Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

ENABLERS OF TACIT KNOWLEDGE SHARING: AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY

Abida Ellahi1 International Islamic University Islamabad
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to identify the enablers that enable tacit knowledge sharing in an organization. By conducting a case study of Pakistan Air Force, study has identified four individual level and five organizational level enablers. The findings confirmed that shared vision, job training and rotation, supervisors attitude, self efficacy, self interest, reward, prompt response and cooperativeness are those key enablers which enable tacit knowledge sharing. This research contributes to a better understanding of tacit knowledge and how that knowledge is shared in an organization. This in turn contributes to a better understanding of how knowledge management can be supported in organization without depending on culture and technology. The findings can help organizations to become more successful in tacit knowledge sharing by identifying conditions that may facilitate tacit knowledge sharing in an integrated way. Key words: Pakistan Air Force, Tacit, Knowledge, Enablers, Knowledge Sharing Introduction The growing importance of knowledge based society considers knowledge as a basic and adequate phenomenon. Thus, it is sensible to assume the clarity of what is knowledge? This question, however, has evoked many philosophical debates about the source and method of acquiring knowledge since the establishment of philosophy itself. Despite the vigorous and prolonged existence of debate, the question of what is knowledge is still unanswered (Fernie et al, 2003). Thus, the knowledge society lacks in a precise, sociologically appropriate definition of knowledge (Qvortrup, 2006). The English economist and organization analyst Edith Penrose during period of 1953 called attention to the increasing nation-wide magnitude of knowledge, but along with it she admitted that the entire domain of knowledge is so slippery that it is no possible to get a solid grip of it (Penrose 1959 p. 77). Peter Drucker in 1969 regarded knowledge as a central capital and basic resource of the economy (Drucker 1969 p. ix) but he also didnt point out the way to define this source in an appropriate way. Due to lack of a general consensus upon the exact nature or definition of knowledge, there is a variety of definitions of knowledge and different concepts of knowledge prevail across different political or religious societies. The knowledge systems are dynamic and may change over time or between social or religious groups. Therefore, Knowledge of one religious or social group may be dissimilar from the knowledge of other group. According to Bible Dictionary (2010) knowledge is one of the attributes of God. In Christianity, the most common and simplest meaning for knowledge is notice, recognize. Wohlgelernter et al (1997) describes three types of knowledge in Bible. These are Chochma (wisdom), Bina (understanding) and Da'at (knowledge). They further explain that
1

Email: abida.phdtm5@iiu.edu.pk

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

Chochma (wisdom) comes from external source like sense perception and intelligence. It is taught, learned, acquired. Bina (understanding) is consciousness or deep awareness and this knowledge is deduced from existing information whereas Da'at (knowledge) is integrative form of wisdom, understanding and intuition and comes from an experience or something completely new. In context of Hinduism, Krishnananda (1982) describe two types of knowledge. These are Aparoksha-Jnana (direct knowledge)and Paroksha-Jnana (indirect knowledge). AparokshaJnana (direct knowledge) comes from immediate experience while Paroksha-Jnana comes from secondary sources like books, hearsay, etc. According to early Buddhism philosophical systems knowledge (parniii) is taken as an integral whole which comprises both knowledge of matters of fact (theoretical) and knowledge of what is of ultimate value (practical) (Premasiri, 1987). It means that Buddhism implies knowledge in terms of utmost good of man that is ethical knowledge. The term used for knowledge is ilm, in the Islamic theory of knowledge. This term ilm contains wider aspects than such as aspects of education, action and theory. In the Quran the word al-ilm has occurred in 27 while the word alim (knowledgable) has occurred in 140 places. According to Akhtar (1995) in Islam, there are two sources of knowledge. One is aql (knowledge by cognition) and ilm huduri (direct knowledge acquired through mystic experience). Though a general consensus of definition of knowledge is hard to pin down, a working definition of knowledge is necessary for understanding knowledge management phenomena. To make easy the understanding of knowledge, numerous researchers have provided various definitions. For example Knowledge is information possessed in the mind of individuals: it is personalized information (which may or may not be new, unique, useful, or accurate) related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations, and judgments (Alavi and Leidner, 2001, p. 109). Knowledge is justified belief that increases an entitys capacity for effective action observed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). For this study, following definition is taken. Knowledge is information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection. It is a high-value form of information that is ready to apply to decisions and actions (Davenport et al., 1998). On the basis of above discussion about knowledge we propose our simplest definition of knowledge which is knowledge is actually a travel from unknown to known. Dimensions of knowledge Several attempts have been made to illustrate the dimensions of knowledge. The commonly accepted distinction of knowledge is found is constructivist approach vs objectivist approach (Gholipour, et al. 2010). The constructivist approach considers knowledge as a subjective state in individuals minds (Davenport and Prusak, 1998, p. 5), while objectivist approach takes knowledge as an objective state of things (Spender, 1998). This distinction overlaps with tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 2002; Polanyi, 1966), soft and hard knowledge, background and foreground knowledge (Bhatt, 2001). The most frequently cited dimensions are explicit vs tacit knowledge given by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). According to them explicit knowledge is the one which can be expressed in words and numbers and can be easily communicated and shared in the form of hard data, scientific formulae, codified procedures, or
2

