IN
DEGREE PROJECT
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
,
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2018
Investigating the Suitability of a
Knowledge Sharing System in a
Non-Digitalized Workplace
MARIA WESTLING
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Investigating the Suitability of a Knowledge Sharing
System in a Non-Digitalized Workplace
Maria Westling
KTH Royal Institute of
Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
mawestl@kth.se
ABSTRACTKeeping knowledge within the company using knowledge management can be a difficult task, as many studies have shown. The main reason for failures with the implementation and use of knowledge sharing systems has often been due to human factors. It is common to blame the system intended to facilitate the knowledge sharing, however, studies have shown that humans’ unwillingness to share their knowledge is one of the main causes for underutilization of these systems. This study aims to explore the attitudes towards and suitability of a knowledge sharing system in a workplace where computers are not the main tool for carrying out your work. It has been found to be of importance to evaluate the fit of an information system pre-, during, and post-implementation. Therefore, this study was conducted during the pre-implementation phase in order to discover any obstacles and user attitudes towards the implementation of such a system. One of the big challenges within knowledge sharing is to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge would in the workplace, considered in the present study, be knowledge such as creative thinking or design decisions which are useful when customers ask for assistance. To understand how the knowledge sharing currently worked in the workplace as well as the employees’ attitudes towards a digital knowledge sharing system, an ethnomethodology inspired method was adopted. This entailed observations and interviews at the workplace. The employees’ attitudes towards a digital knowledge sharing was found to be quite positive. It was also found that, if implemented, the knowledge sharing system should be an integrated part of their new system.
Author Keywords
Knowledge sharing system; pre-implementation; digitalization.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge is, as described in the Oxford English Living Dictionaries ,1 “...facts, information, and skills acquired 1 Knowledge. (2018) . In Oxford English Living
Dictionaries
. Retreived from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge
through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject”. Evidently, knowledge is a very important part of companies and their employees’ development and performance. However, keeping valuable knowledge in the company can be a challenging task as knowledge in organizations is generally considered the personal intellectual property [1] of employees which cannot be forced, only encouraged and accessible [2].
Knowledge management is a way of maintaining knowledge within a company or organization. Different methods for knowledge management include discovering, applications of, capturing and sharing knowledge[3], where the knowledge sharing approach, and capturing of knowledge to some extent, are explored in this study. Capturing of knowledge focuses on converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and vice versa through documentation. For sharing knowledge, best practices documentation are often employed to gather the knowledge which is provided by the employees. Additionally, lessons learned documentation can also be used to share knowledge [4].
The act of sharing knowledge is often an informal task within a company, which requires employees to be willing to share their knowledge [5] as well as face the loss of ownership of their individual knowledge [6]. Therefore, as knowledge sharing is an informal task, the company is very dependent on the employees’ willingness to take the time and share their knowledge, for the knowledge sharing to function as intended [1,7]. Additionally, studies have found that it has been difficult for companies to promote and create motivation for practicing knowledge sharing, which has made underutilization an issue after implementing a knowledge sharing system[1]. Other than the willingness and motivation of the employees, a successful knowledge sharing system needs to be perceived as easy to use and useful [1].
all too many studies on how knowledge sharing systems work in environments different from these, where IT systems have not been used widely within the organization to perform tasks.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to explore, as part of the pre-implementation phase, how a digital knowledge sharing system could work and be implemented at a company in which employees do not work with computers as their main tool for performing their job, as well as providing recommendations on system realization. This is achieved by answering the following research question:
How would a digital knowledge sharing system be implemented and fit into an environment where almost all work processes are non-digital?
The following questions will aid in answering the main research question:
- Is it suitable to expect that all employees contribute individually to the knowledge sharing system?
- In what situations will a knowledge sharing system be useful?
- What functionality should the system have? - Should the system be a stand-alone system?
THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH
To answer the research question, the following research has been made to understand what components are most important to understand while exploring the suitability of a system in a specific environment during a pre-implementation phase.
