See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283622716

THE KNOWLEDGE SHARING PRACTICES IN

HIGHER LEARNING INSTITUTION:
IMPLEMENTATION OF...

Conference Paper · October 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 13

1 author:

Sabiroh Md Sabri
Universiti Teknologi MARA
11 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sabiroh Md Sabri on 10 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 THE KNOWLEDGE SHARING PRACTICES IN HIGHER
LEARNING INSTITUTION: IMPLEMENTATION OF
SECI MODEL

ABSTRACT

For more than a decade, knowledge has been recognized as one of the important
resources that contribute to the competitive advantage of an organization. Literature
agreed that the sustainability of an organization is very much depending on how well
knowledge in the organization is captured, shared or transferred between individuals
and reuse them. However, it is interesting to learn that, in higher learning institution
where academicians hold some types of knowledge in high regards; academic
knowledge significantly remains a “cottage industry” with both tacit and explicit
knowledge kept isolated within the academician’s guilds. Knowledge generated by
research activities always stay within the academic community, rarely crosses
disciplinary boundaries and far away from reaching the industry community. True,
there has always been academic collaboration among academicians, but there is little
systematic sharing of learning content, context and supporting materials. Therefore, it
is the challenge of institutional leadership to work on how knowledge can be
understood and shared in different ways among the academicians inside and outside
the organization. This research attempts to investigate the practice of knowledge
sharing among academicians in Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu (UiTMT).
The knowledge sharing practice is measured through the implementation of SECI
model which facilitate the interaction of four knowledge-creating processes which
also described the ways knowledge is generated, transferred and re-created in
organizations. Data was collected through self-administered questionnaires
distributed to 300 UiTMT’s lecturers selected using quota sampling. Data was
analysed using descriptive statistics to determine the level of practice of knowledge
sharing among academicians. Results shown that academicians in UiTMT practice
knowledge sharing at moderate level. Furthermore, the results also shown that there
is no significant difference in knowledge sharing practice between different position
levels. The results of this study will be used to help the management of UiTMT
strategize the knowledge management implementation in the future.

Keywords: Knowledge Management, SECI Model, Knowledge Sharing, Higher

Learning Institution

INTRODUCTION

For many years now, organizations have started to recognise knowledge as one of the most
important resources that play an important role in an organization success. Since early 1990’s,
most organization has started to implement Knowledge Management (KM) to achieve
competitive advantages in their organization. Managing knowledge in effective and efficient
way an organization can is considered crucial for the organization sustainability especially to
leverage their knowledge resources which is considered the most important considerations
from the strategic perspective. In 1991, Malaysia has introduced the Vision 2020 with the
goal of attaining a developed nation status by the year 2020. Towards achieving this goal,
Malaysia is gearing itself for the transformation into a knowledge-based economy country.
One of it is through the transformation of the public sector into K-based Civil Service in order
to develop skilled and knowledge-based public sector which include in Malaysian Public
Institutions of Higher Education (MOF, 2002). Higher learning institution is one place where

1
researches are carried out and new knowledge is created. However, it is interesting to learn
that, in higher learning institution where academicians hold some types of knowledge in high
regards; academic knowledge significantly remains a “cottage industry” with both tacit and
explicit knowledge kept isolated within the academician’s guilds. True there has always been
academic collaboration, but there is little systematic sharing of learning content, context and
supporting materials. Knowledge generated by research activities often stays within a
laboratory or research team and rarely crosses disciplinary boundaries (Noris et el, 2003).
Knowledge sharing is a wide concepts, it can be interpreted in several ways and has been
viewed from many theoretical perspectives in some literature. However the concept should be
clearly understood by knowledge management practitioner and the knowledge worker.
Therefore, it is the challenge of institutional leadership to get the staff to reflect on the nature
of knowledge and on how knowledge can be understood and shared in different ways.
This study attempts to investigate the practice of knowledge sharing among academicians
in Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu (UiTMT). By investigating the current level of
knowledge management practices among academicians in UiTMT, this study adds to the
existing body of literature on knowledge management in Malaysia and also benefits both the
organization and individuals so that improvement can be made to increase the organization’s
performance through the practice of knowledge sharing. The rest of the paper is set out as
follows. The next section considers the previous literature used to support this study.
Following that, is the methodology used for the study. Then, the paper presents the results of
the empirical study in achieving the objectives set above. The latter section includes
discussion and conclusions.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

