Co-Corporeality: Responding, Observing and Sharing Knowledge

Drawing on the sociocultural view, shared knowledge is regarded as a basis for interdependent working and multi-professional learning in early childhood education. Shared professional knowledge can be seen as a central element in successful collaboration facilitating individual and collaborative professional learning. This study aims to investigate the content and implementation of shared professional knowledge in an early childhood context. Video-taped data were collected using a stimulated recall method from the two participating teachers. The results show that the content of shared professional knowledge was related to two areas in the teachers’ professional knowledge: professional self and professional tasks. In addition, the shared professional knowledge varied according to the teachers’ work contexts. This study offers new knowledge on early childhood education practices and teacher education, considering multi-professional collaboration, and shared learning.

Knowledge Sharing Strategies for Large Complex Building Projects.

The construction industry is a project-based sector with a myriad of actors such as architects, construction companies, consultants, producers of building materials (Anumba et al., 2005). The interaction between the project partners is often quite limited, which leads to insufficient knowledge sharing during the project and knowledge being unavailable for reuse (Fruchter et al. 2002). The result can be a considerable amount of extra work, delays and cost overruns. Design outcomes that are supposed to function as boundary objects across different disciplines can lead to misinterpretation of requirements, project content and objectives. In this research, knowledge is seen as resulting from social interactions; knowledge resides in communities and it is generated through social relationships (Wenger 1998, Olsson et al. 2008). Knowledge is often tacit, intangible and context-dependent and it is articulated in the changing responsibilities, roles, attitudes and values that are present in the work environment (Bresnen et al., 2003). In a project environment, knowledge enables individuals to solve problems, take decisions, and apply these decisions to actions. In order to achieve a shared understanding and minimize the misunderstanding and misinterpretations among project actors, it is necessary to share knowledge (Fong 2003). Sharing knowledge is particularly crucial in large complex building projects (LCBPs) in order to accelerate the building process, improve architectural quality and prevent mistakes or undesirable results. However, knowledge sharing is often hampered through professional or organizational boundaries or contractual concerns. When knowledge is seen as an organizational asset, there is little willingness among project organizations to share their knowledge. Individual people may recognize the need to promote knowledge sharing throughout the project, but typically there is no deliberate strategy agreed by all project partners to address knowledge sharing. In the literature, two main approaches on knowledge sharing can be distinguished, an object or content -oriented perspective and a community-oriented perspective. In the object perspective, technology is seen as a medium to store and share knowledge. The limitations of this perspective are that social processes and tacit knowledge are not adequately supported and there has generally been a slow adoption of such technology in design practices. The community perspective prevents these problems by allowing for the natural and informal formation of communities, however, communities can become largely independent and unconnected, which makes it more difficult to entice them towards a certain strategic direction. Since both approaches have their limitations, this thesis proposes a holistic framework for knowledge sharing in LCBPs drawing on concepts by Mintzberg (1973) and Activity Theory. Mintzberg’s concepts are used to discuss the type of implementation (top-down, bottom-up), and the origin of the strategies (deliberate/emergent/(un)realized). For analysing the content and effect of each strategy, concepts from Activity Theory (tools, subject, object, rules, community, and division of labour) are used. The proposed model, the Knowledge Diamond, consists of four dimensions for analysing and designing knowledge sharing strategies for LCBPs. Three of these were inspired by Activity Theory, namely tools, procedures, and social practices, while a fourth emerged as a crucial dimension in this thesis: physical settings. This framework was used to examine knowledge sharing strategies in a comparative analysis of two large complex building projects. Based on rich data from observations, documents and interview, the origins, the development and the effect of both forms of knowledge sharing environments are investigated. The first part of the analysis sheds new light on the possibilities of knowledge sharing in large complex building project. The unique, temporary, and complex nature of such projects has often been reported as a potential barrier to investing knowledge sharing. However, this analysis highlighted that the while the location is unique, the underlying challenges are typically not, and although projects are per definition temporary, these large, complex projects often last for a decade. Investing in knowledge sharing is therefore possible and worth the effort, and with respect to complexity more needed than those involved are aware of. In the second part of the empirical data analysis, the knowledge sharing strategies inuse in the two cases were examined. The first case represents a people-oriented approach using collocated open plan offices for the entire design team; the second case represents a tool-oriented approach