knowledge sharing dan inovative behavior.pdf

7/27/2019 Knowledge sharing dan Inovative behavior.pdf

1/23

Knowledge sharing throughinter-organizational

knowledge networksChallenges and opportunitiesin the United Arab Emirates

Norita Ahmad and Abdelkader DaghfousDepartment of Management Information Systems,

School of Business and Management, American University of Sharjah,Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the business sector in the United Arab Emirates(UAE) based on their level of involvement in knowledge-sharing activities with external sources,internal organizational innovations, and the barriers and benefits of joining knowledge networks.Subsequently, the findings are used as a basis for proposing several recommendations on managingknowledge in the UAE businesses that could result in higher levels of motivation and productivity.

Design/methodology/approach An exploratory investigation is done by in-depth interviewswith the employees of five local and eight multinational companies in the UAE.

Findings The paper finds that the concept of knowledge management (KM) is still not well receivedin this region. Most of the companies interviewed are concerned about confidentiality of theirknowledge, and the presence of competent and trustworthy partners in such KM structures.

Research limitations/implications The findings provide a foundation for further research oninter-organizational knowledge sharing in the UAE. However, this study has certain limitations suchthat its results may not be applicable to other industrial sectors not covered in this paper, or to otherregions.

Originality/value By using the case study approach with in-depth interviews, this paper providesmore reliable understanding of inter-organizational KM in the UAE. It fills the gap of previousresearch on the subject.

Keywords Middle East, Knowledge sharing, Innovation, Knowledge management,United Arab Emirates

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe fast growth of new companies in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) region and theincreasing diversification of operations by many large local corporations have createda situation where businesses are not effectively sharing internal learning andexperience. Effective knowledge management (KM) that includes a range of practicesto identify, create, represent, and distribute knowledge within a company, couldprovide a vital resource for organizations as they move forward.

Many firms in emerging markets are increasingly aware of the advantagesof sustaining the process and sources of generating new knowledge (Pisano et al.,2007); and that the collective value of knowledge assets increases with sharing

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-534X.htm

Knowledgsharin

15

Received 31 March 20Revised 25 June 200

20 July 20Accepted 10 August 200

European Business Revi

Vol. 22 No. 2, 20

pp. 153-1

q Emerald Group Publishing Limi

0955-53

DOI 10.1108/095553410110235


2/23

(Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Prior research has shown that external opportunitiessuch as consortiums and industry clusters (Porter, 1998; Todt et al., 2007; Muller, 2002;Brette and Chappoz, 2007) do have a significant impact in helping various companiesseek new innovative ways to enhance their knowledge and in return improve their

organizational performance. As firms recognize the limitations of what can be done inisolation, many have already formed collaborative initiatives like the World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development (Senge et al., 2007). Moreover, the need toinnovate has led companies to tap various external sources, such as industry clusters,networks, consortiums, technological, and science parks. On the cost side, such openbusiness models (Chesbrough, 2007) leverage external knowledge resources to savetime and money in the innovation process. Meanwhile, on the revenue side firms couldgenerate different streams of income by participating in other market segmentsthrough licensing fees, joint ventures, and even spin-offs.

Recent years have seen the UAE region experience significant local and foreigninvestment in infrastructure, telecommunications, information technology (IT),tourism, and hospitality-related industries. However, local businesses have beenvery traditional and conservative in terms of integrating KM approaches into theirbusiness processes (Al-Shammari, 2008; Bontis, 2002; Daghfous and Barkhi, 2009;Hutchings and Weir, 2006). This could be due to the fact that local businesses usuallyhave difficulties in locating the knowledge that resides within the organization becauseof increasing scale of operations. Therefore, there is an inability in local businesses tolocate, transfer, and share knowledge that could help in innovation.

The purpose of this study is to examine companies in the UAE with years of practiceand considerable understanding of running a business in the region in order to find out thedegree at which companies recognize KM as a source of sustainable competitiveadvantage, and how they apply it, what techniques or tools used to practice this conceptand what the role of knowledge networks is in this region if they do exist. In addition, the

study shows how decisions, behaviors, and practices are made in 13 different companies(local and multinational) regarding sources of knowledge, innovation, and externallearning opportunities. These companies will be analyzed based on their level ofinvolvement in knowledge-sharing activities with external sources, internalorganizational innovations, and the barriers and benefits of joining knowledge network.Finally, our findings and conclusions will be used as a basis for proposing severalrecommendations for the industry that illustrates the KM process within the UAE.

Literature reviewThere exist many different perspectives on knowledge in the literature. Some researchersview knowledge as an object (Carlsson et al., 1996; McQueen, 1998; Zack, 1998) whereasothers look at knowledge as a process (Schubert etal., 1998).In theIT literature, knowledge

is often defined as authenticated information (Dretske, 1981; Machlup, 1980; Vance, 1997;Fahey and Prusak, 1998; Stewart, 1998). In general, knowledge can be described as a stateof knowing that constitutes facts, concepts, principles, laws, casual relationships, insights,

judgments, intuition, and feelings (Carlsson et al., 1996; Schubert et al., 1998; McQueen,1998; Zack, 1998; Koenig and Srikantaiah, 2004).

In order to remain on top and maintain a competitive edge, companies musthave a good strategy to retain, develop, organize, transfer, and utilize their resources.This requires systematic KM, which has a significant influence on a firms strategy

EBR22,2

154


3/23

formulation and implementation (Grant, 1996; Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Zander andKogut, 1995). KM is normally perceived as management intention to create, transfer,and interpret new knowledge within the existing knowledge to improve decisionmaking and increase innovation of the organization (Brown and Duguid, 2000; Nonaka

and Takeuchi, 1995; Davenport and Prusak, 1998). New knowledge is often created,shared and justified through interaction with the environment, as well as throughsocial and collaborative processes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Bhatt, 2001). It involvesgenerating new process or replacing existing process within the organizations tacitand explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). It is therefore important for organization toconsider the conditions and environments that facilitate new knowledge creation.