There are numbers of definitions emphasizing several different aspects of KM. Among
the attention drawn definition includes the definition by Gottschalk (2000) which underlines
the ownership of knowledge. He mentioned that KM is “unlocking and leveraging the
knowledge of individuals so that this knowledge becomes available as an organizational
resource that is not dependent on those same individuals”. O’Dell brings another perspective
to the field by describing KM as “a conscious strategy of getting the right knowledge to the
right people at the right time and helping people share and put information into action in
ways that strive to improve organizational performance”. Keeping all of these in mind, it is
possible to compose a more process-oriented definition of KM such as: “KM is the systematic
management of all activities and processes referred to generation and development,
codification and storage, transferring and sharing, and utilization of knowledge for an
organization’s competitive edge” (Zaim, 2006).
According to Nonaka (1994), knowledge can be classified into two different forms that
are tacit and explicit knowledge. Alavi and Leidner (2001) mentioned that, tacit knowledge
refers to the knowledge that rooted in actions experience, and involvement in specific context.
Tacit knowledge is difficult to communicate and formalized (Choi & Lee, 2002; Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995), can be only expressed in words (Nonaka, 1994) and transferred through
people interaction, experience, mental models and technical skills (Choi and Lee, 2002). On
the other hand, Alavi and Leidner (2001); Kim et al. (2003) define explicit knowledge as
articulated (spoken) and generalized knowledge which could be expressed in formal
language, mathematical equations or symbols. This type of knowledge is easily and effective
to share with others (Choi & Lee, 2002). To manage knowledge effectively, many researchers
have proposed a variety of important aspects about KM process to guide the way for effective
KM (Gold et al., 2001; Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Bloodgood & Salisbury, 2001; Nonaka,
1994). To explain the KM processes further, Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) proposed a model of
the knowledge creating process to understand the dynamic nature of knowledge creation, and
to manage such a process effectively called the SECI model which will be used as the basis of
this research.

2
The SECI Model

The SECI model was introduced by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) to explain the knowledge
creation process. It consist of 3 elements; SECI, Ba and Knowledge Assets. These 3
elements interact with each other organically and dynamically. The diagram depicted the
SECI model is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: SECI model by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)

SECI model suggests that the knowledge assets of an organization are mobilized and shared
in 'Ba' whereas the tacit knowledge held by individuals is converted and amplified by the
spiral of knowledge through Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization.
Socialization refers to the conversion of tacit knowledge to new tacit knowledge through
social interactions and shared experiences among organizational members. Externalization
refers to the conversion of tacit knowledge to new explicit knowledge. Combination refers to
the creation of new explicit knowledge by merging, categorizing, reclassifying, and
synthesizing existing explicit knowledge. Internalization refers to the creation of new tacit
knowledge from explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al.,
2000). SECI model demonstrates the transformation of different types of knowledge in
organization, group and individuals (Gray and Densten, 2004) where different kinds of
knowledge can be the source of another one and can be expanded and developed in group,
individual and organizational level in a spiral shape (McAdam and McCreedy, 1999). The
SECI process of knowledge creation describes dynamic interaction between tacit and explicit
knowledge and enables organizations to amplify knowledge embedded internally and transfer
knowledge into operational activities to improve efficiency and create value (Nonaka and
Konno, 1998; Nonaka et al., 2000).
Many researchers proposed knowledge creation processes. Alavi and Leidner (2001)
address four basic processes of creating, storing, transferring, and applying knowledge. These
major processes subdivide into creating internal knowledge, acquiring external knowledge,
storing knowledge in documents versus storing knowledge in routines (Teece, 1998) as well
as updating the knowledge and sharing knowledge internally and externally. Becerra et al.
(2004) introduce KM processes which include Knowledge Creation, Knowledge
Organisation, Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Application. In line with Becerra, Turban
& Aronson (2002) define knowledge management as a process that helps organizations
identify, select, organize, disseminate, and transfer important information and expertise in an
organization. Sharing and dissemination of knowledge is considered as the most important in
KM process in the organization. According to Oxbrow (2000) and McEvily et el (2000),
knowledge sharing, dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge are cited repeatedly as
the most effective way to a competitive advantage. Focusing on knowledge sharing through
the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge, Nonaka (1994) identifies four possible
modes explained in SECI model. Based on the recommendations done by past researchers,
this study adopts the SECI model by Nonaka (1994) to examine knowledge sharing practice

