International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

doi: 10.14355/ijics.2015.04.002

www.iji-cs.org

A Framework for Knowledge Sharing of

Enterprise Resources
Hamed Fazlollahtabar*, Babak Shirazi, Adel Porramezan Ganji
Faculty of Management and Technology, Mazandaran University of Science and Technology, Babol, Iran
hfazl@iust.ac.ir
Abstract
In this paper, a framework is developed to manage knowledge sharing on enterprise resources. Enterprise resources are the key
elements to progress business objectives. We propose a switch mechanism to handle knowledge sharing in a business. To
integrate value chain in a business comprehensive data flow is significant where knowledge sharing is a structured for this
process leading to better service provision for customers. Also, a knowledge development program is proposed to evaluate the
proposed knowledge sharing switch. The validity of the proposed process is shown in a case study.
Keywords
Knowledge Management; Knowledge Sharing; Enterprise Resources

Introduction
Knowledge is a substantialfactor in organizations providing a sustainable competitive advantage in a dynamic
market environment (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Foss & Pedersen, 2002; Grant, 1996; Spender & Grant, 1996). To
obtain acompetitive advantage it is crucial but insufficient for organizations to emphasize on staffing and training
systems that concentrate onemployees selection based on specific knowledge, skills, abilities, or competencies or
helping employees acquire them (Brown & Duguid, 1991). Organizations should also consider how to transfer
expertise and knowledge from a person to others who need to know (Hinds, Patterson, & Pfeffer, 2001). The
concept of knowledge management (KM) has attracted the attention of researchers overthe last decade since it is
considered an important tool to achieve innovation andsustainable competitive advantages (Damodaran &
Olphert, 2000; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Spender & Grant, 1996, Guchait et al., 2011).
Extensive research has demonstrated the importance of customer-employee interactions incustomers evaluation of
overall quality and/or satisfaction with services (Jackson, Chuang, Harden, Jiang,& Joseph, 2006; Guchait et al.,
2011). Knowledge sharing among employees and within and across enterprise resources leads organizations to
exploit andutilizetheir knowledge-based resources (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Damodaran & Olphert, 2000;
Davenport & Prusak, 1998).There is substantial evidence of the impact of knowledge management practices in
buildingstrong relationships with customers, and enhancing customer satisfaction andorganizational
performance(Arthur & Huntley, 2005; Collins & Smith, 2006;Cummings, 2004; Hansen, 2002; Lin, 2007d; MesmerMagnus & DeChurch, 2009; Guchait et al., 2011).
However, no prior studies have investigated the influence of KM practices in a service encountercontext. KM
begins with an understanding that knowledge is broadly classified as explicitknowledge and tacit knowledge. Each
has very particular characteristics, discussed morefully later in this paper, that influence KM (Babcock, 2004;
Guchait et al., 2011). An important reason for the failure of KMS to facilitateknowledge sharing is the lack of
attention of how the organizational and interpersonal context as well as individualcharacteristics affects
knowledge sharing (Carter & Scarbrough, 2001; Voelpel, Dous, & Davenport, 2005).
The framework shown in Fig. 1 was based on the descent review of theliterature and presents a structure for the
proposed work. Fig. 1 illustrates five emphasis areas of knowledge sharing research, the topicswithin each area of
emphasis that have been explored, and the relationships between each area of emphasis and knowledgesharing. As
shown in Fig. 1, the topics studied within each area of emphasis have been shown to directly or indirectly
influenceknowledge sharing through motivational factors. The right hand of Fig. 1 indicates the common
dependent variables surveyed inthe literature (knowledge sharing intention, intention to encourage knowledge

www.iji-cs.org

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

sharing, and knowledge sharing behaviors).Also, in Fig. 1, the topics shown in the shaded boxes with solid lines
have been examined in the existing literature. The topicsshown in the boxes with dotted lines need future research
attention. The topics shown in the overlapping areas represent thosethat have been examined in prior studies but
still warrant further research attention. Third, this review contributes to humanresource management practice by
discussing the implications of knowledge sharing research for the implementation, support,and effectiveness of
knowledge sharing initiatives in organizations.