If an organization wants to increase performance of knowledge creation and alsoleverage knowledge, then knowledge transfer is necessary (Vance and Eynon, 1998;Hansen et al., 2005). Knowledge transfer is the process in which a unit of an organization isimpacted by the experience or the know-how of another unit. It is described as theactivities that are concerned with the generation, use, application and exploitation ofknowledge, and other capabilities outside the organization environments (Davenport andPrusak, 1998). Knowledge transfer can be practiced in two areas: externally or internally.Companies usually engage themselves in external knowledge-transfer activitiessuch as training sessions, workshops, seminars, consulting, research and development(R&D) activities, university courses, conferences, trade shows, government extensionprograms, and consortiums. On the other hand, companies also engage themselves ininternal activities of knowledge transfer such as in house training sessions, mentoring anddepartmental reporting. Such activities contribute to knowledge transfer since they addvalue of the organization (Hansen et al., 2005).

There are several enhancers that would lead to accuracy, efficiency and speed ofknowledge transfer. An example would be a liaison where a person is located in a certainbusiness division and rotates amongst other divisions to asses business practices, look

at other ways of performing business processes, represents to them his/her ownexperience and business solutions, and transfers this knowledge back to his/her ownoriginal division to generate new knowledge and come up with new ideas to suite his/herdivisions needs and overall business requirements (Schwartz, 2007). Another exampleof knowledge transfer, sharing, and generation enhancers are assignees, seminars,workshops, training, and technical support since they involve sharing of expertise,experience, and skills of others (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Schwartz, 2007).

Earlier studies have shown that many organizations already achieve significantbenefits through knowledge-sharing activities, for example, Toyota (Dyer and Nobeoka,2000), Texas Instruments, Dow Chemical (ODell et al., 1999; Shin, 2004), Ford (McDermottand ODell, 2001), IKEA (Jonsson and Elg, 2006), and Zara (Hines, 2004; Mazaira et al.,2003). These authors also discussed some key enhancers for sharing knowledge, namely

competitiveness, visibility, and flexibility. In addition, some literatures give goodoverview of the barriers and enhancers for knowledge sharing (Hansen etal., 1999; Nonakaand Takeuchi, 1995; Szulanski, 2003; Brown and Duguid, 2000, 2001; Davenport et al.,1998; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Hansen, 1999; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; ODelland Grayson, 1998).

It has become common for most knowledge-intensive organizations to participate incollaborative innovation network (Chesbrough, 2003). Innovations (product, process,organizational, or strategic) are increasingly involving a multitude of networks

Knowledgsharin

15


4/23

of knowledge-driven organizations. The extensive literature on industrial clusters,science and technology parks, knowledge marketplaces, communities of practice, andR&D consortia has provided significant evidence of the benefits of such knowledgenetworks (Al-Shammari, 2008; Brette and Chappoz, 2007; Bush and Tiwana, 2005;

Chen and Choi, 2004; Chesbrough, 2003; Daghfous, 2004; Daghfous and Barkhi, 2009;Desouza et al., 2003; Geragthy and Desouza, 2005; Hospers, 2003; Hutchings and Weir,2006; Kafentzis et al., 2005; Lave and Wenger, 1998; Muller et al., 2002; Pisano et al.,2007; Scheel, 2002; Warkentin et al., 2001).

There are very few industry clusters, knowledge networks, and consortiums in theUAE region. One network that has been quite active and growing in Dubai, UAE isthe Supply Chain and Logistics Group (SCLG). The objective of the SCLG is to provideeducation and seminars to the participating individuals on an international scopethrough partnerships and alliances. An example of a consortium that exists here inDubai, UAE is the Dubai Health Care City (DHCC). DHCC is a center of excellence formedical services specialists, medical education, and life science research andtechnology implementation in health care services in the Middle East. Currently, Dubaiis implementing Mohammed Bin Rashid Technology Park, reinforcing Dubais roleas the primary regional technological and scientific hub. Its main objective is tosupport local, regional and international technological and business advancements.As for industry consulting, there are two prominent groups in the area. The firstexample is the Gulf Organization of Industrial Consulting (GOIC). GOIC is based inDoha where it provides client-focused research, information, and consulting servicesfor industrial companies such as in chemicals, metals, petrochemicals, engineering, andfood sectors. The second example is the Institute of International Research (IIR) MiddleEast which is based in Dubai. The IIR organizes industry-focused conferences,seminars, specialized training programs, and industry exhibitions.

MethodologyThe case study approach is used because the concepts under study are abstract and theboundaries of this phenomenon are still unclear. This approach is sometimes describedas interpretative research (Klein and Myers, 1999). According to Benbasat et al. (1987),this approach involves only a contemporary set of events with no experimentalcontrol or manipulation. One of the main benefits of this method is that researcherscan move far beyond traditional type of questions such as what, how often orhow many to probing questions on what was done and how (Miles and Huberman,1994; Gummerson, 2008).

Research sample and data collectionThe subject organizations for this study are five local companies and eight

multinational companies in the health, hotel, IT, and insurance industries (Table I). Thecompanies were selected based on references and their reputations in the UAE. All ofthese companies are typically the major players in this region. In addition, the selectioncovered different categories of the industries that are both locals and multinational.The names of the companies were compiled and discussed by the authors until aconsensus was reached. Our key requirement for sample selection was that eachcompany was distinctive yet comparable (Gummerson, 2008). We contacted about15 companies but only 13 were able to participate. The two companies that chose not to

EBR22,2

156


5/23

Company

Background

Local/multinational

Interviewees

Healthcareindustry

1

Hospital-M

LocatedinAbuDhabiandwascommissionedbythe

MinistryofHealthin1983

Local

Pediatricsurgeonandch

iefof

continuousmedicaleduc

ation

2

Hospital-W

LocatedinDubaiandwasestablishedin1984

Multinational

Purchasingmanager

Insurance

3

Insurance-A

Oneofthelargestlifeinsurancecompaniesinthe

world.

LicensedintheUAEin1962

Multinational

Generalmanager

4

Insurance-E

RegisteredinBahrainandtheUAE.T

hefirstinsurer

toselldirectlyonline

Multinational

Generalmanager

5

Insurance-B

EstablishedinSharjah,

UAEin

1978.

Oneofthe

leadinginsurancecompaniesin

theregion

Local

Generalmanager

Hotel

6

Hotel-R

OpenedinDubaiin1998andbecameoneofthemost

successfulmembersofitshotel

chain

Multinational

QualityandITmanagers

7

Hotel-M

OpenedinDubaiin1994.

