Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing

Transcription

Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing
A comparative case study on the influences of organizational culture on knowledge sharing
Vincent de Jong
INF/SCR-10-20
Thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Science
Author Information
Vincent de Jong
[email protected]
0441767
First supervisor
dr. ir. R.W. Helms
[email protected]
Second supervisor
dr. R.S. Batenburg
[email protected]
External supervisor
Director Innovation
ir. M.F. de Jonge
[email protected]
Thesis registration number: INF/SCR-10-20
December 15, 2010
master program Business Informatics
Department of Information and Computing Sciences
Faculty of Science
Utrecht University
i
Abstract
In the current literature knowledge is acknowledged as a major production factor in today’s business
environments. In order to become of value, it is important that knowledge is being shared. Over the
years, this resulted in knowledge sharing being subject of many different research studies in order to
understand the concept and influences on this concept. Organizational culture is seen as one of the
concepts influencing knowledge sharing. As researching the influence of organizational culture on
knowledge sharing lacks some depth, this research intended to study influences of culture
dimensions on knowledge sharing behavior. This is done by means of a comparative case study. Four
cases were studied. In these cases, organizational culture was measured quantitatively as well as
qualitatively, while knowledge sharing behavior was measured qualitatively. First the results were
clustered per department, after which a cross-case analysis could be done. By looking at the
differences in knowledge sharing behavior, some differences in organizational culture could be
identified. These patterns suggested influences of dimensions of organizational culture on specific
parts of the knowledge sharing process. It is plausible that results are valid for the construction
sector, further generalization should be subject of a replication research. Another finding concerned
the data collection methods. As organizational culture was measured both quantitatively as
qualitatively, results could be compared. It was found that quantitative measurement did not lead to
highlight differences that qualitative measurement did suggest. The addition to the research domain
is that the influences that were found are of a higher detail level, providing more insight in the way
the concepts are influenced. The practical benefit of these findings is that companies can come to
more solid and deliberate interventions in their ambition to improve organizational knowledge
sharing.
iii
Acknowledgements
Besides the fact that doing scientific research was needed in order to obtain the master degree for
Business Informatics, my last year as a student was very valuable. This project was for me the best
way of experiencing what scientific research is like. Coping with independence, taking interests and
agenda’s of others into account, planning and scoping a research are some skills that I have
improved during the research.
In order to make this research possible, I would like to thank Menno de Jonge from Ballast Nedam,
for providing a practical trigger for this research and finally for approving my research proposal.
During my research Menno was always available for giving feedback. The business experience used
in formulating his feedback was extremely valuable to me. On top of this, Menno always gave me
the freedom to make this my own research project. Special thank goes to Edwin Noël in making this
research possible. He was so polite to forward my contact information to Menno, after an
unsuccessful attempt to do my research at the ICT organization of Ballast Nedam.
I am very grateful to Remko Helms for his input regarding my research project, as my first academic
supervisor. After he taught the course on knowledge management and a pleasant collaboration in
my role as a student-assistence, one year later, I was inspired to focus on the subject knowledge
management for writing my thesis. In the early stage of my research, he helped me first to identify
interesting research directions. Later on, he helped me to set the boundaries for this research.
During my research he always gave valuable and constructive feedback on plans and contents of my
thesis. I would also like to thank my second academic supervisor Ronald Batenburg for providing
feedback in the stage of finalizing my thesis. Thanks to their guidance, I was able to complete this
scientific research project.
Furthermore, I would also like to thank Ballast Nedam for giving me the opportunity for doing this
research. Especially, I would like to thank the directors and managers of the companies of Ballast
Nedam, BNBW (project execution department), BNE (constructions department), BNICT (system
administrator department) and BNIZW (tender department) for cooperating with me and investing
time to organize the case study. I am also very grateful to the employees of these departments, who
were very helpful by making time for filling in the questionnaire and giving their full cooperation,
when asked to be interviewed. The insights gained by doing the interviews were of immense
importance for my research.
Last but not least, I also want to thank my girlfriend, Esther Visser, for supporting me during the
writing of my thesis and offering a helping hand when this was possible.
Vincent de Jong
v
Table of Contents
Author Information .............................................................................................................................. i
First supervisor ........................................................................................................................... i
Second supervisor....................................................................................................................... i
External supervisor ..................................................................................................................... i
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. v
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... x
List of Tables....................................................................................................................................... xi
Definitions .........................................................................................................................................xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Research trigger ............................................................................................................. 1
1.3
Research questions ........................................................................................................ 2
1.4
Research objective ......................................................................................................... 2
1.5
Research method ........................................................................................................... 2
1.6
Research approach ......................................................................................................... 4
1.7
Relevance....................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2
Literature on organizational culture ............................................................................... 8
2.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2
Typologies and dimensions............................................................................................. 9
2.3
Towards measuring organizational culture ................................................................... 15
2.4
Mapping the candidate models .................................................................................... 18
2.5
Detert et al.’s dimensions ............................................................................................. 20
Chapter 3
Literature on knowledge sharing .................................................................................. 25
3.1
Defining knowledge...................................................................................................... 25
3.2
Defining knowledge sharing ......................................................................................... 27
3.3
KM life cycle ................................................................................................................. 27
3.4
Knowledge sharing as a process ................................................................................... 28
3.5
Knowledge sharing behavior ........................................................................................ 35
Chapter 4
4.1
Organizational culture and knowledge sharing ............................................................. 37
Research framework .................................................................................................... 37
vii
4.2
Chapter 5
Described influences .................................................................................................... 38
Case study protocol ...................................................................................................... 40
5.1
Case study overview ..................................................................................................... 40
5.2
Field procedures........................................................................................................... 43
5.3
Case study questions .................................................................................................... 45
5.4
Validity ......................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 6
Results ......................................................................................................................... 51
6.1
Organizational culture .................................................................................................. 51
6.2
Chapter 7
Cross-case analysis ....................................................................................................... 70
7.1
Knowledge type ........................................................................................................... 74
7.2
Knowledge sharing medium ......................................................................................... 75
7.3
Knowledge consumer ................................................................................................... 78
7.4
Knowledge contributor................................................................................................. 80
7.5
Social network.............................................................................................................. 83
7.6
Overview of influences ................................................................................................. 84
Chapter 8
Advice .......................................................................................................................... 88
8.1
Knowledge management foundation ............................................................................ 88
8.2
8.3
Knowledge management applications .......................................................................... 90
Chapter 9
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 94
9.1
Main research question ................................................................................................ 94
9.2
Perspective of findings ................................................................................................. 96
Chapter 10
Discussion ................................................................................................................ 98
10.1
Reflection ..................................................................................................................... 98
10.2
External validity............................................................................................................ 99
10.3
Future research .......................................................................................................... 100
Chapter 11
References ............................................................................................................. 101
Appendix A.
Candidate cases matrix ............................................................................................. 108
Appendix B.
Research requirements (Dutch) ................................................................................ 109
Appendix C.
E-mails send for filling in questionnaire..................................................................... 110
Appendix D.
Questionnaire........................................................................................................... 112
Appendix E.
Interview protocol .................................................................................................... 118
Appendix F.
Case study report BNBW........................................................................................... 128
viii
Appendix G.
Case study report BNE .............................................................................................. 137
Appendix H.
Case study report BNICT ........................................................................................... 146
Appendix I.
Case study report BNIZW .......................................................................................... 155
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1 - PDD depicting all activities and involved deliverables for this research project ................... 6
Figure 2 - Levels of organizational culture (Schein, 2004) ................................................................... 9
Figure 3 - Typology of Deal & Kennedy (1982), based on the values 'Feedback' and 'Risk' ................ 10
Figure 4 - Summary of the dimensions introduced by Hofstede et al. (1990) .................................... 12
Figure 5 - Summary of the dimensions introduced by Schein (2004, first published in 1985) ............ 13
Figure 6 - Summary of the dimensions introduced by Christensen & Gordon (1999) ........................ 14
Figure 7 - Summary of the dimensions introduced by Detert et al. (2000) ........................................ 15
Figure 8 - Graphical representation of mapping the models to the model of Detert et al.(2000). ..... 19
Figure 9 - Knowledge Sharing Process, based on different sources from the literature on knowledge
sharing. ........................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 10 - Research framework based on Detert et al.’s (2000) dimensions of organizational culture
and the earlier introduced items of the knowledge sharing process that sets the boundaries for
knowledge sharing behavior. ........................................................................................................... 38
Figure 11 - Organizational structure of Ballast Nedam N.V. The circles indicated the selected cases 41
Figure 12 - Dimensions of Detert et al.(2000) mapped on culture traits of DOCS (Denison et al., 2005)
........................................................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 13 - Spidergraph showing the means of each department on all dimensions. ....................... 53
Figure 14 - Mapping of dimensions of organizational culture to the parts of the knowledge sharing
process they are influencing. ........................................................................................................... 85
Figure 15 - Mapping of dimensions of organizational culture to the parts of the knowledge sharing
process they are influencing. ........................................................................................................... 97
x
List of Tables
Table 1 - Comparison of four models on coverage on dimensions of Detert et al. (2000). ................ 18
Table 2 - Categorization of knowledge, also distinguishing between the occurrence of knowledge .. 31
Table 3 - Knowledge sharing media that can be used, distinguished by type of medium .................. 32
Table 4 – Behavior with regard to the items of the knowledge sharing process................................ 36
Table 5 - Schedule for data collection of the field research .............................................................. 45
Table 6 - Data collection methods used for measuring items from the research framework............. 46
Table 7 - Descriptive data of the created constructs from the questionnaire.................................... 52
Table 8 - The four departments scored at Detert et al.'s dimensions. ............................................... 59
Table 9 - Preferred usage of knowledge sharing media at BNBW. .................................................... 60
Table 10 - Preferred usage of knowledge sharing media at BNE ....................................................... 62
Table 11 - Preferred usage of knowledge sharing media at BNICT .................................................... 64
Table 12 - Preferred usage of knowledge sharing media at BNIZW................................................... 65
Table 13 - Summary with most important findings per department. ................................................ 69
Table 14 - Summary of differences between departments regarding the knowledge sharing process.
