La reforma al artículo 15 constitucional y el sistema de fuentes

Teng and Song (2011, pp. 104-105) assert that knowledge sharing is “….a critical link in the KM value chain: knowledge acquisition, storage, dissemination, and application. Without effective KS, this value chain will break”. In knowledge sharing processes, there is a presumptive relationship between two or more parties. Effective knowledge sharing requires “….an act of reconstruction” (Hendriks, 1999, p. 92) of the shared knowledge in a different setting following a willing exchange between a party with knowledge and another that wishes to acquire it. Dixon (2000, p. 13) argues that “common knowledge” that is “….generated from the experience of people engaged in organisational tasks….linked to action” is fundamental to creating a “shared belief system” (Dixon, 2000, p. 9), building reciprocal relationships and managing incongruities in knowledge sharing processes (Anand and Walsh, 2016; Trusson, Hislop and Doherty, 2017).

Knowledge sharing involves working with other practitioners “….to solve problems, develop new ideas, or implement policies or procedures” (Wang and Noe, 2010, p. 117). Knowledge holders can take more pro-active interpretive roles by re-presenting the knowledge so that it can be understood and absorbed by others (Ipe, 2003). Bloice and Burnett (2016) state that in the not-for-profit sector, knowledge sources can extend beyond practitioners with contributions from clients. This element is reflected in their definition of knowledge sharing as “….the process of sharing and applying personal knowledge, published knowledge and knowledge from other sources such as service users in a meaningful and useful manner” (Bloice and Burnett, 2016, p. 128).

In her literature review on knowledge management in a not-for-profit advice agency, Ragsdell (2009b) identifies several factors that inhibit and enhance knowledge sharing in the for-profit sector: organisational culture, valuing prior experiences, room for experimentation, relationship building, good communications, trust and user-friendly information technology and training and development. Ragsdell’s (2009b) case-study reveals several specific inhibitors and enhancers to knowledge sharing in not-for-profit organisations. These include structural factors such as the physical layout of offices and open door practices by managers, cultural factors such as openness and cooperative ethos and procedural factors such as the use of meetings as reporting and decision making platforms.

Teng and Song (2011) argue that knowledge sharing is less effective when it is demand-led, enforced and primarily for the benefit of the organisation. By contrast, supply-led approaches can lead to more favourable knowledge sharing cultures, give practitioners greater self-worth and encourage them to share knowledge. This conclusion echoes with Downes and Marchant’s (2016) finding that intrinsic motivations are key to knowledge sharing by practitioners in not-for-profit organisations. With a volunteer workforce, practice interventions in the not-for-profit sector have to focus on motivators other than financial rewards or promotion prospects. Wynne (2010) identifies several challenges that impede knowledge management strategies in the not-for-profit sector. These include funding shortages, limited potential returns from knowledge management activities, the disproportionate effect of knowledge loss, a lack of succession planning and breaches in role boundaries between board members, paid staff and volunteers. Other challenges of implementing knowledge management in the sector include the transient nature of a volunteer workforce and the enforceability of knowledge management obligations, the capacity to invest in technological solutions and limited opportunities to undertake longer- term planning due to funding and other uncertainties (Ragsdell, 2016).

Applying Riege’s (2005) private sector-based framework to their study, Bloice and Burnett (2016) argue that existing analysis on knowledge sharing barriers does not align comprehensively with the impediments faced by the not-for-profit sector. Bloice and Burnett (2016) identify other supplementary barriers to knowledge sharing that prevail in

the not-for-profit sector. These include the fear of formalising knowledge sharing processes, a transient workforce, value conflicts between altruism and competition, doubts about the value of technological solutions in person-centred organisations and the impact of external factors such as government. Factors inhibiting knowledge sharing are not insurmountable and the very idea of knowledge brokering, knowledge sharing and knowledge management suggests that individual, collective and organisational knowledge can be brokered, shared and managed. Even the processes of identifying factors that impede or enhance knowledge sharing are inherently knowledge sharing processes (Ward et al, 2012). As Riege (2005, p. 32) observes “….knowledge sharing has no real value to individuals and organisations unless those people who are in need of useful knowledge receive it, accept it, and also (re-)apply it”. Reaching similar conclusions to Ragsdell (2009b), Akhavan and Zahedi’s (2014) multi- case study which includes not-for-profit organisations suggests that effective knowledge sharing is possible through events, senior managerial support, corporate strategies, staff development and nurturing knowledge sharing communities. Another study concludes that inter-agency working and partnerships in the not-for-profit sector can create spaces for social interaction and public knowledge sharing (Rathi, Given and Forcier, 2014).

Findings from other studies suggest that a combination of technological, social and managerial initiatives can support knowledge sharing in not-for-profit organisations (Hume and Hume, 2008; Huck, Al and Rathi, 2011; Downes and Marchant, 2016). Downes and Marchant (2016) suggest that knowledge management effectiveness in not-for-profit organisations can be realised through more proactive approaches such as celebrating employee and volunteer contributions to knowledge sharing, improving communications through formal channels such as meetings and training sessions and capitalising on client experiences, an important reservoir of local knowledge for not-for-profit organisations (Guldberg et al, 2013; Bloice and Burnett, 2016). In their review of literature on brokering and boundary spanners, Long, Cunningham and Braithwaite (2013, p. 1) link knowledge brokering interventions to knowledge sharing possibilities stating that brokers and spanners “….facilitate transactions and the flow of information between people or groups separated or hindered by some gap or barrier”. Long, Cunningham and Braithwaite (2013, p.11) conclude that brokering roles are important “….for bringing useful ideas from one group to another, generating innovative ideas from the selection and synthesis of diverse sources of

information, and for increasing understanding and co-operation between groups”. Understanding knowledge brokering as a practice intervention for knowledge sharing is examined next.