drawing on a Building Information Model (BIM). The co-located offices provided the physical setting for knowledge sharing, but it not planned as a conscious strategy and so was mainly regarded as sharing the same office floor and was not used to its full potential. Physical boundaries remained between subteams and interaction was restricted to the level of project managers. In the second case, the implementation of a BIM represented a bottom-up and emergent strategy that embraced digital technologies for specific problems. The analysis showed that there was limited understanding about requirements and implication of changes in the design processes. Introduced through a bottom-up emergent strategy without commitment from all project partners, it was not possible to utilize the potential benefits of a BIM system for the overall design team. The analysis also revealed that what practitioners referred to as a BIM, was not a true BIM implementation, thereby indicating that digital concepts are still not completely clear in practice. This comparative analysis of two cases led to several conclusions: • Irrespective of whether a tool or people-oriented approach is used, there will be emerging strategies with which people try to address problems caused by limited knowledge sharing. • The physical setting can play a major role in supporting interaction. Designers and managers will make intentional or spontaneous use of the possibilities that their physical setting affords, even though tools are available that can facilitate distributed work. Thus, tool implementations do not make physical settings obsolete. • Tools provide a technological infrastructure such as creating virtual proximity, handling design and criteria changes, enhancing design representation, or dealing with changes in personnel. However, there is no magic want that cures all problems and challenges of LCBPs. • Procedures refer to formal and informal rules about knowledge sharing. Such rules are important means of creating shared expectations and information exchange, however, procedures can only guide but not dictate the actual behaviour of actors in regard to knowledge sharing. • Social practices form the social infrastructure that enables and facilitates knowledge sharing through the physical setting, tools, and procedures. However, if the project culture has emerged intuitively, these practices may involve rather limited sharing behaviour at various levels (i.e. executive, managerial, and technical). Through my research and recommendations, I have attempted to offer fresh insights to practitioners about the value and necessity of knowledge sharing in large complex building projects. The framework of the Knowledge Diamond is not intended as a magic cure, but it can serve as a guideline for enhancing knowledge sharing by paying explicit attention to all four dimensions and taking advantages of new technologies such as BIM and 3D models. Although the insights of this research are based on only two cases, the conclusions were confirmed by a panel of experts who confirmed similarities with their own experience. This study also contributed to the literature on knowledge sharing and project management. The Knowledge Diamond can help to conceptualise knowledge sharing at both the inter-organizational and cross-disciplinary level. It can also form the basis for further theory development about work in project-based settings and help to define new project management methodologies.

The construction industry is a project-based sector with a myriad of actors such as architects, construction companies, consultants, producers of building materials (Anumba et al., 2005). The interaction between the project partners is often quite limited, which leads to insufficient knowledge sharing during the project and knowledge being unavailable for reuse (Fruchter et al. 2002). The result can be a considerable amount of extra work, delays and cost overruns. Design outcomes that are supposed to function as boundary objects across different disciplines can lead to misinterpretation of requirements, project content and objectives. In this research, knowledge is seen as resulting from social interactions; knowledge resides in communities and it is generated through social relationships (Wenger 1998, Olsson et al. 2008). Knowledge is often tacit, intangible and context-dependent and it is articulated in the changing responsibilities, roles, attitudes and values that are present in the work environment (Bresnen et al., 2003). In a project environment, knowledge enables individuals to solve problems, take decisions, and apply these decisions to actions. In order to achieve a shared understanding and minimize the misunderstanding and misinterpretations among project actors, it is necessary to share knowledge (Fong 2003). Sharing knowledge is particularly crucial in large complex building projects (LCBPs) in order to accelerate the building process, improve architectural quality and prevent mistakes or undesirable results. However, knowledge sharing is often hampered through professional or organizational boundaries or contractual concerns. When knowledge is seen as an organizational asset, there is little willingness among project organizations to share their knowledge. Individual people may recognize the need to promote knowledge sharing throughout the project, but typically there is no deliberate strategy agreed by all project partners to address knowledge sharing. In the literature, two main approaches on knowledge sharing can be distinguished, an object or content -oriented perspective and a community-oriented perspective. In the object perspective, technology is seen as a medium to store and share knowledge. The limitations of this perspective are that social processes and tacit knowledge are not adequately supported and there has generally