........................................................................................................................................................ 71
Table 15 - Generalized observations of organizational culture, arranged per dimension. ................. 73
Table 16 - Cultural observations linked to the importance of coordinating knowledge. ................... 75
Table 17 - Cultural observations linked to the preference of knowledge sharing media................... 76
Table 18 - Cultural observations linked to the usage of technology-aided knowledge sharing media.
........................................................................................................................................................ 77
Table 19 - Cultural observations linked to the formality of knowledge sharing media usage............ 78
Table 20 - Cultural observations linked to evaluating others’ contributions. .................................... 79
Table 21 - Cultural observations linked to the search strategy of knowledge consumers. ................ 79
Table 22 - Cultural observations linked to the motivation of knowledge consumers. ....................... 80
Table 23 - Cultural observations linked to perception of pushing knowledge. .................................. 81
Table 24 - Cultural observations linked to motivations for contributing knowledge.......................... 82
Table 25 - Cultural observations linked to perception of a knowledge sharing act. ........................... 82
Table 26 - Cultural observations linked to knowledge sharing with other BN companies. ................. 83
Table 27 - Cultural observations regarding the dominant strategy of knowledge sharing within a
social network. ................................................................................................................................ 84
xi
Definitions
Formal knowledge sharing: Act of knowledge sharing that is occurring as intended by the
organization. Often this can be seen in the form of procedures.
Informal knowledge sharing: Act of knowledge sharing that occurs outside the scope of formal
knowledge sharing. This can also be seen as ad hoc knowledge sharing: it occurs when a situation
asks for it, this can be the initiated by the knowledge consumer as well as a knowledge contributor.
Knowledge: “… a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight
that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information …”
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998)
Knowledge consumer: person that is looking for knowledge. This knowledge can be retrieved in
different ways, for instance by informal face-to-face contact or in documents.
Knowledge contributor: described by Blackmore (2004) as the “provider of knowledge”. In this
research, the knowledge contributors can provide their knowledge in different ways, in formal as
well as informal settings.
Knowledge sharing: a process, in which knowledge is being transferred through a medium, from a
knowledge contributor to a knowledge consumer. This process can be initiated by both the
knowledge contributor and knowledge consumer. (Based on Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Alavi &
Leidner, 2001; Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004)
Knowledge sharing behavior: The choices employees make during the process of knowledge sharing.
(based on: Jaccard & Blanton’s (2005) definition of ‘behavior’)
Knowledge sharing medium: method of communication that is used for the act of sharing
knowledge. A distinction is made between natural communication and ICT-based communication.
Natural involves personal contact and traditional paper-based communication. ICT-based
communication involves intervention of ICT devices.
Knowledge sharing medium reach: “The ability to reach many receivers at one time.” Chai (2009)
Knowledge sharing medium richness: “The capacity of a knowledge sharing medium for immediate
feedback, its ability to support natural language, the number of cues it provides and the extent to
which the channel creates social presence for the receiver.” (Chua, 2001)
Monochronic time: “…a kind of a medium defined more by what is accomplished than by a clock and
within which several things can be done simultaneously.” (Schein, 2004)
Organizational culture: “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to
be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
think and feel in relation to those problems.” (Schein, 2004)
xiii
Polychronic time: “An infinitely divisible linear ribbon that can be divided into appointments and
other compartments but within thing can be done at a time.” (Schein, 2004)
Trust: “The expectation of other people’s willingness and ability to fulfill our needs and wishes.”
(Huotari & Iivonen (2004)
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to elaborate the research setting. First a small overview on the related
literature will be given in order to discuss the research trigger. The research questions and research
goals are then presented after which they are elaborated in the research method. The research
approach is used to give an impression of the activities and workflow of the research project. Finally,
also the relevance of the research is addressed.
1.1 Background
It is widely acknowledged that applying knowledge management (KM) in an organizational context
can be a source of competitive advantage (Grant, 1996; Holsapple & Singh, 2001; Argote & Ingram,
2000; Kim & Lee, 2001; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Grant (1996), for instance, describes how knowledge
can play a central role within firms by looking at firms from an internal perspective. However, simply
implementing a knowledge management program is not enough to gain these competitive
advantages. Davenport, De Long & Beers (1999), accompanied by Alavi & Leidner (2001) see a
culture in which knowledge sharing is promoted as a critical condition for successful knowledge
management projects. The challenge is to take care that every entity within the organization knows
what other entities know and are capable of. An important reason for failure of knowledge
management initiatives is a lack of knowledge sharing (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Hendriks, 1999).
In order to focus on getting knowledge actively shared, it is needed to know what influences the
process of sharing knowledge.
Much research is done around the concept of knowledge sharing. For instance research about
stimulating knowledge sharing through reward systems (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Lin, 2007), or
more general research about barriers of knowledge sharing (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001; Riege,
2005). In the literature, knowledge sharing is sometimes also referred to as knowledge transfer
(Argote & Ingram, 2000; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Several attempts have been done to give an
overview of the literature around knowledge sharing (Ipe, 2004; Goh, 2002). These literature
overviews recognize organizational culture as a major influence in the process of knowledge sharing.
1.2 Research trigger
Looking at the current literature regarding the influence of organizational culture on knowledge
sharing, some critical remarks can be made. Organizational culture is seen as a complex concept and
therefore it is hard to measure how exactly this concept influences the knowledge sharing process.
The current research on knowledge management is approaching organizational culture as a kind of
black box. From this point of view some general recommendations are formulated to enable
knowledge sharing. De Long & Fahey (2000) and McDermott & O’Dell (2001) both have this ‘global’
approach to culture. De Long & Fahey (2000) describe ways how an organizational culture can
influence knowledge creation and sharing behavior of employees, however they do not go in depth,
trying to specify this influence. McDermott & O’Dell (2001) only give some general
recommendations with regard to the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge
sharing. Many of the recommendations within this context involve collaboration.
1
However, an organizational culture has more dimensions than the role of collaboration within work
practices. The complex character of organizational cultures complemented with the fact that every
organizational culture is different, needs a more specific view on its impact on knowledge sharing. As
knowledge sharing success is rooted in many things, it is possible that some interventions can work
out in one organization, but do not work in other organizations. Can this be due to their different
organizational cultures?
Another trigger with a more practical background was the impression of the external supervisor,
who is responsible for the knowledge management within the whole company Ballast Nedam, that
knowledge sharing lacks at different places in the organization. Apparently a different ‘culture’
regarding knowledge sharing can be identified among the many sub companies of Ballast Nedam.
1.3 Research questions
By doing specific research on the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge
sharing, eventually, better founded knowledge management interventions (with regard to
fitting/changing the organizational culture)can be implemented. In this way, it is more likely that
knowledge sharing behavior is stimulated instead of the opposite. In order to research the
relationship between the concepts in detail, the following research question is formulated:
Can a difference in knowledge sharing behavior be explained by influences of individual
dimensions of an organizational culture? If so, how?
In order to answer the research question, first, the following sub questions should be addressed:
1.What method suits the best to measure an organizational culture in this research
context?
2.How can knowledge sharing behavior be defined?
3.How can influences of an organizational culture on knowledge sharing be measured?
4.Can differences in the use of knowledge sharing applications be related to
differences in organizational culture?
1.4 Research objective
The objective of this research is to gain insight in the relationship of organizational culture on
knowledge sharing behavior. This will be done while looking from a dimensional perspective on
organizational culture.
1.5 Research method
This research is mainly a qualitative research, but also has a quantitative aspect. As already
explained in paragraph 1.1, the concept of organizational culture is only related quite basically to the
concept of knowledge sharing. To gain more insight in this relationship, it is therefore more
applicable to do qualitative research than quantitative research. The focus in this research is on what
the influences of individual dimensions of an organizational culture look like (not knowing how to
describe the influence). According to ‘t Hart & Boeije (2005), in such a case, a qualitative approach is
2
then preferable. In this way the outcomes are less bounded by the ideas about both concepts
beforehand. This would be the case when the focus is on quantitative research. The quantitative
aspect of the research is that the concept organizational culture is measured using a questionnaire,
next to observations and interviews which are also used.
1.5.1 Research instrument
In order to measure the relationship between both concepts, an instrument must be created, as this
is not done before. The instrument involves two parts. Regarding the first part of the instrument, the
focus is on measuring organizational culture in a way that dimensions of organizational culture are
measured individually. This can be done by combining parts of existing methods to measure an
organizational culture, as they all have their own background and research goal.
In the literature, several measurement instruments for measuring organizational culture are
proposed. Delobbe, Haccoun & Vandenberghe (2003), reviewed twenty organizational culture
measurement questionnaires. Some examples of such instruments are: The Organizational Culture
Assessment Inventory (OCAI) by Cameron & Quinn (2005), the Organizational Culture Profile by
O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991), and the Organizational Culture Inventory by Cooke & Lafferty
(1987). The majority of the methods measure organizational culture in a different way, not
conforming to the concept of organizational culture described earlier. Thus, some interpretation is
needed to come to a reliable instrument to measure organizational culture.
The other part of the instrument is the way in which the possible relation between individual aspects
organizational culture and knowledge sharing is measured. One way to measure this, is by doing
semi-structured interviews. One thing that is preferred in order to increase the validity, is to find
what data retrieval methods can be used besides semi-structured interviews. The research
instrument will be elaborated in Chapter 5, the case study protocol, after identifying and discussing
important concepts and issues from the current literature.
