Influence of ICT on Information Sharing
Knowledge sharing is one of the main areas of focus in knowledge management. The context of the link between the two concepts is the fact that knowledge sharing provides an opportunity for the organization to transfer information from the management level to the junior members of staff who need the knowledge to meet the goals of the organization. The knowledge is not useful without reaching the intended members of staff. However, certain factors impede the effective sharing of knowledge. The factors include organizational structure barriers, unfriendly organizations cultures and denomination segregation. However, it is also critical to establish whether the staff members have the requisite motivation to participate in information sharing.
Some common challenges on information sharing arise with introduction of some systems intended to ease communication. System such as document management software, distributed libraries, intranets and groupware applications facilitate information sharing (Podrug, Filipović, & Kovač, 2017). The forms of technology empower individuals by providing necessary tools to support the knowledge sharing skills. Nevertheless, reports indicate that an introduction of the system does not translate to a significant improvement of knowledge sharing. In fact, on many instances, the utilization of the systems is not at full capacity. Additionally, individuals do not have the necessary information to share the knowledge. In that case, it is not about the systems but a failure on the part of the individual members of staff.
Just by the introduction of technology to facilitate the sharing of knowledge, there is no improvement in communication in the organization. However, most organizations stop at that point (Farooq, 2018). The managers fail to inform the members of staff that the new systems should improve the communication and coordination in the organization. With knowledge and information readily available, the organization should be efficient and more effective. Since the information is available through ICT infrastructure, it is critical to understand whether members of staff have the requisite motivation to look for the information. A theoretical model with relevant classes can offer insight on the factors that influence the motivation of knowledge sharing by workers and the relation of ICT to each of the factors.
Before determining the role of ICT, it is critical to state the definition of knowledge sharing first. Knowledge sharing is not communication but the two concepts have an interrelation. Additionally, knowledge sharing is distinct from information distribution. In context, knowledge is not easy to share (Podrug, Filipović, & Kovač, 2017). In fact, knowledge is not a commodity. Therefore, it is not possible to pass it round in the organization. Information sharing has is dependent on a knowing subject. In order for an individual to learn something from someone else, some acts of reconstruction are necessary. To that extent, it takes some knowledge to receive more knowledge. The concept of knowledge sharing presumes some form of relation between two parties, one that has the information and the other that intends to receive the knowledge.
The role of the first party in knowledge sharing is to communicate the information that they hold. The communication should be willingly and consciously (Alsharo, Gregg, & Ramirez, 2017). On the other hand, the receiving party should be in a position to perceive the knowledge expressions and be able to make sense out of them. On the first instance, knowledge sharing is an act of externalization by individuals that hold the information. The externalization can take many forms such as the performance of actions based on the information. Externalization also means performing certain actions based on the information such as making presentation lectures. Further, the holders of the knowledge can also codify it in knowledge systems. The explication of some cognitive elements of information is also part of the externalization process.
The externalization of the knowledge is not necessarily a conscious act. Additionally, it does not have to aim at certain groups (Farooq, 2018). For instance, it is possible for individuals to learn just by watching someone else perform a task. In that case, the individual performing the task might be unaware that they are passing the knowledge. However, in situations where knowledge sharing is intentional, it is imperative to stimulate the owners of the knowledge to enable them to perform a vivid reconstruction to the receiving parties.
The second process of knowledge sharing in internalization by individuals seeking to acquire the knowledge. The process of internalization can also occur in many forms (Podrug, Filipović, & Kovač, 2017). Some of the forms of internalization include reading books and trying to comprehend some of the codified pieces of knowledge. However, some barriers exist and they may distort internalization of the externalized knowledge. The barriers might be simple like time and space. Additionally, there might be some fundamental barriers such as culture, distance and differences in the conceptual framing.