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

universal principles. They also defined tacit knowledge which is highly personal and hard to formalize and includes subjective insights, intuitions and hunches. Nelson and Winter (1982) said, to be able to do something, and at the same time be unable to explain how it is done, is more than a logical possibility it is a common situation (p. 76). Elliott (1996) wrote: Tacit knowledge ... is what you know by virtue of experience. I can look at videotapes about playing tennis, and I can read the books about it, but I still cant play tennis. So, there is a difference between what I can read about and what I can experience. Tacit knowledge is a fundamental match to explicit knowledge, because it facilitates the acquisition and transfer of explicit knowledge through tacitly held constructs such as the rules enabling speech, reading and writing and it has gained extensive attention within organizational study field. There is extensive literature about factors enabling knowledge sharing. Most of these researches are conducted at organizational level and few are at individual level. Similarly researches about tacit knowledge sharing in isolation are few in number; hence there is enough ground for research on tacit knowledge sharing at individual level. Along with it, a little stream of research has focused on an integrated view of enablers of knowledge sharing, as mostly have discussed it in context of specific characteristics like culture, technology etc .Therefore, this study aims to help organizations to become more successful in tacit knowledge sharing by identifying conditions that may facilitate tacit knowledge sharing in an integrated way. This leads to the research objective of this paper which can be described using the following question. 1. What factors either enable tacit knowledge sharing in an organization?

Literature Review
Knowledge being an important resource always requires good management (Holsapple & Joshi, 2001). This Knowledge management is basically to identify and leverage the combined knowledge possessed by an organization for the purpose of fostering its competitive position (Alavi and Leidner, 2001, p. 113). Knowledge management (KM) consists of processes of creation, acquisition, storage, and sharing of skills and knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Bhatt (2001) referred knowledge management as process of knowledge creation, validation, presentation, distribution, and application. Nowadays, organizations are actively engaged in making effective utilization of expertise and knowledge embedded in their employee base. This growing attention on knowledge utilization in form of intellectual capital is due to increased market competition, lack of qualified knowledge workers etc (Janz and Prasarnphanich, 2003). This notion of knowledge management is proved as a fundamental weapon for sustainable unique futuristic skills. According to Grover and Davenport (2001) knowledge management is rapidly becoming an integral business function for many organizations as they realize that competitiveness hinges on effective management of intellectual resources. One of the focuses of knowledge management is to support explicit as well tacit-to-tacit knowledge sharing. Explicit knowledge sharing occurs when individuals have access to digitally stored (explicit or codified) information while tacit-to- tacit knowledge sharing occurs during interaction of people. Knowledge sharing is one of the main constituent of knowledge management since it continually creates new knowledge (Samieh and Wahba, 2007). The newly created knowledge appears as an economy of scale if shared. This is because more than one person can make use of knowledge simultaneously.
3

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

Knowledge sharing is considered as a core enabler for knowledge management (Lindsey, 2006). There are two aspects of Knowledge sharing. One is supply side and other is demand side (King, 2006). The supply side indicates the donation of knowledge to others while demand side is collection of knowledge from others. Van den Hooff and Van Weenen (2004) clearly distinguished it as knowledge donating and knowledge collecting. Knowledge sharing is also known as the most difficult problem facing knowledge management aspects (Chow and Chan, 2008). Sharing of explicit knowledge is easy and can be done through many formal methods of training and development but to share tacit knowledge is more difficult as well as important. Despite of its complexity tacit knowledge can be a basis of competitive advantage in organizations (Lopez, 2005), particularly in knowledge-based organizations (Bryant, 2005)

Methodology
In order to identify the enablers of tacit knowledge sharing, this study adopted a qualitative approach to analyze the data. This qualitative approached was based on a single case study in which semi structured interviews were carried out with key informants. Pakistan Air Force was selected as case for study. 1.1. Pakistan Air Force:

Pakistan Air Force (PAF) ( ) is the part of Pakistan Armed Forces and primarily responsible for the aerial defence of Pakistan. Its mode of working is focused on maintaining the operational ability to deliver maximum air power. It is the worlds seventh largest air force with strength of approximately 65,000 full time personnel (including approximately 3,000 pilots) and personnel, 925 combat aircraft as well as various transport and training aircraft (Wikipedia, 2010). There are limited previous researches on knowledge management in forces -so an inductive approach using semi-structured interviews to generate qualitative data was suitable (Saunders et al., 2003). Survey was not appropriate because there was lack of proper understanding for codification of variables involved for tacit knowledge sharing to use in questionnaire. The work done in PAF is of sensitive nature and there is little tolerance of mistakes so knowledge sharing for unexpected problems is successful. Employees are specialized but they work in stressful conditions. This case study provides understanding of the mechanisms that are at work when knowledge workers work collaboratively. 1.2. Sample:

The initial population of interest for this study was more than 65,000 full time personnel. Unfortunately, to obtain data from armed forces in Pakistan in not an easy task due to issue of secrecy. Mostly the personals of forces are not allowed to disclose their nature of work. Some researches show that in Air Force individuals are expected to be similar, and missions are likely to be focused towards the same goals (Smith, 1998). For this reason, the population of interest was redefined to a representative sample of 10 key informants from Avionics department. This unit has unique and singular missions thus, extremely specialized. This could increase homogeneity of population. The sampling techniques was purpose sampling technique, it means that those key informants were selected who could add value to the study.
4

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

1.3.

Data Collection:

The concept of knowledge management is not flourished in Pakistani organizations. There are little to no formal program of knowledge management in organizations in Pakistan. Therefore, the respondents were not asked to discuss knowledge management and knowledge sharing directly, but rather were directed to discuss how collaboration and skill sharing occurs in their work place. In this report the data was analyzed for evidence of knowledge sharing and the enabling and inhibiting factors surfaced by the description of knowledge sharing events provided by the participant interviews. Respondents didnt allow disclosing their job designation. Semi structured interviews were carried out with most knowledgeable informants. Informants were encouraged to express themselves in their own terminology and experience. These semi structured interviews were based on open-ended questions and varied slightly with each interview according to the direction the interview went, and the information that was provided. It is important to note that the interview protocol did not specifically ask questions about knowledge sharing. The analysis in this paper is carried out on the stories of collaboration that the respondents tell. Example Questions asked in Interview What is your job role and major responsibilities? About your job/work matters, with whom you talk mostly? During your work from where do you get information? How do you know what is happening in your organization? What type of guidance do you need for your work? How do you share your work experience or skills with other? How do you get helping tips for problems during work? Please share an event in detail in which you faced a problem at you work and then you obtained help for it from your colleagues/supervisor? Please share any event in detail in which anybody else faced a problem and you helped him with your own expertise? ANALYSIS Knowledge Sharing The responses of PAF employees show that knowledge sharing is occurring within their units. As, knowledge sharing is both knowledge collecting and knowledge donating. So, respondents were asked about both aspects. For example about acquisition of knowledge they said that We use job standards, technical orders, standard operating procedures and from our seniors and day to day experience in order to get knowledge relevant to our job (R1). Similarly about knowledge donating one person said that I do my best efforts to guide my juniors or even my seniors whenever they ask me for any information or help (R3) The above both quotes may be seen as knowledge sharing. Thus, it is evident that knowledge sharing is being occurred in Pakistan Air Force. The further analysis of these two aspects
5

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

indicate that in context of knowledge acquisition employees rely on both explicit sources and tacit sources while in context of knowledge donating tacit knowledge sharing is dominant. The reason might be that they ask for any information when they dont find them in SOPs or technical orders as said by one of the respondents: Once I was performing maintenance of Air Craft at night by following the T.O and our own experience as well. But we could not succeed till 2am of midnight. At last we talked to our senior supervisor, he pointed out specific areas and we followed his tips and finally fixed the problem (R2) About sharing of tacit knowledge, one quoted that: Once afternoon after pack up I was in my room. One of my colleague called, who was in trouble because the pilot reported a defect and they were failed to make a decision. I told them specific tips and they completed the job (R5) Sources of Knowledge sharing As from the responses tacit knowledge sharing is evident, now the question is about how they share knowledge i.e. what are the means used for sharing knowledge. They reported that tacit knowledge sharing occurs through discussions as clear from following quote: We discuss with each others. Mostly discussions occur with juniors and other colleagues but if we get stuck in any problem, we approach to our seniors and to our engineering officers as well (R6) Few of them reported lecturers as mean of tacit knowledge sharing as indicated from this quote: There is routine of conducting lecturers at each work centers. Moreover workshops are also conducted. During these lecturers and workshops junior as well as seniors also share with each others our experiences and observations about a specific task (R3) Along with these other reported that they share knowledge/information while doing gup shups with peers and subordinates. Thus, in short they reported that following are the main sources of knowledge sharing in PAF Lecturers Workshops On the job training Discussions Gup shups (Informal gathering/talks)