Digitalization
Digitalization can be described as “the transformation of socio-technical structures that were previously mediated by non-digital artifacts or relationships into ones that are mediated by digitized artifacts and relationships.” [11]. This means that digitalization is when the process or relationship between the user and the artifact (now digital) changes from the previous way. This term is often confused with the term “digitization”, which is the act or process of making a physical artifact digital and thereby making it available digitally[12]. It is important to separate these, as digitizing can be a part of digitalization, however, they do not implicate the same process.
System Implementation
There are multiple ways of implementing and evaluating an information system, such as Task-Technology-Fit (TTF) [13], Technology Acceptance Model [14] and the Human, Organization and Technology fit (HOT-fit) [15]. Of these, the HOT-fit method is the most interesting for this study as it considers all three of the components human, organizational and technology, whereas the TTF method only considers how appropriate the technology is for
supporting a specific task. Furthermore, the HOT-fit model can be equalized to the Organizational, and Human, Social and Competence, and Technological aspects (OTM) model [16], that illustrates the need for balancing the three same factors when considering systems in organizations.
Two of the studies [16,19] indicate that the human and organizational aspects are more important to assess. Which could be interpreted as the same focus Davenport and Prusak wants to a highlight; the fact that when the implementation of a knowledge sharing system fails, due to such as underuse, many companies blame the software. Instead, Davenport and Prusak argue that it might just be the human being who is not willing to share their knowledge for a variety of reasons. Especially not without expecting something in return [6].
Therefore, in this study, more emphasis is put on the human and organizational aspects in order to indicate potential functionality and implementation recommendations of a knowledge sharing system. Studies have also stated that it is important to evaluate the fit of an information system pre-, during and post-implementation in order to identify issues in time and avoid wasting time on things that will not work in that specific setting or task [17]. It is common practice among organizations to evaluate the information systems post-implementation. However, the damage might already be done in the sense that stakeholders or managers have not had an indication on potential problem areas, as they perhaps would have if the idea of the system had been discussed during a pre-implementation phase [18]. Common approaches in studies of information system implementations are the objectivist approach and the subjectivist approach. In the objectivist approach it is presumed that a consensus among people can always be found, if it does not already exist. It is therefore easily measured through quantitative measurements in controlled experiments or trials. This approach is often considered costly and time consuming, however, an excellent approach for evaluating system performance. In contrast to this the subjectivist approach views people as uniquely complex in such a way that no true consensus can exist. Instead, for measuring subjectively, verbal descriptions and qualitative measurements are needed to show any results of value. This is considered to be time efficient, economical and thorough when looking into the why and how a system works in a specific environment[19]. The latter approach is applied in this study.
The how, when, where and what
The who
, what, when and how are parameters that have
been used in studies [16,19] to establish how well evaluations actually work.
should thereby be an important part of the evaluation, whereas the when highlights the problematics of not using evaluation during pre-, during and post-implementation. Meaning that a formative evaluation would be beneficial to use at each step of the implementation as a means to detect possible failures and “...avoid wasted time and effort”. The
what aimes to determine what should be evaluated, such as organizational readiness, workflow, change management and human factors. The how is either an objective or subjective evaluation where the subjectivist studies conducted based on system stakeholders (management) in the users’ natural, non-manipulated environment was considered a much more suitable approach than attempting to objectively evaluate the system fit.
These four parameters were relevant in formulating the novelty of this thesis’ research and a method for evaluating the pre-implementation problematics. The results from the study[19] stated that the right user attitude and expertise in their area of work combined with good leadership and an IT-friendly attitude of the organization were key factors for a good adoption of an information system.
Best Practices and Lessons Learned
The term best practices often implies the best practice for performing a task or way of doing things, while lessons learned points to information being learned after doing something that was not the optimal solution. Furthermore, even though best practices and lessons learned are two common terms within the research on knowledge sharing, Patton [20] argues that one should regard these terms with caution. The study mentions definition and structure as two uncertainties. Using the phrase “best practices” seldom specifies exactly in what situations this would be the best practice and when it perhaps is not the best approach. The author states that the context is often missing. Adding that since the term “best practices” is oftentimes quite overgeneralized, one could use the term “effective practices” within a specific context to really help someone in a certain process or decision making. He further implies, since he has found no clear difference in definitions, that best practices and lessons learned many times seem to mean the same thing.
