A Design Option for Optimising Knowledge Worker Expertise

Mark Allan Ramsey

Thesis

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LEADERSHIP IN PERFORMANCE AND CHANGE in the FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

Promoter: Dr Maarten Erasmus Co Promoter: Dr E.N. Barkhuizen March 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT ...... i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background and key focus of the research...... 1 1.3 Motivation for the research ...... 3 1.4 Definition of the problem...... 4 1.5.1 Proposition 1...... 6 1.5.2 Proposition 2...... 6 1.7 Importance of the research...... 7 1.8 Value of the research...... 8 1.8.1 Theoretical contribution ...... 8 1.8.2 Methodological contribution...... 8 1.9 Research methodology and design ...... 9 1.9.1 Sample selection ...... 10 1.9.2 Description of the population ...... 10 1.9.3 Data collection...... 11 1.9.4.1 Focus group sessions ...... 12 1.9.4.2 In-depth interviewing ...... 12 1.9.5 Data analysis ...... 12 1.9. Ensuring the reliability and validity of the research results...... 13 1.9.7 Ethical considerations...... 14 1.10 Chapter layout ...... 15 1.11 Conclusion...... 16 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...... 17 2.1 Introduction ...... 17 2.2 Background...... 18 2.2.1 The bureaucratic organisational design...... 22 2.2.2 The entrepreneurial organisational design ...... 23

ii 2.2.3 The hypertext organisational design...... 23 2.3 Organisational design ...... 24 2.3.1 Culture...... 28 2.3.2 Structure...... 30 2.3.2.1 Coordination...... 31 2.3.2.2 Organisational learning ...... 34 2.3.2.3 Work environment ...... 36 2.3.2.4 Innovation incubators ...... 38 2.3.3 Codification system ...... 40 2.4 Supportive organisation competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise...... 42 2.4.1 The increasing utilisation of knowledge workers...... 45 2.4.1.1 The growth of ignorance...... 46 2.4.1.2 The increasing marginal utility of expert knowledge...... 46 2.4.1.3 The legitimising function of knowledge workers ...... 46 2.4.2 Knowledge...... 48 2.4.2.1 Tacit knowledge ...... 50 2.4.2.2 Explicit knowledge...... 53 2.4.2.3 Commercial knowledge ...... 54 2.4.2.4 Task formalisation ...... 54 2.4.3 Knowledge management...... 58 2.4.3.1 Knowledge depreciation ...... 62 2.4.4 Knowledge creation ...... 63 2.4.4.1 Knowledge creation, education and experience...... 64 2.4.4.2 Knowledge creation and communication...... 66 2.4.4.3 Knowledge creation and organisational climate ...... 66 2.4.5 Knowledge transfer...... 68 2.4.5.1 Influences on the transfer of knowledge...... 68 2.4.5.1.1 An arduous relationship between source and recipient...... 69 2.4.5.1.2 Shared understanding...... 69 2.4.5.1.3 Absorptive capacity...... 70 2.4.5.2 Intrinsic motivation...... 70 2.4.5.3 Extrinsic motivation ...... 71 2.4.5.4 Source credibility...... 71

iii 2.4.5.5 Communication competence...... 72 2.4.6 Knowledge sharing ...... 73 2.4.7 Knowledge communication...... 77 2.5 Competitive advantage ...... 78 2.5.1 Competencies for competitive advantage...... 79 2.5.2 Leadership requirements for competitive advantage ...... 81 2.5.3 Innovation capability for competitive advantage ...... 82 2.6 Conclusion ...... 83 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN...... 85 3.1 Introduction ...... 85 3.2 Orientation ...... 85 3.2.1 The interpretivist methodology...... 87 3.2.1.1 An interpretivist theoretical paradigm ...... 87 3.3 Sampling...... 88 3.4 Research procedure ...... 90 3.5 Gaining access to respondents...... 91 3.6 Detailed description ...... 93 3.7 Data collection ...... 94 3.7.1 Focus group sessions...... 95 3.7.1.1 Choice of focus group sessions ...... 95 3.7.1.2 A self-contained focus group session...... 96 3.7.1.3 A supplementary source of data in research ...... 97 3.7.1.4 A multi-method research approach ...... 97 3.7.2 Size of focus group sessions ...... 97 3.7.3 One member dominance ...... 98 3.7.4 Establishment of a focus group session ...... 99 3.7.4.1 Recruitment and scheduling...... 99 3.7.4.2 Briefing of respondents ...... 99 3.7.4.3 Group leader facilitation ...... 100 3.7.4.4 Transcribing of data...... 100 3.7.5 Using documents in qualitative research ...... 101 3.7.6 In-depth interviewing ...... 101 3.7.7 Focus group session and in-depth interview questions ...... 102 3.7.8 Probes ...... 103

iv 3.7.9 Commencing focus group sessions and in-depth interviews ...... 103 3.7.10 Focus group session and in-depth interview interaction...... 104 3.7.11 Recording focus group session and in-depth interview data ....105 3.8 Analysis of data ...... 106 3.8.1 Coding of the data ...... 108 3.9 Ensuring the reliability and validity of the research results...... 108 3.9.1 Reliability ...... 109 3.9.2 Internal validity...... 110 3.9.3 Adoption of research method...... 111 3.9.4 Culture familiarity...... 111 3.9.5 Triangulation...... 111 3.9.6 Ensure honesty of respondents...... 112 3.9.7 Iterative questioning ...... 113 3.9.8 Frequent debriefing sessions...... 113 3.9.9 Peer scrutiny of the research project ...... 113 3.9.10 The researcher's "Reflective Commentary"...... 114 3.9.11 Background, qualifications and experience of researcher ...... 114 3.9.12 Transferability...... 114 3.9.13 Dependability ...... 115 3.9.14 Confirmability ...... 116 3.10 Conclusion...... 117 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS...... 118 4.1 Introduction ...... 118 4.2 Background...... 119 4.3 Sample Profiles...... 120 4.4 Results...... 122 4.4.1 Focus group session excerpts...... 123 4.4.2 In-depth interview excerpts...... 130 4.4.3 Theme related to organisational design...... 136 4.4.3.1 Sub-theme related to culture ...... 137 4.4.3.2 Sub-theme related to structure...... 138 4.4.3.3 Sub-theme related to codification system...... 142 4.4.4 Theme related to optimisation of knowledge worker expertise ....144 4.4.4.1 Sub-theme related to knowledge...... 145

v 4.4.4.2 Sub-theme related to knowledge management...... 146 4.4.4.3 Sub-theme related to knowledge creation ...... 147 4.4.4.4 Sub-theme related to knowledge transfer...... 148 4.4.4.5 Sub-theme related to knowledge sharing ...... 149 4.4.4.6 Sub-theme related to knowledge communication...... 151 4.4.5 Theme related to competitive advantage...... 152 4.5 Conclusion ...... 154 CHAPTER 5: THE INFORMATIVE ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN ...... 155 5.1 Introduction ...... 155 5.1.1 Ferrari’s Formula One – A Metaphor of the Informative Organisation 155 5.2 The Informative Organisational Design...... 157 5.3 Organisational Design...... 164 5.3.1 Culture...... 165 5.3.2 Structure...... 166 5.3.3 Codification System...... 169 5.3.3.1 Business processes ...... 171 5.4 Innovation incubators...... 172 5.4.1 The Transformational Innovation Model ...... 176 5.4.1.1 Idea generation toolkit ...... 180 5.4.1.2 Idea communication toolkit...... 182 5.4.1.3 Idea breakthrough toolkit...... 183 5.4.2 Innovation outcomes at the GSSC ...... 186 5.4.2.1 Mobile Application System ...... 186 5.5 Supportive organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise ...... 188 5.5.1 Knowledge management...... 189 5.5.1.1 Knowledge stocks ...... 191 5.5.1.2 Tacit knowledge exchange...... 194 5.5.1.2.1 Metaphors and analogies...... 195 5.5.1.2.2 Shared personal knowledge...... 196 5.5.1.2.3 Ambiguity and redundancy...... 197 5.5.2 Knowledge transfer...... 197 5.5.3 Knowledge sharing ...... 199

vi 5.5.4 Knowledge communication...... 200 5.6 Conclusion ...... 201 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS...... 202 6.1 Introduction ...... 202 6.3.1 Proposition 1...... 203 6.3.2 Proposition 2...... 204 6.3 Research methodology...... 204 6.4 Key research findings ...... 205 6.4.1 Examination of the organisational design of the GSSC ...... 205 6.4.1.1 Theme related to organisational design ...... 206 6.4.1.2 Sub-theme related to culture ...... 207 6.4.1.3 Sub-theme related to structure...... 207 6.4.1.4 Sub-theme related to codification system...... 207 6.4.1.5 Theme related to optimisation of knowledge worker expertise.207 6.4.1.6 Sub-theme related to knowledge...... 208 6.4.1.7 Sub-theme related to knowledge management...... 208 6.4.1.8 Sub-theme related to knowledge creation ...... 208 6.4.1.9 Sub-theme related to knowledge transfer...... 209 6.4.1.10 Sub-theme related to knowledge sharing...... 209 6.4.1.11 Sub-theme related to knowledge communication ...... 209 6.4.1.12 Theme related to competitive advantage ...... 210 6.4.2 The Informative Organisational Design ...... 210 6.4.2.1 The knowledge base stratum ...... 211 6.4.2.2 The business systems stratum...... 212 6.4.2.3 Organisational design...... 212 6.4.2.4 Innovation incubators ...... 214 6.4.2.5 Supportive organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise ...... 214 6.5 Significance of the research...... 216 6.5.1 Theoretical contribution ...... 216 6.5.2 Methodological contribution...... 217 6.6 Limitations of this research ...... 218 6.7 Recommendations for future research...... 218 6.8 Conclusion ...... 219

vii 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 221

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Chapter layout ...... 16 Figure 2: Chapter 2 in context...... 17 Figure 3: Framework of literature review...... 18 Figure 4: Key characteristics of a knowledge worker ...... 44 Figure 5: Individual and organisational knowledge ...... 49 Figure 6: Chapter 3 in context...... 85 Figure 7: Chapter 4 in context...... 118 Figure 8: Summary of respondent contributions ...... 135 Figure 9: Ferrari's Formula One Team - A Metaphor ...... 156 Figure 10: Chapter 5 in context...... 157 Figure 11: Cycle of improved organisational performance...... 158 Figure 12: Deployment of the Informative Organisational Design...... 159 Figure 13: The Informative Organisational Design...... 161 Figure 14: High level organisational chart...... 162 Figure 15: The stratums of the Informative Organisational Design ...... 163 Figure 16: Knowledge structure ...... 168 Figure 17: Innovation incubators in action ...... 175 Figure 18: The Transformational Innovation Model...... 177 Figure 19: The Transformational Innovation Model value chain ...... 179 Figure 20: The Mobile Application System...... 187 Figure 21: Utilisation of the Mobile Application System ...... 188 Figure 22: The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise cycle ...... 193 Figure 23: Chapter 6 in context...... 202

ix LIST OF TABLES

Table 1...... 90 Table 2...... 122

x STATEMENT

I certify that the dissertation submitted by me for the degree of DOCTOR of PHILOSOPHY (Leadership in Performance and Change) at the University of Johannesburg is my own independent work and has not been submitted by me for a degree at another faculty/university.

______Mark Allan Ramsey March 2009

xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The successful completion of this research depended greatly on the efforts and assistance of many individuals to whom I wish to acknowledge my appreciation.

I wish to acknowledge the following persons who contributed significantly to this research:

• To my promoter Dr Maarten Erasmus for his support and significant contribution to this research. • To my co-promoter Dr Nicolene Barkhuizen for her wisdom and guidance. • To my wife and soul mate Patricia Ramsey for her insights, tolerance, vision and assistance. • To Stacey Ramsey for her support and guidance. • To Katie Ramjee for her unconditional faith in me. • To Jaryd Jardien for being my strength. • To Tatum Jardien who inspired me. • To Brooklyn Jardien who makes everything worthwhile. • To Kerwin Marais for shouldering some of my responsibility. • To Cynthia Brookstein for being my anchor. • To Sharon Ramborosa for her editing. • To the participating organisations’ management and employees for their willingness to give of their time.

DEDICATION: To my late father Ressie Ramjee (1934 – 2001), the wisest man I know.

Mark Allan Ramsey

March 2009

xii

ABSTRACT

A Design Option for Optimising Knowledge Worker Expertise

By: Mark Allan Ramsey

Promoter: Dr Maarten Erasmus

Co-promoter: Dr Nicolene Barkhuizen

Department: Department of Human Resource Management

Faculty of Management Sciences

University of Johannesburg

Degree: D. Phil

Date: March 2009

Background

The success of an organisation depends on the mental capability of a comparatively small number of highly proficient knowledge workers who innovate and clarify the business processes others must act on (Zemke, 2004). Many organisations utilise knowledge worker expertise to create a competitive advantage, but this expertise is not incorporated into the business processes and routine operations of the organisation. Organisational design does not create the conditions under which an organisation can optimise knowledge worker expertise (Grant, 1996). As a consequence, when the knowledge worker leaves the organisation, the knowledge created is lost and the competitive advantage is not sustainable. One of the foremost objectives of an organisation must be to optimise knowledge worker expertise to produce new products, services or ways of working for sustaining competitive advantage (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001).

Organisational design continues to be seen as the process of assembling and fine- tuning an organisation’s structure to achieve its goal. Much has been written about knowledge, knowledge management, the knowledge-based organisation and the knowledge worker. However, current organisational design methodologies do not place emphasis on the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Grant, 1996).

For knowledge workers to contribute sufficiently to the production of new products, services or ways of working, consideration must be given to their motivation. Despite all our achievements in technology and product improvements, knowledge workers are not thriving in the organisations they work for because organisations are not clear about where knowledge workers fit and how their contribution is valued. Covey (2004) asserts that managers are still applying the Industrial Age control model to knowledge workers. For an organisation to succeed in the new economy, knowledge workers must be intrinsically motivated so that they can reach new heights of fulfilment (Covey, 2004).

Propositions

This research will explore whether the organisational design optimises knowledge worker expertise.

Literature review

A review of the literature revealed that organisations continue to be structured in the Industrial Age control model which by design completely suppresses the release of human potential and restricts the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise which is required to sustain competitive advantage. The purpose of this research was therefore, to examine the current organisational design and develop a design option that optimises knowledge worker expertise.

Furthermore, literature pertinent to this study, showed that in the new economy, knowledge assets are ingrained in the experience and expertise of the knowledge workers working in an organisation; and that knowledge workers represent a large and growing percentage of the employees of the world's biggest corporations. These talented employees are the innovators of new business ideas however when a knowledge worker leaves an organisation, a part of the knowledge assets are lost. Hence, this research examined organisational design and developed a design option that facilitates knowledge transfer from the knowledge worker to the organisation.

The literature also suggested that innovation incubators can be established as a mechanism that functions outside of the structure where knowledge workers can create and share new knowledge as a means to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Effective innovation incubators encourage interaction and dialogue between knowledge workers and facilitate the creation of different points of view that may lead to new products, services and ways of working. This research therefore examined

iii

organisational design and developed a design option that incorporated innovation incubators.

Research Methodology and Design

Qualitative research was chosen for this research because it focuses on different experiences from the viewpoint of the individual. With the purpose of testing propositions, the research process that was followed consisted of the following steps:

Step 1: A literature review was conducted with the aim of identifying existing literature and previous research conducted on the topics of organisational design and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. Step 2: The researcher requested the Human Resources Department of the Gauteng Shared Service Centre (GSSC) to generate a report containing personal information including the highest qualification obtained. Step 3: The report was further sorted and employees without a university degree were omitted. The refined list contained the names of 157 knowledge workers who became the population at the GSSC who the researcher invited to participate in one of six focus group sessions. This research used purposive sampling where respondents were invited due to their potential to afford the greatest insight into the research propositions. Step 4: In-depth interviews were conducted with respondents from the focus group sessions where the researcher wanted to understand the specific experience of respondents and the meaning they made of that experience. Step 5: A tape recorder was used to record the focus group sessions and in- depth interviews and while it was not feasible to transcribe entire tape recordings every effort was made to record the type of detailed information required for conversation analysis. When transcribing the data, the researcher did not correct the language of respondents in conversation during the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews.

Step 6: The data was organised into units of analysis to enable themes and sub- themes to be easily identified. This was an iterative process of data reduction. The coding process was ongoing and dynamic. It revealed gaps in the study so that recommendations could be made for potential research opportunities.

This research explored whether the organisational design optimises knowledge worker expertise and tests the following two propositions:

Proposition 1

Organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise by not enabling knowledge workers to share neither their existing knowledge nor their newly created knowledge through cross-learning with other knowledge workers.

Proposition 2

Organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise as the output of the knowledge worker is not incorporated into the business processes and routine operations.

The key findings of the results indicated the following:

• Knowledge workers were not able to share knowledge they have created across departmental boundaries; • Knowledge workers were not able to integrate knowledge they have created into an organisation's processes, systems and culture; • Knowledge workers were not able to apply knowledge they have created by embedding it in the business processes and routine operations as a basis for action.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of the literature review and statistical analysis indicated that all of the objectives of this study have been satisfied.

This research has theoretical, methodological and practical significance as it recommends the informative organisational design as a design option for optimising knowledge worker expertise. The insights gained into the various aspects of organisational design and the supportive organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise will contribute to theory building and the more accurate assessment of these factors in organizations. This research comprehensively contributes to the body of knowledge on organisational design and optimisation of knowledge worker expertise, providing a qualitative method for assessing these factors. This is valuable because very little empirical research has been conducted both internationally and in South Africa. The research provides evidence that organisational design does not have the capacity to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

A significant limitation of this research is that it was conducted at an organisation that has been in existence for a little over five years. The organisation was still experiencing a great deal of upheaval resulting from the redeployment of functions and knowledge workers from provincial government departments that were centralised in the GSSC. This impacted on the internal climate as well as the relationship between knowledge workers and management. There was a fair amount of negativity had to be dealt with which impacted on the optimal execution of the research.

In consideration of the scope and complexity of this research, several recommendations were made from theoretical, methodological and practical perspectives:

• Information technology has been offered as a possible solution to disseminating knowledge across domains and research can be conducted to determine how information technology can assist in the optimization of knowledge worker expertise. Research to determine information technologies that can support access to other domains of knowledge and thereby foster knowledge worker innovation is needed.

• It will be beneficial for research to be conducted to determine how an organisation can provide a knowledge worker with a suitable career path. The research should focus on how the career aspirations of a knowledge worker can be satisfied through structural arrangements. • It would be valuable to carry out extensive research to determine what motivates knowledge workers, including their value systems, to enable an organisation to better understand this key element of human capital. • Research needs to be conducted at organisations which are successful in retaining knowledge workers in the long term so that the components of their compelling knowledge worker value propositions can be understood. • Research can be embarked upon to explore issues regarding remuneration policies specific to knowledge workers.

The findings of this research do not only provide valuable insights into the theory of organisational design and its ability to optimise knowledge worker expertise, but also presents the Informative Organisational Design as an option to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH

1.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an introduction to the study and places the total research in context by providing a framework for the propositions being explored. A brief description of the key focus and a motivation for undertaking this research is given. The purpose as well as the research propositions are stated and an overview of the research methodology and design is provided. The value of this research is also discussed.

1.2 Background and key focus of the research

The speed of transactions in the new economy requires organisations to develop and deploy their capability to interpret and react to information about changes in the business environment almost immediately. Owen (1999) is of the opinion that organisations are also required to relate new technologies and to innovate timeously in anticipation of changes in the marketplace which is a challenge since middle ranks of management are declining, thus leaving subordinate levels in the organisation with higher accountability. This subordinate level comprises largely of knowledge workers who, through their experience in the organisation's core processes, generate and amass knowledge (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001).

Knowledge workers are highly qualified and well educated professionals whose work consists largely of converting information into knowledge, by using their own expert know-how (Hammer, Leonard & Davenport, 2004). Consequently, more and more organisations are employing knowledge workers for their expert skills in areas that are crucial to organisational performance. These highly skilled workers process the ability and knowledge to create a set of new and productive concepts, ways of working and technical solutions that enable organisations to function at a higher level of astuteness than before (Owen, 1999). Knowledge workers are largely motivated by non financial results, gaining more satisfaction from their work than traditional employees as a

consequence. They constantly need to be challenged and know more about their jobs than anybody else in the organisation (Drucker 1999). Gold, Malhotra and Segards (2001) counsel that knowledge workers have to be managed as partners because they are instrumental in the process for optimising expertise.

To be sustainable in the new economy, organisations must leverage their existing tacit and explicit knowledge to generate new knowledge that positions an organisation in their chosen market. In order to achieve this, organisations must develop the capability to exploit existing knowledge to create new knowledge and incorporate it into the new products, services or ways of working (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001). Knowledge is an organisation's most important resource for creating a competitive advantage and the knowledge worker is a critical component for exploiting this knowledge power (Botha, 2000).

Organisational knowledge must be managed as a corporate asset and organisational capability must be developed to harness and distribute knowledge creation. This creates the possibility for a dispute to arise because much of the organisational knowledge remains under the control of the individual knowledge worker (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001). Knowledge worker expertise is an attribute highly dependent on tacit knowledge consisting of mental models, beliefs and technical know-how (Nonaka, 1991). The application of knowledge worker expertise requires the organisational design to enable a process for converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1991). Tacit knowledge is made explicit by codification, which includes creating or updating process manuals and the revision of policies and procedures. The generation of knowledge is an individual activity which benefits the organisation, only when the expert knowledge is coordinated. Organisations do not acquire nor do they create knowledge and consequently, organisational design must effectively optimise knowledge worker accrual of knowledge by providing structures that facilitate cooperation as well as the co-ordination of this expertise (Johanson, Martensson & Skoog, 2001).

The key focus of this research is organisational design and its capability to optimise knowledge worker expertise to enable an organisation to sustain a competitive advantage. The research recommends a design option that effectively optimises knowledge worker expertise to bring about innovation which is a requirement for sustaining a competitive advantage. Knowledge workers create or acquire knowledge by applying tacit knowledge derived from personal experience (Foos, Schum & Rotheberg, 2006). However, individual tacit knowledge must be transformed into organisational knowledge to become valuable to an organisation as a whole (Nonaka, 1991). Organisational performance requires the optimisation of each knowledge worker’s knowledge with that of other knowledge workers. Knowledge creation cannot be separated from knowledge application. Therefore, the knowledge worker is critical for the exploitation of the knowledge power that exists in the organisation's intellectual capital (Botha, 2000).

This research will examine those design components and supportive organisational competencies that offer the best opportunity for optimising knowledge worker expertise. The design components and supportive organisational competencies have not been identified as an exhaustive list, but for their collaborative potential for optimising knowledge worker expertise, in accordance with the advice of Drejer and Sorensen, (2002).

1.3 Motivation for the research

The motivation for undertaking this research is to examine organisational design and its ability to optimise knowledge worker expertise and to develop a design option to optimise knowledge worker expertise. An effective design option will enable a process of assembling and fine-tuning an organisation’s design to create and sustain competitive advantage (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001; Botha, 2000). The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise will re-create the organisation as an ongoing process of individual and organisational renewal (Nonaka, 1991).

A further motivation for conducting this research is to address the challenge of how an organisation design can improve the creation and availability of knowledge (Owen, 1999). The knowledge creation process of converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge has direct implications for how the structure of an organisation is designed and defines managerial roles as well as responsibilities (Nonaka, 1991). To be sustainable, the organisational design must enable an organisation to recognize, create, transform and distribute knowledge. Thus, the primary role of an organisation should be to optimise knowledge worker expertise which is the focus of this research (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001).

An organisation operates on a set of assumptions as to what its business is, what its objectives are and how it defines performance. The organisation then employs a strategy to convert its assumptions into performance (Drucker, 1999). To give effect to the strategy an organisation engages in an organisational design process which must be informed by the demands of the new economy. The dawn of the new economy, largely introduced by the disequilibrium caused through rapid investments in technology (Chaker, 2005), is widely accepted. The new economy is characterised by an explosion of information and communication technologies, electronic commerce which is enabled by the Internet (Chaker, 2005). However, very little of this information has been incorporated into organisational design.

1.4 Definition of the problem

The success of an organisation depends on the mental capability of a comparatively small number of highly skilled knowledge workers who innovate and clarify the business processes others must act on (Zemke, 2004). Many organisations utilise knowledge worker expertise to create a competitive advantage, but this expertise is not incorporated into the business processes and routine operations of the organisation. Organisational design does not create the conditions under which an organisation can

optimise knowledge worker expertise (Grant, 1996). As a consequence, when the knowledge worker leaves the organisation, the knowledge created is lost and the competitive advantage is not sustainable. One of the foremost objectives of an organisation must be to optimise knowledge worker expertise to produce new products, services or ways of working for sustaining competitive advantage (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001).

For knowledge workers to contribute sufficiently to the production of new products, services or ways of working, consideration must be given to their motivation. According to Covey (2004), managers are still applying the Industrial Age control model to knowledge workers. Despite all our achievements in technology and product improvements, knowledge workers are not thriving in the organisations they work for because organisations are not clear about where knowledge workers fit and how their contribution is valued. For an organisation to succeed in the new economy, knowledge workers must be intrinsically motivated so that they can reach new heights of fulfilment (Covey, 2004).

Based on the preceding information, the problem statement can be summarised as follows:

The overriding research problem is to determine the ability of organisational design to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

While individual knowledge worker expertise is an important organisational resource, it is the optimisation of the collective expertise of knowledge workers that provides a

sustainable competitive advantage (Chowdhury, 2005).

1.5 Research propositions

This research will test the following two propositions:

1.5.1 Proposition 1

The design option for optimising knowledge worker expertise must enable knowledge workers to share their existing and newly created knowledge through cross-learning with other knowledge workers.

1.5.2 Proposition 2

Organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise as the output of the knowledge worker is not incorporated into the business processes and routine operations.

The design option for optimising knowledge worker expertise must incorporate knowledge worker output to amend the business processes and routine operations.

1.6 Research objective

The primary research objective is to examine organisational design and its ability to

optimise knowledge worker expertise and to develop a design option for optimising knowledge worker expertise. The design option will effectively optimise knowledge worker expertise to bring about innovation as a requirement for sustaining a competitive advantage. For the knowledge worker to be fully productive, the organisational design must optimise knowledge worker expertise by: • Enabling the knowledge worker to share their expert knowledge and the newly created knowledge with other knowledge workers; and • Enabling the incorporation of knowledge worker output to amend business processes and routine operations.

A literature review and a qualitative research strategy will be employed to assist in the achievement of the objectives. The objectives of the literature review will be to examine organisational design and organisational competencies to ascertain the extent to which they facilitate the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The objectives of the qualitative research will be to record findings and to link them to the inferences of the literature review.

1.7 Importance of the research

This research is important because for an organisation to be competitive in the new economy of rapid change, the organisational design must position an organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Nonaka, 1991). The focus therefore, is on the design of an organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise through release, extraction and integration of knowledge to enable sustainable competitive advantage.

Most organisations are designed for continuous improvement, rather than for discontinuous innovation (Ng, 2004). In the knowledge economy, the role of an organisation is to optimise knowledge worker expertise by providing structural arrangements of coordination and cooperation (Grant, 1996), as well as the application of existing knowledge (Kaplan & Norton, 2006) for the production of goods and services (Boode, 2005). The organisational design of an organisation must support the creation

of these conditions (Peltonen & Lamsa, 2004).

1.8 Value of the research

This research will contribute towards the body of scientific knowledge in a number of ways, which are discussed below.

1.8.1 Theoretical contribution

The research may contribute to the theoretical debate on organisational design and the organisational competencies required for optimising knowledge worker expertise to sustain competitive advantage through: • Discovering which organisational design elements contribute to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise; and • Determining which supportive organisational competencies are required to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

In terms of theory building, this research examines a previously unexplored relationship research between organisational design elements and supportive organisational competencies required for optimising knowledge worker expertise.

1.8.2 Methodological contribution

For an organisation to sustain a competitive advantage in the knowledge economy, it is vital that the organisation incorporate essential organisational design elements and develop organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Therefore this research will be useful in expanding the status of qualitative methodology in a specific area, by explicating specific approaches, or by introducing and illustrating the appropriateness or value of this methodology.

1.8.3 Practical contribution

This research specifies recommendations relating to a design option for optimising knowledge worker expertise in the following ways:

• Systemise an unremitting interplay between knowledge worker expertise and the business processes and routine operations of an organisation to continuously improve performance; • Through the effective use of innovation incubators, enable an increasing amount of knowledge worker tacit knowledge to be brought under the control of the organisation; • Introduce processes that facilitate knowledge sharing and the integration of new knowledge into the business processes and routine operations to optimise knowledge worker expertise; • Incorporate a system where the improved business processes and routine operations become the impetus for further refinement in the innovation incubators.

1.9 Research methodology and design

Qualitative research was chosen for this research because the study focuses on human experiences from a holistic, in-depth perspective and is well suited to exploring complex problems (Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004). Qualitative research is a “way of knowing” and learning about different experiences from the viewpoint of the individual and is conducted in the “field” or natural settings and requires continuous data analysis. The majority of qualitative researchers are concerned with the context of events and focus their inquiry on those contexts that people directly experience, are involved and interested in and value (Lecompte, 1994).

1.9.1 Sample selection

In this research, qualitative sampling is used as a method to identify and select appropriate respondents who can best inform the study (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott & Davidson, 2002). The researcher will aspire to generate a rich description of the research propositions and rather than choosing a sample that is representative of a given population, the researcher will seek to include only those respondents with rich experiences in the research propositions (Neuman, 2003). In this type of research, the sample size is rarely predetermined and the researcher's aim is to include as many respondents as necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of the research propositions (Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004).

1.9.2 Description of the population

The Chief Executive Officer of the Gauteng Shared Service Centre (GSSC) gave permission for the research to be conducted at the organisation. The researcher requested the Human Resources Department of the GSSC to generate a report to assist in the sample selection. The report contained all personal information about employees employed at the GSSC and was further sorted and employees without a university degree were omitted as a degree is one of the qualifying criterions for a knowledge worker in this research. The refined list contained the names of 157 knowledge workers who became the population at the GSSC who the researcher invited to participate in the focus groups sessions and in-depth interviews. The researcher compiled electronic mail messages inviting knowledge workers from the refined list to participate in the focus group sessions. Whenever possible the researcher invited knowledge workers from the same business unit to different focus group sessions so as to limit the opportunity for the views of a subordinate respondent to be stifled by the opinions of a high status respondent, as advocated by Branigan (2000). While the focus group sessions enabled the researcher to experience the world from the point of view of

the respondents being observed (Hines, 2000), it also provided the researcher with the opportunity to further select respondents who could provide more context and depth in the areas of interest (Stokes & Bergin, 2006). The respondents so identified we invited to participate in the in-depth interviews.

Six focus group sessions were held with twenty five respondents and the demographic information provided revealed that the respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree and on average 14 years of work experience. Since the GSSC was in existence for five years, it can be deduced that the respondents gained practical experience from multiple organisations. Eight respondents who participated in the focus group sessions where also invited to take part in in-depth interviews.

1.9.3 Data collection

Data for this research was collected to enable the researcher to gain a good understanding of the experiences of the knowledge workers employed at the GSSC and the extent to which the organisational design contributes to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The data collection process within each focus group session and in-depth interview will be ended when the saturation of information becomes visible (Barbosa & Cabral-Cardoso, 2007). Data saturation is achieved when no further evidence emerges (Haring, 2008). In most studies, data saturation is achieved after between eight and twenty four interviews have been conducted, depending on the topic (Goulding, 1998).

Data for this research was collected through: • Focus group sessions; and • In-depth interviewing (Henning, 2004).

1.9.4.1 Focus group sessions

Data for this research was gathered largely from focus group sessions and in-depth interviews. The preferred characteristic of focus group sessions is their specific use of group interaction to generate data and insights (Morgan, 1997). Focus group sessions are unique in that they merge elements of group process theory with qualitative research methods, stressing the importance of the interaction of the group in determining the quality of data (Twinn, 1998).

Respondents were brought together in focus group sessions to engage in a guided discussion. Focus group sessions enable the researcher to question several respondents systematically and simultaneously on a theme or sub-theme of interest (Neuman, 2003). Although focus group sessions used in isolation are sufficient as a data collection method, in this research it was utilised in conjunction with in-depth interviews as suggested by Woodring, Foley, Rado, Brown & Hamner (2006).

1.9.4.2 In-depth interviewing

In-depth interviews were considered as appropriate for this research, as the goal was to obtain rich data through detailed and frank discussion (Alam, 2005). This type of interviewing enabled the researcher the opportunity to probe deeper into experiences of respondents who participated in the focus group sessions (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). In- depth interviews are valuable as they are unpredictable and refreshed each time they are conducted (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

1.9.5 Data analysis

Fossey, Harvey, McDermott and Davidson (2002) explain that qualitative analysis entails a procedure of reviewing, synthesising and interpreting data to describe and explain the research propositions. In this study, the data analysis began with the

transcribed records of the focus group sessions and in-depth interviews. While it is was not feasible to transcribe entire tape recordings every effort was made to record the type of detailed information required for conversation analysis. Utilising open coding, the researcher will read through the entire text in order to get a global impression of the content, in keeping with the prescripts of Lecompte (1994).

Analysis began with a process of tidying up the information collected, whereby the data was categorised into themes and sub-themes. This is a good method of creating an initial framework to attach an analysis of the research outcomes (Lecompte, 1994). Rubin and Rubin (1995) advise that the data be organised within the themes and sub- themes to search for variations and nuances in meanings. This is also a good method to identify the types of research outcomes that the researcher could be called on to produce at the conclusion of the evaluation (Lecompte, 1994).

1.9. Ensuring the reliability and validity of the research results

Ensuring reliability and validity in qualitative research involves producing knowledge in an ethical manner. Reliability and validity are important in all research and address issues about the quality of data and appropriateness of the method used (Merriam, 1998). Both are significant because constructs in social theory are often ambiguous and not directly observable. As a consequence, perfect reliability and validity are ideals researchers strive for and are virtually impossible to accomplish (Neuman, 2003). However, reliability and validity concerns can be approached through careful attention to the research’s conceptualization and the manner in which the data is collected, analysed and interpreted as well as the way in which the findings are presented (Merriam, 1998).

The trustworthiness of this qualitative research in terms of reliability and validity was addressed by adhering to the following criteria: • Reliability;

• Internal validity; • Adoption of a research method; • Culture familiarity; • Triangulation; • Ensure honesty of respondents; • Iterative questioning; • Frequent briefing sessions; • Peer scrutiny of the research project; • The researcher’s “reflective” commentary; • Background, qualifications and experience of researcher; • Transferability; • Dependability; and • Confirmability.

1.9.7 Ethical considerations

The ethics of scientific research require strict choices and careful thought on the part of the researcher (Bless & Higson-Smith, 2000). Ethics refers to methods of Data Collection, Data Analysis and Interpretation (Merriam, 1998), In this regard, I identify with the Ethical Code of the Department of Human Resource Management at the University of Johannesburg.

In particular, the following applied to my research: The research was subject to approval by the University; Permission to gather data was obtained from the organisation; Respondents were not put at risk; Voluntary participation was respected; Respondents were informed of: o The purpose of the research, o The procedures to be followed, and

o Respondents right to privacy, including their right to withdraw at any time during the study; The data collected is the property of the University and the researcher; The results of the research was made available to the respondents and their organisation; Data will be kept for a minimum of 5 years.

Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of the information. All interpretations of data were discussed with my promoters. In addition, I adhered to the Department of Human Resource Management’s code of ethics, guidelines and processes.

In the study I ensured as best as possible that all the decisions I took were in compliance with the existing rules governing the relationship between the researcher and the respondents. More particularly, I accepted the reality that the respondents have rights to which research ethics are applicable as point of departure.

I continuously negotiated a balance between my respect for the respondents and my efforts to collect meaningful data. During the fieldwork I realised that respondents might feel that disclosing detailed or sensitive company information could harm them and/or their employer. To address this concern, I did not raise any questions whatsoever regarding the respondents’ private lives or company specific information that could be damaging. Commencing the interview, I briefly explained the rationale for the study and I also asked them if they had any objections to the use of the tape recorder during the interview. I also requested the respondents to sign the consent forms prior to the commencement of the focus group sessions.

1.10 Chapter layout

This thesis consists of six chapters. Figure 1 below depicts the relationship between the various chapters. This figure will be used consistently at the beginning of each chapter to indicate the purpose of the specific chapter within the context of this thesis.

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Introduction Literature Research Results The Conclusions to the study Review Methodology Informative and Design Organisational

Design

Figure 1: Chapter layout

Using this chapter layout as a guide, the reader has been provided with an introduction to the problem, the problem statement, the motivation and value of the research, as well as a brief background to the research methodology and design in this chapter, Chapter 1. Chapter 1 provides the background for Chapter 2 which presents the literature review examining existing literature on the topics of organisational design and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. In Chapter 3 presents a detailed discussion on the research design, data gathering method and the analysis of the data will be provided. The results of the research will be presented and discussed in Chapter 4, including the processing and analysis of the data in figures and tables. In Chapter 5 the Informative Organisational Design will be presented and discussed. In Chapter 6 conclusions are drawn and recommendations for future research will be forwarded.

1.11 Conclusion

This chapter explained the motivation for the research, provided the problem statement, the research propositions, the research methodology, chapter outline as well as the value of exploring a design option for optimising knowledge worker expertise

The following chapter focuses on reviewing the available literature on organisational design and its ability to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to review the literature on organisational design and

organisational competencies. The literature review examines organisational design and organisational competencies to ascertain the extent to which they facilitate the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. Figure 2 below locates the literature review in context of the research structure.

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Introduction Literature Research Results The Conclusions Methodology Informative to the study Review and Design Organisational

Design

Figure 2: Chapter 2 in context

A vast amount of literature is available on the topics of organisational design and the supportive competencies employed to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Thus, as a means of managing the material, the model in Figure 3 below was developed to present a framework of the literature reviewed.

Figure 3: Framework of literature review

2.2 Background

Globalisation has introduced many trade benefits, yet it also forces an organisation to compete or perish since organisations no longer operate in a sheltered economy (Keskin, 2005) because they are in the early phase of a fundamental global economic transformation (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004). Traditional forms of group effort are not sufficient for competing effectively in the new, more demanding global economy (Melody, 2002). Many organisations are coming to the realisation that the growth strategies used in the past are now strategies for doom (Ng, 2004); and that an organisation must be able to gain speedy access to knowledge (Alonderiene, Pundziene & Krisciunas, 2006) and resources regardless of where they exist geographically, organisationally and functionally (Cohen & Mankin, 2002) if they are to succeed.

The industrial economy is being transformed into a knowledge-driven, services-led world economy (Pillania, 2005) which is changing the nature of local, national and international economic, social, cultural and political activity (Melody, 2002). Organisations are at a point now where those that cannot find a breakthrough risk becoming a victim of unplanned obsolescence (Ng, 2004). The principal forces driving this transformation are fundamental changes in shortened product life cycles, technologies, markets and government policies (Pillania, 2005). Rapidly changing technology (Cheng, 2000) and the switch of telecommunication networks and all forms of communication and information content to digital standards is producing an electronic network foundation that facilitates exchanges and transactions of all kinds (Adkins, 2005). New technologies are transforming a large amount of markets into global markets without borders (Covey, 2004). Also, a shift to designing technologies that develop information and knowledge has altered the nature of organisations and the basis of competition (Benbya, 2006; Massey & Montoya-Weiss, 2006).

A unique convergence of human brainpower and digital technologies (Chatterjee, Segars & Watson, 2006) is occurring in the workplace, thus creating additional leverage opportunities for knowledge workers (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004). There is a growing realisation that a process-oriented e-business transformation is only one facet, albeit a central one, of a broader economic transformation that has significant implications for the competitiveness of an organisation (Damaskopoulos & Evgeniou, 2003). In addition, electronic commerce provides the forward motion for information technology enabled business-process reengineering in organisations and this in turn demands radical organisational redesign (Kreindler, Maislish & Wang, 2004). A business process is defined as a structured and measured, managed and controlled group of interrelated and interacting activities that uses resources to transform inputs into specified outputs (goods or services) for a specific customer or market (Kalpic & Bernus, 2006). Business processes can also be viewed as a group of interdependent activities or tasks initiated to achieve specific business outcomes (Tucker, Nembhard & Edmondson, 2007) and may have evolved over time to meet changing circumstances (Tinnila, 1995). Subsequent steps in this process include electronic commerce and the next generation

internet. Together with liberalised markets and reduced barriers to trade, this will make certain that the 21st century knowledge economy becomes primarily an international or even global economy (Desouza & Awazu, 2006; Melody, 2002).

In many respects, the financial well-being of people today is better than at any time in human history. Indicators of the number of people employed, average wealth, income, gross national product, real wage rates, life spans, health and welfare benefits are greater than they have ever been (Barber & Strack, 2005). Average levels of literacy, education, training and skills development are higher than they have ever been (Levy, 2005). More people attend university than ever before. The historical evolution of the typical worker from the peasant farmer to the blue-collar factory worker, to the white- collar administrator and now the knowledge worker provides evidence of the accomplishment of human capital and individual development (Melody, 2002).

The speed of transactions in the knowledge economy requires organisations to have the ability to interpret and respond to information about changes in the environment almost instantaneously (Murray & Greenes, 2006). Business processes are complex and manual labour is being replaced by knowledge work, requiring a high level of skills and expertise (Owen, 1999). According to Ng (2004), the world has reached the end of business process reengineering and incrementalism is no longer enough to foster growth. The organisation is required to apply new technologies and to innovate timeously in anticipation of changes in the marketplace rather than as a reaction to business decline. Knowing when, how and what to innovate therefore has become a key competence for the organisation. Knowledge and skills that are of value to the organisation tend to be embodied in the individual knowledge worker (Owen, 1999), therefore knowledge has become the most important organisational resource of the 21st century (McFadyen & Cannella, 2004) and as digital knowledge technologies reach their limit, the focus has shifted to the beneficiary of knowledge, the knowledge worker (Levy, 2005).

The economy has moved from an agricultural economy to an industrial and to a

knowledge economy (Thomas & Hult, 2003). In the agricultural economy, land was the most valuable resource attracting investment capital (Covey, 2004). In the industrial economy that followed, manufacturing plants and machinery was the centre of investment -action (Adkins, 2005). In the knowledge economy, organisational knowledge and competencies have become the prime source of success (Peltonen & Lamsa, 2004) and knowledge workers are the focal point attracting investment because knowledge is in essence created, transferred and reused by knowledge workers (Spira, 2005). This suggests that the knowledge economy will provide for a significantly higher level of human development than the industrial economy, during the conversion of what we know as the "labour force" into "knowledge workers" (Cloud, 2001). Knowledge reuse for replication focuses on knowledge acquisition through which best practices are transferred and replicated in order to increase productivity (Chen, Duan, Edwards & Lehaney, 2006). However, best practice modes fade or disappear over time, as they become victim to organisational silos and a culture of competitiveness between subunits and even work teams (Swee, 2002). Knowledge reuses within an organisation are normally performed with replication and innovation as the objectives through which best practices are replicated to increase productivity (Chi, Hsu & Yang, 2006). Many organisations have incorporated approaches to leverage knowledge however, in practice the organisational design remains rooted on the Industrial Age model.

Organisations continue to be structured in the Industrial Age control model which, by design, completely suppresses the release of human potential and restricts the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise required to sustain competitive advantage.

Over the years there has been a growing discomfort with the Industrial Age control model’s ability to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The following three organisational design types have been developed as an approach to modify organisational structures to improve knowledge worker productivity: • The bureaucratic organisational design; • The entrepreneurial organisational design; and • The hypertext organisational design (Peoll & Van der Krogt, 2003).