Enablers of Tacit Knowledge sharing Now the analysis reaches at central theme of this research i.e. enablers of tacit knowledge sharing in PAF. It is found that there are two categories of enablers in PAF. One is individual
6

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

level and other is organization level enablers. Individual levels enablers are four while organizational level enablers are five in number. Each is discussed below. Individual Level Enablers: i. Cooperativeness

Employees cooperativeness is a personality trait and it means that individuals are cooperative when they support each other and value each others points of view (Yilmaz and Hunt, 2001). It may be referred as helpful behavior of employees to their immediate group and it must be considered as extra-role because cooperativeness is not a part of their job description as well as they are not assessed on basis of their cooperativeness (Bettencourt and Brown, 1997). Employees who have higher trait of cooperativeness are more likely to value the associations with co-workers for working closely with them toward a common objective (Chatman and Barsade, 1995). Every respondent in this case study believes that he has cooperative nature due to which he helps others whenever he is asked to do so. The responses in this case study confirmed that trait of cooperativeness is one of the enabler of tacit knowledge sharing as quoted: I personally have a very cooperative nature; therefore I help my juniors and seniors by providing them work tips whenever they ask.. I spread knowledge Because I believe that knowledge increases by sharing and by cooperating with each other actually in this way we are relieving our own lives as well as others (R2) ii. Personal belief/ self Efficacy

Self-efficacy is the belief that one possesses the skills and abilities to successfully accomplish a specific task. According to Self-efficacy theory individuals sense of mastery or efficacy brings out different psychological and behavioral changes (Bandura, 1977). Self efficacy comes through personal experiences as well analyzing task characteristics. Self-efficacy construct has been used in complex contexts to predict actions, therefore, it can also be used to analyzed tacit knowledge sharing (Tsai and Cheng, 2010) because perceived self-efficacy not only promotes cooperation (Chen et al., 1996) but also enhances the sharing of knowledge (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002). The construct of self efficacy was reported by the responses in this case study. Most of them believe that their co workers ask them to help because they know more than them and they are only one who can give them required knowledge. They feel pride to share knowledge because it gives them a feeling of owing certain knowledge. Thus, it can be said that self efficacy which is sense of mastery is also one of the enabler of tacit knowledge sharing. Once I was called by my colleague who was transferred to other PAF base. He was facing problem in rectification of aircraft. He asked solution of technical problem which he could not find in documents. I gave him detail briefing about this as I am expert in area of maintenance of aircraft and I am sure that I know more than my supervisors about this aspect. My superiors also used to take help from me (R9).
7

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

iii.

Job Necessarily/Self Interest

Economic Exchange theory assumes that rational self interest directs individuals behaviors. It means that knowledge sharing is more likely to occur when individuals gets benefits more than its costs (Constant et al., 1994). The construct of outcome expectations used in previous researches is overlapping with construct of self interest. This outcome expectation means the expected consequence of ones own behavior (Bandura, 1997). This can be positive expectation. In present study, some respondents indicate that they share knowledge not only because others get benefits but it is also beneficial for them. In case, they dont share knowledge or help others in a certain problem then they are expected to solve this problem or for overtime. Thus, to avoid overtime or extra workload on themselves, they share their knowledge/expertise. Many times it happened that we were ready to make off the duty but we were not allowed because other team was trying to solve a technical problem. Although it was not relevant to my job area but we are not allowed to off our duty unless we dont get out of this problem..Sometimes we get extra load We put our maximum expertise/skills for solving others team problem so that we can release our extra burden and go home in time (R7) iv. Prompt response

The PAF environment is very successful in facilitating interaction among employees and thus enhancing tacit knowledge sharing. Along with other enablers one of enablers reported by interviewee is prompt response from colleagues when knowledge sharing takes place. This prompt response is highlighted by many researchers in form of construct Responsiveness. It is widely discussed and tested in various contexts like for service quality. This responsiveness is defined as Willingness to help and provide prompt service (Jiang, Klein and Carr, 2002). The interviewee in this case study also confirmed that when their colleagues responded promptly to donate their knowledge/expertise, they also dont hesitate to donate their own skills when required. It means that in case of any problem, if one knowledge worker react immediately to solve other problems than he/she also gets quick response when needed. In this way prompt response facilitate tacit knowledge sharing. As one of the quote states: In my opinion, my relationship with my co workers is very good because whenever and whatever I needed, I got it..help..My colleagues quickly answer to my questions and always ready to cooperate with me so why I dont offer my services when they require it (R6). Organizational level support Enablers: Sharing of knowledge takes place in organizations when employees share with each other various working procedures, personal experience, and know-how etc. This sharing is essential to promote best practices within organization (McDermott and ODell, 2001). Lu, Leung and Koch (2006) categorized organizational support factor into three dimensions which are managers attitude, training and sanction. In the present study these three dimensions in addition with job rotation and shared vision as enablers of tacit knowledge sharing was observed.
8

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

i.