One of the most prominent tools in the facilitation of information sharing is the intranet. Some experts go ahead to relate some of the challenges of knowledge sharing to some of the pitfalls related to the use of the intranet (Alsharo, Gregg, & Ramirez, 2017). Nevertheless, it is imperative to understand that the role of ICT in information sharing is well beyond the use of intranet. However, it is possible to bundle most of the knowledge sharing functions into a common interface provided by the intranet. Elements of knowledge sharing can identify the roles of ICT. In particular, it is possible to identify four critical areas. Three of the crucial areas relate to the functionality of groupware classes. The three areas are increasing the range, the speed of access to information and overcoming constraints. The fourth area concerns meta-knowledge and it is the use of technology. However, it is critical to state that the four areas do not coincide with all the classes of ICT. One form of ICT may be more useful in one area more than the four.
ICT is effective is mitigating some of the barriers of knowledge sharing. Some of the approaches used in the identification of ICT in knowledge transfer rely first on the establishment of the types of barriers (Alsharo, Gregg, & Ramirez, 2017). For instance, there are three types of barriers, social distance, temporal distance and the physical distance. To that extent, overcoming the barrier of temporal distance may require the preservation of knowledge for a longer period. To that extent, it is possible to address the barrier from the organization memory point of view. There, ICT systems are useful in numerous instances such in establishment on knowledge bases such as dictionaries or thesaurus. Additionally, ICT may address the challenge of temporal distance by forming intranet based groups or electronic meetings scheduled for specific periods.
Participants in the discussions may offer their contributions when they can. In that instance, ICT levels the spatial and temporal barriers. ICT can also facilitate new forms of sharing knowledge such as the establishment of virtual teams (Podrug, Filipović, & Kovač, 2017). The most difficult challenge is overcoming the social barriers. Nevertheless, it is still possible to employ ICT to resolve the challenge using tools of social translation. Additionally, ICT can facilitate access to information bases that store data that is beyond the reach of individuals. For instance, establishment of digital information systems allows the users to tap into knowledge from documents, it allows members of the group to identify each other, and they work done.
Additionally, the introduction of ICT may improve the processes required for knowledge sharing. It is possible to make a distinction between ICT processes aimed at supporting the knowledge sharing processes and that aimed at directing the processes. Case Based Reasoning Systems Help the sharing of knowledge by extracting it from past cases (Lau, 2018). Other individuals from the past may have dealt with cases that are similar to the present circumstances in the organization. Further, it is possible of ICT to help in the location of certain elements that are relevant in knowledge sharing. To an extent, ICT cannot inform on the type of knowledge that requires sharing. However, it can inform meta-knowledge. Meta-knowledge is locating and enabling accessibility of the relevant bases of information. Meta-knowledge also refers to the owners and reconstructors of knowledge. For instance, a CV database containing details of individuals.
It is also imperative to understand the influence of ICT in motivating knowledge sharing. When it comes to motivation, the Maslow’s need hierarchy is highly informative. According to Maslow, the conduct of humans depends of five need classes, basic needs, safety needs, belonging, esteem and finally self-actualization (Podrug, Filipović, & Kovač, 2017). However, critiques of the hierarchy argue that it fails to address how the effect of the behavior of individuals within the hierarchy. Additionally, others argue that the Maslow structure has a weak empirical foundation. However, the structure is still useful to date. According to the theory, the motivation to acquire knowledge hails from the three hierarchical levels. Therefore, it suggests that members with knowledge fail to share the information because of money or to enhance their relationship with co-workers. The main motivation for the holders of the knowledge is self-actualization.
The Maslow hierarchy of needs belongs to the class of content or needs theories. Content the theories address the factors that determine motivation (Singh, Chandwani, & Kumar, 2018). On the other hand, process theories treat motivation as stages that aim to establish how individuals should act to identify their motivations and goals related to achievement of personal objectives. However, a comprehensive understanding of motivations requires process perspectives beyond the scope of an article of knowledge sharing. The focus is on the factors that that enhance the motivation to share knowledge. Therefore, content theories are most relevant.
Literature review provides several content motivational theories. It is possible to combine the theories to create a concept on motivational factors. From a random selection, some of the factors include the desire to earn wages, the wish to expand mental or physical strengths and the desire to participate in production (Anwar, 2017). Others include the desire for social status and interaction and the wish to survive or enjoy. Other individual also clamor for recognition and respect. The Herzberg theory relies on the distinction between maintenance factors and the motivation factors. Factors on maintenance or hygiene contribute to motivation in a manner that appears negative. The factors do not motivate behavior in present form. However, they lead to decreased form of motivation in absentia.