These organisational design types are analysed below:

2.2.1 The bureaucratic organisational design

The hierarchical, command-and-control structure of the bureaucratic organisation is particularly challenged when it comes to optimising knowledge worker expertise as this organisational design restricts the development of human capital. This restriction of knowledge worker potential creates a situation where there are more traditional employees hired in an organisation than are required to do the productive work (Hornstein & de Guerre, 2006). The vertically oriented organisational structures, retrofitted with ad-hoc and matrix overlays, nearly always stifle knowledge worker optimisation (Choi & Lee, 2003). These vertical structures are relics of the industrial age and are not suited to knowledge worker processes. The major weakness of the bureaucratic organisation is that it ignores the way that knowledge workers apply their expertise. Knowledge workers cooperate across function or business units with one another throughout an organisation, while the vertical structures of the bureaucratic organisation force knowledge workers to search across organisational silos to find knowledge (Hoeksema, van de Vliert & Williams, 1997). A further weakness of the bureaucratic organisation is that responsibility for coordination is allocated one level above the knowledge workers doing the work (Hornstein & de Guerre, 2006).

In a bureaucratic organisation, knowledge workers often feel frustrated and as a consequence fatigue sets in which reduces optimal performance (Hornstein & de Guerre, 2006). In practice knowledge workers seeking to collaborate have to move up the organisational hierarchical ladder before they can move across it. As a consequence, effective collaboration between competing organisational silos often takes place only after knowledge workers have solicited support from hierarchical line managers. In the process valuable knowledge worker productivity is lost when reconciling opposing agendas and finding common solutions (Bryan & Joyce, 2005).

The bureaucratic organisational design is ill-suited for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Barber & Strack, 2005) and an organisation must adopt an innovation-friendly organisation design where its culture and structure are adapted to encourage knowledge creation (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004). The design of an organisation in the knowledge economy must focus on the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise rather than on capital (Barber & Strack, 2005). To optimise knowledge worker expertise, the various elements of organisational design such as the organisation’s structure, culture, management style, key management functions, decision-making and other processes and the capabilities of its human resources must support the objective (Russo & Harrison, 2005).

2.2.2 The entrepreneurial organisational design

The entrepreneurial organisational design is a direct reaction to the deficiencies of the bureaucratic organisational design. It has a flat structure and focuses on the dynamics of organisation rather than on stagnant structures. The entrepreneurial organisational design is more suited for optimising knowledge worker expertise as knowledge workers are empowered and have considerable autonomy, while individual competencies are emphasised (Peoll & Van der Krogt, 2003). A major challenge for the entrepreneurial organisational design arises where each knowledge worker possesses more knowledge than can be utilised at any one time and the knowledge remains with the individual worker in a largely implicit state (Hornstein & de Guerre, 2006). Entrepreneurial organisations are normally small to medium sized organisations whose competitive advantage rests with knowledge workers. Consequently, business processes and routine operations are often neglected and when a knowledge worker leaves, the organisation is devastated.

2.2.3 The hypertext organisational design

The hypertext organisational design is a multi-layered organisation that draws on the

strengths of both the bureaucratic and entrepreneurial organisational designs. The key strength of the bureaucratic organisational design is its strong structure and in its ability to repeatedly produce quality products and services in an efficient manner (LaDuke, 2005). The chief strength of the entrepreneurial organisation is its flat structure which enables the organisation to respond rapidly to new situations by creating new knowledge (Peoll & Van der Krogt, 2003). The hypertext organisation is difficult to implement as it cannot coexist with the Industrial Age control model.

The literature review below scrutinises the organisational design elements and the supportive organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

2.3 Organisational design

An organisation is a collection of resources (Grandori & Soda, 2006) that exists as an institution for producing goods and services because the organisation has the capacity to create conditions under which knowledge worker expertise can be optimised (Grant, 1996). Wang and Ahmed (2003) are of the opinion that an organisation also exists to develop the experience, skills and personal capability of knowledge workers. This opinion is complemented by Grant (1996) who asserts that an organisation can be defined as a body of knowledge about the organisation’s circumstances, resources, causal mechanisms, processes, objectives, attitudes, policies and so forth. Hence, the primary role of an organisation is the application of existing knowledge (Kaplan & Norton, 2006) for the production of goods, services or ways of working (Boode, 2005; Grant, 1996). A further role of an organisation is to create a platform where innovation and creativity can flourish (Wang & Ahmed, 2003). However, innovation and creativity can only flourish in conditions designed to optimise knowledge worker expertise. In conditions where knowledge worker expertise is not optimised, an organisation has to acquire new knowledge externally or by employing new knowledge.

Massey and Montoya-Weiss (2006) argue that an organisation stores knowledge as explicit knowledge, examples are process manuals, administrative policies, procedures, norms, rules and forms. An organisation accumulates knowledge over time, learning from knowledge workers employed by the organisation. This learning process involves encoding tacit knowledge into routines that guide organisational activities. To achieve this, an organisation must provide the necessary incentives and more importantly, the processes to effectively optimise knowledge worker expertise (Grant, 1996).

Johanson, Martensson and Skoog (2001) as well as Wang and Ahmed (2003) support the above statement in their assertions that an organisation is regarded as an institution for knowledge application with the primary role of optimising knowledge worker expertise. As a knowledge-optimising institution, the role of an organisation is not to acquire or create organisational knowledge, as this is the role and prerequisite of the knowledge worker (Johanson, Martensson & Skoog, 2001). Knowledge resides in a knowledge worker (LaDuke, 2005) and an organisation must focus on the organisational processes visible in supporting the structural arrangements, through which knowledge worker expertise is optimised (Johanson, Martensson & Skoog, 2001).

The main focus of an organisation in the new economy is its ability to optimise, create, transfer, assemble, protect and exploit knowledge assets. Knowledge assets underpin organisational competencies which in turn underpin the organisation’s product and service offerings (Meilich, 2005). The more specific the knowledge deployed by the organisation, the greater its potential as a basis for competitive advantage (Johanson, Martensson & Skoog, 2001). However, knowledge is actually held by knowledge workers (Laise, Migliarese & Verteramo, 2005) and therefore, an organisation’s main focus is to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Meilich, 2005).

As most of the knowledge relevant to the production of goods, services and ways of working is tacit, the transfer of knowledge between knowledge workers is exceptionally difficult (Stenmark, 2001). The view that an organisation’s primary role is to optimise knowledge worker expertise implies that, even with goal congruence, achieving the

optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is problematic for an organisation (Kaplan & Norton, 2006). A knowledge-based view of an organisation persuades us to recognise interdependence as a component of organisational design and the subject of managerial choice rather than being driven by the current production technology (Grant, 1996).

The challenge for an organisation is to adopt an appropriate organisational design to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Stenmark, 2001). While process technology describes the technical aspects of production and the kind of specialised knowledge required for the business processes, the division of responsibilities between knowledge workers and departments and the specification of the interfaces between them lies within the sphere of organisational design (Spira, 2005).

Knowledge workers represent a large and growing percentage of the employees of the world's biggest corporations; these talented employees are the innovators of new business ideas. Knowledge workers make it possible for organisations to deal with today's rapidly changing and uncertain business environment because they produce and manage the intangible assets that are the primary way companies in a wide array of industries create value (Bryan & Joyce, 2005). This requires an organisational design where culture, structure and business processes are optimised to enhance knowledge worker expertise (Ng, 2004). Creating and exchanging knowledge and intangibles through interaction with their professional peers is central to what they do. However, most knowledge workers spend endless hours searching for the knowledge they need, while coordinating their work with others in the organisation (Bryan & Joyce, 2005). Knowledge workers make an organisation competitive, but now increasingly find their work obstructed by the organisational design (Drucker, 1999).

According to Kreindler, Maislish and Wang (2004) organisational design must effectively optimise knowledge worker expertise however this optimisation should not happen at the expense of the traditional employee. The ideal organisational design should

enhance the traditional employee’s efficiency by optimising worker expertise (Massey & Montoya-Weiss, 2006) to enable the employee to perform at a heightened level. Organisational structures that concentrate on concrete resources and methods are perceived as remnants of the industrial economy (Meilich, 2005), thus the shift to electronic commerce demands a revolutionary redesign of organisational structures (Kreindler, Maislish & Wang, 2004; Peltonen & Lamsa, 2004). These structures should facilitate organisational creativity where knowledge worker expertise is optimised to create new products, services or ways of working (Choi & Lee, 2003).

An organisational design that facilitates the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise for creativity and innovation is quite complex (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004) and requires a new management style (Barber, Strack, 2005). Organisational creativity and innovation are affected by the following factors: • The kind of environment the organisation operates in and the strategy it employs to interact within that environment; • The management style and the quality of management; • The organisational structure and the control system; • The human resource management system of the organisation; • The organisational appetite for innovation; • The culture and work climate of the organisation; • The character of the innovations – incremental or transformational; and • The marketing and customer response system (Massey & Montoya-Weiss, 2006).

The following elements of organisational design will be discussed below: • Culture; • Structure; and • Codification Systems.

2.3.1 Culture

Organisational culture is defined as the deeply rooted values and beliefs shared by all in an organisation (Oliver & Kandadi, 2006). The culture of an organisation is underpinned by a set of elementary assumptions that are accepted as valid within the organisation. These assumptions are maintained in the continuous process of human interaction and are manifested as components of routine behaviour, norms, values, philosophy, rules of the game and feelings which contribute to a climate that facilitates the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise by encouraging creativity and innovation in an organisation.

A comparable organisational culture is crucial for optimising knowledge worker expertise as it forms an integral part of the general functioning of an organisation. A strong culture provides a shared system of meanings, which forms the basis of communication and mutual understanding. If the organisational culture does not fulfil these functions in a satisfactory way, it may significantly reduce the prospect of optimising knowledge worker expertise. For the culture of an organisation to contribute to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise, it must have a strong set of core values and norms that encourage the creation and sharing of knowledge and active participation of knowledge workers in the process (Lucas & Ogilvie, 2006).

These core values should be outlined in the following: • Vision and mission (determines the understanding of where the organisation perceives itself to be in the future and the means it will adopt to achieve that vision); • Environment (determines the degree of focus on internal and external customers); • Means to achieve objectives (determines the way in which organisational structure and support mechanisms add to the competence of an organisation); • Image of the organisation (focuses on the image of the organisation to the outside world); • Management processes (focuses on management processes and includes aspects such as decision making, innovation processes and control processes); • Knowledge worker needs and objectives (focuses on the integration of knowledge

worker needs and objectives with the objectives of the organisation); • Interpersonal relationships (focuses on the relationship between managers and knowledge workers); and • Leadership (focuses on specific areas that strengthen leadership) Adapted from Martins & Terblanche (2003)

Organisational culture is a crucial factor for effectively optimising knowledge worker expertise to bring about innovation which is a requirement for sustaining a competitive advantage. In many instances, organisational culture either actively or passively hinders the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise and no organisation can begin a process of optimising knowledge worker expertise without first changing the culture of the organisation (Call, 2005). If an unsupportive organisational culture is not addressed, it could become an invisible barrier which will limit any initiatives to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Dufour & Steane, 2007). Organisational culture must support competitive advantage by developing organisational competencies which are both superior to competitors and cannot be easily imitated (McAdam & McClelland, 2002). In practice, organisational culture operates as a mechanism of social control that promotes behavioural uniformity and the assimilation of dominant values (Barbosa & Cabral- Cardoso, 2007).

The basic elements of organisational culture influence the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise in the following ways: • Through socialisation processes in an organisation where knowledge workers learn which behaviour is acceptable and how activities should function; • The basic values, assumptions and beliefs become enacted in established forms of behaviours and activity and are reflected as structures, policies, practices and procedures (Martins & Terblanche, 2003).

Organisational culture affects the extent to which knowledge workers create, share, transfer and reuse knowledge in an organisation. An organisation cannot effectively utilize knowledge if knowledge workers cannot locate or access the desired knowledge

(Hicks, Dattero & Galup, 2006). Creative activities of knowledge workers must be encouraged, supported and implemented to effect the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The challenge of building a supporting organisational culture for optimising knowledge worker expertise must not be underestimated as culture exists in the deep structures of an organisation (Lai & Lee, 2007).

2.3.2 Structure

In the new economy, knowledge assets are ingrained in the experience and expertise of the knowledge workers working in an organisation. An organisation must therefore provide the right structures to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Smedlund, 2008). The world economy has shifted to an economy based on knowledge and services require a structure that encourages the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. To achieve this, an organisation needs to have both an appropriate structure and the necessary infrastructure to accommodate these kinds of knowledge activities. In a fast developing economy, the hierarchical structure is under pressure to make the most of the knowledge worker’s abilities. The traditional hierarchical structure relies on vertical linkages to coordinate activities between the bottom and top layers of an organisation. Such a structure is characterised by a limited sphere of responsibility, a restricted flow of information and tight control from the top (Wang-Cowham, 2008). To create and sustain a competitive advantage, the structure should facilitate the coordinated action of its knowledge workers enabling the transformation of a given input to an organisational output (Boder, 2006).

The hierarchical structure has survived and is still prevalent in a large number of public and private organisations, but the underlying principles of hierarchical command and control prevent the knowledge worker from performing optimally (Kenney, 2006). An organisation must rethink its internal structure and alignment to ensure that they can capture growth opportunities (Sharkey, 2006). The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is dependant on the structure of an organisation where the higher the degree of specialisation, the higher the isolation and narrower the perspective within an

organisation. The structure can establish wrong authorities with unclear goals and this hinders tacit knowledge and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Seidler-de Alwis & Hartmann, 2008). An alternate structure is needed that enables an organisation to respond more effectively to a turbulent business environment and that optimises knowledge worker expertise.

To optimise knowledge worker expertise it is important that an organisation adheres to the following important structural essentials: • Coordination; • Organisational learning; • Work environment; and • Innovation Incubators.

These structural essentials are discussed below.

2.3.2.1 Coordination

Coordination is defined as a means integrating or linking together dissimilar parts of an organization to achieve a collective set of tasks (Alsene, 2007). It is a process aimed at allocating resources and tasks, as well as organising activities and balancing actions. Coordination is commonly known as a mechanism to regulate interdependent objects, tasks and responsibilities of different business units to accomplish a business goal (Jain, Nagar & Srivastava, 2006; Danese & Romano, 2004). The coordination mechanism should seek to redesign the business processes by redirecting organisational emphasis from functional to process orientation (Lee & Dale, 1998) to discourage the functional boundaries from serving as barriers to achieving competitive advantage (Zairi, 1997). Coordination can be seen as a means to arrive at the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Alsene, 2007). Coordination capabilities are utilised to promote the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise utilising increasingly tacit knowledge, resulting in greater scope and flexibility and reduced

efficiency in the integration of knowledge types. Ultimately, coordination facilitates the integration of tacit knowledge through horizontal and vertical relationships and learning in an organisation (Kenny & Gudergan, 2006).

Goal alignment and coordination of tasks between departments for effective optimisation of knowledge worker expertise are essential for the effective functioning and performance of an organisation. As a consequence, an organisation must develop strategies to effectively align goals and coordinate tasks of different functional areas to capitalise on knowledge worker expertise as a basis for competitive advantage. This can be achieved through information flow and communication, which are key areas to be addressed when dealing with inter-functional coordination problems (Danese & Romani, 2004). Marjanovic (2005) echoes the above assertion in the argument that coordination is the process of integrating work activities by determining their interdependence when achieving organisational goals and objectives. Hence, the effectiveness of structure of coordination determines the organisation's capability to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Marouf, 2007). A key behaviour that organisations must develop among their knowledge workers is to act as “one company”. Most employees and knowledge workers in a large organisation tend to have a silo- focused view. This single-focus state of mind leads to “us versus them” thinking that impedes the coordination and collaboration required for an organisation to function effectively. This can be detrimental to the organisation as a whole (Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005). In order to optimise knowledge worker expertise, it is more important to manage tacit knowledge rather than making it explicit. It is desirable for coordination to surface spontaneously in the management of tacit knowledge instead of being imposed artificially by the top management (Bhardwaj & Monin 2006).

An organisation must develop effective coordination strategies between top management and knowledge workers in order to maximise the potential for converting competitive advantage into profitability (Simatupang, Wright & Sridharan, 2002). Coordination mechanisms are carried out to explicitly facilitate responsible interdependence, mitigate uncertainty and resolve conflict. The effectiveness of a

coordination mechanism depends on a shared view of the coordination structure because it facilitates the visibility of the interconnections between assignment of knowledge worker responsibilities and their interrelationships to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Simatupang, Sanndroto & Lubis, 2004).

Coordination in functional groups of knowledge workers often leads to cross-fertilisation among those knowledge workers and emphasises further specialisation and uniformity of the way in which the work is carried out. As a consequence, there is a trade-off between workflow coordination on the one hand and scale of economies, cross- fertilisation and further specialisation on the other hand (Zomerdijk & de Vries, 2007). From an organisational point of view, control promotes coordination both across functional departments and among managerial levels. In this modern information driven world, it is imperative that social and behavioural aspects of control be taken into account in managing complex organisations (Herath, 2007).

Coordination is also reflected in the way knowledge workers are interdependent. Knowledge workers assist in the tasks of other knowledge workers as they know that this will be reciprocated in the same manner when they are unable to cope with or unable to do their assigned tasks. Closely related to the coordination issue is the distribution of control within the team (Clark, 2007). The authority arrangement of an organisation is embodied in its structure and generates coordination through the subordinated decisions of the individual (Magnier-Watanabe & Senoo, 2008). Workflows are designed to specify, execute, manage, monitor and streamline business processes that span the functional boundaries in an organisation. As a consequence, the workflow coordination mechanism is most suitable for routine, highly repetitive business processes where the process model can be fully defined in advance. Business processes are not part of a strategic design and have evolved over time to meet changing circumstances (Tinnila, 1995). The coordination mechanism must seek to redesign the business processes by redirecting organisational emphasis from functional to process orientation (Lee & Dale, 1998). However, in a dynamic business environment many processes evolve during process execution as knowledge workers are faced with

new situations that require solving (Marjanovic, 2005).

2.3.2.2 Organisational learning

Organisational learning is defined as process where learning changes the behaviour of individuals or groups within an organisation and thus is a transformational activity yielding tangible results (Cheng, Dainty & Moore, 2007). It is a focused, time-framed activity aimed at developing a given set of skills or achieving a relatively narrowly targeted type of knowledge (Strach & Everett, 2006).

In the new economy it is not sufficient for an organisation to create a competitive advantage. To be sustainable, an organisation must manage knowledge worker expertise by accelerating organisational learning to outpace competitors in building new competitive advantages (Hamel & Prahalad, 2005). Knowledge worker expertise serves as a building block of organisational learning because they convert their past experience into promises for future action. Consequently, knowledge worker expertise is successfully transferred among knowledge workers when it is perceived as useful by those knowledge workers (Brachos, Kostapoulos, Soderquist & Practacos, 2007). For organisational learning to occur there should be less emphasis on generating information and more emphasis on developing skills and exploring concepts (Laverie, 2006). Tacit knowledge, a critical element for optimising knowledge worker expertise required for creating a competitive advantage can only be transferred through social interactions with detailed discussions among knowledge workers from similar backgrounds and with common experiences. This social interaction leads to a high degree of common knowledge, understanding and language and experience which supports the efficient transfer of knowledge (Koner & Goffin, 2007).

The process of effective organisational learning, by way of sharing information and knowledge among knowledge workers, enables an organisation to reflect on the consequences of behaviours and actions. Organisational learning also enables an

organisation to obtain insights from the environment wherein it operates and to interpret the meaning and react to it in more accurate approaches (Yang 2007). Organisational learning can be seen as a cognitive process and as such, more attention can be given to its dynamics and outcomes. As an outcome, organisational learning emphasizes performance improvement through employing knowledge worker expertise for creating and sustaining a competitive advantage. A learning organisation enables its knowledge workers to create valued outcomes, such as efficiency and innovation as symbols of expertise. As a consequence, leadership commitment is critical for knowledge worker interaction on the process and outcome of organisational learning (Shi, 2002).

The organisation should also be designed in such a way as to maximise the interaction among knowledge workers to facilitate expertise and learning (Pham & Swierczek, 2006). It has to be emphasised that a single knowledge worker cannot succeed in a sub-task unless the team succeeds (Chen, Wu & Yang, 2006). Effective knowledge management is important to radically improve organisational learning and the following aspects are important: • New knowledge must be linked to existing knowledge. It is important to understand how new knowledge relates to existing information and where best to apply it; • From time to time, best practices and lessons learned need to be abstracted so that knowledge can be applied across departments. Abstracting knowledge would get rid of contextual information that ties knowledge to a specific department; generalising knowledge would enable other departments to find ways of benefiting from it. • Successful knowledge management requires active attention to feedback. Organisational resources and time must be invested and the learning that occurs must be fed back into the work processes. • A best practice is only good in a specific situation. It is therefore important for an organisation to realise when the best practice has become obsolete. An organisation must be constantly in search for cross-fertilising knowledge across departments in an effort to create new knowledge (Sherif, 2006).

The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise requires that an organisation creates

the opportunity for knowledge workers to enhance their skills through processes that require reflection and dialogue to allow personal and organisational learning and innovation (Ballantine & McCourt Larres, 2007). Without effective information and knowledge management to drive knowledge integration, which in turn underpins innovation, organisations could be underutilising the fruits of organisational learning (du Plessis, 2007). Dispersed innovation incubators also provide a mechanism for optimisation of knowledge worker expertise through organisational learning because these innovation incubators serve as a mechanism for developing new innovative products, services or ways of working (Malik, 2004). Dissemination is also important for converting personal learning into organisational learning. It involves the sharing of knowledge, skills and insights achieved through a collaborative exchange of ideas in which differing perspectives are aired. Dissemination is more than a one-way relay of information; it is an extension of the reflective process, moving reflection from the knowledge worker to the organisational level (Colinson, 2004).

All organisations learn as a fundamental requirement for their sustained existence and effective organisations deliberately promote organisational learning by developing capabilities that are consistent with their objectives (Pham, 2006). Organisational learning represents a dynamic synergy between knowledge workers, actions, symbols and processes within an organisation. There is a strong relationship between personal learning and the collective learning of an organisation however, personal learning is not sufficient to produce the systematic knowledge required for the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Gorelick & Tantawy-Monsou, 2005).

2.3.2.3 Work environment

For an organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise, a dynamic work environment must be created and maintained (Hasgall & Shoham, 2008). The benefits of optimising knowledge worker expertise include the application of tacit knowledge for enhancing decision-making support, enhancing individual performance and sustaining

competitive advantage. Tacit knowledge is developed from experience over time and accumulated working experience where knowledge workers develop skills and abilities to make intuitive judgment on the successful execution of operations. In a work environment that is conducive to the generation, exchange and respect of knowledge ideas, there would be an increase in morale, trust, collaboration and knowledge worker retention (Teerajetgul & Chareonngam, 2008). Perceptions of fairness are inextricably tied to knowledge worker views of the overall fairness of the work environment and have an impact on the quality of the exchange (Ansari, Hung & Aafaqi, 2007). A work environment can be seen as one manifestation of an organisational culture and a positive work environment that will enhance knowledge worker participation in knowledge transfer activities, resulting in the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Rowold & Hochholdinger, 2008).

A positive work environment is required for knowledge workers to experience high work satisfaction. These requirements include giving the knowledge worker the opportunity to: • Exercise influence and control over their own work situation; • Develop security and meaning; • Develop social relations at and through the job; • Keep a social distance from the job; • Enjoy good health and avoid negative stress; • Work in safe physical surroundings (Edvardsson, 2003).

A positive work environment can be further enhanced with the inclusion of the following: • Training; • Co-worker support; • Future prospects; and • Organisational understanding (Duignan, 2007).

2.3.2.4 Innovation incubators

The organisational structure can actually be considered as both a resource and a constraint to optimising knowledge worker expertise (Chanal, 2004). An effectively functioning organisational design will stifle the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise and inadvertently reduce an organisation’s competitive advantage. To circumvent this, innovation incubators can be established as a mechanism that functions outside of the structure where knowledge workers can create and share new knowledge as a means to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Roberts, 2006). Easier access to knowledge, quicker responses to problems and decreased learning curves are some of the benefits of the innovation incubators (Gavaran, Carbery & Murphy 2007). They can also be utilised to generate ideas and speed up the time taken to produce innovative new products, services or ways of working (Pastoors, 2007).

These innovation incubators are comprised of knowledge workers whose high levels of knowledge and skills serve as a foundation for the work outcome (Davison & Blackman, 2005), where the knowledge workers active in the innovation process benefit from the collective effort (Koster, Stokman, Hodson & Sanders, 2007). Knowledge workers are motivated to participate in innovation incubators by the potential benefit derived from sharing knowledge, insights and experiences with others who have similar goals (Parent, Roy & St-Jacques, 2007), as there is a strong tendency for employees to learn from peers facing similar conditions (Cross, Laseter, Parker & Velasquez, 2006). The innovation incubators enable knowledge workers to develop a deep passion for using existing knowledge to create new knowledge (Threlfall, 1999). In these face-to-face situations knowledge workers develop strong relationships which are dependent on trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Garavan, Carberry & Murphy, 2007). As a consequence, much of the organisational learning will occur within the innovation incubators (Mulholland, Zdrahal, Domingue & Hatala, 2000), where knowledge workers are afforded the opportunity of pooling resources and interacting with peers and working in groups (Majchzak, Beath, Lim & Chin, 2005).

Effective innovation incubators encourage interaction and dialogue between knowledge workers and facilitate the creation of different points of view that may lead to new products, services and ways of working. To be sustainable, each knowledge worker must believe that their individual successes are directly dependent on the other knowledge workers in the incubator (D'eon, 2005; Dyck, Starke, Mischke & Mauws, 2005). When creating a shared group goal for the innovation incubator, it is important that each knowledge worker identifies with the overall objective (Topping, 2005). It is also equally important that knowledge workers active in the innovation incubators do not gain knowledge at the expense of others (Versailles & Merindol, 2006). The innovation incubators offer an organisation the opportunity to optimise knowledge worker expertise derived from multiple professional backgrounds to work together in a coordinated way (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007). This socialisation process is a continuing integration of individual interests and motivations into a collective focus with relationship building a crucial factor for success (Huwe, 2006).

Organisational design is characterised by specialised tasks, a strict hierarchy with many rules, vertical communication and reporting systems (Magnier-Watanabe & Dai Senoo, 2008). These organisational design challenges can be addressed with the establishment of innovation incubators giving an organisation a degree of flexibility. When an organisation takes the decision to establish an innovation incubator to leverage the existing knowledge of knowledge workers to develop into a new product, service or way of working, the process must be formalised. This formalisation will include the allocation of resources, project formation, project composition and the implementation of common values in the innovation incubator. The success of the innovation incubator requires the creation of a mental model that is common throughout the team and must be shared by all members in the innovation incubator (Edvardsson, 2003).

Innovation incubators have a tendency to break problems into more manageable components by using information and knowledge, thus assisting in creating new learning for incubator knowledge workers (Teerajetgul & Chareonngam, 2008).

Successful innovation incubators strive to include members from across the organisation and that appropriately increases individual responsibility and delegation (Zwikael & Bar-Yoseph, 2008). Innovation incubators are thus an organisational form that is created as a mechanism for optimising knowledge worker expertise by providing the opportunity for intense interaction between knowledge workers. Therefore, special attention must be given to the quality of the relationships formed between knowledge workers (D’eon, 2005). It will take some time for the knowledge workers to determine how they will interact with other knowledge workers. However, the successful application of knowledge is dependant on the innovation incubators being able to build on the formal content tools and management systems (Sauve, 2007) without becoming over-institutionalized (O'Donnell, Porter, McGuire, Garavan & Hefferman, 2003).

2.3.3 Codification system

An important requirement for optimising knowledge worker expertise for an organisation is to capture tacit knowledge and convert it into information that others can utilise later (Prieto & Revilla, 2005). The process by which acquired knowledge worker expertise is converted into a transferable form and distributed internally is important for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Jantunen, 2005). Codification is defined as the primary means by which knowledge becomes “portable,” “re-usable” or “transferable” within an organization (Hall, 2006). The generalised purpose of codification of knowledge is intended to ensure greater standardisation and organization-wide dispersion of knowledge (Davies, Subrahmanian & Westerberg, 2005). As a consequence, codification is a requirement whenever knowledge has to be communicated. Consequently, several means can be used for the transfer of knowledge, including face- to-face communication, telephone and e-mail (Albina, Garavelli & Gorgoglione, 2004). The codification of knowledge into information is the predominant mechanism by which knowledge transfer in an organisation can be achieved. This view places particular emphasis on knowledge codification as a way of affecting the transfer of knowledge (Hall 2006).

Codification as a process of converting knowledge into messages which can then be utilised as information manifests in the following ways: • Codification of information. This is a secondary level of codification, where knowledge which has already been codified as information is classified; and • Codification of previously “tacit” knowledge. This is a process by which knowledge is made explicit, whether it is tacit knowledge or not (Hall 2006).

A codification strategy has the objective to collect knowledge, store it in databases and provide the available knowledge in an explicit and codified form. Such a reuse of explicit knowledge and solutions can save time and money. The design of databases, document management and workflow management can be considered to be part of this strategy. The codification strategy is assumed to be successful for an organisation whose business strategy requires re-using existing knowledge (Greiner, Böhmann & Krcmar, 2007). However, the fact that knowledge can be codified does not necessarily mean that it is available for use, or that it automatically becomes available. The knowledge worker may be reluctant to share this knowledge because it may be sensitive in some situations or it might reflect poorly on him/her. In addition, the knowledge worker could feel that he/she owns this knowledge as it is a result of his/her own unique experience. In addition, the codification process is not always certain and so becomes less automatic (Marouf, 2007). Knowledge that resists codification remains captive to the knowledge worker in which it resides and the context that it is bound to (Yakhlef 2005).

The codification process can be better understood by the following extension of the current categories of knowledge: • Private non-codified knowledge: This is personal knowledge that a knowledge worker obtains from direct experience in a given field. It is context-specific, subjective, personally sensitive and not documented; and • Private codified knowledge: This is personal knowledge that a knowledge worker obtains from direct experience in a given field that is context-specific and

documented in some form such as e-mail correspondence, personal notes, etc. (Marouf, 2007).

The objective of the codification of organisational knowledge should extend beyond making knowledge accessible and retrievable and should also facilitate optimising knowledge worker expertise. The achievement of this objective requires the effective management of the knowledge processing cycle: • Identifying, acquiring or extracting valuable knowledge from documents, discussions or interviews, with the help of subject matter experts; • Refining and editing raw knowledge (such as project files, presentations, e-mail messages) and converting it into processed knowledge (such as lessons learned, best practices, case studies); • Organising the processed knowledge and adding index terms, subject headings, cross-reference links and metadata; • Disseminating knowledge through a variety of channels, including intranet Web pages, CD ROMs, subject-oriented pathfinders and “knowledge portals” that are focused on particular business needs or issues (Choo, 2000).

There is no smooth, linear passage between data and knowledge as the latter is not a matter of putting together discrete items of data into a coherent body of knowledge. Data can be codified information to some extent, but knowledge may be harder to turn into codes. The challenge remains that when knowledge is to be treated as an organisational resource subject to management practices, it should be reduced to the level where it can be codified (Styhre, 2003).

2.4 Supportive organisation competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise

For an organisation to sustain a competitive advantage in the knowledge economy, it is vital that the organisation develops organisational competencies to optimise knowledge

worker expertise. Knowledge workers are highly educated experts with vast amounts of practical experience (Cooper, 2006) giving the capacity to act (Botha, 2000). As such, knowledge workers provide focus and creativity by leveraging all of the other investments that an organisation has to achieve its objectives (Covey, 2004). Knowledge workers cannot and do not seek life-long employment and desire life-long learning and career self-reliance which is made possible by their level of expertise (Bogdanowicz & Bailey, 2002). Knowledge workers are distinguished from other employees by the tacit knowledge residing in their heads (Paul, 2006) and are described as the agents of a knowledge organisation or as its intellectual capital (Laise, Migliarese & Verteramo, 2005).

There are many definitions for a knowledge worker. In this research, a knowledge worker is defined as an employee with a high degree of education and expertise whose work largely involves the creation, distribution, or application of knowledge and who is changed by the information he/she processes (Eatock & Spencer, 2005; Ramirez & Nembhard, 2004). They design much of their own work (Austin & Nolan, 2007) and continuously supplement and augment their individual knowledge and skills to create value (Kogan & Muller, 2006). These individuals can use their expertise to create value by transferring and converting knowledge to create better processes, new designs for products and services, trademarks and patents (Laise, Migliarese & Verteramo, 2005). Knowledge workers are highly mobile and their careers can span many types of industries (Royal & Althauser, 2003). Through their extensive experience in the organisation’s value proposition, knowledge workers are central to the creation and accumulation of knowledge (Kogan & Muller, 2006). As a consequence, knowledge workers as individuals are the store house of much information and knowledge in an organisation (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001).

Knowledge workers are professionally qualified and mainly work as free-lance self- employed professionals, as key members in consulting houses, or as key resources at an organisation (Brint, 2001). They have larger knowledge foundations, developed through their experiences in a specific job field and a better understanding of how to

apply their knowledge (Cooper, 2006). Knowledge workers shoulder much of the responsibility for success of an organisation and their efforts must be complemented by support from senior management (Guns, 2001). These experts have richer and more detailed schemata to use in decision making, greater pertinent knowledge to recall and an ability to focus more on variations in information and less bias in their recall of information. Knowledge workers incorporate their job-related experiences as an element of their cognitive make-ups and can draw upon this experience in decision making (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005).

Figure 4 below was developed to capture some of the key characteristics of a knowledge worker.

Figure 4: Key characteristics of a knowledge worker

In the knowledge economy there is a major transition from the industrial society with its traditional dominance of manufacturing work and old industrial classes to an information and knowledge based society which demonstrates the following characteristics: • Knowledge workers have achieved a higher average standard of education in comparison to other societies and a growing proportion is employed as knowledge workers. As a consequence, there is a significant reduction in the number of people working in operational roles, while employment in professional knowledge-based roles has risen; • Service-based industries and retailing companies are undergoing remarkable changes as indicated by an increased number of virtual stores such as Amazon.com; • Organisations – private and government – are altered into intelligent organisations; • There is improved organised knowledge in the form of digitalised expertise, collected in data banks, organisational plans and other media; and • There is a distinct epistemic culture of knowledge creation and knowledge deployment (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004).

2.4.1 The increasing utilisation of knowledge workers

Knowledge workers do not own any physical means of production, but they have access to information and experience (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004). In many organisations, knowledge workers assume the burden for knowledge creation (Chen & Edgington, 2005). The number of knowledge workers is increasing and their strategic importance is growing for the following reasons: • The growth of ignorance, which amplifies the demand for expert knowledge; • The escalating use of knowledge adds importance to specialised expert knowledge; and • The value of expert knowledge in the legitimisation of political decisions (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004).

The three points above will now be elaborated upon.

2.4.1.1 The growth of ignorance

The knowledge economy has drastically increased the knowledge that exists, but likewise has also generated an even greater amount of ignorance (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004; Levy, 2005 & Pillania, 2005). Each time a research project is successfully concluded, a number of new questions evolve thereby increasing gaps in our knowledge. Hence, the faster the wheel of knowledge production is turning, the greater the uncertainty as well as the marginalisation of expert knowledge is likely to become (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004).

2.4.1.2 The increasing marginal utility of expert knowledge

Another important aspect of knowledge in a knowledge economy is its attribute as a feature of production in relation to the other factors of labour and capital (Levy, 2005). Whereas other factors surrender to the law of diminishing returns, knowledge actually experiences rising marginal utility. The more knowledge a knowledge worker and an organisation have the more valuable individual pieces of knowledge become. This transpires as knowledge that needs to be employed effectively (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005).

2.4.1.3 The legitimising function of knowledge workers

Knowledge workers reduce the complexity of the knowledge economy and allow planners, politicians, business executives and other decision makers to base their actions on the executive summaries of the reports prepared by knowledge workers, rather than on their own knowledge (Kogan & Muller, 2006). As a consequence,

knowledge workers transform ignorance into expert knowledge. From the perspective of an organisation, knowledge workers give instant knowledge and instant solutions (Evers &, Menkhoff, 2004) while providing organisations with increased ability to deal with information (Levy, 2005).

As ignorance has grown in the knowledge economy, it has become the special consideration of the knowledge worker. Only the knowledge worker can gauge the risk implicated in planning under circumstances of minimal knowledge and maximum ignorance (Cooper, 2006). When the balance between what we know and what we do not know is tilted towards the latter, knowledge workers are essential to fill the void of ignorance with authoritative opinions (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004).

Economic globalisation, the continuous influx of technological innovations and intense competition has made the world very complex for an organisation (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004). To survive, many organisations are forced to downsize and to become leaner. Hence they do not have adequate numbers of employees to get projects completed (Royal & Althauser, 2003). As organisations have cut back the numbers of middle managers, there are not enough executives for long term strategic planning and other organisational activities. Due to this lack of qualified employees the organisation is increasingly forced to seek the services of knowledge workers (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004).

As the knowledge economy is taking shape and demand for expert knowledge is rising, knowledge workers are faced by a number of challenges, which can be briefly summarised as follows: • Knowledge has become easily available on the internet. It requires further specific knowledge to merge various sets of data and information, to assess it by means of “best practices” to create new knowledge and solutions to problems; • The intelligent organisation creates its own proprietary knowledge. Knowledge workers have to live up to the challenge and be one step ahead of competitors. They

have to design and introduce structures and processes that are superior and more intelligent than those currently in place; and • The rapid development of information technology has decreased the survival time of knowledge worker tools and concepts. As a consequence, “trade secrets” have become more important, but are more difficult to maintain (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004).

Knowledge workers bring knowledge to an organisation and they are extensively involved in knowledge creation as a basic requirement for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005). Knowledge, once created or acquired, should be coordinated, transferred and optimised within an organisation.

2.4.2 Knowledge

Knowledge comprises of a knower, is difficult to transfer, is absorbed, requires context and is one facet of a larger system of knowing (Iverson & McPhee, 2002). There are many definitions of knowledge and for purposes of this research, knowledge is defined as “an organisation’s knowledge creation capability, incorporating the extent to which the top management team and knowledge workers have access to one another and other stakeholders, are capable of combining information and knowledge into new knowledge and perceive value from the exchange and combination process” (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005). This definition is preferred as it links very strongly to organisational performance (Peltonen & Lamsa, 2004). Knowledge can be viewed as an outcome associated with improved understanding (Armstrong & Mahmud, 2004) and capability which includes the ideas created and the enhanced ability to perform future work (Choo, Linderman & Schroeder, 2004).

The knowledge economy is dependent on optimising knowledge worker expertise and leveraging knowledge resources within an organisation to gain maximum return from human capital (Levy, 2005; Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). Knowledge has become the main ingredient of the products or services of any organisation (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005; Storey, 2005) and is essential to utilise other knowledge (Evers &

Menkhoff, 2004; Keskin, 2005). It is a methodical combination of ideas, policies, procedures and meaningful information (Alonderiene, Pundziene & Krisciunas, 2006). Knowledge is the heart of organisational capability and organisations must continuously grow their knowledge base by optimising knowledge worker expertise to sustain competitive advantage (Davies, Subrahmanian & Westerberg, 2005; Marr, 2004). An organisation evolves by adapting the knowledge of its knowledge workers (Lee & Cole, 2003) and much of this process takes place at a tacit level (Spender, 1996). What is required now is not increased information, but an increased capability to deal with that information (Thomas & Hult, 2003; Levy, 2005). However, the only way an organisation can maintain a competitive advantage is to innovate by optimising knowledge worker expertise to create new knowledge (Pillania, 2005).

Figure 5 below was developed to illustrate the relationship between individual and organisational knowledge.

Tacit Explicit

Individual Organisational

Personal Codified

Figure 5: Individual and organisational knowledge

Knowledge is explicit or tacit, codified or personal and organisational or individual (Alvesson, Karreman & Swan, 2002). The difference between explicit and tacit

knowledge can be seen as the difference between what we know as an organisation and what I know as an individual (Owen, 1999).

Knowledge is composed of three types: tacit knowledge, defined as personal know-how that may be hard to substantiate and communicate (Paul, 2006; Liao, 2005); explicit knowledge, defined as codified and easily translated facts and information (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005); and commercial knowledge, which may be explicit or tacit, is not true, but affects performance: not what is right, but what works or even what works better (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005). The three types of knowledge are discussed below.

2.4.2.1 Tacit knowledge

An ideal organisational design must be focused on establishing the structure and the climate to facilitate the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise by encouraging knowledge workers who have tacit knowledge to share it within the organisation (Koening, 1999). Tacit knowledge is the knowing-how (Paul, 2006) that guides action (Rodriguez-Lluesma & Bailey, 2005), is difficult to exploit as there is no real need to make it explicit on the individual level and the problem of establishing which knowledge worker has the requisite knowledge grows with the size of an organisation (Stenmark, 2001). This type of knowledge is personal (Lebowitz, 2005; Paul, 2006) and resides only in the minds of knowledge workers (Holste & Fields, 2005). It is part of knowledge worker capability (Eraut, 2004) that is associated with experience and more easily articulated than spoken (Muthusamy & White, 2005; Spender, 1996) and can only be obtained through experience (Anis, Armstrong & Zhu, 2004; Hakanson, 2004). Tacit knowledge includes the ability to visualise a future state (Dyck, Starke, Mischke & Mauws, 2005) and it stems from considerable practice and accumulated experience in some narrow tasks (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005). The bulk of knowledge in an organisation is tacit and is embedded in knowledge workers (Peltonen & Lamsa, 2004). The four groups of tacit knowledge are as follows:

• Hard to pin down skills-know-how (Lebowitz, 2005); • Mental models, which show us how the world is constructed; • Ways of approaching problems; and • Organisational routines (Oyeleran-Oyeyinka, 2004).

Tacit knowledge embodies knowledge based on the experience of knowledge workers (Aiman-Smith, Bergey, Cantwell & Doran, 2006) and is expressed in individual actions including the form of assessment, attitudes, points of view, commitments and motivation (Koskinen, 2004). Tacit knowledge is the knowledge that a knowledge worker accumulates throughout his/her career and defines knowledge worker value to an organisation (Gates, 2005). Typically, it is difficult to express tacit knowledge precisely in words (Williams, 2006) and often the only way of presenting it are through metaphors, drawings and skilful actions (Miller, Zhao & Clantone, 2006) that do not require a formal use of language (Oyeleran-Oyeyinka, 2004). Only when tacit knowledge is externalised and optimised as explicit knowledge, does it become valuable to the organisation as a whole (Heaton & Taylor, 2002). The organisation’s knowledge is its capacity for action and as such, the knowledge must be transferred from the knowledge worker to the organisation for the new knowledge to be beneficial (Bentley & Yoong, 2000; Sasson & Douglas, 2006; Sherif, 2006). On a practical level, many knowledge workers are often unable to express clearly all they know and are able to do (Williams, 2006), as well as how they make their decisions and draw conclusions (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005). Tacit knowledge is transferred by the sharing of experiences (Borredon & Ingham, 2005), by observation, imitation and informal face-to-face interaction (Takii, 2004). Consequently, tacit knowledge often equals functional know-how (Koskinen, 2004).

