Robe Into Areas That Are Of Interest

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The role of literature review is to probe into areas that are of interest to the research study. Literature review will assist the researcher in having deeper understanding on the research areas. With the knowledge and understanding obtained, the researcher will be able to conduct and present the research study. Besides, the literature review provides the reader a comprehensive insight of the subject background and a better review of the research study flow.

The previous chapter gave an introduction to how the research problem initiated while this chapter establishes background for the study and will aim to review the current literature on knowledge followed by knowledge sharing, knowledge management, designing user profile in the context of community of Practice, Community of Practice (COPs) and knowledge Economy Research Alliance (RAKE) of Univeriti Technologi Malaysia (UTM). The following figure shows map of literature review

Figure 2.1 shows map of Literature of Review

Literature Review

(Chapter 2)

Knowledge Management

Knowledge Sharing

Profile

Community of Practice

Knowledge

2.2.2 Types of Knowledge

2.2.3 Individual Knowledge in organization

2.2.4 The study of KS

2.2.5 Process of KS

2.2.6 KS from perspective of Researcher

2.2.7 Principles of KS

2.2.8 Motivational issues in KS environment

2.2.9 KS strategies

2.2.10 Barriers that inhabit KS

2.2.11 Theories of KS

2.2.12 Factors contributing KS

2.2.13 KS models

2.2.16 KS attitude Dimensions

2.2.3.2 Profile Features

2.2.3.2 Profile Features

2.2.3.3 Profile Principles

2.2.3.4 Basic requirement profile features.

2.2.17 KS and trust in COPS

2.2.19 RAKE

2.2.3 RAKE objectives

2.2.3.5 Communication technology for sharing knowledge

2.2.18 overview of KM

According to Drucker (1993), most organizations realize that ‘knowledge’ is a strategic resource that gives them sustainable competitive advantage. It has the ability to provide competitive advantage that is difficult for other organization to imitate because knowledge resources are generally unique to the originating organization. With this realization, they are now attempting to manage knowledge in a more systematic and effective way.

Knowledge Management (KM) is also used by organizations to encourage the creation and sharing of knowledge that- it is claimed- results in improvements in productivity, innovation, competitiveness, and better relationships among people in those organizations. In today’s environment, how can we actually get the knowledge? How to create an environment with knowledge sharing? And how do we share the knowledge? These issues are the key essential of implementing the knowledge sharing profile among Knowledge Economy Research Alliance (RAKE) of UTM members. The key concept of knowledge sharing is the extent to which knowledge is being shared.

2.2 Background Study of the Research

2.2.1 Knowledge

Knowledge can be defined as "the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association" based on Oxford Advance Learner Dictionary. According to Stephen Denning (2000), a frequently used definition of knowledge is "the ideas or understandings which an entity possesses that are used to take effective action to achieve the entity’s goal(s). This knowledge is specific to the entity which created it." In everyday language, the understanding of knowledge requires some grasp of the knowledge relationship to information, which we all knew. Information is a set of data that being arranged in meaningful patterns, by combining it with historical experience or believed and a reliable source (pragmatic), it will become knowledge.

Knowledge is not just an explicit tangible "thing", like information, but information combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection. Knowledge involves the full person, integrating the elements of both thinking and feeling.

Therefore, according to J. Vertommen et al. (2008), over the previous decades, the industrial world has witnessed a growing awareness of the importance of knowledge. Knowledge has been recognized as a dominant economic factor for innovation oriented enterprises. This is not at all surprising: the value of a company is only partly represented by its tangible assets, such as buildings, equipment and capital. The added value of a product is primarily determined by the knowledge and experience of the people that design and produce it. This knowledge is often tacitly ungraspable, residing in people’s heads, but it can also be made explicit, for instance by writing it down in product manuals as described by (Nonaka, H.,Takeuchi, 1995).

Many organizations are meeting with a big challenge to manage knowledge in a better way often making use of supporting technologies, here referred to as knowledge management systems (KMS). A large different of this kinds of systems is commercially available on the market today. The nature of organization activities determines for a large part the steps that can be taken towards a knowledge management solution. A typical problem that arises when knowledge is not properly managed is the inaccessibility of this knowledge to others and, as a result, the phenomenon of reinventing the wheel.

Time studies indicate that, throughout a design process, designers spend on average 19% of their time – with peaks to 36% in early conceptual design phases – on information gathering activities (A. Court, S. Culley, C.A. McMahon, 1993). An efficient KMS, that allows advanced searching in a company’s existing knowledge base, could seriously reduce these percentages.