Environmental Factors
Organizational Context

Management Support

Rewards / incentives

Organizational structure

culture / climate
leadership characteristics
context (online, face to
face)

Motivational factors
belief of knowledge ownership
perceived benefits and costs
justice

Interpersonal and team

characteristics

team characteristics /
Process

Diversity
Social networks
Team development stage

Cultural characteristics

Collectivism

In-group/out-group
Other cultural

Trust
Individual attributes
Social costs
Team level trust and
cohesiveness
LMX (leader/member exchange

Perceptions related to
knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing
intention
perceived benefits and
costs
justice

Knowledge sharing behavior

Individual characteristics

Education

Work experience

Personality
Self-efficacy
Impression management
Perception: e.g.,
knowledge as power
Topics Examined in the literature
Topic needed future research
Relationships examined in current research
Relationships needed future research

FIG. 1 A FRAMEWORK OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING

There is a need to deepen the inquiry into the emergent and rapid development of Knowledge Management (KM)
in China and Chinese contexts. The extant literature on Knowledge Management (KM) is largely, either developed
theoretically, or based on, Western and Japanese business environments from the 1990s through to the present (cf.
Mayer & Gavin, 2005; McAdam et al., 2012). While source trustworthiness leadsto enhance knowledge transfer
across units (Szulanski et al., 2004), the perception of an individual being trusted by the recipient may also affect
his/her motivation to share knowledge with this person. Also, conditional and unconditional trust may have
different relationships with knowledge sharing (cf. Jones & George, 1998).
A number of researchers have questioned whether researchers are able to understand what happens in other areas
because of the cultural, historical and economic differences. Management tools applied elsewhere to knowledge
sharing may not be applicable or viable when studying many managerial and other issues in the context (Cabrera
& Cabrera, 2002; Kollock, 1998; McAdam et al., 2012). The ideas, experiences, and knowledge shared in a KMS are

10

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

www.iji-cs.org

considered to be public goods which are accessible to every member of the system and their value will not
diminish with use (Brown & Duguid, 2002; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). Several studies included in the review used
social capital and network theories. Many of these studies rely on Nahapiet and Ghoshal's (1998) social capital
framework (i.e., structural, relational, cognitive dimensions).
Knowledge sharing (KS) has become more widely recognised as a key KM construct,especially in service sectors
such as consulting. The importance ofeffective knowledge sharing and resultant innovation from cross pollination
of ideasleading to increased competitiveness in Chinese markets has led to Chinese practitionersand organisations
seeking to contextualise or to increase their understanding of KS in aChinese setting. One of the key issues is to
understand to what extent thecultural factors have impacted on KS and resultant innovation activities
withinorganizations (Brown & Duguid, 1998; McAdam et al., 2012). When a formal or informal group (or
community of practice) is formed its members bring with them not only their own knowledge, skills, and abilities
but also their social connections. Based on structural holes theory (Burt, 1992), the more employees bridging
structural holes the more likely different types of knowledge may be shared. Therefore, it would be interesting to
investigate how employees' network positions are related to knowledge sharing and how organizations may better
leverage individuals in these critical positions (for example, see Parise, 2007).
The influence of attitudes toward knowledge sharing on knowledge sharing intentions and behavior has been
investigated rather extensively using the theory of reasoned action. However, few studies have examined their
antecedents. For example, Kwok and Gao (2005) showed that the richness of channel for knowledge sharing and
one's absorptive capability to learn from others has a positive influence on individuals' attitudes toward
knowledge sharing. They argued that individuals with higher absorptive capacity are more likely to experience the
benefits of knowledge sharing resulting in more positive attitudes toward knowledge sharing. Future research will
benefit from focusing on understanding how to enhance positive attitudes toward knowledge sharing.
Furthermore, although the role of motivation has been recognized and emphasized in the knowledge sharing
literature (e.g.,Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Goodman & Darr, 1998; Hansen, Mors, & Lovas, 2005), it is somewhat
surprising that traditional motivation theories such as expectancy theory and social cognitive theory (e.g., Chiu et
al., 2006; Quigley et al., 2007) have not been used as often in knowledge sharing research. Future research should
investigate knowledge sharing using these theoretical frameworks given the insight these theories have provided
in understanding other types of voluntary employee behavior such as participation in training and development
(Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993).
It should be mentioned that knowledge sharing in social networks is also an important issue that has been recently
studied (Perry-Smith, 2014; Shang, 2014; Leonardi, 2013).In some organizations employees consider knowledge
sharing an extra-role behavior, i.e., it is not included in formal job descriptions, while in others it is considered an
in-role behavior because knowledge sharing is expected and is evaluated and/or rewarded (e.g., Ewing & Keenan,
2001; Stevens, 2000). Future research needs to investigate whether there are differences in the type or quality of
knowledge shared when it is considered an in-role versus extra-role behavior. Theories related to prosocial
organizational behavior and personality may be useful for increasing our understanding of knowledge sharing
when it is considered an extra-role behavior.
The main work of this paper is to propose a switch architecture enabling knowledge sharing paradigm amongst
the resources of an enterprise.The proposed switch is associated with three major measurement factors based on
mathematical Boolean scales.
Proposed framework
We consider a switch framework to process knowledge sharing activities in an enterprise based on two measures
of interest and link. Our objectives to propose a knowledge sharing process in an enterprise are listed below:

Determining important enterprise resources after knowledge sharing

Configuring a 0/1 switch on the enterprise resources

Strengthening knowledge sharing

Determining bottlenecks for knowledge sharing

11

www.iji-cs.org

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

Also, the following assumptions are considered in the modelling process:

Enterprise resources are available

Information flows exists among enterprise resources

Knowledge sharing let to value added

Knowledge sharing between enterprise resources

Determining cross points in knowledge sharing and designing switch

The concept of switch implies to determining the knowledge sharing points. In the proposed model, the enterprise
resources are categorized based on the organizational chart to have necessary link or unnecessary link where the
aim is to fortify the parts having necessary links. We make use of zero/one value in an enterprise function matrix
(F), so that the value in the matrix is 1 when the link is necessary and it is zero otherwise. A hypothetical function
matrix having the values is given below(note that the elements of the matrix are the resources of the enterprise):
1
1

0
F=
0
0

1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1 0

0 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 0

0 0 1 0 1

Also, the concept of interest between any pair of the human resources in the enterprise is another aspect in the
model. Thus, if the two human resources have interest the value 1 is recorded in the interest matrix (I) and
otherwise the value is zero. A hypothetical interest matrix having the values is given below(note that the elements
of the matrix are the resources of the enterprise):
1
0

1
I=
1
1

0
1
1
1
0
0

1
1
1
0
0
1

1
1
0
1
1
1

1
0
0
1
1
1

0
0
1

1
1

Now, the cross points are obtained by vector multiplication of two matrices I and F.
1
0

0
FI =

0
0

0
0
0

1
0 0 1 1 0

0 0 1 0 1

0
1
0
0

0
0
1
0

0
0
0
1

0
0
0
1

The values one in above matrix shows the point that are opted for knowledge sharing and should be fortified.
The enterprise resources are configured and the problem solving process begins here. The essence of an assessment
program to evaluate, integrate, deposit and guide enterprise resources achievements during the process is of
importance. The structure of the interactivity network influences the aforementioned assessment program. In spite
of the growing consensus that networks matter (Ahuja, 2000), the specific effects of different elements of network
structure on knowledge sharing remain widely unclear. In the network literature, a debate has arisen over the
network structures that can appropriately be regarded as beneficial (Walker et al., 1997). According to one view,
close networks with many strong connections linking enterprise resources are seen as advantageous (e.g.,
Coleman, 1988). The alternative view, however, states that advantages derive from the opportunities created by an
open social structure (e.g., Burt, 1992). Enterprise resources can build contacts with multiple disconnected clusters
of enterprise resources and use these connections to obtain the right information at the right time (e.g., Burt, 1992).
12