Know

nasan

environmentallyfriendlyhotel

Multinational

Generalandtrainingma

nagers

Informationtechnology

8

IT-I

ThelargestITcompanyinthe

MiddleEast

Multinational

Productmanager

9

IT-O

Theleadingmarketshareinall

areasofitsbusiness

includingdatabaseandapplicationssoftware

Multinational

Productmanager

10

IT-M

MaincompetitorforfirmsIT-IandIT-O.

Main

operationsinDubaiaremarketingandsales

Multinational

Marketingmanager

Familybusiness

11

FamilyB-GGroup

Offerservicesininfrastructure

development,

manufacturing,

trading,retail,e

ventmanagement,

andtourism

Local

AssistantITdirector

12

FamilyB-KGroup

Offerservicesinshipping,

travel,machinery,

logistics,c

hemicals,exhibitions,power,cargoandoil

andgas

Local

Deputychairman

13

FamilyB-BGroup

Specializesinhealthcare,medical,pharmaceutical

supplies,veterinarycare.A

lsoofferservicesintravel

andtourism,engineeringandm

anufacturing

Local

GeneralmanagerandBo

ardmember

TableCase study companietheir background, an

interviewe

Knowledgsharin

15


6/23

participate were both local family business companies. Both companies indicatedthat they were not ready to participate now but would consider participating insimilar studies in the future. Despite the small number of companies selected, it isimportant to note that the results obtained represent a broad cross-section of sample

(Appendix 1).Data were obtained mostly by personal, in-depth and onsite interviews, followed by

e-mail and telephone conversations with key players of the companies. All participantswere promised anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. Interviews wereusually conducted in pairs, which allowed one researcher to conduct the interview andanother to take notes and record the interview. Each interview was either tape recordedor recorded on paper for transcription and analysis. All communications that weredone through e-mails were saved and all telephone conversations were recorded aswell. All of the interview questions were open-ended and exploratory (see Appendix 2for detail). It should be noted that the questions were kept deliberately broad to allowthe interviewees as much freedom and flexibility in their answers as possible.

Data analysisThe analysis of interview data was carried out in the following steps. First, weperformed write-ups of each case (within-case analysis) and then we performedcross-case analysis where we looked for cross-case patterns. We summarized the databy pulling together themes and identifying patterns based on their credibility,conformability, dependability, and transferability, as widely used by many researchersin qualitative research (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991; Guba and Lincoln, 1994;Gummerson, 2008; Miles and Huberman, 1994). Appendix 3 shows sample of thesummarized data. In order to improve the validity of our data analysis and eliminatebias, we then write an initial report that was sent to each interviewee for review.

Results and analysis: within and cross-case analysisFrom the interviews, we try to explain whether companies in the UAE implement theconcept of KM and analyze their recognition of its importance when it is embedded intheir departments and processes. In addition, the study focuses on how thesecompanies generate, codify and transfer their work-related knowledge and find outwhether these companies participate in any of the well-known consortiums such ascustomer relationship management (CRM), supply chain management (SCM), KM ortotal quality management (TQM) consortiums.

We first look at knowledge-sharing activities that includes both external sources ofknowledge and internal organizational innovations within the healthcare, insurance,hotel, IT, and family business industry. We then, compare these activities among theindustries to explore and identify potential differences. In addition, we compare the

result of our exploratory investigation of the perception of the local versusmultinational companies with respect to the expected benefits and concerns aboutparticipating in an SCM, CRM or similar knowledge networks.

Knowledge sharing in healthcare industryIn the healthcare industry, we found that both hospitals, local and multinational,consider the external learning opportunities beneficial and vital for improving the SCMand acting as a catalyst for innovation. In addition, both hospitals carry the same

EBR22,2

158


7/23

methodology in their supply chain processes and believe that IT and managementsupport can be key elements in contributing to new improvements and innovation.

In terms of their differences, Hospital-M mentioned that it depends on thegovernmental support to facilitate learning opportunities for innovation in different

organizational areas, but not necessarily supply chain processes. In addition, there is aneed for an assurance of trust between various consortium members in order for thehospital to share their knowledge and gain new ideas in supply chain areas. Whereas,Hospital-W identified confidentiality as a vital issue or a barrier for participating in allsorts of external sources available. The level of openness and willingness to discloseinformation and knowledge in order to prevent any damage to the hospitals image orstand within the industry is an essential argument made by Hospital-W.

Knowledge sharing in insurance industryIn the insurance industry, we found that the concept of KM was not recognized as a formalmanagement practice although managers realized its importance as a key to success andinnovation. The companies viewed KM as a capital-intensive investment that requiresmore than just the availability of human capital and the infrastructure but accumulatedeffort that results from continuous collaboration between the industries, universities andresearch centers. They are aware of the importance of the best practices, but theyconsidered KM as a secondary approach to organizational success. These companies aresatisfied with their available knowledge and do not focus on new techniques or methods togenerate new knowledge. The reason behind this is that these companies are pleased withtheir financial success and are not searching for other innovative factors to improve theircurrent situation. In this case, we can clearly see that success is the enemy of innovationand development, which means that their core capability within time might be convertedinto core rigidity (Davenport and Prusak, 1998).

Knowledge sharing in the hotel industryBoth Hotel-R and Hotel-M agree that they can gain more knowledge by participating inconsortiums or similar initiatives. They expect to gain advantage from participating asthey are hoping it would reduce their costs, in terms of quality control and research,as well as, boost their profits. However, they prefer to wait for others to initiate thecreation of such network and see how it goes rather than being lead users becausethey are afraid that if it fails, they would have to incur the costs of such failure.According to the General Manager at Hotel-M, Dubai is booming, its not stable, sotaking an initiative is very hard and risky.

Both Hotel-R and Hotel-M have a strong motivation for R&D. The only barriers aretime and cultural differences. They do not have the time to get involved in externalactivities, and invest in other asset that they feel will generate higher returns, including

knowledge network. In addition, a strong competitive in-group culture exists withinpeople in the UAE forming cultural and organizational gaps between local andmultinational companies (Al-Shammari, 2008; Hutchings and Weir, 2006).

