acquiring and sharing expert knowledge · 4.1 q1 - signiﬁcance of (staying up-to-date on) expert...

Acquiring and SharingExpert Knowledge

Petter Enes

TDT4735 Software Engineering, Depth StudyDecember 20, 2005

Teaching Supervisor:Reidar Conradi

Norwegian University of Science and Technology,Department of Computer and Information Science

Abstract

Research states that knowledge-intensive companies must realize the importanceof technologies and tools to acquire, access and reuse knowledge within the orga-nization. Allocating enough time and resources to knowledge management is animportant element of staying competitive. In this report I try to find out howdifferent professions handle the concepts of knowledge management with focuson the expert knowledge they depend on to stay competitive.

I have interviewed people from three different professions; software engineering,law and medicine to find out about experiences and opinions about differentmethods and techniques to acquire and share expert knowledge.

The similarity between the three chosen professions is the constant need to stayup-to-date on relevant knowledge, and the fact that their work requires continuouslearning. Are there differences in the preferred ways to handle learning?

The difference between the three professions, other than knowledge the theypossess, are the formal requirements to learning and updating knowledge. Bothlawyers (counsellors) and doctors have formal requirements set by law to updatetheir expertise. Software engineers do not have this requirement. Does this playa role in the ways to handle KM?

I will discuss the importance of acquiring and sharing expert knowledge, whatmethods are used to achieve this, and how influencial factors such as formalrequirements to learning influence this process. I will focus on the differencesbetween the professions taking part in my study.

Before presenting the results from the interviews, I present the current state-of-the-art within the field of KM.

i

Preface

This report is the result of a project at the Department of Computer and Infor-mation Science (IDI) at NTNU. It is a part of the Software Engineering group.

I would like to thank my supervisor, professor Reidar Conradi, for helping mefind an interesting topic, and providing good advice during the project. I wouldalso like to thank Finn Olav Bjørnson for being available for questions.

In addition, I thank all the volunteers that took the time to participate in mystudy.

Trondheim, December 20, 2005

Petter Enes

iii

Contents

1 Introduction 11.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Project context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2.1 Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Definition of ”Expert knowledge” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 Problem definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5 Report outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 State-of-the-art 52.1 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1.1 What is Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1.2 Knowledge conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.2.1 The motivation for Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . 82.2.2 Knowledge Management in Software Engineering . . . . . 9

2.3 Expert knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.3.1 Application-domain knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.4 Acquiring and sharing (expert) knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.4.1 Organized learning and sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.4.2 Ad-hoc techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Research agenda 153.1 Research focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Research method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.1 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.2.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.3 Selection of interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 Results 194.1 Q1 - Significance of (staying up-to-date on) expert knowledge . . 194.2 Q2 - Significance of knowledge sharing in the work environment . 224.3 Q3 - Methods used to acquire and share knowledge . . . . . . . . 23

v

vi CONTENTS

4.4 Q4 - What is the importance of organized learning methods? . . . 26

5 Discussion and Evaluation 295.1 Discussion of the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.1.1 Why acquiring and sharing expert knowledge is important 295.1.2 How acquiring and sharing expert knowledge is

carried out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.1.3 Influential factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.2 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335.2.1 Research process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335.2.2 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6 Conclusion and Further work 37

A Interview Guide 39

Bibliography 43

List of Figures

2.1 A model of knowledge conversion between tacit and explicit knowl-edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

vii

List of Tables

4.1 Summary of answers to Q1 in the interview guide . . . . . . . . . 204.2 Summary of answers to Q2 in the interview guide . . . . . . . . . 224.3 Summary of answers to Q3 in the interview guide . . . . . . . . . 234.4 Methods mentioned by the different interviewees . . . . . . . . . . 244.5 Summary of answers to Q4 in the interview guide . . . . . . . . . 26

viii

Chapter1Introduction

1.1 Motivation

The motivation for this project is to learn about Knowledge Management (KM)within knowledge intensive industries. KM is an important part of staying com-petitive in a knowledge intensive environment. Terms such as tacit knowledgeand organizational learning are important elements for a business to survive, andallocation of enough time and resources is crucial. The reason I find this field ofstudy interesting is because it is applicable to most business domains.

I will focus my study on application-domain/expert knowledge. I present anexplanation of these terms under section 1.3.

As a part of my project, I will perform an empirical study which will give me animpression of how KM and application-domain/expert knowledge is handled indifferent knowledge intensive industries. Even though the professions I choose re-quires long educations, they can be recognized as industries relying on continuouslearning.

1.2 Project context

The context of this report is a project as a part of a Master degree in computerscience at the Department of Computer and Information Science at NTNU inTrondheim. The project is a prestudy which might be continued in a Masterthesis. My in-depth study within computer science is Software Engineering.

My research consists of a state-of-the-art survey to improve my knowledge withinthe field of KM and application-domain knowledge, and to get an impression ofwhat types of studies have and have not been done. The second part of my projectcontains an empirical study through interviews. The interviews were performedon a selection of persons within three different knowledge intensive businesses.

1

2 Chapter 1. Introduction

1.2.1 Perspective

As this report is written as a part of an in-depth study in Software Engineering(SE), my perspective will from a SE point of view. The state-of-the-art chapterwill therefore be based mostly on publications from the SE community.

1.3 Definition of ”Expert knowledge”

I will start by explaining the use of the term Expert knowledge in this report.When referring to expert knowledge within medicine and law, I refer to the spe-cialization one might choose within the profession in question. When talkingabout software engineering, I refer to application-domain knowledge as expertknowledge. Expert knowledge in SE might also mean a specialisation within acertain technology (specialist within Java or Oracle for example), but that isnot what I focus on in this report. A further elaboration of application-domainknowledge is found in section 2.3.1.

Both ”expert knowledge” and ”application-domain knowledge” will be used inthe report. When talking about software engineering alone, I will try to use”application-domain knowledge,” and when talking about the other professions, Iuse ”expert knowledge”.

1.4 Problem definition

This project is meant as prestudy within the field of knowledge managementwith focus on acquiring and sharing. Through the empirical study I wish tofind out how different professions handle the concept of expert knowledge. Towhat degree, and why is acquiring and sharing expert knowledge considered animportant part of work? What are the different methods in use, and what arethe effects?

1.5 Report outline

Chapter 2 - PrestudyPresentation of the state-of-the-art within knowledge management focusingon the importance of it and different methods/techniques for acquiring andsharing knowledge

1.5. Report outline 3

Chapter 3 - ResearchPresents the research plan for the empirical study

Chapter 4 - ResultsPresents the results of the study

Chapter 5 - Discussion and EvaluationPresents a discussion of the results from the study in light of chapter 2, andevaluates the results considering the validity threats

Chapter 6 - Conclusion and Further workPresents the conclusion of the report and suggests topics for further work

Chapter2State-of-the-art

2.1 Knowledge

In Knowledge Management theory there are two important aspects to consider;the different types of knowledge and the conversion between them. This sectiongives an introduction to what these two aspects mean.