According to empirical studies, the Herzberg theory asserts that factors such as salary, status, interpersonal relations and working conditions are in the category of hygiene (Podrug, Filipović, & Kovač, 2017). Additionally, Herzberg offers an assessment of five factors that can be motivators. The factors are a sense of achievement, the challenge of work, recognition for effort, a sense of responsibility and promotional opportunities. Additionally, the sixth factor is a desire for operational autonomy. Operational autonomy is a balance between the regulatory needs of the organization and the regulatory capacity. Nevertheless, other forms of study indicate the relevance of the sixth factor as distinct motivators. In case the sixth factor is absent, it does not lead to job dissatisfaction.
The Herzberg theory is also applicable in the study of factors that motivate knowledge sharing. In the assessment of the reasons why some individuals want to share knowledge, it is easy to turn to the motivational factors and not the hygiene factors (Rahman, Islam, & Abdullah, 2017). For instance, salary penalties or bonuses may lead to the increase of knowledge sharing. Additionally, if the knowledge held by individuals is equal to the status in an organization, then knowledge sharing may fail to occur. The same conclusions are likely for other hygiene factors. The factors can frustrate knowledge sharing in case they are absent but their presence does not necessarily mean that they can enhance the process. The six motivating factors are also pertinent triggers for knowledge sharing.
It is also imperative to make a distinction between the motivation for the holder of the information and that of the individuals intending to absorb the information (Quadri & Garaba, 2019). For the knowledge owners, two types of factors relates to the motivation of knowledge sharing are plausible. First, some people share information because they expect some form of appreciation and recognition for promotional purposes. Additionally, the motivation might also be the feeling of a sense of responsibility. Secondly, some individuals share their knowledge with the hope for reciprocity. For the reconstructors, motivation for sharing knowledge lies in the reason why people seek knowledge in the first place. Some of the motivations include promotional opportunities, the challenges of work, and sense of achievement. Other experts provide the opinion that knowledge workers look for task achievement, operational autonomy and personal growth.
Individuals might hesitate to share knowledge if the effort required to find individuals interested in the knowledge is too great. Consequently, ICT tools such as the intranet are highly effective. However, it would be wrong to create a premise that knowledge sharing has a direct motivation from ICT applications (Lawrence, 2019). Individuals do not share information because the intranet or other application processes facilitate. The link between knowledge sharing and ICT is indirect. It is critical to distinguish three sets of factors that affect ICT and knowledge sharing. First, individuals may have distinct appreciations of ICT as well as other motivators. For example, the factors that motivate people may depend on their stage in career development.
Secondly, a class of variables also exists concerning the context in which knowledge sharing can occur (Lawrence, 2019). Some of the variables include the likelihood of knowledge sharing in the organization or the culture. Individuals can be reluctant to share knowledge is the punishment of mistakes within the organization is prompt. Additionally, if the association of knowledge in an organization is with certain groups it might mean that the organization lacks an effective knowledge sharing culture. Further, despite the level of motivation people do not share information with people that they do not trust.
Thirdly, it is also imperative to acknowledge that knowledge sharing is not an autonomous process in the organization. The reasons for knowledge sharing and the process may take different forms (Lawrence, 2019). It is important to outline a distinction between the situations requiring knowledge sharing and the purpose of a group to carry out knowledge sharing. In some instance, individuals combine different sets of information to create new knowledge. The sharing of knowledge with the intention of applying it to new situation is likely to yield the desired results. To that extent, knowledge sharing for application purposes is likely to benefit most from the efforts by knowledge owners to present it in a readily available format.
Knowledge sharing is important because it sustains organizations. The sharing of information can improve processes in the organization (Rahman, Islam, & Abdullah, 2017). However, in some instances, the sharing of knowledge can be to the detriment of the organization. The benefits accrue if individuals are honestly learn from each other. However, the knowledge can harm the organization if there are inadequate representations transferred between the people. In the processes of internalization and externalization, it is key for the subjects in the organization to recognize the kind of value in the knowledge shared. Failure to which, it is not possible to know the kind of intellectual involvement required.
