Knowledge-sharing mechanisms are the means by which individuals access knowledge and information from other projects. Boh (2007) defined it as the formal and informal mechanisms for sharing, integrating, interpreting and applying know-what, know-how, and know-why embedded in individuals and groups that helps improve the performance of project tasks. Hence, a knowledge sharing mechanism is any planned, management-supported practice that encourages knowledge flow between individuals or teams in an organisation. In literature there are different types of knowledge sharing mechanisms which influence the
83
effectiveness of knowledge sharing behaviour in an organisation. Jiang et al (2008) identifies best-practice sharing, corporate newsletters and transfer of employees as some of the knowledge sharing mechanisms. The commonly used knowledge sharing mechanisms are team work (Al-Alawi et al., 2007), informal chatting (Newell et al., 2006), storytelling (Fong and Chu, 2006), meetings, project briefings and reviewing sessions (Berends et al., 2006), brainstorming and collaborative problem solving (Huang and Newell, 2003), information technology based mechanisms such as teleconferencing, newsgroups, e-mail, Wikis, web- based discussions and knowledge sharing boards (Jones and Borgman, 2007) and training (Garrett and Caldwell, 2002). Some scholars compared the effectiveness of knowledge sharing mechanisms (Newell et al., 2006) and concluded that informal person-to-person knowledge sharing is more effective than technology based mechanisms in sharing knowledge in project teams.
Past research has indicated that different types of knowledge require different types of mechanisms. Chiesa and Manzinihave(1996) noted that different information will be needed at different stages and as such mechanisms are likely to differ from stage to stage. Chai (2000) characterised knowledge sharing mechanisms into ―Reach‖ and ―Richness‖. Reach refers to the number of receivers that a mechanism can communicate with at a time and the degree to which the mechanism can overcome geographical, temporal and functional barriers. Richness refers to the amount and the varieties of information that a mechanism can transfer at a time. Chai (2000) further states that the two characteristics may affect the suitability of a knowledge sharing mechanism at different stages of sharing because of the desired outcome of the particular stage. At the awareness stage, management would like to have numerous employees who know about the existence of certain knowledge. As such, mechanisms that have a high capacity to reach many people, regardless of their function, geographical location and seniority, compared to those that have a lower capacity, and are more likely to be used at the awareness stage.
84
Many authors (Mack et al., 2001; Artail, 2006; Fong and Chu, 2006) have shown that information technology, as a knowledge sharing mechanism, is an effective technique to store, manage and use information in an organisation. In addition, it provides the process to help both the organisation and user to capture, store, organise and share knowledge effectively within and across communities (Mack et al., 2001). Hence, it seems intuitive to relate knowledge sharing mechanism to information technology since they are considered to be tools to revolutionise access to information and knowledge (Cloete and Snyman, 2003). Undoubtedly, information technology enables individuals to access a huge amount of information and knowledge within an organisation. As such the ability to seek information through various retrieval mechanisms and the ability to evaluate the information have become key requirements for the success of any knowledge sharing mechanism (Tabatabai and Shore, 2005).
Some writers (Wenger and Snyder 2000; Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Kimble et al., 2008) identify ―community of practices‖ as a knowledge sharing mechanism. In communal settings members of a team will identify with each other's interests, goals and value their membership and interactions for their own sake. Thus, for example, in the context of this research support workers providing floating support service meet formally or informally to share insights and know-how in order to improve the lives of the elderly living in sheltered housing. This sharing usually has a high level of intrinsic motivation and because members feel a part of their community there is high level of identification-based trust. Exchanges thus are not primarily instrumental even though they may contain valuable job-related knowledge.
The literature provides evidence that there are variations in the usage of knowledge sharing mechanisms across different organisation. For instance, in the provision of floating support services, Jones et al., (2010) found that the mechanisms commonly used by FSWs and ASSWs are meetings, emails, phone calls, teleconferencing, discussion forums, informal chatting, teamwork and storytelling where web-based discussions and the internet are seldom`m
85
used. Bartol and Srivastava, (2002) classify knowledge sharing mechanisms into four different broad categories namely; individual contribution to databases, formal interactions within and between teams, knowledge sharing across work units and knowledge sharing through informal interactions. In general, the review of literature provides proof of several different mechanisms to facilitate knowledge sharing from source to target which provide convenience and flexibility in terms of time and place. However, De Meyer (1991) argues that face-to-face meetings should be given priority to choose when starting a new project because it facilitates in building up confidence and rapport in teams. In the literature there is a lack of an overall theory which addressees how different mechanisms should be used at different stage of knowledge sharing.