2.1.1 What is Knowledge

Knowledge is in the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus [19] defined as ”awarenessor familiarity gained by experience (of a person, or thing)”,”persons range ofinformation”, ”specific information; facts or intelligence about something”, or ”atheoretical or practical understanding of a subject.”

In the field of knowledge management, knowledge is often divided into two types,explicit and tacit knowledge. ”Explicit knowledge is referred to as the knowledgewhich has been articulated, codified and stored in certain mediums. The mostcommon form of explicit knowledge is manuals, documents, procedures and sto-ries.” Because it is possible to articulate, codify and store, explicit knowledgeis also easy to share and distribute. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, are”the aspects of knowledge that cannot be codified, but can only be transmittedvia training or gained through personal experience. Tacit knowledge has beendescribed as ”know-how” (as opposed to ”know-what” [facts] and ”know-why”[science]). It involves learning and skill but not in a way that can be writtendown. The simplest example of the nature and value of tacit knowledge is thatone does not know how to ride a bike or swim due to reading a textbook, but onlythrough personal experimentation, by observing others, and/or being guided byan instructor[26].” Knowledge management is the process that includes capturingand sharing knowledge, both explicit and tacit.

5

6 Chapter 2. State-of-the-art

2.1.2 Knowledge conversion

The Japanese business experts Nonaka and Takeuchi have come up with a model,see Figure 2.1, to represent to conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge[15][16].

Figure 2.1: A model of knowledge conversion between tacit and explicit knowledge

The figure illustrates the spiralling process of knowledge conversion. The spiralcontains the conversion from explicit to tacit through internalization, from tacitto tacit through socialization, from tacit to explicit through externalization andfrom explicit to explicit through combination. Following is a further explanationof each of the conversions.

Socialization

Socialization is the process of sharing experience and thereby creating tacit knowl-edge. A person can acquire tacit knowledge from others, not necessarily throughthe use of language, but by observation, imitation and practice. The key toacquire tacit knowledge is through experience. In a business setting, on-the-job training uses the same principles. The authors mention an example from aJapanese company who wanted to make an automatic bread-making machine.To really understand the bread-making process, and to understand how to makea machine to replicate the bread quality of a certain bakery, engineers started

2.1. Knowledge 7

working with the lead baker as apprentices observing and imitating. One daythey realized that the trick to make really good bread was in the way the bakerstretched and twisted the dough in the kneading process. This information wasacquired by the engineers through observation, imitation and practice, thus bysocialisation.

Externalisation

Externalisation is the process of codifying and articulating tacit knowledge. It isthe process of creating concepts, and when expressions are inadequate, metaphorsand analogies are often used. As an example to externalization Nonaka andTakeuchi mention how a team at Honda managed to codify their vision of howtheir next car should be through the use of metaphors and analogies. Theyintroduced the metaphor ”automobile evolution,” and asked what the automobilewould eventually evolve into. It resulted in a concept of a car that was ”manmaximum, machine minimum” which ended up in the ”Tall Boy,” a short and tallcar. After this Honda made Honda City, which shows how the use of metaphorsand analogies created a new concept.

Combination

Combination is the process of systemizing concepts into a knowledge managementsystem. It involves combining different bodies of explicit knowledge. Adding,sorting, combining and categorizing existing information may lead to the cre-ation of new knowledge. Knowledge creation within formal education and train-ing at schools usually takes this form. A good example is an MBA education.Combination also allows knowledge transfer among groups across organizations.

Internalization

Internalization is the process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowl-edge. It is close to what is known as ”learning by doing.” When experiencesare internalized into an individual’s tacit knowledge base, through shared mentalmodels and technical ”know-how,” it becomes a valuable asset.

Nonaka and Takeuchi claim that the reason for success in the Japanese indus-try is the focus on tacit knowledge rather than explicit knowledge. They statethat U.S managers have focused too much on explicit knowledge and externalisa-tion. John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid report in [4] that organizations tend to


rely on manuals, training programs and organizational charts in their attemptsto understand and improve work practice. These strategies are used in spite ofethnographic studies which indicate the way people actually work differ funda-mentally from how it is described.

Nonaka and Takeuchi emphasize the importance of internalization and socializa-tion. Learning through experience and observation is more valuable than throughmanuals and job descriptions. Brown realized this when trying to figure out a wayto improve the performance aids for the Xerox ”tech reps,” the 25000 employeesworking around the world to troubleshoot Xerox’ machines. He realized that thereps didn’t use the manuals when trying to figure out a problem. When comingupon a machine they couldn’t figure out, they called their colleagues. Togetherthey socially constructed an understanding of the machine through telling stories.This resulted in a system to facilitate this type of storytelling, thus moving focusfrom externalization to socialization.

2.2 Knowledge Management

This section presents the motivation for KM and explains why it is important inSE.

2.2.1 The motivation for Knowledge Management

Knowledge and KM are becoming more and more important as the marketplacebecome more competitive. To obtain success in competitive environments, busi-nesses rely critically on knowledge, and how this knowledge is applied to theirbusiness processes. The challenges of using knowledge to keep an organizationcompetitive becomes crucial as [8][18]:

• The rate of innovation is rising, so that knowledge must evolve and be assim-ilated at an even faster rate

• There is a need to replace the informal knowledge with formal methods alignedto organization processes

• Competitive pressures are reducing the size of the workforce which holds thisknowledge

• Knowledge takes time to experience and acquire. Employees have less timefor this.

In response to these needs, KM has been used.

2.2. Knowledge Management 9

There is not a clear definition of KM, and there are many interpretations of whatit includes. Some important aspects may be to maintain and secure the intellec-tual and knowledge resources within an enterprise, determine the knowledge andexpertise required to perform work tasks and to provide a knowledge architectureto support active knowledge management as part of the organization’s practiseand culture [10][25].

The goal of KM is to create a learning organization which allows, and encourages,the employees to share knowledge and experience with each other [6]. This willlead to constant improvement of the organizations work, and it will also makethe organization more resistant to knowledge erosion. Leaving of key employeeswill cause the loss of more than just that’s persons knowledge. Unless you findsome way to capture it, you also loose any investment made in that person’sprofessional development and competence[24] [1].

Knowledge management is not a product that can be bought off-the-shelf, but acombination of tools and technologies to support the capture, access, reuse anddissemination of knowledge, creating benefits for an organization and its members[8][2].

2.2.2 Knowledge Management in Software Engineering

Software development is a relatively young business domain, and the demands arecontinuously increasing. Shorter time-to-market, demand for higher quality andbetter productivity has led the industry to try to improve their use of its mostimportant resource: the organizational software engineering knowledge. Histori-cally, this has been stored on paper and in the heads of the employees. Because ofpaper’s limitation through limited accessibility and difficulty to update, togetherwith the threat of knowledge erosion through the leaving of key employees, or-ganizations have realized the need to put knowledge capturing and sharing intopractice. The goal is to formalize the knowledge contained by their employeesand make it available on an organizational level. In larger organization it is justas important to locate who knows what, as it is to maintain knowledge if peopleleaves. To accompany this process, KM systems can be very useful [8].