Shared vision

In an organization where its members share a vision, sharing or exchanging of resources are greater. According to Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) this shared vision embodies the collective goals and aspirations of the members of an organization (p. 467). They further observed that this shared vision is actually acts as a bonding mechanism that helps different parts of an organization to integrate or to combine resources. The organization such as armed forces consists of people who are employed together by common interests and goals. Cohen and Prusak (2001) noted that shared vision and goals unite human networks participants - so in this way knowledge sharing especially tacit knowledge sharing works well. The respondents in this case study pointed out the presence of shared vision as facilitator of tacit knowledge sharing. They said that they are here to serve not only organization but nation as well. All workers have this common goal thats why they dont try to hide if they know something because it does not affect negatively their job position/status. The ultimate purpose of all of us is to work for maximum benefit of our countrys aerial defence. This is only possible when we work in collaborative manner by helping out each other. Thats why I always guide others in all those matters about which I know better than them because this improves our technical capabilities and hence to save our country (R10) ii. Supervisor attitude:

The encouraging attitudes and actions of managers or supervisors are one of success factors of knowledge management (Davenport et al., 1998). Lin (2007) in his study proved that management support has significant influence on workers willingness to share knowledge with colleagues both in terms of donating and collecting. In this study, the encouraging attitude of supervisor/ managers was reported. Interviewees told that their supervisors encourage them to guide others and they also dont hesitate to ask for what they dont know. Supervisors at PAF workplaces dont care about being junior or senior whenever they require information. The supervisors ask their subordinates to help each other in cooperative manner. As one of the quote shows: I never became afraid to ask even a simple question about a simple work. I never thought that I would look dull if I ask silly question. My supervisor who is an expert man takes my help when in need of guidance. He never ashamed so why do me? He always welcomes healthy tips from juniors. I believe that no body of us hesitates to help each other if he could do (R5). iii. Job Training:

Training is a planned learning experience designed to bring about permanent change in an individuals knowledge, attitudes, or skills (Campbell et.al, 1970). Job training shapes employees skills and positive attitudes for knowledge sharing; hence it is also considered as key factor for knowledge management (e.g., Brand, 1998; Davenport et al., 1998). Baastrup (2003) confirmed that training and mentoring within the department could motivate employee to share
9

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

knowledge with other employees In PAF interviewees reported that they are provided with enough job training to carry out their tasks. It includes coaching, counseling and discussion etc. During these training or it can be said during mentoring they are asked to teach their juniors or new comers with their experiences. Their minds are prepared with the fact that they dont need to confine whatever they learned. Instead they are required to share their knowledge with less experienced staff members. During their training or mentoring they got intrinsic motivation to share knowledge and dont feel any regret. In their department senior employees are selected and assigned with the duty to give presentations to guide or teach co-workers including juniors. Hence, training or mentoring is the one which facilitates tacit knowledge sharing among employees. The basic set up in PAF demands that every senior should train his juniors and juniors also have equal responsibility to get information and expertise as well as level of competence. For this purpose refresher courses and workshops are being conducted periodicallyThere is a routine of conducting lectures at each work center to teach our juniors/seniors as well. More over special workshops are also conducted. Juniors/seniors are taught on the job i-e. practically during work (R4). iv. Measurement and Reward

In order to promote expertise and knowledge sharing individuals motivation to do so is necessary and for getting this motivation they need incentives to participate in the knowledge sharing process (Hansen, 1999). The organizational incentives can be monetary incentives such as increased salary and bonuses to non-monetary awards such as appraisal, promotions and job security (Hargadon, 1998). Reward system is one of influencing factors of organizational structure towards knowledge sharing behavior (kim and Lee, 2006). Smith and McKeen (2003) found that knowledge-oriented based evaluation and incentives strengthen ones motivation to share knowledge. In present study evaluation of employees on knowledge basis and incentives is observed. The interviewee confirmed that they are periodically assessed on basis of nine criteria including knowledge although there is no formal knowledge management system in PAF. Employees are properly given marks and if one gets overall highest marks than he is offered to do courses in foreign countries or he may be posted in foreign country. Similarly if one gets highest marks in successively three times, than he is awarded with chief of air force commendation certificate. Although this evaluation is not solely based on knowledge but on other criteria as well but the inclusion of one column named knowledge in evaluation Performa confirms that employees knowledge and skills are valued. This evaluation of workers knowledge or skills is evaluated during the job sessions, workshops, lectures or any other gatherings and it is mostly based on evaluation of his competence, skills which is tacit knowledge. This is only possibly when they share tacit knowledge therefore they try to share tacit knowledge with each other. If you look at this evaluation Performa, you can check nine columns in it. One column is of knowledge. Our maximum scores in each of these nine column gives us opportunity to do further high level courses in foreign countryWe are judged by the way we perform our tasks and help each other by sharing what we
10