1.5.2 Case study
The main case company is Ballast Nedam N.V., a construction company. Specific information with
regard to the company will be given in paragraph 5.1.3. With regard to defining the case study, this
research is aiming to build a theory, where both concepts are known (Dul & Hak, 2008). Dul & Hak
(2008) state that this can be tested either with a comparative case study or an experiment. As the
theory applies to an organizational context, an experiment is not feasible in this situation. For this
reason, a comparative case study is chosen. This means that at least two situations are compared,
where it is, in this case, preferable that one of the two variables is controlled. The controlled variable
in this case is organizational culture. It is important that different ‘types’ of organizational cultures
are selected in order to see whether there is an influence of the individual aspects of an
organizational culture on knowledge sharing behavior. In order to find different ‘types’ of
organizational culture, assessing the organizational culture is done in an early stage of the research.
Another factor to keep in mind while selecting the units to study, is the notion of subcultures. For
instance Goffee & Jones (1996) talk about different cultures among different levels in hierarchy. This
point of view also raises the possibility of finding different cultures among different divisions and
departments within Ballast Nedam. According to Dul & Hak (2008) the amount of cases to study is
depending on the objectives of the study. When relations are more clear and simple, comparing two
cases would be sufficient (Dul & Hak, 2008). In this case however, the relation between both
3
concepts is not very clear. Then the advice is to study more than two cases. In search of differing
organizational cultures, one of the regional companies of Ballast Nedam, which includes both
building and infrastructure divisions, could provide two additional cases besides two companies that
are located at the main office.
In order to increase the validity it is needed to find multiple techniques for data collection during the
case study (‘t Hart & Boeije, 2005; Dul & Hak, 2008). This will be done by a combination of semistructured interviews, a questionnaire and observations. The literature chapters will be used as input
in order to come to a research instrument, which will be discussed in Chapter 5, the case study
protocol. Finding usable techniques for collecting evidence about the relationship between
dimensions of organizational culture and knowledge sharing will be difficult, since organizational
culture is very implicit. Schein (2004), for instance, distinguishes three different levels of
organizational culture (in depth), meaning that on the surface artifacts like documents, products or
rituals can be found. These are created from deeper levels of the organization culture. The first level
of the deeper values are influencing these artifacts through goals and strategies. At the deepest level
beliefs are the ultimate source of action, influencing the forming of values. This is visualized in Figure
2. The other concept, knowledge sharing, is hard to measure as well. Also Liebowitz (1999), in his
book, describes the knowledge work process as intangible. Although he proposes some metrics for
measuring knowledge work, practically it will be very hard to measure the exact knowledge sharing
contributions of individuals. Thus, the most appropriate approach for measuring this concept will be
by aiming at measuring the knowledge sharing behavior of individuals, in which they indicate how
they share knowledge, what their motives are, and what they think of their own knowledge sharing
behavior.
1.6 Research approach
In Figure 1 on page 6, the main activities of the research project are shown in a Process-Deliverable
Diagram (PDD). A PDD (Van de Weerd & Brinkkemper, 2008) can be used to visualize the activities
within a method (in this case, the approach derived from the research method, described in
paragraph 1.5), looking at different levels of detail, identifying dependencies between activities and
the associated deliverables. On the left side of a PDD the activities are shown, the objects on the
right side of the diagram represent main deliverables. The arrows between activities and
deliverables suggest that the activity results in a deliverable.
According to the PDD shown in Figure 1, there are six different activities. Below, these main activities
are explained briefly (of which ‘Create Advice Report’ and ‘Finalize Thesis’ are merged, as this can be
seen as part of the bigger activity ‘Finalizing the Project’).
Organizational Culture Operationalization
Within this activity, the literature on organizational culture is explored. This activity mainly concerns
Chapter 2. An overview of the literature on organizational culture will be given. The goal of this
chapter is to select the most appropriate method of measuring organizational culture.
Knowledge Sharing Operationalization
In order to get a detailed insight in knowledge sharing and its role in organization context, first
knowledge and knowledge sharing will be defined. Then the role of knowledge sharing in the
knowledge management cycle will be discussed. Finally, the concept of knowledge sharing must be
described thoroughly, in order to be able to operationalize it for this research. This will be described
4
in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. Chapter 4 will consist of the research framework and already described
influences in literature concerning both researched concepts.
Case Study Preparation
The main goal of the case study preparation is to formulate a standardized approach to study
different departments/companies. This activity mainly concerns the creation of a case study
protocol, in which this standardized approach is captured. The case study protocol is discussed in
Chapter 5.
Case Study
The execution of the case study at each department will eventually lead to large amount of data,
which can be found in the appendices. Within this activity, the main findings from the data will be
presented in the results and later on analyzed for influences of organizational culture on knowledge
sharing. This is done in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
Finalize Thesis
In the conclusion, the data gathered from the case studies will be used to check whether it is
plausible that there are influences of dimensions of an organizational culture on knowledge sharing
behavior. Another activity in this phase is to use the specific findings of the case study to advise the
case company, Ballast Nedam, as well as reflecting the research procedure and findings. Chapter 8
concerns the company advice. The conclusions will be formulated in Chapter 9 and the discussion is
included in this thesis as Chapter 10.
5
Figure 1 - PDD depicting all activities and involved deliverables for this research project
6
1.7 Relevance
For this research two types of relevance can be distinguished. The scientific relevance concerns the
scientific value of this research and will be discussed first. In section 1.7.2, the social relevance will
be addressed. This mainly concerns the value of the research for the business environment.
1.7.1 Scientific relevance
The aim of this study is to gain more insight in the relationship between the concepts organizational
culture and knowledge sharing. At this moment, researchers do acknowledge a link between
organizational culture and knowledge management, but they are not really going in-depth in
researching this relationship. Examples of these researches are Leidner, Alavi & Kayworth (2006),
Alavi, Keyworth & Leidner (2006), McDermott & O’Dell (2001) and De Long & Fahey(2000). The latter
research is describing several influences of organizational culture on knowledge management, but it
is not describing how this influence works. That is where this research can be a valuable addition to
the literature. The need for additional research on the relationship of organizational culture on
knowledge sharing is also indicated by Wang & Noe (2010), in their research overview on knowledge
sharing.
There is one research paper from Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi & Mohammed (2007), that intends to study
the influence of some aspects of organizational culture on knowledge sharing, but some remarks can
be made about the way they did this. The most important remark is that they use another concept
of organizational culture (which is more about an indirect relationship between both concepts). They
do not measure the direct influence of organizational culture on knowledge sharing, but they
measure the influence of certain factors, identified in the literature, on knowledge sharing. Secondly,
they do this primarily by analyzing questionnaires (they do mention qualitative semi-structured
interviews to validate findings of the questionnaires, but nothing is further said about this
validation), in which they only measure that there is a relationship, not saying anything about how
one factor might influence the other. The ‘how’ of the relationship(s) between both concepts, is the
question this research is trying to answer.
By gathering qualitative data about this relationship, the literature will be expanded. Favorably, this
data could lead to a theory about how (at least some) dimensions of organizational cultures
influence knowledge sharing, when the research would be repeated. For instance, this could be the
starting point for looking at what (type of) cultural interventions have the most influence on
knowledge sharing.
1.7.2 Social relevance
As companies nowadays do realize that actively managing knowledge can be a source of competitive
advantage (Grant, 1996; Holsapple & Singh, 2001; Argote & Ingram, 2000; Kim & Lee, 2001; Osterloh
& Frey, 2000) they seem to struggle with actually reaching this goal (De Long & Fahey,2000; Storey &
Barnett, 2000). The reasons for this can be diverse, but organizational culture is regarded to as a
major barrier in reaching knowledge management success (Leidner, Alavi & Kayworth, 2006). By
researching how an organizational culture influences knowledge sharing (behavior), more specific
and more effective interventions can be implemented with regard to changing the organizational
culture or knowledge management program. This will lead to better knowledge management
practices within organizations.
7
Chapter 2
Literature on organizational culture
First, an introduction will be given to the concept of organizational culture. Topics that are discussed
further are the usage of typologies and dimensional models for characterizing organizational
cultures and, finally, measurement of organizational culture. The aim of this chapter is to define how
the concept organizational culture is used within this research and to identify the most appropriate
way of measuring organizational culture.
2.1 Introduction
In this introduction basic notions with regard to organizational culture and studying organizational
culture are made. In the end, in section 2.1.2 a definition is given that will be used within this
research.
2.1.1 Different perspectives
Organizational culture is a widely used concept within the research literature. It originates from
culture that is studied within the field of anthropology. The first notions of organizational culture
date from the late 1970s (Pettigrew, 1979). Since then, it became very popular during the 1980s. In
these years many well known books about organizational culture were published. These are books
from Deal & Kennedy (1982), Peters & Waterman (1982) and Schein (1985). Through the years,
many different types of research projects are conducted, studying the concept organizational
culture. Smricich (1983) identified five different perspectives on studying organizational culture.
Smircich (1983) thinks there are different perspectives on organizational culture because of the
different interpretations of ‘culture’ within anthropology, as well as different interpretations of the
concept ‘organization’. The following five perspectives were identified: cross-cultural, corporate
culture, organizational cognition, organizational symbolism and unconscious processes and
organization (Smircich, 1983). In this research the corporate culture perspective is applied, as the
relation between variables is researched and the emphasis is on measuring the concepts.
2.1.2 Definition
Within the organizational culture literature, there is no consensus about the definition (Detert et al.,
2000; Van Muijen, 1994). A confirmative example is a list made by Schein (2004, p.11) of many
different terms that are used to describe culture and the sources of publication. The earlier
mentioned perspectives of researching organizational culture, discussed by Smircich (1983), provides
additional evidence as also given by Van Muijen (1994). The different research perspectives can be
seen as an explanation of the lacking consensus about a general definition for organizational culture.
Despite of the lack of consensus on a general definition of organizational culture, the definition of
Schein (2004) will be used: “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it
solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to
be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
think and feel in relation to those problems.” A reason for this choice is that this definition reflects
that organizational culture is about an implicit group view of a ‘truth’, which sets the boundaries for
behavior. This also implies a link to knowledge sharing behavior.