Knowledge sharing in the IT industryWe analyzed our data to search for possible reason as to why the three IT companieswould join (or not), a consortium, science park or information cluster. Our findingsshow a common trend amongst these three IT companies. Many of them were reluctant

Knowledgsharin

159


8/23

to talk about their companys future plans, which is quite understandable. We alsolearned that the IT companies would only participate in consortiums or science parks ifthe government plays a strong role in it. They believe that the government should be afacilitator of technological change or an enabler of economic development.

In addition to government involvement, these companies also expressed someconcerns about the benefits, location, and facilities provided by the consortium orscience park. They believe that consortiums dedicated directly towards CRM, SCM,TQM, and Six Sigma are all but text book material now. As indicated by the ProductManager of company IT-I, Most consortiums and technology parks are dedicated totheories and studies that are not attractive to us. Therefore, we can see that thesecompanies are looking for something that is practical, that can add value to theircompanies. Since all of these companies based their work and performance onexperience and tacit knowledge, participating in consortiums and technology parkswould have to be based on the anticipated benefits and who else is participating inthem.

Knowledge sharing in family businessesAn issue that was highlighted by the family business companies is the lack of trustamong the different firms in the industry. The why should I tell you? mentalityresults in a knowledge-hoarding culture, and several lost opportunities fordevelopment and improvement. This mentality is supported by the absence of aclear pricing system for the value of knowledge in organizations and industries. Bothgroups thought of pricing systems as mainly monetary and not reciprocal, repute andaltruism. Based on our analysis, companies did not possess the necessary trust in theseknowledge sources (consortiums, clusters, technology parks, and networks), becausethey did not possess a comprehensive understanding of these structures, and theorganizational benefits each of these structures offers. All the three companies we had

consulted also demonstrated increased focus on internal sources of knowledge ratherthan external sources. In terms of patents and intellectual property rights in the UAE, alot has been done to protect patent owners. The governmental offices began acceptingpatent applications in 1998, and applications currently take between 18 and 24 monthsto be processed. Thus, patent rights do exist in the UAE; however, based on ourinterviews, they are still ineffective and place a hindering effect on organizationaltechnological advancements and development.

Knowledge sharing: across industriesOur findings clearly suggest that the competitive approach in the UAE companiesreduced the level of trust among competing individuals and institutions. However, wecan see this competitive nature is more transparent in some industries such as the

insurance, and family business industry. As a result, these companies are not willing toshare information, ideas, and knowledge or even collaborate with other companies inthe same industry or even cross-industries. Table II summarizes our findings onattitudes towards knowledge sharing among the industries.

From Table II, we can see that the insurance and family business industries are notwilling to participate in knowledge network. They have an afraid to lose mentalitywhere they believe that sharing knowledge would make them loose their competitiveness.In addition, we can also see from the interviews (Appendix 3) that the employees of these

EBR22,2

160


9/23

companies are concerned about career advancement and performance appraisals.

Therefore, we can assume that employees in these companies are used to working withpeople with similar mindset or a culture with similar ideas and thinking.

Knowledge sharing: local vs multinational companiesIn this section, we compare the results of our exploratory investigation of the perceptionof the companies (local vs multinational) studied with respect to the expected benefitsand concerns about participating in an SCM, CRM or similar knowledge networks. Theresults show considerable differences between KM attitudes in local and multinationalcompanies. One of the most important challenges in the UAE related to local firmsparticipation in knowledge network, such as research consortiums, is that companies arenot motivated to initiate consortiums, and they seem to have inadequate knowledgeabout how consortiums work.

Overall, we can conclude from Table III that both multinational and local companiesthat we interviewed are very concerned about CRM. Therefore, most of them are willing to

join knowledge network if they could get exposure to new knowledge on how to increasecustomer intimacy. Based on the interviews with the local companies, we found that theytend to depend on outside foreign sources when it comes to innovation. Instead ofparticipating in knowledge network, they seem to learn from other established examplesof processes and try to implement them in their companies by tailoring and customizingthe needs and requirements of the local market and its trends. These companies also tendto look at the regional problems and try to predict some solutions for them.

Local companies were somewhat reluctant to collaborate or participate in theknowledge network because they were concerned about trust, privacy, and absence oflegal constraints regarding privacy and intellectual property rights. A clear pattern that

we infer from Table III is that all the local companies see trust as the main barrier orconcern for them to join knowledge network. These companies believed that although theUAE is a rapidly growing market, it also faces intense rivalry which results in lack of trustin sharing and collaborating resources and knowledge. The local companies were alsoworried about losing ownership of ideas and losing control of information. Consequently,this had a negative impact on the flow of information, ideas, and knowledge among localcompanies as well as between local and multinational companies in the UAE, hencereducing levels of collaboration and limiting potential innovations.

Industry Perceptions on collaboration/knowledge sharingParticipate inknowledge network?

Healthcare Believes that knowledge sharing enhances their

relationships with colleagues and increases theirproductivity and innovation

Yes

Insurance Believes that by sharing knowledge they would losetheir competitive edge

Unlikely

Hotel Believes that knowledge sharing is helpful inenhancing their competitive edge

Yes

IT Believes that collaboration is helpful if it is doneproperly

Yes

Family business Believes that knowledge is power therefore theyshould not share it with anyone

Unlikely

Table IAttitudes toward

knowledge sharinamong the industri

Knowledgsharin

16


10/23

Our findings suggest that multinational companies are very conscious about the timeand resources spent on knowledge-sharing activities. They were also concerned aboutthe level of commitment of those participating in the network which could havenegative impact on their personal productivity. In general, these companies believedthat the government has an important role in the development and implementation ofknowledge network to promote innovation in the UAE culture, create an environmentwhere knowledge networks can evolve, and enhance the links between educationalresearch and innovation.