3
among academicians for a reason that the Nonaka’s model involving socialisation,
externalisation, combination and internalisation is able to explain how an institution must
create and build up its knowledge continuously through the process involving the sharing of
explicit and implicit knowledge to sustain institutional competitive advantage (Lee & Choi,
2003; Lee et al., 2006). Since its introduction, there has been lots of discussion on the
implementation of SECI model that has lead to various definitions of the processes involved.
For the purpose of this study, we defined each process as below.

a) SOCIALIZATION – Tacit to Tacit

To measure the sharing of tacit knowledge by academicians with other people who do not
have the knowledge through joint activities, physical proximity and/or face-to-face
communication for example in classrooms, meetings and discussions.
b) EXTERNALIZATION – Tacit to Explicit
To measure the expression and transfer of tacit knowledge into any type of documentation or
media e.g written, audio, video which enable its communication in publicly comprehensible
forms.
c) COMBINATION – Explicit to Explicit
To measure the conversion of explicit knowledge into more complex sets of explicit
knowledge; communication dissemination, systematization of explicit knowledge using
combination of various elements of explicit knowledge.
d) INTERNALIZATION – Explicit to Tacit
To measure the conversion of externalized knowledge into tacit knowledge on an individual
or organizational scale. The embodiment of explicit knowledge into actions, practices,
processes and strategic initiative. Closely linked to learning by doing, the explicit knowledge
becomes part of the individual's knowledge base (e.g. mental model) and becomes an asset for
the organization.

METHODOLOGY

This study used the descriptive research design and has adopted the SECI model to explain
the knowledge sharing practice. It includes four processes which are Socialization,
Externalization, Combination and Internalization. This study selected 300 academicians to
answer a set of questionnaires. Out of 300 questionnaires being sent out, 141 were returned,
yielding an overall response rate of 70% of total distributed questionnaire. The questionnaire
contained two sections: Section I of the questionnaire covers the demographic profile of
respondents. Data of findings from this section will be analyzed using percentage. Section II
of the questionnaire covers the questions on SECI model processes. Data from this section
will be analysed using descriptive statistics to determine the practice of knowledge sharing
where a higher mean value will indicate a higher level of practice. Apart from that, this
research will also compare the practice of knowledge sharing between different groups based
on respondents’ position level.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The discussion of the results is divided based on the sections in the questionnaire where
Section I covered the demographic profiles of the respondents and Section II covered the
question on SECI processes to investigate the knowledge sharing level.

4
Demographic Profile of Respondents

The analysis of the demographic profile of respondents was summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Demographic Profile of Respondents

Demographic Subject Frequencies Percentage Demographic Subject Frequencies Percentage
Gender Male 34 24.1% Position DM29/32 0 0.0%
Female 107 75.9% DM41/44 29 20.7%
Age (years) < 20 0 0.0% DM45/48 83 59.3%
20 - 29 48 34.0% DM51/52 25 17.9%
30 - 39 61 43.3% DM53/54 2 1.4%
40 - 49 20 14.2% VK5/6/7 1 0.7%
> 50 12 8.5% Faculty FCMS 18 12.9%
Highest Diploma 0 0.0% FEE 14 10.0%
Qualification Bachelor Degree 14 9.9% FCE 3 2.1%
Master Degree 121 85.8% FASPS 4 2.9%
Doctorate 6 4.3% FACC 13 9.3%
Others 0 0.0% FBM 45 32.1%
Working Experience <3 44 31.2% FHT 15 10.7%
(years) 4–7 50 35.5% FAS 2 1.4%
8 – 11 14 9.9% APB 17 12.1%
11 – 15 18 12.8% CITU 3 2.1%
> 15 15 10.6% FLAW 6 4.3%