2.2.2 Types of Knowledge

Considering the literature review on the studies of knowledge, knowledge can be categorized into the following two parts: Explicit and Tacit. Tacit knowledge is an informal knowledge that is embedded in mental processes and can be obtained through experience, work practices and transferred by observing and applying it (Choi and Lee, 2003). It is a knowledge that we have in our mind and it is difficult to transfer it. In this knowledge-economy Research Alliance community itself, for example, tacit knowledge is the experience of the members on their study area which can be used in solving problems. Tacit knowledge is often conferred to other individuals through the observations of actions rather than communication of actions through established media.

Mainly, tacit knowledge can be transformed into explicit knowledge through some type of externalization such as writing a report and sharing it in whatever mediums and platforms. It is not easy to be codified and explicated. On the other hand, explicit knowledge can be defined as knowledge that is formal, systematic, and can be codified into records such as databases and libraries. Choi and lee (2003) define explicit knowledge as knowledge that can be documented, created, written down, transferred verbally or through some medium of communication such as emails, telephone or information systems. Both tacit and explicit knowledge can further be organized as strategic and operational. The model of transformation of knowledge from tacit to explicit and vice versa can be shown as figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Knowledge Management Model (Adapted from Nonaka, 2000)

C:\Users\Ismail\Desktop\1.png

The knowledge management model attempts to show the cycle transformation of tacit and explicit knowledge towards socialization, externalization, internalization, and the combination of three different contexts. From the model, it helps the organization to identify types of knowledge and how the knowledge transformed from tacit to explicit or vice versa. The roles of virtual collaboration are mainly transfer explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge via virtual socialization, tacit to explicit through externalization such as report writing, transforming tacit knowledge into digital form.

2.2.3 Individual Knowledge in Organizations

Knowledge exists at multiple levels within organizations. Although individuals constitute only one level at which knowledge resides within organizations, the sharing of individual knowledge is imperative to the creation, dissemination, and management of knowledge at all the other levels within an organization. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), in their definitive work The Knowledge Creating Company, were among the first to recognize the importance of individual employees in the knowledge creation process. According to them, knowledge creation should be viewed as a process whereby knowledge held by individuals is amplified and internalized as part of an organization’s knowledge base. Thus, knowledge is created through interaction between individuals at various levels in the organization.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) argued that organizations cannot create knowledge without individuals, and unless individual knowledge is shared with other individuals and groups, the knowledge is likely to have limited impact on organizational effectiveness. Lam (2000) defined individual knowledge as "that part of an organization’s knowledge which resides in the brains and bodily skills of the individual". It involves all the knowledge possessed by the individual that can be applied independently to specific types of tasks and problems.

Because individuals have cognitive limits in terms of storing and processing information, individual knowledge tends to be specialized and domain specific in nature (Lam, 2000).From the above discussions, we can conclude that where the knowledge belongs to does not create any obstacle. Knowledge purposely must be captured, created, organized, presented and distributed to the right people who need it. Knowledge must be organized properly for easy accessible towards knowledge sharing culture among the members of K-economy Research Alliance (RAKE).

2.2.4 The Study of Knowledge Sharing (KS)

According to a research carried out by Kamal.M.G. Et al (2007), KS is defined as the extent to which knowledge is being shared. KS refers to the 'process of capturing knowledge or moving knowledge from a source unit to a recipient unit' as described by Birchan Connoly.C.B (2005). KS refers to the exchange of knowledge between at least two parties in a reciprocal process allowing reshape and sense- making of the knowledge in the new context (Willem, 2003) and it is one of the knowledge management process S.Ryu et al (2003)

The concept of knowledge sharing has been buzzing around for quite some time. Rhetorically, the concept has gained an enormous interest, and both academics and Researchers are eager to identify, understand and explore the challenges of facilitating knowledge sharing. According to Jeffrey Cummings (2003) knowledge-sharing research has moved to an organizational learning perspective. Indeed, experience and research suggest that successful knowledge sharing involves extended learning processes rather than simple communication processes. Furthermore, the goal of knowledge sharing can be to either explore new knowledge or exploit existing knowledge, which is a somewhat analytical distinction wherefore practice will often entail part of both processes

The exploration of new knowledge has a more innovative focus than the exploitation of knowledge, and the perspective is grounded and exposed in the literature that has a primary focus on innovation such as Hargadon (2003) and Sutton (2002).On the other hand, the literature on exploitation of knowledge is more concerned with how to mobilize organizational best practices enabling a more efficient application of both individual and organizational knowledge so knowledge sharing goes on both in and across organizational boundaries, and involves different organizational settings such as communities of practices (Brown and Duguid, 2001).