Discussion and implicationsThe concept of KM is still not well received in the companies that we interviewed. It isviewed as a capital-intensive investment that requires more than just the availability ofhuman capital and the requisite infrastructure. All of the local companies interviewedseem to be aware of the importance of various best practices, but they still consider KMas a secondary approach to organizational success. They seem satisfied with theavailable knowledge. They do not show significant interest and focus on implementingnew techniques or methods to create and generate new knowledge. In addition, most of

Companyname Expected Benefits Concern

Multinational companies

Hospital W SCM/TQM/CRM: broader contacts, andenhance knowledge

Time, privacy. and intellectual propertyrights

Insurance A CRM focus: learning and innovation Lack of basic infrastructure, governmentscontribution either as a facilitator or as afunds provider, specialized academicinstitutions, and research centers

Insurance E CRM focus: innovation and new skills forthe employees

Time consuming, expensive, and lack ofqualified and experienced human capitalto successfully build the network

Hotel R CRM/TQM/SCM: to achieve best practices Time, privacy, intellectual property rights,and cultural barrier

Hotel M CRM/TQM/SCM: R&D Time and cultural barrierIT-I CRM: gain fresh young knowledge Location and facilities provided by the

networkIT-O CRM/SCM: research and innovation Too theory orientedIT-M CRM: image, localization, and lower R&D

costLack of participation from companies

Local companiesHospital M SCM/CRM: exposure, support, new ideas,

and innovationNot enough support and lack of trust

Insurance B CRM: reduce risk and achieve best practice Time and lack of trustFamilyB-G CRM/SCM/TQM/KM: research and

innovative developmentPrivacy and lack of trust in sharing andcollaborating resources and knowledge

FamilyB-K CRM/SCM/TQM: innovation andimproving employee advancement

Competency and lack of trust and absenceof legal constraints regarding privacy andintellectual property rights

FamilyB-B CRM/TQM: innovation and knowledge

sharing

Lack of trust and intellectual property

rights

Table III.Expected benefits andconcerns of UAEcompanies towards

knowledge network

EBR22,2

162


11/23

the companies interviewed are also concerned about confidentiality of their knowledge,on how much of it requires disclosure of classified information and how much of that isopen and reveal. In general, they do not trust the network.

Implications for researchThe first step towards eliminating the lack of trust requires a comprehensiveunderstanding of the sustainable competitive advantage and long-term superiorperformance offered by KM practices. Before overcoming traditional and culturalbarriers to knowledge sharing, the necessary knowledge market price system has to beestablished to ensure the presence of an adequate incentive and reward system.Furthermore, governmental intervention in terms of instituting the necessaryintellectual property and patenting law enforcements should be initiated to ensure thenecessary protection for any knowledge seller or innovator. In order to enhance trust inthese companies, government should have strong leaders who can promote the cultureof information and knowledge sharing. Achieving healthy levels of trust among the

local companies requires developing locally grown systems of collaboration andalliance formation in R&D.KM practices require the collaboration and presence of related and supporting

industries. The presence of external sources such as local consortiums or industry clustersis necessary for innovation to take place, creates a positive macro-environmental factor.Furthermore, the presence of competent and trustworthy partners that are willing tocollaborate in such KM structures is of great importance.

Finally, The UAE market is a growing market, both vertically and horizontallygiving organizations virtually unlimited opportunities for growth. Furthermore, thedemand imposed by local customers is of a complex nature, whereby innovativeproducts, new ideas and differentiated services are constantly appreciated by thecustomers in the region. Hence, the factors discussed above constitute a starting point

for creating a positive external macro-environment for external and internal KMpractices. Encouraging organizations to innovate is a complex, lengthy processinvolving operations at several levels; yet, the first step would involve introducing thebasic organizational requirements.

Implications for practiceIn general, there have to be three knowledge dimensions that serve as a guideline forsenior managers. They should be available in every organizations management so thatit can successfully implement KM. These dimensions include skills and knowledge thatshould be acquired by employees, managerial systems that should support knowledgeactivities, physical systems necessary for communication and IT purposes and finallyvalues and norms initiated by senior managers would create an environment suitable

for practicing knowledge activities (Chesbrough, 2007; Daghfous, 2004). Companiesshould also try to create knowledge networks with other participants such asuniversities and other companies in order to capture, create and transfer new andexisting knowledge. This might be attainable through consortiums, industry clusterand communities of practices.

In addition, we feel that the role of trust cannot be overemphasized. It depends onthe introduction of proper trust building measures that the government should enforceon both local and multinational companies. The UAE Government should play a more

Knowledgsharin

16


12/23

active role in building a legal environment that encourage trust among employees andpromote the culture of information and knowledge sharing. The government can startby introducing formal appraisal systems to promote and reward inter-organizationalcollaboration and sharing of ideas. Then, the companies can use a combination of

formal and informal incentive systems that encourage sharing ideas, information, andknowledge within their organization.

Limitations and future researchOur study provides a foundation for further research on inter-organizational knowledgesharing in the UAE. However, this study has certain limitations such that its results maynot be applicable to other industrial sectors not covered in this study. The study onlycovers five local companies and eight multinational companies in the health, hotel, IT,and insurance industries. Moreover, we relied solely on the perception of a fewinterviewees (key players in the companies) rather than getting a bigger number ofrepresentatives from the companies. In addition, we could also apply the use of

quantitative data such as the usage of the company resources for KM-related activities.This research may be expanded in a number of different directions. First, this

research may be expanded by using additional data by including more companiescovering a wider range of industries. Another direction is to add quantitative method toenrich the approach taken here. Alternatively, future research could develop conceptualmodels based on the qualitative evidence presented in this paper. More case studies ofexemplars and best practices would also be helpful in building normative implicationswith respect to knowledge networks implementation in this region and the underlyingstructure of government-industry-university collaboration in the Middle East. However,these cases should be complemented with quantitative empirical research that seeks tooperationalize key variables and test the proposed conceptual models.

References

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Review: knowledge management and knowledgemanagement systems: conceptual foundations and research issues,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25No. 1, pp. 107-36.

Al-Shammari, M. (2008), Toward a knowledge management strategic framework in the Arabregion, International Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 44-63.

Benbasat, I.G., Goldstein, D.K. and Mead, M. (1987), The case research strategy in studies ofinformation systems, Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3,pp. 369-86.

Bhatt, G. (2001), Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interactions betweentechnologies, techniques and people, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1,

pp. 68-75.

Bontis, N. (2002), National intellectual capital index: intellectual capital development in the Arabregion, paper presented at the 5th World Congress on Intellectual Capital, Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, January 10-12.

Brette, O. and Chappoz, Y. (2007), The French competitiveness clusters: toward a new publicpolicy for innovation and research?, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 41 No. 2, p. 391.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2000), The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

EBR22,2

164


13/23

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2001), Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective,

Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 198-213.

Bush, A. and Tiwana, A. (2005), Designing sticky knowledge networks, Communications of theACM, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 67-71.