The survey result shows that 24.1% of the respondents were male and 75.9% were female.
The age groups were 34.0% with age between 20 to 29 years old, 43.3% with age between 30
to 39 years old, 14.2% with age between 40 to 49 years old and 8.5% with age above 50 years
old. There is no respondent with age below 20 years old. For highest qualification, most of the
respondents have Master Degree which comprises of 85.8% followed by Bachelor Degree
with 9.9% and Doctorate with 4.3%. The Working Experience of the respondents has been
classified to various groups with 31.2% having less than 3 years of working experience,
35.5% with experience of 4 to 7 years, 9.9% having experience of 8 to 11 years, 12.8% with
experience of 11 to 15 years and finally 10.6% having experience of more than 15 years. The
respondents consists of academicians from different position level where 20.7% are Lecturer
(DM41), 59.3% are Lecturer (DM45), 17.9% are Senior Lecturer (DM52), 1.4% are
Associate Professor (DM53/54) and lastly 0.7% are Professors (VK5/6/7). Majority of the
respondents are from Faculty of Business and Management which contribute to 32.1%
followed by respondents from Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences (12.9%),
Akademi Pengajian Bahasa (12.1%), Faculty of Hotel and Tourism (10.7%) followed by
others.

Knowledge Sharing Practice Level Among Academicians

We divided the analysis based on the variables in SECI model which are Socialization,
Externalization, Combination and Internalization. Data for each variable was analyse using
descriptive statistics where higher mean value indicate a higher practice. The summary of
descriptive statistics for all items in the questionnaire is stated in their respective table below.

A. Socialization

Socialization refers to the conversion of tacit to tacit knowledge. In this study, Socialization
measures the sharing of tacit knowledge by academicians with other people who do not have
the knowledge through joint activities, physical proximity and/or face-to-face communication
for example in classrooms, meetings and discussions. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistic
for items under the Socialization variable.

5
 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Socialization
Strongly Agree Strongly
Neutral Disagree Std.
Agree Disagree Missing Total Mean
Variable Dev
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
A. SOCIALIZATION
Discuss knowledge and experience Count 42 87 10 2 0 0 141
1. 4.20 .624
with my students during class % 29.8% 61.7% 7.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Discuss knowledge and experience Count 32 95 14 0 0 0 141
2. 4.13 .559
with my colleagues inside organization % 22.7% 67.4% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Discuss knowledge and experience Count 24 84 26 5 2 0 141
3. 3.87 .782
with my colleagues outside organization % 17.0% 59.6% 18.4% 3.5% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Do not want my colleague to know my Count 88 36 6 9 1 1 140
4. 4.44 .899
knowledge and experience % 62.4% 25.5% 4.3% 6.4% 0.7% 0.7% 99.3%
Keep my knowledge and experience for Count 82 43 8 6 1 1 140
5. 4.42 .840
personal use % 58.2% 30.5% 5.7% 4.3% 0.7% 0.7% 99.3%
Participate in KS activities outside my Count 12 93 29 4 3 0 141
6. 3.76 .736
organization % 8.5% 66.0% 20.6% 2.8% 2.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 32 93 16 0 0 0 141
SUMMARY 4.1135 .57436
% 22.7% 66.0% 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

The table above represents the overall achievement for Socialization. The result shows that
22.7% chose “Strongly Agree”, the majority of 66.0% respondents chose “Agree”, 11.3%
chose “Neutral” and none chose “Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree” with the mean score of
4.1135 and standard deviation is .57436. From the results, it shows that Socialization is highly
being practiced by the majority of respondents. The standard deviation value also indicated
that the score is very close to the mean value and majority agreed that they have practiced the
conversion of tacit to tacit knowledge in their works.