been a slow adoption of such technology in design practices. The community perspective prevents these problems by allowing for the natural and informal formation of communities, however, communities can become largely independent and unconnected, which makes it more difficult to entice them towards a certain strategic direction. Since both approaches have their limitations, this thesis proposes a holistic framework for knowledge sharing in LCBPs drawing on concepts by Mintzberg (1973) and Activity Theory. Mintzberg’s concepts are used to discuss the type of implementation (top-down, bottom-up), and the origin of the strategies (deliberate/emergent/(un)realized). For analysing the content and effect of each strategy, concepts from Activity Theory (tools, subject, object, rules, community, and division of labour) are used. The proposed model, the Knowledge Diamond, consists of four dimensions for analysing and designing knowledge sharing strategies for LCBPs. Three of these were inspired by Activity Theory, namely tools, procedures, and social practices, while a fourth emerged as a crucial dimension in this thesis: physical settings. This framework was used to examine knowledge sharing strategies in a comparative analysis of two large complex building projects. Based on rich data from observations, documents and interview, the origins, the development and the effect of both forms of knowledge sharing environments are investigated. The first part of the analysis sheds new light on the possibilities of knowledge sharing in large complex building project. The unique, temporary, and complex nature of such projects has often been reported as a potential barrier to investing knowledge sharing. However, this analysis highlighted that the while the location is unique, the underlying challenges are typically not, and although projects are per definition temporary, these large, complex projects often last for a decade. Investing in knowledge sharing is therefore possible and worth the effort, and with respect to complexity more needed than those involved are aware of. In the second part of the empirical data analysis, the knowledge sharing strategies inuse in the two cases were examined. The first case represents a people-oriented approach using collocated open plan offices for the entire design team; the second case represents a tool-oriented approach drawing on a Building Information Model (BIM). The co-located offices provided the physical setting for knowledge sharing, but it not planned as a conscious strategy and so was mainly regarded as sharing the same office floor and was not used to its full potential. Physical boundaries remained between subteams and interaction was restricted to the level of project managers. In the second case, the implementation of a BIM represented a bottom-up and emergent strategy that embraced digital technologies for specific problems. The analysis showed that there was limited understanding about requirements and implication of changes in the design processes. Introduced through a bottom-up emergent strategy without commitment from all project partners, it was not possible to utilize the potential benefits of a BIM system for the overall design team. The analysis also revealed that what practitioners referred to as a BIM, was not a true BIM implementation, thereby indicating that digital concepts are still not completely clear in practice. This comparative analysis of two cases led to several conclusions: • Irrespective of whether a tool or people-oriented approach is used, there will be emerging strategies with which people try to address problems caused by limited knowledge sharing. • The physical setting can play a major role in supporting interaction. Designers and managers will make intentional or spontaneous use of the possibilities that their physical setting affords, even though tools are available that can facilitate distributed work. Thus, tool implementations do not make physical settings obsolete. • Tools provide a technological infrastructure such as creating virtual proximity, handling design and criteria changes, enhancing design representation, or dealing with changes in personnel. However, there is no magic want that cures all problems and challenges of LCBPs. • Procedures refer to formal and informal rules about knowledge sharing. Such rules are important means of creating shared expectations and information exchange, however, procedures can only guide but not dictate the actual behaviour of actors in regard to knowledge sharing. • Social practices form the social infrastructure that enables and facilitates knowledge sharing through the physical setting, tools, and procedures. However, if the project culture has emerged intuitively, these practices may involve rather limited sharing behaviour at various levels (i.e. executive, managerial, and technical). Through my research and recommendations, I have attempted to offer fresh insights to practitioners about the value and necessity of knowledge sharing in large complex building projects. The framework of the Knowledge Diamond is not intended as a magic cure, but it can serve as a guideline for enhancing knowledge sharing by paying explicit attention to all four dimensions and taking advantages of new technologies such as BIM and 3D models. Although the insights of this research are based on only two cases, the conclusions were confirmed by a panel of experts who confirmed similarities with their own experience. This study also contributed to the literature on knowledge sharing and project management. The Knowledge Diamond can help to conceptualise knowledge sharing at both the inter-organizational and cross-disciplinary level. It can also form the basis for further theory development about work in project-based settings and help to define new project management methodologies.