It is difficult for an organisation to exploit tacit knowledge as it only resides inside knowledge workers (Stenmark, 2001) and is less mobile because it cannot be fully described through documentation (Williams, 2006). The challenge of knowing who knows what grows with the size of the organisation as the larger organisations are more complex and the work generated more specialised. Tacit knowledge not being available in an explicit form makes it difficult, if not impossible, to quickly distribute or share it

within an organisation (Liao, 2005). It mirrors a well constructed experience foundation that permits knowledge workers to adapt to and/or shape environments (Bailey, 2003). The taxing aspect of tacit knowledge is its elusiveness. Knowledge workers are not fully aware of the difficulties around tacit knowledge, as there is no personal need to make it explicit on an individual level. For the knowledge worker there is also a potential risk of losing power and competitive advantage by making tacit knowledge explicit. This type of knowledge is closely related to work and although an organisation may have formal job descriptions, these are seldom enough to account for the actions performed during a working day (Stenmark, 2001). Tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge highly compliment each other (Keskin, 2005), where tacit knowledge is used extensively in the structure to develop and interpret explicit knowledge (Dyck, Starke, Mischke & Mauws, 2005).

2.4.2.1.1 Tacit knowledge exchange

The exchange of tacit knowledge among knowledge workers is of crucial importance to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The exchange of tacit knowledge can only be transferred between knowledge workers by direct face-to face communication (Brokel & Binder, 2007). The pooling of knowledge workers into a critical mass of knowledge and skills enable an organisation to embrace incoming knowledge and use it productively. An organisation should create a platform for tacit knowledge exchange where the focus is on optimising knowledge worker expertise as part of the organisational design (Rebernik & Sirec, 2007).

A knowledge worker has to acquire tacit knowledge through his or her own activities, as it cannot be transferred from another knowledge worker. Tacit knowledge is more likely to be exchanged between knowledge workers that work in close proximity and therefore, the probability of the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise can be increased by placing the knowledge worker in close personal contact which greatly enhances tacit-to-tacit exchange. This physical co-location and face-to-face interaction

is an important catalyst for innovation as the explicit knowledge of the organisation becomes the constant object of knowledge worker activities (Bogdanowicz & Bailey, 2002). To effectively optimise knowledge worker expertise, an organisation must exploit the process of tacit knowledge exchange which is fundamentally based on experiences and emotional involvement of knowledge workers. This exploitation can be made possible by an organisational design that encourages continuous interaction among knowledge workers to innovate explicit knowledge (Rebernik & Sirec, 2007).

2.4.2.2 Explicit knowledge

Expanding an organisation’s explicit knowledge is an important objective for optimising knowledge worker expertise. Explicit knowledge is the knowing-what (Paul, 2006); it can be codified and easily transferred from one person to another (McFadyen, Cannella, 2004). Much of the explicit knowledge acquired by an organisation is tacit knowledge transformed into organisational routines (Akbar, 2003) and is transmittable by formal and systemic methods (Williams, 2006). As a consequence, explicit knowledge can be transmitted without any personal contact (Hakanson, 2004). Explicit knowledge can be found in an organisation’s policy and procedure manuals, work processes and computer programs (Dyck, Starke, Mischke & Mauws, 2005). Routines are regularities and predictable patterns of behaviour that solidify as standard operating procedures and roles are developed and enforced (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005). It includes ways of producing goods and services, ways of hiring employees, ways of handling inventory, decision-making procedures and advertising policy (Koskinen, 2004; Oyeleran- Oyeyinka, 2004). Codified knowledge that meets the customers need at a low cost per transaction is more important for organisational performance than acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge (Keskin, 2005; Robertson, 2005). While the aim is to constantly update explicit knowledge with new tacit knowledge, knowledge is never fully explicit (Miller, Zhao & Clantone, 2006).

2.4.2.3 Commercial knowledge

Commercial knowledge consists of organisational policies and procedures as well as guidelines to enable business processes and tacit knowledge to conclude a business transaction (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005). This type of knowledge is related to effective performance embodied in behavioural directives, predictive models and rules that target a particular context (Johanson, Martensson & Skoog, 2001). With this type of knowledge, knowledge workers possess technical knowledge, whereas traditional employees possess business knowledge (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005). Such unevenness in knowledge can be problematic, because it creates knowledge barriers that can inhibit the implementation of complex technologies and new business processes. Transferring knowledge from a knowledge worker to a traditional employee is one method to lower such a knowledge barrier (Williams, 2006). For knowledge to become commercial knowledge it must be combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection, to give an organisation a competitive edge (Gates, 2005). Consequently, the knowledge originally possessed by the knowledge worker must be optimised and embodied in the knowledge of the organisation (Nadler, Thompson & Van Boven, 2003).

2.4.2.4 Task formalisation

Task formalisation involves the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and, to a limited extent, to commercial knowledge. This conversion is commonly understood to reduce the amount of importance of tacit knowledge in task performance and assumed to give greater power to management over knowledge workers (Meilich, 2005). There is a tendency for knowledge workers to hoard knowledge which stems from a desire to appear valuable to an organisation and this culminates in poor collaboration (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004). This characteristic of coercive task formalisation attempts to condense all task knowledge into simple, enforceable directives (Meilich, 2005).

Knowledge worker interaction should be encouraged as it is important when attempting to optimise knowledge worker expertise by converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, thereby transforming it from an individual to an organisational level (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001). Tacit knowledge is important for executing explicit knowledge, as it provides the context for understanding and using this latter (Paul, 2006). Task formalisation’s main function is to facilitate ongoing communication of best work practices (Choi & Lee, 2003). Even though a language is highly codified, interpreting the words and sentences requires tacit knowledge about context (Anis, Armstrong & Zhu, 2004). There exists an irreducible section of tacit knowledge that must accompany any explicit representation, thus making knowledge more explicit does not immediately imply that the importance of the tacit component is reduced (Lebowitz, 2005). In addition to the accumulation and transfer of knowledge across time and space, codification (the process of formalisation) compels the development and externalisation of an individual’s mental models about the task at hand. Codification necessitates a purposeful form of retrospective sense-making of the performance implications of a given set of activities (Meilich, 2005). However, an organisation that attempts to over codify tacit knowledge runs the risk of altering or destroying robust sources of knowledge (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001). Therefore, formalisation is an integral part of interplay between tacit and explicit forms of knowledge within the process of learning and not simply a static, once-and-for-all outcome. The more tacit knowledge exists, the more there are opportunities to codify this useful knowledge and to allow deeper tacit knowledge to emerge (Meilich, 2005).

The above discussion can also dispel some claims that formalised knowledge is a stumbling block to optimising knowledge worker expertise. The process of formalised routine – how to manipulate, decompose and recompose a task and to comprehend its contingencies – requires an irreducible amount of tacit knowledge (Spender, 1996). To be able to copy a routine requires an organisation to possess a minimum level of absorptive capacity that not every competitor has. Furthermore, because of the

specialised and local nature of routine tasks, even formalised routines may appear tacit from the outside (Meilich, 2005).

2.4.2.4.1 Formalisation and organisational adaptability

The assumption is made that highly formalised organisations are very rigid. In these organisations, rules and regulations tend to perpetuate even when they are no longer effective (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001). Tried and true ways of doing things have a tendency to become habitual and successful outcomes of former problems impede future responses (Meilich, 2005). Furthermore, the current set of rules represents an organisational cessation of hostilities, turning technical changes into power struggles (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001). This inflexibility is nothing out of the ordinary of coercive task formalisation, because of its insistence on compliance. Change in such formal routines is difficult to achieve because knowledge workers require knowledge and incentives to effect change (Meilich, 2005).

It has also been found that bureaucracies can be quite adaptable and innovative (Peoll & Van der Krogt, 2003). The manner by which enabling formalisation is associated with organisational flexibility can be explained by perceiving this type of formalisation as a set of formal task routines (Meilich, 2005). Organisational routine is a complex pattern of behaviour and is triggered by a relatively small number of initiating signals (Johanson, Martensson & Skoog, 2001). Routine tasks have the effect that even though an organisation may get stuck with outdated routines, the opportunity of change still exists. Since routines are enacted by different knowledge workers over time, space and during interaction with other routines, they possess the intrinsic, endogenous capacity to create and hold on to innovative patterns of action (Spender, 1996). Routines contribute to organisational adaptation and innovation by exposing performance deficiencies, by functioning as consistent components for new routines and by smoothing the progress of discovery of new routines (Johanson, Martensson & Skoog, 2001). Lastly, as rules become more complex, they tend to include provisions for more varied and distinctive

situations, further enhancing flexibility. Consequently, enabling task formalisation is both an outcome and an instrument of change and adaptation (Meilich, 2005). As Kaplan & Norton (2006) claim, an organisation does not need to find the perfect structure to enable it to execute a winning strategy and begin the process for optimisation knowledge worker expertise.

2.4.2.4.2 Formalisation and coercion

The coercive formalisation rationale is based on the assumption that knowledge worker organisational commitment is minimal and the existing rules and procedures are designed to compel reluctant compliance and to extract noncompliant effort (Meilich, 2005). With the enabling rationale, the supposition is that knowledge workers are dedicated, want to do a good job and want to cooperate with management. In fact, this logic can be extended to where knowledge workers actually desire to have their expertise optimised. Enabling procedures have a technical rationale in that they assist knowledge workers in their work and serve as guidelines for what is considered best practices (Russo & Harrison, 2005). However, the ultimate control rests with the knowledge worker. While coercive formalisation is designed to point out deviation, such that noncompliant knowledge workers can be reprimanded, failure of enabling routines can be taken as an opportunity to learn and improve. While knowledge worker involvement in developing coercive procedures is not necessary, enabling procedures require knowledge worker involvement for both formalisation and implementation. When rules and procedures exist to assist knowledge workers to do a better job, knowledge workers are likely to feel much less coerced and be more empowered. Similarly, when rules and procedures provide knowledge workers with clear and coherent guidance, it is likely to increase job satisfaction and commitment and reduce work alienation (Meilich, 2005). An over reliance on rules and procedures may divert organisational focus from achieving results (Khandwalla & Mehta, 2004). Additionally, because of technical justification, enabling rules and procedures are more likely to be considered fair. Fair procedures augment satisfaction, increase dedication and loyalty to groups and

organisations, smooth the progress of task performance and compliance with decisions and laws and diminish protest behaviour (Meilich, 2005).

2.4.3 Knowledge management

Knowledge management has grown as organisations realise how much they have lost by not optimising knowledge worker expertise (Jackson, 2007). Business processes have become complex and dynamic, manual labour is being replaced by knowledge work, requiring high levels of skills and expertise (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). An organisation should have a strategy to optimise the expertise of knowledge workers by learning from their experiences to adapt to changes (Kirkwood & Pangarkar, 2003). As Holste and Fields (2005) assert, the effective management of knowledge is critical to optimising knowledge worker expertise. Knowledge and skills that are of value to an organisation tend to be embodied in knowledge workers and are difficult to substitute (Keskin, 2005). The speed of transactions in the new economy requires an organisation to have the capability to interpret and respond to information about changes in the environment, almost instantaneously (Pillania, 2005). According to Owen (1999), the amount of knowledge available on any subject is increasing to an echelon that is impossible to comprehend in its entirety. Finding and choosing knowledge that is appropriate for the organisation or the individual knowledge worker seems an almost impossible task (Poston & Speier, 2005). An organisation is required to employ new technologies and to innovate in time to anticipate changes in the marketplace (Thomas & Hult, 2003). Knowing when, how and what to innovate is therefore key to optimising knowledge worker expertise (Owen, 1999).

To deal with these challenges, an organisation needs to evaluate the way it acquires, creates, manages and uses knowledge (Poston & Speier, 2005). Knowledge management can be viewed as organisational efforts to leverage knowledge assets (Paul, 2006), has the potential to overcome complex issues, give quick responses and smooth the progress of well-informed decisions (Ali & Yusof, 2004). Traditionally, knowledge management has focused for the most part on the functioning of information

technologies, with greater importance being placed on technology rather than on information or knowledge (Limone & Bastias, 2006). Knowledge management is an approach where knowledge is controlled centrally in an organisation, with the object to manage and support knowledge workers and to maximise the added value of knowledge for the organisation (Owen, 1999). The challenge is that most knowledge management systems operate from an enterprise level and are not designed primarily for the individual (Ives, 2005). The organisation’s requirement for knowledge management systems must be identified and a framework set up to enable knowledge to be optimally collected, shared and used (Ali & Yusof, 2004).

Knowledge management only adds value to the organisation when the knowledge is used by knowledge workers to perform work more efficiently and effectively (Benbya, 2006). To ensure effective usage, a knowledge management system must be designed such that knowledge workers can easily find high-quality content without feeling overwhelmed (Poston & Speier, 2005). Knowledge management should aim to optimise knowledge worker expertise by recognizing and analysing knowledge and knowledge work by developing procedures and systems for creating, storing, distributing and applying knowledge in the organisation. As a discipline, knowledge management empowers managers to address challenges such as how to support knowledge workers and how to transform knowledge into successful products and services (Limone & Bastias, 2006).

Knowledge management encompasses far more than factual knowledge and is vital for optimising knowledge worker expertise. It includes the entire array of norms and values, opinions and attitudes, intuition and emotions, experience and skills. Knowledge management encompasses expectations and ambitions that constitute individual identity and personality that guide and define individual and group behaviour. Knowledge management therefore covers all facets related to managing the culture of an organisation (Owen, 1999). An imperative for knowledge management and optimising knowledge worker expertise is for knowledge workers to be brought together

in a collaborative environment for the purpose of sharing knowledge (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003).

In practice, knowledge can be separated into two distinct worlds: the world of knowledge workers and organisations, as well as the world of information and communication. The first world is based on a conceptual approach to knowledge; it typically is the sphere of influence of general managers and human resource managers. The major focus in this world is how to move from implicit, tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge, the process of socialisation involved in this mode and the extent to which the design of the organisation contributes to its success. The second world is grounded on a technological approach to knowledge as an object; it is the domain of IT- professionals, data managers and librarians. The central focus here is on capturing and managing knowledge once it has become explicit by making it widely available throughout the organisation (Owen, 1999). The real value of knowledge is achieved when it is made available in an understandable and usable form to those knowledge workers who need it (Paul, 2006).

Many companies have tried, with varied success, to leverage knowledge assets by centralising knowledge management functions or by investing in information technology. Many organisations may assume that knowledge management can improve their performance however the key question is not whether to manage knowledge, but how to manage it to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Choi & Lee, 2003).

Knowledge management offers a value proposition and plays an invaluable role in optimising knowledge worker expertise as it encourages the creation and the exchange of knowledge by enabling communication and collaboration in a person-to-person approach. This direct exchange of tacit knowledge through socialisation is critical for knowledge creation and the process of innovation, as innovative ideas can be generated from the use of synergies of knowledge workers from different locations, cultures, or disciplines (Greiner, Böhmann & Krcmar, 2007).

The value proposition of knowledge management in the process of optimising knowledge worker expertise will be discussed below. Knowledge management is purported to: • Provide a focal point in an organisation on the value of tacit knowledge and assists in creating the environment for tacit knowledge development as well as sharing and leverage to take place. It can also assist in identifying reserves of available tacit knowledge; • Provide the platforms as well as the processes to ensure that tacit knowledge becomes explicit; • Enable collaboration across functional boundaries within an organisation and this facilitates the innovation process; • Strengthen the availability and accessibility of both tacit and explicit knowledge used in the innovation process, utilising organisational knowledge including retrieval skills and tools; • Ensure that knowledge acquired during the innovation process can flow easily across functional boundaries, as well as across organisational boundaries. • Provide platforms, tools and processes to enable integration of an organisation's knowledge base; • Assist in identifying gaps in the knowledge base and provides an approach to fill the gaps to aid optimising knowledge worker expertise; • Assist an organisation by building the competencies required in the optimising of knowledge worker expertise; • Provide structures to serve as an organisational context to the body of knowledge in an organisation; • Assist in steady growth of the knowledge reserves through gathering and capturing of explicit and tacit knowledge; • Provide a knowledge-driven culture within which innovations can be nurtured (du Plessis 2007).

An organisation should have a strategy to optimise knowledge worker expertise as this resource declines or depreciates over time. The depreciation of knowledge is discussed below.

2.4.3.1 Knowledge depreciation

The notion of knowledge depreciation is important when considering approaches to optimising knowledge worker expertise. Knowledge depreciation may come about either from knowledge decay or knowledge obsolescence (Thomas & Hult, 2003). Knowledge acquired through learning by doing is found to depreciate more rapidly than the other knowledge acquisition processes and organisations should anticipate this. A compelling reason for optimising knowledge worker expertise is the huge amount of knowledge depreciation that occurs when a knowledge worker leaves an organisation. When a knowledge worker leaves the organisation, the organisation’s knowledge base is reduced (Chen & Edgington, 2005).

Knowledge decay in human capital has been established from both cognitive and strategic management perspectives and yet another motivation to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Cognitive knowledge is reliant on human memory which decays over time in a number of ways. This knowledge decay can occur through transience, blocking, misapplication, suggestibility, bias, or persistence. Loss of knowledge can also occur at an organisational level where organisations forget or lose track of existing knowledge (Bitzer, 2005). This siege on knowledge continues as it loses value gradually by becoming commonplace or obsolete. A key consideration is that tacit knowledge must be converted into explicit knowledge for the organisation to fully possess it as a source of optimising knowledge worker expertise (Eraut, 2004) since knowledge begins to lose value once it is codified, that is, when it begins to be shared, transferred, sold, or stolen – diluting its novelty and scarcity and, hence, its competitive value. Obsolescence of skills and knowledge, turnover and retirement can all act to deplete the knowledge base and human resources of the organisation. Obsolescence above all else, poses the

greater risk to optimising knowledge worker expertise as it is dependent upon complexity and externality of the market. Within computational knowledge bases, knowledge obsolescence disintegrates knowledge integrity by failing to update a knowledge base as new, requisite knowledge appears (Chen & Edgington, 2005).

2.4.4 Knowledge creation

Successful and sustainable organisations optimise knowledge worker expertise by continuously creating new knowledge (Smith, Collins, Clark, 2005), distributing it widely and embodying it in a new product, services or ways of working (Robertson, Scarbrough & Swan, 2003). New knowledge can be defined as revelations about phenomena that were not known previously (McFadyen, & Cannella, 2004; Paul, 2006). Knowledge is conventionally understood to be developed through inductive or deductive logic (Akbar, 2003) while knowledge creation is an individual activity (Grant, 1996; McFadyen & Cannella, 2004; Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). However, new knowledge is created through the process to make tacit knowledge explicit knowledge and less emphasis on work rules (Akbar, 2003; Muthusamy & White, 2005; Spender, 1996). Greater flexibility in an organisation can accommodate better ways of doing things. Therefore, the increased flexibility in organisational structures can result in increased creation of knowledge contributing to the optimising of knowledge worker expertise (Choi & Lee, 2003). Knowledge creation is an exclusive output of an organised individual human activity (Lee & Cole, 2003) and cannot be extracted from the information stored in the organisational data base (Laise, Migliarese & Verteramo, 2005).

The creation of new knowledge is vital for the success and survival of an organisation competing in a dynamic environment, as it is a necessary raw material for innovation and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Hauschild, 2001). Knowledge creation is reliant on the capability of knowledge workers to exchange and combine existing information, knowledge and ideas (Massey & Montoya-Weiss, 2006). Inherent in the conception of exchange is the assumption that knowledge workers hold different levels and types of knowledge and information. As a consequence, they may be willing

and able to engage in teamwork and communication, to learn from one another even when payoffs are uncertain (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005). An organisation must establish a climate of trust (Lee & Cole, 2003) because when knowledge workers withhold information, it is especially harmful to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Choi & Lee, 2003). When knowledge workers, who possess different levels and types of knowledge, begin to combine ideas, they create new potential knowledge (LaDuke, 2005). When this new potential knowledge is validated, it is transformed into new knowledge (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005).

At least three categories of organisational resources impact knowledge creation capability. These are the following: • Latent knowledge: This is the organisational specific knowledge in an organisation; • Ego networks: These facilitate knowledge flows between knowledge workers and stakeholders by creating access and motivation to exchange ideas and information; and • Organisational climate: These comprise an organisation’s climate that defines how an organisation is to develop and use knowledge (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005).

Knowledge creation as part of the process to optimise knowledge worker expertise will be discussed below under the following: • Knowledge Creation, Education and Experience; • Knowledge Creation and Communication; and • Knowledge Creation and Organisational Climate

2.4.4.1 Knowledge creation, education and experience

The only way an organisation can create new knowledge is to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Koskinen, 2004; Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001). This knowledge worker expertise is primarily stored in individuals as the natural abilities, intelligence and skills acquired from formal education and job experience and constitute an

organisation’s specific knowledge (Rutten, 2004; Kodama, 2006). Organisation specific (Meilich, 2005) knowledge is defined as the years of industry experience and education of an organisation’s top management team members and knowledge workers and as the multiplicity of the information and knowledge this group holds (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005). Experience, education and knowledge multiplicity is considered as organisation specific, because it represents the amount of knowledge in an organisation at a certain point in time (Lee & Cole, 2003). New product knowledge exists in the minds of the managers and knowledge workers responsible for such innovations as new products, services or ways of working (Lee & Cole, 2003). The knowledge these knowledge workers possess is often tacit, developing and increasing as the knowledge workers spend more time in specific jobs and industries. Therefore, an organisation with knowledge workers who have extensive work experience in an industry will have greater expertise and thus more relevant knowledge to bring to the exchange process (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005). Knowledge creation is often achieved through free chatting between knowledge workers induced through non functional interactions (Hong, Hwang & Lin, 2003).

Education serves as the scaffolding needed in the knowledge creation process (Lloyd, 2003) and the education level compellingly supports enhanced knowledge structures and information processing (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004). Enhancements in the knowledge base brought about by education, has the potential to produce sophisticated changes in cognitive performance. Education empowers knowledge workers to enhance their understanding of what they know, to accurately foresee outcomes, better manage time and resources, as well as scrutinize results. In effect, education provides new explicit information and knowledge that greatly impact the individual’s cognitive reasoning skills. The formal education of knowledge workers’ reflects their knowledge basis and cognitive capability. Top management teams that are better educated have stronger cognitive capability and as a result are more likely to embark upon initiatives to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Higher education results in better innovation by improving cognitive processing and problem-solving ability. Knowledge workers with higher levels

of education are prone to be more receptive to new ideas and change (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005).

Although the level of knowledge, expressed in experience and education, will likely influence what is brought to the exchange process, the diversity of types and levels of expertise that knowledge workers hold may also be of the essence. In effect, when knowledge workers within a group hold different information, cognitive conflict is likely to intensify, which can result in more productive exchange and greater attempts to combine information and knowledge in an effort to diminish conflict. The greater the distinctive knowledge held by knowledge workers in an organisation, the greater the potential for new knowledge to be generated by knowledge exchange. On the other hand, when all knowledge workers in an organisation hold the same organisation specific knowledge, creativity may be reduced because knowledge workers may be less likely to perceive a direct individual benefit in the exchange process (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005).

2.4.4.2 Knowledge creation and communication

Knowledge creation often depends on the communication and network relations within an organisation’s community of knowledge workers. Network relations are important to knowledge creation because they inform knowledge workers about the existence, location and magnitude of knowledge, contained in a network and provide an important channel for the flow of knowledge (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005).

2.4.4.3 Knowledge creation and organisational climate

The embedded knowledge and procedural information captured in an organisation’s climate is important, because it serves as a strategic expression to an organisation’s knowledge workers and stakeholders of how things are done and prioritised (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001). Organisational climate is defined as the collective attitudes

and beliefs of individuals about the way in which they perform daily jobs (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005). Climate in this context is an organisational attitude, reflecting entrenched strategic values, beliefs and assumptions about how an organisation should function (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). For the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise to occur, knowledge workers must recognize the willingness of the organisation to experiment with new ideas and to take risks in both idea development and implementation (Thompson & Heron, 2005). An organisational climate that supports risk taking will persuade knowledge workers to experiment and exchange unusual knowledge and ideas.

Organisational climate will reposition the organisation toward experimentation that leads to new knowledge creation and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. In contrast, an organisational climate that stresses rules and controls would drive an organisation toward order and away from learning and new knowledge creation (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005). Optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is reliant upon creative solutions and accumulation of new knowledge in an organisation (Rutten, 2004). Knowledge is imperfectly distributed across knowledge workers in an organisation and ideas from one group can solve the problems of another, if knowledge exchanges are made between the groups (Massey, Montoya-Weiss & O'Driscoll, 2002). When these exchanges are made, existing ideas from one group can potentially be the solution the other group is searching for, resulting in prospective new products, services or ways of working. Through exchange and combination, existing tacit knowledge is transformed into explicit knowledge (Smith, Collins & Clark, 2005).

A successful organisation consistently creates new knowledge, disseminates it widely throughout the organisation and quickly embodies it in new products, services or ways of working (Massey, Montoya-Weiss & O'Driscoll, 2002). New knowledge always begins with the individual knowledge worker where the individual’s personal knowledge is transformed into organisational knowledge valuable to an organisation as a whole (Lee & Cole, 2003). Making personal knowledge available to others is a fundamental activity of the knowledge-creating organisation and key to optimising knowledge worker

expertise. Understanding knowledge creation as a process of making tacit knowledge explicit has direct implications for how an organisation is designed for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Nonaka, 1991).

2.4.5 Knowledge transfer

Many organisations are increasingly utilising knowledge workers, mainly as a consequence of the lack of in-house expertise, poor knowledge worker retention and difficulties in keeping up with changing technologies (Adamson, 2005). However, for an organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise, the successful transfer of knowledge from one knowledge worker to another is critical (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005). Knowledge transfer is defined as the communication of knowledge from a source that is learned and applied by the organisation (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005). The creation and transfer of knowledge provides the foundation for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Brachos, Kostopoulos, Soderquist & Prastacos, 2007) and involves the constant transfer from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and back again in an increasing spiral (Sanders, 2005). Knowledge transfer benefits an organisation more than knowledge itself, because knowledge is first and foremost about context specific features (Choi & Lee, 2003). The key to knowledge transfer is that it is relational, as transfers often occur between knowledge workers in the same setting (Nadler, Thompson & Van Boven, 2003; Williams, 2006).

2.4.5.1 Influences on the transfer of knowledge

The ability to leverage existing knowledge internally within an organisation is vital to optimising knowledge worker expertise (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003; Kodama, 2006; Thomas & Hult, 2003). An important method of leveraging existing knowledge is through the transfer of existing knowledge among knowledge workers within the organisation (Watson & Hewett, 2006). Knowledge is transferred when learning takes place and

when the recipient understands the context and implications associated with the knowledge that the knowledge worker can apply it effectively (Watson & Hewett, 2006).

A discussion of the three factors that influence the transfer of knowledge follows: • An arduous relationship between source and recipient; • Shared understanding; and • Absorptive capacity (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

2.4.5.1.1 An arduous relationship between source and recipient

An arduous relationship is defined as an emotionally laborious and distant relationship between a source and a recipient, affects the ability for the source to transfer the needed knowledge and of the recipient to learn and apply the knowledge (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005). Transferring knowledge can require regular interactions between knowledge workers (Keskin, 2005) and consequently, successful interaction depends on the quality of the relationship (Watson & Hewett, 2006). When knowledge worker relationships are high in trust, they will be more willing to participate in knowledge exchange, which is important for optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Christensen & Drejer, 2005; Choi & Lee, 2003; Chowdhury, 2005). Therefore, an arduous relationship between a source and a recipient is likely to negatively affect knowledge transfer.

2.4.5.1.2 Shared understanding

Shared understanding embodies the degree to which work values, norms, philosophy, problem-solving approaches and prior work experience are similar (McFadyen & Cannella, 2004). Shared experiences between a source and a recipient are important antecedents of knowledge transfer (Watson & Hewett, 2006). They remove barriers to understanding and acceptance between a source and a recipient, as well as enhance their ability to work toward a common goal (Chowdhury, 2005) (Massey, Montoya-

Weiss, 2006). Without shared understanding, there is a propensity for the parties to disagree about what they should be doing and why, which leads to mediocre outcomes (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005). The existence of a shared understanding between the source and a recipient can positively affect the knowledge transfer and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Holste & Fields, 2005; Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005).

2.4.5.1.3 Absorptive capacity

Absorptive capacity is the ability of a recipient to recognise the importance and value of externally sourced knowledge; assimilate it and apply it (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005; Parashar & Singh, 2005). An organisation must balance both the context of organisational knowledge (tacit and explicit) and capabilities to effectively leverage knowledge for optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Gold, Malhotra & Segards, 2001). It is largely a function of the recipient’s existing specific knowledge prior to the transfer. Absorptive capacity is positively related to knowledge transfer (Massey & Montoya-Weiss, 2006).

2.4.5.2 Intrinsic motivation

Managers cannot easily observe whether knowledge was transferred and have to rely on intrinsically motivated knowledge workers to transfer knowledge. Knowledge workers are intrinsically motivated when their needs are completely satisfied (Jones & Cullis, 2003). Intrinsic motivation transpires when an activity is valued for its own sake and appears to be self sustained (Kingston, Horrocks & Hanton, 2006). This type of motivation should enable the transfer of tacit knowledge and is especially important for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

2.4.5.3 Extrinsic motivation

Knowledge workers are considered to be extrinsically motivated when job satisfaction does not lie in the content of the activity itself. For example, compensation is a crucial vehicle for indirectly motivating knowledge workers as money is not a goal which provides satisfaction independently of the activity itself (Vanteenkiste, Simons, Soenens & Matos, 2005). Although intrinsic motivation is important for transferring knowledge and optimising knowledge worker expertise, extrinsic motivation also appears to be persuasive. It is important for senior managers to reinforce and reward behaviours for sharing knowledge and optimising knowledge worker expertise, especially in initial transfer initiatives (Manimala, Jose & Thomas, 2005). Recognising individuals for good work is a critical factor for the successful transfer of knowledge and optimising knowledge worker expertise (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

2.4.5.4 Source credibility

Source credibility is the degree to which a recipient deems a source to be reliable and forthcoming from a knowledge worker. When source credibility is high, the knowledge presented by the source is deemed to be useful, thereby smoothing the progress of knowledge transfer and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. When source credibility is low, a recipient will consider a source’s knowledge to be less convincing and will disregard that knowledge. When source credibility is high, the persuasive impact of the knowledge is usually reinforced and the knowledge is perceived to be useful (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

In addition to the direct relationship between source credibility and knowledge transfer, source credibility is also said to influence knowledge transfer indirectly through an arduous relationship (Chowdhury, 2005). Source credibility is the perception that a recipient has about a source and is related to a recipient’s readiness to communicate and work together with a source. Difficulty in communication and cooperation denotes a

distant and possibly laborious, relationship (Christensen & Drejer, 2005). This implies that when source credibility is high, a recipient is likely to increase communication and cooperation with a source, thereby reducing the possibility of an arduous relationship (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

2.4.5.5 Communication competence

Communication competence is the ability of a knowledge worker to demonstrate knowledge of the appropriate communication skills to effectively optimise knowledge worker expertise (Parashar & Singh, 2005). Communication between knowledge workers necessitates both the decoding and encoding of messages (Keskin, 2005). Communication decoding competence refers to a recipient’s ability to listen, be attentive and respond quickly, whereas communication encoding competence refers to a source’s ability to express ideas clearly, have a good command of the language and be easily understood (Watson & Hewett, 2006). Increased communication competence, therefore, increases the probability for knowledge workers to engage in activities with each other, which affects their relationship and shared understanding (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

In practice, subordinates form either positive or negative perceptions about their supervisor based on his/her encoding competence. It can be argued that positive perceptions of a supervisor improve the quality of their relationship, while negative perceptions can lead to an arduous relationship. When the organisational culture does not encourage listening, attentiveness and responsiveness, an opportunity to improve a relationship with a knowledge worker may be missed. Communication competence is vital for effectively managing conflicts and improving team relationships (Massey & Montoya-Weiss, 2006). Furthermore, communication competence creates opportunities for knowledge workers to improve the quality of their relationship (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

Communication difficulties may arise from failure to recognise and communicate differing standards and points of view among knowledge workers. Therefore, it is imperative to cultivate a general understanding among knowledge workers. Development of that shared understanding depends, in part, on the communication competence of the sender and receiver (Watson & Hewett, 2006). It must be appreciated that communication competence is a process of structuring, evaluating, interpreting and transforming information into knowledge producing a universal cognition of a problem or solution and in shared understanding. Therefore, when knowledge workers successfully press forward through these steps, they are demonstrating encoding and decoding competence which is required for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

In summary, absorptive capacity and arduous relationships are vital for reducing barriers to effectively optimise knowledge worker expertise (Parashar & Singh, 2005). Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors also strongly influence knowledge transfer. Knowledge can be successfully transferred by knowledge workers that are intrinsically motivated (Dong-Gil, Kirsh & King, 2005).

2.4.6 Knowledge sharing

Optimising knowledge worker expertise is a requirement for an organisation to be sustainable in today's business environment and knowledge sharing is crucial for leveraging core competencies (Hicks, Dattero & Galup, 2007). To be successful, an organisation must develop the capability to capture knowledge acquired in one part of an organisation and make it available for future use to the rest of the organisation (Arnulf, Dreyer & Grenness, 2005). Knowledge sharing is defined as the process by which knowledge workers collectively refine a thought, an idea or a suggestion in the light of experiences (Chua, 2003). The most important aspect in the creation of new knowledge is knowledge sharing and reflective learning on the job where the original idea may be progressively modified until a shared perspective emerges and is effectively shared through face-to-face interactions (Merx-Chermin & Nijhof, 2005).

Knowledge sharing and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise may not be successful for a number of reasons. The reasons include the lack of visible top management support for knowledge sharing and optimisation of knowledge worker expertise, activities and the failure to make activities a basis for advancement in an organisation where existing incentive systems reward the desired behaviour. Linking rewards solely to individual performance or outcome which can result in competition will certainly be detrimental to a knowledge sharing culture (Wong, 2005). A further reason for unsuccessful knowledge sharing and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is simply where knowledge workers are not aware of someone who would be interested in the knowledge they have. However, the most significant reason for unsuccessful knowledge sharing and optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is the lack of a relationship between the source and the recipient of knowledge and an absence of a strong person to compel knowledge workers to listening to or help each other (Chua, 2003). The effectiveness of knowledge sharing has a direct impact on the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise and can be facilitated through several strategies, including using technology appropriately, introducing incentive schemes for knowledge sharing cultivating and establishing innovation incubators (Coakes & Smith, 2007).

Knowledge sharing can be envisaged as a transaction that takes place among buyers, sellers and brokers in the knowledge market. Given their constraints on time and energy, knowledge workers engage in a knowledge transaction only when they believe it will give them a meaningful return on their investment. The knowledge market concept builds on the economic exchange theory and asserts that knowledge workers are driven by rational self-interest, where knowledge sharing occurs when its reward exceeds its costs and the knowledge community highlights the personal connection and commitment to shared success (Chua, 2003).

Trust, motivation, learning orientation, social interaction and management support are cornerstones of an organisational context that enables effective knowledge sharing for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Brachos, Kostopoulos, Soderquist & Prastacos

2007). Trust directly influences the inclination of knowledge workers to share knowledge and through a basis of trust and relationships, knowledge workers develop a genuine concern for each other and are motivated to share knowledge inspired by love, care and kindness. The knowledge market concept conceives knowledge sharing behaviour as a transaction laden with self-serving and calculating overtones, while the knowledge community concept conceives knowledge sharing behaviour as an activity that emerges out of utopia. Trust directly influences the inclination of knowledge workers to share knowledge. These concepts can be converged where knowledge sharing has social, economic and political bearings specific to the knowledge worker who shares and to the environment in which the sharing of knowledge takes place (Lai & Lee, 2007).

Engaging in knowledge sharing creates expectations of rewards, mutual associations and knowledge worker contribution. This refers respectively to extrinsic incentives, enhancement in mutual relationships and improvement in the organisation’s performance that a knowledge worker expects to benefit from when knowledge is shared. The costs that a knowledge worker has to incur to share knowledge include the amount of time required, the loss of valuable knowledge, or the risk of losing one’s face as a result of sharing knowledge that is not regarded as valuable. Since knowledge sharing is social in nature, the perceived payoff of knowledge sharing is affected by social factors such as trust, care, emotional commitment and the quality of the relationship. A knowledge worker shares knowledge in reciprocation, because it is both a socially expected behaviour as well as a means to obtain desired resources. Conversely, when knowledge sharing is not reciprocated, knowledge sharing behaviour and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is hampered (Connell & Voola, 2007).

Knowledge sharing is a key concern for optimising knowledge worker expertise, because of the increasing recognition that tacit “non-codified” knowledge is of more value than explicit codified knowledge to the innovation process. An organisation that is able to share knowledge effectively is more productive and more likely to survive than an organisation that is less skilled at knowledge sharing (Marouf, 2007), because

knowledge that has not been converted into explicit format cannot be included in knowledge sharing. To engage in effective knowledge sharing, an organisation should identify what tacit knowledge is available and codify it to share as part of the process to optimise knowledge worker expertise (du Plessis, 2007).

Knowledge workers, who expect greater organisational rewards for sharing, are inclined to share knowledge beyond their immediate work group. In contrast, knowledge workers who perceive knowledge as a means of achieving upward organisational mobility are less likely to share and somewhat more likely to seek information. A huge limitation to effective optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is a silo mentality and senior managers who do not communicate with the lower ranks and who perceive questions as threatening (Sveiby, 2007). Organisational silos discourage knowledge sharing and must be eliminated (Dixon & Day, 2007). The contrast to sharing is hoarding knowledge, which occurs when knowledge workers do not feel that their sharing will be reciprocated. Hoarding knowledge dissipates when knowledge workers perceive that knowledge increases in value when it is shared. Knowledge increases in value when knowledge workers who share knowledge can refine their shared knowledge by the interactive dialogue process and when knowledge workers obtain knowledge from others (Yang, 2007).

To reduce knowledge hoarding, a sharing climate should be introduced where sharing and learning enable knowledge workers to acquire knowledge and skills. A sharing climate allows knowledge workers to replenish creativity, imagination, exploration, discovery and intentional risk-taking. A collaborative competitive climate is also required to enable organisations to communicate, learn and cooperate across the silo perceptions of organisational structures. An organisational culture that values individual achievement, competitiveness and hierarchy, rather than collective achievement, collaboration and sharing presents a major obstacle to knowledge sharing. Trust is one of the primary influencing factors for optimising knowledge worker expertise in organisational settings and of knowledge sharing respectively. In order to trust, knowledge workers need to rely on assumptions that his or her colleague will behave or

react in a predictable way.

Without trust, there will be no effective communication, no collaboration, no sharing between knowledge workers and no optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The greater the level of trust amongst knowledge workers, the more the openness and effectiveness of the communication channel and the synergy effect of the knowledge management implementation will be. An atmosphere of trust can be established through extensive social interactions, such as inter-relationship, mentorship, face-to-face interactions and networks (Sackmann & Friesl, 2007).

2.4.7 Knowledge communication

In the current competitive environment, knowledge is vital for the survival of an organisation and for knowledge to become an asset it must be communicated and shared within an organisation (Albina, Garavelli & Gorgoglione, 2004). Communication plays a crucial role in the process of optimising knowledge worker expertise, as it contributes to socialisation and assists in building and maintaining social capital, embedded in an organisation’s relationships (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007). The effective transfer of knowledge through embedded relationships is likely to be achieved through a person-to-person approach to communication (Greiner, Böhmann & Krcmar, 2007). When knowledge is exchanged for the benefit of knowledge creation, the communication process is more of a conversation, as knowledge passes back and forth between knowledge workers (Jackson, 2007).

Effective communication is based on trust, which is an important element for optimisation of knowledge worker expertise and as a prerequisite, knowledge workers must feel emotionally safe to be able to act creatively and innovatively (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). A successful communication process mandates that knowledge workers are informed on the progress of the activities they are directly involved in, as it passes through an organisation. Knowledge workers also need to be aware of what is transpiring throughout the organisation to enable them to respond appropriately (Barratt,

2004).

Communication plays a vital role to entrench knowledge management as a strategic focus area in the organisation. As a consequence, a structured communication plan is required to ensure adequate communication on knowledge management (du Plessis, 2007). The structured communication plan must recognise the critical role of the context and the interaction between the various stakeholders involved in the process of optimising knowledge worker expertise (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007). Communication has basic elements which include the following: • A message – refers to the content a communicator seeks to convey (Hall, 2006): • A sender –is the individual or group which sends the message (Ang & Massingham, 2007); • A receiver –is a message's destination which receives and deciphers a message (Riege, 2007); • A channel –is the medium through which a message travels (du Plessis, 2007); • Transmission – the transmission component refers to the actual sending and receiving of messages through chosen channels (Riege, 2007); and • Communication effect –normally refers to the outcome or general results of the communication process (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007).

2.5 Competitive advantage

A design option that effectively optimises knowledge worker expertise is particularly important for providing competitive advantage. The problem of developing competitive advantages in an organisation is not only about the identification of knowledge, as the basis for competitive advantage, but also about understanding how an organisation can optimise knowledge worker expertise (Prieto & Revilla, 2006). Competitive advantage is defined as the exclusive position an organisation develops in relation to its competitors (Colgate, 1998).

Knowledge worker expertise is the basis for competitive advantage and is derived from the uniqueness of its knowledge worker expertise. Competitive advantage is mainly derived from the expertise of its knowledge workers and is manifested in capabilities that result in superior product development, market research, fast development cycles and brand management. The extent of the return an organisation can obtain from a competitive advantage depends upon the sustainability of the competitive advantage (Kalpic & Bernus, 2006). In order to execute a successful strategy, an organisation must know what its competitive advantage is and what capabilities must be developed to maintain this advantage. Capabilities are underpinned by knowledge worker expertise which must be optimised for sustainability (Marr & Neely, 2004).

2.5.1 Competencies for competitive advantage

The rise of the knowledge economy has made managing intellectual capital a critical issue. The increasing importance of innovation, rapid technological change and knowledge reserves has necessitated the need for an organisation to develop competencies to meet these challenges. Knowledge worker expertise is embedded in an organisation’s physical and social structure and this knowledge must be shaped into competencies. Survival and innovation in a rapidly changing environment requires that an organisation coordinate and redeploy external and internal competencies and are able to learn from the experiences of its past successes and failures as well as those of other organisations (Augier & Knudsen, 2004).

An organisation should aim for the creation of high-performance work systems by managing the interdependent elements to create and achieve greater personal, team, manager and organisational competencies and ultimately influence the process for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Ahmed, Rafiq, & Saad, 2003). A personal competence is defined as a specific skill, knowledge or characteristic needed to perform

a role effectively to assist an organisation to meet its strategic objectives (Emiliani, 2003). An important characteristic of a personal competence is that it can be developed in adulthood (Boyatzis, 2008). Organisational responsibilities are normally assigned and achieved by teams and to be successful, the team needs to be competent (Margerison, 2001). Managers may be regarded as competent, because they approach aspects of work in ways that the organisation appreciates using the right competencies (Thompson, Stuart & Lindsay, 1997). The task of a manager is to improve both personal and team competence where personal and interpersonal understandings are task requirements of doing the job (Margerison, 2001). Organisational competence is defined as processes and systems that enable an organisation to turn personal competencies into organisation-wide competencies which may also be transformational by allowing an organisation to change and grow simultaneously (Murray, 2003).

An organisation’s competencies are complex, as it is comprised of knowledge worker expertise, making it difficult for an organisation to control. A further complication is that this knowledge worker expertise is often tacit knowledge. Many organisations have begun to sense that their ability to compete is shrinking at every turn. As a consequence, an organisation has to challenge itself to utilise technologies at its disposal in a more intelligent fashion and to develop competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The demand that innovation must be stepped up exacerbates a difficult situation for an organisation. In recent times, the combination of a general shortening of product lifecycles and rapid technological development has introduced a new competitive landscape termed “hypercompetition” (Drejer & Sorensen, 2002).