Another study by Brown, et al. [4] claims that organizations tend to describe the work that is performed in their company in a way that does not reflect reality. These descriptions are used when defining how tasks are to best be performed going forward. This is what is known as a best practice database. When defining their best practices it is therefore important to involve those that perform the tasks in such a way that their real-world, effective methods are not hindered by organizational guidelines.
Tacit and explicit knowledge
Tacit knowledge can be defined as “ ... [it] includes skills,
experiences, insight, intuition and judgment. Tacit
knowledge is typically shared through discussion, stories, analogies and person-to-person interaction and is, therefore, difficult to capture or represent in explicit form
” .2
This type of knowledge resides in the individual and is often difficult to put into words, and even more so to learn by just reading about it. It requires practice, alongside learning some theories[6]. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is the opposite of tacit knowledge. It is codifiable, meaning it can rather easily be put into words, and is almost always based on facts. This could be topics such as theories and process flows at work [21].
One of the main challenges within knowledge management, and indeed knowledge sharing, is to capture and formulate this tacit knowledge. It often happens in social meetings, such as discussions at work. However, this makes it available only to the ones present, and does not extend further than that conversation. A way of promoting sharing of, especially tacit, knowledge is to make the experience enjoyable and perhaps fun. This includes not making strict rules about what is shared, making the threshold low for allowing employees to share any knowledge they deem relevant or interesting. It should also be encouraged to simply share knowledge in social situations. Furthermore, it is important for the leadership of an organization to engage in the knowledge sharing and show that they are dedicated to it. This has to be an organizational engagement, not just affecting the employees [22].
Company environment
The department at which this study has taken place is the costume and props department of Sveriges Television3 4
where clothes, small props and furnitures are being rented out to different production companies, as well as internally. Some costumes date back to the 14th century. It is beneficial if the employees know several details of the items, such as when it is from, what it is made of, when it has been used and by whom. Therefore, the department is eager to be able to put time and effort into taking care of their more than 2 million objects and costumes in storage. Currently, the renting process is quite slow as it is performed by manually registering all items when renting out, as well as when they are returned. Due to this rather slow process, the department has initiated a project aiming to explore the digitalization of their processes where possible.
The most important outcome of the digitalization, from the company’s side, is that the new system(s) make the
2 Tacit Knowledge. (2018) . In Gartner IT Glossary
.
Retreived from
https://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/tacit-knowledge/
administrative tasks more efficient so that more time can be spent on taking care of the items in the department. To explore the possibility for a digital knowledge sharing system is part of this digitalization project. Furthermore, no digital system for knowledge sharing has been, nor is, in use at the department.
METHOD
Ethnomethodology
This study has taken inspiration from ethnomethodology in order to explore the environment and knowledge sharing situations on site to get a deeper understanding of the workplace. As with subjectivist approaches, the research is conducted based on expert users’ input and/or stakeholders in their natural environment. The same can be said about ethnomethodology. This methodology uses fieldwork to get an understanding of the workplace. Common methods used during the fieldwork are observations and/or interviews. The aim is to go into the field to understand practices and decisions, and to come back with valuable and insightful observations and an understanding of the environment which can then be translated into requirements for system design [23]. Additionally, the “how, when, what and where”[19] parameters will be adopted to evaluate the fit of a knowledge sharing system in this particular environment. The specific methods used in this study, to explore the suitability for and feasibility of implementing a digital knowledge sharing system, were observations and interviews with stakeholders and the intended users.
Observations
Observations were conducted in order to understand how andwhere the knowledge sharing currently works and takes place, as well as to get a general impression of the costume and props department’s overall workflow and the context in which a knowledge sharing system could fit in.
The observations were conducted during meetings and while the employees were working with their daily tasks. The meetings were two hours long and focused on processes and team discussion, while the observations on their daily work were conducted during three days, two hours each. The observations were conducted without interaction with the employees, except for some clarifying questions when relevant.
Interviews with Stakeholders
Semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders took place after the observations to understand what the management and team leaders thought about their current method of knowledge sharing and organizational memory keeping. As well as their thoughts on how a digital knowledge sharing system would work for them and its place in the department’s workflow. The interviews were carried out in a semi-structured format in order to enable them to speak freely.