The construction industry is a project-based sector with a myriad of actors such as architects, construction companies, consultants, producers of building materials (Anumba et al., 2005). The interaction between the project partners is often quite limited, which leads to insufficient knowledge sharing during the project and knowledge being unavailable for reuse (Fruchter et al. 2002). The result can be a considerable amount of extra work, delays and cost overruns. Design outcomes that are supposed to function as boundary objects across different disciplines can lead to misinterpretation of requirements, project content and objectives. In this research, knowledge is seen as resulting from social interactions; knowledge resides in communities and it is generated through social relationships (Wenger 1998, Olsson et al. 2008). Knowledge is often tacit, intangible and context-dependent and it is articulated in the changing responsibilities, roles, attitudes and values that are present in the work environment (Bresnen et al., 2003). In a project environment, knowledge enables individuals to solve problems, take decisions, and apply these decisions to actions. In order to achieve a shared understanding and minimize the misunderstanding and misinterpretations among project actors, it is necessary to share knowledge (Fong 2003). Sharing knowledge is particularly crucial in large complex building projects (LCBPs) in order to accelerate the building process, improve architectural quality and prevent mistakes or undesirable results. However, knowledge sharing is often hampered through professional or organizational boundaries or contractual concerns. When knowledge is seen as an organizational asset, there is little willingness among project organizations to share their knowledge. Individual people may recognize the need to promote knowledge sharing throughout the project, but typically there is no deliberate strategy agreed by all project partners to address knowledge sharing. In the literature, two main approaches on knowledge sharing can be distinguished, an object or content -oriented perspective and a community-oriented perspective. In the object perspective, technology is seen as a medium to store and share knowledge. The limitations of this perspective are that social processes and tacit knowledge are not adequately supported and there has generally been a slow adoption of such technology in design practices. The community perspective prevents these problems by allowing for the natural and informal formation of communities, however, communities can become largely independent and unconnected, which makes it more difficult to entice them towards a certain strategic direction. Since both approaches have their limitations, this thesis proposes a holistic framework for knowledge sharing in LCBPs drawing on concepts by Mintzberg (1973) and Activity Theory. Mintzberg’s concepts are used to discuss the type of implementation (top-down, bottom-up), and the origin of the strategies (deliberate/emergent/(un)realized). For analysing the content and effect of each strategy, concepts from Activity Theory (tools, subject, object, rules, community, and division of labour) are used. The proposed model, the Knowledge Diamond, consists of four dimensions for analysing and designing knowledge sharing strategies for LCBPs. Three of these were inspired by Activity Theory, namely tools, procedures, and social practices, while a fourth emerged as a crucial dimension in this thesis: physical settings. This framework was used to examine knowledge sharing strategies in a comparative analysis of two large complex building projects. Based on rich data from observations, documents and interview, the origins, the development and the effect of both forms of knowledge sharing environments are investigated. The first part of the analysis sheds new light on the possibilities of knowledge sharing in large complex building project. The unique, temporary, and complex nature of such projects has often been reported as a potential barrier to investing knowledge sharing. However, this analysis highlighted that the while the location is unique, the underlying challenges are typically not, and although projects are per definition temporary, these large, complex projects often last for a decade. Investing in knowledge sharing is therefore possible and worth the effort, and with respect to complexity more needed than those involved are aware of. In the second part of the empirical data analysis, the knowledge sharing strategies inuse in the two cases were examined. The first case represents a people-oriented approach using collocated open plan offices for the entire design team; the second case represents a tool-oriented approach drawing on a Building Information Model (BIM). The co-located offices provided the physical setting for knowledge sharing, but it not planned as a conscious strategy and so was mainly regarded as sharing the same office floor and was not used to its full potential. Physical boundaries remained between subteams and interaction was restricted to the level of project managers. In the second case, the implementation of a BIM represented a bottom-up and emergent strategy that embraced digital technologies for specific problems. The analysis showed that there was limited understanding about requirements and implication of changes in the design processes. Introduced through a bottom-up emergent strategy without commitment from all project partners, it was not possible to utilize the potential benefits of a BIM system for the overall design team. The analysis also revealed that what practitioners referred to as a BIM, was not a true BIM implementation, thereby indicating that digital concepts are still not completely clear in practice. This comparative analysis of two cases led to several conclusions: • Irrespective of whether a tool or people-oriented approach is used, there will be emerging strategies with which people try to address problems caused by limited knowledge sharing. • The physical setting can play a major role in supporting interaction. Designers and managers will make intentional or spontaneous use of the possibilities that their physical setting affords, even though tools are available that can facilitate distributed work. Thus, tool implementations do not make physical settings obsolete. • Tools provide a technological infrastructure such as creating virtual proximity, handling design and criteria changes, enhancing design representation, or dealing with changes in personnel. However, there is no magic want that cures all problems and challenges of LCBPs. • Procedures refer to formal and informal rules about knowledge sharing. Such rules are important means of creating shared expectations and information exchange, however, procedures can only guide but not dictate the actual behaviour of actors in regard to knowledge sharing. • Social practices form the social infrastructure that enables and facilitates knowledge sharing through the physical setting, tools, and procedures. However, if the project culture has emerged intuitively, these practices may involve rather limited sharing behaviour at various levels (i.e. executive, managerial, and technical). Through my research and recommendations, I have attempted to offer fresh insights to practitioners about the value and necessity of knowledge sharing in large complex building projects. The framework of the Knowledge Diamond is not intended as a magic cure, but it can serve as a guideline for enhancing knowledge sharing by paying explicit attention to all four dimensions and taking advantages of new technologies such as BIM and 3D models. Although the insights of this research are based on only two cases, the conclusions were confirmed by a panel of experts who confirmed similarities with their own experience. This study also contributed to the literature on knowledge sharing and project management. The Knowledge Diamond can help to conceptualise knowledge sharing at both the inter-organizational and cross-disciplinary level. It can also form the basis for further theory development about work in project-based settings and help to define new project management methodologies.

