Dear Peter,

Before we start to talk about knowledge sharing or information transmission we should precisely specify them. Accordingly information is defined in general context as combination of symbols to present a unique massage. knowledge is on the other hand is an understanding which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. As you can see from the definition "the level of understanding" is completely different for two concepts. Thereby, the transmission process of each concepts would be distinct as the level of understanding which is assumable over a system. Knowledge sharing has according to disciplines involved, two dimensions. The process of transferring the personal knowledge or body knowledge of one discipline to an individual defined as knowledge sharing in knowledge management. Or the process of sharing could be defined to collect data as they are structured particularly for the purpose of semantic web. Generally in the context of knowledge sharing there is human involvement and there is a shifting in human consciousness as he/she learns something. In the context of information transmission, human involvement is not necessary and in fact it is supposed to replace human and if there is the results could not lead to acquisition of knowledge.

Knowledge is intellectual capital which can be shared between individuals or between individuals and organizations. Knowledge sharing is an essential organizational phenomenon to overcome adversities. It requires a major transformation in organization culture to create a desire to share knowledge. Knowledge is the human ability to take decisions in varied uncertain situations. Organizational knowledge can be leveraged to create competitive advantage.

Information, on the other hand, is required to be organized and synthesized for meaningful application. Information transfer does not necessarily lead to knowledge creation. Information, therefore, is an aid to knowledge creation. Information gathering and transfer is, thus, one of the steps in the knowledge management system.

Ali, thanks for your reply. I do agree that KS and Info Transfer are 2 different concepts and need better definition in academic terms. After 35+ years promoting technology as the solution, I now see that it is the behaviours of individuals that will determine the success or failure of KS. This is the third dimension and perhaps the most important.

Jaharkanti, while you are correct in saying that knowledge is intellectual capital, the challenge I see is that this definition brings an "asset based" constraining mindset. A key component of the creation component of knowledge sharing occurs in the boundary spanning domain, be that between organizational work groups, departments, geographic subsidiaries or inter-organization.

In terms of organizational knowledge, the absorptive capabilities of the work group (or AC distance) plays a significant role.

thanks.

Well said Peter and agreeing with Ali, therefore, organizational culture is a fundamental factor in transferring knowledge since it involves "mindsets", experience, and behavior. I would like to share some readings with you

http://www.tlainc.com/articl66.htm

Global Education Journal (Volume 2012 Issue 1) www.franklinpublishing.net

Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11488/

MPRA Paper No. 11488, posted 10. November 2008 00:09 UTC

Dear Peter,

You can also check the reverse question : what's happen when people do not share their Knowledge... This approach is theorized by Hoopes and Prostrel (1999) throughout the concept of "Glitch".

You can also read the excellent papers of Carlile (2002, 2004) who makes some distinction between transfers, translation and transformation of kwowledge in organization.

Best

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3959/EEL_3T.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0266%28199909%2920:9%3C837::AID-SMJ54%3E3.0.CO;2-I/abstract

Referring to Davenport & Prusak (1998). Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press. (p. 101), "Knowledge transfer involves two actions: transmission (sending or presenting knowledge to a potential recipient) and absorption by that person or group. If knowledge is not absorbed, it has not been transferred. Merely making knowledge available is not tranfer. Access is necessary by by no means sufficient to ensure that knowledge will be use." Thus I agree with you when you say that knowledge sharing is an active process.From ,my point of view, formalized and codified knowledge within digital information systems is only static information. The problem is to determine to what extent, two individuals will give the same meaning to this information when reading it and transforming it into their own knowledge. Notably, we do not know if, finally, it will be the same knowledge that the knowledge which was codified. Such is not the case when people are sharing tacit knowledge face to face so that their common ground of knowledge increases. You will find more explanation in the document attached.

Document attached

Hussin, many thanks. After 40 years in the tech industry where I though (and promoted) that technology would solve all our problems , I now know that people and their behaviours are the root. That is where I'm now focusing my research..

Sebastein, thanks for these refs. I'll read them with interest. One of my pet issues is that people often confuse what they mean as they don't appreciate these differences.

Michael, I was lucky to work with both Tom and Larry during the '90s so understand where they are coming from. When you say "knowledge within digital information systems is only static information" I agree completely. When I was doing international consulting, the issue of (differences in) local understanding/translation of static information, came up often and off-shore corporate mgt often wondered why "best practice" was not giving the expected results. I'll read your attachment with interest.

Dear All,

I agree with all your arguments, but I would like to stress the fact knowledge sharing depends heavily on the individual internal field of forces (i.e. cognitive, emotional and spiritual). The knowledge sharing is not only a transfer process but also an interpretative process. Knowledge sharing means in the same time the "quantity" of knowledge transferred and the "quality " of its interpretation. Finally it depends on the capability of one individual to communicate his/her own knowledge.

As I agree with Constantin, the challenge is to move these internal cognitive, emotional and spiritual with empathy and assertiveness from the outside by the leadership within a culture that promotes knowledge sharing.

Hussin,

Thanks for your remark. Yes, leadership and organizational culture constitute the two most important nonlinear integrators able to act directly upon the emotional and spiritual fields of individual forces to stimulate knowledge sharing.