8
According to Schein (2004), organizational culture, manifest it selves in different layers. The upper
layer is observable (and is in fact a manifestation of deeper lying cultural values) and the layer,
positioned at the deepest level are assumptions, which are highly unconscious. This idea is amongst
others also used by Hofstede, et al. (1990). They use a slightly other terminology, but the idea of
better observable top layers versus a unconscious bottom layer is the same. The above can be
regarded to as the structural concept of organizational culture. Below, Figure 2 gives an impression
of these levels of culture. The artifacts concern the observable but hard to decipher phenomena
(documents, reward system, office layout, etc.), while the basic underlying assumptions are the most
implicit (and purest) form of culture which are the hardest to observe or measure. The addition that
artifacts are hard to decipher, is given to emphasize the difficulty of relating the creation of artifacts
to the cultural background of an organization.
Figure 2 - Levels of organizational culture (Schein, 2004)
Schein (2004) describes an organizational culture as everything related to ‘dealing with its external
environment and managing its internal integration’. Managing the internal integration of a group is
concerning the goals, mission and the rules for surviving as a group, which is dictated by a changing
environment. This is a continuous process which works in two directions. Changes within the group
can be caused by a changing environment. It can also be that changing environmental conditions are
forcing the group to change its internal organization.
As Van Muijen (1994) puts it, the way a group is dealing with the environment and managing its
integration, will lead to successful problem solutions. These successful solutions are cherished,
which will eventually lead to patterns of common thinking, observations and emotions. These
patterns are regarded to as the culture, as defined above. This pattern gives directions to provide
meaning, binding, identity and a sense of justification of behavior for group members, which Van
Muijen (1994) defines as secondary functions of culture.
2.2 Typologies and dimensions
In the literature, basically two approaches towards conceptualizing (organizational) culture can be
found (Mannion, Konteh, McMurray, Davies, Scott, Jung, et al., 2008; Liu, Sheibo & Meiyung; 2006).
First, there is a typological approach. Here, the culture is defined, in most cases, by a relative small
amount of dimensions. By only discriminating binary values, it is possible to classify cultures based
on the different values that are possible for each dimension. The other approach is dimensional. (Liu,
9
et al. (2006) describe this as a trait approach.) Culture is then seen as a concept having many
different characteristics. Within a dimensional model, several dimensions are defined, where each
dimension can have various values. It is therefore impossible to classify all different cultures that are
possible based on the values of each individual characteristic of cultures.
2.2.1 Typologies
Schein (2004) writes that typologies (or categories) are used to help making sense and order out of
observed phenomena. It can also help us to define an underlying structure. This can lead to an idea
about how things work which can, eventually, provide some insight in how other phenomena
behave. The disadvantage of this approach is that abstraction is inevitably. The danger then is that
the typology is too general and does not reflect the level of reality needed for a given observation. A
well-known typology is the one described by Deal & Kennedy (1982).
Deal & Kennedy
One of the first typologies described in the literature about organizational culture came from Deal &
Kennedy (1982). Their typology was published in their famous book “Corporate Cultures: The Rites
and Rituals of Corporate Life”, and measures organizational culture on two dimensions:
Risk: The level of risk taking. In other words the level of uncertainty to which the organization is
exposed.
Feedback: The speed of feedback about the performance. How fast are feedback and rewards
provided to the employees, by which they know whether they did a good or a bad job.
Figure 3 - Typology of Deal & Kennedy (1982), based on the values 'Feedback' and 'Risk'
Process culture: Every activity that is undertaken is these cultures will get standardized (low risk),
since the sometimes critical background of the work that needs to be done. Another thing is that
employees find it hard to see what their performance is.
10
Bet-your-company culture: Long term decisions are made within these cultures, that could have
disastrous impact. The future plays an important role in this culture.
Work hard play hard culture: This culture can be described as an all-or-nothing culture. Risks are
taken by only a few people. Deal & Kennedy (1982) add to this that the emphasis is on speed and not
on endurance.
Tough-guy macho culture: In this culture, the organization gets a fast feedback from activities with
relatively high risk. The working pressure can be high.
By distinguishing between how feedback flows (or the pace of the feedback) and the levels of risks
that are taken, four cultures can be identified. However, a consequence of this is that other
characteristics of an organizational culture, for instance how relationships are formed or whether
work is done individually or collaboratively, are omitted. So, by using typologies, it becomes easier to
identify ‘types’ of organizational cultures, but only limited insight is gained.
Other typologies
In the literature some other typologies are described. Examples are Goffee & Jones (1996), Harrison
(1972)/Harrison & Strokes (1992) and Cameron & Quinn (1999). The typology of Cameron & Quinn is
also used for assessing organizational culture, as will be described later on in this chapter. Dension &
Mishra (1995) also describe a typology, which is later on developed into a questionnaire for
assessing organizational culture. This typology consists of two dimensions: change orientation and
focus (internal/external). This lead to identification of four ‘traits’ as they call it; adaptability,
involvement, mission and consistency. These traits were the input for the questionnaire. An
advantage of the questionnaire is, that it covers a larger area of organizational culture related topics,
than the two dimensions on which the questionnaire is initially based. For this reason, the
questionnaire of Denison, Jovanivics, Cho & Young (2005) can also be used to get more insight in an
organizational culture. The questionnaire will further be discussed in paragraph 2.3.2.
2.2.2 Dimensions
Another way how the concept organizational culture is described, most of the time, is by describing
all characteristics the concept has (and not focusing on limited number of dimensions). This is the
‘dimensional’ approach. Hofstede, et al. (1990), Schein (2004, first published in 1985) have identified
several dimensions. In more recent years, some literature studies have proposed integral
dimensional concepts of organizational culture (Christensen & Gordon, 1999; Detert et al., 2000).
Below these different dimension concepts will be briefly discussed.
Hofstede’s dimensions
Hofstede (1980) started his study on culture from a national perspective. He found five dimensions
that characterizes a national culture. Later on, Hofstede et al. (1990) used these dimensions for
national cultures as an input to identify dimensions of organization culture. During a research in two
countries, Denmark & The Netherlands, they created a questionnaire that resulted in six dimensions,
by means of a factor analysis. This resulted in six dimensions, formulated in a bipolar format. In
Figure 4 these dimensions are explained briefly.
11
Dimension
Process-Oriented vs. ResultsOriented
Employee-Oriented vs. Job-Oriented
Parochial vs. Professional
Open System vs. Closed System
Loose Control vs. Tight Control
Normative vs. Pragmatic
Explanation
This dimension reflects how the organization is internally
operating in terms of how work must be carried out.
Beliefs and opinions about how the organization prioritizes
either getting the job done or taking care for their
employees.
The dimension ‘Parochial vs. Professional’ is about whether
individuals derive their identity from either the
organization or from the type of job.
In open systems new employees and outsiders are
welcomed and almost everyone can fit in the group, as
opposed to a closed system. Here, only specific characters
are accepted, much care is undertaken to hide information
and it is not accepted to communicate freely with outsiders
about the organization.
This dimension is about the way the internal organization
controls the employees behaviors. One extreme is a
situation in which social contact is very familiar and the
other extreme is that only formal contact is allowed, and
everybody is extremely well dressed. Unwritten codes for
accepted behavior is also a factor whether an organization
is tightly or loosely controlled.
This dimension is about customer orientation. The
normative extreme is that every task has to be executed as
planned, not taking into account the conditions under
which the task is executed. Pragmatic is the opposite of this
behavior, in which the result does matter and it is about
serving the customer and not really about the way this is
achieved.
Figure 4 - Summary of the dimensions introduced by Hofstede et al. (1990)
Schein’s dimensions
Schein (2004) described five dimensions of culture. From his definition that a culture is based on
shared basic assumptions, he specifies the content of these assumptions, that manifest on two of his
three levels of culture. On the lowest level are the most basic assumptions about reality and truth,
nature and time of space, human nature, activity and relationships. These assumptions eventually
influence the assumptions about external adaptation issues and managing internal integration.
Below these dimensions are briefly explained.
12
Dimension
Assumptions about external
adaptation issues
Assumptions about managing
internal integration
Deeper cultural assumptions about
reality and truth
Assumptions about the nature of
time and space
Assumptions about human nature,
activity and relationships
Explanation
This is about how a group copes with its external
environment. What goals they set, what means are used to
attain the goals, how they measure their progress and what
to do when goals are not met.
In order to adapt to the external environment, internal
relations have to be managed. Assumptions about
language, group boundaries, power, rewards (and
punishments), intimacy are included in this dimension.
Assumptions about what is real and how to determine
what is relevant information and how to come to decisions
from given information.
Assumptions about how to deal with time. How is the
group oriented to time? (i.e. only looking at results from
past, primarily worrying about finishing immediate tasks, or
heavily researching how new products can be created).
How are tasks managed? Only one task at a time or handle
more tasks simultaneously. How far ahead does the group
plan? What is the role of space in social relations and how
is space used in the physical work environment?
These assumptions reflect how a group thinks about what
is good and what is bad. Do people or employees
automatically handle in the interest of an organization or
group they represent or should they be forced to do so?
Assumptions about appropriate activity refer to how
humans are supposed to act in relation to their
environment. Assumptions about the nature of human
relationships are about how a group is looking at
cooperation and the need to control others’ behavior.
Figure 5 - Summary of the dimensions introduced by Schein (2004, first published in 1985)
Christensen & Gordon’s dimensions
Christensen & Gordon (1999) tried to measure organizational culture in their research on the
relationship between organizational culture and performance. Therefore they conducted a literature
review to ground created scales for measuring organizational culture on literature that was already
published. Their concept of organizational culture has the following dimensions:
13
Dimension
Aggressiveness/Action orientation
Innovation
Confrontation
Planning orientation
Results orientation
People orientation
Team orientation
Communication
Explanation
The emphasis is on being the first to act. Following
(competitors) is seen as a negative thing.