Therefore, the literature identifies five primary contexts that can affect successful knowledge- sharing implementations, including the relationship between the source and the recipient, the form and location of the knowledge, the recipient’s learning predisposition, the source’s knowledge-sharing capability, and the broader environment in which the sharing occurs. A synthesis of this research suggests three types of knowledge-sharing activities to be evaluated. First, analyses of the form and the location of the knowledge are important because each can affect the types of sharing processes that will be necessary as well as how challenging these Processes might be. Second, the types of agreements, rules of engagement and managerial practices adopted by the parties are important to evaluate in that they can shape both the flows of resources and knowledge between the parties and the actions taken to overcome and accommodate significant relational differences between the parties. Third, the specific knowledge-sharing activities used are important in that they are the means through which the parties seek to facilitate knowledge sharing.

2.2.5 Processes of Knowledge Sharing (KS)

Processes of knowledge sharing take place between and within the various

knowledge levels, mentioned above. This process of providing and obtaining

knowledge between the three levels, takes place in two directions. Individual knowledge can become group knowledge when an individual shares his knowledge with other group members.

In the other direction, group knowledge becomes individual knowledge when knowledge individually acquired from the group, combined with an individual stock of knowledge, becomes new individual knowledge. In addition to these processes of knowledge sharing between various levels, knowledge is shared within the distinguished levels as well. An individual can share his knowledge with one other person, which can result in new individual knowledge for the latter. Sharing knowledge between different groups may lead to new group knowledge. On the organizational level, these processes seem less easy to conceptualize as knowledge sharing between organizations does not take place in one organization. In the beginning stage, distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge have been made.

The processes of knowledge sharing this distinction means that implicit or explicit knowledge can become implicit or explicit knowledge within the same level or at another higher or lower level been applied. Between and within two levels it is expected to find four different sub-processes of knowledge sharing. The following sub processes are derived from different types of knowledge conversion, developed by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995). These four sub-processes of knowledge sharing are derived from four types of knowledge conversion

Figure 2.7 attempts to shows the different sub-processes of knowledge sharing which involved the transformation on implicit knowledge to the explicit knowledge and vice versa. As the researcher described at the knowledge management model adopted from Nonaka (2000) the quadrants involved are in the context of socialization, explication, implication and the combination of all contexts.

Figure 2.3: Four different Sub-processes of Knowledge Sharing (Nonaka&Takeuchi, 1995)

2.2.6 KS from perspectives of Researchers

According to a book published by Lily Tsui ET al (2006), in the past, academic researchers have received few, if any, incentives from universities to participate in non-research activities beyond publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals and presenting at conferences. Requirements for tenure and promotion favored research, and even where a "service" component has existed, knowledge sharing with non-academic groups has been only one of many ways in which a service component could be fulfilled. Thus, researchers may not see knowledge sharing as part of their jobs, and many may feel that they lack the skills to communicate their research to non-academics.

Given this lack of incentive to invest time and resources in knowledge sharing, it is perhaps not surprising that relatively few researchers value or participate in such activities. Beyond the investment of time and resources in the face of limited returns in traditional academic settings, researchers are also limited by the ways in which research is funded. As knowledge sharing is often seen as something that occurs after the research is concluded, when resources (e.g., financial resources, staff) may be exhausted, the knowledge- sharing component is often lost. Currently, funders of research are beginning to see and value knowledge-sharing activities; in the past few years, there has been a shift toward more funding opportunities that require a significant knowledge-sharing component.

2.2.7 Principles of KS

Building a knowledge sharing features on databases brings along a range of other problems: motivation of employees to contribute and to utilize them, updating the data and assuring the quality. So just because knowledge is available does not necessarily mean that one has created knowledge sharing.

For this reason it is lamentable when companies adopt knowledge strategies purely based on making knowledge available or accessible – availability is only one of the many elements in a good knowledge sharing culture. In a culture that encourages knowledge sharing there are many different channels through which knowledge can be disposed and many channels trough which you can acquire it. Therefore the following six principles must all be considered in a knowledge strategy as pointed out by Flemming Poulfelt and Nicoline Jacoby Petersen:

Knowledge Storing

Knowledge storing deals with availability, The Intranet or databases appear to be splendid ways of storing knowledge. In a knowledge sharing process, there is always a sender and a receiver. The sender is not always able to convey his knowledge: We always know more than we can say and we always say more than we can write down. So not all knowledge can be made explicit, written down and categorized and it is a common belief that the knowledge keyed into a database by one person is not necessarily the same as that extracted by another person, since our mental models are different. Hence the ways in which we receive and understand information vary greatly, and therefore, we interpret it differently.