Carlsson, S.A., El Sawy, O.A., Eriksson, I. and Raven, A. (1996), Gaining competitive advantage

through shared knowledge creation: in search of a new design theory for strategic

information systems, in Dias Coelho, J., Jelassi, T., Ko nig, W., Krcmar, H., Callaghan, R.O.

and Saaksjarvi, M. (Eds), Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on InformationSystems, Lisbon.

Chen, S. and Choi, C. (2004), Creating a knowledge-based city: the example of Hsinchu Science

Park, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 73-82.

Chesbrough, W.H. (2003), The era of open innovation, Sloan Management Review, Spring,pp. 35-41.

Chesbrough, W.H. (2007), Why companies should have open business models, SloanManagement Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 21-8.

Conner, K. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versusopportunism, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501.

Daghfous, A. (2004), Knowledge management as an organizational innovation: an absorptive

capacity perspective and a case study, International Journal of Innovation and Learning,Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 409-22.

Daghfous, A. and Barkhi, R. (2009), The strategic management of information technology in

UAE hotels: an exploratory study of TQM, SCM, and CRM implementations,

Technovation, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 588-95.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School,Boston, MA.

Davenport, T.H., DeLong, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), Successful knowledge management

projects, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 443-57.Desouza, K.C., Jayaraman, A. and Evaristo, J.R. (2003), Knowledge management in

non-collocated environments: a look at centralized vs. decentralized design approaches,

Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-36),IEEE Press, Los Alamos, CA.

Dretske, F. (1981), Knowledge and the Flow of Information, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Dyer, J .H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000), Creating and managing a high-performance

knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21No. 3, pp. 345-67.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research: An Introduction,Sage, London.

Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management,California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 265-76.

Geragthy, K. and Desouza, K. (2005), Optimizing knowledge networks, Industrial Management,Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 25-32.

Grant, R.M. (1996), Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: organizational

capability as knowledge integration, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 109-22.

Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994), Competing paradigms in qualitative research, in Denzin, N.K.

and Lincoln, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Knowledgsharin

16


14/23

Gummerson, E. (2008), Case studies, in Thorpe, R. and Holt, R. (Eds), The Sage Dictionary ofQualitative Management Research, Sage, London.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), Knowledge flows within multinational corporations,

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 473-96.

Hansen, M.T. (1999), The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge

across organizational sub-units, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 82-111.

Hansen, M.T., Mors, M. and Lovas, B. (2005), Knowledge transfer in organizations: multiple

networks, multiple phases, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 776-93.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), Whats your strategy for managing

knowledge?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.

Hines, T. (2004), Supply Chain Strategies: Customer-driven and Customer-focused,Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Hospers, G. (2003), Creative cities in Europe: urban competitiveness in the knowledge economy,

Intereconomics, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 260-9.

Hutchings, K. and Weir, D. (2006), Guanxi and Wasta: a comparative examination of the impact

of internationalisation and modernisation on traditional ways of networking in China and

the Arab world, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 141-56.

Jonsson, A. and Elg, U. (2006), Knowledge and knowledge sharing in retail internationalization:

IKEAs entry into Russia, The International Review of Retail, Distribution & ConsumerResearch, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 239-56.

Kafentzis, K., Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D. and Georgolios, P. (2005), Knowledge marketplaces:

strategic issues and business models, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,pp. 130-46.

Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999), A set of principles for conducting and evaluating

interpretative field studies in information systems, Management Information SystemsQuarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 67-94.

Koenig, M. and Srikantaiah, T. (2004), Knowledge Management Lessons Learned: What Worksand What doesnt, Information Today, Monograph Series, American Society forInformation Science and Technology, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 87-112.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge,

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.

McQueen, R. (1998), Four views of knowledge and knowledge management, in Hoadley, E. and

Benbasat, I. (Eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on InformationSystems, pp. 609-11.

Machlup, F. (1980), Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance, Vol. I,

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Mazaira, A., Gonzalez, E. and Avendano, R. (2003), The role of market orientation on company

performance through the development of sustainable competitive advantage: the

Inditex-Zara case, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 220-9.

Miles, R. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Muller, C. (2002), The evolution of the biotechnology industry in Germany, Trends inBiotechnology, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 287-90.

EBR22,2

166


15/23

Muller, R., Spiliopoulou, M. and Lenz, H.-J. (2002), Electronic marketplaces of knowledge:characteristics and sharing of knowledge, Proceedings of the International Conference on

Advances in Infrastructure for e-Business, e-Education and e-Medicine on the Internet,LAquila.

Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, OrganizationScience, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

ODell, C. and Grayson, C. (1998), If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer ofinternal best practices, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74.

ODell, C., Wiig, K. and Odem, P. (1999), Benchmarking unveils emerging knowledgemanagement strategies, Benchmarking, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 202-11.

Pisano, V., Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A. and Webb, J.W. (2007), International entrepreneurship inemerging economies: the role of social capital, knowledge development and entrepreneurialactions, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 38, pp. 11-28.

Porter, M.E. (1998), Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 76, pp. 77-90.

Scheel, C. (2002), Knowledge clusters of technological innovation systems, Journal ofKnowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 356-67.

Schubert, P., Lincke, D. and Schmid, B.A. (1998), Global knowledge medium as a virtualcommunity: the NetAcademy concept, in Hoadley, E. and Benbasat, I. (Eds), Proceedingsof the Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Baltimore, MD, August,pp. 618-20.

Schwartz, G.D. (2007), Integrating knowledge transfer and computer-mediated communication:categorizing barriers and possible responses, Knowledge Management Research &

Practice, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 249-60.

Senge, P.M., Lichtenstein, B.B., Kaeufer, K., Bradbury, H. and Carroll, J.S. (2007), Collaborating

for systemic change, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 44-53.Shin, M. (2004), A framework for evaluating economics of knowledge management systems,

Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 176-96.

Stewart, P.P. (1998), Challenges and opportunities in 1998-1999, Management Accounting,Vol. 180 No. 2, pp. 6-14.

Szulanski, G. (2003), Sticky Knowledge: Barriers to Knowing in the Firm, Sage, London.

Todt, O., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., de Lucio, I.F. and Castro-Martinez, E. (2007), The regionaldimension of innovation and the globalization of science: the case of biotechnology in aperipheral region of the European Union, R&D Management, Vol. 37 No. 1.