Interviews with Intended Users
The interviews with the intended users were performed to understand who would be using this system and how they would like to use it and for what in which situations. Their attitudes towards a digital knowledge sharing system could thereby be estimated.
Users and setting
The interviews were conducted with seven employees at the costume and props department. They consisted of one male and six female, which is a quite good distribution as there are currently three males and eight females permanently employed at the department. Three were from the costume team, three from the small props team and one from the smaller staffed large props team. Two had been working at the department for less than a year, while the rest ranged from two to over ten years. of employment. The interviews were conducted in their natural environment at different places in their facility, such as the kitchen and out in the costume and props storage. Thereby making the settings of the evaluations non-controlled.
The users were asked about their current knowledge sharing experiences, got to test a prototype followed by questions regarding it, and finally answered semi-structured interview questions on how they thought a system, similar to the prototype, would work for them, in what situations and if they could see themselves putting aside time to engage in this sort of knowledge sharing. Furthermore, the main goal with providing a prototype for testing was for the employees to understand the general concept of a knowledge sharing system and possible functionality. This was done so that the users would be able to relate to it when answering questions regarding a knowledge sharing system’s place in their workflow as a similar system has not been used in this particular work environment before.
Prototype and Interviews
Firstly, the users answered a few general questions to get accustomed to answering a Google form. Then, the users got a brief explanation of what they would be trying out (prototype) and that it was strictly for familiarization with the concept of a knowledge sharing system.
Prototype
The prototype was a simplified digital version of a possible knowledge sharing system where the users could create a process or workflow scheme. The users were expected to enter all steps in the chosen process and then add details and tips to each step. A desktop computer was used to test the prototype.
It was developed mainly using tools such as ReactJS, Javascript and CSS. The user interface was not developed nor evaluated through any user involvement. However, the design choices where based in the conceptDesign for All
.
The principle states that as many of end-user population as possible should be considered. Designing for accessibility in the pre-implementation phase in this way is largely recommended and follows the principle of design for all [24]. This decision allowed for an accessible and easy to use system without involving users for evaluations.
Fig 1. Screenshot of prototype, landing page. Here the user enters an instruction name.
Fig 2. Screenshot of prototype, contribution page. Here the user will add steps in the instruction. It is possible to add more
details to the steps, delete the step and to save the instruction when finished.
Data Collection
The collected data was qualitative throughout the study. All interviews where live-transcribed, however, the audio was not recorded.
Following the approach of ethnomethodology, the questions and overall study was based on what was found. Meaning, what was observed during the observations influenced the
questions asked in the interviews with stakeholders, which in turn influenced the questions asked in the user interviews.
The data from the interviews was analysed iteratively in order to find patterns in the data as well as to see the data with a different view or angle each time.
RESULTS
The results described are from observations, stakeholder interviews and seven user interviews.
Observations
During the observations of how the employees shared knowledge and know-how with each other while working, it was evident that they for most part spontaneously asked each other questions when they were unsure of what to do. However, they did not do so very frequently as many of the employees who are currently working at the costume and props department have been working there for a long period of time and for the most part know what should be done in what situations. Generally, the ones asking questions would most times be those who had worked there for less than a year. When asked about if they ever felt the need to ask someone else how to do something, one employee said
“Not very often, no. Everyone, more or less, knows how to
do what they do here.”
Another find during the observations was a binder with printed out images and texts which the costume team had created and named “the Costume Bible” with a great deal of useful information such as price lists, where to put tags on clothes and how certain clothes looked during different eras in time. When asked about it, one employee said
“We use it when in doubt, mostly for the price list, as we know much of it by now.”
In two meetings, with the costume and small props teams separately, the task at hand which was provided by the meeting moderator was to write down the steps of the renting process on different pieces of paper and put them in the order in which they did certain tasks within the process. While discussing and putting together the timeline of their renting process, both the costume and small props teams had some difficulties with agreeing on what was to be done in what order of the process they were putting together. Discussions such as “no I do it in this step
” and “but I do it
in this step
” as well as “ it differs each time” came up.