Knowledge Distribution

Knowledge distribution is about prevail ability. Good staff journals containing information on the organization’s woes and joys are a good idea, and the enhanced effectiveness of a printed version compared to an electronic version must not be ignored. Corporate news sites are also a way of ensuring prevail ability. But in a knowledge sharing culture, prevail ability should not only be about expecting employees to seek information actively. It is time consuming and some people are less curious than others, even though seeking information might help them do a better job. In larger companies it could be an idea to let employees subscribe to selected subject areas, and let the company librarian handle the subscription scheme in order to ensure that relevant knowledge is distributed to the right people.

Knowledge Exposure

Knowledge exposure is about visibility. The daily journey to the canteen could be made into a long stream of information and input by hanging up boards, pictures, product displays and other symbols illustrating the knowledge that resides in the company. In one company a particular project team hung up a poster on their project office door explaining their project and they received an amazing number of inquiries from their colleagues because what they were doing had suddenly become visible.

Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge transfer is about old-fashioned education such as courses, workshops and lectures. It is important for all companies to get and assimilate new knowledge. Often the companies seek to solve this problem by sending employees on external courses, but this is not always the ideal solution. Courses run under the auspices of the company makes it more natural to use the expertise and skills of company seniors, thus securing that some of the company knowledge pool is transferred to younger generations and stays within the company.

Knowledge Exchange

Knowledge exchange is about communication across time and place. Many employees find that the most valuable knowledge sharing takes place while talking to colleagues about a specific problem or assignment. For this reason it is important that employees can get in contact with colleagues experienced in the area and have a dialogue.

Knowledge Collectivism

Knowledge collectivism is about cohesion. Trust is essential to a good knowledge sharing culture and trust is created when people know each other and feel secure. For this reason, it is important that there is time to talk to each other on an informal level to promote social relations between employees

Motivational Issues in Creating a Knowledge Sharing Environment

In referring to Patricia Milne (2001) journal, knowledge sharing is the fundamental requirement of a knowledge-based organization. Some of the greatest challenges for organizations moving down the knowledge management path stem from well-established practices of hoarding knowledge, practices which, in the past, have been well rewarded. Employees were motivated to hoard knowledge because of the competitive advantage that this would give them. The challenge now is to develop an organizational culture where sharing knowledge is the norm.

According to Patricia Milne (2001), rewards and recognition programs are used in the belief that they will reinforce an organization’s values, promote outstanding performance and foster continuous learning by openly acknowledging role model behaviors and ongoing achievement. Both types are dependent on managers recognizing the subordinates achievements whether as individuals or as part of teams. Rewards and recognition need to be timely, sincere and appropriately matched to the person or the achievement. Therefore, she also mentions that rewards increase performance and interest when rewards are:

Made contingent on quality or performance or are given for meeting clear standards of performance

Made contingent on challenging activities Given for mastering each component of a complex skill

Delivered for high effort and activity.

Rewards are not inherently bad or good for people. Rewards can have negative effects, but these effects are circumscribed and can be easily prevented. In the workplace, careful arrangement of rewards can enhance employees’ interest and performance and this is likely to occur when rewards are closely tied to the attainment of performance standards and to the personal accomplishment of challenging tasks.

When rewards are linked to specific standards of performance, people are more contented and productive employees will be established (Patricia Milne, 2001)

She also stated that, some of the problems associated with performance appraisal apply equally to rewards and recognition programs are:

You can't manage what you can't measure

You can't improve what you can't measure

High performance teams and individuals require clear goals

Pay for performance requires metrics. Which she claims that the measurement is difficult for some reasons such as:

It is not always evident what results should be measured Even if you know what to measure it is not always clear how the measurement should be done

Teams are made up of individuals, thus measurement must be done at both the team and individual levels.

2.2.9 KS Strategies

A review of the literature on KS strategies also found the following commonly used strategies as described by knowledge sharing in UNFPA (2003):

Communities of Practice: this refers to 'groups of people who do some sort of work together (online or in person) to help each other by sharing tips, ideas and best practices'

Knowledge Networks: this refers to 'a more formal and structured team-based collaboration that focuses on domains of knowledge that are critical to the organization

Retrospect: this refers to 'an in-depth discussion that happens after completion of an event, project or an activity, to basically capture lessons learnt during the entire activity'. At the end of the session, a documented review of the project process is created. The main idea behind this meeting is to share feedback with decision-makers, improve support from the team, and ultimately enhance team building.

Storytelling: this refers to a storytelling session whereby the person who attends an event or training session is given the opportunity to disseminate the information/knowledge gained to others within the organization (Faul & Kemly, 2004).