Knowledge Sharing Strategies for Large Complex Building Projects.

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships among organizational climate, teachers’ knowledge sharing and teachers’ professional growth in elementary school. Subjects were sampled from public elementary schools in Taipei county. The questionnaires were administered on the network platform. The return rate was 68% and the valid sample was 462 teachers. The questionnaire was constructed into three subsets: organizational climate, teachers’ knowledge sharing and teachers’ professional growth. The statistics used in the present study were ANOVA, χ2 , multiple regression, and SEM analysis. The results were as the following: 1. The most frequent type of organizational climate was the open climate. There were middle to high level degree of teachers’ knowledge sharing and teachers’ professional growth. 2. There were significant differences in organizational climate in terms of the teachers’ demographic variables such as age, serving years, positions, and school’s size. 3. There were significant differences in teachers’ knowledge sharing in terms of the teachers’ demographic variables such as age, educational level, serving years, positions, school’s size, school’s area and school’s history. 4. There were significant differences in teachers’ professional growth in terms of the teachers’ demographic variables such as age, educational level, serving years, positions and school’s history. 5. There were significant differences in teachers’ knowledge sharing in terms of different types of organizational climate. 6. There were significant differences in teachers’ professional growth in terms of different types of organizational climate. 7. Teachers’ professional growth. could be predicted by teachers’ knowledge sharing (R2 = 0.498). 8. Teachers’ knowledge sharing had the significant mediator effect between organizational climate and teachers’ professional growth. 9. The causal path model of teachers’ knowledge sharing , organizational climate and teachers’ professional growth was validated by SEM (χ2 =91.56, p=0.3).

The main goal of this paper is to propose a dynamic mapping for knowledge and ignorance mobilization in science research and innovation. An underlying argument is that ‘knowledge mobilization’ science policy agendas in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom fail to capture a critical element of science and innovation: ignorance mobilization. The latter draws attention to dynamics upstream of knowledge in science research and innovation. Although perhaps less visible, there is ample evidence that researchers value, actively produce, and thereby mobilize ignorance. For example, scientists and policymakers routinely mobilize knowledge gaps (cf. ignorance) in the process of establishing and securing research funding to argue the relevance of a scientific paper or a presentation, and to launch new research projects. Ignorance here is non-pejorative and by and large points to the borders and the limits of scientific knowing – what is known to be unknown. In addition, processes leading to the intentional or unintentional consideration or bracketing out of what is known to be unknown are intertwined with, yet remain distinct from, knowledge mobilization dynamics. The concepts of knowledge mobilization and of ignorance mobilization, respectively, are understood to be the use of knowledge or ignorance towards the achievement of goals. The value of this paper lies in its conceptualization of the mobilization of knowledge as related to the mobilization of ignorance within a complex, dynamic and symbiotic relationship in science research and innovation: it takes two to tango.