There is a link between personal, team and manager competency development and organisation performance, where personal competencies contribute to both personal skills and an organisation’s total capabilities. Personal competencies, while valuable, remain hidden from an organisation’s knowledge reserves unless knowledge worker expertise is optimised (Murray 2003). An organisation that performs well over time

develops a distinctive competence or core competences which allows it to outperform its competitors (Ahmed, Rafiq, & Saad, 2003).

It is critical for an organisation to differentiate its core competencies from personal and organisational competencies. Core competencies are central to an organisation’s success and a direct consequence of optimising knowledge worker expertise (Khamseh & Jolly, 2008). A core competence is defined as a collection of skills and technology that enable an organisation to provide benefit to customers (Ljungquist, 2007). A key feature of core competencies is that their effect can only be measured at the level of the consumer. If a core competence does not create value for the consumer, it will not result in any competitive advantage for an organisation. Core competencies differ from personal and organisational competencies, as the latter are differentiated into complementary competencies. Complementary competencies add value to core competencies however, they are not sufficient to bear an organisation’s competitive banner alone (Drejer & Sorensen, 2002).

2.5.2 Leadership requirements for competitive advantage

The rise of the knowledge economy has made managing intellectual capital of an organisation a critical organisational strategy that demands a transformational leader to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Transformational leadership is defined as the ability to change knowledge worker attitudes to achieve increased commitment for the organisation's mission, objectives and strategy (Mitki, Shani & Stjernberg, 2008) and is a critical element in the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. These leaders delineate the work toward attaining the cultural attributes that are needed for optimising knowledge worker expertise and they must commit to establishing an organisational climate that fosters internal and external collaboration (Owen, Goldwasser & Choate, 2008). The transformational process is one in which the leader influences knowledge workers to achieve performance beyond expectations. As such, transformational leadership is a construct that operates at multiple levels (Mitki, Shani & Stjernberg,

2008).

The transformational leader should take steps to develop a collaborative climate to optimise knowledge worker expertise, including activities such as the dissemination of knowledge, the adoption of a collaborative leadership style and the design of collaborative team routines (Gavaran, Carbery & Murphy 2007).The successful optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is highly dependant on leadership support and life histories, parental influence and personality factors. However, carefully designed and well timed training interventions could promote the innovative and creative thinking that are important characteristics of transformational leadership (Eid, Johnsen & Bartone, 2008). Transformational leadership is a key variable in the relationship between organisational culture and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise should not be limited to isolated steps, but institutionalised as a continuous process to serve the organisation's needs. This challenging accountability of making knowledge management continuous and ongoing is therefore a key leadership responsibility (Laksman, 2007).

2.5.3 Innovation capability for competitive advantage

The concept of innovation has a long history and different meanings, mainly based on competition between organisations and the different strategies that can be used to compete. Since the 1950s, organisations have utilised various strategies to compete, including efficiency approaches, quality movement and finally, innovativeness (Merx- Chermin & Nijhof, 2005). Globalisation and borderless trade has increased competitiveness (San & Chung, 2003), resulting in profit margin erosion for most organisations (de Wit, Dankbaar & Vissers, 2007). An organisation that optimises knowledge worker expertise is more likely to be successful at innovation (Levin & Cross, 2004), which is an essential ingredient for creating and sustaining competitive advantage (Suliman & Al-Shaikh, 2007).

Most organisations are not good with innovation and few understand what is required

for a sustainable organisation-wide competence of innovation (Loewe & Dominiquini, 2006). An organisation must develop clarity of how it defines innovation as this will influence the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise as a competence for innovation. Innovation is defined as covering both the generation of ground-breaking ideas and their application to produce new products, services or ways of working (Birdi, 2005). However, innovation is not the resultant new product, services or ways of working, but the organisational competency and process that produced the result. Innovation involves the transfer of largely tacit knowledge, which is hard to codify, subjective and semiconscious (Dayan & Evans, 2006). Many organisations believe that if they use the word innovation enough times in the corporate strategy, an organisation will become innovative. These organisations also attach a magical nuance to innovation, where new products and services are produced by one or two knowledge workers, requiring no effort from the organisation. Innovation is hard work and requires that an organisation establish an effective innovation process to realise the benefits that arise from team working and knowledge worker motivation (McAdam & McClelland, 2002). This process will describe how an organisation creates value by optimising knowledge worker expertise to generate new knowledge or reuse existing knowledge in new ways (Jamrog, Vickers & Bear, 2007).

2.6 Conclusion

This chapter has provided an overview of the literature on organisational design and organisational competencies in an effort to explore the extent to which it facilitates the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise to sustain competitive advantage. The main themes and arguments relating to the objectives of the literature review were presented. These objectives were to: • Describe the elements of organisational design; • Describe the supportive organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise; and

• Describe the identification of knowledge as the basis for competitive advantage in the attempt to understand how an organisation can optimise knowledge worker expertise.

The literature review provided a definition and description of organisational design. This allows the concept to be utilised to create conditions under which knowledge worker expertise can be optimised.

The literature review provided a definition and description of the supportive organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise. This enabled the identification of the supportive organisational competencies that offer the best opportunity for optimising knowledge worker expertise.

The research methodology and design used to address the research objectives will be explained in the following chapter.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

3.1 Introduction

Chapter 2 reviewed the literature on organisational design and organisational

competencies. The literature review examined organisational design and organisational competencies to ascertain the extent to which they facilitate the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. In Chapter 3, the focus will be on the research methodology and design that will be used to explore the propositions stated in Chapter 1.

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Introduction Research The Conclusions Literature Results to the study Review Methodology Informative and Design Organisational

Design

Figure 6: Chapter 3 in context

A concise examination of the methodological debates will be embarked upon. The research methodology, the justification for the method and the unit of analysis will be given.

3.2 Orientation

The researcher is the most important instrument in qualitative research, as she/he will determine the approach for collecting the data which is then filtered through their personal lens (Shaw, 1999). Good research necessitates a systematic and rigorous approach to the design and implementation of the research, the collection and analysis of data as well as the interpretation and reporting of the research findings (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott & Davidson, 2002). A qualitative methodology was chosen for this

research because the study focuses on human experiences from a holistic, in-depth perspective and is well suited to exploring complex problems (Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004). Qualitative research is defined as a class of research designs that draw out descriptions of observations in the form of interviews, narratives, field notes, recordings, transcripts from audio and videotapes, written records of all kinds, pictures or films and artefacts (Lecompte, 1994).

In uncomplicated terms, qualitative research is a ‘way of knowing’ and learning about different experiences from the viewpoint of the individual. It pursues a naturalistic paradigm, based on the concept that reality is not predetermined, but constructed by research respondents. Naturalistic methods aim at exploring a phenomenon by focusing on the individuals who experience it, with the supposition that understanding is maximized by minimizing the interpersonal distance between researcher and participant. Qualitative research is conducted in the “field” under natural settings and requires continuous data analysis. The majority of qualitative researchers are concerned with the context of events and focus their inquiry on direct experience through being involved and interested in the value of observant participation (Lecompte, 1994). Their methods of data collection are characteristically flexible, allowing for modification throughout the research process. Qualitative researchers pull together subjective data that incorporates thoughts and perceptions, as well as those of the participants (Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004).

The research methodology engaged in this study focuses on the building blocks of the research process and the procedures employed to achieve the research objectives (Mouton, 2001). A lack of methodological clarity is a common problem identified in generic studies (Caelli, Ray & Mill, 2003). In general, the type of methodology in use and the philosophical assumptions about human nature, govern the reporting of findings in the qualitative realm. However, an overemphasis on methodology may result in insufficient attention to the substantive findings of the research. This is especially true where there is a preoccupation with the selection and defence of methods, to the exclusion of the substance of the research (Caelli, Ray & Mill, 2003).

3.2.1 The interpretivist methodology

The interpretivist methodology will be used when conducting this research. This approach acknowledges that meaning becomes apparent through interaction and accentuates the importance of understanding the overall text of a conversation (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). This research methodology is broadly used in qualitative evaluative research and is particularly well suited to intensive, small-scale research (Walker & Dewar, 2000). The methodology reflects the beliefs about knowledge and existence that arise from the values in the philosophical framework that is to be employed. This research methodology also represents the theoretical framework that guides how the research will advance and how a particular type of knowledge will be constructed (Caelli, Ray & Mill, 2003).

3.2.1.1 An interpretivist theoretical paradigm

A paradigm is defined as a viewpoint from which distinctive conceptualisations and explanations of phenomena are proposed (Allen & Kanji, 1998). It consists of a collection of assumptions, research strategies and criteria for rigour that are shared by a community of researchers to generate knowledge (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott & Davidson, 2002). This particular study will explore a number of characteristics in order to understand the organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Qualitative methods are typically supported by the interpretivist paradigm, which portrays a world in which reality is socially constructed, complex and ever changing (Glesne, 1999). Phenomena and events are understood through mental processes of interpretation, which are influenced by and interact with social contexts (Henning, 2004). The interpretivist perspective offers the possibility of generating fresh insights, because this approach can point towards different facets of organisational phenomena and can produce markedly different and uniquely informative theoretical views of events (Alvarez, 2003). Interpretive research can be described as “non-

categorical” qualitative research which is also referred to as exploratory research that merely seeks to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and world views of the people involved (Caelli, Ray & Mill, 2003).

Utilising an interpretivist framework, the researcher in this study looked for frames that shape meaning. Hence, by working in this paradigm the researcher was be extremely sensitive to the role of context as interpretivists research individuals' points of view, perceptions, behaviour and interpretations (Allen & Kanji, 1998). Walker & Dewar (2000) assert that interpretivist researchers inquire into the phenomenon of interest; it is therefore the researcher and not the participant who engages in a learning process.

3.3 Sampling

The GSSC was selected for the study as the researcher was employed at the organisation as a manager and was thus familiar with the culture of the company and could then identify verification processes to ascertain validity of comments made by respondents. A submission was made to the Chief Executive Officer of the GSSC requesting permission to conduct the research at the organisation. Permission was received and the design of the research commenced.

Purposive sampling was utilised as it relies on the judgement of the researcher in selecting cases; cases are therefore selected with a specific purpose in mind (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Neuman, 2003). Purposive sampling strategies are intended to augment understanding of selected respondents or group experiences or for developing theories and concepts. The researcher achieved this objective by selecting “information rich” cases, by including respondents and groups with characteristics that afforded the greatest insight into the research propositions (Devers & Frankel, 2000).

As stated in chapter one, the researcher requested the Human Resources Department of the GSSC to generate a report to assist in the sample selection. The report contained

all personal information about employees employed at the GSSC and was further sorted and employees without a university degree were omitted as a degree is one of the qualifying criterions for a knowledge worker in this research. The refined list contained the names of 157 knowledge workers who became the research population to be invited to participate in the focus groups sessions. As stated in chapter one, the researcher used the focus group sessions to further select respondents to participate in in-depth interviews to enable respondents to provide more context and depth in the areas of interest (Stokes & Bergin, 2006).

In this qualitative research, the researcher identified and selected appropriate respondents who could best inform the research. Qualitative sampling is concerned with information richness and considerations of appropriateness and adequacy should guide the sampling method. Fossey, Harvey, McDermott and Davidson (2002), claim that an adequate sampling of information sources to address the research propositions required to develop a full description of the phenomenon of interest is imperative to gain richness of information. Richness of information was actively striven after when gathering data for this research.

Purposive sampling was utilised as it relies on the judgement of the researcher in selecting cases; cases are therefore selected with a specific purpose in mind (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Neuman, 2003). Purposive sampling strategies are intended to augment understanding of selected respondents or group experiences or for developing theories and concepts. The researcher will achieve this objective by selecting “information rich”

cases, by including respondents and groups with characteristics that will potentially afford the greatest insight into the research propositions (Devers & Frankel, 2000).

3.4 Research procedure

Knowledge workers from the sample population at the GSSC were invited to participate in the focus group sessions and in-depth interviews.

The steps followed in this research are detailed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Research process Step Action Step 1 Obtained a report containing personal information of all GSSC employees from the Human Resources department. Step 2 Deleted employees without a university degree to arrive at a list containing details for 157 employees. Step 3 Forwarded an electronic mail to these employees inviting them to participate in focus group sessions. Step 4 Scheduled agreeable respondents to focus group sessions. Step 5 Conducted focus group sessions. Step 6 Forwarded an electronic mail to respondents thanking them for their participation. Step 7 Scheduled in-depth interviews with respondents who the researcher believed had more to say. Step 8 Conducted the in-depth interviews. Step 9 Transcribed data collected in focus group sessions and in-depth interview. Step 10 Forwarded copies of transcribed data to respondents for verification. Step 11 Analysed and interpreted the data.

3.5 Gaining access to respondents

Qualitative research can be viewed as a journey for both the researcher and the respondent (Donalek, 2005). Almost all qualitative research approaches require the development, maintenance and eventual close relationship between the researcher and the respondents. Developing and maintaining good relationships are critical for effective sampling and for the credibility of the research (Neuman, 2003). If the researcher is unable to secure effective participation, the research cannot take place. Access is a process that involves the acquisition of consent to engage with respondents and to obtain documents for the period of the research (Glesne, 1999). Negotiating access to respondents was done by keeping the following characteristics of the sampling process in mind: • The process requires patience. Deciding who to invite as a respondent in the research takes a significant amount of time; • Existing social networks was accessed because of the usefulness for obtaining basic information and to facilitate entry. Because a high level of trust is required to conduct this type of qualitative research, a personal contact was used to “vouch” for the researcher; • The researcher involved himself in settings where participants were likely to be located in some other capacity. This assisted him to understand the field better and to develop contacts; • The researcher limited communication (verbal and written) to the respondents so as not to influence the research (Devers & Frankel, 2000).

Securing the permission to conduct the research required that the researcher write a concise proposal to the Chief Executive Officer to explain the purpose of the research within the GSSC and request approval. The researcher wrote the concise proposal after conducting informal discussions with the General Manager Human Resources. The proposal for this research was done according to the following structure and to provide: • An honest reflection of the primary research purpose;

• A description of the general research design, including an estimation of resources requested; • Details about anticipated concerns or objections; • A clear description of the researcher’s role, responsibility and obligations; and • A statement to inform respondents that information obtained would be treated confidentiality (Devers & Frankel, 2000).

Once approval to proceed with the research was received from the Chief Executive Officer, the researcher began the process of negotiating and maintaining relationships with respondents or groups of primary interest. The researcher developed a better understanding of the interest and concerns of respondents throughout the organisation, without over identifying with any one group, as advocated by Glesne (1999). In the initial stages of research, particularly when time constraints permitted, collecting data was secondary to getting to know the respondents and establishing rapport (Devers & Frankel, 2000). There is no simple formula for establishing rapport. However, conduct or behaviours that might facilitate the process include: • Helping out to the extent possible; • Accommodating routines; • Being humble, but knowing when to share knowledge; • Establishing what you have in common, but being prepared to deal with hostility or “challenges”; and • Showing interest in conversation even when it may be irrelevant to your research subject (Devers & Frankel, 2000).

Once the respondents were identified, the researcher negotiated access to the respondents by securing the necessary permission from the organisational gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are individuals who have control over subjects of interest (Glesne, 1999) and in some instances may be personal assistants or anyone who can influence the decision on whether a respondent can participate or not. The relationship with gatekeepers will be closely monitored as they have the potential to shape the

direction of the research (Neuman, 2003). Gatekeepers share common concerns, including: • The time, resources and disruption involved with their subordinates participation in the research; • Fear that they may be shown to be “bad” or “wrong”; • Revelation of proprietary or competitive information; and • Privacy and confidentiality for their respective areas of influence (Devers & Frankel, 2000).

3.6 Detailed description

Detailed description of themes and sub-themes is an important provision for promoting credibility as it helps to convey the actual situation that has been researched and the context that surrounds it (Glesne, 1999). Without this detailed rich insight it may be difficult for an evaluator of the research to determine the extent of truthfulness (Shenton, 2004). Thick description will form the substance of the data that the researcher collects, optimises and analyses as a part of ascertaining the meaning of data, in keeping with the recommendations of Rubin & Rubin (1995).

The researcher integrated the data by transforming the “raw” empirical information (the “thin description” of the phenomenon) into “thick description" (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2003) as obtained from the focus group sessions and in-depth interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). A thick description gives an explanation of the phenomenon in a manner that is: • Logical; • Gives more than facts and empirical content; and • Interprets the information in the light of other empirical information in the same research, as well as from the basis of a theoretical framework that locates the research (Henning, 2004).

A hick description of the data captures the sense of what occurred and details events, thereby permitting multiple interpretations (Neuman, 2003). The researcher supplemented this method with a strong theoretical foundation (also called the authority argument because it relies on respected researchers in the field as evidence) and a coherent compelling argument, based on both empirical evidence and the researcher’s understanding and logic (Glesne, 1999). The corroboration will thus come from the data and from theory that explicates and elucidates the data. It is this articulated interpretation of the data that provides the understanding and explanation of the phenomenon being researched (Henning, 2004).

3.7 Data collection

Data for this research was collected to gain a good understanding of the experiences of the knowledge workers employed at the GSSC and the extent to which the organisational design contributed to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. As a consequence, the researcher served as an instrument for collecting data (Shaw, 1999). Data was collected through focus group sessions and in-depth interviewing when respondents were encouraged to give thick descriptions of their experiences at the GSSC. The data collection process within each focus group session and in-depth interview was ended when the saturation of information became visible (Barbosa & Cabral-Cardoso, 2007). Data saturation is achieved when no further evidence emerges (Haring, 2008) and in most research, data saturation is achieved after between eight and twenty four interviews have been conducted, depending on the topic (Goulding, 1998).

Data for this research was collected through: • Focus group sessions; and • In-depth interviewing (Henning, 2004).

The data collected during the focus group sessions and in-depth interviews were captured using field notes and a tape recorder. It was then organised and placed into a form that gatekeepers could understand and use.

3.7.1 Focus group sessions

Data for this research was gathered from focus group sessions and in-depth interviews. Focus groups were originally developed as a technique to elicit consumer preference and have been adapted as a method of quality data collection in exploratory research (Hines, 2000). The preferred characteristic of focus group sessions is their specific use of group interaction to generate data and insights (Morgan, 1997). Focus group sessions are unique in that they merge elements of group process theory with qualitative research methods, stressing the importance of the interaction of the group in determining the quality of data (Twinn, 1998).

A focus group session is typically composed of respondents who are selected because they share characteristics that relate to the themes and sub-themes being researched (Krueger, 1994). In the focus group sessions, respondents were brought together to engage in a guided discussion to enable the researcher to question several respondents systematically and simultaneously on a theme or sub-theme of interest (Neuman, 2003). Although focus group sessions used in isolation are sufficient as a data collection method, in this research it was utilised in conjunction with in-depth interviews, as supported by Woodring, Foley, Rado, Brown & Hamner (2006).

3.7.1.1 Choice of focus group sessions

Interaction as a result of the focus group session enabled the researcher to become oriented with grassroots perceptions of the relevant issues (Woodring, Foley, Rado, Brown & Hamner, 2006). The focus group sessions were characterised by a meticulously planned discussion, designed to obtain perceptions in a defined area of

interest in an accommodating non-threatening setting (Krueger, 1994). They were aimed at uncovering the range of perceptions surrounding the knowledge worker where a small group of people were able to share experiences deemed relevant to the research propositions (Woodring, Foley, Rado, Brown & Hamner, 2006).

The researcher used focus group sessions in the following three basic ways: • As a self-contained focus group session; • As a supplementary source of data in this research; and • As a multi-method research approach (Morgan, 1997).

These three basic uses of focus group sessions are expanded upon below.

3.7.1.2 A self-contained focus group session

A focus group session is a popular method for gathering research data especially as the researcher was interested in gaining a deeper understanding of a phenomenon of interest. As expected the synergy produced through the interaction was significant as a stimulus for new ideas and high levels of energy during the discussions (Twinn, 1998). The focus group sessions were also extremely useful in dealing with complex issues where little previous research exists (Boardman, Arguelles, Vaughn, Huges & Klingner, 2005). It also provided the researcher with the opportunity to collect detailed information about a complex topic (Whitney, 2005).

A self-contained focus group session served as the primary means of collecting qualitative data in the same way as respondent observation or individual interviewing (Morgan, 1997). Krueger (1994), counsels that respondents are often more relaxed in a focus group session and share insights that may not be available from interviews, questionnaires, or other data sources. These self-contained focus group sessions exposed experiences and perspectives that would not have been as accessible without group interaction (Morgan, 1997). The goal in the self-contained focus group sessions

went beyond attitudes and opinions to emphasize learning about respondents’ experiences and perspectives. It centred on respondents learning from each other by reconsidering their own experiences and understanding (Litosseliti, 2003). A significant benefit of the self-containing focus group sessions for this research was that the results of the focus group sessions can be considered as primary research and the researcher can report the data collected as a sufficient body of knowledge (Morgan, 1997).

3.7.1.3 A supplementary source of data in research

Focus group sessions were used as a supplementary source of data in this research. During the focus group sessions, the researcher searched for opportunities to identify ideas to be further probed during the in-depth interviews, as advised by Morgan (1997).

3.7.1.4 A multi-method research approach

The focus group session was also used as a multi-method approach that combined two or more means of collecting data where no one primary method would dominate. In this multi-method research approach, the focus group session results were added to the data collected through other qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews (Litosseliti, 2003). This method of data collection combined the results of the focus group sessions with the results of the in-depth interviews. The goal of this combination was to use each method in a way that contributed something unique to the research (Morgan, 1997).

3.7.2 Size of focus group sessions

In this research, the focus group sessions comprised of three to five respondents to maximise the quality of the data collection (Twinn, 1998). Neuman professes that the size of the focus group session has a major influence on the quality of data (2003), a sentiment that is echoed by Montoya-Weiss, Massey and Clapper (1998) who advise

that the composition of a group can greatly impact the degree of interaction and the quality of the discussion. In addition, group dynamics change when respondents are not afforded the opportunity to describe their experiences, which typically happens in large focus group sessions (Krueger, 1994). It has been established that in the larger focus group sessions the tendency exists for several respondents to speak at the same time. This may result in lost data due to the difficulty of tape recording the conversations as well as in the loss of the opportunity to follow up on points raised (Morgan, 1997). During the focus group session, respondents also tend to break into smaller discussion groups of two or three which may result in lost data (Twinn, 1998). A focus group session with three to five respondents leads to work sessions in which the outcome is richer as the respondents feel part of the process (Krueger, 1994; Kiley, 2005).

3.7.3 One member dominance

In the focus group sessions at an organisation like the GSSC, where a hierarchical structure remains dominant, the views of subordinate respondents are likely to be stifled by the opinions of a high status respondent (Branigan, 2000). It may be possible that other respondents may have perceived their contributions as devalued. What often happens is that the discussion is defined by the high status respondent with the lower status respondents withdrawing from the discussion as it is perceived that not all contributions are valued equally (Twinn, 1998). Neuman (2003), cautions that should one respondent dominate the discussion within the focus group session, the other respondents may be discouraged from contributing. This dominance of one respondent over another can also occur when one respondent has more knowledge of the topic than other respondents. In the instance of this study, the researcher strove to control the group dynamics within the focus group sessions (Neuman, 2003) by not favouring the comments of high status respondents (Branigan, 2000).

3.7.4 Establishment of a focus group session

When establishing the focus group sessions as a method of data collection, the following four building blocks were significant:

3.7.4.1 Recruitment and scheduling

The first building block relates to recruitment and planning the schedule of focus group sessions to take account of significant events for the population under study. Generating a lively discussion to produce in-depth data starts with the recruitment of a sufficient number of respondents from an appropriate sample (Twinn, 1998). The sampling used in this research was purposive in that the researcher identified a particular type of respondent according to what the researcher already knew about the phenomenon of interest (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). Purposive sampling demands that the researcher think critically about the parameters of the population under consideration and then choose a sample carefully on this basis (Seidman, 1991). The researcher identified the desired characteristics as precisely as possible and invited targeted respondents to participate (Krueger, 1994).

3.7.4.2 Briefing of respondents

The second building block contributing to the quality of the data relates to the necessity for the briefing of respondents prior to undertaking the focus group sessions. A more detailed briefing lessened the dependence of the respondents on the researcher, and also served to reassure all respondents that their contributions were valued. The detailed briefing enabled a common understanding of the research objectives and limited more powerful respondents in the group (Twinn, 1998). Respondents were informed on what was required of them in terms of content, the group process involved and the amount of time required (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). They were also informed on the time frames and on what was to be discussed ahead of the focus group

sessions (Donalek, 2005).

3.7.4.3 Group leader facilitation

The third building block is the responsibility of the researcher in facilitating the collection of rich data. An essential factor is the researcher's ability to guide the focus group sessions without dominating the discussion (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). The level of respect that the researcher demonstrated toward respondents may have been one of the most important factors affecting the quality of focus group session results (Krueger, 1994). The researcher carefully introduced tasteful humour when appropriate to contribute to a comfortable atmosphere and vibrant discussion (Threlfell, 1999).

3.7.4.4 Transcribing of data

The fourth building block concerns the transcribing of the data and the major role it plays in influencing the quality of the data. In addition, the difficulties of translating and interpreting the verbatim data highlight the need for data analysis to be undertaken in the original language of the focus group sessions. While it is important for focus group sessions to be conducted in the first language of the respondents (Twinn, 1998), the focus group sessions in this research were conducted in English, because it is the official language for conducting business in the GSSC. Respondents were invited to attend one of six focus group sessions. After the first few focus group sessions the responses made by the respondents served largely to confirm previous ones and limited new data was revealed. There was a degree of complexity in transcribing the data obtained from the focus group sessions; hence the researcher employed an assistant to transcribe the data (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). Copies of the transcripts were forwarded to the respondents to allow them the opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the content, however, one of the respondents objected to the content of the transcripts.

100

3.7.5 Using documents in qualitative research

Since the researcher is the primary instrument for gathering data, the researcher relied on experience, knowledge and academic background to identify and interpret data from documents (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999; Neuman, 2003). The process of using documentary material as data is not much different from using in-depth interviews or observations. Documents corroborate the research data obtained in focus group sessions and in-depth interviews and make the findings more trustworthy (Glesne, 1999). While qualitative research is systematic, the setting will allow for the accidental discovery of valuable data (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). The data collected from the documentation was largely guided by the research propositions, educated guessing and emerging findings (Prior, 2003). The researcher kept an open mind when discovering useful documents (Merriam, 1998) and whenever possible, tried to reconstruct the process by which the data was originally assembled by somebody else (McCulloch, 2004).

By developing the propositions early in the process, the researcher had easy access to information in the analysis and interpretation stage (Silverman, 2004). The researcher was central to the research and aimed to be systematic as well as analytical (Shank, 2002).

3.7.6 In-depth interviewing

In-depth interviews were considered appropriate for this research, as the goal was to obtain rich data through detailed and frank discussion (Alam, 2005). Qualitative interviews are unstructured, non-directive, in-depth and involve asking questions, listening, conveying interest and portraying what was said (Neuman, 2003). In this research it was assumed that the respondent’s point of view was an important part of the framework of society and of our knowledge of social processes (Henning, 2004). This type of interviewing provides access to the context of the respondent's behaviour and thereby afforded the researcher a means of understanding the meaning of that

101

behaviour (Seidman, 1991). Through in-depth interviews the researcher was able to understand experiences and to reconstruct events in which the researcher did not participate, therefore validating the observations of Rubin & Rubin (1995). The opportunity to learn about what cannot be seen and to discover alternate explanations of what was seen is the special strength of interviewing in qualitative research (Glesne, 1999). The in-depth interviews were unpredictable and refreshed each time it was conducted (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

The in-depth interviews were semi-structured; the purpose was to understand the experience of respondents and the meaning they made of that experience, thus adhering to the prescripts of Stokes & Bergin (2006). It is this process of selecting constructive details of experience, reflecting on them, giving them order and then making sense of the meaning that made the in-depth interview experience important to this research (Seidman, 1991). In these in-depth interviews the researcher captured the richness and complexity of the propositions being researched (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

3.7.7 Focus group session and in-depth interview questions

The quality of the data collected was directly related to the quality of the questions asked during the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews (Merriam, 1998). Consequently, the researcher largely used open-ended questions designed to encourage respondents to reconstruct their experience and to explore their meaning (Seidman, 1991). Questions were posed to enable the researcher to probe the respondent's experience (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

Asking good questions takes practice and therefore piloting focus group sessions and in-depth interviews are crucial to the process (Seidman, 1991). In this research, pilot focus group sessions and in-depth interviews were conducted to afford the researcher an opportunity to practice interviewing techniques to determine which questions were unclear and needed rewording, which questions yielded useless data and which

102

questions from the respondents had to be included (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2003).

3.7.8 Probes

At times, respondents gave an inappropriate or incomplete answer and in such cases a request or probe for elaboration was useful (Babbie, 2005; Litosseliti, 2003). Probes are similar to questions that normally follow up something already asked and are more frequently required in eliciting responses to open-ended questions (Babbie, 2005). It was practically impossible to specify probes ahead of time as they are dependent on how the respondent answers the lead question. The researcher as the primary instrument of data collection was particularly advantaged by being able to make adjustments as the interview progressed, especially when it was sensed that the respondent had significant information to contribute (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The researcher probed for answers that he thought would be sufficiently enlightening for analytical purposes and took every effort to ensure that the probes were completely neutral (Babbie, 2005).

3.7.9 Commencing focus group sessions and in-depth interviews

Determining whom to select for the focus group session and the in-depth interview is normally the first step when collecting this type of data. Rubin and Rubin (1995) add that the respondents should match the research design. This process depended on the specific information the researcher wanted to uncover and from whose point of view the information was desired (Seidman, 1991). As a consequence, employees with at least a bachelor’s degree and years of work experience were selected for the focus group sessions (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Respondents from the focus group session who the researcher believed could provide more context and depth in the areas of interest were invited to participate in the in-depth interviews (Stokes & Bergin, 2006). None of the respondents attended more than one focus group session.

103

The researcher strove to present the experiences of the respondents in compelling enough detail and in sufficient depth that the readers of the research findings could connect to that experience and deepen their understanding of the issues reflected (Seidman, 1991).

3.7.10 Focus group session and in-depth interview interaction

A researcher skilled in interviewing techniques can do much to effect positive interaction. The risk is that should a respondent sense that he/she is merely answering questions posed by an authority, a respondent may simply be supplying information and there would be no true sharing of knowledge (Henning, 2004). The researcher strove to be respectful, non-judgmental and non-threatening at all times and was aware that too much identification with respondents had the potential to result in the overlooking of the negative variables (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

There are three variables in every focus group session and in-depth interview situation that establishes the character of the interaction: • The personality and interviewing skills of the researcher; • The attitudes and orientation of the respondents; and • The definition of the situation (Merriam, 1998).

It is very important that respondents are given feedback on the knowledge that they have contributed; he/she must be consulted and recognised as much as possible (Henning, 2004). While being highly sensitive to these issues and taking it into account throughout the research, interviewing required the researcher to have enough distance to be in a position to ask real questions and to discover, not to share, assumptions (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

104

3.7.11 Recording focus group session and in-depth interview data

Data analysis began while the focus group session and in-depth interviewing was still under way and was the final stage of listening to hear the meaning of what was said (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). The researcher made a full record of the focus group session and interview soon after its occurrence to control bias and produce more reliable data for analysis (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2003). Whenever participants responded to open-ended questions, the researcher recorded the answer exactly as given. The researcher did not summarise, paraphrase or correct bad grammar, as it was not known at that time how the responses were to be coded (Babbie, 2005; Neuman, 2003). A tape recorder was used to record the focus group sessions and in-depth interviews and the equipment was set up in plain sight of all respondents and was introduced as an instrument to help capture respondent’s comments (Krueger, 1994). The researcher listened to the tape recordings for ways to improve the questioning technique utilised (Seidman, 1991).

Comprehensive notes were scribbled during the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews, however, the taking of notes was done in such a way that it did not interfere with the spontaneous nature of the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews (Krueger, 1994). By taking notes the researcher was in a position to record reactions to something the respondent may have said, to signal to the respondent the importance of what was being said, or to pace the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

To enhance the recording of the focus group session and in-depth interview data, the researcher wrote down as much as could be remembered immediately after the focus group session and the in-depth interview had taken place (Sherman & Webb, 1988). These reflections contained insights suggested by the respondent, verbal and nonverbal descriptive notes on the behaviour of the respondents, as well as parenthetical thoughts of the researcher. Post focus group session and in-depth interview notes enabled the

105

researcher to monitor the process of data collection and to begin to analyse the information (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).

Regardless of the particular method selected to record the focus group session and the in-depth interview, the researcher kept an account for every respondent that included the following, as suggested by Glesne (1999): • Previous questions requiring explanation; • Questions already explored; • Where to begin next session; • Special circumstances that affected the quality of the focus group session and the in-depth interview; • Reminders about anything that might improve subsequent focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews; and • Identification data that remind the researcher of why a respondent was selected.

While it was not feasible to transcribe entire tape recordings every effort was made to record the type of detailed information required for conversation analysis (Lecompte, 1994).

3.8 Analysis of data

Interpretive research is not designed to gather “simple” data and in a basic way of “working with the data”, the researcher commenced with a set of data, such as a transcribed focus group session or an in-depth interview (Lecompte, 1994). As declared earlier, when transcribing the data, the researcher did not correct the language of respondents in conversation during the focus group sessions or the in-depth interviews. The researcher left a wide margin (on the right-hand side of the pages) for notes and the writing of codes. Double line spacing was used to facilitate the “working of the data” with ample space for notes. Utilising open coding, the researcher read through the entire text in order to get a global impression of the content (Lecompte, 1994). Open

106

coding is an inductive process, whereby the codes are selected according to what the data mean (Seidman, 1991). Consequently, the researcher read all the relevant transcriptions before any meaning was attributed to a single unit (Lecompte, 1994).

Qualitative analysis entails a procedure of reviewing, synthesising and interpreting data to describe and explain the research propositions (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott & Davidson, 2002). Succeeding the first readings, the transcript and set of field notes was read again and units of meaning identified. By using a marker, units of meaning (that included a number of sentences) was marked and labelled (Lecompte, 1994). This labelling of data identified themes and sub-themes central to effective data retrieval (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott & Davidson, 2002).

Analysis began with a process of tidying up the information collected, whereby the data collected was categorised. This process permitted the researcher to establish whether anything was missing and to develop a justification for those alterations in the original implementation scheme (Lecompte, 1994). This process also gave the researcher the opportunity to alter themes and sub-themes or relationships in the rearranged data, as he searched for meaning from the data set (Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2003). Next, the researcher analysed the data to identify themes and sub- themes. This process was a good method of creating an initial framework to attach an analysis of the research outcomes. The initial framework was matched against a revised data matrix to determine where each cluster of data ultimately fitted (Lecompte, 1994). The data was compared within the themes and sub-themes to search for variations and nuances in meanings (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). This was also a good method to identify the types of research outcomes that the researcher could be called on to produce at the conclusion of the evaluation (Lecompte, 1994). The researcher was able to keep an up- to-date definition of each theme and sub-theme to maintain consistency when assigning units of data as the collection of data progressed (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2003).

The data was organised to enable themes and sub-themes to be easily identified by the reader (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). In analysing the data, the researcher counted the

107

number of times an issue was repeated by the respondents to establish a trend (Seidman, 1991).

3.8.1 Coding of the data

Coding is defined as a process of simultaneously reducing the data by dividing it into units of analysis (Maclaran & Catterall, 2002). In this research, data reduction was an iterative process and the coding process was ongoing and dynamic. During the research there was constant interplay of concepts as new data was gathered from the focus group sessions, in-depth interviews and from the verification of the documentation referred to by respondents.

3.9 Ensuring the reliability and validity of the research results

Ensuring reliability and validity in qualitative research involves producing knowledge in an ethical manner. Reliability and validity are important in all research and address issues about the quality of data and appropriateness of the method used (Merriam, 1998). Both are significant because constructs in social theory are often ambiguous and not directly observable. As a consequence, perfect reliability and validity are ideals researchers strive for and are virtually impossible to accomplish (Neuman, 2003). However, reliability and validity concerns can be approached through careful attention to the research’s conceptualization and the way in which the data is collected, analysed and interpreted and the way in which the findings are presented (Merriam, 1998).

The trustworthiness of this qualitative research in terms of reliability and validity was addressed by adhering to the following criteria: • Reliability; • Internal validity; • Adoption of a research method; • Culture familiarity;

108

• Triangulation; • Ensure honesty of respondents; • Iterative questioning; • Frequent briefing sessions; • Peer scrutiny of the research project; • The researcher’s “reflective” commentary; • Background, qualifications and experience of researcher; • Transferability; • Dependability; and • Confirmability.

Each of these criteria is discussed below:

3.9.1 Reliability

Reliability is defined as the extent to which research findings that represent a theoretical concept are true and stable when used for the concept in subsequent research (Bless & Higson-Smith, 2000). Research results in qualitative research can be problematic as human behaviour is never static. However, qualitative research is not conducted with the purpose of isolating human behaviour, but rather with the goal to describe and explain the world as respondents experience it (Caelli, Ray & Mill, 2003).

In this research reliability meant demonstrating that the data collection method could be repeated to yield the same results; it also addressed the accuracy of the research method used when collecting data. As a consequence, attempts were made to fully document and explain the data collection and data analysis method in detail. Data recording sheets were designed to ensure consistency when capturing information.

Moving between data collection and data analysis and having the means to return to the respondent for a further explanation minimised the possibility of the researcher

109

becoming biased or forming an unqualified opinion (Seidman, 1991). To achieve conformability, the researcher took steps to demonstrate that findings emerged from the data and not his own predispositions (Shenton, 2004). Every effort was made to capture the data as reliably as possible when the tape recordings were transcribed. Emphasising the confidentiality and anonymity of the responses ensured reliability, because the respondents participated more transparently.

The researcher combined focus group sessions, in-depth interviews and data mining as a method to collect data. Methodological triangulation (using two or more means to test the same hypothesis) can be used to improve the reliability of the data (Branigan, 2000).

3.9.2 Internal validity

Internal validity in this research refers to whether the variables chosen for exploration are sufficient to explain the phenomenon of interest and deals with how fitting the research results are with reality (Koners & Goffin, 2007). A key criteria addressed was that the research measures or tests what was actually intended (Shenton, 2004). How congruent the findings are with reality was one of most important factors in establishing trustworthiness in this research (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). Internal validity is a strength of qualitative research as human beings are the primary instrument of data collection and it is their interpretation of reality that is being accessed. This reality is a holistic, multidimensional and ever-changing objective phenomenon that is not waiting to be discovered or measured (Merriam, 1998).

To address internal validity, the researcher provided detailed descriptions of themes and sub-themes to convey the actual situation researched, as well as the context that surround them. The data collection method involved focus group sessions, in-depth interviews and data mining which enabled the researcher to obtain thick description of the phenomenon being researched. The data collected during the focus group sessions

110

and the in-depth interviews were transcribed to assist in addressing concerns of reasonableness of the research findings.

3.9.3 Adoption of research method

The adoption of a well established qualitative research method was important for incorporating the correct operational measures for the propositions being researched. The research method had to ensure that there was compatibility between the constructed realities, as it existed in the minds of the respondents and those that are ascribed to them (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). Consequently, the specific method employed, such as the line of questioning followed in the data gathering sessions and the method of data analysis, were derived from those that have been successfully utilised in previous comparable research (Shenton, 2004).

3.9.4 Culture familiarity

The researcher familiarised himself as early as possible with the culture of the GSSC before the first data collection dialogues took place. A prolonged engagement between the researcher and the respondents is widely recommended (Babbie & Mouton, 2001) in order for both to gain an adequate understanding of the specific area of work and to establish a relationship of trust (Shenton, 2004). The researcher guarded against making too many demands on staff as the gatekeepers responsible for allowing the researcher access to the area of work could have been deterred from cooperating. The researcher also steered away from becoming immersed in the culture under scrutiny to ensure that his professional judgment was not influenced (Shenton, 2004).

3.9.5 Triangulation

Triangulation involves the use of different data collection methods and in this research focus group sessions and in-depth interviews formed the major data collection strategy

111

(Babbie & Mouton, 2001). Whilst focus group sessions and in-depth interviews have common methodological shortcomings as both are types of interviews, their distinct characteristics also result in individual strengths. The use of different data collection methods in concert compensates for their individual limitations and exploits their respective benefits (Glesne, 1999; Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). Where possible, supporting data was obtained from documents to provide a background as well as to help explain the attitudes and behaviour of those in the group under scrutiny (Shenton, 2004). The researcher examined documents referred to by the respondents during the actual focus group session or in-depth interview. Another form of triangulation also involved the use of a wide range of respondents. To achieve this, the researcher established six focus group sessions. As stated earlier, none of the respondents attended more than one focus group session.

3.9.6 Ensure honesty of respondents

To improve honesty, each respondent who was invited to participate in the research was given the opportunity to refuse to participate. This ensured that the data collection sessions included only those respondents who were genuinely willing to take part and where prepared to offer data freely. Respondents were encouraged to be candid at the onset of each session. The researcher aimed at establishing rapport with respondents from the opening moments of the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews and strove to demonstrate that the researcher was interested in the opinions of the respondents. Where appropriate, the independent status of the researcher was also emphasized to enable respondents to contribute ideas and talk of their experiences without fear of losing credibility in the eyes of GSSC managers. At the commencement of the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews, the researcher informed the respondents that they had the right to withdraw from the research at any point and respondents did not have to provide an explanation for withdrawing (Scarnati, 1997).

112

3.9.7 Iterative questioning

In conjunction with the preventative strategies outlined, specific tactics was incorporated to uncover inaccurate statements. These included the use of inquiries to extract detailed data as well as iterative questioning. During iterative questioning, the researcher returned to matters previously raised by a participant and extracted related data through rephrasing questions. Where contradictions appeared and the truth was in question, the researcher decided to discard the data (Shenton, 2004).

3.9.8 Frequent debriefing sessions

There were frequent debriefing sessions between the researcher and the study leader. Through discussion, the vision of the researcher was widened as the study leader brought to bear his experiences and perceptions. Such collaborative sessions was used by the researcher to develop alternative approaches (Seidman, 1991). According to Rubin & Rubin (1995), the debriefing sessions also provide a sounding board for the researcher to test his developing ideas and interpretations, while probing from gatekeepers will help the researcher to recognise his own biases and preferences.

3.9.9 Peer scrutiny of the research project

Opportunities for scrutiny of the research by colleagues, peers and academics were welcomed. The fresh perspectives offered by interested parties allowed assumptions made by the researcher to be challenged. This was particularly beneficial to the researcher whose closeness to the project may have inhibited his ability to view it with real detachment. Questions and observations enabled the researcher to refine his methods, develop a greater explanation of the research design and strengthen arguments in the light of the contributions made (Seidman, 1991).

113

3.9.10 The researcher's "Reflective Commentary"

In addition to the peer scrutiny, the researcher evaluated the research project as it developed. This was conducted through a reflective commentary which focused on the effectiveness of the techniques that were employed. The reflective commentary enabled the researcher to record initial impressions of each data collection session, patterns that emerged in the data collected and theories produced. The commentary was important for the monitoring of the researcher’s techniques, which was critical in establishing credibility (Shenton, 2004).

3.9.11 Background, qualifications and experience of researcher

The credibility of the researcher is predominantly important in qualitative research as the researcher is the main instrument of data collection and analysis (Shenton, 2004). As noted by Hines (2000), the skill of the researcher is vital to the successful implementation of qualitative research. In this instance, the researcher continually deployed reflexivity and evaluative skills (Lloyd-Jones, 2003) to the data analysis and to decisions concerning the direction of the steps to be taken in the research. The respondent's confidence in the researcher is of equal importance to the sufficiency of the research procedures themselves. However, the kind of the biographical information that should be supplied in the research report is a matter of debate (Shenton, 2004).