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

knowTo show our skills/expertise while guiding/teaching others increases our respect and a reputation as an expert (R7). v. Job Rotation:

Job rotation means transfer of employee across departments within organization. This job rotation is helpful for developing an employee to multi-task (Wood and Mcquarrie, 1999). Air force is a cross functional organization and job rotation of employees occurs regularly. In PAF employees are transferred for 3-5 years in a unit. In cross functional teams such as air force sharing of information and know-how is essential for carrying out joint tasks (Hong and Vai, 2008). The interviews in this present study suggest that, job rotations in PAF are also an important mechanism for transferring knowledge to others. Workers who work in high work load unit are more skillful and expert than those who are currently in low work load unit. When a person in PAF from high work load unit is transferred to low work load unit, less experienced employees learn from him and he also teach/guide them with full passion as he knows more than them. In this way, job rotation enhances not only knowledge collection but also knowledge donation thus knowledge sharing. Our job nature is technical so we have to do the technical communication that is the most difficult but it is necessary to be successful in our job..The job of an air traffic controller is tough because they're accountable for making available safe and orderly air traffic services to all aircraft. It demands to be well-organized, having strong decision-making and communication skills. Before joining to this X base, I was in Y base that is located in a distant village. The air traffic was low in that area thats why my skills as traffic controller were not much developed. When I came here in base of having high work load, I learnt from my colleagues and supervisors about developing those skills which cant be learnt from our technical orders or others books (R1).

DISCUSSION This research contributes to an understanding of conditions that facilitate tacit knowledge sharing in public sector through a case study based of Pakistan Air Force. The most significant finding from this study is that PAF doesnt have a knowledge management program or policy. The interviews confirmed that not only was knowledge being shared in the PAF, but that it is tacit knowledge in many cases. The respondents in this study are well aware of fact of knowledge sharing and its benefits, but there was no formal strategy for knowledge sharing. The study has identified some key enablers of tacit knowledge sharing with the help of in depth interviews. The respondents confirmed that although there is absence of formal structure that introduces knowledge sharing or knowledge management phenomena, however, within the training and job environment they promote tacit knowledge sharing. The central reason behind is their nature of work and type of organization. Air Force being a defence organization operates in a sensitive environment in which there is little tolerance for mistakes. Therefore, people in Air Force do their best to put maximum experiences and skills along with following their standards
11

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

and operating procedures. An organization which is high technical, generally it is believed that there is little importance for tacit knowledge and everything is mentioned in books, documents, technical orders for particular equipment. However, in this study it is observed that machines or equipments are operated by human beings not by the technical orders or documents, so human knowledge, skills and expertise are very crucial for excellent performance in high tech environment. It is recognized that when people get cooperation and do cooperation, they are actually involved in sharing tacit knowledge with each others. Similarly, when individuals think that they are expert in their own domain, and others need their expertise, they are more likely to share their skills and expertise because it gives them sense of pride and recognition. It was observe that in PAF to share knowledge is actually a necessity of their job. The reason for this that in PAF a technical problem is not of any individual but in fact a whole unit, so if one doesnt share what he knows all suffered. This suffering might be in case of extra work load, double duty, late hours work that can results in work family conflict as well. They are aware that sharing of their knowledge is actually in their own best interest. One more condition is that when any individual get immediate response in his need for knowledge or information, he is more likely to help others in their time of need for knowledge. It means that when he collects knowledge in time he is more readily available to donate his knowledge to others as well. This is more interesting finding that knowledge collection positively effects knowledge donation. From organizational point of view, it was observed that although there is no formal knowledge management policy but people in PAF are evaluated on basis of their knowledge. They are assessed during their lecturers, presentations and workshop or when they train their juniors. It is definitely their tacit knowledge because it appears when they share it. In short, people who do share, encourage and mentor are regarded as possessing as an acceptable skill. Similarly when in an organization there is less individualism and more collective approach as having a shared vision, tacit knowledge sharing is more because they have some sense of patriotism in case of defence organizations. Along with it when organization has effective job training that emphasize on continues learning and education tacit knowledge sharing can becomes a common thing. In context of organization, supervisors encouraging attitude is vital because they intrinsically motivate peoples not only to collect knowledge but also donate knowledge to others. In the end organization in which job rotation of employees occurs, tacit knowledge sharing freely flows from one department to other, from area to other and in case of PAF from one base to other. Hence, job rotation opens doors for flow of tacit knowledge sharing. On the basis of findings and discussion research model for enablers of tacit knowledge sharing is proposed Figure 1. This model can be empirically tested in future studies.