Ultimately, at the end of the meeting they had all agreed upon a process flow which they all thought looked good. This gave an understanding that they do not have a set or documented process that they follow to a point.
Stakeholder Interviews
five persons who provided a managerial overview of the work and future ambitions for the costume and props department.
When asked how they thought a knowledge sharing system could work for them, the first thing mentioned was that it had to be easy to use as they believed the computer skillset of the employees to be perhaps a bit low. The team leaders, however, believed the skill set of the employees to be at least average, varying from person to person. Furthermore, they said that at the moment there were not many restrictions on how the employees could do things. Even though there was some consensus of how tasks should be performed, they believed that with digitalization the process would have to be clearer. This would entail the employees sitting down and deciding “this is how we should perform this task going forward
”. According to management this
would be a good thing, especially for those who come in and work shorter terms such as hourly employees and summer interns.
One of the main concerns voiced during one of the interviews was that there would perhaps be a “thought threshold” to overcome when going from the little analogue documentation they have, to a digital knowledge bank, especially when creating the content. Another concern was the format of the content, with management believing that large bulks of texts would be discouraging for many, especially considering that there were employees with dyslexia.
The learning process when a new employee comes onboard consists of that employee learning by doing and for another employee to assist them in tasks and learning.
“It’s tiresome and time consuming for some to lay down time and effort, when having their own tasks to focus on, to
teach another person the ropes.”
This was described as time consuming and could perhaps to some extent benefit from a digital system with processes laid out for the new employee to look at when in doubt. The team leaders had, between them, different answers for how they handled knowledge sharing and documentation of knowledge. In the costume team they looked at a printed out folder they called the “costume bible” that they had created and said that “details are very important to get right
”. Meanwhile, the small and larger props teams
focused on verbal knowledge sharing such as asking questions when someone is unsure and that knowledge “was handed down verbally”.
Finally, they said that they thought that the employees needed to be able to see the benefits of why they should put time on this. Additionally, seen from a managerial point of
view, to keep the knowledge in the company would be very good.
User Interviews
The results from the user interviews are from seven interviews with employees from the different teams of the costume and props department.
Knowledge sharing
The users answered a questionnaire regarding their knowledge sharing habits. All but one user, user C who said they do not discuss at all during the day, said that they discussed how to do things once to several times a day. It could be everything from where something should be placed to the pricing. The situations for these discussions were mostly spontaneous, but some also came up during team meetings. Additionally, all six believed that what they discussed and ended up agreeing on almost never had to be discussed again.
When in doubt of how to perform a task, all, except user C, said they would ask a colleague or use Google. The ones who work at the costume department said they could also look in the “costume bible”. User C said that there was never, or very rarely any need because “everyone already knows everything”.
Regarding the use of the prototype, all users had positive input on the prototype saying it was “easy to use”, “logical” and “not too advanced”.
Semi-structured Interviews
All but one user (C) , who was sceptical, thought that a system similar to the prototype would be useful for new employees or short-term employees especially. One of them said:
“It’s crazy how much time you have to put on teaching someone new as it is today”
When asked in what environment they saw themselves using this sort of system or function, most users (A, B, D, E, F) said that it would be best to “put aside dedicated time for this” to not risk it being forgotten with one user (E) stating that perhaps someone could start on a draft and then the whole group would come together to discuss and finalize it. Three users (A, F, G) also mentioned that it would probably depended on the workload of the day and how many customers come in that day. Only one user (C) thought it would only be possible spontaneously when you get the time.
All users said that they would like to contribute to a knowledge bank or knowledge sharing system. However, three of them (A, B, F) pointed out that they would not prioritize contributing to a knowledge sharing system over a customer who needed their assistance.
Many of the users (B, D, E, F, G) considered themselves to have unique or specific knowledge that perhaps everyone else did not know quite as well. Especially in regards of being creative when helping customers to decide on colors or what materials an item consisted of. They all thought they could somehow document this specific knowledge, but perhaps only if it were possible to add images or videos and perhaps drawing-possibilities.