Other strategies used are built-in HR practices that encourage KS within the organization (Knowledge sharing in UNFPA, 2003) such as:

Rotation policies among staffs

Training and learning opportunities

Mentoring

Having policies that recognize and reward individuals as well as teams that share knowledge within the organization

Integrating the web site with KS systems and emails that employees always use

Having a computerized information system to store and retrieve knowledge/information

Furthermore, Knowledge-sharing strategies are also categorized here based on delivery method, and fall into three categories: writing, speaking, and information technologies as described by Lily Tsui ET al (2006) regarding KS strategies. Writing creates permanent knowledge-sharing products. The biggest advantage of written documents is durability: a well-written article on a research project or body of research can be useful for years after it is written, even if the author has moved on to other things. So some of the categories of written materials are: Research publications and technical reports, books, newsletters and media advisories, However, Spoken knowledge-sharing strategies also include conferences, lectures and presentations, workshops, conversation sessions, and meetings while some of the information technology tools that can be used for KS are: websites, discussion forums, and emails.

2.2.10 Barriers that inhibit KS

Barriers that inhibit knowledge sharing can be divided into barriers at: organizational level, Individual level and Technological Barriers. Knowledge sharing fails in organizations because organizations try to change their organization's culture to fit KS strategies and practices. KS is also regarded different task and is not part of the objectives of the organization. Riege(2005) noted that barriers to KS at the individual and firm level include the following:

Individual level

Lack of communication skills

Social networks, differences in culture

Lack of time and lack of trust.

Firm level

Firms are reluctant to promote KS due to lack of economic viability

Firms, especially smaller organizations, do not have adequate infrastructure or resources

The physical environment is not conducive to engage and promote KS activities

Existing IT systems are not good enough and sometimes there exists mismatches between the organizational needs and what is provided

Technological Barriers

Lack of integration of IT systems and processes impedes the way people do things.

Lack of technical support (internal and external) and immediate maintenance of integrated IT systems obstructs work routines, and communication flows.

Lack of compatibility between diverse IT systems and processes.

Mismatch between individuals' requirements and integrated IT systems and processes restrict sharing practices.

Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of familiarity and experience with them.

Lack of training regarding employee familiarization of new IT systems and processes.

Lack of communication, and demonstration of all advantages of any new system over existing ones.

Pauline and Mason (2002) in an empirical research on barriers of knowledge management (KM) in New Zealand found that barriers are mainly internal to the organization. Organizational culture, leadership and management practices and lack of awareness and vision about KM were the main barriers inhibiting KM implementation. Knowledge is power and most staff in the organization resists sharing insights and ideas due to lack of time and fear of losing value within the organization

2.2.11 Theories on KS

A study of literature review indicated that well defined knowledge sharing theories do not exist. Most of the views on KS are under knowledge management theories. According to the previous research of Kamal.M.G, Et al (2007)

Most of the writings or research on knowledge are rooted in various disciplines under different names such as the knowledge based view, communication theory, voluntary, technology transfer view. Referring to organizational theory, knowledge is an 'important source of competitive advantage' and when it is integrated effectively, it can add or create value to organizations in the future. This idea is known as the knowledge based view as described by Kamal.,M.G, et al(2007) .Communication theory, on the other hand, argues that in order for learning to occur in organizations, knowledge should be disseminated and shared effectively. According to this theory, knowledge is transferred from the source to the recipient through communication channel.

KS has its roots embedded in the technology transfer and innovation literature referring to research work of Kamal. M.G. et al (2007). Proper KS implementation can result to effective innovation, manufacturing processes, organizational designs and quality products.

This shows clearly that the practices effective KS can enhance the development of new products, as well as new quality processes. Another question is about how knowledge is being shared and managed in organizations. This idea is part of the theory that states that organizations and knowledge can be analyzed according to two approaches:

The codification approach

The personalization approach.

According to the codification approach, knowledge can be codified, stored, retrieved, reconstructed and assimilated by those who receive it Hansen, Hansen.N.T etl al. (1999).It is also considered as knowledge that can be collected, stored, and retrieved According to Heo and Yoo (2002), knowledge in organizations can be codified to be managed effectively.

The personalization approach looks at knowledge as something that is interactive and is embedded in work practices and relationships as written by Hansen.N.T etl al. (1999).

According to a research done by Economic planning unit Malaysia and Georgia Institute of Technology (United States) and the result was conceptual framework concerning the concept of knowledge sharing, knowledge based economy and knowledge management. According to this research, knowledge can be viewed as input stock variables that are further decomposed into:

Knowledge enablers which focuses to inputs such as human capabilities (quality of human resources), leadership (top level management commitment), info-structure

(technological infrastructure), and environment (policies related to knowledge management). These knowledge enablers are vital inputs for the development of a knowledge-based economy

Knowledge processing — this refers to the management aspect of knowledge. In any organization, knowledge processing refers to the part where knowledge is generated, acquired, shared and utilized. This part is seen as the most vital aspect of knowledge management since this is where the actual knowledge is made and put to use.