Some of the challenges of KM in software engineering compared to other businessdomains, is the fast pace of the business. Also, the products of software engineer-ing are invisible, which leads to less reuse. Developers might end up reinventinga system, because they cannot find out if is already done. A low degree of reuseis a problem because the idea behind KM is reuse of assets [21][9].


2.3 Expert knowledge

Presented in this section is the expert knowledge related to SE in this report,namely application-domain knowledge. Considering it is the learning and sharingof, and not the expert knowledge in it self, that is in focus, theory behind expertknowledge related to medicine and law is not presented.

2.3.1 Application-domain knowledge

When developing an information system or another form of computer program,it is developed and for the use within an application-domain. Examples beingsoftware to support the work within the healthcare- or oil-industry. System devel-opment is therefore a multi- or interdisciplinary effort, meaning that besides thetechnical knowledge to actually develop the software, it also requires the need forknowledge about the domain for which the software is being developed. Program-mers claim that programming is not the problem, understanding the problem isthe problem [21][7]. To handle this, a software development organization needsto acquire the knowledge about the desired domain, either by learning, or byhiring knowledgeable employees. It is also important for the organization thatthis knowledge is made available on an organizational level [17].

After having performed a field study of a group of software designers and re-searchers at Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, the au-thors of [23] concluded: ”One obvious recommendation is to increase the amountof application-domain knowledge across the entire software development staff.Assigning one or two individuals with deep application-domain and technicalknowledge to a design project can significantly reduce the learning time involved.”

In another field study performed by researchers at Goizuetta Business School[22], they wanted to find out how the integration of business application-domainknowledge with technical knowledge during the software development processinfluences the three dimensions of development performance:

• software design effectiveness

• warranty and lifecycle defect density

• software development efficiency

They also wanted to find out what is the relative influence of knowledge integra-tion on each of these dimensions of software development performance. The studyinvolved one customer application development project in each of 232 differentsoftware development organizations in several American companies situated in

2.4. Acquiring and sharing (expert) knowledge 11

different countries all over the world. The study included expert interviews andquestionnaires. The researchers used three simple regression models to estimatethe influence integrating application-domain knowledge had on the three differentaspects mentioned earlier.

The findings of the study showed that knowledge integration had a statisticallysignificant effect on software development performance. They found that knowl-edge integration lowers the density of warrant stage defects, lowers defect densitythroughout the development trajectory, improves software development efficiencyand increases design effectiveness. Considering the diversity of the dataset onwhich the results are based, the authors claim that these findings are generaliz-able to other organizational and national contexts.

2.4 Acquiring and sharing (expert) knowledge

There are many ways to acquire and share information in a workplace, but tobe able to succeed with any form of knowledge management, companies have tounderstand the importance of committing enough time and resources to learningand knowledge sharing [24][23]. Funding, staff and time to implement such im-provement efforts may be secured through management commitment and support[13].

In a medium-sized consulting company based in Norway, the management intro-duced ”Knowledge sharer of the month” in order to promote knowledge transferbetween their employees. This encouragement, in addition to advertisement, hasplayed an important role in integrating knowledge sharing in the workplace, andhas made the company’s knowledge sharer tool popular to use [11].

Besides the aspects of time and resources, one also have to consider the timingof learning. As Kaupinnen et al [13] stated, after having performed an empiricalstudy of implementing requirements engineering processes, ”classroom style teach-ing suits training that aims at raising personnel awareness of RE. ”Just-in-time”training is needed if the organization wants to implement the new RE practicespermanently.” People seems to be more receptive to new knowledge when theysee the immediate benefits from it.

In the article ”Knowledge management issues for smaller businesses” written byAnja Wickert and Richard Herchel [24], the authors suggest different techniquescompanies can use to retain and acquire knowledge. These methods are presentedin the following sections. Here they are divided into Organized learning andsharing and Ad-hoc techniques.


2.4.1 Organized learning and sharing

Organized learning are methods that are introduced (by the management) inten-tionally to support knowledge acquisition and sharing. They can be used withthe intension to certify workers or to meet organizational or legal standards. In[5], the authors discuss whether or not formal routines are the most effective waysto transfer knowledge and experience.

Courses and workshops

An obvious way to acquire new knowledge is through training. Training can bedone either in a organized or ad-hoc matter. Examples of organized training arecourses and workshops. This type of training gives the company the opportunityto broaden their employees’ knowledge and skill base, allowing them to performnew tasks, or old ones, better.

For the organization, training should be used to find out what key knowledge isneeded to stay or become competitive, and to establish who should receive whattraining to meet these goals.

On-the-job training

For acquiring tacit knowledge, which is the type of knowledge that is consideredhardest to gain and transfer, the authors suggest on-the-job-training, as well asstudy tours of other companies and cross-training. On-the-job training usuallymeans to learn from participating in projects or solving problems while havingsomeone to go to for help.

Another expression for acquiring knowledge through working is learning by doing.

Job rotation

A way to deal with knowledge erosion through the leaving of key employees iscreating a knowledge redundancy in the company, meaning that if an employeebecomes unavailable, there are others that are able to take over.

Maintaining a repository of ”lessons learned”

As important as understanding why a project succeeds, is understanding why aproject fails. This might be done in structured time-consuming ways, or throughunstructured briefings. Such analysis serves as a way to learn since it gives the

2.4. Acquiring and sharing (expert) knowledge 13

people involved an opportunity for reflection of what went wrong and why. Ifdone right, this technique will also capture the opinions of the employees whowhere ignored throughout the project. Like in many other knowledge manage-ment initiatives, culture and leadership style are the driving forces of such openadmittance of failure.

Some companies have experience databases available through their intranet,where employees can add information and experiences they consider useful forother people within the organization.

Formal mentoring programs

A formal mentor program [3] is an arrangement where an inexperienced employeeis assigned to a more experienced employee in a mentor/protege relationship.The idea behind such an arrangement is that knowledge management dependson human interaction. This is particularly important in smaller businesses. On asocial level, mentoring is a powerful way to build a network within the company,which is extremely important as a company is growing past a certain size.

2.4.2 Ad-hoc techniques

Ad-hoc techniques are used by workers to acquire or share knowledge wheneverthey feel it is necessary. These methods are not used to meet organizationalstandards, and they are usually used when the information is needed.

Informal personal interaction

It is often stated that a coffee break is much more than just coffee. Informalencounters in a workplace is a useful mean to get people to know and like eachother, to create a common context and perspective, and to support planning andcoordination in group work. Kraut et. al [14] states that personal interactionis crucial to coordinate the intricate choreography necessary to do work in aorganization.

In [20] the authors found, after having performed a direct-observation experimentin a large software development organization, that the number of interpersonalcontact a developer require each working day, strongly suggests that the technicalissues are not necessarily the problem for a software developer. They also foundthat their test subjects had to spend just as much time and effort to determinewho to contact within the organization to get their work done.


The frequency of interaction between colleagues depends on the proximity ofthe co-workers. A study of engineering organizations showed that the frequencyof communication between engineers decreased with distance. If the engineers’offices were more than 30 meters apart, the frequency dropped to the same amountas if the offices were placed in different buildings several miles apart [12].