Among the concerns for a system like this are that if it does not make things easier or more efficient, then there is no use, as well as the risk of it being less prioritized when there is a lot to do and a lot of customers. Some could not come up with any downsides, however, one user (G) said that it is always good to have documented process flows and routines so anyone can do them.
Overall, the users said that a similar system would be useful to them with one user (D) saying:
“Super useful! However, I don’t think it should be in a separate system, it should be part of the renting system”
Other users (A, B, D) also mentioned the integration into the upcoming renting system as a good solution for this. Stating that
“It would be very good to be able to click on some instruction button directly from the renting system [when
stuck]”
The newest employee (G) said that:
“It is always dangerous when everything is just inside the heads of one or two people. It’s vulnerable.”
And also added that a system where they could look up things on their own would have been very nice, as a new employee at least.
DISCUSSION
This section uses the previously stated research question, along with additional aiding questions, to discuss the results. The discussion is divided into sections dealing with each question separately, with an additional section discussing the implications of the study on future work.
Stand-Alone or Integrated System
There are pros and cons to implementing a stand-alone system. For example, on the pros side, you can probably have a lot more functionality and options to create instructions or workflows. The variety of systems to choose from would perhaps be bigger. You could choose to either buy a finished system that to a great extent met your requirements, or you could tailor it to fit your specific needs. However, in the environment where this study was conducted, the cons for using a stand-alone system would potentially outweigh the pros. This is due to the fact that the majority of the users said that a system integrated into their upcoming system would be preferable. No user said they would prefer a stand-alone system. On the contrary, they would absolutely not prefer it as it would just be another system you had to use.
This notion fits well in with what was observed during the observations. The employees did not work much with different systems, only one, and were not too keen to look up information in their different printed binders either. They act more on intuition. Furthermore, the employees are hired based on their knowledge and expertise of the items in the department, not for administrative skills. Even if those will always be a (hopefully) minor tasks. They do not just want to digitize, they want to digitalize the workflow so more time and effort can be spent on caring for their costumes and props, as well as giving their customers a good experience and assistance.
Functionality
already have those in a physical format, and they are almost never used as they do not have time to search around in them. Furthermore, as part of digitalizing their processes, this would only contribute to a digitized version of the current process and not improve it in any way.
Something in between only text documents and chat rooms could potentially work for them. The system would need to be able to handle different types of instructions, not only text. It needs to be able to handle for example images and videos. The need for the system to support several formats of which the instructions could be in is based on the fact that much of the knowledge the users said they would want to share was “creative knowledge”, mentioned by users B, D and E. This sort of knowledge can be categorized as tacit knowledge. To transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge can be difficult by simply using words, therefore the use of images, as suggested by user E would be a very useful tool to make this sort of knowledge somewhat more explicit and easier to learn from.
Use Situations
One can only speculate, in a pre-implementation phase, in what situations a knowledge sharing system would be used, especially in this workplace. There might be situations that have not yet occurred, since they are yet to implement a digital system for the renting process, that will most likely change the way they work. However, as mentioned in the stakeholder interviews, one clear use situation for a system such as a knowledge sharing system would be when a summer worker or new employee joins the team and needs to learn the ropes. This was also mentioned during the interviews with the users. It takes a lot of time and effort to teach a new person the ropes, which is a stressful situation. Probably even more so if there are many customers and a lot to do. In such situations, a knowledge sharing system would benefit both the new employee and the one in charge of teaching the new employee.
This was also confirmed by the newest member of the team (user G), who had only been working for a week or two, that it would have been a very nice tool, enabling one to look up information oneself. Additionally, the same employee also pointed out the risk of one or two people having all knowledge inside their own heads. Other situations that were mentioned were everyday things if you were insecure about what should be done and how or the pricing should be set. This was coupled with the fact that it would be easy to just double check an instruction quickly if it was part of the same system they use for everything else (such as their upcoming new system). Another use aspect, which might not be the first thing to come to mind for the employees is the fact that it could potentially function as a contingency plan. It might seem like an unlikely event, but if the organization has the knowledge stored, they will not
have to “reinvent the wheel” and make the same mistakes twice.