3.9.12 Transferability

External validity deals with the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to another situation (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). Findings of qualitative research are relevant to a particular environment and it is therefore difficult to demonstrate that the findings are applicable to another situation and population (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999). Where researchers believe their situation to be similar to that described in the research, they may relate the findings to their own situation. To facilitate this analysis it was the responsibility of the researcher to ensure that sufficient contextual information

114

about the fieldwork sites was provided to enable the reader to make such a transfer (Shenton, 2004).

The rich description provided in this research report should enable readers to determine how far they can transfer the results and conclusions presented to other situations (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). It is critical that ample thick descriptions of the research propositions are provided to allow readers to gain a proper understanding of the phenomenon under research. This will enable readers to compare the instances of the research propositions described in the research report with those that they have seen emerge in their situation. There was a need for a full description of all the contextual factors impinging on the research. As a consequence, the following information, adapted from Shenton (2004) was provided at the outset: • The organisation taking part in the research; • Any restrictions in the type of respondents who contributed data; • The number of respondents involved in the research; • The data collection method employed; • The number and length of the data collection sessions; • The time period over which the data was collected.

3.9.13 Dependability

In dealing with reliability, positivist research uses techniques to demonstrate that, if the work were repeated in the same context, following the research approach and with the same respondents, similar research results would be obtained (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). However, the qualitative researcher’s observations are tied to the situation of the research and the research descriptions are static and frozen in the ethnographic present (Sherrington & Stern, 1997). There is a close relationship between credibility and dependability as in practice, a manifestation of credibility does much to ensure dependability (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). This manifestation may be achieved through the use of overlapping methods, such as focus group sessions and individual interviews (Shenton, 2004).

115

To address dependability directly, the research activities were recorded in detail, thereby enabling a future researcher to repeat the work. However, this does not mean that subsequent researchers may gain the same results. Consequently, the research design may be regarded as a prototype model. Such detailed recording will allow the reader to conclude on the extent to which proper research practices have been followed (Seidman, 1991). To enable readers to develop a thorough understanding of the research approach and its effectiveness, the findings will include sections devoted to: • The research design and its implementation, detailing what was planned and executed; • Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in the research as well as the operational detail of data gathering; • Reflective appraisal of the research, including evaluating the effectiveness of the process of inquiry undertaken (Sherrington & Stern, 1997).

3.9.14 Confirmability

Objectivity in research is difficult to achieve as the intrusion of the researcher’s biases is inevitable. The notion of confirmability is the qualitative researcher’s comparable concern to address objectivity (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). Here, the researcher took steps to ensure that the research findings were the result of the experiences and ideas of the respondents, rather than that of the researcher.

Confirmability is the extent to which the researcher admits his own predispositions (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). Consequently, the beliefs underpinning decisions made and methods adopted should be acknowledged within the research report. The researcher provided the reasons for favouring one approach when others could have been taken at the beginning of this chapter (see 3.2).

In the research findings, preliminary theories that did not emanate from the data collected are also discussed as much of the content in relation to these areas may be

116

derived from the ongoing reflective commentary. A detailed methodological description enables the reader to establish how far the data and constructs emerging from it may be accepted. A clear audit trail is vital as it will allow an observer to trace the course of the research step-by-step via the decisions made and procedures described (Silverman, 2004).

3.10 Conclusion

This chapter outlined an overview of the methodological issues and a motivation for choosing qualitative research was provided. Data for this research was collected by the researcher to enable him to gain a good understanding of the experiences of the knowledge workers employed at the GSSC and the extent to which the organisational design contributes to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise.

The next chapter presents the experiences of the knowledge workers employed at the GSSC. The research covers experiences related by respondents during six focus group sessions and eight in-depth interviews.

117

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

In chapter 1 it was stated that the key focus of this research is to examine the current organisational design and develop a design option that optimises knowledge worker expertise. This chapter examines the organisational design of the GSSC and presents the experiences of the knowledge workers employed at the GSSC. The research covers experiences related by respondents during six focus group sessions and eight follow-up in-depth interviews. Each of the respondents who took part in the in-depth interviews had an undergraduate degree and an average of eight years work experience.

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Introduction Literature Research Results The Conclusions to the study Review Methodology Informative and Design Organisational

Design

Figure 7: Chapter 4 in context

Success in the knowledge-based economy requires that the organisation optimise knowledge worker expertise for producing goods, services and ways of working (Grant, 1996; Chan, 2005). In addition, Gold, Malhotra and Segards (2001), argue that in order to be sustainable, an organisation has to develop an organisational design that optimises knowledge worker expertise. Current organisational design methodologies do not place emphasis on the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Grant, 1996) for it to become valuable to an organisation as a whole (Nonaka, 1991). . To optimise knowledge worker expertise the organisational design must enable the following requirements:

118

• Knowledge workers must be able to share knowledge they have created across departmental boundaries until it is integrated into an organisation's processes, systems and culture (Prieto & Revilla, 2006). • Knowledge workers must also be able to apply knowledge they have created by embedding it in the business processes and routine operations as a basis for action (Marques, Simon, 2006).

The research problem of this study is to determine the ability of organisational design to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The two propositions below will be tested as an indication of whether the current organisational design of the GSSC satisfied the above requirements for optimising knowledge worker expertise.

The propositions are as follows:

• Proposition 1 Organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise by not enabling knowledge workers to share neither their existing knowledge nor their newly created knowledge through cross-learning with other knowledge workers.

• Proposition 2 Organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise as the output of the knowledge worker is not incorporated into the business processes and routine operations.

4.2 Background

Gauteng Province is growing as the economic hub of South Africa and Africa as a whole. This development is placing a tremendous strain on the resources of the Province, as the growth in demand for services are not met by a concurrent growth in revenue. In response to this, the GSSC was established to centralise the back office functions of human resources, procurement, finance, technology support and internal

119

audit in a single provincial government department. The vision of the GSSC is to execute back office functions at a superior service delivery level freeing up the other provincial government departments to allow them to focus on their core services.

The data in this chapter is constructed from focus group sessions and in-depth interview material of the respondents and the meaning that they have attributed to their experiences. The data is consolidated into themes and sub-themes and after interpretation it is referred to as 'findings' (Henning, 2004).

The discussions in the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews centred on the extent to which the GSSC's organisational design enabled respondents to share their existing knowledge and their newly created knowledge through cross-learning with other knowledge workers (Prieto & Revilla, 2006) as well as the degree to which the output of the respondents was incorporated into the business processes and routine operations (Marques & Simon, 2006). The coding of themes and sub-themes as well as a brief description of each is presented in Table 2.

4.3 Sample Profiles

Chapter 3 presented a detailed description of the population of this research. It was also stated that the researcher’s goal was to generate a rich description of the research propositions. Rather than choosing a sample that is representative of a given population, respondents with rich experiences in the research propositions are included, therefore observing the recommendation of Neuman (2003). In qualitative research, the sample size is rarely predetermined; in this instance the researcher included as many respondents as necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of the research propositions (Vishnevsky & Beanlands, 2004). As a consequence, an invitation to participate in the research was extended to 157 knowledge workers. Six focus group sessions were held with twenty five respondents.

120

Krueger (1994) is of the opinion that in focus group sessions of eight or more, respondents are not afforded the opportunity to sufficiently describe their experiences. Neuman (2003) concurs in his assertion that the number of respondents participating in a focus group session has a major influence on the quality of data, thus the focus group sessions in this research comprised of three to five respondents to maximise the quality of the data (Twinn, 1998).

To accommodate concerns of reliability, six focus group sessions were held with twenty five respondents. At the commencement of each focus group session, respondents were requested to provide demographic information and it was revealed that the respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree and on average 14 years of work experience.

While the focus group sessions enabled the researcher to become conversant with grassroots perceptions in the areas of interest (Woodring, Foley, Rado, Brown & Hamner, 2006), it enabled the researcher to further select respondents who could provide more context and depth in the areas of interest (Stokes & Bergin, 2006). Eight respondents were identified by the researcher during the focus group sessions and invited to take part in in-depth interviews. The demographic information of respondents revealed that respondents had worked for a number of years, with one respondent having 34 years of work experience.

As the GSSC has existed for only 5 years, the bulk of the working experience was gained in an organisation other than the GSSC. This made the respondents a good fit for the profile of the knowledge worker who is described as a highly educated individual with vast amounts of practical experience (Cooper, 2006), that has been gained in more than one organisation (Royal & Althauser, 2003) and have the capacity to act (Botha, 2000).

121

4.4 Results

After analysing the textual data from the field notes, the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews, the data was categorised into themes and sub-themes. The themes were related to design components and the sub-themes to organisational capabilities.

The results reported reflect a summary of the respondents' contributions in the focus group sessions and the in-depth interviews. The respondent's contributions were tape recorded and transcribed later and constitutes the substance of this qualitative research.

Table 2 below presents the codes used for the themes and sub-themes as well as a brief description of each.

Table 2 Coding of themes and sub-themes and descriptions Code Theme Description OD Organisational Knowledge application and knowledge optimisation. Design OE Optimise Expertise Utilise knowledge worker expertise. CA Competitive Expert knowledge as the basis for sustainability. Advantage Code Sub-Theme Description S Structure An arrangement to accommodate and facilitate knowledge activities. C Culture Deeply rooted values and beliefs; the way things are done. CO Codification Conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge that System others can use. K Knowledge Combine what the organisation knows to sustain the

122

organisation. KM Knowledge Organisational efforts to leverage knowledge assets. Management KC Knowledge Create new knowledge and embody it in the Creation organisational system. KT Knowledge Move knowledge from one knowledge worker to another. Transfer KS Knowledge Sharing Share knowledge for reflective learning. KCOM Knowledge Socialise knowledge between knowledge workers. Communication

Below is a consolidated summary of the codes generated during data gathering and analysis of responses arranged by theme and sub-theme (the 'raw' data).

4.4.1 Focus group session excerpts

The question below was based on proposition 1 which respondents were asked to react to.

How are you able to share either your existing knowledge or your newly created knowledge through cross-learning with other knowledge workers?

The aim of this question was to explore the ability of the organisational design to optimise knowledge worker expertise by enabling knowledge workers to share either their existing knowledge or their newly created knowledge through cross-learning with other knowledge workers.

Most of the respondents who answered this question indicated that the organisational design did not enable them to share their existing knowledge nor their newly created knowledge with other knowledge workers. This is indicated by the following excerpts:

123

Respondent Comment Code R1 “It’s hard for me to actually share with my OD, S, K, colleagues because in my situation I focus on KM, KS, problems that arise and I have to solve those KCOM. problems in as short a time frame as possible.” “Some other guys might have knowledge OE, KM, about the problems we might be KC, KS. experiencing and how to go about sharing that knowledge, I think that forum has not really been utilised to its fullest.” “. . . . you will find that there is no continuity OD, CO, because people who did the design leave and KC. six months later no one is actually sure as to how implementation was supposed to happen.” R2 “…there is nothing formally that compels me to S, C, CO, share my knowledge.” OE, KM. “Even when you have a problem and you know KM, KT. who can assist you, you won’t get people to put in the effort to come and sit with you and help you.’ “So in many instances it’s a crisis that will drive S, C, KM. us to work together and share what we know.’ “The driver of that process or document or OE, KM, program - if that person leaves then the whole KT. thing crashes.” R3 “I think from our perspective we happen to share KC, KT, our knowledge and expertise in the work that we KS, do in the reports that we produce.” KCOM. “You can have a document but a document KT, KS.

124

cannot talk to you with the result that what was really intended in terms of a specific process does not happen.” “The issue of communication and how do you KCOM manage that knowledge, before you know it that knowledge is gone out the door.” “In terms of the follow up audit we want to see CO what has happened there. I know in GAS that it’s a process that needs to be improved but we’re working on that and putting systems in place to ensure those things do happen.” R4 “. . . but there’s no formalised way of actually OD, S, OE, finding out what specific expert knowledge KM, KC. someone has.” “But there - once again in the unit there is OD, KM, sufficient information available to the auditor to do KT, KS. his job but that is not accessible to people outside.” “You have the document there but that doesn’t OD, CO. mean that work will be done that way.” R5 “For example, my friend is in procurement but OD, S, K. has a lot of experience in HR but it will be difficult for someone in HR to say I know someone in procurement; he’s an expert in this HR field lets get his input. That’s why I’m saying there’s no formal mechanism in place.” “We come up with beautiful ideas but are they S, C, OE. taken seriously?” R6 “. . . you address the question and apply the S, C, OE, knowledge that you have, to come up with a K, KM, KC. solution. But you don’t think that we are a trouble

125

shooting environment where you are confronted with problems and then you apply the knowledge that you have, to try and help.” If it is not a common product, it can be a problem OD. in my area as we don’t involve ourselves in others’ applications.” “We don’t have that ability to suggest a change OD, S, C, and follow through on it.” KM. R7 “We need something like that in the GSSC to S, KM, KT. share information so at the moment I don’t think there is anything formal.” “We don’t have that kind of culture whereby you S, C, OE, share with people, whether it’s an e mail or an CA. attachment.” R11 “And the only formal information sharing that I S, C, KM, can speak about in our structure is the meetings.” KT, KS. R12 “…so as to share our experience as we would OD, S, C, like it to be but it is not happening.” KM, KC, KCOM. “We can’t share. I mean he is a colleague but the OD, S, C, case is finalised once I’ve put up my KM, accommodations.” KCOM. R14 “When a person leaves the knowledge goes with C, KM, KC, them.” KT, KS. “They have to be extremely structured because C, OE. that’s what structure does.” R16 “In the GSSC there are 1,400 people working but OD, S, only about 20 are able to share with others and KM, KT. mostly on an informal basis. There is no mechanism.” “We work in silos.” OD, S, C,

126

CO, OE, CA. “The problem is that people don’t want to develop OD, S. themselves and you can’t share with someone who doesn’t want to learn.” “The structure does not allow people to draw from OD, S, C, each other.” CO, OE, CA. R17 “People are boxed in and are not motivated to OD,S. move up or share what they know.” R18 “Information sharing is weak with limited access.” KM.

“80 % of people are over qualified for what they OD, S. do and so nobody wants to hear what someone else has to share.” “Opportunities are lost because people work in OD, S, C, silos.” CO, OE, CA. “Communications breaks down because people OD, S, C, work in silos.” CO, OE, KCOM, CA. R19 “Ok in my experience, I haven’t been exposed OE, S. really to an environment where I can use the skills that I have learnt.” “Because we’re working in silos here.” OD, S, C, CO, OE, CA. “We used what we learnt to solve the problem at CO, OE, hand.” CA. “So in getting to the supply of the customer and K, KM.

127

getting their demand we have not sat back and said you know that there are things that can easily be done to get to the same type of output.” R20 “The only thing that you are sharing, if I’m saying S, CO, sharing, is just work related issues in meetings, KM, CA. when you will be reporting on your activities but in terms of sharing your expertise with others there’s no structure.” “If people can be aware of your knowledge you K, KM, may be invited to be involved in that particular KCOM. project because somebody has identified your skill or your expert knowledge.” “Well I feel that, currently there is no structure for S, OE, KM, your knowledge sharing process, it only happens CA. from your own sort of initiative.” “That you would share what you know with other OE, KM, people but the structure doesn’t allow that.” CA “The rest or other colleagues they don’t know OE, KM. about this.” R22 “No they just know that we managed to meet the CO, OE, K. requirement and there are no problems at the hospital; they don’t know what went into it.”

The question below was based on proposition 2 which respondents were asked to react to.

How are you able to incorporate your output into the business processes and routine operations?

128

The purpose of this question was to examine an organisational design’s capacity to optimise knowledge worker expertise by incorporating it into the business processes and routine operations.

The respondents who answered this question revealed that the organisational design did not incorporate their expertise into the business processes and routine operations. This is supported by the following excerpts: . Respondent Comments Code R5 “I’m not sure here in GSSC if they are reviewing K, CO. those policies to see if they are successful, if they achieve the specific objectives.” “That is probably the biggest thing, lack of S, CO. implementation; implementation and continuity.” R6 “There is no formal process where you write OD, S, KC, down what you’ve found and pass it on to other KT, KS. people.” “Unless you informally do it there’s no formal way OD, S, C, of sharing your output with others.” KM, KT. “We don’t have that ability, of making the change OD, S, C and follow through on it.” R10 “There are avenues that can be put in place OD, S, C, where information we produce can be KM. considered.” R8 “System is very rigid in looking at rules that CO, CA. knowledge worker cannot input his contribution.” R13 “I mean, clearly, there are certain things that are C, CA, OE. written in stone and you cannot change it.” R19 “No definitely we’ve learnt and gained a lot of CO, OE, experiences but we did not change any business CA.

129

processes.”

4.4.2 In-depth interview excerpts

The question below was based on proposition 1 which respondents participating in the in-depth interviews were asked to react to.

How are you able to share either your existing knowledge or your newly created knowledge through cross-learning with other knowledge workers?

The aim of this question was to further explore the experiences of knowledge workers on the ability of the organisational design to optimise knowledge worker expertise by enabling knowledge workers to share either their existing knowledge or their newly created knowledge with other knowledge workers.

The respondents confirmed that the organisational design did not enable them to share their existing knowledge nor their newly created knowledge with other knowledge workers. This is supported by the following excerpts:

Respondent Comment Code R 1 “When people leave no one else know what work OE, KM. they did or how they did it and I think that is why the GM is just leaving it alone. Because no one is left to pilot it now.” “So now they also left and I don’t know if anything OE. is going to come from the business case.” “I’m not sure if it was allocated to the new OE. manager but actually taking it forward and implementing anything, nothing has happened so far.”

130

“The solution was discussed with the GM and the CO. GM knows about it but nothing further was done about it.” “I’m sure the new manager doesn’t want a OE. system that someone else produced.” R 2 “It’s a bit difficult because there’s no sharing, in S, C. fact starting with the culture the practice is there’s no, that element of sharing.” “That thing of I have to share this, it’s not like S, OE. you’re obliged to share that.” “But if you look at it, if we could have a formal KS. platform, sort of whereby we know that whoever is having information can come to the floor and do that.” “But the issue is how do we share information if OD, S. we don’t have any platform that will empower us to do that?” “Ya that’s why, how are we going to know what KM. recruitment is doing, this is the kind of information you should know?” R 3 “You cannot blame the people because they have S. never been allowed to pop out and blossom.” “I feel very frustrated; I think I will change careers S, CA. because I think I am going down the drain here. “ “But you see our bosses and when you tell them S, CA. that they shut you up.” “I would say for internally within the GSSC if one OD, S. has to share or be in a position where they share their different knowledge, it’s through meetings. But then currently I still feel some of us are excluded from these meetings.”

131

‘Because of the structure some of us are not S, OE, CA. exposed to those meetings.” “The structure doesn’t make it easy for some of S, OE, CA. us or some of the people to get through to those meetings.” “Looking at the fact that the very people that are S, OE, CA. not allowed at the meetings are the ones at a functional level.” “We are the ones that feel the frustration so that’s S, OE, CA. my problem; we don’t get exposed to those meetings.” “We don’t focus so much on the GSSC processes CO. and standards.” “Although I know from my knowledge, my OE. experience and background I’ve done it practically.” R 4 “The structure has a major role to play because S, CA. the people are not managed.” “The structure is not able to solve a big problem CO, OE, which is a loss of skilled experience employees.” CA. “There is nothing that helps the flow of knowledge KM, KT. to others; we have to force it by sharing with those we know well.” “But there has to be a better way to enable us to S. have a much better environment to share what we know and look forward to come to work.” R 5 “Everybody is so focused on business that I feel I S, OE. cannot tell them what I know because I will be attacked.” “I do the job as I am supposed to do as I know OE, KM. from my experience. But I don’t tell anyone.”

132

“There is no need for me to talk to other KCOM. employees about what I know.” “It’s so tight for us to get to ISO 9000 certification KT. that everyone else will not be happy if I am doing something else other than the business sections that was allocated to me. Maybe later on, next year if I am still here I will see what else I can do.” R 6 “Its tough, the sharing part. Even me; in meetings S, CA. and on teams I can see that they are not on the right track but I do not say anything. It seems we are shadow boxing around personalities. With my work, I am far ahead of the others but it’s not something I can reveal. I don’t think it will go down well.” “My boss knows where I am with my work but he S, CA. also plays it down. That’s why in meetings I am not the one to say much.” “I am frustrated. We are a unit of 7 people but S. each one is like a little silo but we do the same work only for different divisions.” R 7 “I don’t know how I can do that, everyone talks S. like they are experts and they will not like it if you came along and say here is a better way to work.” “I really do not have any contact with anyone KCOM. outside of our space. It’s only to greet people when you see them but it’s never work related.” R 8 “Maybe we can include some sharing practical KCOM. experience later on. We are just too busy right now. We have to focus on meeting KPI’s and I drive others to meet theirs and so I cannot relax

133

on it from my side.”

The question below was based on proposition 2 which respondents participating in the in-depth interviews were asked to react to.

How are you able to incorporate your output into the business processes and routine operations?

The purpose of this question was to further examine an organisational design’s capacity to optimise knowledge worker expertise by incorporating it into the business processes and routine operations.

Respondents confirmed what was already established during the focus group sessions; that the organisational design did not incorporate their expertise into the business processes and routine operations. This is revealed by the following excerpts:

Respondent Comments Code R 3 “I don’t think it’s working because the structure OD, S, doesn’t really allow me to give input.” CO. “But I have not actually went on my own and said I S, CO. am going to intervene and force a business process improvement.” R 4 “Actually I want to put it politely in saying that the OD, S, C, structure actually prevents me from improving the CO, OE, business processes.” CA. “There’s nothing wrong with that but if you want to OE. suggest changes to processes they will block you.” R 6 “In our small unit we don’t even look at business CO. processes even though I know we have them.” R 8 “We want to get updated business processes and CO.

134

policies but it is not a focus now.”

The summary of results revealed that the largest respondent contribution centred on ‘structure’; this was followed by ‘optimise expertise’ and ‘knowledge management’. The summary of respondent contributions is provided in Figure 8 below.

Structure 47

Optimise Expertise 33

Knowledge Management 28

Organisational Design 26

Codification System 24

Competitive Advantage 24

Culture 18

Knowledge Transfer 13

Knowledge Communication 10

Knowledge Creation 8

Knowledge Sharing 7

Knowledge 7

Figure 8: Summary of respondent contributions

The research propositions serve as a guideline to describe the findings and will be presented as follows:

• Theme related to organisational design; o Sub-Theme related to culture; o Sub-Theme related to structure; o Sub-theme related to codification system; • Theme related to optimisation of knowledge worker expertise;

135

o Sub-theme related to knowledge; o Sub-theme related to knowledge management; o Sub-theme related to knowledge creation; o Sub-theme related to knowledge transfer; o Sub-theme related to knowledge sharing; o Sub-theme related to knowledge communication; • Theme related to competitive advantage.

The findings are reported against each theme and sub-theme. Immediately following on each finding is a discussion that relates to the theme or sub-theme.

4.4.3 Theme related to organisational design

Finding: The GSSC is not designed to enable the structure, culture and codification system to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Respondents expressed that they were utilised for their ability to resolve crises on a day-to-day basis and not for their applied expertise. There is almost a disregard for the expertise of the knowledge worker’s ability to solve problems. As a consequence, when a knowledge worker leaves the GSSC, the expertise is lost to the organisation. Respondents seemed to recognise that opportunities for improved performance are lost as a result of a lack of processes that would enable knowledge workers to identify specific expert knowledge that could be used as a basis for creating new knowledge. For example, knowledge workers from the Auditing Department generate new knowledge during their examinations however; this knowledge is not available to other knowledge workers. The current organisational design does not facilitate knowledge exchange among knowledge workers as respondents revealed that they are only able to share knowledge through personal relationships with other knowledge workers. Knowledge workers are not allowed to participate in activities that fall outside their areas of responsibilities and as a consequence, the organisational design does not enable the knowledge worker to grow into other areas of expertise where they can develop personal capability as a platform

136

for innovation.

Discussion: Organisational design is a process of leveraging an organisation’s structure, culture and codification system to achieve an organisation’s goal of optimising knowledge worker expertise. As such, the GSSC faces many challenges as the current organisational design methodologies do not place emphasis on the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The findings therefore validate Grant’s assertions that organisational design does affect knowledge worker expertise (1996). The GSSC is designed for continuous improvement, rather than for radical innovation and fits in with Ng’s description (2004) as the organisation has no process to exploit opportunities for optimising knowledge worker expertise. According to Grant (1996), in the knowledge economy, an organisation must focus its efforts on optimising knowledge worker expertise by providing structural arrangements of coordination and cooperation. The design of an organisation must support the creation of these conditions (Peltonen & Lamsa, 2004). While the GSSC relies on individual knowledge worker expertise as an important organisational resource to deal with “problems”, it is the optimisation of the collective expertise of its knowledge workers that will provide the organisation with a sustainable competitive advantage, in keeping with the advice of Chowdhury (2005) on organisational sustainability. If studies by Owen (1999) as well as Gold, Malhotra and Segards (2001) are applied to the findings of this research, then the organisational design of the GSSC has to facilitate the availability of knowledge by enabling the recognition, creation, transformation and distribution of knowledge to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

4.4.3.1 Sub-theme related to culture

Finding: The culture of the GSSC seems to discourage creativity since only narrowly defined functional output is valued. Respondents spoke of how new ideas are completely ignored by management, thus sending a clear message that developing new ideas are not an aspect of the culture at the GSSC. The culture does not support the view that the organisation believes that ideas and knowledge created by knowledge

137

workers have a value for the organisation. This extends to where it appears that the organisation does not believe knowledge workers have anything of value to share that will improve its competitive advantage. The underlying culture is one of mistrust where, if a knowledge worker leaves before implementing improvements identified, management is more likely to discard the improvements than act to implement them.

Discussion: Organisational culture is very important for optimising knowledge worker expertise as it determines the general functioning of an organisation. The GSSC should create an organisational culture that underpins a strong set of core values and norms that encourage the creation, sharing and re-use of knowledge worker knowledge. As Lucas & Ogilvie note, organisations should include the active participation of knowledge workers in the process of optimising knowledge worker expertise (2006). Organisational culture is vital for effectively optimising knowledge worker expertise and requires specific focus from management as the process of optimising cannot begin without first creating a supportive culture in an organisation (Call, 2005). In reality, organisational culture functions as a means of social control that promotes the belief system of the dominant values (Barbosa & Cabral-Cardoso, 2007). The organisation culture should regard knowledge worker expertise as an asset and therefore should be created, shared, transferred and re-used widely in an organisation so as to demonstrate value and encourage creative activities of knowledge workers before the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise can begin (Lai & Lee, 2007).

4.4.3.2 Sub-theme related to structure

Finding: The organisational structure of the GSSC is exceptionally challenged to optimise knowledge worker expertise. It seems that the organisation does not recognise that knowledge workers apply personal expertise to keep the organisation afloat. The organisation values its knowledge workers for their ability to solve one crisis after the other and less for the expertise applied and created during the process. When asked to comment on the mechanism in place at the GSSC for optimising their knowledge,

138

respondents felt strongly that the structure was not an enabling factor. Some respondents asserted that the structure actually prevented the exchange of tacit knowledge. When discussing the degree to which knowledge workers were able to align their activities to the achievement of organisational objectives, respondents expressed a high degree of frustration at the existence of silos. Respondents were able to identify the importance of aligning activities to achieve organisational objectives, but felt that they were unable to interact beyond their respective silo. It seemed that a further consequence of respondents operating within silos was that they had little understanding of the organisation that exists around them. Respondents also identified that the best practice developed would fade or disappear over time as the silos prevented them from exploiting opportunities.

The GSSC does not engage in goal alignment and does not coordinate tasks between departments which are essential for the proper functioning and performance of the organisation. The organisation does not have a process for integrating work activities, and for determining their dependencies to achieve organisational objectives. Knowledge workers are not afforded the opportunity to act as “one organisation” as silos are encouraged. There is an “us versus them” mindset at the GSSC which impedes coordination and the collaboration required to function as a collective. The GSSC does not have a coordination mechanism to explicitly facilitate responsibility, interdependence and as a consequence the organisation cannot optimise knowledge worker expertise. The organisation does not enable cross-fertilisation among knowledge workers. This was revealed by respondents who asserted that there was no mechanism to establish what specific expertise is available in the organisation.

Discussion: The organisation’s knowledge base cannot be separated from its structure; thus the knowledge integration capability of the GSSC will influence its ability to respond to a changing environment. Its numerous difficulties can be associated with its inability to optimise knowledge worker expertise, thus validating Kenney’s (2006) study on the relationship between the organisation’s ability to operate effectively and its optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. An organisation's knowledge base is

139

shaped by the knowledge workers as they interact with the important subsystems i.e. psychological, intellectual, knowledge, functional and cultural (Bhardwaj & Monin, 2006). There is no single best organisational design; the critical ingredient is alignment. This alignment involves having the entire organisation focused on the achievement of the strategic objectives. Silos, whether geographic, process, or functional must be eliminated for the organisational design to be effective (Boston, 2006), because, given the nature of silos, knowledge is hoarded with little sharing or leakage of knowledge from one silo to another (Szymczak & Walker, 2003). The existence of silos means that critical organisational knowledge is contained in functional isolation (Hislop, 2003) where silos discourage knowledge sharing and contribute to the “knowledge is power” syndrome with each part of the organisation hoarding knowledge limiting the potential to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Dixon & Day, 2007). Business units compete, rather than collaborate and knowledge workers are unable to locate relevant information and expertise outside their “silo” (Sveiby & Simons, 2002). A consequence of working in silos is that knowledge workers do not know what is happening elsewhere in the GSSC, thus efforts are duplicated and mistakes are repeated. Even within the silos, GSSC knowledge workers complain that they do not share knowledge, expertise and skills freely. This “silo view” of business not only creates inconsistency among knowledge worker interpretations of the same situation; it also brings about conflicting opinions about what existing knowledge is relevant to the problem (Faniel & Majchrzak, 2006). The silo mentality has developed into a climate of silence where knowledge workers are more inclined to handle problems in their own functional areas, ignoring the difficult interaction between the silos. As a result, knowledge workers tend to discuss these issues only in private, in ways that reinforce the climate of dissatisfaction and guarantee that they remain confidential and, therefore, not for discussion. Some managers at the GSSC have worked for so long in silos that they cannot imagine an alternative way of working and behaving, which echoes the assertions of Vakola & Bouradas (2005) in their study.

For the GSSC to optimise knowledge worker expertise the structure must enable knowledge developed in one context to be transferred to other contexts, utilising

140

appropriate transfer mechanisms, organisational settings and consciousness about which knowledge is suitable for transfer. Strach and Everett (2006) as well as du Plessis (2007) propose that an organisational structure should facilitate knowledge exchange across different organisational entities that share knowledge and experiences. The GSSC’s intangible resources have the potential of becoming a differentiating competitive factor therefore the growing interest in facilitating a more effective internal and external flow of knowledge, in keeping with Riege’s (2007) work. According to Oliver and Kandadi (2006), organisational structures need to be transformed to support the development of a knowledge culture. To varying degrees of success, the knowledge workers employed at the GSSC are creating new knowledge and contributing to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise, however, these contributions are localised at a business unit or at best, a department level. A traditional organisational structure is characterised by complicated layers and lines of responsibility and often consume great amounts of time in order for knowledge to filter through every level (Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi & Mohammed, 2007).

For the GSSC to optimise knowledge worker expertise the organisational structure must encourage knowledge workers to expose themselves to the knowledge from different perspectives and departments. Structure is a fundamental mechanism by which organisations achieve organisational objectives (Faniel & Majchrzak, 2006). A well designed organisational structure provides knowledge workers with opportunities for performance so that efficiency may be a reasonable expectation (Christensen, 2007). To optimise knowledge worker expertise, the organisational structure must enable knowledge workers to access knowledge existing in other departments so that they can interpret and adapt the knowledge they are accessing to innovate and improve performance levels (Sherif, 2006). The GSSC’s organisational memories must be designed on a flowing structure where knowledge assets are added, deleted and restructured on a continuous basis.

Using cross-departmental knowledge to solve work problems requires individual knowledge workers to identify applicable knowledge that is outside of their area of

141

expertise (Christensen, 2007). As such, the knowledge workers have to be able to determine ways to evaluate the credibility of the knowledge and its implications for solving the problem at hand, as well as have the ability to apply the knowledge to their unique context (Tsai & Lee, 2006). Information technology has been deployed in the GSSC as a possible solution to disseminating knowledge across departments but this organisational structure does not adequately address the knowledge workers' needs to interpret and adapt the knowledge they are accessing. Cheung, Chau and Au (2007), caution that the organisational structure must support knowledge worker access to knowledge in other departments to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

In its current form the structure of the GSSC has created a situation where knowledge workers often lacked suitable familiarity with existing knowledge outside of their departments. The structure also limits knowledge worker expertise to judge whether the existing knowledge is appropriate in the context of their current work. Without an organisational structure redesign approach, individual knowledge workers are more likely to filter out knowledge from other departments, even though it may be critical for improving their productivity levels. An appropriate organisational structure requires a supportive environment to facilitate the use of tacit knowledge and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (McAdam, Mason & McCrory, 2007).

4.4.3.3 Sub-theme related to codification system

Finding: The knowledge created in the GSSC is not codified and therefore the existing knowledge does not become portable, re-usable or transferable. The GSSC does not codify knowledge created by knowledge workers as knowledge workers repeatedly deal with similar problems on a day to day basis. It seems that the organisation is unaware of the value of codifying the knowledge of the knowledge worker as a means of stamping out recurring problems. The implicit experiences of its knowledge workers are not gathered into explicit knowledge so that the new knowledge is made available for others to utilise when dealing with similar problems.

142

Discussion: The GSSC must develop a process of codification where a knowledge worker may document specific knowledge into a repository so that many others may access that knowledge. This suggestion is supported by Abdullah, Kimble, Benest and Paige, 2006; Girard, (2006). Once knowledge becomes explicit, it can be stored in a database (Mohamed, Stankosky & Murray, 2006) and forms part of an organisation’s institutional memory, enabling knowledge sharing and re-use (Hicks, Dattero & Galup, 2007). The idea that knowledge needs to be moved around or transferred within an organisation is a fundamental imperative in optimising knowledge worker expertise. An essential aspect of how the GSSC communicates its knowledge depends upon information flowing between knowledge workers and as such, the role and nature of codification within this process is important.

Through codification the GSSC's implicit experiences of its knowledge workers must be gathered into explicit knowledge that the new knowledge is available for others to utilise as and when needed, as proposed by Kalpic & Bernus (2006) in their research. Codification results in the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise through documents that other knowledge workers can employ to perform work activities (Christensen, 2007). Effective codification requires that knowledge be transferred from a person to a document or other media from which knowledge may be retrieved at any point in time (Hall, 2006). The GSSC requires a codification strategy that seeks to connect/link individuals who need knowledge with individuals who possess knowledge. This recommendation follows that of Eskerod and Skriver (2007) in a separate study. The GSSC can derive further benefits from codifying knowledge as the costs of transferring codified knowledge is lower. In terms of optimising knowledge worker expertise codification is a necessity as the transmission of codified knowledge does not require face-to-face contact and can often be carried out mainly by impersonal means. The transferring of uncodified knowledge is slow and ineffective and often leads to errors of interpretation and ambiguities. To overcome these issues, managers have to create face-to-face situations where uncodified knowledge can be shared by knowledge workers (Kalpic & Bernus, 2006).

143

4.4.4 Theme related to optimisation of knowledge worker expertise

Finding: The GSSC does not optimise knowledge worker expertise as the knowledge created is not shared with other knowledge workers across divisions and the output of the knowledge workers are not used to improve business processes. Respondents reflected that they have learnt much in dealing with the daily problems that keep arising, but that they were not given the opportunity to integrate their knowledge into the business processes. The knowledge workers are recognised for their tacit knowledge and its application to keep the GSSC afloat by effectively dealing with the issues that keep cropping up. However, the organisation does not attach value to the expertise applied by the knowledge worker to solve the problems. Knowledge workers develop novel ideas to deal with problems, but there is no process to develop these ideas into solutions. There are also no mechanisms for sharing the knowledge created, nor are there any processes for integrating the knowledge into the business processes as a means to eliminate the problems.

Discussion: For the GSSC to optimise knowledge worker expertise, it is vital that the organisation focuses on creating a mechanism that enables the knowledge worker to share their knowledge with other knowledge workers and also improve or redefine the business processes. Before an organisation can embark upon the process of optimising the knowledge worker expertise, the organisation must value knowledge workers as highly educated experts with a great deal of practical experience (Cooper, 2006). These knowledge workers must be seen as important assets because they provide focus and creativity by leveraging all of the other investments to advance the organisational objectives (Covey, 2004). Knowledge workers are valued for the tacit knowledge residing in their heads (Paul, 2006) and the GSSC must recognise the opportunities this tacit knowledge presents for improving and redefining the business processes of the organisation. In the execution of their activities, knowledge workers use their expertise to create new knowledge however, the GSSC must be aware of this dynamic before it can establish processes to optimise this expertise.

144

4.4.4.1 Sub-theme related to knowledge

Finding: The GSSC makes little effort to associate what the organisation knows to a problem that arises and would sooner dispatch a knowledge worker to deal with the problem in lieu of evaluating it for its knowledge baring opportunity. Respondents expressed a desire for a system that displays the breath of their knowledge which they can contribute on a wider level. These knowledge workers revealed that they were aware of existing knowledge that could assist them, but that this knowledge was not available to them. They also expressed a degree of frustration at policies and procedures that have not kept up with current individual knowledge. Combining knowledge is not central to GSSC activities and the organisation does not continuously grow its knowledge base to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

Discussion: The knowledge economy demands the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise to gain maximum return from human capital (Levy, 2005; Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). Knowledge is a foremost ingredient of the products or services of any organisation (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005; Storey, 2005) and provides the context by which an organisation utilises other knowledge (Evers & Menkhoff, 2004; Keskin, 2005). The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise will greatly enhance the GSSC’s organisational capability so that it continuously grows its knowledge base to sustain its competitive advantage. Davies, Subrahmanian and Westerberg (2005) as well as Marr (2004) advocate growth of an organisation’s knowledge base as a means of sustaining competitive advantage. Greater effort is required by the GSSC to increase the capability to deal with information. This is supported by the findings of Thomas and Hult, (2003) as well as Levy, (2005). A consequence of the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is increased capacity to deal with information Spender, (1996); Lee and Cole, (2003) and Pillania, (2005). Much of the performance at the GSSC demands that the organisation adapts the knowledge of its knowledge workers and as this

145

process takes place at a tacit level, the organisation must be alert to this dynamic to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

4.4.4.2 Sub-theme related to knowledge management

Finding: The GSSC does not leverage knowledge assets as respondents revealed that it was hard for them to share their knowledge with other knowledge workers as there was continual organisational focus on activities and not on efforts to leverage knowledge assets. This lack of effort to leverage knowledge assets also resulted in the underutilisation of the collective expertise to effectively resolve recurring problems. It was only during times of crises that knowledge workers were grouped together, but this was to achieve a collective effort and not as an effort to leverage knowledge assets. This emphasis on activities and not on leveraging of knowledge assets resulted in real losses when a knowledge worker left the organisation without sharing or transferring specific knowledge. Respondents recognised the value of the knowledge they possessed and its potential to create new knowledge if leveraged effectively.

Discussion: Knowledge management remained a challenge for the GSSC as the organisation does not engage in efforts to leverage knowledge assets. As part of this effort to leverage knowledge assets, the organisation must design a knowledge management system to enable effective usage of knowledge where knowledge workers can easily find high-quality content without feeling overwhelmed (Poston & Speier, 2005). Management must be in a position to associate all aspects of the organisation to knowledge issues and be able to address matters such as how to support knowledge workers and how to transform knowledge into new products, services and ways of working (Limone & Bastias, 2006).

The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise requires that an organisation give effect to an imperative of knowledge management, where knowledge workers are brought together in a collaborative environment for the purpose of sharing knowledge (Janz &

146

Prasarnphanich, 2003). An organisation must position knowledge management as a value proposition in the process of optimising knowledge worker expertise by encouraging the creation and the exchange of knowledge through enabling communication and collaboration in a person-to-person approach (Greiner, Böhmann & Krcmar, 2007).

4.4.4.3 Sub-theme related to knowledge creation

Finding: The GSSC does not have a mechanism to optimise knowledge worker expertise which prevents the organisation from capitalising on the capability of knowledge workers to combine existing information, knowledge and ideas. Respondents determined that other knowledge workers have the specific knowledge that can assist them in dealing with a problem however; this previously created knowledge is not available, as it is not embodied in the organisation. They also expressed a need for a mechanism that would embody created knowledge in the organisation that it is available to them.

Discussion: The GSSC must develop a system to continuously create new knowledge, make it accessible for organisation-wide usage and incorporate it in new products, services and ways of working. Smith, Collins, Clark, (2005) as well as Robertson, Scarbrough and Swan (2003) agree that systematic incorporation of new knowledge is vital for an organisation to maintain an edge. The organisation must develop the flexibility to accommodate innovative ways of working and to facilitate opportunities for increased creation of knowledge (Choi & Lee, 2003). The organisation must establish a climate of trust (Lee & Cole, 2003) where knowledge workers who possess different levels and types of knowledge can use existing knowledge to create new knowledge (LaDuke, 2005).

147

4.4.4.4 Sub-theme related to knowledge transfer

Finding: The GSSC’s core focus is not on the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise and the productive use of knowledge-based resources which are particularly important as it forms a critical component of why the GSSC exists. The challenge of improving business efficiency lies not only in the identification of knowledge, but also in executing a strategy of how the GSSC can develop, retain, transfer and use that knowledge. Respondents revealed that the organisation does not have a process that effectively moves knowledge from one knowledge worker to another. A need was expressed for knowledge workers with specific knowledge to engage in knowledge transfer activities as a means to empower knowledge workers dealing with a similar problem. This inability of the GSSC to move knowledge from one knowledge worker to another is potentially harmful to the organisation, as respondents believed that if certain key knowledge workers left the organisation, incomplete projects would fail as a consequence of a lack of knowledge transfer. While respondents expressed a desire to document tacit knowledge as means to transfer knowledge, the GSSC was unsupportive by not allowing respondents to set aside time for this activity.

Discussion: Knowledge transfer is important for the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise as it facilitates the application of prior knowledge to new situations and is a key contributor to organisational learning and innovation (Prieto & Revilla, 2006; Riege, 2007). More specifically, the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise requires the transfer of mostly tacit, hard to codify, knowledge (Cheung, Chau & Au, 2007; Geisler, 2007; Abdullah, Kimble, Benest & Paige, 2006). This realisation that knowledge gained by knowledge workers in one context within the GSSC may be purposeful to knowledge workers in another context is an important milestone for the GSSC to reach. This knowledge transfer occurs when knowledge is moved from one knowledge worker to another knowledge worker (Geisler, 2007; Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007; Yang, 2007). This knowledge will provide the GSSC with a useful platform for managing information.

148

If information is managed in a form of knowledge codification, it can be easily transferred between knowledge workers as well as departments (Hall, 2006).