B. Externalization

Externalization refers to the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge. In this study,

Externalization measures the expression and transfer of tacit knowledge into any type of
documentation or media e.g written, audio, video which enable its communication in publicly
comprehensible forms. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistic for items under the
Externalization variable.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Externalization

Strongly Agree Strongly
Neutral Disagree Std.
Variable Agree Disagree Missing Total Mean
Dev
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
B. EXTERNALIZATION
Document my knowledge and Count 19 78 36 8 0 0 141
7. 3.77 .753
experience for students to learn % 13.5% 55.3% 25.5% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Document my knowledge and Count 16 85 30 9 0 1 140
8. 3.77 .733
experience for colleagues to learn % 11.3% 60.3% 21.3% 6.4% 0.0% 0.7% 99.3%
Document knowledge and experience Count 12 68 50 11 0 0 141
9. 3.57 .758
for colleagues outside organization % 8.5% 48.2% 35.5% 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 1 18 45 56 21 0 141
10. Record ideas to share with colleagues 2.45 .921
% 0.7% 12.8% 31.9% 39.7% 14.9% 0.0% 100.0%
Record ideas to share with colleagues Count 2 15 48 55 21 0 141
11. 2.45 .921
outside organization % 1.4% 10.6% 34.0% 39.0% 14.9% 0.0% 100.0%
Document my best practices and share Count 9 60 53 16 3 0 141
12. 3.40 .853
with colleagues % 6.4% 42.6% 37.6% 11.3% 2.1% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 3 46 79 13 0 0 141
SUMMARY 3.2766 .65581
% 2.1% 32.6% 56.0% 9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

The overall achievement for Externalization is shown in the table above where result shows
that 2.1% of the respondents chose “Strongly Agree”, 32.6% respondents chose “Agree”, the
majority of 56.0% respondents chose “Neutral” and none chose “Disagree” and “Strongly
Disagree”. It shows that Externalization is being practiced moderately by the respondents
with mean value of 3.2766 and standard deviation of .65581. The standard deviation value
indicated that the score is close to the mean value and on average the respondents agreed that
they have practiced the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge in their works. Based on the
result, we conclude that the academicians in UiTM Terengganu generally reported moderate
execution of Externalization process.

6
C. Combination

Combination refers to the conversion of explicit to explicit knowledge. Externalization

measure the conversion of explicit knowledge into more complex sets of explicit knowledge;
communication dissemination, systematization of explicit knowledge using combination of
various elements of explicit knowledge. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistic for items
under the Combination variable.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Combination

Strongly Agree Strongly
Neutral Disagree Std.
Variable Agree Disagree Missing Total Mean
Dev
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
C. COMBINATION
Create own lecture notes and Count 37 79 19 5 1 0 141
13. 4.04 .778
disseminate to students % 26.2% 56.0% 13.5% 3.5% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0%
Create own lecture notes and Count 25 76 30 10 0 0 141
14. 3.82 .804
disseminate to colleagues % 17.7% 53.9% 21.3% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Discover good reading materials and Count 24 73 37 5 2 0 141
15. 3.79 .815
distribute it to colleagues % 17.0% 51.8% 26.2% 3.5% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Attend conference/seminar, hand out Count 17 62 53 8 1 0 141
16. 3.61 .800
materials to colleagues % 12.1% 44.0% 37.6% 5.7% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0%
Organize colloquium session to share Count 18 46 44 24 9 0 141
17. 3.28 1.091
knowledge and experience % 12.8% 32.6% 31.2% 17.0% 6.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 60 48 18 13 2 0 141
18. Keep what I read to myself 4.07 1.026
% 42.6% 34.0% 12.8% 9.2% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 18 86 35 2 0 0 141
SUMMARY 3.8511 .64294
% 12.8% 61.0% 24.8% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Summary for Combination variable is shown in the table above where result shows that
12.8% chose “Strongly Agree”, the majority of 61.0% respondents chose “Agree”, 24.8% of
the respondents chose “Neutral”, 1.4% chose “Disagree” and none chose “Strongly
Disagree”. It indicates that Combination is being moderately practiced by the respondents
where the mean value is 3.8511 and standard deviation is .64294. A moderate mean value
represents a moderate level of practice base on scale 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly
Agree. The standard deviation value indicated that the score is close to the mean value and on
average the respondents agreed that they have practiced the conversion of explicit to explicit
knowledge in their works. Based on the result, we conclude that the academicians in UiTM
Terengganu generally reported moderate execution of Combination process.