In what way employees are encouraged to take risks and
innovate.
Openly speaking about issues vs. avoiding confrontations
(keeping everyone happy).
The extent to which things are carefully planned and
managed as opposite of an ad hoc approach.
In what way results are a measure to review people and
management that is emphasizing delivering end products.
In what way the organization cares about their employees
and their growth (education).
To what extent work is done in cooperation with other
employees within or between units.
Whether there is or isn’t an open atmosphere for
communication and making others knowledgeable. This
also implies whether the organization creates boundaries
for participation or not.
Figure 6 - Summary of the dimensions introduced by Christensen & Gordon (1999)
Detert, et al.’s dimensions
Detert et al. (2000) did a full literature review of research on organizational culture, in order to
determine ideal characteristics of organizational culture with respect to total quality management
practices. The goal of the literature study was to identify different concepts of organizational culture
that are used by researchers. Then, by identifying similar dimensions used across different concepts,
the most frequently used dimensions could be selected. This resulted in the following dimensions:
14
Dimension
The basis of truth and rationality in the
organization
The nature of time and time horizon
Motivation
Stability versus
change/innovation/personal growth
Orientation to work, task and coworkers
Isolation versus
collaboration/cooperation
Control, coordination, and responsibility
Orientation and focus
Explanation
Ideas about what is true for an organization and how
decisions should be made.
Ideas about how important time is (when a certain
deadline cannot be made for instance) or in what time
horizon the organization plans.
how employees are motivated: by intrinsic (doing
meaningful work) or extrinsic motivation (working
primarily to get money)
How do employees look at a changing environment
(adapting or refusing to adapt)? Is risk taking promoted
or not and what about innovation? Are new ideas always
welcome or is an organization comfortable when the
business environment is stable?
What are ideas about the reason of work? Functional, to
fill time or as a way to get a comfortable life.
How can work be completed most efficiently. Is that by
sequential parts of work carried out by individuals or
only collaboratively?
Ideas about how the organization must be controlled.
Are important decisions only made in management
teams? Or do employees have the right to make their
own decisions?
Ideas about how the organization is influenced by the
environment or the other way around.
Figure 7 - Summary of the dimensions introduced by Detert et al. (2000)
2.2.3 Comparing both approaches
Both approaches have pros and cons. The advantage of using typologies is that differences between
organizational cultures can be visualized more easily, is not complex and easy to understand.
Disadvantages of using typologies can also be mentioned. First, using different typologies will result
in focusing on different dimensions of organizational culture. So, the differences that will be found
will depend on the chosen typology. Secondly, always some dimensions that can be of importance
will be omitted. This lack of detail and complexity (while the concept it is trying to measure actually
is complex) is also recognized by Schein (2004). The advantage of the other approach, the
dimensional approach, is that such models try to describe the concept as completely as possible. The
complexity and the lack of conformity with regard to the best dimensional models can be mentioned
as disadvantages.
By using a dimensional model, the research goal can be satisfied, in that a complete insight in the
relationship between the concepts can be given. This is not the case when a typology would be used.
As already described earlier, the questionnaire stemming from the typology of Denison & Mishra
(1995) is an exception to the given limitations of a typology.
2.3 Towards measuring organizational culture
Measurement of organizational culture is subject of divergent discussions. Over time, researchers,
with their different backgrounds, have had different ideas about how organizational culture can be
measured. First, some different approaches are described, after which the best approach for this
research is elaborated.
15
2.3.1 Measurement approaches
Since the introduction of the concept ‘organizational culture’, there was an extensive debate about
how it could and should be measured. Generally speaking, three different approaches can be
discriminated; clinical research, individual qualitative research and quantitative research.
Quantitative research
In quantitative research, the observer tries to subtract objective data from subjects, by providing a
questionnaire, filled with statements about organizational culture, which should lead to the subjects’
view on their organizational culture. Quantitative research is very useful to quickly receive results
which can be easily compared between groups. The researcher has to take care in the way he
constructs the questionnaire, as there are several pitfalls, identified by, for instance Schein (2004).
He objects that the researcher cannot measure deeper shared assumptions of a culture as these are
tacit. Another pitfall for administering questionnaires is that these will not be reliable nor valid, as
validating formal measures coming from deep and complex phenomenon as organizational culture
will be intrinsically difficult.
Individual qualitative research
The main application of individual qualitative research is executing semi-structured interviews and
doing observations. In this way, subjects are unbounded in their answers (compared to quantitative
research), and it also gives observers the chance to interpret the culture and receive some feedback
on this view of the culture. This can eventually lead to a more complete view of the culture, however
it is hard to know how many repetitions are needed. Also, with this method it is somewhat harder to
compare different groups/organizational cultures.
Clinical research
Schein (2004) advocates the clinical research approach, in which the information will flow more
voluntarily from the subjects to the observer. This is because the subjects feel they have something
to gain from cooperating with the observer. In contrast to the two research approaches above, in
clinical research, the observer is assigned to solve specific problems, instead of observers that are
doing research for their own sake. Another difference is that the emphasis is more on group
interviews and combining their individual views into one collective view on culture. This approach is
very intensive in the sense of measuring/deciphering culture and will also require extensive skills in
guiding a group to come to central and collective statements.
Important factors within this research are the time that is available for measuring culture, as well as
the interference with the workforce on the departments that will be researched. This, combined
with the limited experience of the researcher with clinical research, a combination of quantitative as
well as individual qualitative research suits this research the best. In the next section some surveys
that are published will be elaborated after which the best option will be chosen.
2.3.2 Published surveys
When quantitative research is done, there are mainly three options. Firstly, by doing an extensive
literature study, a new questionnaire can be created. Secondly, since there are already many
publications on surveys for organizational culture, these can be reused as an already validated
measurement instrument. And at last, a combination of the first two can be used, by combining
some of advantages of both approaches, a new instrument can be constructed by reusing one or
16
more surveys. In the next section, a number of published surveys are described. After this, the
possibilities for measuring organizational culture are discussed.
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)
This questionnaire is based on the Competing Values Framework, also by Cameron & Quinn (1999).
The questionnaire contains six topics on which four propositions are given, to which 100 points have
to be assigned. The choice between the four different quadrant will in the end determine which
culture is the most dominant culture. Because this questionnaire is only measuring two dimensions,
this one is not preferred. The Focus questionnaire by Van Muijen (1999) is build on the OCAI. But the
disadvantage of this, and many other questionnaire is the limited information about it, that is being
published.
Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) (O’Reilly et al., 1991)
In case of the OCP, the survey is about arranging 40 individual items, based on importance. These
items must be placed either in a box described as ‘most characteristic’, ‘neither characteristic nor
uncharacteristic’ or ‘uncharacteristic’. Only a limited number of boxes are available per ‘value’,
which forces that items need to be prioritized. There is not much published about this survey, and
although the items are published, it is not clear how consolidation takes place. Mapping the OCP to
profiles for the dimensions of Detert et al. (2000) will also take considerable time.
Cultural Practice Questionnaire (Christensen & Gordon, 1999)
With regard to the Cultural Practice Questionnaire of Christensen & Gordon (1999), more details are
published. Individual items, as well as the composition of scales are published in their publication.
Some matching dimensions (compared to Detert et al.’s dimensions) can be found like planning
(Nature of time and time horizon), Innovation (Stability versus change) and Results Orientation
(Orientation towards work). This questionnaire could thus be used for reusing items for the new to
be created questionnaire. However, no statistics are given with regard to the reliability of the scales
as well as the size and compositions of the sample that is used.
Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) (Denison, Janovics, Cho & Young,
2005)
DOCS measure the scores on the four traits, where each trait consists of three scales, each with a
specific direction and unique set of items. Despite of the different approach of the model behind the
questionnaire (Denison & Mishra, 1995) compared to Detert et al. (2000), on the individual scale
level, there are some similarities. Examples are Team Orientation (Isolation versus collaboration),
Creating Change (Stability versus change) and Customer Focus (Orientation and Focus
Internal/External).
Advantages of this questionnaire are the open publication of the items, and the large number of
statistics that are given in Denison et al. (2005), regarding the reliability of the scales and the size of
the sample. This questionnaire is filled in by 35.474 individuals from 160 organizations. Also
combining the individual scores to organizational score, in order to be able to measure and study the
group as a whole, was tested positive. This was done using within-group agreement tests.
Possibilities for measuring organizational culture
As it was already emphasized that time is limited, doing an extensive literature study to create a
new questionnaire is not preferable. Also, since validating the questionnaire is necessary, creating a
17
questionnaire from scratch would even take more time. Given the availability of some published
questionnaires, three options are left. One option is to use the dimensions of Christensen & Gordon
(1999) in combination with their questionnaire. Another possibility is to use the DOCS questionnaire.
At last, one of these questionnaires can be combined with a(nother) dimensional model, for instance
of Detert et al. (2000), where some items are added to improve coverage. In order to get the
broadest insight in the organizational culture, all candidate models (four dimensional models and
one is the items set of a questionnaire) are mapped in the next paragraph. This will lead to insight
regarding the coverage of all models.
2.4 Mapping the candidate models
Since the best coverage of describing an organizational culture is one of the research goals, in this
section all candidate models to use for measuring organizational culture are compared on coverage
of topics. In the table below, this is done textual, by writing down all dimensions and mapping them
to Detert et al.’s dimensions. This is done because Detert et al. (2000) claim to have created a broad
model, as is based on an extensive literature research. This mapping will be used to decide on how
organizational culture can be measured the best in this research.
Detert et al.
Basis of truth
The nature of time
Motivation
Stability versus change
Orientation to work
Isolation vs. collaboration
Control, coordination, and resp.