12

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

Cooperativene ss Self efficacy Individual Factors

Prompt Responce Self Interest Tacit Knowledge Sharing Shared vision

Job Training

Organizational Factors

Job Rotation

Reward

Supervisor Attitude

Fig 1: Proposed Model for Enablers of Tacit Knowledge Sharing CONCLUSION This study offers insights into tacit knowledge sharing in the Pakistan Air force. It shows a situation in PAF in which there are no formal coordinated strategies for knowledge management or sharing but there is general awareness about positive effects of knowledge sharing. The nature of work in Air Force is complex and more sensitive; therefore employees make efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their work with help of tacit knowledge sharing also. The study has successfully highlighted key enablers of tacit knowledge sharing in Pakistan Air Force, but there is considerable scope for further research into knowledge sharing in high tech organizations. It concludes that when individuals get timely and prompt knowledge/information,
13

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

it increases the likelihood of knowledge donation also. It means knowledge collection positively effects knowledge donation. This study also concludes that potentials of knowledge sharing can be gained without any formal or proper knowledge management program. For promoting knowledge sharing, routine trainings, lectures and workshops can be used as facilitators. The only need is to realize the concept of knowledge sharing in an organization. For this purpose organizations must place an emphasis to increase tacit knowledge sharing by bringing visible top management enthusiasm. Thus, it can be said that without putting extra cost or programs an organization can use existing mediums to promote knowledge sharing in order to bring more effective and efficient work methods. Organizations including Pakistan Air Force must paid attention to retain their tacit knowledge assets as well. The implication of this exploratory case study for organizations is that successful knowledge sharing is always multifaceted. These faces include both individual and organizational levels Organizations must pay attention to understand what motivates each employee and provide soft and/or hard incentives to promote knowledge sharing activities. This exploratory study has limitations of qualitative research methods. To quantitatively analyze the impact of enablers of tacit knowledge sharing is planned to be do in future. Secondly there is also enough scope to identify the resultant effects of tacit knowledge sharing in an organization. Thus, further development and testing of this study elements is required in future studies by conducting surveys or experiments based researches. In short, this paper should be seen as work in progress and represents the first stage of a major research project. In the second phase of the research a refined version of the model will be tested in organizations.

References Akhtar, S.W. (1995), The Islamic concept of knowledge. Al-Tawhid, A Quarterly Journal of Islamic Thought and Cultur e, XII(3), 101-108. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001), Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25(1), pp.107-136 Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York, NY Baastrup, A. (2003) Knowledge management: measuring knowledge management in the business sector. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Ministry of Industry: Canada. Bible dictionary (2010), http://dictionary.babylon.com/knowledge/ Bettencourt, L. and Brown, S.W. (1997), Customer-contact employees; relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and pro-social behaviors, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73, pp. 39-61. Bhatt, G.D. (2001), Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques and people, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5(1), pp. 68-75.
14

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

Brand, A. (1998), Knowledge management and innovation at 3M, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, pp. 1722. Bryant, S.E. (2005), The impact of peer mentoring on organizational knowledge creation and sharing: an empirical study in a software firm, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 30, pp.319-38. Cabrera, . and Cabrera, E. F. (2002), Knowledge-sharing dilemmas, Organization Studies, Vol.23(5), pp. 687710 Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. and Weick, K.R. Jr. (1970), Managerial Behaviour, Performance and Effectiveness, McGraw Hill, New York. Chatman, J. A. and Barsade. G.S. (1995), Personality, Organizational Culture, and Cooperation: Evidence from a Business Simulation, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol.40, pp. 423443. Chen, X. P., Au, W. T. and Komorita, S. S. (1996), Sequential choice in a step-level public goods dilemma: The effects of criticality and uncertainty, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 65, pp. 37 47 Chow, W.S. & Chan, L.S. (2008), Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge, Information and Management, Vol.45, pp. 458-465 Cohen,D. and Prusak, L. (2001), In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Constant, D., Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1994), Whats mine is ours or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing, Information Systems Research, Vol. 5, pp. 400-21. Davenport, T.H.., Long, D.W. De and Beers, M.C. (1998), Successful Knowledge Management Projects, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39, pp. 43-57. Davenport, T.H and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Drucker, Peter F. (1969) The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. Heinemann, London Elliott, S. (1996), APQC Conference Attendees Discover the Value of a Successful KM Program, Knowledge Management in Practice, Vol. 5, pp. 1-8. Fernie,S ., Green, D. S., Weller, J. S. and Newcombe, R. (2003), Knowledge sharing: context, confusion and controversy, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 177187. Gholipour, R., G, Jandaghi and Hosseinzadeh. A.S. ( 2010), Explanation of knowledge management enabler as a latent variable: A case study of SMEs in Iran, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4(9), pp. 1863-1872.