D. Internalization

Internalization refers to the conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge. Internalization measure

the conversion of externalized knowledge into tacit knowledge on an individual or
organizational scale. The embodiment of explicit knowledge into actions, practices, processes
and strategic initiative. Closely linked to learning by doing, the explicit knowledge becomes
part of the individual's knowledge base (e.g. mental model) and becomes an asset for the
organization. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistic for items under the Internalization
variable.
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Internalization
Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree Std.
Variable Agree Disagree Missing Total Mean
Dev
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
D. INTERNALIZATION
Attend training session to improve Count 52 80 8 1 0 0 141
19. 4.29 .639
knowledge % 36.9% 56.7% 5.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Listen and share other people Count 56 80 3 1 0 1 140
20. 4.36 .601
experience % 39.7% 56.7% 2.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 99.3%
Learn from other people experience Count 55 80 4 1 0 1 140
21. 4.34 .609
through their stories % 39.0% 56.7% 2.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 99.3%
Contribute my knowledge in developing Count 20 62 49 6 2 2 139
22. 3.66 .830
U's policies % 14.2% 44.0% 34.8% 4.3% 1.4% 1.4% 98.6%
Contributes my ideas in improving Count 25 77 33 3 2 1 140
23. 3.86 .783
syllabus % 17.7% 54.6% 23.4% 2.1% 1.4% 0.7% 99.3%
Count 18 86 35 2 0 0 141
SUMMARY 3.8511 .64294
% 12.8% 61.0% 24.8% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

7
The results Internalization variable is shown in the table above where result shows that 12.8%
chose “Strongly Agree”, the majority of 61.0% respondents chose “Agree”, 24.8% of the
respondents chose “Neutral”, 1.4% chose “Disagree” and none chose “Strongly Disagree”. It
shows that Internalization is being moderately practiced by the respondents with the mean
score of 3.8511 and standard deviation of .64294. The standard deviation value indicated that
the score is close to the mean value and on average the respondents agreed that they have
practiced the conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge in their works. Based on the result, we
conclude that the academicians in UiTM Terengganu generally reported moderate execution
of Internalization process.

Testing of Differences using One-way ANOVA

Knowledge can be defined as a combination of experience, values, contextual information

and expert insight that help evaluate and incorporate new experience and information
(Gammelgaard and Ritter, 2000). Knowledge not only exists in documents and repositories,
but it is embedded in people’s mind overtime and it is demonstrated through their actions and
behavior. Knowledge is accumulated through a long journey of experience. Rationally, the
more working experience people have, the more knowledge they obtained. In a higher
learning institution, a higher working experience often associated with a higher position level.
Therefore we conduct One-way ANOVA test to investigate the difference between position
level groups in practicing knowledge sharing. The result of the test is summarized in Table 6
below.

Table 6: Multiple Comparison for Position Level

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .859 4 .215 .652 .627
Within Groups 44.843 136 .330
Total 45.702 140

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

(I) Position Level (J) Position Level Difference Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
(I-J)
Lecturer (Contract)(DM41) Lecturer (DM45) -.19152 .12386 .534 -.5340 .1509
Senior Lecturer (DM51/52) -.15586 .15671 .857 -.5891 .2774
Associate Professor (DM53/54) -.27586 .41980 .965 -1.4365 .8848
Professor (VK5/6/7) -.27586 .41980 .965 -1.4365 .8848
Lecturer (DM45) Senior Lecturer (DM51/52) .03566 .13100 .999 -.3265 .3978
Associate Professor (DM53/54) -.08434 .41090 1.000 -1.2203 1.0517
Professor (VK5/6/7) -.08434 .41090 1.000 -1.2203 1.0517
Senior Lecturer (DM51/52) Associate Professor (DM53/54) -.12000 .42196 .999 -1.2866 1.0466
Professor (VK5/6/7) -.12000 .42196 .999 -1.2866 1.0466
Associate Professor (DM53/54) Professor (VK5/6/7) .00000 .57422 1.000 -1.5876 1.5876

Results of the One-way ANOVA test shows that p=.627. Given that p<.05, the results
indicates that there is no significant difference between position level groups in knowledge
sharing practice, F(4,136) = .652, p<.05.