The main factor in the success of knowledge sharing is that personal ambitions should coincide with the objectives of the group or the organization (Omotayo, & Babalola, 2016). To that extent, the cornerstone for the most function ICT applications for knowledge sharing depends on how well they relate with the ambitions and the motivations of the workers that utilize them. It is possible to note a bias in how organizations motivate workers to share knowledge with the help of ICT utilities. The motivational theories inform that force and compensation and not effective in motivating human behavior. However, work challengers and recognition can motivate individuals to apply knowledge sharing.
Most of the organizations invest in the penalty and reward system to stimulate knowledge sharing. Nevertheless, the main take out from the motivation theory is that the improvement of knowledge sharing by systems put in place depends on numerous variables. Although compensation is a crucial factor, most professional run on the pleasure that they derive from work. Additionally, improvement of the means of knowledge sharing is not the same as improving knowledge sharing in the organization. The quantity of knowledge sharing can improve with money but the quality remains the same. Nevertheless, gaining an insight on the motivational factors is just the first step in the effective management of knowledge sharing. The use of ICT utilities is also an important step but it is not very crucial. The role of ICT sharing is only practical it is coherent in its relation to the motivation of knowledge sharing. Additionally, factors such as knowledge sharing and personal preferences should need an explicit consideration. It is possible for ICT to make a difference in knowledge sharing is all the motivation factors in place.
References
Aboelmaged, M. G. (2018). Knowledge sharing through enterprise social network (ESN) systems: motivational drivers and their impact on employees’ productivity. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Agyemang, F. G., Boateng, H., & Dzandu, M. D. (2017). Examining intellectual stimulation, idealised influence and individualised consideration as an antecedent to knowledge sharing: Evidence from Ghana. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 9(4), 484-498.
Ali, A. A., Paris, L., & Gunasekaran, A. (2019). Key factors influencing knowledge sharing practices and its relationship with organizational performance within the oil and gas industry. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479-490.
Anwar, C. (2017). Linkages between personality and knowledge sharing behavior in workplace: Mediating role of affective states. Economics and Management.
Arif, M., Al Zubi, M., Gupta, A. D., Egbu, C., Walton, R. O., & Islam, R. (2017). Knowledge sharing maturity model for Jordanian construction sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Aslam, U., Muqadas, F., & Imran, M. K. (2018). Exploring the sources and role of knowledge sharing to overcome the challenges of organizational change implementation. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1127744.
Caniëls, M. C., Neghina, C., & Schaetsaert, N. (2017). Ambidexterity of employees: the role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management.
de Almeida, F. C., Lesca, H., & Canton, A. W. (2016). Intrinsic motivation for knowledge sharing–competitive intelligence process in a telecom company. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Farooq, R. (2018). A conceptual model of knowledge sharing. International Journal of Innovation Science.
Friedrich, J., Becker, M., Kramer, F., Wirth, M., & Schneider, M. (2020). Incentive design and gamification for knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, 106, 341-352.
Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & McLean, J. (2019). Exploring the factors that influence knowledge sharing between academics. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(8), 1051-1063.
Han, S. H., Yoon, D. Y., Suh, B., Li, B., & Chae, C. (2019). Organizational support on knowledge sharing: a moderated mediation model of job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Kang, Y. J., Lee, J. Y., & Kim, H. W. (2017). A psychological empowerment approach to online knowledge sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 175-187.
Kim, N., & Shim, C. (2019). Taking it personally: How to increase interorganizational knowledge sharing in a tourist district. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19(1), 85-97.
Lau, E. K. W. (2018). Knowledge sharing in a virtual community: business case in China. In International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations (pp. 117-127). Springer, Cham.
Law, K. K., Chan, A., & Ozer, M. (2017). Towards an integrated framework of intrinsic motivators, extrinsic motivators and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Lawrence, A. (2019). Impact of ICTs on Knowledge Sharing among Library and Information Science Undergraduate: A Case Study of Delta State University, Abraka. ATBU Journal of Science, Technology and Education, 7(2), 117-132.