Knowledge outcome — this part refers to the end result of any knowledge management efforts in an organization.

Ultimately knowledge-based organization must meet certain knowledge outcomes that are measurable, such as performance improvement (higher profits, productivity, sales etc), development of new innovation, and improvement of existing process

2.2.12 Factors Contributing to KS

According to a research carried out by Najwah.A.H (2009), Knowledge sharing is not easy to be implemented for everyone has they own reason. Somehow there are some factors that can lead to the sharing process which benefits many people. four factors have been selected which can be broadly categorized namely ‘Organizational Support Factors’, ‘IT Factors’, ‘Communication Factors’ and ‘Cultural Factors’,.

According to Davenport and Prusak (2000), successful knowledge management which include the knowledge sharing could be obtained through cultural and behavioral change, organizational change and technological innovation.

Technology can certainly contribute by providing methods for the processing, delivery and sharing of valuable information that is needed for knowledge creation within individuals as the following model shows:

C:\Users\Ismail\Desktop\1.png

Figure 2.4: Knowledge sharing factors

Communication is also a driver to sharing. An open-door communication policy, including open communication between individuals, teams and departments to gain new perspectives, is therefore necessary to create a supportive culture as described by Filipczak (1997). At the same time employees must feel emotionally free and safe to develop trust among them and within the organization in order to be able to learn and share knowledge which in turn is promoted by open communication.

2.2.13 Some of the KS Models

According to Mohd Bakhari.Zawiyah (2009), a model is a representation of reality and most of the knowledge management models are theoretical in the sense that they are an imagined process there are several KS models suggested by researchers. The variety of models exists due to different researchers view knowledge from different perspectives Lodhi,(2005).

2.2.14 Lodhi Cultural based model

In a study in six post-graduate institutions in Pakistan, Lodhi(2005) suggested a culture based KS model after realizing that previous models are lack of differentiating between knowledge and knowledge assets. Most of knowledge management models did not consider human interaction as the main factor. Culture based model underlines the border between knowledge and knowledge assets. The model considers that the only source of knowledge in an organization is its employees. Other materials such as books, manuals etc are not the true source of knowledge but they represent knowledge assets. This model emphasizes that knowledge cannot exists as a different entity outside human cognition. In other words, knowledge in real meaning cannot be separated from human mind.

C:\Users\Axioo\Desktop\1.jpg

Figure: 2.5. Lodhi Cultural based model.

According to Lodhi (2005), four factors influence knowledge flow in organization which is communication channel, individual attitude, group attitude and organizational policies/culture.

This model considers individual attitude as firstly they acquire new knowledge from others and secondly transfer knowledge to colleagues in the group. Mutual respect, equality and indiscrimination are important in KS between individuals. Individual interact between them to develop a group where good individuals will become good groups. This model looks dynamic group as important to increase KS. Organizational policies develop corporate culture and play an important part for the development of knowledge sharing and innovation activities in an organization.

2.2.15 Supar et al. model

A study by Supar et al (2005) identified factors influencing KS among academic staff and its impact on performance in three selected higher institutions in Malaysia. Those factors are cultural factor, technological factor, communication factor and organizational support factor. Findings from the study indicated that management support, solidarity, expert vs. distributed model, knowledge sharing to be included in work process, presence of IT for the purpose of knowledge sharing and mentoring are positively related to knowledge sharing and that knowledge sharing is positively related to performance.

C:\Users\Axioo\Desktop\3.jpg

Figure: 2.6: Supar et al. model.

2.2.16 Knowledge Sharing Attitude Dimensions

According Yuecheng L.W.C.(2004), an individual is expected to have a more positive attitude to share knowledge if s/he is working in a cooperative environment or workplace, which s/he can rely on, and in which s/he can work in harmony. Hence, an individual’s perception of co-workers’ cooperative intentions is hypothesized as a dimension of our instrument for measuring knowledge sharing attitudes within the workplace.

Perceived Opportunistic Behavior: Cooperative relationships are subject to ‘opportunistic’ behavior. That is, an individual may exploit the other for short-term gain. Examples of opportunistic behavior in a workplace are withholding or distorting information, shirking or failing to fulfill promises or obligations. Once an individual perceives his/her workplace as supportive of opportunistic behavior, s/he is more reluctant to share knowledge. Therefore, the perception of opportunistic behavior within the workplace is hypothesized to be a dimension that inhibits positive attitudes to knowledge sharing.