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

www.iji-cs.org

From a theoretical point of view, these arguments have different, even contradictory, implications. The closeness of
a enterprise resources network is described by its network range and tie strength. Openness is captured by
network efficiency. The knowledge development program (KDP) of our study is shown in Figure 2. In this KDP, a
performance assessment stage is considered. The aim of this performance assessment is to track the enterprise
resources' improvements in the problem solving process. We conduct a comprehensive network interaction
assessment method (CNIAM) for evaluating the performance of the enterprise resources network interactions in
intelligent information exchange. The CNIAM consists of three elements: network range, tie strength, and network
efficiency.
There are numerous other characteristics of enterprise resources that may have been shown to influence KDP
enterprise resource knowledge sharing. Two variables affecting the knowledge sharing are theresearch and
development (R&D) intensity and the level of innovation. Since both factors are the same for all the enterprise
resources being considered, all enterprise resources face a very high R&D intensity and a very high level of
innovation, and thus we could not include these factors. Drawing on the innovation literature (e.g., Bharadwaj &
Menon, 2000; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Montaya-Weiss & Calatone, 1994), we included three control variables.
These variables are the size and the experience of the enterprise resources, and the presence of members having
various nationalities. With respect to these variables, there are clear variations among the enterprise resources in
the KDP.
Network Range
An enterprise resources network range represents the degree to which an enterprise resource is linked to other
enterprise resources. Network range has long been shown to influence how information spreads among enterprise
resources in projects. Timely provision with the right information is one of the most important ingredients for
knowledge sharing. Having many contacts should thus increase the chances to obtain the required information at
the right time by having multiple direct sources of information. Because of its obvious advantages and importance,
network range can be expected to positively impact the enterprise resources knowledge sharing in KDPs.
Tie Strength
The strength (frequency) of contacts among enterprise resources can affect how easily information is transferred
(Hansen, 1999). Enterprise resources that interact frequently with other enterprise resources are more likely to
share information than those who interact infrequently. More frequent interaction, especially among those with
different expertise, can lead to more effective interaction since the mutual understanding improves. In addition,
better mutual understanding eases the distribution of sophisticated and complex information. In order to be able to
understand and digest information, engineers need to know context of the information. This context is learned
through intense interaction with others. In addition, frequent contacts would also facilitate the formation of trust,
which may further ease the transfer of information. Trust gives parties the confidence that the information shared
will not be appropriated or misused. Based on this discussion, it can be expected that workgroups with more
frequent interaction are more creative in the process of innovation.
Network Efficiency
The third considered aspect of enterprise resource network addresses the degree of connectivityand interactions (or
the lack of it) among the enterprise resources (Ahuja, 2000). According to Burt (1992), contacts in interaction
networks are redundant to the degree that they lead to the same enterprise resources. An efficient network
structure indicates that enterprise resources have access to different non-overlapping flows of information.
Efficient networks imply access to mutually unconnected partners and, consequently, guarantee enterprise
resources more autonomy, while providing sufficient information. Such autonomy has been argued as
instrumental to creative achievements. In addition, an efficient network yields less waste of time and energy, and
so more can be employed in transforming available knowledge into new knowledge. Using these elements, the
proposed CNIAM is configured to analyze the network interactions. These interactions are related to the
information sharing among the enterprise resources. Enterprise resources interact and cooperate to solve problems
requiring the available knowledge of other enterprise resources. Information sharing takes place during

13

www.iji-cs.org

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

interactions among enterprise resources. To track and record these interactions, we configure an intelligent
information network.

New task

Knowledge Development Program

KDP
Collaboration

Creating resources network

Sharing frequency

Performance assessment

Information exchange
within network

New tasks

FIG. 2 KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR KNOWLEDGE SHARING MATRIX

TABLE 1 THE CNIAM MEASURES

Network range
NR(ni)=percentage of contacts of item i to all other enterprise resources j
N= Number of enterprise resources
1 if i is connected to j
xij =
0 if i is not connected to j
Tie strength
TS(ni)= proportional tie strength of enterprise resourcei to all other contacts j
Smax= maximum tie strength 3
1 if i is connected to j
xij =
0 if i is not connected to j

1 if i is connected to j at least monthly

sij = 2 if i is connected to j at least weekly

3 if i is connected to j at least daily

Network efficiency
i j and q i, j
NE(ni)= network efficiency of enterprise resourcei
piq= proportion of ithenterprise resourcestie strength to qthenterprise resources tie strength
(interaction with qthenterprise resource divided by the sum of ith contacts)
mjq= marginal strength of jthenterprise resources contact in relation with qthenterprise
resource's contact
(interaction with qth contact divided by the strongest of jth relationship with anyone)