Individual or Collective Contribution
Regarding how they would use a knowledge sharing system there were a few different answers. Some users thought it would be best to sit down in the team and agree on processes and workflows, whereas some thought that it should be an individual task. However, those who
mentioned that it should be individual added “when you get the time”. There is a risk in letting an important, and quite boring to many, task depend on the right timing. Because, generally if you leave things to timing, they will be
prioritized last. Even if other tasks are less important but are more interesting to do nonetheless. This is the issue with knowledge sharing many times as it is not considered a fun task, many do not even know who will benefit from them sharing their knowledge.
Therefore, the best solution for this department at least, would be to make it a team effort with parts that can be delegated to an individual. This would first and foremost make the process easier for those with for example writing or concentration difficulties. Secondly, it would enable certain individuals to take charge to provide instructions and good-to-know knowledge in areas they feel knowledgeable in. There will also be a hint of group pressure since it will not go unnoticed if you do not contribute, which it might do if the approach you have of contributing to the system is to add to it when you get the time and no specific instruction is assigned to anyone.
To Be or Not to Be
Some doubt was shown by one of the participants in this study towards a knowledge sharing system. However, most showed positive attitudes with everyone, including the sceptical participant, saying they would contribute to a similar system if it was available. This is very important since one of the basic criteria stated by many studies on knowledge sharing systems is that the intention of use as well as willingness to use the system is vital [1], [7]. Furthermore, what is found in the pre-implementation phase is somewhat of an indicator as to how the system will be received during and after implementation[18]. This can, of course, change during the implementation phase due to perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the system when it has been implemented [1].
doing the tasks correctly, the knowledge sharing system needs to be close at hand when faced with doubt about what to do or how. This is supported by previous studies that have shown the need for ease during the knowledge sharing process [1,6].
Therefore, a digital knowledge sharing system could be a good option for this workplace if implemented as an integrated part of the main system that is to be implemented. However, engagement from management [22] showing that this is what has to be done is most likely needed for this to be a long lasting process at this department. Furthermore, the system would most likely be used in a rather unique way in terms of how the knowledge is contributed to the system by having it be a group effort and documenting decisions as they progress the discussions, as opposed to being dependent on each individual contributing when they feel like it.
Future Implications
Implications for Research
This study was based in the pre-implementation phase of a knowledge sharing system at a workplace without any digitalized systems. As there are few studies made on the subject in this environment, this thesis contributes to future studies in similar settings. The recommendations found would be useful to consider when designing those studies and what to investigate further in them.
Implications for Practice
As this study was carried out during the pre-implementation phase, it can be used as a basis and recommendations for going forwards with developing an integrated knowledge sharing system for this specific workplace. It could also be considered as guidance to other small workplaces with the same or similar kinds of tasks. It shows the value of using the pre-implementation phase to understand the wishes of the end user, which among other studies is shown by Meissonier and Houzé [18].
Method Critique
The main critique of the method in this study is the choice to not record the interview sessions. This would have ensured absolute accuracy in transcribing the interviews, as well as being able to hear the users tone of voice. The interviews were instead “live-transcribed”, however, some words are at risk at being missed by using this approach. Additionally, no specific analysis method was used for analysis of the qualitative data from the interviews. As of now, the data was analysed through the finding of patterns in the users’ answers. However, the data was analysed iteratively to make sure no data was missed and to see if new patterns could emerge. Had another method, such as Product Reaction Cards [25] or a thematic method [26]
been used, perhaps other or additional results could have been found.
CONCLUSION
This study set out to explore the attitudes towards a knowledge sharing system as well as the potential suitability for such a system in this specific environment. The study found that the most fitting type of system would be an integrated solution that would allow direct and quick access to guidance or helpful tips at the moments you need them. The knowledge sharing system would therefore be part of a bigger system which would facilitate the department’s renting process. The exact functionality and design would have to be explored to further ensure ease of use and usefulness. However, since they work a lot with what could be described as tacit knowledge, freedom in format of the instructions need to be taken into account. If the system were to be only text based, the knowledge sharing system would contribute to very little in this environment. Especially since tacit knowledge is quite difficult to explain, let alone put into text.