Informal mentor/protege relationships

Another type of informal methods is an informal mentoring program [3]. Theinformal mentoring program differs from the formal alternative by the fact thatit is not organized. An informal relationship is one that is based on a mutualneed, often springing from mutual identification. The protege might view his orhers mentor as a role model, and the purpose of such a relationship is often theachievement of long term career goals for the protege[3].

Internet

Search engines, knowledge databases, newsgroups and forums available throughthe internet are tools that are used to solve problems or to share experiences withothers. These resources are open for everybody, and are therefore considered ad-hoc solutions in this context.

Chapter3Research agenda

The empirical study of my project consisted of interviews with people of differentprofessions working in different business domains. This chapter presents theresearch agenda for the empirical study. I explain the focus of the research andthe methods to perform the study and to analyse the results. I also describe thesample selection.

3.1 Research focus

In section 2.4, I mention several techniques to acquire and share knowledge inan organization. What I hope to find out is how these techniques are used inreal life, what the effects are, and how this differs with line of business. Also, Iwish to find out if there are differences between knowledge management methodswhen they are formally required compared to ad-hoc, ”when it’s needed”solutions.Allocation of time and resources also play an important role in this question. Thefocus of my study will be on the expert knowledge the people I interview rely onto do their job.

There might be a problem finding out the actual benefits or disadvantages of thedifferent ways to handle application-domain knowledge within a company. Thebenefits might not be documented, and even if they are, they might be hard tocompare if only one strategy has been used. It might also be difficult to get,for example, a software engineering company to admit that they face problemsbecause of the lack of strategies to handle application-domain knowledge.

I will therefore focus the study on the opinions and attitudes of the employeestowards the concept of acquiring and sharing expert knowledge. Different workersmight have experiences from different types of methods. This will vary with jobexperience and level of responsibility the interviewees have in the company.

15

16 Chapter 3. Research agenda

3.2 Research method

The objective of the empirical part of my project was to perform an explorativestudy as part of a prestudy to a more thorough Master thesis next semester. Thework is performed as a qualitative research based on face-to-face interviews withthe use of an interview guide, see Appendix A.

3.2.1 Research questions

The interview guide is divided into four main research questions:

1. What is the importance of acquiring new knowledge in your work?

2. What is the importance of knowledge sharing in your workplace?

3. What methods are used to share and acquire knowledge? When are theyused?

4. What is the effect of organized learning methods?

Each of these questions contain sub questions focusing on the subject’s experienceand opinion.

3.2.2 Analysis

During the interviews, a taperecorder was used besides taking notes. The use of ataperecorder allowed for a more open conversation, which was desirable in orderto get the real opinions from the interviewees. It is difficult to ask questions thatcover all aspects of a topic.

When analysing the results, two methods were considered:

Transcribing the recordings of the interviews and using analysing tools to searchfor relations between the answers. This method of analysis is very time-consuming, but provides a high level of detail.

Listening to the interview, maybe several times, taking notes of important an-swers. This method is not as time-consuming, but does not provide thesame level of detail.

3.3. Selection of interviewees 17

The latter method was chosen because of the time available. Since the researchwas meant to be an explorative, qualitative study, a very high level of detail wasnot considered necessary.

3.3 Selection of interviewees

I wanted to perform the study on companies within knowledge intensive busi-ness domains, meaning companies who rely on staying up to date on relevantknowledge to be able to stay competitive.

Because of limited time and resources, the participants were selected throughconvenience sampling. This means that only companies located in Trondheim wasconsidered. The three professions chosen was Software developers (SD), Lawyersand Doctors. These professions were considered well represented in Trondheim.

A similarity between the three chosen professions is that it requires a long ed-ucation in which you learn a general basis of relevant knowledge, and to whichyou build expertise as you begin to work. The difference of the three educationsis the formal requirement to relevant work practise. Following is a more detailedexplanation of each of the chosen professions.

Software engineers

As software engineering is my field of study, the report is written from a softwareengineering point of view. It is therefore a natural choice to include softwareengineers in my empirical study.

Although it not absolutely necessary, software engineering requires a long educa-tion in which technology and software development techniques are taught. It doeshowever require further learning as one starts to work in a software developmentproject. As I have mentioned in chapter 2.3.1, application-domain knowledge iscrucial for a software development team to succeed in developing software for acostumer. This type of knowledge is not a part of the education, and will haveto be acquired in a work situation.

Lawyers

Lawyers possess general knowledge within law, but also expert knowledge withinone or more specific fields.

18 Chapter 3. Research agenda

The expert knowledge of a lawyer is to some degree acquired as a part of theeducation, through a choice of an in-depth study towards the end of the education.Further specialization does however, continue in a working situation.

For a lawyer to be able to act as a counsellor in court, they have to go througha two year mandatory learning period as an authorized assistant lawyer. Thisperiod is organized by the firm and is not related to the university. How importantis this period for a lawyer?

Doctors

Doctors definitely work in a knowledge intensive line-of-business, and keepingtheir knowledge and skills up-to-date is an important part of their job.

Doctors have an even stricter requirement to formalized learning periods. As anextension to their study is an internship to give them relevant practise. Thisdiffers from the learning period of the lawyers in that it is organized by theuniversity.

Chapter4Results

As I mentioned in chapter 3.1, I wanted to focus on the experience and opinionsof the workers, rather than documented effects in the company. This chapterpresents the results of the empirical study regarding the importance of acquiringand sharing expert knowledge, and what methods are in use to realize this need.In chapter 5, these results will be discussed in light of the state-of-the-art pre-sented in chapter 2. This chapter is divided into sections according to the mainquestions in the interview guide (Q1-4). Some of the answers overlap severalquestions, but they are only presented once under the section which is consideredmost appropriate.

In each section is a table summarizing the answers of each question. In addition tothis the answers are presented textually. Because of the limited sample selectionin my empirical study the interviews did not provide foundation for the use of anystatistical presentation of the results. The size of the sample will be discussed inChapter 5.

4.1 Q1 - Significance of (staying up-to-date on)

expert knowledge

All three professions that I interviewed provide a service of some sort. Thereare big differences in the services they provide, but the similarity lies in theimportance of staying up to date on the knowledge they need to provide theseservices. All the interviewees agreed that expert knowledge is an important partof their work. The consequence of not staying up-to-date was not being able todeliver a good enough service.

As a lawyer stated:

”You can’t come into a courtroom referring to an old, outdated law.”

Another lawyer said that formal requirements to staying up-to-date were notreally necessary as not paying attention would lead to being:

”[...]brutally updated in court.”

19

20 Chapter 4. Results

Table 4.1: Summary of answers to Q1 in the interview guide

A doctor stated that not updating your knowledge jeopardizes your job as adoctor.

In SE, not having the relevant knowledge needed in a certain project would endup in a product no one could use.