14

xij 100
j
i

NR(ni ) =
N

xij sij 100

j
i

TS (ni ) =
xij smax
j i

NE (=
ni )

1 piq .m jq
j

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

www.iji-cs.org

Measuring CNIAM
We make use of the following entities.
Network range: Network range is measured by the fraction of all contacts each enterprise resource maintains with
the other enterprise resources at least with a monthly frequency.
Tie strength: Tie strength represents the proportional strength of contacts a enterprise resource maintains on the
scales of 0 = no interaction, 1 = (at least) monthly interaction, 2 = (at least) weekly interaction, and 3 = (at least) daily
interaction.
Network efficiency: For calculating the efficiency of the enterprise resources network we use the efficiency measure
proposed by Burt (1992). Network efficiency is calculated as the proportion of a enterprise resources nonredundant relationships.
The measures employed in this work are summarized in Table 1.
Case study
Here, to verify our proposed knowledge sharing matrix methodology, we consider a case study at an information
technology services company. Here, we first collect the knowledge sharing parameters of employees and after
purifying via threshold values for each parameter, we insert them into knowledge sharing matrices function and
interest.
1
1

0
F=
0
0

1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1 0

0 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 0

0 0 1 0 1

1
0

1
I=
1
1

0 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 0 0
1 1 0 0 1

1 0 1 1 1
0 0 1 1 1

0 1 1 1 1

Then, using the mathematical relations, we cluster the employees to enterprise resources.
1
0

0
FI =

0
0

0
0
0

1
0 0 1 1 0

0 0 1 0 1

0
1
0
0

0
0
1
0

0
0
0
1

0
0
0
1

The enterprise resources initiate the knowledge sharing process. Meanwhile, the KDP assessment program
evaluates, integrates, deposits and guides the enterprise resources achievements during the knowledge sharing
process. These activities are done by an expert observer who is knowledgeable of the research methodology.
Enterprise resources need to interact to exchange knowledge and information due to variety of the enterprise
resources expertise. These interactions are recorded by the supervisor of each enterprise resource. Now, the
CNIAM consisting of three elements of network range, tie strength, and network efficiency is worked out. We
studied the enterprise resources for three months. The interactions' data were recorded by the supervisors to be
used for CNIAM computations as given in Table 2.
TABLE 2 THE RESULTS OF THE CNIAM COMPUTATIONS

Enterprise resource i
1
2
3

NR(ni)
40%
27%
33%

TS(ni)
47
22
31

NE(ni)
0.51
0.15
0.34

These network measures help to find the more active enterprise resource and the enterprise resource with more

15

www.iji-cs.org

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

information exchanges for incentive purposes. The results showed that enterprise resource 1 was more active than
other enterprise resources. To evaluate the enterprise resources' knowledge sharing, experts analyzed the solutions
and scored them according to their standard measures. In order to establish a measure of knowledge sharing, the
three items were added into a scale from 1 (very low) to 21 (very high). Note those enterprise resources one, two
and three presented 8, 4, and 5 sharing, respectively. This way, the knowledge sharing measure of each enterprise
resource is evaluated and the practical solutions are chosen to be employed by the company.
Conclusions
We investigated different structural aspects of enterprise resources network organization and their knowledge
sharing within a knowledge development program (KDP). Initially, a pilot group of people in an organization was
selected. This group was evaluated through knowledge sharing parameters using a questionnaire. Considering the
questionnaires data, a decision maker configured the knowledge sharing matrix by a scoring technique. Applying
the knowledge sharing matrix, the clustering was performed. The pilot group was divided into some research
enterprise resources. The tasks were submitted to the enterprise resources and their progress in handling the
knowledge sharing was assessed through a comprehensive network interaction assessment method (CNIAM). The
advantages of such programs are continuous monitoring, gradual knowledge sharing in an organization,
involvement of organizations employees in the sharing process, updating employees knowledge sharing
parameters, and a comprehensive network interaction assessment method to guarantee continuous improvement.
The applicability of the proposed knowledge sharing matrix model was worked out in a case study.
REFERENCES

[1]

Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45(3), 425455.