Extra items
Schein
Reality and truth
Nature of time and space
Human nature
x
Human nature
x
x
Ext. adaptation issues
Managing internal integration
Hofstede et al.
x
x
Employee vs. Job Orientation
x
Process vs. Results Orientation
x
Loose vs. Tight Control
Normative vs. Pragmatic
Parochial vs. Professional
Open vs. Closed System
Christensen & Gordon
x
Planning Orientation
People Orientation
Innovation
Results Orientation
Team Orientation
Communication
Aggressiveness/Action Or.
Confrontation
DOCS
x
Strategic Direction & Intent/Vision
Empowerment*
Creating Change/Org. Learning
x
Team Orientation/Coordin. & Integr.
Capability Development*
Customer Focus
Core Values
Agreement
Goals & Objectives
*only partly covered
Table 1 - Comparison of four models on coverage on dimensions of Detert et al. (2000).
In Table 1, every column represents one of the models that is being compared. Detert et al.’s
dimensions are mentioned first, since the other models are compared on coverage with this model.
The red cells with an ‘x’ means that the corresponding Detert et al. dimension is not covered by that
specific model. All of the other models have one or more dimensions/items than Detert et al.’s
dimensional model. The DOCS questionnaire of Denison et al. (2005), has two partly covered
dimensions. This means that the coverage of Detert et al. is more extensive than that of the DOCS
questionnaire on that dimension.
As can be seen in Table 1, all models have some distinguishing (extra) items/dimensions compared
to Detert et al.’s dimensions. These can be best explained by the underlying foundation of such a
model. The way that the concept organizational culture is operationalized, influences the
categorization of the dimensions. The best example of this is DOCS by Denison et al. (2005). The
typology behind it is founded on linking organizational culture with business performance. As
performance is associated with developing strategies, setting goals, measuring the progress and
sharing the same vision within the company, it can be seen that these topics are almost directly used
as individual items sets of the questionnaire. Some of these individual items do have overlap with,
for instance, the ‘Nature of time’ dimensions of Detert et al., while other items from the same item
set are focused on something unrelated. For the dimensions of Hofstede et al. holds that they are
18
based on the earlier formulated national culture dimensions. This is then directly influencing the way
the related concept organizational culture is being operationalized.
What can be concluded from Table 1 and Figure 8 (shown on next page), is that the dimensions of
Schein (2004) and Hofstede et al. (1990), have a smaller coverage than Detert et al.’s dimensions.
However, they do have a few other dimensions, which are not covered by Detert et al.’s dimensions.
Another observation that can be done is that Christensen & Gordon’s dimensions have the most
complete coverage, which could be explained by the fact that this dimensional model is also
composed from other dimensions. Compared to DOCS of Denison et al. (2005), some dimensions are
only basically covered, while two dimensions are not covered at all. To emphasize the similarity of
the four other models with the dimensions of Detert et al., Figure 8 is shown below. The dimensions
of Detert et al. are numbered, and connections to the dimensions of the other models are
represented by a line ended with large dots. Per model, the uncovered dimensions are also
mentioned.
Figure 8 - Graphical representation of mapping the models to the model of Detert et al.(2000).
Looking at the table and figure, the dimensions of Christensen & Gordon have the best coverage of
the other four models comparing them to Detert et al.’s dimensions. DOCS, also has a good coverage
of topics on Detert et al.’s dimensions. Schein’s and Hofstede’s dimensions definitely lack in
coverage of the dimensions of Detert et al. Since Christensen & Gordon (2005) also created a
questionnaire, this is the best candidate to use as dimensional model to measure organizational
culture. However, as already explained in paragraph 2.3.2, the quality of the data provided with the
questionnaire is low, as well as content of the questionnaire, that needs improvement. Since time is
19
limited, a more mature questionnaire is preferred. Reusing the DOCS questionnaire of Denison et al.
(2005), and adding measures for the missing dimensions, then is the best alternative. In the next
paragraph, the dimensions of Detert et al. (2000) are discussed in more detail.
2.5 Detert et al.’s dimensions
2.5.1 The basis of truth and rationality in the organization.
This dimension reflects the way how a group
The basis of truth
perceives reality and truth. This is determining on
Scale: nominal
what basis decisions are made and which group
Values:
members are the ones who actually make
• Scientific research
decisions. Schein (2004), who also acknowledge
• Consensus
this dimension, describes several levels of reality.
• Personal experience
One level is to test things empirically. By doing
actual research, observations can be made which will lead to observable outcomes for what is true
and what is false. In a business context, such behavior is for example to first set up lab tests or
prototypes that should give insight in the feasibility of a plan. The outcomes of such a test will form
the basis for making decisions about executing the plans.
Where no empirical tests can be done, there is social reality. Then decisions are made based on
consensus. In a business context, this is where for instance a management team is deciding to decide
about selling a business unit. There are several different aspects playing a role in such a decision. For
instance there is a financial aspect, where costs and gains are weighed. But there is also a human
aspect, and that is what will be done with the employees of the business unit? These kinds of
decisions will be made on the basis of consensus, where everyone has his own thoughts that could
influence other’s thought which eventually will (or at least could) lead to one central view and
decision. The political process is another example of social reality, which is created by and within a
group.
The level of individual reality, involves one’s own experience that is forming the absolute truth for
one person. This can also be used to convince other members of the group of what is right and what
is wrong. In a business context, an example is that senior managers will use their experience to form,
according to them, valid arguments for their opinion, which will then be accepted. What also can be
the case is that a more critical attitude will be adopted, that instead of following a senior manager
blindly, arguments are asked or an attitude as ‘prove it to me’.
The way decisions are made within a group, can only be measured on a nominal scale. This is due to
the different ways of decision making that a group can adopt. The extreme values are decisions
being made based on scientific research, decisions being made by consensus, and decisions being
made based on personal experience. It is also possible that some hybrid form of decision making is
adopted within a group. This has some influence on the way this dimension will be measured, which
will be covered later on, in Chapter 5.
2.5.2 The nature of time and time horizon
This dimension measures how time is defined within the organization, how it is measured, what
kinds of time exists and how important time is (Detert et al., 2000). Examples are focusing at how
20
things are done in the past (orientation to the past), only dealing with tasks that needs to done
immediately (orientation to the present), and always plan in advance (short to long range) in order
to get to something (orientation to the future). The aspect time will be looked at from two angles:
the nature of time (how time is being used) and the time horizon.
Time orientation
Monochronic time orientation means that time
can only be spent on one task at a time. If
someone has to do more than one thing, than the
time will be divided into as many units as there are
things to do. This is an organized approach to time.
Time orientation
Scale: nominal
Values:
• Monochronic
• Polychronic
In a polychronic approach to time, time is seen as
a medium in which things can be accomplished and not defined by a clock. Several things can occur
at the same time within this approach. Schein (2004) states that “monochronic time controls human
behavior” and that this makes it well applicable to situations which require highly coordinated
actions. For instance the coordination of large systems. Within an approach like this, time is the only
way to get this done efficiently. according to Schein (2004), a polychronic time approach is more
applicable to solve complex problems and building relationships. He further states that this time
approach is more suitable for the early stages of an organization, smaller systems and systems in
which one person coordinates all activity.
Time horizon
Another important aspect of the time dimension is
Time horizon
the way an organization looks at time horizons.
Scale: continuous
This can differ between functions and occupation.
Values:
In operational tasks, the time horizons that are
used are smaller than for instance the time
Short term
Long term
horizon used within a sales function who deals
with launching a new product. A different approach to time horizons can also be seen across
hierarchy. The top management of an organization tends to plan in terms of years, while an
operation manager will use a time horizon of one month for example.
The monochronic/polychronic time perspective as well as the time horizon can be relatively easy
measured. The time horizon is one aspect of the dimension that can be measured on a continuous
scale (short to long range). But, the way time is managed, is not measureable on a continuous scale.
These values are nominal.
2.5.3 Motivation
Motivation
According to Detert, et al. (2000), this dimension is
Scale: continuous
about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic
Values:
motivation is about development of the individual,
and the use of the full potential. It is about the
Extrinsic
Intrinsic
satisfaction derived from fulfilling an activity.
Extrinsic motivation is about rewards or benefits because of a lacking ability of employees to be
satisfied by completing some work and/or stimulating to handle in the favor of the employer.
21
Ryan & Deci (2000) state that people not only have different amounts of motivation, but also
different kinds of motivation. They call this the orientation of a motivation. This concerns the
attitudes and goals that are setting people on to perform a specific action. In their paper, they
identify intrinsic and extrinsic as the most basic subdivision of motivation. Intrinsic motivation is
associated with willingness to learn and creativity. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is seen as
a ‘impoverished’ form of motivation. This is because the task that should be carried out does not
provide for the needed motivation to perform the action, but other reasons than fulfilling the task
itself are the reason for actually performing the task. Reasons for performing the task are the
separable outcomes and not the outcome itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This extrinsic motivation is
often associated with money, but this is not necessary.
The dimension motivation can be measured on a continuous scale where the two extremes are
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.
2.5.4 Stability versus change/innovation/personal growth
This dimension is about how the organization is
oriented towards new developments. There are
Scale: continuous
two extremes. On the one hand an organizational
Values:
that is resisting against change and innovation. And
on the other hand an organization that is actively
Process focus
Results focus
innovating and looking for new opportunities with
unknown outcomes. Innovation can be defined as implementation of new ideas(Fagenberg, 2005). It
is the application of inventions (which are the actual ideas). Innovations can be new products,
processes or any other application of new ideas. Innovations typically involve cross-disciplinary
work, as different kinds of knowledge has to be applied when new ideas exists. On the other hand,
stability is about maintaining the current environment. This dimension is also approach in terms as
risk avoidance (for instance by Hofstede, et al. (1990)). In the case of stability, everything is known,
no surprises are expected. Where in case of the opposite, change will actually result in new
situations, which are, especially in the context of organizations associated with risks.