Although agreeing to the fact that application-domain knowledge is critical tosucceed in a software project, one SD reported that it was neither expected nornecessary when entering a new project. Having the technical knowledge, andthe skills to conduct a project is much more important. The application-domainknowledge needed is acquired during the project by including representatives fromapplication-domain in question.

As expected, all the interviewees stated that they have continued to learn con-tinually after they started working. All three professions saw their education asa general basis on which to build more work oriented expertise.

One of the software developers focused on the self-esteem of the worker, andstated that if you don’t stay up-to-date, you will lower your level of self-esteemand thereby lower the quality of your work. High self-esteem makes you confident

4.2. Q2 - Significance of knowledge sharing in the work environment21

in important decisions, increases the pleasure of working, and by this, makes youa valuable asset to your company.

Several of the lawyers also mentioned self-esteem as an important of the motiva-tion to update their expert knowledge. As new rules and regulations are passed,keeping yourself updated makes you more independent, and it is always:

”[...]nice to be able to answer if someone asks you a question.”

One doctor thought that acquiring new knowledge made his work more interest-ing. He also stated that it is satisfying to participate in courses and lectures whenyou realize that you know most of what is being said.

Another aspect is the relationship with the client. One client may represent onearea of expertise, and keeping up-to-date in this area makes the client satisfied.Trust between a worker and a client is important. This was stated by one of theSDs.

The same SD focused on the significance of the human relation between a con-sultant and a customer. He claimed that application-domain knowledge andcustomer relations are closely related. In SE it is crucial to speak the ”samelanguage,” and if you are able to communicate with your customer on a commonplatform:

”[...]you gain application-domain knowledge every day.”

In one of the SE companies, application-domain knowledge was an important partof their strategy. They considered knowledge about their customers’ products andservices very important. Their strategy was based on long-term relationships withtheir customers, and by keeping up-to-date on the application-domain knowledgein question, their chances of remaining the preferred choice of their customersincreased. They also believe that a SD will do a better job, and that it will bemore rewarding for the SD, if he or she understands the context of the problemthey are working on.

To be able to keep the title ”specialist,” a doctor needs to stay updated his expertknowledge. These were formal requirements.

Two of the lawyers mentioned that not staying up-to-date would result in usingtoo much time to process a case.



4.2 Q2 - Significance of knowledge sharing in

the work environment

All the respondents agreed to that sharing knowledge with your colleagues isimportant and valuable.

”If you find an interesting article, or find something you know is ofinterest to a colleague, you tell them.”

Among the lawyers, several said that if they get a case which contains part of thelaw a colleague knows more about, they ask this person for advice in that area.

One of the lawyers stated that an important part of sharing knowledge and expe-rience within the workplace is to make sure that all employees react similarly tothe same problems/cases. He considered sharing of knowledge the main sourceof new knowledge.

One of the SDs said that he often asked colleagues when he wanted the opinionof someone who has experience with similar tasks, or just to get a ”fresh pair ofeyes” to look at the problem.

Another SD found that too little time was spent on knowledge sharing withinthe company. The company was familiar with the problem, but limited time,and the fact that they spend most of their time at their customer were the mostimportant reasons.

4.3. Q3 - Methods used to acquire and share knowledge 23

One SD said that being distributed geographically wasn’t really a problem. If heneeded to talk to someone that was currently at the customer’s location, he usedthe telephone, or he would schedule a meeting by mail for the next time theywere both at the office. Of course this depended on the urgency of the matter.

For the doctors, it was essential to share knowledge in the workplace as it providedthem the opportunity to help co-workers with concrete cases, or taking over theclient if someone was unavailable.

4.3 Q3 - Methods used to acquire and share

knowledge


Table 4.4 summarizes the different methods mentioned by the respondents. Thedifferent methods were used at different times, with different purposes. Followingis the comments about the different methods

In both the SE companies and lawyer firms, it seemed that employees often hadone or two areas of expertise they put extra effort into. Employees take pride in


Courses and seminars Courses were mostly used to fulfil requirements setby the company or by law.

Formal education One of the companies encouraged their employeesto educate themselves in areas they found interest-ing

”In-house” days The SE companies I visited arranged a certainamount of ”in-house” days each month. Duringthese days, they arrange courses and workshopswere employees teach each other.

Knowledge-databases Databases available through the internet were usedto access new information. Especially importantfor the lawyers to get access to new rules and reg-ulations.

Experience-databases Experience-databases available through the com-pany’s intranet were in use in the SE companies.This was considered useful if enough time and re-sources were put into maintenance.

”On-the-job” This term was most used within SE, and learn-ing by participation is the way most application-domain knowledge is acquired. Although not usingthis term, lawyers are also forced to learn knowl-edge by taking tasks containing areas they are lessfamiliar with. This was a highly valued way oflearning in both professions

”Personal interaction” Learning from your colleagues was considered animportant part of knowledge acquisition by all therespondents. One of the SD used the term ”spar-ring”

Customer participation The SE companies considered customer participa-tion a valuable way to acquire expert knowledge.

Internal meetings One health center used lunch-meetings a few timesa week to discuss cases. Meetings during theevenings was also used once i a while.

Table 4.4: Methods mentioned by the different interviewees

4.3. Q3 - Methods used to acquire and share knowledge 25

staying up-to-date within these areas, and other people within the organizationknows who to contact if they have related questions. One of the SD explainedthis with the nature of consultants. People like being experts, and that affectshow and when they learn. This was mentioned by both SD’s and lawyers. Theyreported that they don’t mind spending their spare time on staying up-to-datein the areas they are experts. Updating within these areas was also reported tobe done when they had the time, while knowledge required outside their area ofexpertise, was gained when needed.

One of the SE companies encouraged their employees to get formal education intheir field of expertise. The choice of such expertise depended on two things: thesituation in the marked and the interest of the employee. If these two matched,the management encouraged the employees to get educattion within that field.

In software engineering, certificates are often required by the producers of hard-ware and middleware to be able to use them. These certificates are usuallyobtained through courses. Courses or ”in-house days” are also used in SE com-panies to stay updated on the technical competence their work requires. Thelearning and sharing of application-domain knowledge, on the other hand, wasnot formalized to the same extent in any of the SE companies i visited. ”In-housedays” could be used to discuss certain aspects or problems related to application-domains they where involved in, but it was not arranged with that particularpurpose in mind.

Doctors (specialists) depends on courses, seminar and hospital-work in order tokeep their title, but lunch-meetings and interaction with colleagues were the dailymethods used to share knowledge in the workplace. A doctor stated:

”The job in itself is a continuous learning process”

Lawyers considered databases a valuable resource. Sites available on the internetprovide updated databases with all new rules and regulations. This made it easyfor an individual to find relevant information. It also saved them a lot of timenot having to go through all the books in the archive.

Two of the SDs had tried with experience-databases, and thought of this as avaluable tool to share both technical knowledge, as well as application-domainknowledge. They did however emphasize the importance of maintaining thesedatabases. If there is no one to administer these databases, they soon becomeover-complex and stop being functional.