The transfer of knowledge in any organisation is dependent on individual knowledge workers and this is equally true for the GSSC (Smith, 2005). As knowledge transfer relies on individual knowledge workers, the presence of trust is crucial (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007 as well as Strach & Everett, 2006). The GSSC must pay special attention to the motivations to transfer knowledge, as this will affect knowledge worker behaviour and their willingness to engage in knowledge transfer. The knowledge workers at the GSSC execute their duties by deploying a great deal of tacit knowledge. This tacit knowledge is related to knowing how to do something (Abdullah, Kimble, Benest & Paige, 2006). Such pre-requisite knowledge and skills will be important building blocks to enable knowledge transfer, once a trusting culture has been created (Ang & Massingham, 2007). As a consequence, the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise will depend on the GSSC’s ability to defend, capitalise and transfer the knowledge that it creates. Organisations build capacity through their individual knowledge workers, who in turn develop knowledge through personal experiences. Knowledge workers apply their knowledge directly in the execution of a task and the GSSC must ensure that much of the knowledge is transferred to other knowledge workers and therefore becomes a basis for action. As a result, knowledge will become optimised in the organisation and embedded in its business processes and routines (Marques & Simon, 2006).

4.4.4.5 Sub-theme related to knowledge sharing

Finding: The GSSC does not facilitate opportunities to share new knowledge by combining existing knowledge to enable the organisation to become better at exploiting existing knowledge. Respondents revealed that formal meetings represented the only opportunities for knowledge sharing. However, the meetings are structured and restricted in terms of who was invited and as a consequence, did not present an

149

opportunity for reflective learning. Respondents expressed that they were willing to assist as well as absorb knowledge from others to develop new competencies, but that the organisation prevented them from sharing knowledge. The organisation does not focus on identifying existing knowledge for reflective learning so that it can be utilised to solve similar recurring tasks more efficiently. In some instances, documentation of the knowledge created was produced but this was insufficient to express the true intent; in addition, the knowledge is not shared.

Discussion: The knowledge sharing process is troublesome because knowledge as a resource is embedded in the individual knowledge worker and consequently directing or controlling the behaviour of knowledge is very much related to the behaviour of the knowledge worker (Yang 2007). Optimising knowledge worker expertise is a requirement for the GSSC to be sustainable in today's business environment. As Hicks, Dattero and Galup (2007) assert, knowledge sharing is crucial for leveraging core competencies. The most important aspect in the creation of new knowledge is knowledge sharing and reflective learning on the job where the original idea may be progressively modified until a shared perspective emerges and is effectively shared through face-to-face interactions (Merx-Chermin & Nijhof, 2005).

Knowledge sharing and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise may not be successful in the GSSC for a number of reasons which include a lack of visible top management support for knowledge sharing and optimisation of knowledge worker expertise activities as well as the failure to make activities a basis for advancement in an organisation where existing incentive systems reward the desired behaviour. A further reason for unsuccessful knowledge sharing and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is simply where knowledge workers are not aware of anyone being interested in the knowledge they possess. However, the most significant reason for unsuccessful knowledge sharing and optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is the lack of a relationship between the source and the recipient of knowledge (Chua, 2003). Knowledge sharing effectiveness has a direct impact on the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise and at the GSSC this can be facilitated through several strategies.

150

These strategies include using technology appropriately, introducing incentive schemes for knowledge sharing by establishing innovation incubators (Coakes & Smith, 2007).

4.4.4.6 Sub-theme related to knowledge communication

Finding: The GSSC does not provide support functions that enable knowledge to be exchanged between knowledge workers. As a consequence, there is duplication of effort and resources are not fully utilised. Respondents complained that they are not able to communicate knowledge they have created and therefore they are unable to benefit from the knowledge another knowledge worker has created. It is widely believed that a vast amount of knowledge is lost to the organisation as the lack of communication means that knowledge workers take the knowledge they have created with them when they leave the organisation. Again, respondents cited the existence of silos as a major obstacle to knowledge communication and the optimisation of knowledge worker.

Discussion: To optimise knowledge worker expertise the GSSC must provide support functions that reduce duplication of effort and improve the utilisation of scarce resources. Joshi, Sarker and Sarker, (2007) advise that streamlining of functions enable optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. To achieve the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise, the GSSC cannot sacrifice its internal resources by having knowledge workers search for knowledge already created by other knowledge workers. The GSSC must establish processes that facilitate the communication of knowledge to alleviate a fair amount of frustration among respondents. The GSSC must sufficiently use the opportunity to exploit the critical role of communication in the interaction between the various stakeholders involved in the knowledge transfer process. The transfer of knowledge will correlate positively with the organisation's desire to optimise knowledge worker expertise and the richness of communication channels (Riege, 2007).

The GSSC must have an effective knowledge management approach that appreciates the skills of its knowledge workers and processes involved in the communication of tacit

151

knowledge in the work place. Much of the knowledge that knowledge workers have gained through experience is not recorded, socialised or effectively used (McAdam, Mason & McCrory, 2007). Communication structures should also include human interaction as they greatly improve social networking in the workplace; this form of communication is fundamental for the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Al- Alawi, Al-Marzooqi & Mohammed, 2007). Knowledge workers informally share their observations in these social networks and under the right conditions this knowledge will be captured in the formal repositories for later re-use though communication systems (Hicks, Dattero & Galup, 2007).

The GSSC must have a communications framework that is designed to enhance the success rate of knowledge management. O’Sullivan (2007) agrees with Mohamed, Stankosky and Murray (2006) that in order to be effective, communication must be based around a structured framework, which includes knowledge workers. In designing this framework, knowledge management should be viewed as being deeply social in nature and must take human and social factors into account. One of the biggest obstacles to knowledge management success in the GSSC is the lack of focus on communicating with knowledge workers and more importantly, having a mechanism in place that enables knowledge workers to communicate with other knowledge workers and management. Knowledge worker expertise is a precondition for organisational knowledge which results from the publication of knowledge worker knowledge and of its consolidation in organisational communication structures (Meyer, Sugiyama, 2007). Human interaction and communication between humans is complex (Laihonen, 2006) and therefore, it is important to relate to knowledge workers as individuals (Ardichvili, Maurer, Li, Wentling & Stuedemann, 2006; Ang & Massingham, 2007).

4.4.5 Theme related to competitive advantage

Finding: The organisational design of the GSSC does not contain the basics for optimising knowledge worker expertise, which is vital for creating a competitive advantage. The organisation seems to be more focused on utilizing knowledge workers

152

than it is on gaining a competitive advantage from the application of knowledge worker expertise. The GSSC has not identified knowledge worker expertise as a basis for competitive advantage; therefore the organisation cannot begin to exploit the uniqueness of its knowledge worker expertise. The GSSC has neglected developing its personal, organisational and core capabilities. The development of these capabilities could assist the organisation greatly in optimising knowledge worker expertise. It seems that the role of management is to assign a knowledge worker to deal with problems that recur and drive for resolution of the problem as quickly as possible. The opportunities presented by optimising knowledge worker expertise in these situations escape management.

Discussion: Knowledge worker expertise is the basis for competitive advantage and is derived from the uniqueness of its knowledge worker expertise. Competitive advantage becomes evident in the capabilities that an organisation develops, that result in superior product and services development (Kalpic & Bernus, 2006). Before the GSSC can begin to optimise knowledge worker expertise, the organisation must establish what its competitive advantage is and what capabilities are required to maintain this advantage. Marr & Neely (2004) are of the opinion that an assessment of its competitive advantage enables an organisation to improve on its capacity to maintain or improve its advantage. Optimising knowledge worker expertise requires that the GSSC coordinate and redeploy competencies. Augier and Knudsen (2004) argue that coordination and redeployment of competencies form an aspect of optimising knowledge worker expertise. The incompetence of managers at the GSSC should be an area of concern as the task of a manager should be to improve both personal and team competence (Margerison, 2001). This level of manager incompetence has a direct impact on the organisation’s ability to optimise knowledge worker expertise as the core competencies are derived from personal and organisational competencies (Abraham, Karns, Shaw & Mena, 2001).

153

4.5 Conclusion

The research revealed that organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise as the GSSC does not have processes that facilitate knowledge sharing and the integration of new knowledge into the business processes and routine operations. The organisation’s activities were narrowly defined and directed at achieving divisional objectives, often at the expense of the greater organisation. The research also revealed that the organisational design of the GSSC encouraged work silos and this was a major obstacle for many respondents.

A solution to this debilitating challenge lies in the creation of the Informative Organisational Design which is presented in the next chapter

154

CHAPTER 5: THE INFORMATIVE ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN

5.1 Introduction

In chapter 4 the organisational design of the GSSC was examined and the experiences of the knowledge workers employed at the GSSC was presented. The research revealed that the GSSC’s organisational design did not optimise knowledge worker expertise as it did not have processes that facilitate knowledge sharing and the integration of new knowledge into the business processes and routine operations. The research also revealed that the organisational design of the GSSC encouraged work silos which were a major obstacle for optimising knowledge worker expertise. The objective of this chapter is to present the Informative Organisational Design as a solution to optimising knowledge worker expertise.

The Informative Organisational Design was developed to enable an organisation to efficiently pursue current business objectives while optimising knowledge worker expertise. The Informative Organisational Design comprises a two-fold parallel arrangement that optimises knowledge worker expertise by multiplying the organisational design by the expert knowledge base of knowledge workers (Assink, 2006).

Ferrari’s Formula One construction team was developed by the researcher as a metaphor to describe the new concept of the informative organisation. All the technical information detailed below was obtained from www.Formula1.com.

5.1.1 Ferrari’s Formula One – A Metaphor of the Informative Organisation

An illustration of the effectiveness of the Ferrari organisation is presented in Figure 9 below:

155

Figure 9: Ferrari's Formula One Team - A Metaphor

The Ferrari Formula One team has a very successful team and car structure that has propelled its competitive advantage above others by optimising the expertise of Michael Schumacher, Ferrari’s knowledge worker by converting his tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. The explicit knowledge of the team is further refined by the tacit knowledge of its knowledge worker, in a continuous process of optimising knowledge worker expertise. The team designers and engineers produce a race car that represents the best collective technical expertise available. The race car is refined by integrating the feedback of Michael Schumacher during testing. This knowledge exchange between the team and the knowledge worker occurs on a continuous basis throughout the race season. The team painstakingly maintains the business process documents, not only to enable race successes to be routinely repeated, but also as a base for designing the new car.

156

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Introduction Literature Research Results The Conclusions to the study Review Methodology Informative and Design Organisational

Design

Figure 10: Chapter 5 in context

5.2 The Informative Organisational Design

The research conducted at the GSSC revealed that the organisational design did not optimise knowledge worker expertise as the GSSC did not have processes that facilitate knowledge sharing and the integration of new knowledge into the business processes and routine operations. The organisation’s activities were narrowly defined and directed at achieving divisional objectives, often at the expense of the greater whole. The research also revealed that the organisational design of the GSSC encouraged work silos which posed a major obstacle for many respondents. As a consequence, the Informative Organisational Design was developed to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

Knowledge workers at the GSSC were not allowed to participate in activities that fell outside their areas of responsibilities and were not able to develop their personal capability as a platform for innovation. The implementation of the Informative Organisational Design at the GSSC addressed this dilemma by systematising an unremitting interplay between knowledge worker expertise and the business processes and routine operations as a knowledge management strategy. The effective inclusion of the organisation’s knowledge workers in innovation incubators was a key contributor to the successful implementation of the Informative Organisational Design. The innovation incubators enabled knowledge workers to participate in activities that fell outside their areas of responsibilities and as a consequence, an increasing amount of knowledge

157

worker tacit knowledge was brought under the control of the organisation. A unique contribution of the Informative Organisational Design was that knowledge workers active in the innovation incubators are able to improve business processes and routine operations which becomes the impetus for further refinement in the innovation incubators. This cycle of improved organisational performance is illustrated in Figure 11 below.

Innovation Incubators Integration Integration Integration W orker Expertise orker W W orker Expertise orker W of knowledge Expertise orker W of knowledge of knowledge Platform Platform Platform Performance Performance Performance Business Processes Business Processes Business Processes & & & Routine Operations Routine Operations Routine Operations

Performance Performance Performance Improvement Improvement Improvement of 25 %* of 25 %* of 25 %*

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 * The yearly performance improvement of 25% is an illustration of what is expected.

Figure 11: Cycle of improved organisational performance

To successfully implement the Informative Organisational Design it is required that the design be deployed on two dimensions. On the horizontal dimension an organisation is mobilised by a business systems stratum and a knowledge base stratum. On the vertical dimension an organisation is mobilised by organisational design (culture, structure, and a codification system) and innovation incubators.

158

Figure 12 below presents the deployment of the Informative Organisational Design on a horizontal and vertical dimension.

n io at e fic on r di ti ltu o a u C m v rs C & te no to re s n a u Sy I b ct cu ru In St

Knowledge Base Stratum

Business Systems Stratum

Figure 12: Deployment of the Informative Organisational Design

The business systems stratum includes the business processes and routine operations carried out and constitute the “hardware” of an organisation. The knowledge base stratum or “software” supports the business systems stratum enabling the organisation to perform at an increasingly improving level as the expertise of the knowledge workers are optimised and integrated into the business processes and routine operations. The optimised knowledge then becomes the base or platform for further knowledge creation and serves to bolster the organisational performance being achieved in the business systems stratum.

159

The objective of implementing the Informative Organisational Design at the GSSC was to optimise knowledge worker expertise through the parallel functioning of organisational design and innovation incubators. The organisational design contained the business processes and routine operations of the organisation while the innovation incubators served as a mechanism for knowledge workers to create and share knowledge until it was integrated into the business processes and routine operations. While the goal was to sustain competitive advantage through standardisation, the end state was never reached as the performance improvement lead to further standardisation (Botha, 2007). A further objective of the Informative Organisational Design was to reduce the strangle hold that silos at the GSSC had on optimising knowledge worker expertise by focusing work outcomes on the value chain that provides value to customers. A value chain is defined as a package of activities arranged to satisfy customer needs (Yang, Wu, Shu & Yang, 2006). The Informative Organisational Design optimised knowledge worker expertise by striving for value- added service through the extensive use of innovation incubators that coexisted with the organisational design.

Figure 13 below presents the Informative Organisational Design that includes innovation incubators as complementary mechanisms to the organisational design.

160

Optimising Knowledge Worker Expertise

Organisational Innovation Design Incubators

Supportive Organisational Competencies to Optimise Knowledge Worker Expertise

Figure 13: The Informative Organisational Design

The innovation incubators were implemented at the GSSC as part of the infrastructure needed to optimise knowledge worker expertise on the one hand and to boost confidence, dialogue and cooperation among employees on the other. Thus, they represented a meeting point where knowledge workers could collaborate to create and share knowledge. The knowledge process in the innovation incubators culminated in the embedding of knowledge worker expertise in the business processes and routine operations. The innovation incubators and the activities of the knowledge workers provided a powerful mechanism to optimise knowledge worker expertise enabling the organisation to achieve the flexibility needed to adapt to market changes (Claver- Cortez, Zaragoza-Saez & Pertusa-Ortega, 2007).

Figure 14 below presents a high level organisation chart that creates a position of Chief Innovation Officer whose responsibility it is to oversee the effective operation of the innovation incubators and the Transformational Innovation Model.

161

Figure 14: High level organisational chart

The innovation incubators were purposefully designed to coexist with the organisational structure, which has the responsibility of achieving the organisational objectives. The innovation incubators were established to exist independently from the organisational structure where knowledge workers could apply their existing knowledge to create new knowledge. The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise results in innovation which is a requirement for sustaining competitive advantage. The following principles provided guidance on the design: • Align business strategy, organisational structure and the knowledge of the knowledge worker; • Include a mechanism for the generation, distribution and application of knowledge; • Facilitate self-learning for individuals and teams;

162

• Enable both routine and non-routine parallel learning structures; • Integrate both hierarchical and non-routine parallel structures of innovation incubators (Stebbins & Shani, 1995).

The goal of the organisational activities is the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise through the effective management of knowledge as a critical resource (Lakshman, 2007). The Informative Organisational Design does not attempt to be a sense-and-respond organisation, which would place an organisation on the adaptive end of the organisational design continuum (Calabrese, 2006).

Figure 15 below displays the relationship between the horizontal and vertical dimension for optimising knowledge worker expertise.

Knowledge Business Base Stratum Systems Stratum Supportive Organisational Competencies Organisational Design

Structure

Knowledge Management Culture

Codification System

Knowledge Transfer Innovation Incubators

Knowledge Sharing Expertise

Knowledge Reuse Optimisation of Knowledge Worker Worker Knowledge of Optimisation

Knowledge Communication

Figure 15: The stratums of the Informative Organisational Design

163

The Informative Organisational Design was implemented at the GSSC through the effective mobilisation of two stratums where the business systems stratum contained the design elements and the knowledge base stratum contained the supportive organisational competencies.

The business systems stratum contained the following design elements: • Organisational design; and • Innovation incubators.

The knowledge base stratum was implemented by the effective mobilisation of supportive organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise when integrated into the design elements. These supportive organisational competencies include the following: • Knowledge management; • Knowledge transfer; • Knowledge sharing; and • Knowledge communication

The characteristics of the design elements followed by the supportive organisational competencies will be discussed next.

5.3 Organisational Design

Organisational design is one of the most influential elements for optimising knowledge worker expertise; the Informative Organisational Design is dominated by processes rather than structures (Christensen 2007). The fundamental principle of the Informative Organisational Design is managerial redundancy, which is the conscious overlapping of organisational information, business activities and managerial responsibilities (Nonaka, 1991).

164

The organisational design of the Informative Organisational Design features the following essentials: • Culture; • Structure; and • Codification System.

These organisational design elements will be discussed below.

5.3.1 Culture

The study revealed that the GSSC did not have a culture of knowledge sharing and this was addressed by the implementation of the Informative Organisational Design which views culture as a crucial element for optimising knowledge worker expertise as it forms an integral part of the general functioning of the organisation. To achieve a culture change, the Chief Executive Officer of the GSSC created conditions for the innovation incubators to flourish, where the creative activities of the knowledge workers were valued, encouraged and supported. The creation of a supportive environment included the provision of suitable office space for the innovation incubators and frequent communication of successes achieved in the incubation incubators to all employees. The Chief Executive Officer also rewarded knowledge workers for ideas implemented with a cheque of fifty thousand rand.

A goal of the Informative Organisational Design is to create a strong culture that supports the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise by shaping a set of core values that encourages the sharing of knowledge (Lucas & Ogilvie, 2006). The Informative Organisational Design strives for a high level of commitment, trust and intense collaboration as key ingredients for optimising knowledge worker expertise as a valuable aspect of its culture (Pyoria, 2007).

165

5.3.2 Structure

This study revealed that the GSSC’s organisational design created and perpetuated a number of organisational silos. The situation was further exacerbated by the extension of these silos into the business units. The existence of silos was detrimental to the flow of information within business units and throughout the GSSC. Optimising knowledge worker expertise requires, amongst others, a steady flow of information from the market to knowledge workers on the front line and from these knowledge workers to higher management. The major limitation with the hierarchical organisational design at the GSSC was that it was structured for knowledge to flow in the opposite direction. In practice, by the time critical knowledge was forced up to the decision makers, the opportunities contained in the information was lost (Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi & Mohammed, 2007).

The Informative Organisational Design presented a rethink of internal structure and alignment to ensure the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. As a design option, the Informative Organisational Design enabled a steady flow of expertise from the knowledge worker to higher management. To achieve this, knowledge created in the innovation incubators was distributed directly to higher management through an effective knowledge management system. The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise was achieved by integrating the tacit knowledge of the knowledge worker into the business processes in such detail that traditional employees and other knowledge workers can execute activities independently. The innovation incubators were positioned to respond to market conditions and through a responsive governance structure constantly able to apply expertise to create new products, services or ways of working (Pavlin, 2006).

166

When implementing the Informative Organisational Design at the GSSC components of the hierarchical structure capable of repeating successes were retained, but innovation incubators were included as mechanisms to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Through the successful implementation of the innovation incubators, knowledge workers were able to integrate their tacit knowledge into the business processes in such detail that traditional employees and other knowledge workers could execute specific activities with a high level of accomplishment (Christensen, 2007). The goal was to optimise knowledge worker expertise to continuously redefine and replicate the competitive advantage of an organisation (Tsai & Lee, 2006).

Industrial Age hierarchical command and control pyramids of power are outdated and adverse to the growth of the human spirit. The word hierarchy was originally used to describe the way that God was viewed to exercise power through His angels, archangels and downward (Espinosa, Harnden & Walker, 2007). In this context, there was but a single source of power that flowed downward. The top-down hierarchical structures have had major successes in organisations, based on production line techniques and in the armed forces (Espinosa, Harnden & Walker, 2007). However, in more recent times, traditional hierarchical models have demonstrated their limitations in the face of the explosive change (Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi & Mohammed, 2007).

The Informative Organisational Design is designed for an environment that is reasonably stable and introduces a centralized management system to exercise control over as many variables as possible (Jogaratnam & Tse, 2006). The structure of the Informative Organisation Design optimises knowledge worker expertise by going beyond codifying and disseminating knowledge (Sherif, 2006) by continuously infusing new knowledge created into the business processes (du Plessis, 2007).

Figure 16 below displays how the explicit knowledge of an organisation is expanded over time to incorporate more and more of the tacit knowledge an organisation actually executes to deliver products or services.

167

Tacit Knowledge of Knowledge Workers (Expert Knowledge Used to Refine Business Processes)

Organisational Organisational Organisational Activities Activities Activities Explicit knowledge 20% Explicit Knowledge 50% Explicit Knowledge 70% of Org Activities Of Org Activities Of Org Activities

Explicit Explicit Explicit Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Figure 16: Knowledge structure

Given the nature of tacit knowledge, it would not be possible for all the tacit knowledge available to an organisation to be captured in its business processes however, with a process to optimise knowledge worker expertise, the percentage of tacit knowledge successfully converted into explicit knowledge will increase over time.

The Informative Organisational Design positions an organisation as a learning network requiring access to knowledge resources and to convert knowledge resources into tangible products or services (Riege, 2007). Both formal and informal cooperation is vital for the formation of a dynamic, adaptive, innovative and knowledge-sharing

168

organisation (Pavlin, 2006). The informative organisation centres network cooperation on the need for resource pooling and the transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. From this standpoint, learning is developed as a social process and advances when there is a community of collaboration. Consequently, management's main responsibility is to improve efficiency and efficacy of the organisation rather than focusing on controlling activities. With its responsibility re-defined, management within the Informative Organisational Design will centre its attention on the distribution of knowledge though the organisation (Rao & Argote, 2006). The ultimate goal of the Informative Organisational Design is to embed business processes that can be constantly measured, evaluated for effectiveness, continuously improved upon and replicated by employees for organisational efficiency (Bellou, 2007).

5.3.3 Codification System

The study uncovered that the organisational design of the GSSC did not sufficiently code the knowledge created so that existing knowledge was re-usable or transferable. Respondents expressed frustration at the absence of formal processes to document new knowledge they had created so that it could become available for other knowledge workers to use. During the study respondents also related that they were unable to incorporate the new knowledge they had created and as a consequence mostly uncodified knowledge was transferred which was slow, ineffective and prone to errors of interpretation (Kalpic & Bernus, 2006).

To implement the Informative Organisational Design at the GSSC, a person-to- document codification strategy was executed as a process to encode and store knowledge (Zhuge, 2006). The purpose of the codification of knowledge was to ensure greater standardisation and organisation-wide dispersion of knowledge as part of the process to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Davies, Subrahmanian & Westerberg, 2005). Codification was the primary vehicle by which knowledge become re-usable within the GSSC and was critical for the continuous interaction between tacit and

169

explicit knowledge (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007) As a consequence, the Informative Organisational Design effected the movement of knowledge through codification which contributed to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise and made knowledge workers useful to others in the organisation (Hall, 2006).

Knowledge, which is trapped inside the minds of knowledge workers, in filing drawers and databases, is of little value if it is not incorporated into the business processes and policies of an organisation (Gammelgaard & Ritter, 2005). Therefore, the Informative Organisational Design treats knowledge as an organisational resource and subjects it to management practices by reducing the knowledge to the level where it can be codified. This organisational design aims to make knowledge pragmatically usable to direct activities in an organisation (Styhre, 2003). Through the activities of the innovation incubators, knowledge acquired in one business area was made available to other parts of the organisation through the process of codification (Girard, 2006). Through this process, the knowledge created was applied to the explicit knowledge and made available to other employees and business areas in the organisation (Kalpic & Bernus, 2006).

The Informative Organisational Design seeks to extract only that part of the knowledge created that allows an organisation to perform at a heightened level. It also enables traditional employees and other knowledge workers in an organisation to attain that improved performance level where the heightened level of performance becomes the new level of performance, thus a new level of competitive advantage. This specific codification process is different from the one that seeks to convert knowledge into information that could be made available across the organisation. This approach may lead to information overload and make it impossible for employees to cope with. The conversion of knowledge into information does not compel knowledge workers to act on the new knowledge and may not result in repeatable improved performance.

170

5.3.3.1 Business processes

At the GSSC the business processes have been documented around the activities that employees and knowledge workers performed within respective business units; and the contribution to the value chain that provides value to customers was unclear. When implementing the Informative Organisational Design activities and business processes were documented in direct relation to the value chain in order to optimise knowledge worker expertise (Danese & Romano, 2004). This greatly improved the way the GSSC coordinated activities by making processes more effective through cross-functional integration and effective process-related knowledge (Alsene, 2007).

Business processes often cut across functional constructs and hierarchies within an organisation and therefore require that activities be coordinated to achieve the organisation’s goals (Raghu & Vinze, 2007). Taking a business view of management may lead to many challenges for an organisation (Nurcan, Etien, Kaabi, Zoukar & Rolland, 2005) however, the goal of the Informative Organisational Design is to make the successful activities of an organisation repeatable and informed by the expertise of the knowledge workers. In the Informative Organisational Design, the business processes are designed for work to flow uninterruptedly in an end-to-end process. Process maps capture the intellectual property of the organisation (Sever, 2007) and accelerate process innovation (Barros, 2007). This design compels an organisation to constantly measure and evaluate the value and effectiveness of the customer-facing and internal processes. To give effect to the Informative Organisational Design, jobs in an organisation must be defined more broadly and training in support of those jobs must be increased. The defining of jobs will facilitate decision making by frontline personnel, as well as redirect reward to focus on processes as well as outcomes. Managerial roles and responsibility must be redefined to focus on processes and employee development.

171

The information systems must be realigned to enable cross-functional processes to work smoothly (Hammer, 2007).

The strategic object of the Informative Organisational Design is to create and sustain competitive advantage. To give effect to the Informative Organisational Design, the new business processes cannot be overlaid on top of already established organisational structures, since these contain the trappings of a traditional organisation including its job definitions, performance measurement systems and managerial hierarchies that may not support the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. When implementing the Informative Organisational Design knowledge workers must be empowered to focus on a broad, common outcome. The performance measurement system must be amended to reward knowledge workers on a cross functional basis and the managerial responsibilities altered to extend across functional boundaries. The Informative Organisational Design requires that responsibility for the embedding of the business processes be the responsibility of a senior executive with the information technologies and human resources systems aligned to support the processes. Should the information technology and human resources systems not be aligned to the business processes, these infrastructural mechanisms will impede the performance of the Informative Organisational Design (Hammer, 2007).

5.4 Innovation incubators

At the GSSC, innovation was debated at senior level meetings as being the lifeblood of the organisation, but very little was committed by the organisation to make innovation succeed. Many of the GSSC managers used the term innovation as an adjective to embellish their description of a strategic goal, but no process to activate innovation existed. Respondents at the GSSC expressed dissatisfaction that they were not allowed to utilise existing knowledge created in other business units to solve a crisis. This situation greatly impeded the GSSC’s opportunity for innovation as there was no process in place to optimise knowledge worker expertise for this purpose. The

172

optimisation of knowledge worker expertise requires that an organisation prioritises the creation of an innovation culture (Loewe & Dominiquini, 2006) that will drive organisational creativity (Perviaz, 1998).

The GSSC made extensive use of knowledge workers to apply their existing knowledge to deal with the daily crises that arise. As soon as one crisis was resolved, the knowledge worker was thrust into the next crisis without optimising the solution developed by amending defective business processes or policies that led to the crisis.

The knowledge base stratum of the Informative Organisational Design was characterised by multiple self-organised innovation incubators dedicated to optimising knowledge worker expertise to create new knowledge. Such innovation incubators were comprised of knowledge workers who were cemented together by their common purpose driven by their pursuit of the corporate vision (Peoll & Van der Krogt, 2003). In these innovation incubators, the knowledge workers were provided with the autonomy they needed and their thoughts were captured for re-use rather than for reinvention (Cooper, 2006). Autonomy included the ability to design and perform own tasks, as well as operate independently (Coakes & Smith, 2007). The knowledge workers working in the innovation incubators were exempted from their ordinary tasks to enable them to concentrate all their efforts on optimising their expertise (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).

Knowledge creation was an activity performed by each knowledge worker and the purpose of the innovation incubators was to provide an environment in which knowledge could be shared through direct collaborative contact between experts and peers in small groups (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). The knowledge workers did not lose their individual identity to take on the identity of the innovation incubator which provided knowledge workers with an opportunity where tacit knowledge could be exchanged through an interactive process in a face-to-face work environment (Christensen & Drejer, 2005; Dyck, Starke, Mischke & Mauws, 2005).

The Informative Organisational Design facilitated knowledge management in the GSSC

173

by enabling the organisation to leverage existing knowledge to create value from intangible assets (Rubenstein-Montano, Lebowitz, Buchwalter, McCaw & Newman, 2001). This approach to knowledge management happened within the innovation incubators. The innovation incubators were convened on a selected basis where a new product or service was to be developed or where an existing product or service was to be improved on, or where a specific business process was targeted for improvement (Khandwalla, 2006). The members of the innovation incubators were drawn from varied functions and departments across the business system layer. Once the task of the innovation incubator was completed, the knowledge workers moved down to the business systems stratum to facilitate the categorising, documenting and indexing of the knowledge acquired and created in the innovation incubator. After facilitating the categorising, documenting and indexing the new knowledge the knowledge workers returned to their functional jobs in the organisation until called upon again. In this approach knowledge management was a part of the fabric of the way work was executed and embedded in the overall business strategy (du Plessis, 2007). A crucial design requirement of the Informative Organisational Design was to establish a circular movement of knowledge workers as an indispensable source and subject of organisational knowledge creation (Peoll & Van der Krogt, 2003).

The Informative Organisational Design deals effectively with the challenge of “dualism”. This requires that an organisation function efficiently today while planning and innovating effectively for tomorrow (Hiver, Hopkins & Hopkins, 2003). In Figure 17 below organisational dualism is illustrated as an aeroplane whose engine is being changed whilst in flight. The aeroplane is representative of an organisation functioning efficiently while the innovation incubators are actively optimising the engine of the aeroplane.

174

Figure 17: Innovation incubators in action

The potential for creativity and innovation in the workplace is enormous, but the formal organisational structures strangle creativity and innovation and restrict radical growth (Poolton & Ismail, 2000). The hierarchical structure, although an effective structure for routine-based processes, is less appropriate and flexible for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Assink, 2006). To deal with this situation, the Informative Organisational Design as implemented at the GSSC introduced dualism by constructing a wall between the knowledge creation process and the existing hierarchy. Innovation incubators were established at the GSSC where creativity and the activities for optimising knowledge worker expertise could flourish without having to fend off the constricting hold of the hierarchy (Denning, 2005). At the same time the process for optimising knowledge worker expertise did not distract the organisation from pursuing business objectives.

At the GSSC, the process for optimising knowledge worker expertise was executed in the innovation incubators, which created knowledge by requiring that knowledge workers share their tacit knowledge, merge it with existing frames of reference and

175

codify it (Holste & Fields, 2005). As a consequence, knowledge worker expertise was turned into organisational knowledge (Peoll & Van der Krogt, 2003). The innovation incubators played a crucial role in this knowledge development process as they connected top management’s ideas about organisational strategy with knowledge worker’s expertise about actual and possible work arrangements (Khandwalla, 2006).

The Informative Organisational Design documented business processes in direct relation to the value chain and enabled knowledge workers in the innovation incubators to become more aware of opportunities for innovation. It also became clear that a model to structure innovation was needed and as a consequence, the researcher designed and implemented the Transformational Innovation Model at the GSSC. When the Transformational Innovation Model was designed, no evaluation criteria were determined, however, the innovation outcomes were evaluated against the respective business cases.

5.4.1 The Transformational Innovation Model

The purpose of the innovation incubators was to integrate tacit and explicit knowledge, through direct collaborative contact between knowledge workers in small groups (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003), in a highly interactive process and in a face-to-face work environment (Christensen & Drejer, 2005; Dyck, Starke, Mischke & Mauws, 2005). The Transformational Innovation Model was implemented over a 12 month period, where knowledge worker expertise was integrated with the ideas of employees to create new products, services or ways of working.

Figure 18 below illustrates the three phases of the Transformational Innovation Model.

176

Idea Generate many ideas Generation Execute narrative pattern

Idea Idea Communication Breakthrough

Drive ideas to implementation

Figure 18: The Transformational Innovation Model

The Transformational Innovation Model perceives innovation as a seamless process, with three phases to achieve a specific outcome. The phases and outcomes of the Transformation Innovation Model are as follows: • Phase One involves the generation of ideas. The outcome is a large number of ideas; • Phase Two involves the communication of the idea. The outcome is to persuade traditional employees to envisage a compelling new future; and • Phase Three involves idea breakthrough. The outcome is the implementation of ideas.

The Informative Organisational Design strives to optimise knowledge worker expertise by creating a basis for the use of existing knowledge to create new knowledge in an innovative process. The Transformational Innovation Model focuses the collective energy of an organisation on one problem at a time and includes the generation of ideas, the communication of the projected future and the commercialisation of the idea. Rothberg asserts that an idea interacts with existing mindsets and existing business processes and is defined as an object of thought, intangible and evidenced indirectly

177

(2004). The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise to grow and convert ideas generated by employees into new products, services or ways of working is central to the effective functioning of the model. The implementation of the Transformational Innovation Model at the GSSC provided the researcher with the opportunity to refine the model as part of the execution process. A position of Chief Innovation Officer was created whose responsibility it was to oversee the effective operationalization of the Transformational Innovation Model.

This innovation process is composed of three main phases: idea generation, idea communication and idea breakthrough. The first phase ends with the production of many ideas; the second phase communicates the knowledge creation process across the organisation; and the third phase ends as soon as the idea is implemented (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).

In Figure 19 below, the value chain of the Transformational Innovation Model is illustrated. A key feature of the model is that the Transformational Innovation Model undertakes a targeted approach to innovation where the CEO determines the strategic problem to focus on. In this approach, the focus is on one strategic problem at a time where an organisations’ energy is focused on a specific innovation.

178

Targeted Innovation Drives (One discussion at a time) Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Idea Idea Idea Generation Communication Breakthrough Toolkit Toolkit Toolkit •Project a bewitching •Direct unlearn •Focus problem demanding process; organisational fresh thinking; •Deploy techniques energy; •Utilise technique to to develop idea •Execute evaluate and -Mind mapping transformation choose best ideas -Brain storming narrative to effect -synectics, •Accelerate idea heightened change. -star-rating into commercial

matrices phase. 18

Figure 19: The Transformational Innovation Model value chain

The Transformational Innovation Model provides an organisation with the opportunity to become innovative by deploying a number of processes in each of the three phases illustrated above. The innovation processes are contained in three toolkits and the deployment of these toolkits enable knowledge workers to convert traditional employee generated ideas into new products, services or ways of working. A toolkit is defined as an expert model of a process derived from recognised theory and best practice (Oliver & Conole, 2000). The implementation of the Transformational Innovation Model has enabled work at the GSSC to become more knowledge-based as employees are able to give direct input to improve business performance by generating ideas to be used as building blocks for knowledge workers in the creation of new products, services or ways of working (de Long & Den Hartog, 2007).

The Transformational Innovation Model contains the following toolkits: • Idea Generation Toolkit; • Communication Toolkit; and

179

• Breakthrough Toolkit.

The toolkits are discussed in greater detail below.

5.4.1.1 Idea generation toolkit

For an organisation to sustain its competitive advantage it must generate a continuing stream of innovative ideas (Parashar & Singh, 2005). An organisation that is a successful innovator must have a source of creative ideas as well as a system to process those ideas. Large organisations can match the wealth creating flair of smaller entrepreneurial organisations if the creativity potential of employees and knowledge workers throughout the organisational hierarchy can be released (McAdam & McClelland, 2002). The ability to generate creative ideas is an essential organisational resource in optimising knowledge worker expertise (Cheung, Chau & Au, 2007).

Innovative ideas have high mortality and as a result a very large number of innovative ideas need to be generated to increase the rate of innovation. A strong correlation exists between the number of ideas generated and the number of ideas commercialised (McAdam & McClelland, 2002). The effective execution of the Transformational Innovation Model enables an organisation to generate ideas from employees that are both novel and valuable as a core requirement for sustainability (Cheung, Chau & Au, 2007).

The Transformational Innovation Model provides an organisation with a system to receive and process ideas submitted by both employees and knowledge workers. The existence of a system for idea submission also serves as a stimulus for creating and generating ideas (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). The system for idea generation also provides the opportunity for knowledge workers from across an organisation to be more productive by enabling them to share their ideas of optimal solutions for complex problems. A higher benefit is realised when cross fertilisation of knowledge worker ideas

180

is achieved where these ideas serve as innovation seeds across departmental boundaries (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007; Mohamed, Stankosky & Murray, 2006; Sherif, 2006). The requirements for an organisation to be successful at innovating include a source of creative ideas, a receptive organisation and method to process new ideas (McAdam & McClelland, 2002).

The Idea Generation Toolkit has the following two main activities:

• Project a bewitching problem; and • Utilise a technique to evaluate and choose best ideas.

These activities are discussed below:

Project a Bewitching Problem: The goal of the Transformational Innovation Model is to generate truly novel ideas from employees on a targeted approach. To achieve this, an idea drive was initiated at the GSSC that targeted a problem that the CEO prioritised. The direct involvement of the CEO elevated the importance of the problem and increased the opportunity for innovation. The problem identified by the CEO was worded creatively to peak employee interest in ways that demand fresh thinking (Hamel, 2006). The problem was communicated in an electronic newsflash emailed throughout the organisation and employees are requested to submit their ideas to a specially created email address, within a specified time frame. The newsflash contained a summary of existing knowledge pertaining to the problem and serves as a stimulus to generate new ideas from employees (Faniel & Majchrzak, 2006).

Utilise a Technique to Evaluate and Choose Best Ideas: The aim of the Transformational Innovation Model bolstered by the direct involvement of the CEO was to generate as many ideas on a targeted problem as possible. Once the ideas were received every effort was made to select the ideas with the best opportunity for innovation. The process of selecting and driving ideas to the commercialisation stage was undertaken by an innovation incubator. The innovation incubator was comprised of three to five of the most talented knowledge workers as well as the originators of the

181

ideas selected for further development. The goal of the innovation incubator was to achieve a step-change solution and the knowledge workers included were required to have a high tolerance for ambiguity in problem solving, driven to excellence and able to persevere in adversity (McAdam & McClelland, 2002). The Transformational Innovation Model utilised the most appropriate technique for the innovation incubator to evaluate ideas received based on the function and the nature of the problem targeted for innovation. The techniques used to evaluate ideas included mind mapping, fishbone diagrams and synectics (Cancer & Mulej, 2006).

5.4.1.2 Idea communication toolkit

The idea communication toolkit was activated at the start of the process and continued to the end. The toolbox endeavoured to build a direct line of communication between the CEO, employees and the innovation incubator. The toolkit recognised the critical role of the content and the interaction between the various stakeholders in this process and was effective as it was based on a structured framework (Mohamed, Stankosky & Murray, 2006). The goal of this communication approach was to achieve socialisation, which nurtures relationships important for collaboration, cooperation, harmony, consensus building and accountability (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007).

Focus organisational energy: Central to the Transformational Innovation Model’s approach to innovation was that it focused the entire organisation’s energy on one strategic problem at a time. No organisation has improved their innovation performance by focusing on multiple problems simultaneously (Hamel & Getz, 2004).

Execute transformation narrative: Innovation involves a transition from a mode of operating that is known and secure to one that is unknown and potentially chaotic. Such innovation is potentially disruptive because it introduces products and services that change the business landscape by providing a different value proposition. To embrace this challenge, the Transformational Innovation Model utilised artful narrative. Artful

182

narrative is defined as telling a story about the path to a desired future in a way that fully engages the listener (Denning, 2006). The stories used were a persuasive form of text to share experience to gain acceptance for innovation (Shankar & Goulding, 2001). Narratives arrange events into a unity with a beginning, middle and conclusion so that events become meaningful and potentially transform it into a desired human knowledge experience (Lang 2001).

Artful narrative required that the CEO of the GSSC continuously analyse the innovation unfolding by seeking to understand the story that was emerging whilst creating a new narrative that could successfully guide the organisation into the future. This was a narrative where the CEO persuaded traditional employees and knowledge workers to believe in and act on a new vision and involved the following: • Tell springboard stories: Spread the message to all in the organisation emphasizing the importance of the innovation; • Tell stories that build community: Keep communicating stories that builds coalitions of traditional employees and knowledge workers who share the vision of the innovation, develop it, nurture it and make it a reality. • Communicate the brand narrative: The goal was to win traditional employees and knowledge workers over for them to communicate with the existing customers and other external stakeholders on what the new meaning of the brand was; • Celebrate success: Innovation narratives need to be dynamic relating past and future experiences. When the innovation becomes embedded in the organisation, it will be time to start a new innovation process and everyone can be reminded of what was accomplished as part of the new narrative (Denning 2006).

5.4.1.3 Idea breakthrough toolkit

The Transformational Innovation Model views breakthrough ideas not as isolated acts of genius, but rather as an outcome of a process that facilitates the combined application

183

of traditional employee imagination and knowledge worker creativity (Rothberg, 2000). It provides an organisation with a practical framework for managing breakthrough ideas.

A distinguishing feature of the Transformational Innovation Model as implemented at the GSSC was that it did not conceive that breakthrough ideas would result from managed techniques, but rather from inspired, visionary insights of traditional employees moulded by knowledge workers. There was a limited reliance on technical systems seeking optimum or maximum performance, but rather a reliance on human activity systems. The search was for a better way of doing something and was not a search for an ideal (Thompson, 2004).

Direct unlearning process: Many knowledge workers at the GSSC were trapped by the organisational structure that limited pioneering technologies, breakthrough business models and innovations. The Transformation Innovation Model achieved idea breakthrough by taking the knowledge workers active on the innovation incubator through a process of unlearning. The capacity to unlearn is one of the most critical competencies knowledge workers require to overcome pre-judgement and obsolete mental models. Unlearning is defined as the process by which employees and knowledge workers stamp out old logic and substitute it with something fundamentally new (Assink, 2006). Unlearning was difficult because it required reversibility of prior learning gained at the organisation and often contributed to the knowledge workers’ status (Curado, 2006). The Transformational Innovation Model took the knowledge workers through a process that stimulated them to relinquish knowledge that was not useful in the development of the idea and that limited the synergy of the innovation incubator (Harvey, Novicevic & Buckley, 2001).

Deploy technique to develop idea: There is a strong relationship between the number of ideas generated and the number of ideas developed into successful innovations by the innovation incubator. The Transformational Innovation Model utilised the most appropriate technique to develop ideas selected, based on the opportunity presented by

184

the problem targeted for innovation (Cancer & Mulej, 2006). Of all the idea development techniques available, brainstorming was projected to be the most successful and involved using shared mental models or harmonised knowledge (Sarabia, 2007). Brainstorming was useful to stimulate divergent thinking in homogeneous groups including the deferring of judgements and encouraging “wild” ideas to de-couple codification and interpretation (Davies, Subrahmanian & Westerberg, 2005).

