Sharing Tacit Knowledge

This paper explores tacit knowledge sharing. This case demonstrates the significance of knowledge sharing to organizational performance, by exploring the contribution of tacit knowledge sharing to the success of projects in the Australian Film Industry (AFI). The differences between knowledge sharing, collaboration and communication, and their interrelations are addressed. We also explore the concepts of knowledge, information, and data. In the interchanges reported here the knowledge shared is almost entirely tacit, and the “raw” data and information do not exist without the context that makes them knowledge. The paper includes the identification of many factors affecting knowledge sharing, not all of which have been identified by previous researchers. This research contributes to a better understanding of tacit knowledge and how that knowledge is shared. This in turn contributes to a better understanding of how knowledge management can be supported in a modern organization, where often the technology is used in ways not well understood by system managers and software developers. A better understanding can lead to better ICT design and support of knowledge sharing both within and across organizations.

[1]  S. Grey,et al.  Working in film : employment in a project-based industry , 2001 .

[2]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing , 2002, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[3]  B. Glaser.  Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory , 1978 .

[4]  Stuart Cunningham,et al.  From Cultural to Creative Industries: Theory, Industry and Policy Implications , 2002 .

[5]  I. Alony.  Developing a conceptual model for knowledge sharing , 2006 .

[6]  Alexander Ardichvili,et al.  Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice , 2003, J. Knowl. Manag..

[7]  Janet Topp Fargion,et al.  Film , 2002 .

[8]  B. Glaser.  The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted With Description , 2001 .

[9]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[10]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[11]  Helen Blair,et al.  ‘Knowing’ as an Activity: Implications for the Film Industry and Semi-Permanent Work Groups , 2004 .

[12]  Graeme Turner,et al.  The Media in Australia: Industries, texts, audiences , 1993 .

[13]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[14]  Christopher Barnatt,et al.  Beyond Networks and Hierarchies: Latent Organizations in the U.K. Television Industry , 2000 .

[15]  Elisabeth Brauner,et al.  Beyond knowledge sharing: the management of transactive knowledge systems , 2006 .

[16]  Tehmina N. Basit.  Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis , 2003 .

[17]  Renata Tesch,et al.  Qualitative research : analysis types and software tools , 1990 .

[18]  Jonathon N. Cummings.  Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[19]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[20]  L. Argote,et al.  KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER: A BASIS FOR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN FIRMS , 2000 .

[21]  Andrew R.J. Dainty,et al.  Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: panacea or paradox? , 2003 .

[22]  Tom Richards,et al.  An intellectual history of NUD*IST and NVivo , 2002 .

[23]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[24]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry , 1998 .

[25]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies , 2002 .

[26]  Daniel J. McAllister.  Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations , 1995 .

[27]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Computer-Mediated Inter-Organizational Knowledge-Sharing: Insights from a Virtual Team Innovating Using a Collaborative Tool , 2000, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[28]  Sharman Lichtenstein,et al.  Toward a Receiver-Based Theory of Knowledge Sharing , 2006, Int. J. Knowl. Manag..

[29]  Dick Stenmark,et al.  Leveraging Tacit Organizational Knowledge , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[30]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[31]  Michael Jones,et al.  'Lights… Action… Grounded Theory': Developing an understanding for the management of film production , 2005 .

[32]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[33]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward A Theory of Knowledge Reuse : Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success , 2022 .

[34]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , 2001, MIS Q..

[35]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[36]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[37]  Eric L. Lesser,et al.  Communities of practice and organizational performance , 2001, IBM Syst. J..

[38]  Daniel Z. Levin,et al.  The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[39]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Tie and Network Correlates of Individual Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Work , 2004 .

[40]  L. Argote.  Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge , 1999 .

[41]  Ray Reagans,et al.  Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects of Cohesion and Range , 2003 .