4.8 Article

Mapping interorganizational knowledge sharing mechanisms in projects from the socio-technical perspective

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122537

Keywords

Interorganizational projects; Interorganizational knowledge sharing (IKS); Socio-technical perspective; Knowledge tacitness; Knowledge heterogeneity; Knowledge sharing mechanisms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

From a socio-technical perspective, this study used grounded theory to explore the matching relationship between different types of knowledge and interorganizational knowledge sharing (IKS) mechanisms. Four categories of knowledge were identified based on their characteristics, and a four-dimensional framework of IKS mechanisms was proposed to facilitate knowledge sharing in different scenarios.
Interorganizational knowledge sharing (IKS) has become an important strategy for project organizations to drive high performance in interorganizational projects. Distinct IKS mechanisms (i.e., the management activities facilitating IKS among organizations) are proposed in the existing literature. However, the matching between knowledge categorization and IKS mechanisms are less explored. From the socio-technical perspective, this study employed grounded theory to identify and match different types of knowledge and IKS mechanisms. Qualitative data collected from primary and secondary sources were integrated to triangulate the research findings. Four categories of knowledge were identified based on their characteristics, including knowledge tacitness and heterogeneity. Then, a four-dimension framework of IKS mechanisms (i.e., event, social, technical, and document mechanisms) was developed to form matching configurations to facilitate IKS in different scenarios. This framework deepens our understanding of how to form strategies to apply proper IKS mechanisms to facilitate the sharing of different types of knowledge from the socio-technical perspective.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available