The value of stability on the one hand can be associated with organizations that are very traditional,
and build further on what is already achieved in the past. Innovation, on the other hand, drives
organizations to go beyond current boundaries and finding new ways to organize their business.
This dimension can be measured on a continuous scale. One end of the scale there is absolute
stability, which represents organizations that resist against change. On the other end, the pace of
change and innovation is high.
2.5.5 Orientation to work, task, and coworkers
Regarding the orientation to work, two views can
Orientation to work
be distinguished. One is a process oriented view on
Scale: continuous
work. The other is a results oriented view on work.
Values:
When an organization is adopting a process
oriented view, following a standard workflow is
Stability, no changes High pace of change
very important. In many cases, work is split up in
such a way that tasks are basic and are done routinely. A simple production process where food is
canned is an example of such process oriented work. In this case, every employee only has a few
22
tasks to do, and repeating that over and over during his shift. In this orientation deadlines are also
important. Controlling employees’ behaviors and setting the boundaries for them is a central aspect
in this orientation.
The other orientation to work, is one that provides more freedom to employees to plan their own
tasks. Important is that goals are set, for instance that an employee must finish a tender in two days,
but the way he comes to this end-product is not important. Another aspect can be the strictness of
deadlines. As this orientation advocates more freedom for employees to handle, it can also happen
that situations occur where deadlines cannot be met. It does not have to be that employees are
accounted for this loss of time.
Orientation to work can be measured on a continuous scale, distinguishing between the extremes of
a process focus and a results focus.
2.5.6 Isolation vs. collaboration and coordination
Schein (2004) acknowledges this dimension. It is
about what the most important unit is in which
Scale: continuous
work is divided. Does the work require much
Values:
collaboration or is it divided in more individualistic
proportions. In organizations who prefer
Complete Isolation
Complete Collaboration
individualistic work, group work and collaboration
is often seen as inefficient (Detert et al., 2000).
Such organizations argument that work can be divided into individualistic proportions which can be
accumulated into one ‘product’. On the other hand, work can be seen as a collaborative activity as
there could be many dependencies between individual tasks which require some coordination.
Another argument for collaboration can be that it could lead to improved quality of decision making
(Detert et al., 2000).
This dimension can be measured on a continuous scale. The extreme values that can be measured in
this dimension are obviously complete isolation and complete collaboration, where work is only
done together.
2.5.7 Control, coordination, and responsibility
As Detert et al. (2000) point out, organizations
Control, coordination and responsibility
differ in the way they are controlled. This
Scale: continuous
difference could be reflected in the power distance
Values:
perceived at several hierarchical levels of the
organization (Schein, 2004). The power distance
Tight control
Loose control
can be seen as the influence people have in
controlling others’ behavior. When the power
distance is high, an employee would see himself as not having any influence on actual decisions that
are made in the top. On the other hand, when the power distance is low, superiors are open for
ideas brought up by employees. Detert et al. (2000) uses two extremes: tight and loose control. To
describe organizations in which power is centralized, many procedures exist that are created by few
and intended to control the behavior of the majority (tight control). In a loosely controlled
organization, the power is decentralized, as well as decision making and less procedures and rules
are in place to control behavior of others. Decentralized decision making is also a way to give
23
employees more autonomy to handle. For instance also because no formal procedures exist, the
behavior of employees is not bounded and employees are given the freedom to make decisions
themselves.
The continuous scale on which this dimension can be measured has extreme values ‘tight control’
and ‘loose control’.
2.5.8 Orientation and focus-internal and/or external
This dimension concerns the relationship of the
organization with its environment. Either the
Scale: continuous
environment dictates the organization or the other
Values:
way around. It is also possible that this relationship
has some characteristics of both. According to
Internal
External
Detert et al (2000), the role customers that
customers play and the role of companies within the direct environment can influence the way how
work is done. This is the case when the organization has an external view. When an organization has
an internal view, the organization is changing the environment more than the other way around. An
example of an external company could be one where they are actively looking for customer
feedback about their products. This can be realized by maintaining a community around one or more
products. What can also be done, is that companies are actively looking for strategic partnerships.
Companies that are internally focused are looking at ways to change their processes. In example
they are innovating their production process, to make it much cheaper to produce their products or
to make production lines more flexible in that different products can be produced at different
production lines.
The dimension orientation and focus can be measured on a continuous scale. An organization has an
external focus, when customers and organizations in the business environment influence the way an
organization operates. The opposite extreme value of this dimension, is when an organization is only
looking internally at how business should be organized and when the environment does not
influence the process.
24
Chapter 3
Literature on knowledge sharing
The goal of this chapter is to describe the way concepts as knowledge and knowledge sharing are
used in this research. First both concepts will be defined, after which the role of knowledge sharing
in the knowledge management life cycle will be discussed. Then the knowledge sharing process will
be elaborated, in order to define the meaning of knowledge sharing in this research. Finally, the
aspect of knowledge sharing behavior will be addressed in order to find ways to measure knowledge
sharing in some way.
3.1 Defining knowledge
Knowledge is a broadl term and has many different definitions, as consensus is lacking (Grant, 1996).
However, as this research is about knowledge sharing, a definition for knowledge is essential.
Nonaka (1994) defines knowledge as ‘a justified true belief that increases an entity’s capacity for
effective action’. Other definitions are: knowledge is information whose validity has been
established through tests of proof (Liebeskind, 1996) and knowledge is information that is combined
with experience, context, interpretation and reflection (Davenport, Delong & Beers, 1997). In the
last two definitions, the link with information is suggested. Alavi & Leidner (2001) come up with a
hierarchical view on knowledge, in which they acknowledge above definitions related to
information. On the bottom, there is data, which consists only of raw numbers and facts. Above data
is information, which is processed data. On top of information is knowledge, what they describe as
authenticated information. Rowley (2007) discusses a top level ‘wisdom’, as sometimes also
indicated as item in the data-information-knowledge hierarchy by other researchers.
Alavi & Leidner (2001) claim that knowledge has the following aspects; it is personalized (it lives
inside the heads of individuals, in order to make it useful for others, it must be notated in an
interpretable way for others), hoards of information do not have any meaning (by processing the
items individually, learning occurs and the state of the mind will be influenced). Below, some of
these aspects will be elaborated in order to define the concept of knowledge within this research.
3.1.1 Contextual aspect of knowledge
An important aspect of knowledge is it’s context dependence. Thompson & Walsam (2004), claim
that knowledge context is an inseparable part of the knowledge itself. This is due to the nature of
knowledge; it resides within individuals, who have a subjective view on the knowledge, given their
current ‘state of knowing’. This is based on Blackler (1995), who had a practical view on knowledge,
in which knowledge is not seen as an objective ‘belief’, but as a intersubjective process in which he
states that individuals cannot be seen in isolation from their contexts and vice versa. Thompson &
Walsam come up with five components of context (who interfere with each other) based on the five
types of knowledge that are indicated by Blackler (1995). Another acknowledgement on the
importance of context for knowledge is the tacit and explicit taxonomy of knowledge by Nonaka
(1994). Tacit knowledge can be described as knowledge with cognitive and technical elements,
rooted in action, experience and a specific context. “Because knowledge is personalized, in order for
an individual’s or a group’s knowledge to be useful for others, it must be expressed in such a manner
as to be interpretable by the receivers“ (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). The term ‘personalized’ also reflects
25
the interpretation of knowledge by an individual, which also gives room for contextual influences
(the context surrounding the individual is influencing how he will interpret the knowledge). In order
to have successful knowledge sharing, a common contextual base is essential (Bosua & Scheepers,
2007).
3.1.2 Knowledge dimensions
In the literature, the term knowledge dimensions are used to refer to a certain state of knowledge,
distinguishing the way knowledge is stored and verbalized. The first dimension that can be
distinguished is that of tacit and explicit knowledge. Polanyi firstly used this term ‘tacit knowledge’
and it became more popular since Nonaka (1994) promoted it. Nonaka (1994) describes tacit
knowledge as: “Deeply rooted in action, commitment and involvement in a specific context.” It is
therefore hard to verbalize, and has a strong personal character. It is also referred to as personalized
knowledge. A mental model of how a car works is a typical example of tacit knowledge. Explicit
knowledge is articulated, codified and communicated in a symbolic form or natural language. Explicit
knowledge is also known as codified knowledge. An example of codified knowledge is a written
report. The other dimension is that of social interaction and has the values individual and group. This
regards to the location of the knowledge, where knowledge can either be a product of an individual
or a group. Knowledge is individual, when it is maintained and used by one person. Knowledge can
also be used within a group. This can be done by simply sharing the knowledge with other within a
group. However, the knowledge can also be maintained collaboratively.
3.1.3 Types of knowledge
Over time, different knowledge taxonomies (or sometimes called typologies) were proposed. Each of
these taxonomies identify commonly used types of knowledge. Others introduce new and specific
terms for types of knowledge. There is also a group that discriminate a hybrid spectrum of
knowledge types, combining new and commonly used terms for knowledge types in one complete
description of knowledge types (De Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996). A basic approach could be to
only discriminate between explicit and tacit knowledge. However, this will not result in a
sophisticated view on knowledge and will omit characteristics of knowledge that could otherwise be
taken into account, when comparing knowledge sharing practices. This could lead to useful insights.
De Jong & Ferguson-Hessler (1996), tried to create some order out of the chaos on different terms
for knowledge that were used over the years, seen from their perspective of task performance. They
identified two characteristics/dimensions of knowledge. These are the type of knowledge and the
quality of knowledge. They articulated four types of knowledge: situational, conceptual, procedural
and strategic knowledge. Another knowledge taxonomy is given in Alavi & Leidner (1999):
procedural (know-how), causal (know-why), conditional (know-when) and relational (know-with).