Expected Associations: Expected associations, defined as the degree to which one believes one can improve mutual relationship through one’s knowledge sharing, is a construct specifically developed to measure knowledge sharing attitudes (Bock & Kim, 2002). Based on social exchange theory, social interaction among people tends to engender feelings of personal obligation, gratitude, and trust. it is assumed that if employees believe they can improve relationships with other employees by offering their knowledge, they are likely to develop a more positive attitude toward knowledge sharing.

C:\Users\Ismail\Desktop\2.png

Figure 2.7: Knowledge Sharing Attitude Dimensions

2.2.17 Knowledge sharing and Trust in CoPs

KS research emphasizes that a shared understanding and a common ground among people in a community are essential for collaboration and productive knowledge transfer. In effective knowledge communities, the collective knowledge of the community must be greater than the sum of any one member.

A key ingredient for successful KS is trust. This trust amounts to the extent to which the community is a valid source of knowledge and that the community is also a safe and reliable place for interaction, furthermore, trust within a CoP involves the extent to which individuals rely on the community for knowledge

2.2.18 Knowledge Management

According to the description of (Nurzalina BT Mohd Zain,2003), Knowledge management can be referred to as a broad collection of organizational practices and approaches related to generating, capturing, disseminating know-how and other content relevant to the organization’s business. Since, the knowledge itself involves the full person by integrating the elements of thinking and feeling, the term "knowledge management", in other word is suggested to be used to describe a process to manage knowledge as to reveal the fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge (Stephen Denning, 2000) For a better description of a knowledge management, many people will overlook it as a knowledge sharing. And some of them also see it as learning cube. Which it involves sending and received information to assists them in the process of understanding and is able to response to the information given

2.2.19 Knowledge –Economy Research Alliance (RAKE)

RAKE is a strong association of existing centers of excellence, laboratories, formal and informal groups of individual professors, established research groups within UTM (possibly involving outside parties). RAKE aims to conduct world-class leading-edge high impact research based on knowledge discovery, dissemination and commercialization within KE-economy areas which by nature are multidisciplinary.

2.2.3 RAKE Objectives

Development of policies, strategies and consistent regulatory and business environment in order to promote innovation

Leveraging on the appropriate infrastructure to further enhance the K-Economy

Capitalize on the ability to store, share and analyze knowledge through network and communities using advanced ICT technologies

Applying ICT to stimulate and support product and services innovation and improvement

Encourage the anticipation and implementation of management & organizational changes and its adaptation for the K-Economy

Improve the sustainability of K-Economy implementation and minimize consequences

2.2.3.1 Profile

A Profile is a character description of an individual that contains the vital properties of the individual, possibly in a machine-readable format so that the computer programs can use it (Azra, Yab, 2002, 2005).

The important characteristics can be address, age, name, email, address, position, academic, qualification, knowledge, expertise, experience, achievements, etc.

It is important to share knowledge information about knowledge held by researchers comprehensively in a profile. Therefore, it is important to identify profile features. According to Conway and Slinger (2002), supporting the group of researchers to find the information they need and connect with expertise is the essence of a knowledge sharing profile.

2.2.3.2 Profile Features

Many important aspects of sharing knowledge community have been discussed previously. Subsequently, it is important to share knowledge held by researchers comprehensively in a profile. A profile, through its profile features is important to represent information about knowledge held by researchers. Profile features archived the information about valuable researchers knowledge for the use of its. Profile is the term generally used for the creation and maintenance of profile skills.

Certain official committees in educational institutions often want to know about the skills offered by their members, and they want evidence to backup claims of competence at a skill. Researchers may want to record the evidence they have for ability in these areas, which is not only in terms of qualifications, but could also be from testimonials, witness statements, or demonstrable products, gathered in the course work or other experiences.

Much of this is relevance to writing CVs, but profile as a whole goes beyond CVs (Azra Ayue, 2005).According to yap (2002) and Azra(2005),a profile is a character description of an individual. It contains the vital properties of the individual (possible in the machine-readable format so that the computer programs can use it. The vital properties can be his personal properties (like e.g. name, age, address, email address, education/qualification, specialization/expertise, experience, etc). The profile features entails forming an understanding of the individual, their present work situation and tasks as well as special emphasis on the individual familiarity with experience , need for information, work situation , and work environment(Ericson,2003 && Azra Ayue,2005).