Liao, S. H., Chen, C. C., & Hu, D. C. (2018). The role of knowledge sharing and LMX to enhance employee creativity in theme park work team. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Lin, K. J., Hsieh, Y. H., & Lian, W. S. (2018). Knowledge sharing and personality traits moderated by transformational leadership. Human Systems Management, 37(1), 67-80.
Mannan, A. A., Bakri, N., & Shaari, R. (2017). Personal Factors Effect Towards Nurses Knowledge Sharing Behaviour. Sains Humanika, 9(1-3).
Mirzaee, S., & Ghaffari, A. (2018). Investigating the impact of information systems on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Nisar ul Haq, M., & Haque, M. (2018). Investigating the Knowledge Sharing among students in Pakistan. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences: Proceedings, 7(1 (s)), pp-32.
Omotayo, F. O., & Babalola, S. O. (2016). Factors influencing knowledge sharing among information and communication technology artisans in Nigeria. Journal of Systems and Information Technology.
Ortiz, J., Chang, S. H., Chih, W. H., & Wang, C. H. (2017). The contradiction between self-protection and self-presentation on knowledge sharing behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 406-416.
Ouakouak, M. L., & Ouedraogo, N. (2019). Fostering knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization. Business Process Management Journal.
Park, S., & Kim, E. J. (2018). Fostering organizational learning through leadership and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Pei-Lee, T., Chen, C. Y., Chin, W. C., & Siew, Y. Y. (2017). Do the Big Five Personality Factors affect knowledge sharing behaviour? A study of Malaysian universities. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 16(1), 47-62.
Phung, V. D., Hawryszkiewycz, I., Chandran, D., & Ha, B. M. (2017, December). Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour: A case study from Vietnam. In Australasian Conference on Information Systems. University of Tasmania.
Podrug, N., Filipović, D., & Kovač, M. (2017). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability in Croatian ICT companies. International Journal of Manpower.
Quadri, G., & Garaba, F. (2019). Perceived Effects of ICT on Knowledge Sharing among Librarian in South-West Nigeria: A UTAUT Theoretical Approach. Journal of Balkan Libraries Union, 6(1), 38-46.
Rahman, M. S., Mannan, M., Hossain, M. A., Zaman, M. H., & Hassan, H. (2018). Tacit knowledge-sharing behavior among the academic staff. International Journal of Educational Management.
Rahman, S., Islam, M. Z., & Abdullah, A. D. A. (2017). Understanding factors affecting knowledge sharing. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management.
Rode, H. (2016). To share or not to share: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on knowledge-sharing in enterprise social media platforms. Journal of Information Technology, 31(2), 152-165.
Santosh, S., & Panda, S. (2016). Sharing of knowledge among faculty in a mega open university. Open Praxis, 8(3), 247-264.
Savolainen, R. (2017). Information sharing and knowledge sharing as communicative activities. Information Research: an international electronic journal, 22(3), n3.
Singh, J. B., Chandwani, R., & Kumar, M. (2018). Factors affecting Web 2.0 adoption: exploring the knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking aspects in health care professionals. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Trialih, R., Wei, H. L., & Anugrah, W. (2017). Knowledge sharing behavior and quality among workers of academic institutions in Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Society, 18(S2), 353-368.
Tseng, S. M. (2017). Investigating the moderating effects of organizational culture and leadership style on IT-adoption and knowledge-sharing intention. Journal of Enterprise Information Management.
Wang, J., Yang, J., Chen, Q., & Tsai, S. B. (2016). Creating the sustainable conditions for knowledge information sharing in virtual community. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1019.
Wu, W. L., & Lee, Y. C. (2017). Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing: Integrating the social exchange theory and positive organizational behavior perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Zhang, X. J., Khan, F., Jinpeng, X., & Khan, K. U. (2019). Study of cognitive and affected trust in knowledge sharing evidence from Chinese firms–A review paper. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 13(1), 147-165.