Another SD had little faith in organizing the learning and sharing of application-domain knowledge. He considered this knowledge hard to codify, and that theneed for application-domain knowledge in the beginning of a new project waslimited. The only way to acquire application-domain knowledge was throughpersonal interaction


The most valuable way to acquire expert knowledge was through ”On-the-jobtraining,” or asking colleagues for advice. This was agreed upon by both SDs andlawyers.

One SD said that to learn a customer’s application-domain, they included repre-sentatives from the customers in the projects.

One of the SD used the term ”sparring.” Sparring is a more or less arrangedmeeting between two colleagues where they discuss problems and solutions theyhave been working on lately.

When it came to what to learn the doctors chose freely within their specialisation.

4.4 Q4 - What is the importance of organized

learning methods?


The lawyers I interviewed considered the mandatory period as an authorized as-sistant lawyer a positive experience in which they were able to learn through

4.4. Q4 - What is the importance of organized learning methods? 27

experience while having a supervisor available. This period is used to learn theaspects of being a counsellor rather than specializing within one or several areas.To keep their counsellor permit lawyers have formalized requirements to partici-pate in a certain amount of courses during a specified time interval. None of thelawyers had anything against this requirement, and some considered it to be veryuseful. The subject of the courses are optional, so it was considered a useful wayto update whatever knowledge they felt necessary.

Other than the requirements to be certified in certain tools and procedures (setby suppliers, customers or the company itself), the SE companies had no formalrequirement to learning. No formalized routines existed for learning application-domain knowledge, and this was not considered necessary by any of the respon-dents.

Doctors, if they have the title specialist, have formal requirements to learning inorder to keep the title. One doctor considered this positive. It was his choice tokeep the title and he liked the pressure to updating his knowledge on a regularbasis.

One question was to what degree they considered expert knowledge an importantpart of the education. For a lawyer, it would mean towards a special area of Law.Although one lawyer found the education to be a bit too theoretical, it was agreedby all that the most important part of the education was to learn the procedure,not necessarily the rules and regulation. An important part of their work is tofind information when it is needed, so knowing the procedure is the most valuablelesson in the education. Specializing was therefore considered unnecessary as apart of the education, but definitely an important part of their work. Two of thelawyers also stated that too much specializing as a part of the education mightbe negative since this might limit your choices later.

Expert knowledge as a part of the education in SE would mean to specializetowards certain business domains such as healthcare or insurance. There weredifferent opinions among the SDs about the relevance of their education. One SDconsidered a large amount of his education irrelevant in his job. He thought theeducation should contain more practical subjects, but he did not see the use forlearning application-domain knowledge in the study.

None of the SD considered application-domain knowledge to be important in asoftware engineering education. Most respondents emphasized the importance ofa wide theoretical education as a base to build more practical knowledge lateron.

One of the said that application-domain knowledge requires a long time to learn,and that there would be no point in including this in a SE education. Edu-cation within an application-domain of interest, at a later point, was, however,something he recommended.


Work practice was considered important for doctors because it was essential topractice putting theory into practice.

Chapter5Discussion and Evaluation

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part, Discussion of the results,presents a discussion of the results from the interviews. The second part, Evalu-ation, presents an evaluation of the study.

5.1 Discussion of the results

This section contains a discussion of the results presented in chapter 4. Thefindings will be discussed in light of the theory presented in chapter 2, and thefocus of the discussion will be on the differences between the professions. Thesection is divided into the three subsections:

• Why acquiring and sharing knowledge is important

• How acquiring and sharing expert knowledge is carried out

• Influential factors

5.1.1 Why acquiring and sharing expert knowledgeis important

This section is divided into the factors mentioned in the interviews that I consid-ered interesting. Some of the factors were agreed upon by the different respon-dents, while others were not.

Quality of service

The main answer to why acquiring and sharing expert knowledge in the workplaceis important, was that it is essential in order to deliver a quality product. Thiswas agreed by all professions. The SE companies did however focus more on theimportance of staying the preferred choice by the customer.

29

30 Chapter 5. Discussion and Evaluation

Efficiency

The quality of service is often related to the efficiency of the job. The lawyers es-pecially, stated that updated expert knowledge made them more efficient in theirwork. Lawyers depend greatly on paying attention to new rules and regulations,and being on top of the changes shortens the time it takes to solve problems. Oneof the lawyers stated that:

[...]everything can be learned, but it’s a question of time.

Staying updated within certain areas is also beneficial for the co-workers. Allprofessions appreciated the possibility of asking colleagues for advice.

As the field study referred to in chapter 2.3.1 showed, application-domain knowl-edge is important for the efficiency of software design. None of the SD mentionedthis explicitly, however.

Confidence

Both SDs and lawyers mentioned confidence as an important reason to why con-tinuously acquire knowledge. I will not go into the psychology behind the rela-tionship between confidence and work results, but one SD stated that a high levelof self-esteem increased the job satisfaction and made you an important asset tothe company. For the lawyers, confidence in their own competence meant beingindependent, which again made them more efficient. The lawyers appearing incourt expose their knowledge to a high degree, and confidence is therefore veryimportant.

Confidence was not mentioned explicitly by the doctors, but satisfaction of gettingfeedback that you are up-to-date in a certain area was mentioned.

Customer relation

Two of the SDs considered application-domain knowledge an essential part ofa good relationship with the customer. As mentioned in chapter 2.3.1, systemdevelopment is an interdisciplinary effort where you work across several businessdomains. To be able to capture the needs from the customer, it is essentialto communicate on the same platform. One word may have different meaningswithin different domains, so to avoid this, the SDs have to know the customer’sapplication-domain. A good customer relationship is based on the ability tocommunicate, and as one of the SD stated:

”If you have a good relationship with your customer, you increase yourapplication-domain knowledge every day.”

5.1. Discussion of the results 31

5.1.2 How acquiring and sharing expert knowledge iscarried out

This section discusses the different methods considered most useful to gain andtransfer expert knowledge.

The three most important ways to acquire application-domain knowledge was,by the SDs, considered to be On-the-job training, informal personal interactionand customer participation. They did not consider organized techniques, such ascourses, efficient to acquire application-domain knowledge. One of the SDs saidthat this type of knowledge was best gained ”when needed,” and he had no faithin organizing the acquisition of it. He did not consider organizational learning,discussed in chapter 2.3.1 and [17] imporant. He did not see how this should berealized. Another SD believed, however, that education within an application-domain of interest was a good idea, though not to obtain organizational learning.

The SD referred to ”On-the-job” training as being placed on a project and thisprovided knowledge through observation and participation. Their ”On-the-job”training resembled ”socialization” mentioned in chapter 2.1.2. Lawyers used theterm ”learning-by-doing,” and referred to working on cases and updating expertknowledge when needed. This was usually done by asking a colleague or consult-ing the literature. The literature was available both in paper form and throughknowledge databases on the internet. Referring to the literature, either on paper,or on a computer, is more similar to ”internalization” 2.1.2. Lawyers regardedthis type of learning and sharing valuable.

Further education within Law was not mentioned by the lawyers, (and I am notsure if it is possible), but they did consider courses and seminars a good way togain expert knowledge. Mandatory courses provided a good opportunity to taketime off work to learn. One of the lawyers not having this requirement, said thathe missed the opportunity to do just that.