Accelerate idea into commercial phase: While some organisations are able to generate a number of innovative ideas, they often fail to implement and diffuse the innovation throughout the organisation (Hivner, Hopins & Hopkins, 2003). One of the reasons for this is that the conditions in these organisations may not facilitate the innovation process. The facilitation of the innovation diffusion process is contingent upon cultural and structural configurations of an organisation. These organisational factors of culture and structure can also play an important role in the implementation and diffusion of innovation, by either accelerating or slowing down the process (Logar, Ponzurick & Spear, 2001). While facilitating and sustaining the innovation diffusion process is important, there is increased recognition that the speed (i.e. acceleration) at which an innovation is diffused, is vital for an organisation to create and sustain a competitive advantage amidst rapidly changing business environments (Chandon & Nadler, 2000). The concept of innovation speed or acceleration refers to the time lapse between idea development and idea commercialisation (Hivner, Hopins & Hopkins, 2003). Commercialisation is defined as the making of an idea into an operational feasibility where the idea is shaped into a new product, service or business process, so as to allow extraction of value from all that has been created in the earlier phases (Pervaiz, 1998). The faster an organisation can develop a new product, service or business process, the greater the impact on the organisations competitive advantage.

The knowledge workers in the innovation incubator had a direct reporting line to the CEO who was the sponsor for the targeted innovation drive. When the idea was successfully developed the innovation incubator presented the new product, service or ways of working to the CEO for approval. Once the CEO approved the new product,

185

service or ways of working, the innovation incubator made presentations to other governance structures with the aim of driving implementation. The acceleration of the innovation to commercialisation was the responsibility of the innovation incubator who was duly authorised by the CEO.

As stated earlier, the Transformational Innovation Model was implemented at the GSSC and some of the successes are discussed below.

5.4.2 Innovation outcomes at the GSSC

In the first year of implementing the Transformational Innovation Model at the GSSC, a number of cultural and structural challenges had to be overcome. Getting the knowledge workers released from their operational responsibilities to focus exclusively on the work of the innovation incubator was a major hurdle to overcome. It was only after a direct instruction from the CEO was given that the problem was resolved.

The following was one of the innovative ideas delivered by an innovation incubator: • Mobile Application System.

Additional information on the innovation is provided below.

5.4.2.1 Mobile Application System

The mandate of the GSSC is to procure services on behalf of the Gauteng provincial government’s departments. On many occasions long queues of job applicants are formed at the GSSC’s head office. Many of the job applicants travelled long distances to the GSSC’s offices to submit their application in response to a job advert. The problem grew to a point where the CEO prioritised it and an innovation drive was conducted to innovate a solution.

186

Figure 20 below illustrates the innovation process that commenced with the problem of long job application queues at the GSSC’s offices to the innovation of the Mobile Application System.

Figure 20: The Mobile Application System

The outcome of the targeted innovation drive was the launch of the Mobile Application System. In this system, applicants send a message through their mobile phones to a number advertised, quoting the job reference number. Upon receipt of the mobile phone message, an employee from the GSSC’s outbound call centre called the applicant back on the telephone and completed an electronic record on behalf of the applicant. The electronic job applications were printed and submitted together with hand delivered applications to the relevant recruiting department. A further feature of the Mobile Application System was that applicants were not required to submit certified copies of relevant documentation along with every application which was the requirement for applicants submitting job applications directly to the GSSC’s offices. As part of the Mobile Application System process, the employees in the outbound call centre checked for an existing electronic record for each mobile phone job application received. Where

187

a record existed, it was printed and submitted for recruitment consideration without the need to phone the applicant.

The Mobile Application System was very successful, as shown in Figure 21 below.

MAS, 24,000 Paper, 24,000 MAS,22,000 Paper,18,000 MAS, 16,000 Paper, 16,000

1st Qtr '07 2nd Qtr '07 3rd Qtr '07 Job Applications Received – Paper and MAS

Figure 21: Utilisation of the Mobile Application System

In 2007 the GSSC processed on average 40,000 applications per quarter. In the first quarter 40% of applications were submitted through the Mobile Application System; in the second quarter the utilisation grew to 55%; and in the third quarter 60% of applications where submitted through the Mobile Application System.

5.5 Supportive organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise

For an organisation to sustain a competitive advantage in the knowledge economy, it is vital that it develops supportive organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The Informative Organisational Design values a knowledge worker for

188

their high level of education and vast amounts of practical experience (Cooper, 2006) which gives an organisation the capacity to act (Botha, 2000). The GSSC valued its knowledge workers for their ability to solve recurring problems and not for the tacit knowledge residing in their heads (Paul, 2006). The respondents described that they designed much of their own work, but where not allowed to create value by transferring and converting knowledge to create better processes, services or ways of working. The Informative Organisational Design recognises that a knowledge worker does not seek life-long employment and as a consequence must develop supporting competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise before they leave an organisation.

The supportive organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise include the following: • Knowledge management; • Knowledge transfer; • Knowledge sharing; and • Knowledge communication.

These supportive organisational competencies will be discussed below.

5.5.1 Knowledge management

A primary aim of knowledge management in the Informative Organisational Design is to enable and encourage knowledge transfer among knowledge workers as the creation and transfer of knowledge in an organisation provide a basis for optimising knowledge worker expertise (Brachos, Kostopoulos, Soderquist & Prastacos, 2007). The Informative Organisational Design organises activities around cross-functional business processes in order to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The goal is to make the processes more effective through cross-functional integration and effective process- related knowledge management (Marjanovic, 2005).

There are three basic drivers for applying knowledge management to optimise

189

knowledge worker expertise, the first of whom is to create opportunities for collaboration practices. Acquiring knowledge and skills through collaboration is considered to be an effective and efficient way of optimising knowledge worker expertise. The second driver for applying knowledge management to optimise knowledge worker expertise is the effective management of knowledge as a resource. The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise is extremely dependent on the availability of knowledge and therefore the complexity created by the explosion of richness and reach of knowledge has to be recognised and managed. The third driver of applying knowledge management to optimise knowledge worker expertise is the integration of knowledge both internal and external to the organisation, thus making it more available and accessible (du Plessis, 2007).

The Informative Organisational Design utilised the following steps to create a knowledge management system: • Defined the business objectives knowledge management was to address; • Conducted a knowledge audit to identify any duplication and gaps in the organisation's knowledge base; • Developed a visual map which describes areas of knowledge and the relationships between them; • Developed a knowledge management strategy based on the content management, integration, search mechanisms, information delivery and collaboration; • Acquired or built appropriate tools for capturing, analysing, categorising and distributing knowledge; and • Regularly assessed the value of the knowledge management system and made necessary adjustments (Call, 2005).

In the Informative Organisational Design, knowledge workers are valued for their expertise and larger knowledge foundation. They are also be valued for their contribution to the following: • Knowledge Stocks; and • Tacit knowledge exchange.

190

. Knowledge stocks and tacit knowledge exchange is discussed below.

5.5.1.1 Knowledge stocks

Much of the work at the GSSC is executed utilising tacit knowledge, as the organisational design does not have a process that compels knowledge workers to amend the explicit knowledge with new knowledge created. The global economy has shifted from an industrial manufacturing/product oriented economy to one based on knowledge and services, where knowledge is the principle commodity. In this global economy, the effective management of intellectual capital is a critical success factor in the organisation. Knowledge management in the global economy is about managing knowledge stocks and creating a corporate culture that facilitates and encourages the sharing, appropriate utilisation and creation of knowledge that enables a corporate strategic competitive advantage (Walczak, 2005). The stock of knowledge is defined as all that the organisation already knows or needs to know, which includes knowledge as something that knowledge workers have (knowledge as possession) and do (knowledge as practice) (Prieto & Revilla, 2006; Marques & Simon, 2006). Therefore knowledge stocks include knowledge (cognition) and knowing (action) at the employee level and the organisational level (Edenius & Styhre, 2006).

However, it has been established that part of an organisation's knowledge stock cannot be codified, because it is tacit and embedded in its knowledge workers (Narteh, 2008). This limitation is a consequence of the characteristic of tacit knowledge and should not deter a goal to expand codified knowledge. To create and sustain a competitive advantage in the global economy, the Informative Organisational Design will effectively mobilise the knowledge resources of an organisation (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007). Knowledge can be viewed as a continuum where on the one end there is tacit knowledge and on the other extreme is explicit or codified knowledge. One way to understand knowledge in an organisation is to view it as an iceberg. McAdam, Mason

191

and McCrory, (2007) as well as Eucker (2007) liken the visible tip of the iceberg to structured explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is the only form of knowledge that an organisation can leverage and put its information technology systems to use to facilitate knowledge sharing and re-use (Cheung, Chau & Au, 2007). The most significant part of the iceberg lies beneath the surface of the water. This concealed part applies to tacit knowledge resources in an organisation. Tacit knowledge is the unarticulated and resides in knowledge workers, obtained through internal individual processes like experience, reflection or individual talents (McAdam, Mason & McCrory, 2007). Explicit knowledge is documented tacit knowledge to the extent that the more externally visible explicit knowledge becomes, the lesser the tacit knowledge becomes (Kalpic & Bernus, 2006). The challenge is to raise the iceberg that what was once tacitly held by individual knowledge workers becomes available to an organisation in explicit form (Eucker, 2007).

For an organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise, the tacit knowledge of the knowledge worker must be captured in the organisation’s explicit knowledge, which is the goal of the Informative Organisational Design. This process will make an organisation’s knowledge stock more resilient as knowledge worker expertise is documented in the business processes, policies and procedures. This process will also enhance the organisations knowledge stocks where the tacit knowledge of the knowledge worker now made explicit will enable employees, who are not experts, to routinely repeat successes. This optimisation of knowledge stocks results in innovation as the economic process involves the transformation of an organisation’s knowledge stock into commercially successful products (artefacts, processes or services) that creates competitive advantage (Mort, 2001).

The organisational design of the GSSC actually prevented knowledge workers from making a contribution to improving business processes, and this was harmful to its organisational performance. To optimise knowledge worker expertise, the knowledge worker must continuously utilise the new knowledge created in the innovation incubators to amend the explicit knowledge. Inherent in the design of the Informative

192

Organisational Design is the objective to continuously direct the efforts of the knowledge worker at the explicit knowledge of the organisation through the structures of the innovation incubators. As pointed out earlier, the objective of the Informative Organisational Design is to optimise expert knowledge into the business processes so successfully that other employees can perform the expert work activities (Christensen, 2007). It is the effective achievement of this objective that will optimise knowledge worker expertise and enable an organisation to sustain its competitive advantage.

Figure 22 below illustrates how knowledge worker expertise interacts with explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge in a never ending cycle.

Tacit ExplicitExplicitExplicit TacitTacitTact KnowledgeKnowledge KnowledgeKnowledge Knowledge Knowledge

Optimisation of Knowledge

Worker Expertise

Figure 22: The optimisation of knowledge worker expertise cycle

Knowledge stocks are maintained as a never ending cycle where knowledge expertise must be captured in the business processes to become part of the explicit knowledge. This explicit knowledge becomes the stimuli for new knowledge creation, which when combined with tacit knowledge, leads to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise.

193

5.5.1.2 Tacit knowledge exchange

The only way the GSSC can sustain success is to convert and optimise knowledge worker experiences into organisational knowledge, as a basis for action however, the organisational design did not provide a platform for this exchange to occur. The Informative Organisational Design provided for a number innovation incubators to be established at the GSSC, each with its own sponsor. This was an important feature because larger innovation incubators can share certain practices, routines and a common language, but for new tacit knowledge to emerge through socialisation, the groupings had to be small. These small innovation incubators are in a better position to optimise knowledge worker expertise, as well as communicate new knowledge back into their own business areas and into the business processes (Rebernik & Sirec, 2007).

Although tacit knowledge constitutes a large part of what knowledge workers know, it is difficult for organisations to fully benefit from this asset (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007). An organisation finds it difficult to fully benefit from tacit knowledge as it is hard to identify and in order to capture, store and disseminate it, tacit knowledge has to be made explicit. An organisation has difficulty in identifying tacit knowledge for the following three reasons: • A knowledge worker is not necessarily aware of his or her tacit knowledge; • On a personal level, a knowledge worker has no need to make it explicit in order to use it; and • A knowledge worker may not want to sacrifice a valuable competitive advantage (Rebernik & Sirec, 2007).

A strategy of the Informative Organisational Design to optimise knowledge worker expertise is to include a theoretical framework to help overcome this elusiveness of tacit knowledge. This strategy takes into account that an organisation finds it difficult to identify and fully benefit from tacit knowledge. Therefore, the prepossession is to isolate the tacit knowledge that can potentially be mobilised and made observable through

194

different manifestations of behaviour in order to make it explicit (Cheung, Chau & Au, 2007). Only tacit knowledge made explicit would allow knowledge workers to share it, as well as learn what needs to be learned and unlearn those activities that are outdated and obsolete (Rebernik & Sirec, 2007).

At the GSSC, the innovation incubators were established to facilitate the exchange of tacit knowledge among knowledge workers. All interaction within the innovation incubators centred on optimising knowledge worker expertise by finding ways to convert the tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Wasonga & Murphy, 2006). This conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge was made possible through the process of externalisation (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007). Externalisation is characteristically seen in the outcome of concept creation triggered by dialogue or collective reflection. Externalisation was achieved in following three ways: • Metaphors and analogies; • Shared personal knowledge; and • Ambiguity and redundancy (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).

A brief explanation of these process steps follows below.

5.5.1.2.1 Metaphors and analogies

Metaphors are key means for defining new concepts. Metaphors explain or interpret reality and reliance is placed on figurative language and symbolism. It is a way for knowledge workers grounded in different contexts and with different experiences to understand something figuratively through the use of imagination and symbols (Strach & Everett, 2006). Relevant metaphors enable new ideas to be assimilated and it may be effective to answer a question with a question. These metaphors and questions encouraged knowledge workers to probe personal understanding and answers, thus, creating their own knowledge (Koners & Goffin, 2007).

195

Analogies are the associations carried out by logical thinking, focusing on functional similarities between two concepts. These analogies permit the understanding of the unknown through the known by bridging the gap between an image and a logical model (McAdam, Mason & McCrory, 2007). A knowledge worker should always question assumptions and why they think the way that they do and make the decisions that they make.

5.5.1.2.2 Shared personal knowledge

Personal knowledge forms the basis for new knowledge and embodies tacit knowledge (Foos, Schum & Rothenberg, 2006). As a consequence, well-educated or talented workers (knowledge workers) are essential to the production and dissemination of tacit knowledge. However, tacit knowledge emerges from social interactions and collaboration of knowledge workers within an organisational and cultural context (Hicks, Dattero & Galup, 2007). Personal knowledge may result in new outcomes or processes and therefore, tacit knowledge depends on the interaction and social relations in the organisation. The Informative Organisational Design cannot create knowledge without the input of the knowledge worker and the interaction that takes place within the innovation incubators (Aramburu, Saenz & Rivera, 2006). The group interaction may result in considerable conflict and disagreement, but this conflict may signal that something needs to change and cause a knowledge worker to question existing assumptions (Simantupang, Sandroto & Lubis, 2004).

A powerful means to disseminate and acquire tacit knowledge was to share thoughts and feelings. The attention to thoughts and feelings were useful to develop personal relationships and also an excellent way to demonstrate a knowledge workers' specific knowledge. Tacit knowledge can be enhanced or deepened through dialogue, discussion, experience sharing and observation. Knowledge workers can use metaphors, analogies, demonstrations and stories to convey their tacit knowledge to other knowledge workers. Stories may reveal that there is much to learn from others'

196

experiences and allow the knowledge workers to see the connections between theoretical and the human side (McAdam, Mason & McCrory, 2007).

5.5.1.2.3 Ambiguity and redundancy

Ambiguity is a useful source for direction, alternate meaning and a fresh way of thinking, while redundancy encourages frequent dialogue and communication of overlapping information. Group work in the innovation incubators required tolerance for ambiguity or uncertainty and a willingness to endure in dissonance long enough to investigate and explore ideas until there was some clarity (Govendo, 2005). Overlapping information facilitated the creation of common cognitive ground among knowledge workers and eased the transfer of tacit knowledge. Redundancy created an overlap of knowledge, which provided knowledge workers with the opportunity of working together (Sivakumar & Roy, 2004).

5.5.2 Knowledge transfer

In the study it was revealed that a major limitation of the organisational design of the GSSC was that it did not enable knowledge transfer. The GSSC organisational design did not provide a formal mechanism to enable a knowledge worker to transfer key lessons of work outcomes to others. In order to address this limitation in the implementation of Informative Organisational Design, senior management was required to focus on basic assumptions embedded in the organisational culture to enable the transfer of knowledge between all knowledge workers in the GSSC (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).

Implementation of Informative Organisational Design will focus on opportunities to optimise knowledge worker expertise by making the knowledge created in the innovation incubators available across organisational units (Kwahk, Kim & Chan, 2007).

197

Activities to optimise knowledge worker expertise will need to be central to an organisation’s knowledge mobilisation efforts and senior managers would need to be preoccupied with finding ways to transfer knowledge from one knowledge worker to another (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007). A critical consideration for the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise in the Informative Organisational Design will be that the valuable tacit knowledge owned by the knowledge workers will have relevance only when it can be effectively captured for the benefit of the organisation (Bhardwaj & Monin, 2006).

Without knowing the critical linkages between factors associated with effective knowledge transfer, managers may be unable to foster valuable knowledge exchange. For knowledge transfer to be successful there will be a need for a degree of resonance between two or more knowledge workers. This proposes that knowledge transfer will require both the sending of knowledge from one knowledge worker and the learning of that knowledge by a recipient. The successful transfer of knowledge will depend not only on the complexity of the knowledge, but also on the motivation of the knowledge worker sharing that knowledge (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007).

Motivations to transfer knowledge are present in all organisational settings as it affects knowledge worker behaviour, individual intentions and interests in a way that may promote or inhibit willingness to engage in knowledge transfer (Strach & Everett, 2006). Knowledge transfer between knowledge workers is inherently difficult especially due to the contextualized nature of knowledge and the different factors, such as the need for shared understanding and the absorptive capacity of the recipients (Eunni, Kasuganti & Kos, 2006). Knowledge that is to be transferred can be categorised as follows:

• Tacit knowledge –is individual know-how that is difficult to be articulated (Abdullah, Kimble, Benest &Paige, 2006); • Embodied knowledge - results from physical presence (Riege & Nicholas, 2006); • Encoded knowledge - refers to the knowledge residing in data banks long after the knowledge originator has left the organization (du Plessis, 2007);

198

• Embrained knowledge - refers to the mental ability to understand underlying patterns of a given phenomenon (Blumentritt & Johnston, 1999); • Procedural knowledge - refers to the knowledge about the business processes (Jackson, 2007; Williams, 2006); and • Embedded knowledge - refers to knowledge that is contained within contextual factors (Hicks, Dattero & Galup, 2007).

The categorisation of knowledge to be transferred is important, as knowledge is fundamentally multifaceted. The inability to conceptualise and apply various dimensions of knowledge may inhibit the successful transfer of that knowledge (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007).

Of critical significance to optimising knowledge worker expertise in the Informative Organisation Design is that the transfer of knowledge to knowledge workers be implemented in organisational procedures, policies, codes, activities, methods and practices. The degree to which implementation is feasible and successful will determine the usefulness of the transfer effort (Geisler, 2007).

5.5.3 Knowledge sharing

The GSSC made very little use of existing knowledge to create new knowledge and when knowledge sharing did occur, it was as a result of personal initiative. The implementation of innovation incubators within the GSSC provided the basis for knowledge workers to share and communicate tacit knowledge (Sanders, 2005). This socialisation process of knowledge creation (Dyck, Starke, Mischke & Mauws, 2005) contributed to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise through the conversion of tacit knowledge to new tacit knowledge by knowledge workers (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005). This new tacit knowledge was learned through observation, imitation and practice whereby knowledge workers shared experiences through face-to-face

199

contact (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003; Miller, Zhao & Clantone, 2006). The interactions in the innovation incubators led to new interpretations of innovation across functional activities (Peoll & Van der Krogt, 2003). Efforts to transfer knowledge had the potential to create new knowledge (Argote, McEvily & Reagans, 2003). Knowledge creation is dependent on the combination and sharing of tacit knowledge (McFadyen & Cannella, 2004) and the innovation incubators provided knowledge workers with this opportunity.

5.5.4 Knowledge communication

The GSSC was characterised by a strong silo-orientation which greatly limited the organisation’s creativity, innovation and ability to optimise knowledge worker expertise. In the implementation of the Informative Organisational Design the approach to communication was grounded in establishing innovation incubators to encourage and maintain human relations. The Informative Organisational Design relied to a great extent on a person-to-person approach in its communication process (Greiner, Böhmann & Krcmar, 2007). The innovation incubators presented the GSSC with the opportunity for person-to-person communication

Kessler & Chakrabarti (1998) maintain that creativity in an organisation is stifled when silos are allowed to flourish as the ability for humans to communicate is a requirement for the conversion of information into knowledge and the sharing of knowledge for innovation and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Albina, Garavelli & Gorgoglione, 2004). Knowledge workers will also be given all relevant information on what is transpiring throughout the organisation (Barratt, 2004). One of the goals of the Informative Organisational Design is to create innovation incubators as communication channels where knowledge workers can feel safe when they participate in it. These communication channels will be based on trust as an important element for the transfer of knowledge in promotion of creativity, innovation and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). The Informative Organisational Design requires appropriate communication mechanisms to keep knowledge workers informed on how the knowledge they contributed is utilised. The focus on relationship

200

development as mechanism to transfer knowledge in an organisation will do much to reduce the negative impact that silo’s have on creativity, innovation and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The negative impact of silo’s are further reduced as knowledge workers working in the innovation incubators are provided with information on what is transpiring throughout the organisation (Barratt, 2004).

The communication plan of the Informative Organisational Design is based on both the frequency of communication and interpersonal relationships. Frequent communication between the source and the recipient facilitates the creation of a shared meaning and context, which is crucial for effective knowledge transfer (Joshi, Sarker & Sarker, 2007).

5.6 Conclusion

The researcher developed the Informative Organisational Design as a design option to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The Informative Organisational Design introduced a mechanism that makes possible an unrelenting interaction between knowledge worker expertise and the business processes and routine operations of an organisation to continuously improve performance. This design option utilises innovation incubators as a means to bring an increasing amount of knowledge worker tacit knowledge under the control of the organisation. A distinctive contribution of the Informative Organisational Design is that the improved business processes and routine operations become the impetus for further refinement in the innovation incubators.

The next chapter will present the conclusions to the research.

201

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Introduction

The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the previous chapters and will also include a discussion and interpretation of the results of the literature review as well as the empirical evidence. The findings of the research will be discussed and conclusions will be drawn. Figure 23 below locates the conclusions in context of the research structure.

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Introduction Literature Research Results The Conclusions Methodology Informative to the study Review and Design Organisational

Design

Figure 23: Chapter 6 in context

6.2 Brief overview of the research

Chapter 1 provided the introduction to this research and placed the total investigation in context by providing a framework for the problem. The motivation, purpose statement, the research objectives and research propositions were discussed. An overview of the research methodology applied was briefly discussed. It also addressed the ethical considerations pertinent to the research. The expected value as well as the limitations of the study was indicated.

Chapter 2 presented the results of the literature review. The three key concepts researched in this chapter were organisational design; supportive organisational competencies and competitive advantage.

202

Chapter 3 presented the results of the experiences of the knowledge workers employed at the Gauteng Shared Service Centre (GSSC) as obtained from respondents in six focus group sessions and eight follow-up in-depth interviews.

Chapter 4 provided a detailed discussion on the research design and the analysis of the data. The research was designed to adequately meet the research objectives.

Chapter 5 proposed the Informative Organisation Design as a design option enabling an organisation to efficiently pursue current business objectives while optimising knowledge worker expertise. The Informative Organisation Design comprises a two-fold parallel arrangement that optimises knowledge worker expertise by multiplying the organisational design by the expert knowledge base of knowledge workers.

This research tested the ability of organisational design to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The primary research objective was to examine organisational design and develop a design option for optimising knowledge worker expertise.

The results of the qualitative research will be discussed below.

6.3.1 Proposition 1

Proposition 1 sought to demonstrate that organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise by not enabling knowledge workers to share neither their existing knowledge nor their newly created knowledge through cross-learning with other knowledge workers.

It was established that the organisational design of the GSSC did not enable knowledge workers to coordinate their activities nor did it allow knowledge workers to expose themselves to knowledge from different perspectives and departments. The organisational design of the GSSC does not enable knowledge workers to interpret and optimise expertise to innovate and improve performance levels.

203

The research also found that the GSSC’s organisational design may be eroding its competitive advantage by not enabling the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. A significant part of optimising knowledge worker expertise would include that knowledge created by knowledge workers in one context within an organisation may be exploited by knowledge workers in another context (Hall, 2006). The organisational design of the GSSC does also not facilitate the creation of new knowledge by combining existing knowledge differently, as proposed by Yang (2007) for solving future tasks (Lin, 2007).

6.3.2 Proposition 2

Proposition 2 sought to demonstrate that the organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise as the output of the knowledge worker is not incorporated into the business processes and routine operations.

The results indicate that the organisational design at the GSSC does not make the new knowledge created by knowledge workers available for re-use across the GSSC. As a consequence, knowledge worker expertise is not codified and therefore not portable, re- usable or transferable within the GSSC. Thus, the organisational design of the GSSC does not enable the organisation to harness knowledge worker expertise, since it does not effectively document that expertise to enable other knowledge workers to perform the work activities at a higher performance level (Christensen, 2007).

6.3 Research methodology

Qualitative research was conducted with data gathered largely from focus group sessions and in-depth interviews. The research was conducted at the GSSC and covers experiences related by respondents from six distinct focus group sessions and eight in-

204

depth interviews. The size of each focus group was within the targeted range of from three to five respondents. While the focus group sessions enabled the researcher to experience the world from the point of view of the respondents being observed (Hines, 2000), it also provided the researcher with the opportunity to further select respondents who could provide more context and depth in the areas of interest (Stokes & Bergin, 2006).

6.4 Key research findings

The research revealed that the GSSC’s organisational design does not optimise knowledge worker expertise as it does not have processes that facilitate knowledge sharing and the integration of new knowledge into the business processes and routine operations. The research also revealed that the organisational design of the GSSC encouraged work silos which were a major obstacle for optimising knowledge worker expertise. The research developed the Informative Organisational Design as a solution to optimising knowledge worker expertise. The Informative Organisational Design comprises a two-fold parallel arrangement that optimises knowledge worker expertise by multiplying the organisational design by the expert knowledge base of knowledge workers. .The Informative Organisational Design is proposed as a design option for an organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

The contribution made by the examination of the organisational design of the GSSC is discussed below and the further contribution made by the Informative Organisational Design is discussed thereafter.

6.4.1 Examination of the organisational design of the GSSC

The key research findings will be presented as follows:

• Theme related to organisational design;

205

o Sub-Theme related to culture; o Sub-Theme related to structure; o Sub-theme related to codification system; • Theme related to optimisation of knowledge worker expertise; o Sub-theme related to knowledge; o Sub-theme related to knowledge management; o Sub-theme related to knowledge creation; o Sub-theme related to knowledge transfer; o Sub-theme related to knowledge sharing; o Sub-theme related to knowledge communication; • Theme related to competitive advantage.

The key findings are reported against each theme and sub-theme.

6.4.1.1 Theme related to organisational design

The GSSC is not designed to enable the structure, culture and codification system to optimise knowledge worker expertise. Respondents expressed that they were utilised for their ability to resolve crises on a day-to-day basis and not for their applied expertise. The current organisational design does not facilitate knowledge exchange among knowledge workers as respondents revealed that they are only able to share knowledge through personal relationships with other knowledge workers. Knowledge workers are not allowed to participate in activities that fall outside their areas of responsibilities and as a consequence, the organisational design does not enable the knowledge worker to grow into other areas of expertise where they can develop personal capability as a platform for innovation.

206

6.4.1.2 Sub-theme related to culture

The culture of the GSSC seems to discourage creativity since only narrowly defined functional output is valued. Respondents spoke of how new ideas are completely ignored by management, thus sending a clear message that developing new ideas are not an aspect of the culture at the GSSC.

6.4.1.3 Sub-theme related to structure

The organisational structure of the GSSC does not recognise that knowledge workers apply personal expertise to keep the organisation afloat. Respondents felt strongly that the structure was not an enabling factor and some respondents asserted that the structure actually prevented the exchange of tacit knowledge. They expressed a high degree of frustration at the existence of silos which prohibited them interacting with knowledge workers in other areas.

6.4.1.4 Sub-theme related to codification system

The knowledge created in the GSSC is not codified and therefore the existing knowledge does not become portable, re-usable or transferable. The GSSC does not codify knowledge created by knowledge workers as knowledge workers repeatedly deal with similar problems on a day to day basis. The implicit experiences of its knowledge workers are not gathered into explicit knowledge so that the new knowledge is made available for others to utilise when dealing with similar problems.

6.4.1.5 Theme related to optimisation of knowledge worker expertise

The GSSC does not optimise knowledge worker expertise as the knowledge created is not shared with other knowledge workers across divisions and the output of the

207

knowledge workers are not used to improve business processes. Respondents reflected that they have learnt much in dealing with the daily problems that keep arising, but that they were not given the opportunity to integrate their knowledge into the business processes. Respondents develop novel ideas to deal with problems, but there is no process to develop these ideas into solutions. There are also no mechanisms for sharing the knowledge created, nor are there any processes for integrating the knowledge into the business processes as a means to eliminate the problems.

6.4.1.6 Sub-theme related to knowledge

The GSSC makes little effort to associate what the organisation knows to a problem that arises. Respondents revealed that they were aware of existing knowledge that could assist them, but that this knowledge was not available to them. They also expressed a degree of frustration at policies and procedures that have not kept up with current individual knowledge.

6.4.1.7 Sub-theme related to knowledge management

The GSSC does not leverage knowledge assets as respondents revealed that it was hard for them to share their knowledge with other knowledge workers as there was continual organisational focus on activities and not on efforts to leverage knowledge assets. This lack of effort to leverage knowledge assets also resulted in the underutilisation of the collective expertise to effectively resolve recurring problems.

6.4.1.8 Sub-theme related to knowledge creation

The GSSC does not have a mechanism in place to capitalise on the capability of knowledge workers to combine existing information, knowledge and ideas. Respondents determined that other knowledge workers have the specific knowledge

208

that can assist them in dealing with a problem however; this previously created knowledge is not available, as it is not embodied in the organisation.

6.4.1.9 Sub-theme related to knowledge transfer

Respondents revealed that the GSSC does not have a process that effectively moves knowledge from one knowledge worker to another. A need was expressed for knowledge workers with specific knowledge to engage in knowledge transfer activities as a means to empower knowledge workers dealing with a similar problem. This inability of the GSSC to move knowledge from one knowledge worker to another is potentially harmful to the organisation, as respondents believed that if certain key knowledge workers left the organisation, incomplete projects would fail as a consequence of a lack of knowledge transfer.

6.4.1.10 Sub-theme related to knowledge sharing

The GSSC does not facilitate opportunities to share new knowledge by combining existing knowledge to enable the organisation to become better at exploiting existing knowledge. Respondents revealed that the organisation prevented them from sharing knowledge and that existing knowledge was not utilised to solve similar recurring tasks.

6.4.1.11 Sub-theme related to knowledge communication

The GSSC does not have a communication strategy to enable knowledge to be exchanged between knowledge workers. As a consequence, there is duplication of effort and resources are not fully utilised. Respondents complained that they are not able to communicate knowledge they have created and therefore they are unable to benefit from the knowledge another knowledge worker has created.

209

6.4.1.12 Theme related to competitive advantage

The GSSC has not identified knowledge worker expertise as a basis for competitive advantage; therefore the organisation cannot begin to exploit the uniqueness of its knowledge worker expertise. The GSSC has neglected developing its personal, organisational and core capabilities.

6.4.2 The Informative Organisational Design

The challenge is for an organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise before the knowledge workers leave the organisation (Brachos, Kostopoulos, Soderquist & Prastacos, 2007). This research developed the informative organisation as a design option to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The informative organisation introduces a mechanism that makes possible an unrelenting interaction between knowledge worker expertise and the business processes and routine operations of an organisation to continuously improve performance. This design option utilises innovation incubators as a means to bring an increasing amount of knowledge worker tacit knowledge under the control of the organisation. A unique contribution of the informative organisation is that the improved business processes and routine operations become the impetus for further refinement in the innovation incubators.

The Informative Organisational Design is deployed on two dimensions. On the horizontal dimension an organisation is mobilised by a knowledge base stratum and a business systems stratum. On the vertical dimension an organisation is mobilised by organisational design which includes innovation incubators.

The horizontal dimension contains the business systems stratum and the knowledge base stratum. The business systems stratum constitutes the “hardware” of an organisation, while the knowledge base stratum constitutes the “software” of an

210

organisation. In this arrangement the knowledge base stratum (software) acts on the business systems stratum (hardware) enabling the organisation to perform at an increasingly improved level as the expertise of the knowledge workers is optimised and integrated into the business processes and routine operations.

The vertical dimension contains the organisational design which constitutes the business processes and routine operations of an organisation while the innovation incubators serve as mechanisms for knowledge workers to create and share knowledge until it is integrated into the business processes and routine operations. The innovation incubators coexist with the organisational design as a purposeful structural arrangement. This structural design is vital for the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise, as the efficient functioning of the organisational structural elements will prevent the innovation incubators from working should they be absorbed.

To optimise knowledge worker expertise in an organisation, it is vital that the organisation develops supportive organisational competencies. These supportive organisational competencies relate entirely to the creation, sharing and embedding of knowledge worker expertise into the business processes and routine operations of an organisation.

The elements that mobilise the Informative Organisational Design horizontally and vertically as well as the supportive organisational competencies that enable the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise are discussed below.

6.4.2.1 The knowledge base stratum

The informative organisation seeks to optimise knowledge worker expertise by creating the conditions that release knowledge worker potential. The knowledge base stratum supports the business systems stratum enabling the informative organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise. This stratum focuses on optimising knowledge

211

worker expertise by systematically integrating it into the business processes and routine operations.

6.4.2.2 The business systems stratum

The business systems stratum contains the organisational structure, the business processes and is where routine operations are carried out. The business systems stratum enables the informative organisation to perform at an increasingly improved level of performance as knowledge worker expertise is systematically optimised into the business processes and routine operations. The optimised knowledge worker expertise, when operationalised into the business systems stratum, becomes the base or platform for further knowledge creation.

6.4.2.3 Organisational design

Organisational design is one of the most influential elements for optimising of knowledge worker expertise and the informative organisation is dominated by processes rather than structures (Christensen, 2007). The fundamental principle of the organisational design of the informative organisation is managerial redundancy, which is the conscious overlapping of organisational information, business activities and managerial responsibilities. In the informative organisation, building a redundant organisation is the first step in optimising knowledge worker expertise (Nonaka, 1991).

The organisational design of the informative organisation features the following elements: • Structure; • Culture; and • Codification System.

212

These organisational design elements are discussed below.

6.4.2.3.1 Structure

The informative organisation positions the structure of an organisation to ensure the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The structure enables a steady flow of expertise from the knowledge worker to management and as a consequence, knowledge created in the innovation incubators is distributed organisation wide. The structure of the informative organisation optimises knowledge worker expertise by continuously infusing new knowledge that is created into the customer-facing and internal business processes (du Plessis, 2007).

6.4.2.3.2 Culture

The informative organisation seeks to create a strong culture that supports the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise by shaping a strong set of values that encourages the sharing of knowledge (Lucas & Ogilvie, 2006). The informative organisation values human relations above all and therefore activities that encourage human interaction are rewarded. This culture will create the right conditions for the innovation incubators to flourish, where the creative activities of the knowledge worker is valued, encouraged and supported.

6.4.2.3.3 Codification

The Informative Organisational Design requires codification as the primary means of making knowledge available for re-use within an organisation (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007). As a consequence, the informative organisational design attempts to effect the distribution of knowledge worker expertise through codification.

213

6.4.2.4 Innovation incubators

The Informative Organisational Design establishes innovation incubators to coexist with the organisational structure. In these innovation incubators, knowledge workers are exempted from their ordinary tasks in order for them to concentrate all their efforts on optimising knowledge worker expertise (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). The innovation incubators enable an organisation to deal effectively with the challenge of “dualism”, where the organisation can focus on operational efficiency while optimising knowledge worker expertise.

6.4.2.5 Supportive organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise

The Informative Organisational Design values the knowledge worker for their high level of education and vast amounts of practical experience (Cooper, 2006) which gives an organisation the capacity to act (Botha, 2000). The Informative Organisational Design recognises that a knowledge worker does not seek life-long employment and as a consequence the organisation should develop supportive organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise before they leave the organisation.

These supportive organisational competencies are discussed below.

214

6.4.2.5.1 Knowledge management

The Informative Organisational Design applies three basic approaches to implement knowledge management for the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise. The first basic approach is to create opportunities for collaborative practices. The second basic approach is the effective management of knowledge as a resource and the third basic approach is the integration of knowledge to make it more available and accessible within the organisation (du Plessis, 2007).

6.4.2.5.2 Knowledge transfer

The Informative Organisational Design focuses on opportunities to optimise knowledge worker expertise by making the knowledge created in the innovation incubators available across organisational units (Kwahk, Kim & Chan, 2007). A critical consideration for the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise in the informative organisation is that the valuable tacit knowledge owned by the knowledge workers has relevance only when it can be effectively captured for the benefit of the organisation (Bhardwaj & Monin, 2006).

6.4.2.5.3 Knowledge sharing

The Informative Organisational Design establishes mechanisms to assist the sharing of knowledge. The innovation incubators functioning within the informative organisation will provide the basis for knowledge workers to share and communicate tacit knowledge (Sanders, 2005). This socialisation process of knowledge creation (Dyck, Starke, Mischke & Mauws, 2005) will contribute to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise through the conversion of tacit knowledge to new tacit knowledge by knowledge workers (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005).

215

6.4.2.5.4 Knowledge communication

In the Informative Organisational Design, the approach to communication is grounded in establishing innovation incubators to encourage and maintain human relations. The informative organisation relies on a person-to-person approach in its communication process (Greiner, Böhmann & Krcmar, 2007). The innovation incubators present an organisation with the opportunity for person-to-person communication. The focus on relationship development as a mechanism to transfer knowledge in an organisation will do much to reduce the strangle hold that silo’s have on creativity, innovation and the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise.

6.5 Significance of the research

This research has theoretical, methodological and practical significance as it contributes to the understanding of organisational design and the supportive organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise. It will contribute towards the body of scientific knowledge in a number of ways, which are discussed below.

6.5.1 Theoretical contribution

This research contributes to the theoretical debate on the design and supportive organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise. It contributes further by providing a framework for examining organisational design and the supportive organisational competencies required to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The framework enables: • Discovering which organisational design elements contribute to the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise; and • Determining which supportive organisational competencies are required to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

216

In terms of theory building, the aim of this research was to understanding the experiences of knowledge workers employed by the GSSC and to develop relevant theory that emerged from the data.

6.5.2 Methodological contribution

For an organisation to sustain a competitive advantage in the knowledge economy, it is vital that an organisational design option is implemented together with the development of supportive organisational competencies to optimise knowledge worker expertise. By engaging focus groups and in-depth interviews with knowledge workers from the GSSC, the researcher ensured that the findings are valid for the South African context.

Furthermore, this research is useful in expanding the status of the qualitative methodology. The focus group and in-depth interviews as an approach to data collection validated the value of this methodology.

6.5.3 Practical contribution

The research made specific recommendations relating to a design option for optimising knowledge worker expertise in the following ways: • Systematise an unremitting interplay between knowledge worker expertise and the business processes and routine operations of an organisation to continuously improve performance; • Through the effective use of innovation incubators, enable an increasing amount of knowledge worker tacit knowledge to be brought under the control of the organisation; • Introduce processes that facilitate knowledge sharing and the integration of new knowledge into the business processes and routine operations to optimise knowledge worker expertise;

217

• Incorporate a system where the improved business processes and routine operations become the impetus for further refinement in the innovation incubators.

6.6 Limitations of this research

At times, the process of group dynamics proved to be a disadvantage for collecting data during the research as some respondents felt inhibited during the focus sessions. Some respondents publicly agreed to the views of others, whilst privately disagreeing.

It was unfortunate that this research was conducted at an organisation that has been in existence for a little over five years. The organisation was still experiencing a great deal of upheaval resulting from the redeployment of functions and knowledge workers from provincial government departments which were centralised in the GSSC. This impacted on internal climate and the relationship between knowledge workers and management. A fair amount of negativity had to be dealt with which impacted on the optimal execution of the research. In addition, the optimisation of knowledge worker expertise encroaches heavily onto personal space and information that might have strengthened the findings was not accessible. Although this research focused only on a public sector organisation, private sector organisations should be able to obtain reasonable insights as the typical enablers to optimise knowledge worker expertise seem to be fairly generic.

6.7 Recommendations for future research

The research revealed much about the GSSC’s current organisational design’s inability to optimise knowledge worker expertise. However, it is evident that this is an area that offers many opportunities for intensive investigation. Other researchers may wish to pursue the lines of investigation that have been set out in the paragraphs below.

• Information technology has been offered as a possible solution to disseminating

218

knowledge across domains and research can be conducted to determine how information technology can assist in the optimization of knowledge worker expertise. Research to determine information technologies that can support access to other domains of knowledge and thereby foster knowledge worker innovation are needed (Faniel & Majchrzak, 2006).

• It would be valuable to carry out extensive research to determine what motivates knowledge workers, including their value systems, to enable an organisation to better understand this key element of human capital.

• Research needs to be conducted at organisations which are successful in retaining knowledge workers in the long term so that the components of their compelling knowledge worker value propositions can be understood.

• It will also be beneficial to develop a structural arrangement that enables knowledge workers to participate in innovation incubators without a risk to organisational performance.

6.8 Conclusion

This chapter provided final conclusions and recommendations concerning the research by discussing the contribution and limitations of the study as well as suggesting potential research opportunities.

219

The research findings have confirmed that the organisational design does not have the capability to optimise knowledge worker expertise. The Informative Organisational Design will enable an organisation to optimise knowledge worker expertise by providing a mechanism for the organisation to institutionalise existing and newly created knowledge.

The findings of this research do not only provide valuable insights into the theory of organisational design and its ability to optimise knowledge worker expertise, but proposes the Informative Organisational Design as an option to optimise knowledge worker expertise.

All the research objectives, as stated in chapter 1 have been met.