2.2.3.3 Profile Principles

According to Muramatsu and Wiley (2004) and Azra Ayue (2005), there are several principles that are commonly possessed by profile

Unobtrusiveness – Only the minimum amount of personal information necessary to support valuable services should be gathered and stored ; only as its needed

Privacy – Personal information should be gathered and handled in accordance with explicitly stated privacy policies

Security- Personal information will be stored and transmitted with explicitly stated security policy

Control—users should have control of what personal information is stored by the system

Benefits – The profile system should provide benefit to three constituencies: the users, authors and developers, and the system /collection

2.2.3.4 Basis requirements in profile Features

According to Muranmatsu and Wiley (2004) and Azra Ayue(2005), profile at least must consist of these requirements to support profile system

General – Contact information , such as name ,address, phone, email, and organization address

Rights management –Users can hold license and/or subscription personally or through organizational affiliations

User Roles- Users should select one or more roles from the roles taxonomy. the taxonomy might include information such as whether the role is local to an individual collection or works across multiple collections

Interests for resource discovery and recommendations – Users who divulge their discipline(s) and specific sub-topic(s) of study, grade level(s), and learning level(s) of interest, can view potentially interesting resources.

Interests for Community – Users can be notified about other similar users, creating spontaneous communities of interest

2.2.3.5 Common Technologies for Managing and Sharing Knowledge

Information technology or IT is a technology that merges computing with high speed communication links. It is a fusion of computer and communications technology that carries data, sound and voice. For communities of practice to prosper, the concern on IT is with computer-mediated sharing of knowledge among members of groups.

Below are discussions on some of the common tools that can be used to enhance group work within RAKE members of UTM.

2.2.3.6 Electronic Mail (email)

Electronic mail or email is used for the exchange of messages between individuals anywhere in the world. Email enables people to send and receive written communications to the other computer users conveniently and quickly. It can deliver messages within minutes, even the computers on the other side of the world. Emails combine the speed, convenience, and informality of a telephone call with the assurance and permanence delivery of letter.

2.2.3.7 Computer Conferencing Technology

This type of technology enables groups of people to communicate by means messages on a computer system. Community members can access the system at any convenient time to read and reply to messages. Besides, the RAKE members can discuss issues on their fields and collaborate for finding solutions or improvements without having to meet physically. Since the discussion is not happening in real time, Members have the opportunity to think carefully about their responses and do some background reading before posting their follow-up message. An example of a computer conferencing system is the discussion board or also referred to as bulletin board or message board.

2.2.3.8 Video Conferencing Technology

Unlike asynchronous computer conferencing, the synchronous video conferencing technology is about real time communication between people in which the visual element is important. This type of communication can be between groups of people as in a meeting or lecture, or between individuals where it provides live, interactive, distance communication. Technology developments of today have brought us to the integration of video conferencing facilities with desktop computers.

The basic requirements are a fast, modern PC with a graphical user interface, a sound card and speakers, a video camera, microphone and digitizer card, a communications card (either ISDN or Ethernet) and suitable software. Video conferencing does offer some unique educational possibilities but the high cost involves in setting up and running the systems has hindered its popularity.

2.2.3.9 Digital Video Capture and Playback Technology

There is a growing demand for video clips to be included in computer applications. Video capture and playback technology involves taking the video signal out from the source and capturing the signal in the computer. Sources include cameras, camcorders, videotapes, and etc. The process of capturing video digitally is specific to the video capture board and the software that uses it. Digital video is developing rapidly with option include AVI (Audio Video Interleaf) from Microsoft, Quick Time, Apple, and the more popular format of today, MPEG or Motion Picture Expert Group.

2.2.4 Document Imaging Technology

As defined by the Association for Image and Management (AIIM), imaging is, "The ability to capture, store, retrieve, display, process, and manage business information in digital form." This technology instantly delivers a digitized imaged of the document to a user’s computer screen. This image can then be shared by several users simultaneously, can be integrated with other systems and can be indexed for easy retrieval. Imaging can be broken down into six major components: scanning or capture, indexing, storage, retrieval, distribution (often using client server technology), and displaying or printing.

Conclusion

As for the conclusion, this chapter has described the literature review conducted in this study which forms the foundation of this research. This includes the study on the concept of knowledge followed by knowledge sharing, knowledge management, and concept of profile, Community of Practice, RAKE and technological tools that can be used for Knowledge sharing. Defining a knowledge sharing strategy which will be endorsed by the RAKE members is a difficult but essential first step. The strategy should clearly articulate why the RAKE members should share theirs know-how, with whom the members will share and how the members will share.

To conclude, information and knowledge management is essential for those organizations that wanted to stay competitive in the new era of digital competition. Information must be treated as one of the most important asset and should be managed properly and make it as actionable information. Collaboration among the communities of practice in any organization can enhance productivity and efficiency. With this, it shows that knowledge sharing generate an issues of sharing information and expertise among community members.