CONCLUSIONS

The intention of this study is to investigate the practice of knowledge sharing among
academicians in UiTMT. Recent studies have expressed considerable interest in knowledge
sharing practices (Hicks, et, al., 2007), and benefits of knowledge transfer and sharing have
been discussed widely among scholars and practitioners (Sveiby and Simons, 2002). Higher
learning institution plays an essential role in society, creating new knowledge, transferring it
to students and fostering innovation Therefore, it is crucial for it to bring together intellectual
resources and make them available across organizational boundaries.
Our study used SECI model to measure the knowledge sharing practice among
academicians in UiTMT. We investigated based on four processes in SECI model where

8
execution of each process would conclude whether the level of knowledge sharing. The
processes that we investigated are Socialization, Externalization, Combination and
Internalization. Among all four processes, Socialization shows high level of execution
compared to Externalization, Combination and Internalization processes which are only at
moderate level. Apart from that, we also investigated the difference of knowledge sharing
practice between different position levels. Results show that there is no significant difference
among the groups. Realizing the importance of KM in an organization and how knowledge
sharing can help create new organization knowledge, results from this study can help the
management of UiTMT to strategize the implementation of KM in the future.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly,
25(1), 107-136.

Becerra Fernandez et al. (2004). Knowledge Management Solutions.

Bloodgood, J. M. and Salisbury, W. D. (2001). Understanding the influence of organisational

change strategies on information technology and knowledge management strategies.
Decision Support System, 31, 55-69.

Choi, B. and Lee, H. (2002). Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge
creation process. Expert Systems with Applications , 23, 173-187.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A.H. (2001). Knowledge Management: An
organisational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information System,
18(1), 185-214.

Gottshcalk, P. (2000). Strategic Knowledge Networks: The Case of IT Support For Eurojuris
Law Firms in Norway. International review of law computers & technology, 14(1), 115-
129.

Gray, J.H. and Densten, I.L. (2004). Towards an Integrative Model of Organizational Culture
and Knowledge Management. Int. J. Organizational. Behavior. 9(2): 594-603.

Hicks, R., Dattero, R. and Galup, S. (2007) “A Metaphor for Knowledge Management:
Explicit Islands in a Tacit Sea.” Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.
5-16.

Kim, Y.G., Yu, S.H. & Lee, J.H. (2003). Knowledge strategy planning: Methodology and
case. Expert System with Applications, 1-13.

Lee, J.H., Kim, Y.G., & Kim, M.Y. (2006). Effects of managerial drivers and climate
maturity on knowledge-management performance: empirical validation. Information
Resources Management Journal , 19(3), 48-60.

McAdam, R. and McCreedy, S. (1999). A Critical Review of Knowledge Management

Models. The Learning Organization, 6(3): 91-100.

McEvily, S.K., Das, S., & McCabe, K. (2000). Avoiding competence substitute through
knowledge sharing. Academy of Management Review, 25, 2, 294-311.

9
Ministry of Finance. (2002), The Knowledge-Based Economy Master Plan, Ministry of
Finance, Kuala Lumpur

Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: building a foundation for knowledge
creation. Calif Management Review. 40(3):40–54.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new
perspective on the theory of the firm. Ind Corp Change. 9(1):1-20.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization

Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuichi. (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company.

Norris, D.M., Mason, J., Robson, R., Lefrere, P., & Collier, G. (2003). A revolution in
knowledge sharing. EDUCAUSE Review, 15-16-26.

Oxbrow, N. (2000). Skills and competencies to succeed in a knowledge economy.

Information Outlook, 4, 10, 18-23.

Sveiby, K.E. and Simons, R. (2002) “Collaborative Climate and Effectiveness of Knowledge
Work- An Empirical Study.” Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 420-
433.

Teece, D.J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for
know-how, and intangible assets. Calif Manage Rev. 40(3):55–79.

Turban, E. and Aronson, J.E. (2002). Organizational Learning and Knowledge: Concepts,
Methodologies, Tools and Applications. IGI Global snippet.

Zaim, H. (2006). Knowledge Management Implementation in IZGAZ. Journal of Economic

and Social Research 8(2), 1-25.

10