Knowledge Sharing Differences Between Engineering Functional Teams: An Empirical Investigation

I-Ching Lin (), Rainer Seidel, Aruna Shekar, Mehdi Shahbazpour and David Howell
Additional contact information
I-Ching Lin: The University of Auckland, 12 Grafton Road, Grafton, New Zealand
Rainer Seidel: The University of Auckland, 12 Grafton Road, Grafton, New Zealand
Aruna Shekar: The University of Auckland, 12 Grafton Road, Grafton, New Zealand
Mehdi Shahbazpour: The University of Auckland, 12 Grafton Road, Grafton, New Zealand
David Howell: The University of Auckland, 12 Grafton Road, Grafton, New Zealand

Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), 2012, vol. 11, issue 03, 1-14

Abstract: Studies on organisations have indicated the significance of acknowledging subcultures across an organisation. It is therefore important to consider dedicated Knowledge Management (KM) strategies for different "entities" within each ontology level to suit their unique characteristics. However, a review of the literature indicates that this concept so far appears to have only been applied down to departmental level. There is little research exploring the next level down, to whether or not different "teams" require different KM strategies to remain competitive. In order to answer this question, this research explores what differences there are between teams in the context of KM by using a case study of a medium-sized high-tech manufacturer in New Zealand. Different KM practices between homogeneous teams of design engineers from different technical disciplines within the same department were investigated. The findings confirmed that in the context of KM, teams within a department do not always behave homogeneously. Four factors that caused different tacit knowledge sharing practices between the functional teams in the Engineering Department of the case company were identified: The nature of the technical discipline, team resources, departmental structure design and team culture. Based on these findings, a KM approach defining a specific KM strategy for each team was then proposed. This approach provides managers with an alternative perspective on KM implementation, which may help mitigate the high failure rate of KM among businesses reported in the literature.

Keywords: Knowledge management; teams; matrix structure; SMEs (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219649212500219
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wsi:jikmxx:v:11:y:2012:i:03:n:s0219649212500219

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S0219649212500219

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM) is currently edited by Professor Suliman Hawamdeh

More articles in Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM) from World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Tai Tone Lim ().