Vance, D. (1997), Information, knowledge and wisdom: the epistemic hierarchy andcomputer-based information system, Proceedings of the 1997 Americas Conference onInformation Systems, Indianapolis, IN, available at: http://hsb.baylor.edu/ramsower/ais.ac.97/papers/vance.htm

Vance, D. and Eynon, J. (1998), On the requirements of knowledge-transfer using IS: a schemawhereby such transfer is enhanced, in Hoadley, E. and Benbasat, I. (Eds), Proceedings ofthe Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Baltimore, MD, August,pp. 632-4.

Warkentin, M., Sugeumaran, V. and Bapna, R. (2001), E-knowledge networks forinter-organizational collaborative e-business, Logistics Information Management,Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 149-62.

Knowledgsharin

16


16/23

Zack, M. (1998), An architecture for managing explicated knowledge, Sloan ManagementReview, September, pp. 45-58.

Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (1995), Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganisational capabilities: an empirical test, Organisation Science, Vol. 6, pp. 76-92.

Further reading

Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge creating company, Harvard Business Review,November-December, pp. 96-104.

Polanyi, M. (1967), Tacit knowledge, in Prusak, L. (Ed.),Knowledge in Organizations, Chapter 7,Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.

von Krough, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000),Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

EBR22,2

168


17/23

Appendix 1

Company

Yearestablished

Local/multinational

No.ofemployees

No.ofbranches

Interviewees

No.ofyearswith

thecompany

Healthcare

1

Hospital-M

1983

Local

2,000

4

Pediatricsurgeonand

chiefofcontinuous

medicaleducation

15

2

Hospital-W

1984

Multinational

1,000

(UAE)

30,0

00

(worldwide)

6(UAE)

67(worldwide)

Purchasingmanager

10

Insurance

3

Insurance-A

1962(UAE)

1921(founded)

Multinational

1,000

(UAE)

16,0

00

(worldwide)

19(UAE)

300(worldwide)

Generalmanager

12

4

Insurance-E

1995(UAE)

1872(founded)

Multinational

1,000

(UAE)

30,0

00(worldwide)

16(UAE)

150

(worldwid

e)

Generalmanager

10

5

Insurance-B

1978

Local

1,000

13

Generalmanager

20

Hotel

6

Hotel-R

1998(UAE)

1927(founded)

Multinational

300

(UAE)

35,0

00

(worldwide)

3(UAE)

72(worldwide)

QualityandITmanagers

5

7

Hotel-M

1994(UAE)

1972(founded)

Multinational

350

(UAE)

38,0

00

(worldwide)

3(UAE)

79(worldwide)

Generalandtraining

managers

8

Informationtechnology

8

IT-I

1984(UAE)

1896(founded)

Multinational

1,900(UAE)

380,000

(worldwide)

4(UAE)

Over170countries

Productmanager

6

9

IT-O

1998(UAE)

1977(founded)

Multinational

400(UAE)

300,000

(worldwide)

2(UAE)

Over145countries

Productmanager

10

10

IT-M

1991(UAE)

1975(founded)

Multinational

200(UAE)

89,0

00

(worldwide)

2(UAE)

Over105countries

Marketingmanager

5

Familybusiness

11

FamilyB-GGroup

1960

Local

1,000

7

AssistantITdirector

10

12

FamilyB-KGroup

1890

Local

1,200

11

Deputychairman

30

13

FamilyB-BGroup

1969

Local

1,500

20

Generalmanagerand

Boardmember

30

Table A

Knowledgsharin

169


18/23

Appendix 2Sample general questions:

. Company name.

. Organization overview.

. Number of employees.

. Year established.

. Major products and processes.

. Major customers.

. Major competitors.

Sample specific questions:. What role does knowledge and innovation play in for your success?

. What are the incentives you offer for innovative employees?

. What about collaborations with different universities?

.

How does the organization learn about emerging technological trends?. How does the organization keep knowledge within its organizational boundaries?

. Where do you get new knowledge from? How do you tailor or apply it?

. Would you participate in one of the following consortiums? CRM, SCM, KM, Innovation,TQM and why?

. What companies do you like to collaborate when you join?

. What information do you need to decide?

. What might encourage or discourage you?

. What do you expect to achieve?

. What are the barriers or facilitators to participate?

. Do you conduct any of you own research?

. How do you learn about your customer needs and priorities?

. How do you keep in touch and up to date with any changes in your customer needs andpriorities?

. Do you see any special techniques or methods to tie together the technological and thecustomer base knowledge that you acquire so that you can continue to enhance the valuethat you provide to your customers?

. Do you take any special precautions to ensure that competitors cant use any of theknowledge that you acquire about your technologies or customers and imitate yourproducts/services?

EBR22,2

170


19/23

Appendix 3

Company

Perceptiononknowledge

sharing

Organizationallearning

program

Joinknowledgenetwork?

Expectationfromsuchnetwork

Hospital-M

Wecons

tantlyseekoverall

innovationbygettingintouch

withpublications,tryingto

implemen

tthenewtechnology

byattend

ingworkshopsor

bringingpeopletothe

hospitals

institutions.

Weattendmeetings,seminars,

workshops,an

dtraining

sessions,take

certified

certificates,courses,toenhance

ourexpertiseandknowledge

frequently.

Absolutely,

itsawonderful

andexcellentidea

Trustandproofiswhatwe

needandservicesand

excellenceiswhatweexpect

theconsortiumsshould

give

us.

Hospital-W

Weared

edicatedtopromoting

societybasedhealtheducation

programs

byofferingseminars

onhealth

issuestothesociety

ingeneralandschoolsin

particular

.

WearepartoftheDubai

HealthCareCity.

Weinsiston

continuingme

dicaleducation

byprovidingforumsforour

communitydo

ctorstointeract

anddiscussth

elatestmedical

research&development.

Welookforwardtojoining

moreconsortiums.

Ourmainconcernisth

e

confidentialityofour

knowledge

Insurance-A

Concept

ofknowledge

managem

entisnotrecognized

asaform

almanagement

technique

althoughmanagers

realizeits

importanceaskeyto

successandinnovation.

Newknowled

gecomesfrom

companysencouragementto

employeestocontinuously

attendseminarsandtraining

programsona

nynewproducts

orservicesas

wellasthe

internalcomm

unicationand

sharingofkno

wledgebetween

employees.