Lawyers considered informal personal interaction one of the most important waysof learning and sharing. It was important that they reacted the same way to thesame cases. This was not an issue for the SDs, but asking colleagues for advicewas still highly valued by them as well.

Although lawyers reported that some knowledge sharing between colleagues oc-curred at the seminars they participated in, it mostly happened through ad-hocpersonal interaction at the workplace. They had no experience with internal expe-rience databases. The SDs reported some experience with experience databases.


This difference might be explained by the different level of computer competencebetween the two professions.

Doctors (specialists) was the profession with most formal requirements to updat-ing knowledge, but they still relied on sharing within the workplace as well.

5.1.3 Influential factors

This section discusses the factors that might influence the process of acquiringand sharing knowledge. These factors include choice of subject and method whenacquiring knowledge.

Personal interest

In both the SE companies and lawyer firms, it seemed that employees often hadone or two areas of expertise they put extra effort into. Employees take pride instaying up-to-date within these areas, and other people within the organizationknows who to contact if they have related questions. One of the SD explainedthis with the nature of consultants. People like being experts, and that affectshow and when they learn. This was mentioned by both SDs and lawyers.

All of the respondents reported that they usually acquire knowledge when needed,agreeing with [13] mentioned in chapter 2.4. The reason might be that theyconsider the information most valuable when they see the immediate benefitsfrom it, but it may also be because of the lack of time to spend on learning. Oneof the lawyers explicitly mentioned lack of time as the reason why most of hislearning happened ”when needed.”

The areas which they considered their ”expert-areas” was treated a bit different.First of all, these areas were usually found particularly interesting compared tothe other areas of knowledge they were familiar with, and several respondentsreported that they did not mind spending their spare time on staying up-to-date. This meaning that they did not necessarily wait until they needed theinformation, before learning it.

Formal requirements

Concerning formal requirements to learning, both lawyers and doctors had expe-rience regarding expert knowledge and this was considered to be good, as it gave

5.2. Evaluation 33

them time and occasion to update relevant knowledge. The fact that the subjectwas up to them was important.

Doctors have specific requirements to become or stay a specialist and this wasconsidered positive, as it ”forced” you to stay up-to-date.

Knowledge erosion

Much of the literature within Knowledge Management mention knowledge ero-sion as an important factor to consider in handling knowledge. Neither the SEcompany nor the lawyers mentioned this explicitly. When asked, a SD said thatthey were aware of it, but not much was done to avoid it. The health senter thatparticipated in the interviews stated that knowledge sharing was intentionallyused in order for one doctor to handle another’s patients.

5.2 Evaluation

This section consists of an evaluation of the research process and a discussion ofthe validity of the study. Concluding the chapter is an evaluation of the overallresults.

5.2.1 Research process

The goal of the empirical study performed in this project was to get an impressionof how different professions handle expert knowledge. Presented here is an evalu-ation of the of the research process, including research method, sample selectionand analysis of the results.

Research method

After choosing face-to-face interviews with an interview guide, I compiled a list ofcompanies I considered relevant for my project. I limited my list to companies inTrondheim because of the limited time. I contacted the companies by email witha follow-up phone call one or two days later. In the first emails I sent I asked foran interview with three of four employees, with about an hour per person. Thiswas, in later emails, adjusted to 20 minutes per person as I realized that very fewhad one hour to spare.


The response from the companies was moderate, and I realized that I might havebeen too critical in compiling the list. If contacting more companies, even thoughtheir relevance would fall, would have resulted in a larger sample, this should havebeen done.

Because the number of interviews was so limited, analysing by listening to therecordings and taking notes was sufficient. Other analysis methods considered,see chapter 3.2.2, would have taken much more time and would not have providedany better result.

5.2.2 Validity

Wohlin et. al. [27] presents four types of validity:

• Conclusion validity

• Internal validity

• Construct validity

• External validity

This project was meant to be a prestudy which might be continued in a Masterthesis. The empirical research was therefore designed to give an overall impressionof the situation in the selected sample. The research was not meant to test anyhypothesis, so statistical relations were not prioritized. With this in mind, andthe fact that my research consisted of unstructured interviews, I do not considerConclusion validity and Construct validity important.

I will therefore focus on the Internal- and External validity, but I will first discussthe size of the sample.

Sample size

I ended up interviewing three different professions as planned, but I had problemsgetting in touch with people that had time to participate in my study. I inter-viewed a total of 12 persons. Seven of these were lawyers, working in two differentsections of the public sector (4 and 3 respectively), 4 Software Developers in twodifferent companies (3 and 1 respectively) and only 1 doctor. The size of thesample limits the basis on which I can draw any conlusions in my project, butI still think it gave me an overall impression of how KM is handled in differentprofessions.

5.2. Evaluation 35

Internal validity

The threats to the internal validity I consider relevant to my research are:

• TestingThe respondents participating in my research were aware that they wherepart of a study concerning acquiring and sharing expert knowledge. Allthe participants considered updating and sharing knowledge a critical partof their job, and this might lead to answers that ”sounds good.” Since myresearch only consisted of one interview per person, learning was not athreat.

• InstrumentationThe interview guide might have lead to leading questions (fishing), influ-enced by the literature study I performed in advance.

Even though I focused on the experience of each interviewee, most of the ques-tions asked concerned the community which each participant was a part of. Thecompanies/departments that participated in the research, with the exception ofone, all had less than 25 employees. I therefore consider the questions concerningmethods and organization of learning and sharing relevant for the whole com-pany, despite the limited sample size. The fact that the respondents participatedvoluntarily might mean that they considered the subject interesting and that theanswers were well reflected.

External validity

The threats to the external validity I consider relevant to my research are:

• SelectionThe companies that took time to participate in the research might be focusmore on the subject than other companies. This might mean that theresults of each profession is not representative for other companies in thatline of business.

5.2.3 Results

I consider the biggest threat to the results of my research the small sample ofrespondents. Despite this I still consider my research valuable as it has given mean impression of how expert knowledge is handled in different professions.

Chapter6Conclusion and Further work

This project was meant to explore the differences of knowledge acquisition andsharing in knowledge intensive businesses with focus on expert knowledge. Iinterviewed representatives from three different professions namely Software De-velopers, Lawyers and Doctors. Through these interviews I have gotten an ideaof how expert knowledge is handled in the three different professions. All threeprofessions were very aware of the need for expert knowledge and acknowledgedthe importance of staying up to date in the relevant areas. They also consideredtheir co-workers valuable assets when it came to learning. All stated that sharingknowledge in a work place is important.

The motivation for learning was also something they all had in common. They allfocused on the personal aspects of learning. Learning increased self-esteem, madethem independent and increased work satisfaction. Although they all consideredsharing knowledge important, little attention was paid to organizational learning.One reason might be that this expression is not common outside the scope ofknowledge management. Another reason may be that it is considered a termonly existing in theory.