[2]

Arthur, J. B., & Huntley, C. L. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning curve: Assessing the impact of deliberate
learning on organizational performanceunder gainsharing. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 11591170.

[3]

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working,
learning, and innovation. OrganizationScience, 2(1), 4057.

[4]

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90111.

[5]

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). Local knowledge: Innovation in the networked age. Management Learning, 33(4),
427437.

[6]

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[7]

Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345423.

[8]

Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23, 687710.

[9]

Carter, C., & Scarbrough, H. (2001). Towards a second generation of KM? The people management challenge. Education &
Training, 43(4), 215224.

[10] Chiu, C. -M., Hsu, M. -H., Wang, E., & T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An
integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 18721888.
[11] Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the
performance of high-technology firms.Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544560.
[12] Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management
Science, 50(3), 352364.
[13] Damodaran, L., & Olphert, W. (2000). Barriers and facilitators to the use of knowledge management systems. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 19(6), 405413.
[14] Das, T. K., & Teng, B. -S. (2002). Alliance constellations: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Review,
27, 445456.
[15] Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA:

16

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

www.iji-cs.org

Harvard Business School Press.

[16] Day, D. V., & Kilduff, M. (2003). Self-monitoring personality and work relationships: Individual differences in social
networks. In M. R. Barrick & A.M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in
organizations (pp. 205228). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[17] Ewing, J., & Keenan, F. (2001). Sharing the wealth. Business Week, 3724, EB3639.
[18] Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and
organizational context. Journal of InternationalManagement, 8(1), 4967.
[19] Goodman, P. S., & Darr, E. D. (1998). Computer-aided systems andcommunities:Mechanisms for organizational learning in
distributed environments. MIS Quarterly, 22(4), 417440.
[20] Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109122.
[21] Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization
subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82111.
[22] Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge network: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization
Science, 13(3), 232248.
[23] Hansen, M. T.,Mors, M. L., & Lovas, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks,multiple phases.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 776793.
[24] Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and
subsequent novice performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 12321243.
[25] Jackson, S. E., Chuang, C. -H., Harden, E. E., Jiang, Y., & Joseph, J. M. (2006). Toward developing human resource
management systems for knowledge-intensiveteamwork. In J. M. Joseph (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management, Vol. 25. (pp. 2770). Amsterdam: JAI.
[26] Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork
Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531546.
[27] Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 183205.
[28] Kwok, S. H., & Gao, S. (2005). Attitude towards knowledge sharing behavior. The Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 46(2), 4551.
[29] Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: toward a theory of communication visibility,
Information Systems Research 25(4), 798-816.
[30] Lin, H. -F. (2007d). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of
Manpower, 28(3/4), 315332.
[31] Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in
relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 314.
[32] Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees
watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874888.
[33] Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 535546.
[34] Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of
Management Review, 23(2), 242266.
[35] Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees' participation in development
activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 291302.
[36] Parise, S. (2007). Knowledge management and human resource development: An application in social network analysis
methods. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(3), 359383.
[37] Perry-Smith, J. E. (2014). Social network ties beyond nonredundancy: an experimental investigation of the effect of

17

www.iji-cs.org

International Journal of Information and Computer Science (IJICS) Volume 4, 2015

knowledge content and tie strength on creativity, Journal of Applied Psychology 99(5), 831-846.
[38] Quigley, N. R., Tesluk, P. E., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational
mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science, 18(1), 71-88.
[39] Shang, Y. (2014). An agent based model for opinion dynamics with random confidence threshold, Communications in
Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 19(10), 3766-3777.
[40] Spender, J. -C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 59.
[41] Stevens, L. (2000, October). Incentives for sharing. Knowledge Management, 5460.
[42] Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., & Jensen, R. J. (2004). When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the
moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, 15, 600613.
[43] Voelpel, S. C., Dous, M., & Davenport, T. H. (2005). Five steps to creating a global knowledge-sharing system: Siemens'
ShareNet. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 923.

18