The purpose of this research is to examine the interrelationships among various interpersonal psychological factors to explain their effect on knowledge sharing behaviors at workplace. A sample of 450 employees was drawn from knowledge based industries. To tap the information regarding performance on knowledge sharing, Big Five personality, and motivation, Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB) scale by Yi (2009)62, Big Five personality traits scale by Gosling et. al. (2003)27, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale by Lin (2007)40, were used. ‘Partial Least Square’ technique of ‘Structural Equation Modeling’ was applied using ‘SmartPLS 2.0.M3’ to understand the proposed relationships. Findings show the prominence of conscientiousness among ‘Big Five personality traits’ to explain knowledge sharing behaviors at workplace (Total Effect of ‘conscientiousness’ on ‘knowledge sharing’ being 0.5246 significant at p<0.01). ‘Intrinsic motivation’ is found to be a better predictor of ‘knowledge sharing’ than the ‘extrinsic motivation’ (Total Effect of ‘intrinsic motivation’ on ‘knowledge sharing’ being 0.3195, while that of ‘extrinsic motivation’ on ‘knowledge sharing’ being 0.1274, both significant at p<0.01). Both ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic motivation’ were found to mediate the relation between certain ‘personality traits’ and ‘knowledge sharing’. Although the paper has certain limitations, nevertheless, this is the first study to consider the relationship between ‘personality’, ‘motivation’ and ‘knowledge sharing’ in a single study and making us understand the interacting and mediating role of ‘motivation’ to explain ‘knowledge sharing’.

Scholars across all disciplines have long been interested in how knowledge moves within and beyond their community of peers. Rapid environmental changes and calls for sustainable management practices mean the best knowledge possible is needed to inform decisions, policies, and practices to protect biodiversity and sustainably manage vulnerable natural resources. Although the conservation literature on knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KM) has grown in recent years, much of it is based on context-specific case studies. This presents a challenge for learning cumulative lessons from KE and KM research and thus effectively using knowledge in conservation and natural resources management. Although continued research on the gap between knowledge and action is valuable, overarching conceptual frameworks are now needed to enable summaries and comparisons across diverse KE-KM research. We propose a knowledge-action framework that provides a conceptual roadmap for future research and practice in KE/KM with the aim of synthesizing lessons learned from contextual case studies and guiding the development and testing of hypotheses in this domain. Our knowledge-action framework has 3 elements that occur at multiple levels and scales: knowledge production (e.g., academia and government), knowledge mediation (e.g., knowledge networks, actors, relational dimension, and contextual dimension), and knowledge-based action (e.g., instrumental, symbolic, and conceptual). The framework integrates concepts from the sociology of science in particular, and serves as a guide to further comprehensive understanding of knowledge exchange and mobilization in conservation and sustainable natural resource management.

Aim/Purpose: Based on the social exchange theory, this study aimed to explore the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions between organizational socialization and knowledge sharing. Background: With the advent of the era of the knowledge economy, knowledge has been replacing traditional resources such as capital, labor, and land to become the critical resources of enterprises. The competitiveness of an organization depends much on the effectiveness of its knowledge management; the success of its knowledge management largely relies upon employees’ motivation and willingness to engage in knowledge sharing. Methodology: This study is a longitudinal analysis of data collected from 281 newcomers in Chinese enterprises at two-time points with a one-month interval. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to test hypotheses by calculating standardized path coefficients and their significance levels. Contribution: The study examined models linking organizational socialization and knowledge sharing that included organizational links and sacrifice as mediators and trust as a moderator. Findings: Results show that the influences of organizational socialization on knowledge sharing change regularly over time. In the role management stage, coworker support and prospects for the future impact the practices of knowledge sharing through links and sacrifice. Moreover, the findings show that trust moderates the effect of links and sacrifice on employees’ knowledge sharing. Recommendations for Practitioners: This study can help enterprises develop targeted human resource management strategies, improve the degree of job embeddedness within the organization, and thus encourage more knowledge sharing among employees. Recommendation for Researchers: First, researchers could pay attention to more underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions in the relationship between organizational socialization and knowledge sharing. Second, focusing on specific cultural context and dimension of concepts may provide a new insight for the future study and help add greater theoretical precision to knowledge sharing. Impact on Society: First, this study suggests that coworker support and prospects for the future improve knowledge sharing within the organization. Second, understanding how job embeddedness (organizational links and organizational sacrifice) acts as a mediator enhancing knowledge sharing, managers should consider raising their attachment relationship to organizations from two aspects: links and sacrifice. Third, knowledge sharing takes place in a team-oriented context, where the success of the team requires high-quality relationships among individual team members within the team as a whole. Future Research: Researchers in the future should employ experimental research design or utilize longitudinal data to ensure that the findings reveal causation. In addition, future research can investigate how the initial level and later changes of organizational socialization are associated with knowledge sharing beyond the observational scope of traditional cross-sectional and lagged research designs.

