
BELLEFROID, Bart. The new way of knowledge sharing. Utrecht University, 2012. 113 f. Master Thesis of Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, 2012.
BUTHELEZI, Mokateko; MKHIZE, Peter. Factors influencing quality of knowledge shared in software development community of practice. In: 11th International conference on intellectual capital, knowledge management and organisational learning ICICKM 2014. The University of Sydney Business School. Australia. Jim Rooney and Dr Vijaya Murthy University of Sydney. 2014.
CABRERA, A. CABRERA E. F. Knowledge-Sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23 (5), 687 – 710. 2002.
CAIMO, Alberto; LOMI, Alessandro. Knowledge sharing in organizations: a Bayesian analysis of the role of reciprocity and formal structure. Journal of Management, v. 14, n. 2, p. 665-691, 2015,.
CARRILLO, Javier. Managing Knowledge-based value system. Journal of Knowledge Management, p. 280 – 286, v. 1, n. 4, 1998.
CASTAÑEDA, Delio; PARDO, Carlos; TOULSON. A Knowledge sharing instrument validation: broader perspective for global organizations. Eletronic Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 13, Issue 1, p. 3-12, 2015.
CHEN, Le; MOHAMED, Sherif. Contribution of knowledge management activities to organizationl business performance. Journal of Engineering, v. 6, n. 3, p. 269 – 285, 2008.
CHONG, Chin Wei; YUEN, Yee Yen; GAN, Geok Chew. Knowledge sharing of academic staff: A comparison between private and public universities in Malaysia. Library Review, v. 63, p. 203-223, 2014.
CRICELLI, Livio; GRIMALDI, Michele. Knowledge-based inter-organizational collaborations. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 14., n. 3, p. 348 – 358, 2010.
CURVELLO, João José Azevedo; SCROFERNEKER, Cleusa Maria Andrade. A comunicação e as organizações como sistemas complexos: uma análise a partir das perspectivas de Niklas Luhmann e Edgar Morin. Revista da Associação Nacional dos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Comunicação, Brasília, v. 11, n. 3, set/dez. 2008.
DAVENPORT, Thomas H. Ecologia da Informação: porque só a tecnologia não basta para o sucesso na era da informação. São Paulo: Futura, 1998.
DIXON, Nancy M. Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing what they Know. Boston: Howard Business School, 2000.
FARIA, José Henrique de; MENEGHETTI, Francis Kanashiro. Dialética Negativa e a tradição epistemológica nos estudos organizacionais. Revista Organização e Sociedade UFBA, Salvador, v. 18, n. 56, p. 119-137, s/d.
GAÁL, Zoltán et al. Exploring the role of social media in knowledge sharing. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 13, Issue 3, p. 185-197, 2015.
GIL, Antonio Carlos. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. São Paulo: Atlas, 2008.
GILBERTONI, D. A contribuição da pesquisa-ação na construção do conhecimento científico na Engenharia de Produção Brasileira. 2012. 194 f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção) – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção na Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos. 2012.
GUPTA, Babita et al. Knowledge management: practices and challenges. Industrial Management & Data System, p. 17-21, 2000.
HART, Jane. Top 100 Tools for Learning 2015 GuideBook. Sine Loco: Center for Learning & Performance Technologies, 2015.
HISLOP, Donald. Knowledge management as an ephemeral management fashion. Journal of Knowledge Management, v.14, n. 6, p. 779 – 790, 2010.
ICHIJO, Kazuo. Da administração à promoção do conhecimento. In: TAKEUCHI, Hirotaka; NONAKA, Ikujiro. Gestão do Conhecimento. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008.
IPE, Minu. Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, v. 2, n. 4, p. 337-359, 2003.
ISHIKURA, Yoko. Gestão do Conhecimento e concorrência global: a abordagem da Olympus à Gestão do Conhecimento global na indústria de fotografias digitais. In: TAKEUCHI, HIROTAKA; NONAKA, Ikujiro. Gestão do Conhecimento. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008.
IVES, Willian et al. Knowledge management: an emerging discipline with a long History. Journal of Knowledge Management, v.1, n. 4, p. 269-274, jun. 1998.
KAZEMI, Mostafa; ALLAHYARI, Mara Zafar. Defining a knowledge management conceptual modal by using MADM. Journal fo Knowledge Management, v. 14, n. 6, p. 872-890, 2010.
KROGH, George Von; ICHIJO, Kazuo; NONAKA, Ikujiro. Enabling Knowledge Creation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
LEE, Maria R.; LAN, Yi-Chen. Toward a unified Knowledge management model for SMEs. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, p. 729-735, 2011.
LEHTONEN, Miika. Communicating competence through pechakucha presentations. Journal of Business Comunication, v. 48, n. 4, oct. 2011.
LEVINA, N. Sharing Knowledge in Hetereogeneous Environments. Reflections: The SoL Journal, 2 (2), 32 – 42. 2001.
LIN, Sheng Wei; LO Yi-Shih. Mechanisms to motivate knowledge sharing: integrating the reward systems and social network perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 19, n. 2, p. 212-235, 2015.
LINDSEY, Keith L. Knowledge sharing barriers. In: SCHWARTZ, D. G. (Ed.). The encyclopedia of knowledge management. Sine Loco: Idea Group Publishers, 2006.
LOPEZ-FRESNO, Palmira; SAVOLAINEN, Taina. Working meetings: a tools for building or destroying trust in knowledge creation and sharing. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 12, Issue 2, p. 137-143, 2014.