The system would also be used in a quite unique way, in which knowledge would be contributed by the whole group at once. In some cases, the knowledge would come from one person. This study did, however, indicate that most employees seemed more comfortable and inclined to create instructions or general contributions as a team effort. This was partly due to some in the group having difficulties focusing and putting things into words, as well as dyslexia. There is potential for a knowledge sharing system to be used in this workplace, given that it is implemented with the users in mind as well as the management engaging in the implementation and maintenance of the knowledge sharing behaviour that is needed.
REFERENCES
1. Kang YJ, Lee JY, Kim HW. A psychological
empowerment approach to online knowledge sharing. Comput Human Behav. 2017;74: 175–187.
2. Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG, Lee JN. Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing:
Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate. Miss Q. 2005;29: 87.
3. Becerra-Fernandez I, Sabherwal R. Knowledge Management: Systems and Processes. Routledge; 2014.
Working, Learning, and Innovation. Knowledge and Communities. 2000. pp. 99–121.
5. Usoro A, Sharratt MW, Tsui E, Shekhar S. Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual
communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2007;5: 199–212.
6. Davenport TH, Prusak L. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business Press; 2000.
7. Wasko MML, Faraj S. Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge
Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. Miss Q. 2005;29: 35.
8. El Said GR. Understanding Knowledge Management System antecedents of performance impact: Extending the Task-technology Fit Model with intention to share knowledge construct. Future Business Journal. 2015;1: 75–87.
9. Alsharo M, Gregg D, Ramirez R. Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management. 2017;54: 479–490. 10. Belaid Kridan A, Kridan AB, Goulding JS. A case
study on knowledge management implementation in the banking sector. VINE. 2006;36: 211–222.
11. Yoo Y, Lyytinen KJ, Boland RJ, Berente N. The Next Wave of Digital Innovation: Opportunities and Challenges: A Report on the Research Workshop “Digital Challenges in Innovation Research.” SSRN Electronic Journal. 2010; doi:10.2139/ssrn.1622170 12. Nylén D, Holmström J, Lyytinen K. Oscillating
Between Four Orders of Design: The Case of Digital Magazines. Design Issues. 2014;30: 53–68.
13. Goodhue DL, Thompson RL. Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. Miss Q. 1995;19: 213. 14. Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of
Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. Miss Q. 1989;13: 319.
15. Yusof MM, Kuljis J, Papazafeiropoulou A, Stergioulas LK. An evaluation framework for Health Information Systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit). Int J Med Inform. 2008;77: 386–398.
16. Gulliksen J, Lind M, Lif M, Sandblad B. Efficient development of organisations and information technology - a design approach. Advances in Human
Factors/Ergonomics. 1995. pp. 951–956. 17. Au N, Ngai EWT, Cheng TCE. Extending the
Understanding of End User Information Systems Satisfaction Formation: An Equitable Needs Fulfillment Model Approach. Miss Q. 2008;32: 43. 18. Meissonier, R Houzé E. Toward an “IT
Conflict-Resistance Theory”: action research during IT pre-implementation. European Journal of Information Systems. 2010;19: 540–561.
19. Yusof MM, Papazafeiropoulou A, Paul RJ, Stergioulas LK. Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems. Int J Med Inform. 2008;77: 377–385.
20. Patton MQ. Evaluation, Knowledge Management, Best Practices, and High Quality Lessons Learned.
American Journal of Evaluation. 2001;22: 329–336. 21. Anand G, Ward PT, Tatikonda MV. Role of explicit
and tacit knowledge in Six Sigma projects: An empirical examination of differential project success. J Oper Manage. 2010;28: 303–315.
22. Desouza KC. Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. Commun ACM. 2003;46: 85–88.
23. Dourish P, Button G. On “Technomethodology”: Foundational Relationships Between
Ethnomethodology and System Design.
Human-Computer Interaction. 1998;13: 395–432. 24. Stephanidis C. User Interfaces for All: Concepts,
Methods, and Tools. CRC Press; 2000.
25. Benedek J, Miner T . Measuring Desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. Proceedings of Usability Professionals Association, 2003;57;8-12
TRITA EECS-EX-2018:346
