Knowledge as output (horizontal sharing mechanism)

IS Research

Goodmand and Darr (1998) examines the role of computer-aided systems (CAS) for enhancing organizational learning in distributed environments. Two cases of information environments for knowledge sharing are examined: a formal electronic library system and an informal community that uses a variety of communication technologies. The authors use the cases to illustrate how the intersection between CAS features and the decisions to adopt and contribute enhance or inhibit knowledge sharing. Specifically, they use a nine-item scale to measure respondents' perceptions of knowledge sharing behaviors in and across offices as measure of learning culture. A six-point response scale captures levels of agreement. The 9-items deployed for measuring learning culture are:
- sharing of best practices (BP) in my office is highly rewarded,
- sharing of BP with other offices is highly rewarded,
- open communications in my office,
- my office is innovative,
- sharing of BP is frequently discussed,
- sharing of BP is a major way to solve problems,
- high communication with other offices,
- high cooperation in this office,
- high cooperation between offices.
The mechanisms of the contribution and adoption cycles (i.e., knowledge sharing or learning) can be viewed as horizontal because the underlying assumption is that knowledge sharing is based on knowledge as outputs.

Mennecke and Valacich (1998) examines the influence of group history (i.e., established vs. ad-hoc groups) and the communication channel (i.e. face-to-face vs. computer-mediated communication) on information sharing performance, decision quality, and member perceptions. Information sharing performance is measured by counting the number of information elements from the task mentioned by a group member during the discussion - "the number of unique task-related information elements mentioned divided by the total number of information elements available to group members" (pp. 183). The proportions used in the analyses represent the percentage of information elements in each category that mentioned at least once during the discussion. The results show that established groups discuss less unique information than ad-hoc groups. Information sharing is found to be related to the quality of group decision positively. Established groups and face-to-face communicating groups demonstrate higher group member satisfactions compared to ad-hoc groups and computer-mediated communication groups, respectively. Furthermore, group cohesion is positively related to satisfaction and decision quality. The focus is information processing performance rather than knowledge/information sharing per se.

Organization research

Nonaka et. al. (1994) conducts confirmatory factor analyses to test Nonaka's (1994) model of organizational knowledge creation. The results highly support the view of organizational knowledge creation as a higher-order construct comprised of four knowledge conversion processes: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. The data were collected from 105 Japanese middle managers through a self-report questionnaire consisting of 184 items. 38 items are designed to operationalize the knowledge creation variables. Hypothesized first-order factors include:
- socialization: tacit knowledge accumulation, extra-firm social information collection, intra-firm social information collection, transfer of tacit knowledge;
- externalization;
- combination: acquisition and integration, synthesis and processing, dissemination;
- internalization: personal experience (real world knowledge acquisition), simulation and experimentation (virtual world knowledge acquisition).
The authors use a three-step procedure: Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis method, computation of the second-order confirmatory factor analyses, and EQS structural equations modeling program.

Knowledge as property (vertical sharing mechanism)

Communication

Rulke and Galaskiewicz (2000) investigates the effect of knowledge distribution and group structure on group performance. It is found that group performance is contingent on the distribution of knowledge within the group and networks of social relationships among group members. The results demonstrate that groups with broadly shared knowledge outperform groups with centralized knowledge in different members. However, the advantage of knowledge sharing disappears when groups of specialists or mixed groups have decentralized network structures. Participants use a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not good at all) to 5 (very good) to rate their abilities in three functional areas. The authors use these self-ratings to measure the distribution of knowledge possessed by individuals. Then they count the number of specialists, generalists and neithers at the group level to determine whether a group is dominated by specialist, generalists, neithers, or was a mix of specialists and generalists. Therefore, there is no specific measure for knowledge/information sharing. All data were collected based on individuals' perceptions of their knowledge scope.

Marketing Research

Heide and John (1992) shows that norms play a significant role in structuring economically efficient relationships among independent firms. The authors identify three dimensions to capture norms: flexibility, information exchange, and solidarity. In their study, "information exchange defines a bilateral expectation that parties will proactively provide information useful to the partner" (Heide and John, 1992, pp.37). As such, the suppliers benefit from the shared information based on the buyers' expectations whereby they can better arrange their operations. Information exchange is measured with a Likert-type format. The items in the scale express the expectation that particular pieces of information that might help the other party will be provided and they are originally developed by Kaufmann and Stern (1988) and Noordewier, John, and Nevin (1990).

Related work (no specific sharing mechanisms)

Communication

Graetz et al. (1998) investigates the impacts of different communication channels on information sharing. Members of 4-person groups received information on whether three proposed systems met each of 10 desired criteria. The information was distributed unevenly within the group for a hidden profile problem. Group members used one of the three communication formats: face-to-face, teleconference, or electronic chat. The results demonstrated that the electronic chat condition resulted in fewer correct decisions and the cognitive workload was higher compared to the other two formats. The reason is that the electronic chat channel limited participants' ability to coordinate and verify information. The authors suggested that such medium should be combined with collaboration technology or groupware that facilitate information storage, organization, and processing. The authors focus on different results using different communication media rather than the specific information processing activities. Therefore, their items identify the effects across communication conditions (e.g., took task seriously, I was motivated, high-quality decision, etc.) rather than information sharing process or mechanism.

Psychology

Stasser and colleagues conduct several studies to examine the information sharing behaviors and argue that groups are not likely to discover hidden profiles (1985, 1987, 1989). To address relevant issues, a hidden-profile task is often used to investigate how the composition of a group and communication technology influence information sharing. "Hidden-profile" tasks refer to the tasks with asymmetrical but complementary information among group members and the best outcome can only be achieved when group members share information effectively. The consistent results across studies show that ad-hoc groups completing hidden-profile tasks often fail to pool initially unshared information effectively.