The choice of expert knowledge was closely related to personal interest. Thiswas mentioned more explicitly by the lawyers and the software developer. Up-dating knowledge within these ”expert areas” was often done when they had thetime compared to when-needed which was most common for all other areas ofknowledge. This often meant using spare time.

Further work

Considering this was an explorative prestudy, further work could be to look morespecifically at one tool or technique to acquire and/or share expert knowledge.Since the motivation for learning seemed to be similar in all three professions,one might focus on a technique relevant for several professions, not just SoftwareEngineering.

37

AppendixAInterview Guide

Acquiring and sharing knowledge in a knowledge intensiveindustry

Facts about the company:Name:Size:

Facts about the respondent:Name:Education:Years in this job:Years worked in total:

Intro-question

When you first started working here, what kind of expert knowledge didyou have, and what did you have to learn?

Q1 The significanse of (staying up-to-date on) expert knowledge

Q1.1 How important is expert knowledge for this company? Why?

Q1.2 How important is acquiring expert knowledge for you? Why?

Q1.3 What would be the consequence of not staying updated on the neededexpert knowledge, both for you and your company? Why?

Q2 The significanse of knowledge sharing in a workenvironment

Q2.1 How important is knowledge sharing in the workenvironment for you?Why?

Q2.2 What are the effects of being able to share knowledge with yourcolleagues?

39

40 Chapter A. Interview Guide

Q3 Methods used to acquire and share knowledge

Q3.1 What methods/techniques are used to share and acquire knowledgein this company? Why? (the following list are just suggestions)

• Courses

• ”On-the-job training”

• Mentor programs

• Quality assurance systems

• Experience databases

• Informal personal interaction

Q3.2 Are there certain periods, for example during calm periods, wherethere is extra focus on learning, or does it happen when needed?

Q3.3 How much is up to you when deciding what and when to learn?

Q4 What is the importance of organized learningmethods?

Q4.1 Are there formal requirements to updating knowledge in your job?Where do these requirements come from? How does that affect yourjob?

Q4.2 Did you have formal requirements to relevant work practice as a partof, or as an extension of, your education? What effect did this have?

Q4.3 Do you consider expert knowledge an important part of an education?

Bibliography

[1] M. Barchan. Capture knowledge. Executive Exellence, page 11, September1999.

[2] V. Benjamins, D. Fensel, and A. Perez. Knowledge management throughontologies. In: Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Software Engi-neering and Knowledge Engineering, Kaiserslautern, Germany, June, 1999.

[3] Finn Olav Bjørnson and Torgeir Dingsøyr. A study of a mentoring programfor knowledge transfer in a small software consultancy company. In FrankBomarius and Seija Komi-Sirvio (Eds.): Proc. 6th International Conferenceon Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES’2005), 13-16June, 2005, Oulu, Finland, 588 pages, Springer LNCS 3547, ISBN 3-540-26200-8, ISSN 0302-9743, pp. 245-256.

[4] John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. Organizational learning andcommunities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and in-novation. Organization Science, 2(1):40–57, 1991.

[5] Reidar Conradi and Tore Dyba. An empirical study on the utility of formalroutines to transfer knowledge and experience. In ESEC / SIGSOFT FSE,pages 268–276, 2001.

[6] Reidar Conradi, Mikael Lindvall, and Carolyn Seaman. Success Factorsfor Software Experience Bases: What we need to learn from other disci-plines. p. 113-119, In Janice Singer, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Susan ElliotSim (Eds.): Proc. ICSE’2000 Workshop on ”Beg, Borrow or Steal: UsingMultidisciplinary Approaches in Empirical Software Engineering Research ”,Limerick, Ireland, 5 June 2000. SU-report 8/2000.

[7] B. Curtis, H Krasner, and N Iscoe. A feild study of the software designprocess for large systems. volume 31, pages 1268–1289, 1988.

[8] Ricardo de Almeida Falbo and Ana Candida Cruz Natali. Knowledge man-agement in software engineering environments. 2002.

41

42 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[9] Premkumar T. Devanbu, Ronald J. Brachman, Peter G. Selfridge, andBruce W. Ballard. Lassie: a knowledge-based software information system.In International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 249–261, 1990.

[10] Torgeir Dingsøyr and Reidar Conradi. A survey of case studies of the useof knowledge management in software engineering. International Journal ofSoftware Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 12(4):391–414, 2002.

[11] Torgeir Dingsøyr and Emil Røyrvik. An empirical study of an informalknowledge repository in a medium-sized software consulting company. InICSE, pages 84–92, 2003.

[12] James D. Herbsleb, Audris Mockus, Thomas A. Finholt, and Rebecca E.Grinter. An empirical study of global software development: distance andspeed. In ICSE ’01: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference onSoftware Engineering, pages 81–90, Washington, DC, USA, 2001. IEEEComputer Society.

[13] Marjo Kauppinen, Matti Vartiainen, Jyrki Kontio, Sari Kujala, and ReijoSulonen. Implementing requirements engineering processes throughout or-ganizations: success factors and challenges. Information & Software Tech-nology, 46(14):937–953, 2004.

[14] R. E. Kraut, R. S. Fish, R.W. Root, and B.L. Chalfonte. Informal commu-nication in organizations: Form, function, and technology. pages 145–199,1990. In S. Oskamp & S. Spacapan (Eds)., Human Reactions to Technology:The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications.

[15] Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The dynamic firm. The role of tech-nology, strategy, organization and regions. Oxford University Press, 1995.

[16] Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The knowledge-creating company.Oxford University Press, 1995.

[17] Stig Nordheim and Maung K. Sein. Application domain competence in soft-ware requirements: deconstructing a unified approach. In SIGCPR ’02:Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnelresearch, pages 96–99. ACM Press, 2002.

[18] Daniel E. O’Leary. Enterprise knowledge management. Computer, 31(3):54–61, 1998.

[19] Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus. 1995.

[20] Dewayne E. Perry, Nancy A. Staudenmayer, and Lawrence G. Votta. People,organizations, and process improvement. IEEE Software, 11(4):36–45, 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 43

[21] Iona Rus, Mikael Lindvall, and Sachin Suman Sinha. Knowledge manage-ment in software engineering, a state-of-the-art-report, 2001.

[22] Amrit Tiwana. An empirical study of the effect of knowledge integrationon software development performance. Information & Software Technology,46(13):899–906, 2004.

[23] Diane B. Walz, Joyce J. Elam, and Bill Curtis. Inside a software designteam: Knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration. Commun. ACM,36(10):63–77, 1993.

[24] Anja Wickert and Richard Herschel. Knowldege-management issues forsmaller businesses. Journal of knowledge management, 5(4):329–337, 2001.

[25] K.M. Wiig. Knowledge management methods. page 489. Schema Press,1995.

[26] www.wikipedia.org.

[27] Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martion Host, Magnus C. Ohlsson, Bjorn Reg-nell, and Anders Wesslen. Experimentation in Software Engineering. KluwerAcademic Publishers, 2000.

www.wikipedia.org

acquiring and sharing expert knowledge · 4.1 q1 - signiﬁcance of (staying up-to-date on) expert...

Documents