Wewillsee..

.

Wemight

participateifthecenters

objectivesareinalignment

withthecompanysoperations

andgoals.

Tohelpusingeneratingnew

knowledgetosolve

unstructuredproblems.

Insurance-E

Wedonotactuallyimplement

knowledg

emanagementbutwe

doallowouremployeesto

innovateandproposenew

solutions

totheirwork-related

problems.

Wetoleratem

istakesmadeby

employeeswithinacertain

levelofreason

ablenessand

rewardthoserecommending

innovativeide

asand

solutions.

Fornow,

Icantsayforsure.

Wemightparticipateifwe

havethetime.

Toshareindustry-related

issueswitheachother. (con

tinued)

Table AISummary of intervie

transcript (exampl

Knowledgsharin

17


20/23

Company

Perceptiononknowledge

sharing


program

Joinknowledg

enetwork?


Insurance-B

The

reisnotimeforustogain

newknowledgeexceptfromthe

work

wedodaily.

Moreover,

once

youshareyour

know

ledge,youlosethe

exclu

siverighttouseit.

Weprov

idetrainingfornew

employees.Inthisindustry,i

fa

newserviceisintroduced,we

willjustwatchhowsuccessful

itis,

then

copyitaccordingto

ourbestinterest.

Wewouldjoinifweknowfor

surethatthen

etworkcanhelp

usreducetheriskandgain

goodprofits

Seriously,wedontexpect

anythingfromsuchanetwork

Hotel-R

Sharingknowledgeispartof

ourb

estpracticesprogram.

Wealrea

dyformed

consortiumwithother5-star

hotels.

Absolutely

Shareknowledgeandcomeup

withthebestpract

icesand

benchmarkingasw

ell

Hotel-M

We

believethatknowledge

grow

swhenyoushareit.

Ourfocu

sisontheimportance

ofintegra

tingbothacademic

institutions,andtheworkforce

sowecan

benefitfromeach

other.

Wewouldpa

rticipateinorder

topromotelea

rning

developmenta

ndresearch

Increaseintheindustryand

societyaveragesta

ndard

IT-I

Our

companyrevolvesaround

asin

glebusinessmodelwhich

isinnovation.

Innovation

cannotexistwithoutproper

know

ledgesharing.

Wejoine

dmanyconsortiums

inmanycountriesfordifferent

industries

.

Consortiums

aretoolsto

innovatesowewoulddefinitely

joinanysuitableconsortiums

intheregion.

Betteraccesstopower

technologywhichwillhelpus

createbetterprodu

ctsand

services.

IT-O

Mos

tofourworkexperiences

areb

asedonknowledge,so

know

ledgesharingisdefinitely

impo

rtanttous.

Ouremp

loyeesareconstantly

involvedintraining,workshop,

seminars,oranyrelatedevents

bothinter

nallyandexternally.

Absolutely

Weexpectthefollowing:

betterimage,localization,and

lowerR&Dcosts.

IT-M

Bein

gacustomeroriented

comp

any,knowledgesharingis

justpartofus.

Ouremp

loyeesactuallywork

verycloselywithacademic

institutionsintheareatonot

onlyhelp

thestudentsbutto

alsolearn

fromthem.

Welookforwardtoworkingin

aconsortium.

Weexpecttonotonlygain

freshyoungknowledge,and

ideasfromcollegegraduates,

buttoalsoshowkeeninterest

inthePublicRelationsaspect.

(continued)

Table AII.

EBR22,2

172


21/23

Company

Perce

ptiononknowledge

sharing


program

Joinknowledgenetwork?


FamilyB-G

Group

We

greatlyfocustowards

trans

ferringtheorganizational

know

ledgeefficientlytothe

upcominggenerations.

Weestab

lishedan

independentresearchcentre

underthe

nameFamilyB-G

GroupUn

iversity.

This

university

playsavitalrolein

supplying

thevarioussectors

ofthecom

panywiththe

desiredre

searchand

knowledg

e.

Thisissomethingthatwe

havetothinkabout.Weare

concernedaboutour.

Commitmenttosu

periority

andcontinuousimprovement.

FamilyB-K

Group

We

believethattherewasno

mech

anismtomaintain

employeestacitknowledge

withinorganizational

boundaries,exceptmotivating

these

employees.

Employe

eswererewardedper

theamountoftrainingthey

providedtotheirco-workers.

Moreover,employeesare

encouragedtoparticipatein

externalr

esearchand

developmentproject.

Wemightconsiderit

Weexpecttheprivacyand

confidentialityofthecompany

ismaintained.

FamilyB-B

Group

We

havenotyetevolvedin

thatsense,

butthereisa

poten

tialforknowledge

sharing

Attendconferencesregularly,

readbook

sandsubscribeto

websites,

journals,and

magazinesthatarespecificto

ourfield

Itshardtosa

ynow.Maybeif

itisnottimec

onsuming.

Weexpecttheamountof

information,

theexposure

associatedwithjoin

ing,andthe

valueofknowledgeexpected

arehighandtheriskislow

Table AI

Knowledgsharin

17


22/23

About the authorsNorita Ahmad is an Assistant Professor of MIS at the American University of Sharjah, UAE. Shereceived her PhD in Decision Science Engineering Systems from Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute, and an MS and a BS in Telecommunications and Network Management and Computer

Sciences, respectively, from Syracuse University. Her research interests include decisionanalysis, database management systems, and KM. She has presented research internationallyand published in a variety of scholarly journals such as International Journal of InformationTechnology & Decision Making, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Journal of Business Ethics,

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, and International Journal of ServicesOperations and Informatics. Norita Ahmad is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Abdelkader Daghfous received his PhD in Technology and Innovation Management fromThe Pennsylvania State University. He received his BS and MS degrees in IndustrialEngineering from The Pennsylvania State University and the University of Pittsburgh,respectively. He is currently an Associate Professor in the School of Business and Managementat the American University of Sharjah, UAE. His current research is in the areas of KM,collaborative innovation, SCM, and the role of government-university-industry collaboration in

regional economic development. He has published in journals such as Research Policy,Technovation, SAM Advanced Management Journal, and The Learning Organization. He haspresented papers in various international conferences for academics and practitioners.

EBR22,2

174

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


23/23

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

knowledge sharing dan inovative behavior.pdf

Documents