MASSARO, M.; PITTS M.; ZANIN F.; BARDY R. Knowlwdgw Sharing, Control mechanisms anda intellectua liabilities in knowledge-intensive firms. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 12, p. 117-127, Issue 2, 2014.
MCDERMOTT, R. O’DELL, C. Overcoming Cultural Barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (1), 76 – 85, 2001.
MITCHELL, Rebecca; BOYLE, Brendan. Knowledge creation measurement methods. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 14, n. 1, p. 67-82, 2010.
MOORADIAN, Norman. Tacit Knowledge: philosophic roots and role in KM. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 9, n. 6, p. 104-113, 2005.
MORAES, Caroline Teixeira et al. Proposta de modelo de organização inovadora baseado na aprendizagem organizacional. INGEPRO – Inovação, Gestão e Produção, v. 3, n. 3, p. 92-105, mar. 2011.
MOUSTAGHFIR, Karim; SCHIUMA, Giovanni. Knowledge, learning and innovation: research and perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management. v. 17, n. 4, p. 495-510, 2013.
NESHEIM, T. GRESSGARD, L. J. Knowledge sharing in a complex organizations: antecedents and safety effects. Safety Science, v. 62, p. 28-39, 2014.
NONAKA, Ikujiro. A Empresa Criadora de Conhecimento. In: TAKEUCHI, Hirotaka; NONAKA, Ikujiro. Gestão do Conhecimento. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008.
______; TAKEUCHI, Hirotaka. The knowledge – creating company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
ORZANO, A. J. et al. A Knowledge management model: Implications for enhancing quality in healthcare. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, Malden, v. 59, n. 3, p. 489-505, feb. 2008.
PEE, L. G.; KANKANHALLI, A. A Model of organizational knowledge management maturity based on people, process, and technology. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, Hackensack, v.8, n.2, p.1-21, 2009.
PERROTTI, Edoardo. Estrutura organizacional e Gestão do Conhecimento. Dissertação (Mestrado). Departamento de Administração da Escola de Administração, Economia e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo. São Paulo, 2004.
POLANYI, Michael. The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company, INC. 1966.
POSTMAN, Joel. Social Corp: Social media goes corporate. Berkeley: New Riders, 2009.
RANJBARFARD, Mina et al. Identifying knowledge management problems using a process-based method (a case study of process 137). Business process management journal, v. 19, n. 2, p. 263 – 291, 2013.
ROLAND, Karen. Creating a knowledge community: embedded professional practice. In: 11th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning ICICKM 2014. The University of Sydney Business School. Australia. Jim Rooney and Dr Vijaya Murthy University of Sydney. 2014. 321 – 327.
SAMPIERI, Roberto Hernandéz; COLLADO, Carlos Fernandéz; LUCIO, Pilar Baptista. Metodología de la Investigación. México: McGraw-Hill Interamericana, 2006.
SARKA, Hudcová. Tools of internal communication from Knowledge transfer perspective. Journal of Competitiveness, v. 6, Issue 4, p. 50-62, 2014.
TAKEUCHI, Hirotaka; NONAKA, Ikujiro. Gestão do Conhecimento. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2008.
TENÓRIO, Fernando Guilherme. O mito da participação. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 24, n 3, maio/julho 1990.
THIOLLENT, Michel. Metodologia da pesquisa-ação. 7 ed. São Paulo: Cortez; 1996.
TOP 100 TOOLS FOR LEARNING 2015. Homepage: 9th Annual Survey of Learning Tools. Disponível em: <http://c4lpt.co.uk/top100tools/>. Acesso em: 21 maio 2016.
TUNG, Hui-Ling; CHANG, Yu-Hsuan. Effects of empowering leadership on performance in management team Mediating effects of knowledge sharing and team cohesion. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, v. 2, n. 1, p. 43 – 60, 2011.
VUORI, Vilma. Social media changing the competitive intelligence process: elicitation of employees competitive knowledge. 2011. 239 fls. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology. Tampere University of Technology. Finland, 2011.
WANG, S. NOE, R. A. Knowledge sharing: a review and direcctions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, v. 20, p. 115-131, 2010.
WEISS, L. Collection and Connection: The Anatomy of Knowledge Sharing in professional service firms. Organization Development Journal, 17 (4), 61 – 77. 1999.
WENGER, Etienne; McDERMOTT, Richard; e SNYDER, William. Cultivating communities os practice. Boston: Harvard Business School, 2002.
WU, Yue et al. Diagnosis for organizational knowledge creation: an ontological shift SECI model. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 14, n. 6, p. 791-810, 2010.
APPENDIX – FOOTNOTE REFERENCE
3. Where TD: Totally at odds; D accordingly; N D/NA: neither in disagreement nor in agreement; A: accordingly; and TA: totally in agreement.
4. Where TD: Totally at odds; D accordingly; N D/NA: neither in disagreement nor in agreement; A: accordingly; and TA: totally in agreement.
 Master in Science in the Production Engineering Program of USP São Carlos, in the area of knowledge of Economics, Organizations and Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. Specialist in organizational management according to the Excellence Management Model of the National Quality Foundation by SENAI/SC and also in distance learning methodologies by the Claretian University Center. Graduated in Technology in Information Technology Management from the University of Southern Santa Catarina.
Submitted: May, 2021.
Approved: June, 2021.