220

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdullah, M., Kimble, C., Benest, I., Paige, R. (2006). Knowledge-based systems: a re- evaluation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 127-142. Abraham, S.E., Karns, L.A., Shaw, K., Mena, M.A. (2001) Managerial competencies and the managerial performance appraisal process. Journal of Management Development, 20, 842-852. Adamson, I. (2005). Knowledge Management - The Next Generation of TQM? Total Quality Management, 16, 987-1000. Adkins, L. (2005). The New Economy, Property and Personhood. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 111-130. Ahmed, P.K., Rafiq, M., Saad, N.M. (2003). Internal marketing and the mediating role of organisational competencies. European Journal of Marketing, 37, 1221-1241. Aiman-Smith, L., Bergey, P., Cantwell, A., Doran, M. (2006). The Coming Knowledge And Capacity Shortage. Research - Technology Management, 15-23. Akbar, H. (2003). Knowledge Levels and their Transformation: Towards the Integration of Knowledge Creation and Individual Learning. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1997-2021. Al-Alawi, A., Al-Marzooqi, N., Mohammed, Y. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 22-42. Alam, I. (2005). Fieldwork and data collection in qualitative marketing research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8, 97-112. Albina, V., Garavelli, A., Gorgoglione, M. (2004). Organization and technology in knowledge transfer. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11, 584-600. Ali, H., Yusof, Z. (2004). Knowledge Management in Malaysian Banks: a study of causes and effects. Information Development, 20, 161-168. Allen, J., Kanji, G. (1998). Perspectives on Research in Quality Management. Total Quality Management, 9, 221-226. Alonderiene, R., Pundziene, A., Krisciunas, K. (2006). Tacit Knowledge Acquisition and Transfer in the Process of Informal Learning. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 4, 134-145. Alsene, E. (2007). ERP systems and the coordination of the enterprise. Business Process Management Journal, 13, 417-432. Alvarez, S. (2003). Towards an interpretative integrative framework to conceptualise social processes in large information systems implementations. Information Technology for Development, 10, 233-247. Alvesson, M., Karreman, D., Swan, J. (2002). Departures Form Knowledge and/or Management in Knowledge Management. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 282-291. Ang, Z., Massingham, P. (2007). National culture and the standardization versus adaptation of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 5-21. Anis, M., Armstrong, S.J., Zhu, Z. (2004). The Influence of Learning Styles on Knowledge Acquisition in Public Sector Management. Educational Psychology, 24, 549-571.

221

Ansari, M.A., Hung, D. K. M., Aafaqi, R. (2007). Leader-member exchange and attitudinal outcomes: role of procedural justice climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 690-709. Aramburu, N., Saenz, J., Rivera, O. (2006). Fostering innovation and knowledge creation: the role of management context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 157-168. Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 94-107. Argote, L., McEvily, B., Reagans, R. (2003). Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes. Management Science, 49, 571-582. Armstrong, S.J., Mahmud, A. (2004). The Influence of Learning Styles on the Creation of Actionable Knowledge in Public Sector Managers. Academy of Management, Best Conference Paper, D1-D6. Arnulf, J., Dreyer, H., Grenness, C. (2005). Trust and knowledge creation: how the dynamics of trust and absorptive capacity may affect supply chain management development projects. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 8, 225-236. Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9, 215-233. Augier, M., Kudsen, T. (2004). The architecture and design of the knowledge organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 6-20. Austin, R., Nolan, R. (2007). Bridging the Gap Between Stewards and Creators. MIT Sloan Management Review, 28-36. Babbie, E. (2005). The Basics of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Babbie, E., Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Bailey, J. (2003). The Mind of the Strategist. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 385. Ballantine, J., McCourt Larres, J. (2007). Cooperative learning: a pedagogy to improve students generic skills. Education + Training, 49, 126-137. Barber, F., Strack, R. (2005). The Surprising Economics of a "People Business". Harvard Business Review, 83, 80-90. Barbosa, I., Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2007). Managing diversity in academic organizations: a challenge to organizational culture. Women in Management Review, 22, 274-288. Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9, 30-42. Barros, O. (2007). Business process patterns and frameworks. Business Process Management Journal, 13, 47-69. Bellou, V. (2007). Psychological contract assessment after a major organizational change. Employee Relations, 29, 68-88. Benbya, H. (2006). Mechanisms for Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness: Empirical Evidence from the Silicon Valley. Academy of Management, Best Conference Paper, U1-U6.

222

Bentley, K., Yoong, P. (2000). Knowledge work and telework: an exploratory study. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 10, 346-356. Bhardwaj, M., Monin, J. (2006). Tacit to explicit: an interplay shaping organization knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 72-85. Birdi, K.S. (2005). No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 102-111. Bitzer, J. (2005). Measuring Knowledge Stocks: A Process of Creative Destruction. Kyklos, 58, 379-393. Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C. (2000). Fundamentals of Social Research Methods: An African Perspective. Lansdowne, Western Cape: Juta Education (Pty) Ltd. Blumentritt, R., Johnston, R. (1999). Towards a Strategy for Knowledge Management. Technology Analysis and Straregic Management, 3, 11. Boardman, A., Arguelles, M., Vaughn, S., Huges, M., Klingner, J. (2005). Special Education Teachers Views of Research Based Practices. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 168-180. Boder, A. (2006). Collective intelligence: a keystone in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 81-93. Bogdanowicz, M., Bailey, E. (2002). The value of knowledge and the values of the new knowledge worker: generation X in the new economy. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26, 125-129. Boode, G. (2005). Boundaries on the Move. The Impact of Cultural Values and Language on Organizational Design and Communication within an Organization in Thailand. Asia Pacific Business Review, 11, 519-533. Borredon, L., Ingham, M. (2005). Mentoring and organisational learning in research and development. R&D Management, 35, 493-500. Boston, C. (2006). Organizing for innovation: Consistent innovation message. Strategic Direction, 22, 34-36. Botha, D. F. (2007). Rethinking the knowledge bearing capacity of e-Buisiness systems. South African Journal of Business Management, 38, 37-43. Botha, D.F. (2000). A conceptional framework for the management of knowledge in a knowledge-based enterprise. South African Journal of Business Management, 31, 141-152. Boyatzis, R. E. (2008) Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 27, 5-12. Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Soderquist, K., Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 31-44. Branigan, A. (2000). Using focus groups to evaluate health promotion interventions. Health Education, 100, 261-268. Brint, S. (2001). Knowledge Society and The Professions. Current Sociology, 49, 101- 132. Brokel, T., Binder, M. (2007). The Regional Dimension of Knowledge Transfers - A Behavioral Approach. Industry and Innovation, 14, 151-175. Bryan, L., Joyce, C. (2005). The 21st-century organisation. McKinsey Quarterly, 24-33. Buhler, P.M. (2000). Managing in the new millennium. Supervision, 61, 17.

223

Caelli, K., Ray, L., Mill, J. (2003). "Clear as Mud": Toward Greater Clarity in Generic Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2, 1-23. Calabrese, F. (2006). Knowledge-based organizations in context. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 36, 12-16. Call, D. (2005). Knowledge management - not rocket science. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 19-30. Cancer, V., Mulej, M. (2006). Systemic decision analysis approaches: Requisite tools for developing creative ideas into innovations. Kybernetes, 35, 1059-1070. Chaker, M.N. (2005). Managing Disequilibra in the "New Economy". Journal of American Academy of Business, 6, 58-61. Chan, J.O. (2005). Enterprise Information Systems Strategy and Planning. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 6, 148-153. Chanal, V. (2004). Innovation management and organizational learning: a discursive approach. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 56-64). Chandon, W., Nadler, G. (2000). A breakthrough thinking organization. Team Performance Management, 6, 122-130. Chatterjee, D., Segars, A.H., Watson, R.T. (2006). Realizing the Promise of E-Business: Developing and Leveraging Electronic Partnership Options. California Management Review, 48, 60-83. Chen, A.N.K., Edgington, T.M. (2005). Assessing Value in Organizational Knowledge Creation: Considerations for Knowledge Workers. MIS Quarterly, 29, 279-309. Chen, S., Duan, Y., Edwards, J., Lehaney, B. (2006). Toward understanding inter- organizational knowledge transfer needs in SMEs: insight from a UK investigation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 6-29. Chen, C.C., Wu, J., Yang, S.C. (2006). The efficacy of online cooperative learning systems: The perspective of task-technology fit. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23, 112-127. Cheng, E.W.L. (2000). Test of the MBA knowledge and skills transfer. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 837-852. Cheng, M., Dainty, A., Moore, D. (2007). Implementing a new performance management system within a project-based organization. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56, 60-75. Cheung, P., Chau, P., Au, A. (2007). Does knowledge reuse make a creative person more creative? Decision Support Systems, 1-9. Chi, Y., Hsu, T., Yang, W. (2006). Ontological techniques to reuse and sharing knowledge in digital museums. The Electronic Library, 24, 147-159. Choi, B., Lee, H. (2003). Knowledge Management Enablers, Process, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 179-228. Choo, A.S., Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G. (2004). Social and Method effects On Learning Behaviors and Knowledge creation In Six Sigma Projects. Academy of Management, Best Conference Paper, 1-6. Choo, C. W. (2000). Working with knowledge: how information professionals help organisations manage what they know. Library Management, 21, 395-403. Chowdhury, S. (2005). The Role of Affect- and Cognition-based Trust in Complex Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, XVII, 310-326.

224

Christensen, J.L., Drejer, I. (2005). The Strategic Importance of Location: Location Decisions and the Effects of Firm Location on Innovation and Knowledge Acquisition. European Planning Studies, 13, 807-814. Christensen, P. (2007). Knowledge sharing: moving away from the obsession with best practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 36-47. Chua, A. (2004). Knowledge sharing: a game people play. Aslib Proceedings, 55, 117- 129. Clark, E.E. (2007). Characteristics of work organization in UK and Philippine call centres. Team Performance Management, 13, 227-243. Claver-Cortez, E., Zaragoza-Saez, P., Pertusa-Ortega, E. (2007). Organizational structure features supporting knowledge management processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 45-57. Cloud, D.L. (2001). Laboring Under the Sign of the New. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 268-278. Coakes, E., Smith, P. (2007). Developing communities of innovation by identifying innovation champions. The Learning Organization, 14, 74-85. Cohen, S.G., Mankin, D. (2002). Complex Collaborations in the New Global Economy. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 117-133. Colgate, M. (1998). Creating sustainable competitive advantage through marketing information system technology: a triangulation methodology within the banking industry. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 16, 80-89. Colinson, V. (2004). Leaning to share, sharing to learn: Fostering organizational learning through teachers’ dissemination of knowledge. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 312-332. Connell, J., Voola, R. (2007). Strategic alliances and knowledge sharing: synergies or silos? Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 52-66. Cooper, D. (2006). Knowledge Workers. Canadian Business, 79, 1-2. Covell, D. (2002). Organisational Design and the Post-Season Controversy in New England Small College Athletic Conference. Sport Management Reviews, 5, 69-94. Covey, S.R. (2004). The 8th Habit From Effectiveness To Greatness. London: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. Cross, R., Laseter, T., Parker, A., Velasquez, G. (2006). Using Social Network Analysis to Improve Communitites of Practice. California Management Review, 49, 32-60. Crossan, M., Vera, D. (2004). Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. Academy of Managenent Review, 29, 222-240. Curado, C. (2006). Organisational learning and organisational design. The Learning Organization, 13, 25-48. Damaskopoulos, P., Evgeniou, T. (2003). Adoption of New Economy Practices by SMEs in Eastern Europe. European Management Journal, 21, 133-145. Danese, P., Romano, P. (2004). Improving inter-functional coordination to face high product variety and frequent modifications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24, 863-885. Davison, G., Blackman, D. (2005). The role of mental models in innovative teams. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8, 409-423. Davies, J., Subrahmanian, E., Westerberg, A. (2005). The global and the local in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 101-112.

225

Dayan, R., Evans, S. (2006). KM your way to CMMI. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 69-80. de Jong, J., Den Hartog, D. (2007). How leaders influence employees innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10, 41-64. de Wit, J., Dankbaar, B., Vissers, G. (2007). Open Innovation: The New Way of Knowledge Transfer. Journal of Business Chemistry, 4, 11-19. Denning, S. (2005). Transformational innovation: A journey by narrative. Strategy & Leadership, 33, 11-16. Denning, S. (2006). Ten steps to get more business value from knowledge management. Strategy & Leadership, 34, 11-16. D'eon, M. (2005). A blueprint for interprofessional learning. Journal of Interprofessional Care, Supplement 1, 49-59. Desouza, K., Awazu, Y. (2006). Integrating Local Knowledge Strategies. KM Review, 9, 20-23. Devers, K., Frankel, R. (2000). Study Design in Qualitative Research - 2: Sampling and Data Collection Strategies. Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice, 13, 113-120. Dixon, S.E.A., Day, M. (2007). Leadership, administrative heritage and absorptive capacity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 727-748. Donalek, J. (2005). The Interview in Qualitative Research. Urologic Nursing, 25, 124- 125. Dong-Gil, K., Kirsh, L.J., King, W. (2005). Antecedents of Knowledge Transfer From Consultants to Clients in Enterprise System Implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 59- 85. Drejer, A., Sorensen, S. (2002). Succeeding with souring of competencies in technology-intensive industries. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 9, 388-408. Drucker, P.F. (1999). Management Challenges for The 21st Century. Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann. du Plessis, M. (2007). Knowledge management: what makes complex implementations successful? Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 91-101. Dufour, Y., Steane, P. (2007). Implementing knowledge management: a more robust model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 68-80. Duignan, R. (2007). Employee perceptions of recent work environment changes in Japan. Personnel Review, 36, 440-456. Dyck, B., Starke, F.A., Mischke, G.A., Mauws, M. (2005). Learning to Build a Car: An Empitical Investigation of Organizational Learning. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 387-416. Edenius, M., Styhre, A. (2006). Knowledge management in the making: using the balance scorecard and e-mail systems. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 86- 102. Edvardsson, B. (2003). Quality in the work environment: a prerequisite for success in new service development. Managing Service Quality, 13, 148-163. Eid, J., Johnsen, B.H., Bartone, P.T. (2008). Growing transformational leaders: exploring the role of personality hardiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 4-23.

226

Elliman, T., Eatock, J., Spencer, N. (2005). Modelling knowledge worker behaviour in business process studies. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18, 79-94. Emiliani, M.L. (2003). Linking leaders’ beliefs to their behaviours and competencies. Management Decision, 41, 893-910. Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26, 247-273. Eskerod, P., Skriver, H. (2007). Organizational Culture Restraining In-House Knowledge Transfer Between Project Managers - A Case Study. Project Management Journal, 38, 110-122. Espinosa, A., Harnden, R., Walker, J. (2007). Beyond hierarchy: a complexity management perspective. Kybernetes, 36, 333-347. Eucker, T. (2007). Understanding The Impact of Tacit Knowledge Los. Knowledge Management Review, 10, 10-13. Eunni, R., Kasuganti, R., Kos, A. (2006). Konwledge Management Processes in International Business Alliances: A Review of Empirical Research, 1990-2003. International Journal of Management, 23, 34-42. Evers, H., Menkhoff, T. (2004). Expert knowledge and the role of consultants in an emerging knowledge-based economy. Human Systems Management, 23, 123-135. Fahey, L., Herring, J. (2007). Intelligence teams. Strategy & Leadership, 35, 13-20. Faniel, I., Majchrzak, A. (2006). Innovating by accessing knowledge across departments. Decision Support System, 1-8. Foos, T., Schum, G., Rothenberg, S. (2006). Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 6-18. Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717-732. Fu, Q., Chui, Y., Helander, M. (2006). Knowledge identification and management in product design. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 50-63. Gammelgaard, J., Ritter, T. (2005). The knowledge retrieval matrix: codification and personification as separate strategies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 133- 143. Garavan, T., Carberry, R., Murphy, E. (2007). Managing intentionally created communities of practice for knowledge sourcing across organisational boundaries. The Learning Organization, 14, 34-49. Gates, B. (2005). The Road Ahead. Newsweek, 146, 24-26. Girard, J. (2006). Where is the knowledge we have lost in managers? Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 22-38. . Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Gold, A., Malhotra, A., Segards, A. (2001). Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 185-214. Gorelick, C., Tantawy-Monsou, B. (2005). For performance through learning, knowledge management is critical practice. The Learning organization, 12, 125-139.

227

Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: the missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 1, 50-57. Govendo, J.A. (2005). Workforce, diversity and corporate creativity. Handbook of Business Strategy, 6, 213-218. Grandori, A., Soda, G. (2006). A Relationship Approach to Organizational Design. Industry and Innovation, 13, 151-172. Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122. Greenberg, J., Baron, R.A. (2000). Behavior in organisations. Seventh edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Guns, B. (2001). Contributing Value. Executive Excellence, 11. Hakanson, L. (2004). Epistemic Communities and Cluster Dynamics: On the Role of Knowledge in Industrial Districts. Academy of Management, Best Conference Paper, E1-E6. Hall, M. (2006). Knowledge management and the limits of knowledge codification. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 117-126. Hamel, G. (2006). The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84, 23-33. Hamel, G., Getz, G. (2004). Funding Growth in an Age of Austerity. Harvard Business Review, 82, 68-74. Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K. (2005). Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review, 83, 61- 76. Hammer, M. (2007). The Process Audit. Harvard Business Review, 85, 111-123. Hammer, M., Leonard, D., Davenport, T. (2004). Why Don't We Know More About Knowledge? MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 14-18. Haring, R. (2008). Conducting culturally appropriate qualitative market research in the Native American landscape. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 11, 7-16. Harvey, M., Novicevic, M., Buckley, M. (2001). A historic perspective on organizational ignorance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 449-468. Hasgall, A., Shoham, S. (2008). Knowledge processes: from managing people to managing processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 51-62. Hauschild, S. (2001). Creating a knowledge culture. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 74-81. Heaton, L., Taylor, J. (2002). Knowledge Management and Professional Work. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 210-236. Henning, E. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. Herath, S.K. (2007). A framework for management control research. Journal of Management Development, 26, 895-915. Hicks, R., Dattero, R., Galup, S. (2006). The five-tier knowledge managent hierarchy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 19-31. Hicks, R., Dattero, R., Galup, S. (2007). A metaphor for knowledge management: explicit islands in a tacit sea. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 5-18. Hines, T. (2000). An evaluation of two qualitative methods (focus group and cognitive maos) for conducting research into entrepreneurial decision making. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3, 173-203.

228

Hislop, D. (2003). Knowledge integration processes and the appropriation of innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 159-172. Hiver, W., Hopkins, W., Hopkins, S. (2003). Facilitating, accelerating, and sustaining the innovation diffusion process: an epic modelling approach. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 80-89. Hoeksema, L., van de Vliert, E., Williams, R. (1997). The interplay between learning strategy and organizational structure in predicting career success. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 307-327. Holste, J.S., Fields, D. (2005). The Relationship of Affect and Cognition based Trust With Sharing and Use of Tacit Knowledge. Academy of Management, Best Conference Paper, B1-B6. Hong, J., Hwang, M., Lin, C. (2003). Chi and Organizational Creativity: A Case Study of Three Taiwanese Computer Firms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 202- 210. Hornstein, H.A., de Guerre, D.W. (2006). Bureaucratic Organisations Are Bad for Our Health. Ivey Business Journal, 1, 1-4. Huwe, T. (2006). Breaking into Communities of Practice. Computer in Libraries, 22-25. Ivancevich, J.M., Matteson, M.T. (1999). Organisational behaviour and management. Fifth edition. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Iverson, J., McPhee, R. (2002). Knowledge Management in Communities of Practice. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 259-266. Ives, B. (2005). Using Blogs for Personal KM and Community Building. KM Review, 8, 12-15. Jackson, T. (2007). Applying autopoiesis to knowledge management in organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 78-91. Jain, K., Nagar, L., Srivastava, V. (2006). Benefit sharing in inter-organizational coordination. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11, 400-416. Jantunen, A. (2005) Knowledge-processing capabilities and innovative performance: an empirical study. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8, 336-349. Jamrog, J., Vickers, M., Bear, D. (2007). Building and Sustaining a Culture that Supports Innovation. Human Resource Planning, 29, 9-19. Janz, B.D., Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the Antecedents of Effective Knowledge Management: The Importance of a Knowledge-Centered Culture. Decision Sciences, 34, 351-384. Jarvenpaa, S.L., Staples, D.S. (2001). Exploring Perceptions of Organizational Ownership of Information and Expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 151-183. Jogaratnam, G., Tse, E. (2006). Entrepreneurial orientation and the structure of organizations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18, 454-468. Johanson, U., Martensson, M., Skoog, M. (2001). Measuring to understand intangible performance drivers. The European Accounting Review, 10, 407-437. Jones, P., Cullis, J. (2003). Key Parameters in Policy Design: The Case of Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Social Policy, 32, 527-547.

229

Joshi, K., Sarker, S., Sarker, S. (2007). Knowledge transfer within information systems development teams: Examining the role of knowledge source attributes. Decision Support Systems, 43, 322-335. Kalpic, B., Bernus, P. (2006). Business process modeling through the knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 40-56. Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (2006). How to Implement a New Strategy Without Disrupting Your Organisation. Harvard Business Review, 100-109. Kenney, J. (2006). Knowledge integration in organizations: an empirical assessment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 43-58. Kenney, J.L., Gudergan, S.P. (2006). Knowledge integration in organizations: an empirical assessment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 43-58. Keskin, H. (2005). The Relationship Between Explicit and Tacit Oriented KM Strategy, and Firm Performance. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 7, 169-175. Kessler, E.H., Chakrabarti, A. K. (1998). An empirical investigation into methods affecting the quality of new product innovations. International Journal of Quality Science, 3, 302-319. Khamseh, H.M., Jolly, D.R. (2008). Knowledge transfer in alliances: determinant factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 37-50. Khandwalla, P., Mehta, K. (2004). Design of Corporate Creativity. The Journal for Decision Makers, 29, 13-29. Khandwalla, P.N. (2006). Tools for Enhancing Innovativeness in enterprises. Vikalpa, 31, 1-16. Kiedrowski, P. (2006). Quantitative assessment of a Senge learning organisation. Quantitative assessment, 13, 369-383. Kiley, D. (2005). Shoot the Focus Group. Business Week, 1, 120-121. Kingston, K., Horrocks, C., Hanton, S. (2006). Do multidimensional intrinsic and extrinsic motivation profiles discriminate between athlete scholarship status and gender? European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 53-63. Kirkwood, T., Pangarkar, A. (2003). Workplace learning - beyond the classroom. CMA Management, 10-12. Kleiner, A. (2003). Are You In with the In Crowd. Harvard Business Review, 81, 86-92. Kodama, M. (2006). Strategic Community: Foundation Of Knowledge Creation. Research - Technology Management, 49-58. Koening, M. (1999). Education for Knowledge Mangement. Information Services & Use, 19, 17-31. Kogan, S.L., Muller, M.J. (2006). Ethnographic study of collaborative knowledge work. IBM Systems Journal, 45, 759-771. Koners, U., Goffin, K. (2007). Manager’s perception of learning in new product development. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27, 49- 68. Koskinen, K. (2004). Knowledge Management to Improve Project Communication and Implementation. Project Management Journal, 35, 13-19. Koster, F., Stokman, F., Hodson, R., Sanders, K. (2007). Solidarity through networks: The effects of task and informal interdependence on cooperation within teams. Employee Relations, 29, 117-137.

230

Kreindler, M.L., Maislish, R., Wang, S. (2004). An empirical test of the impact of electronic commerce on organizations. Human Systems Management, 23, 59-68. Krueger, R. (1994). Focus Groups; A Practical Guide for Applied Research. California: SAGE Publications Inc. Kwahk, K., Kim, H., Chan, H. (2007). A Knowledge Integration Approach for Organizational Decision Support. Journal of Database Management, 18, 41-61. LaDuke, B. (2005). Beyond Polanyi. Knowledge Management, 10-11. Lai, M., Lee, M. (2007). Risk-avoiding cultures toward achievement of knowledge sharing. Business Process Management Journal, 13, 522-537. Laihonen, H. (2006). Knowledge flows in self-organizing processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 127-135. Laise, D., Migliarese, P., Verteramo, S. (2005). Knowledge Organization design: A diagnostic tool. Human Systems Management, 24, 121-131. Lakshman, C. (2007). Organizational knowledge leadership: a grounded theory approach. Organizational knowledge leadership, 28, 51-75. Lang, J. C. (2001). Managerial concerns in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 43-59. Laverie, D. (2006). In-ClassActive Cooperative Learning: A Way To build Knowledge and Skills In Marketing Courses. Marketing Education Review, 16, 59-76. Lebowitz, M.A. (2005). The Knowledge of a Better World. Monthly Review, 62-69. Lecompte, M. (1994). Sensible Matchmaking: Qualitative Research Design and the Program Evaluation Standards. Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 117-129. Lee, G.K., Cole, R.E. (2003). From a Firm-Based to a Community-Based Model of Knowledge Creation: The Case of the Linux Kernel Development. Organization Science, 14, 633-649. Lee, R.G., Dale, B.G. (1998) Business process management: a review and evaluation. Business Process Management, 4, 214-225. Levin, D., Cross, R. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50, 1477-1490. Levy, J. (2005). The Fourth Revolution. T+D, 59, 64-66. Liao, C. (2005). A Field Study in the Externalising of Tacit Knowledge in O-the-Job Training. International Journal of Management, 22, 79-88. Limone, A., Bastias, L. (2006). Autopoiesis and Knowledge in the Organization: Conceptual Foundation for Authentic Knowledge Management. System Research and Behavioral Science, 23, 39-49. Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using Focus Groups in Research. London: Continuum. Ljungquist, U. (2007). Core competency beyond identification: presentation of a model. Management Decision, 45, 393-402). Lloyd, A. (2003). Information literacy: the meta-competency of the knowledge economy? an exploratory paper. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 35, 87-92. Lloyd-Jones, G. (2003). Design and Control Issues in Qualitative Case Study Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2, 20-38. Loewe, P., Dominiquini, J. (2006). Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 34, 24-31.

231

Logar, C., Ponzurick, T., Spear, J. (2001). Commercializing intellectual property: a university industry alliance for a new product development. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10, 206-217. Lucas, L.M., Ogilvie, D.T ( 2006). Things are not always what they seem: How reputations, culture, and incentives influence knowledge transfer. The Learning Organization. 13, 7-24. Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Maclaren, P., Catterall, M. (2002). Analysing qualitative data: computer software and the market research practitioner. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5, 28-39 Magnier-Watanabe, R., Senoo, D. (2008). Organizational characteristics as prescriptive factors of knowledge management initiatives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 21-36. Majchzak, A., Beath, C., Lim, R., Chin, W. (2005). Managing Client Dialogues During Information Systems Design To Facilitate Client Learning. MIS Quarterly, 29, 653- 672. Malik, K. (2004). Coordination of technological knowledge flows in firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 64-72. Manimala, M.J., Jose, P.D., Thomas, K.R. (2005). Organizational Design for Enhancing the Impact of Incremental Innovation: A Qualitative Analysis of Innovative Cases in the Context of a Developing Economy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 413-424. Margerison, C. (2001). Team competencies. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 7, 117-122. Marjanovic, O. (2005). Towards IS supported coordination in emergent business processes. Business Process Management Journal, 11, 465-487. Marouf, L. (2007). Social networks and knowledge sharing in organizations: a case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 110-125. Marques, D., Simon, F. (2006). The effect of knowledge management practices on firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 143-156. Marr, B. (2004). Measuring and benchmarking intellectual capital. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11, 559-570. Marr, B., Neely, A. (2004). Intellectual capital – defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets. Business Process Management Journal. 10, 551- 569. Marr, B., Schiuma, G., Neely, A. (2004). Intellectual capital - defining key performance indicators for organizational knowledge assets. Business Process Management Journal, 10, 551-569. Martins, E.C., Terblanche, T. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 64-74). Massey, A., Montoya-Weiss, M., O'Driscoll, T. (2002). Performance-Centered Design of Knowledge-Intensive Processes. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 37-58. Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M. (2006). Unraveling The Temporal Fabric Of Knowledge Conversion: A Model Of Media Selection. MIS Quarterly, 30, 99-114. Maurer, R. (1996). Beyond the wall of resistance. Texas: Bard Books.

232

McAdam,R., McClelland, J. (2002). Individual and team-based idea generation within innovation management: organization and research agendas. European Journal of innovation Management, 5, 86-97. McAdam, R., Mason, B., McCrory, J. (2007). Exploring the dichotomies within the tacit knowledge literature: towards a process of tacit knowing in organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 43-59. McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary Reseach in Education, History and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge Falmer. McFadyen, M.A., Cannella, A.A. (2004). Social Capital And Knowledge Creation: Diminishing Returns Of The Number And Strength Of Exchange Relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 735-746. Meilich, O. (2005). Are Formalization and Human Asset Specificity Mutually Exclusive? Journal of American Academy of Business, 6, 161-169. Melody, W. (2002). The Triumph and Strategy of Human Capital: Foundation Resource for Building Network Knowledge Economies. Learning Information Networking Knowledge Centre, 1, 1-13. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merx-Chermin, M., Nijhof, W.J. (2005). Factors influencing knowledge creation and innovation in an organisation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 135-147. Meyer, B., Sugiyama, K. (2007). The concept of knowledge in KM: a dimensional model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 17-35. Miller, F.A. (1998). Strategic culture change: The door to achieving high performance and inclusion. Public Personnel Management, 27, 151-160. Miller, K.D., Zhao, M., Clantone, R.J. (2006). Adding Interpersonal Learning to March’s Exploration-Exploitation Model. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 709-722. Mitki, Y., Shani, A.B., Stjernberg, T. (2008). Leadership, development and learning mechanisms: System transformation as a balancing act. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29, 68-84. Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M., Murray, A. (2006). Knowledge management and information technology: can they work in perfect harmony? Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 103-116. Montoya-Weiss, M., Massey, A., Clapper, D. (1998). On line focus groups: conceptual issues and a research tool. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 713-723. Morgan, D. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. California, USA: Sage Publications, Inc. Mort, J. (2001). Nature, value and pursuit of reliable corporate knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 222-231. Mouton, J. (2001). How to succeed in your Masters & Doctoral Studies. Hatfield, Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. Mulholland, P., Zdrahal, Z., Domingue, J., Hatala, M. (2000). Integrating working and learning: a document enrichment approach. Behaviour and Information Technology, 19, 171-180. Murray, A., Greenes, K. (2006). The enterprise of the future. KM World, 37-38. Murray, P. (2003). Organisational learning, competencies, and firm performance: empirical observations. The Learning Organization, 10, 305-316.

233

Muthusamy, S.K., White, M.A. (2005). Learning and Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Alliances: A Social Exchange View. Organizational Studies, 26, 415-441. Nadler, J., Thompson, L., Van Boven, L. (2003). Learning Negotiation Skills: Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer. Management Science, 49, 529-540. Narteh, B. (2008). Knowledge transfer in developed-developing country interfirm collaborations: a conceptual framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 78- 91). Nelson, D.L., Quick, J.C. (1997). Organizational Behavior. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Ng, P.T. (2004). The learning organisation and the innovative organisation. Human Systems Management, 23, 93-100. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 1- 10. Nurcan, S., Etien, A., Kaabi, R., Zoukar, I., Rolland, C. (2005). A strategy driven business process modelling approach. Business Process Management Journal, 11, 628-649. O'Donnell, D., Porter, G., McGuire, D., Garavan, T., Hefferman, M. (2003). Creating intellectual capital: a Habermasian community of practice (CoP) introduction. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27, 80-87. Oliver, M., Conole, G. (2000). Assessing and enhancing quality using toolkits. Quality Assurance in Education, 8, 32-37. Oliver, S., Kandadi, K. (2006). How to develop knowledge culture in organizations? A multiple case study of large distributed organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 6-24. O'Sullivan, K. (2007). Creating and executing an internal communications plan for knowledge management systems deployment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 102-108. Owen, J.M. (1999). Knowledge management and information professional. Information Services & use, 19, 7-16. Owen, L., Goldwasser, C., Choate, K. (2008). Collaborative innovation throughout the extended enterprise. Strategy & Leadership, 36, 39-45. Oyeleran-Oyeyinka, B. (2004). Learning, knowledge and skills: implications for firm-level performance in African industry. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 3, 91-113. Parashar, M., Singh, S.K. (2005). Innovation Capability. IIMB Management Review, 115-123. Parent, R., Roy, M., St-Jacques, D. (2007). A systems-based dynamic knowledge transfer capacity model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 81-93. Patterson, A. (2006). Processes, relationships, settings, products and consumers: the case for qualitative diary research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8, 142-156. Pastoors, K. (2007). Consultants: love-hate relationships with communities of practice. The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Knowledge and Organizational Learning Management, 14, 21-33.

234

Paul, D.L. (2006). Collaborative Activities in Virtual Settings: A Knowledge Management Perspective of Telemedicine. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22, 143- 176. Pavlin, S. (2006). Community of practice in a small research institute. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 136-144. Peltonen, T., Lamsa, T. (2004). "Communities of Practice" and the Social Process of Knowledge Creation: Towards a New Vocabulary for Making Sense of Organizational Learning. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 249-262. Peoll, R.F., Van der Krogt, F.J. (2003). Learning strategies of workers in the knowledge- creating company. Human Resource Development International, 6, 387-403. Perviaz, A. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1, 30-43. Pham, N.T. (2006). Facilitators of organizational learning in design. The Learning Organization, 13, 186-201. Pham, N., Swierczek, F. (2006). Facilitators of organizational learning in design. The Learning Organization, 13, 186-201. Pillania, R.K. (2005). New Knowledge Creation Scenarion in Indian Industry. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6, 49-57. Poolton, J., Ismael, H. (2000). New developments in innovation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 795-811. Poston, R., Speier, C. (2005). Effective use of knowledge management systems: a process model of content ratings and credibility indicators. MIS Quarterly, 29, 221- 245. Prieto, I., Revilla, E. (2006). Learning capability and business performance: a non- financial and financial assessment. The Learning Organization, 13, 166-185. Prior, L. (2003). Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Puchta, C., Potter, J. (2004). Focus Group Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Pyoria, P. (2007). Informal organizational culture: the foundation of knowledge workers performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 16-30. Raghu, T., Vinze, A. (2007). A business process context for Knowledge Management. Decision Support Systems, 43, 1062-1079. Rao, R., Argote, L. (2006). Organizational learning and forgetting: the effects of turnover and structure. European Management Review, 3, 77-85. Rebernik, M., Sirec, K. (2007). Fostering innovation by unlearning tacit knowledge. Kybernetes, 36, 406-419. Ramirex, Y.W., Nembhard, D. A. (2004). Measuring knowledge worker productivity: A taxonomy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5, 602-628. Riege, A. (2007). Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 48-67. Riege, A., Nicholas, L. (2006). Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder partnerships in the public policy development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 24-39. Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to Communities of Practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 623-653. Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. (2003). Knowledge Creation in Professional Service Firms: Institutional Effects. Organization Studies, 24, 831-857.

235

Robertson, S.L. (2005). Re-imagining and rescripting the future of education: global knowledge economy discourses and the challenge to education systems. Comparative Education, 41, 151-170. Rodriguez-Lluesma, C., Bailey, D.E. (2005). Broadening The Scope: Exploring Three Knowledge Distinctions. Academy of Management, Best Conference Paper, H1-H6. Rothberg, G. (2000). The passage of breakthrough ideas: organisation insights from the Darwinian revolution. Management Decision, 38, 216-227. Rothberg, G. (2004). The role of ideas in the managers’ workplace: theory and practice. Management Decision, 42, 1060-1081. Rowold, J., Hochholdinger, S.(2008). Effects of career-related continuous learning: a case study. The Learning Organization, 15, 45-57. Royal, C., Althauser, R. (2003). The Labor Markets of Knowledge Workers. Work and Occupations, 30, 214-233. Rubenstein-Montano, B., Lebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B. (2001). A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems, 31, 5-16. Rubin, H., Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing; The Art of Hearing Data. California: SAGE Publications Inc. Russo, M., Harrison, N. (2005). Organisational Design and Environmental Performance: Clues from the Electronics Industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 582-593. Rutten, R. (2004). Inter-firm Knowledge Creation: A Re-appreciation of Embeddedness From a Relational Perspective. European Planning Studies, 12, 659-673. Sabherwal, R., Sabherwal, S. (2005). Knowledge Management Using Information Technology: Determinants of Short-Term Impact on Firm Value. Decision Sciences, 36, 531-567. Sackmann, S., Friesl, M. (2007). Exploring cultural impacts on knowledge sharing behavior in project teams - results from a simulation study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 142-158. San, S.H.T., Chung, W.W.C. (2003). A model for assessing ideas for a new venture products. Business Process Management, 9, 60-68. Sanders, D. (2005). Creation of New Knowledge. Defence & security Analysis, 21, 283- 302. Sarabia, M. (2007). Knowledge leadership cycles: an approach from Nonaka's viewpoint. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 6-15. Sasson, J., Douglas, I. (2006). A conceptual integration of performance analysis, knowledge management, and technology: from concept to prototype. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 81-99. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. England: Pearson Education Limited. Sauve, E. (2007). Informal knowledge transfer. T+D, 22-24. Scarnati, J. (1997). Beyond technical competence: Honesty and integrity. Career Development International, 2, 24-27. Schutz, P., Bloch, B. (2006). The "silo-virus": diagnosing and curing departmental groupthink. Team Performance Management, 12, 31-43.

236

Seidler-de Alwis, R., Evi Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 133-147). Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing As Qualitative Research; A guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Sever, K. (2007). The Power of Process Orientation. Quality Progress, 40, 46-52. Shank, G. (2002). Qualitative Research: A Personal Skills Approach. New Jersey USA: Pearson Education Inc. Shankar, A., Goulding, C. (2001). Interpretive consumer research: two more contributions to theory and practice. Qualitative Market Research, 4, 7-16. Sharkey, L. (2006). Organization Integration Case Study: A Practical Approach to Drive Faster Results. Organizational Development Journal, 24, 44-54. Shaw, E. (1999). A guide to the qualitative research process: evidence from a small firm study. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 2, 59-70. Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Sherif, K. (2006). An adaptive strategy for managing knowledge in organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 72-80. Sherman, R., Webb, R. (1988). Qualitative Research in Education: Focus and Methods. London: The Falmer Press. Sherrington, J., Stern, J. (1997). Human Resource's role in culture change. Human Resource Focus, 4, 27-28. Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Simatupang, T., Sandroto, I., Lubis, S. (2004). A coordination analysis of the creative design process. Business Process Management Journal, 10, 430-444. Simatupang, T., Wright, A., Sridharan, R. (2002). The knowledge of coordination for supply chain integration. Business Process Management Journal, 8, 289-308. Sivakumar, K., Roy, S. (2004). Knowledge redundancy in supply chains: a framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9, 241-249. Smedlund, A. (2008). The knowledge system of a firm: social capital for explicit, tacit and potential knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management , 12, 63-77. Smith, E. (2005). Communities of Competence: new resources in the workplace. The Journal of Workpace Learning, 17, 7-23. Smith, K., Collins, C., Clark, K. (2005). Existing Knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 346-357. Smith, P. (2005). Knowledge sharing and strategic capital: The importance and identification of opinion leaders. The Learning Organization, 12, 563-574. So, J., Bolloju, N. (2006). Explaining the intentions to share and reuse knowledge in the context of IT service operations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 30-41. Spender, J.C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45-62. Spira, J.B. (2005). In praise of knowledge workers. KM World, 14, 25-27. Stebbins, M., Shani, A. (1995). Organization design and the knowledge worker. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 16, 23-30.

237

Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging Tacit Organizational Knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, 9-24. Stokes, D., Bergin, R. (2006). Methodology or methodolatry? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9, 26-37. Storey, J. (2005). The knowledge work of general managers. Journal of General Management, 31, 57-73. Strach, P., Everett, A. (2006). Knowledge transfer within Japanese multinationals: building a theory. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 55-68. Styhre, A. (2003). Knowledge management beyond codification: knowing as practice/concept. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 32-40. Suliman, A., Al-Shaikh, F. (2007). Emotional intelligence at work: links to conflict and innovation. Employee Relations, 29, 208-220. Sveiby, K.E. (2007). Disabling the context for knowledge work: the role of managers' behaviours. Management Decision, 45, 1636-1655. Sveiby, K., Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work – an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 420-433. Swee, C. G. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 23-30. Sy, T., Cote, S., Saavedra, R. (2005). The Contagious LeaderL Impact of the Leader’s Mood on the Mood of Group Members, Group Affective Tone, and Group Processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295-305. Szymczak, C., Walker, D. (2003). Boeing - a case study example of enterprise project management from a learning organisation perspective. The Learning Organization, 10, 125-137. Teerajetgul, W., Chareonngam, C. (2008). Tacit knowledge utilization in Thai construction projects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 64-174. Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K. (1999). Research in practice. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press (Pty) Ltd. Thomas, G., Hult, M. (2003). An Integration of Thoughts on Knowledge Management. Decision Sciences, 34, 189-195. Thompson, J.L (2004). Innovation through people. Management Decision, 42, 1082- 1094. Thompson, M., Heron, P. (2005). The difference a manager can make: organizational justice and knowledge worker commitment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 383-404. Thompson, J.E., Stuart, R., Lindsay, P.R. (1997). The competence of top team members: A framework for successful performance. Team Performance Management, 3, 57-75. Threlfall, K. (1999). Using focus groups as a consumer research tool. Journal of Marketing Practices: Applied Marketing Science, 5, 102-105. Tinnila, M. (1995). Strategic perspective to business process redesign. Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, 1, 44-59. Topping, K. (2005). Trends in Peer Learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631-645. Tsai, M., Lee, K. (2006). A study of knowledge internalization: from the perspective of learning cycle theory. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 57-71.

238

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 308-331. Tucker, A., Nembhard, I., Edmondson, A. (2007). Implementing New Practices: An Empirical Study of Organizational Learning in Hospital Intensive Care Units. Management Science, 53, 894-907. Twinn, S. (1998). An analysis of the effectiveness of focus groups as a method of qualitative data collection with Chinese populations in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 121-132. Vakola, M., Bouradas D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: an empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27, 441-458. Vanteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Soenens, B., Matos, L. (2005). Examining the Motivational Impact of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Framing and Autonomy- Supportive Versus Internally Controlling Communication Style on Early Adolescents Academic Achievement. Child Development, 76, 483-501. Versailles, D., Merindol, V. (2006). Knowledge Transfers and R&D Management: An Inquiry In To The Problems of Transatlantic Complementaties. Defense and Peace Economics, 17, 239-256. Vishnevsky, T., Beanlands, H. (2004). Interpreting Research in Nephrology Nursing. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 31, 234-238. Walczak, S. (2005). Organizational knowledge management structure. The Learning Organization, 12, 330-339. Walker, E., Dewar, B. (2000). Moving On From Interpretivism : An Argument For Constructivist Evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 1-12. Wang, C., Ahmed, P. (2003). Organisational Learning: a Critical Review. The Learning Organisation, 10, 8-17. Wang-Cowham, C. (2008). HR structure and HR knowledge transfer between subsidiaries in China. The Learning Organization. 15, 26-44. Wasonga, T., Murphy, J. (2006). Learning from tacit knowledge: the impact of the internship. The International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 153-163. Watson, S., Hewett, K. (2006). A Multi-Theoretical Model of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Determinants of Knowledge Contribution and Knowledge Reuse. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 141-173. Williams, A.M. (2006). Lost in translation? International migration, learning and knowledge. Progress in Human Geography, 30, 588-607. Williams, R. (2006). Narratives of knowledge and intelligence . . . beyond the tacit and explicit. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 81-99. Wood, R. (2007). How strategic innovation really gets started. Strategy & Leadership, 35, 21-29. Woodring, J., Foley, S., Rado, G., Brown, K., Hamner, D. (2006). Focus Groups and Methodological Reflections. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16, 248-258. Wong, K. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems,105, 261- 279. Yakhlef, A. (2005). Immobility of tacit knowledge and the displacement of the locus of innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8, 227-239

239

Yang, J. (2007). The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 83-90. Yang, B., Wu, B., Shu, P., Yang, M. (2006). On establishing the core competency identifying model: A value-activity and process oriented approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106, 60-80. Zairi, M. (1997). Business process management: a boundaryless approach to modern competitiveness. Business Process Management, 3, 64-80. Zemke, R. (2004). The Gray Zone. Training, 41, 1-2. Zhuge, H. (2006). Knowledge flow network planning and simulation. Decision Support Systems, 42, 571-592. Zomerdijk, L.G., de Vries, J. (2007). Structuring front office and back office work in service delivery systems: An Empirical study of three design decisions. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27, 108-131. Zwikael, O., Bar-Yoseph, B. A. (2008). Improving the capabilities of project team management using the Gestalt cycle of experience. Team Performance Management, 10, 137-144.

240