15

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

Grover, V., and Davenport, T. H. (2001), General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.18(1), pp. 521 Hargadon, A.B. (1998), Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursuing continuous innovation, California Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 209-27. Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, Th. (1999), Whats Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?, Harvard Business Review, pp. 106-116. Holsapple, C. W., and Joshi, K. D. (2001), Organizational knowledge resources, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 31, pp. 39-54. Hong, J. and Vai, S. (2008), Knowledge sharing in cross-functional virtual team, Journal of General Management, Vol. 34(2), pp. 21-37. Janz, D.B and Prasarnphanich, P. (2003), Understanding the Antecedents of Effective Knowledge Management: The Importance of a Knowledge-Centered Culture, Decision Sciences, Vol. 34, pp. 351-384. Jiang, J.J., Klein, G. and Carr, L. C. (2002), Measuring Information System Service Quality: Servqual From The Other Side, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 145-166. Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2006), The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee Knowledge Sharing Capabilities, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66(3), pp.370- 385. King, W. R. (2006), Knowledge sharing, In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management, (pp. 493498). Idea Group Inc. Krishnananda, S. (1982). The Philosophy Of The Panchadasi, Divine Life Society. Available at http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch/Philosophy_Panchadasi.pdf Lin, H.F. (2007), Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on employee, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33(2), pp.135-149. Lindsey, K. L. (2006), Knowledge sharing barriers, In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 499506). Idea Group Inc Lopez, S.V. (2005), Competitive advantage and strategy formation: the key role of dynamic capabilities, Management Decision, Vol. 43, pp. 661-9. Lu,L., Leung, K. and Koch, T.P. (2006), Managerial Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Individual, Interpersonal, and Organizational Factors, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 2(1), pp. 15-41.

McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, pp. 7685. Nelson, R., and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge: Belknap Press.
16

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

Nonaka I .(2002), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation , in Choo WC, Bontis N (Eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The knowledge creating company, Oxford University press, New York. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley. Polanyi, M.(1966), The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1966. Premasiri, P. D. (1987), Early Buddhist Concept of Ethical Knowledge: A Philosophical Analysis, In: Buddhist Philosophy and Culture: Essays in Honor of N.A. Jayawickrema, edited by D. Kalupahana and W. G. Weeraratne, 37-70. Colombo: N. A. Jayawickrema Felicitation Volume committee. Qvortrup , L. (2006), Knowledge, Education and Learning - E-learning in the Knowledge Society, Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press. Samieh, M. H and Wahba, K. (2007), Knowledge Sharing Behavior From Game Theory And Socio- Psychology Perspectives, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07). Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2003), Research Methods for (3 ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall Smith, J. (1998). USAF Culture and Cohesion: Building an Air and Space Force for the 21st Century. INSS Occasional Paper 19, Air Force Planning Series, USAF Academy, Colorado Smith, H.A. and Mckeen. D.J. (2003), Instilling a Knowledge-Sharing Culture, Queens Center for K n o w l e d g e - B a s e d E n t e r p r i s e s . http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/oklc3/papers/id25.pdf Spender, J.C. (1998), Pluralist epistemology and the knowledge based theory of the firm, Organization, Vol. 5(2), pp. 233-56. Tsai, M.-T., and Cheng, N.-C.(2010), Programmer perceptions of knowledge-sharing behavior under social cognitive theory, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. xxx, Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S.(1998). Social capital and value creation: an empirical study of intrafirm networks, Academy of Management Journal, Vol, 41 (4) , pp. 464476. Van den Hooff, B. and Van Weenen, F.D.L. (2004), Committed to share: commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11, pp. 13-24 Wohlgelernter, E., Pasher, E. and Zucker, B. (1997), Knowledge In The Bible Accessed from http://kwork.org/Stars/pasher.pdf

17

Proceedings OLBIA 2011, September 7-9, 2011.

Wood, F. and McQuairre. (1999), On-the-job learning, Journal of Staff Development, Vol. 20, Retrieved on from http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/wood203.cfm Yilmaz, C. and Hunt.D.S. (2001), Salesperson Cooperation: The Influence of Relational, Task, Organizational, and Personal Factors, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29, pp. 335357.

18