Purpose – Aviation control, navigation, and aircraft control in the air transportation area are very specialized. Each part is in progress for safety, efficiency, automation, and further. On the other hand co-work among each part including knowledge sharing has been inattentive for many reasons. The purpose of this research is to show how practicians and professionals in the air transportation area perceive the issue of knowledge sharing and to recall the necessity of knowledge sharing in the area. And we try to find ways to activate the knowledge sharing in the area. Research design, data, methodology – For the research, we inquired into whether practicians and professionals think knowledge sharing can effect safe aviation positively or not and what steps are necessary to activate knowledge sharing in the area. We adopted survey method using questionnaires for current practicians and interview for specialists. The survey and interview results were analyzed using regression analysis and AHP method. The interview for specialists and analyzing the results using AHP was to investigate what are the precedence factors to activate the knowledge sharing. Results – First, practicians perceive that knowledge sharing will affect aviation safe positively. Second objective knowledges such as, tower air traffic control procedure of aviation control area, flight principle and structure of aircraft control area, instrument landing system of navigation area, for knowledge sharing of each area were identified. Also the precedence factors such as, knowledge absorbability of personal factor, personal expectation of result of expectation factor, leadership of management of Structure factor, method of knowledge spread of application factor for knowledge sharing were found. Conclusions – Knowledge sharing for practicians and professionals in the aviation area is very important especially from the perspective of safety. However, for various many reasons including the environment of each special area that focusing on their own area, knowledge sharing has not been emphasized. We found that practicians in the area feel that knowledge sharing is necessary and helpful. For it, each practician’s active participation is the most important and many ways such as chatting room to share knowledge are to be developed. And the organization culture should be changed to encourage knowledge sharing.

A primary aim of knowledge management is to enable and encourage knowledge sharing among and between individuals, communities and organizational units. Resent research has extended the importance of knowledge sharing to competitiveness, arguing that the combination and sharing of knowledge within organizations provide a basis for competitive advantage. Knowledge sharing within organizations is not easily accomplished, however. A number of concepts have been advanced for analyzing such difficulties including internal ‘stickiness’, knowledge ‘glitches’ and different impediments to the transfer of lessons-learned and best practices within firms. Rare, however, are the empirical studies that have attempted to open up the black box of knowledge sharing mechanism and focus on the context where knowledge sharing takes place as well as whether it affects certain outcomes. In view of the above, this doctoral thesis is a study of Knowledge Sharing, which seeks to advance our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing within organizations. Conducting Structural Equation Modeling, the results of the field study in 114 departments, which had distinct context and market orientation in ICT, Pharmaceutical and Food industries, reveal that: a) knowledge sharing context significantly influence the process of knowledge sharing, b) the characteristics of knowledge shared do not have any significant effect in the knowledge sharing process, c) employees perceive the process of knowledge sharing as effective and useful for their workflow, d) information technology has a positive influence in both knowledge sharing process and the knowledge sharing effectiveness, e) knowledge sharing effectiveness has a nonlinear association with organizational performance and f) knowledge sharing process and knowledge sharing effectiveness mediates the relationship between knowledge sharing context and organizational performance. These findings show that knowledge sharing process constitutes a critical factor for the increase of organizational performance as well as offer a more integrated and comprehensive model in the knowledge sharing theory.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh pendidikan dan pelatihan terhadap kinerja pegawai melalui Knowledge Sharing pada kantor PPSDM Regional Makassar. Metode kuantitatif dengan pendekatan deskriptif dan teknik analisis SEM-PLS digunakan untuk mengumpulkan dan menganalisis data dari ASN berjumlah 60 orang di PPSDM Kemendagri Regional Makassar. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Pendidikan, Pelatihan, dan Knowledge Sharing berpengaruh positif terhadap Kinerja Pegawai. Pendidikan mempunyai indikator yakni hasil belajar, proses belajar mengajar atau faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pendidikan bagi pegawai mendapat penilaian positif dari responden. Pelatihan juga dinilai berpengaruh positif terhadap kinerja pegawai, begitu juga dengan Knowledge Sharing yang diniliai berpengaruh positif terhadap kinerja pegawai. Analisis jalur (SEM-PLS) menunjukkan bahwa pendidikan memiliki pengaruh langsung maupun tidak langsung melalui Knowledge Sharing sebagai variabel intervening yang signifikan terhadap kinerja pegawai, dan dapat meningkatkan kinerja pegawai serta mempengaruhi secara positif, pelatihan mempengaruhi kinerja pegawai secara positif baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung dengan Knowledge Sharing sebagai variabel interving yang dapat meningkatkan kinerja pegawai, Demikian pula dengan Knowledge Sharing mempengaruhi kinerja pegawai secara positif dan meningkatkan kinerja pegawai secara langsung. Kesimpulannya, penelitian ini menyoroti pentingnya pendidikan, pelatihan dan Knowledge Sharing dalam meningkatkan kinerja pegawai. Rekomendasi untuk institusi mencakup upaya mengoptimalkan pendidikan, memperkuat Knowledge Sharing, dan menambah pelatihan untuk meningkatkan kinerja pegawai. The purpose of this research is to determine the effect of education and training on employee performance through Knowledge Sharing at PPSDM Ministry of Home Affairs Regional Makassar. A quantitative method with a descriptive approach and SEM-PLS analysis technique was used to collect and analyze data from 60 civil servants at the Regional PPSDM Kemendagri in Makassar. The results of the study indicate that Education, Training, and Knowledge Sharing have a positive effect on Employee Performance. Education has indicators such as learning outcomes, teaching-learning processes, or factors influencing education for employees, which received positive ratings from respondents. Training is also perceived to have a positive impact on employee performance, as well as Knowledge Sharing, which is considered to have a positive influence on employee performance. Path analysis (SEM-PLS) shows that education has a direct and indirect influence through Knowledge Sharing as a significant intervening variable on employee performance, and can enhance employee performance and have a positive impact. Similarly, training positively affects employee performance both directly and indirectly through Knowledge Sharing as an intervening variable. Likewise, Knowledge Sharing positively influences employee performance and directly enhances it. In conclusion, this research highlights the importance of education, training, and Knowledge Sharing in improving employee performance. Recommendations for institutions include efforts to optimize education, strengthen knowledge sharing, and add training to improve employee performance.

Based on a combination of the social exchange theory, theory of reasoned action, self-determination theory (SDT), roll identity concept, intrinsic motivation theory, the concept of empowering leadership, and the psychological contract theory, this study presents two integrated models which investigate the relationships between single or bundled commitment-based HR practices (CBHRPs) at an organizational level and individual outcome variables (organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and innovation performance) from a cross-level. It also identifies the mediating roles played by organizational commitment, and knowledge sharing in the relationship between single CBHRPs, bundled CBHRPs and innovation performance. It further examines the moderating roles of empowering leadership and relational psychological contract in the relationship between single CBHRPs, bundled CBHRPs, organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and innovation performance. Drawing on a sample of 402 employees from 116 high-tech firms in Taiwan, the results at the individual level show that (1) organizational commitment positively influences knowledge sharing, (2) knowledge sharing positively influences innovation performance, (3) knowledge sharing positively mediates the relationship between organizational commitment and innovation performance, (4) relational psychological contract positively moderates the relationships between organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and innovation performance. At the cross level, when firms implement five single CBHRPs, including participation, work design, training and development, performance appraisal, and compensation and rewards, the following results can be concluded: (1) only participation, work design, training and development, and compensation rewards positively influence organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and innovation performance, (2) empowering leadership only positively moderates the relationships between participation, work design, training and development, organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and innovation performance, (3) organizational commitment only positively mediates the relationships between participation, work design, training and development, and knowledge sharing, (4) knowledge sharing only positively mediates the relationships between participation, work design, training and development, and innovation performance, and (5) empowering leadership positively moderates the relationships between organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and innovation performance. However, when firms bundle those five CBHRPs together, the following results can be concluded: (1) bundled CBHRPs positively influences organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and innovation performance, (2) organizational commitment positively mediates the relationship between bundled CBHRPs and knowledge sharing, (3) knowledge sharing positively mediates the relationship between bundled CBHRPs and innovation performance, (4) empowering leadership positively moderates the relationships between bundled CBHRPs, organizational commitment, knowledge sharing, and innovation performance. The theoretical and managerial contributions and implications of these findings are discussed.