These two are only partly useful within a business context, as the knowledge that is being used and
perceived as valuable is stored in other proportions. In this research, the most useful taxonomy of
knowledge is one that describes the knowledge universally, not taking specific departmental
knowledge into account. Christensen (2007) uses such a knowledge taxonomy. He discriminates the
following four types of knowledge: professional knowledge, coordinating knowledge, object-based
knowledge and know-who. Professional knowledge lets the operator perform his job. it is referred to
as know-how, consisting of what is learned through formal education and experience gained by
performing the job. Coordinating knowledge is knowledge that is implemented in guiding the
transformation process of input to output. It consists of rules, standards and routines that describe
how jobs are supposed to be performed. Object-based knowledge is related to the objects that are
26
passing through the production line of the organization. This involves aggregating knowledge from
different parts of the organization. Know-who is knowledge about where knowledge is located.
3.2 Defining knowledge sharing
This paragraph is used to set the boundaries for usage of the term knowledge sharing within this
research. First a definition will be provided, after which the terminology for using knowledge sharing
will be discussed.
3.2.1 Knowledge sharing definition
At first sight, knowledge sharing can be easily defined as: ‘Providing one’s knowledge to others as
well as receiving knowledge from others’ (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). This conforms to the
definition used by Van den Hooff & De Ridder (2004), to distinguish a knowledge donating role and a
knowledge collecting role. In addition, Van den Hooff & De Ridder (2004) state that both the person
donating knowledge, and the person collecting knowledge can play an active role. It can be said
however that the interaction between two (or more) people can be more complex, than what is
suggested by the basic description. This is acknowledged by Alavi & Leidner (2001). They refer to
knowledge sharing (they use the term knowledge transfer) as a process, where knowledge is shared
through a knowledge transfer channel. The definition used in this research for knowledge sharing
has joined the earlier mentioned specific aspects of knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is
regarded to as: a process, in which knowledge is being transferred through a medium, from a
knowledge contributor to a knowledge consumer. This process can be initiated by both the
knowledge contributor and knowledge consumer.
3.2.2 Terminology
In the literature a number of different terms are used to refer to knowledge sharing, for instance
knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange. It can be said that the usage of these terms lack
conformity, which is also recognized by Kang, Kim & Chang (2008). Also Soekijad (2005) states that
the different terms are used mainly as a synonym, but she also indicates different contexts in which
they are sometimes used. Another issue regarding the interchangeable use of these terms is the
finding that there are different groups of researchers who give their own interpretation to these
terms. First there is a groups of researchers, amongst others Alavi & Leidner (2001), Hendriks (1999)
and Wilkesmann et al. (2009), who use knowledge sharing as a synonym for knowledge transfer. A
contrasting view is that of Ipe (2003) and Bosua & Scheepers (2007), who either claim that
knowledge transfer is about knowledge sharing between larger entities (for instance business units
or companies), or they refer to knowledge sharing as more ‘complete’ concept. In this research, such
a distinction is not made. However, we prefer only to use the term knowledge sharing as this
emphasizes the social background of the process.
3.3 KM life cycle
As both knowledge and knowledge sharing are defined, it is interesting to see how these concepts
relate to each other and what their meaning is in managing (organizational) knowledge. Therefore,
in this paragraph, a knowledge management model will be discussed.
Over time, different models for knowledge management were introduced. Some models approach
knowledge management as managing several objects, another popular view is that of a life
cycle/process view. In this research the life cycle view is most appropriate since such a model is also
27
seen as a process, like how knowledge sharing is approached in this research (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Alavi & Leidner (2001) describe such a knowledge management life cycle, consisting of the stages
knowledge creation, knowledge storage/retrieval, knowledge transfer and knowledge application.
These stage are elaborated below.
3.3.1 Knowledge creation
The SECI model by Nonaka (1994), that was already elaborated above, applies to this step of process.
It is about creating new and replacing old knowledge by collaborative as well as individual processes,
in which tacit and explicit knowledge are involved.
3.3.2 Knowledge storage/retrieval
Knowledge storage and retrieval concerns highlighting past memories. This can be individual as well
as organizational memory, located in different sources. By the use of information technology,
offering structures to store and retrieve information, storage and retrieval can be executed more
efficiently.
3.3.3 Knowledge transfer
This stage of the process concerns the actual transfer of the knowledge. Transfer of knowledge
occurs between various units within one organization (also outside the boundaries of organizations,
but that is outside the scope of this research). Some units that can be distinguished are individuals,
groups, departments and the organization as a whole. The transfer of knowledge can thus occur
between these different units. The challenging part of this stage of the process is to transfer
knowledge to the place where it is needed, when it is needed. Alavi & Leidner (2001) refer to five
characteristics by Gupta & Govindarajan (2000) that are of influence in knowledge transfer
situations, which will be elaborated in the next section, ‘knowledge sharing process’.
3.3.4 Knowledge application
The stage of applying knowledge is the final stage of the process. By applying knowledge, the
potential of knowledge is achieved (or at least that is the objective of applying knowledge). An
example of applied knowledge is a work procedure that is being created or changed.
According to this description of the knowledge management process by Alavi & Leidner (2001), it
could be argued that knowledge sharing, as defined earlier, is present especially in the process of
knowledge creation (knowledge sharing for one person is knowledge creation for the other) and the
process of knowledge transfer itself. In the next paragraph, the role of knowledge sharing within
knowledge management is elaborated.
3.4 Knowledge sharing as a process
As can be derived from what was described earlier, knowledge sharing is a complex phenomenon
within the knowledge management life cycle. In order to study this phenomenon in a structured
way, all aspects of knowledge sharing should be considered. Several attempts have been made to
describe the concept as well as the influences on knowledge sharing. However the problem is the
diffused approach several researchers take in defining and describing knowledge sharing. Most of
the time, researchers have a specific research aim, which disregards aspects that were earlier
proposed by other researchers. To come to a more general view on the concept of knowledge
sharing for this research, we tried to find common aspects of knowledge sharing used in different
researches.
28
Goh (2002), Gupta & Govindarajan (2000) and Ipe (2003) try to describe the phenomenon
knowledge sharing from a holistic perspective. The following topics of knowledge sharing emerge
from their research: relationship (between knowledge contributor and consumer; amongst others
the motivation to share), the supportive role of technology in knowledge sharing, types of
knowledge, opportunities to share (occasions to share knowledge such as workgroup meetings),
specific abilities of a knowledge contributor to articulate knowledge in a interpretable and
transferable format and specific abilities of a knowledge consumer to locate, and absorb the
knowledge.
Lichtenstein & Hunter (2006) discuss the knowledge sharing process from a receiver point of view.
Their knowledge sharing process conceptualization contains the following sub-processes: 1. sharer
becomes aware of potential value of the knowledge that is being possessed, 2. Sharer brings
knowledge under attention of potential receiver, 3. Knowledge is transferred through a channel, 4.
Reception of the knowledge, 5. application of received knowledge in practice, 6. Feedback to
knowledge sharer. As this model is made from a receiver point of view, it also includes the
application of the knowledge and the optional feedback after usage. At this point, the knowledge
consumer can actually get an idea about the value that the shared knowledge has. Although this is
an important step of the KM process, it is outside the scope of this research. In this research, we
clearly see the application of knowledge as a distinct phase, as described earlier in paragraph 3.3
regarding the KM life cycle. However, since the KM process has rather analogous transitions, the
application of knowledge will always be important and implicitly related to research on knowledge
sharing.
Bosua and Scheepers (2007) take an alternative view on knowledge sharing. They have created a
model that identified social networks and the shared information and knowledge-based artifact
network as most important components to explain knowledge sharing. Beside the two main
components, facilitating mechanisms for both components are identified as moderators within and
between both components.
Based on the literature on knowledge sharing, that is given above, some recurring items can be
identified to describe the process of knowledge sharing: type of knowledge (Goh, 2002; Ipe, 2003),
social network (Boshua & Scheepers, 2007) which concerns how knowledge is diffused to other
people which is implicitly acknowledged by the other researchers, knowledge contributor (Goh 2002;
Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Ipe, 2003; Lichtenstein & Hunter, 2006) what basically concerns
choices and triggers for a possessor of knowledge to eventually share that knowledge, knowledge
consumer (Goh 2002; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Ipe, 2003; Lichtenstein & Hunter, 2006) what
concerns how and where one searches for knowledge and finally, knowledge sharing medium
(Boshua & Scheepers, 2007; Goh, 2002; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Ipe, 2003; Lichtenstein &
Hunter, 2006).
In order to make it easier to understand the process and the items of the process, a visualization of
the process of knowledge sharing is included below in Figure 9. Since knowledge sharing is about
transferring knowledge from sender to receiver, it can be compared to communication (where
‘messages’ are transferred from sender to receiver). This is acknowledged by Soekijad (2005). For
this reason, the knowledge sharing process is visualized inspired by the well-known communication
model of Shannon & Weaver (Shannon, 1948).
29
Figure 9 - Knowledge Sharing Process, based on different sources from the literature on knowledge sharing.
As can be seen, the initiation of an act of knowledge sharing comes from someone from the social
network. There is a specific type of knowledge that will be shared. Then there is the side of the
knowledge contributor, where motivation exists or lacks to share knowledge. Another aspect is the
trust in others to do the right things with the provided knowledge. Then, there is a choice how to
share the knowledge, will it be done face-to-face, in a meeting or electronically by adding the
knowledge to a database. On the side of the knowledge consumer, also some motivational
considerations will be made, as well as a certain search strategy that will be adopted on how to
locate the knowledge that one searches for. The social network aspect regards the group to which
knowledge will be shared. This also consists of some behavioral ‘guidelines’ that exists within the
group for sharing knowledge. For instance, when colleagues are not available to help locating
knowledge somewhere in the network. This is typical group behavior. All items of the knowledge
sharing process presented in Figure 9, will be elaborated below.
30
3.4.1 Knowledge type
As already explained earlier this chapter, the knowledge typology that applies the best to this
research is that of Christensen (2007). He distinguishes between the following types of knowledge:
professional knowledge, coordinating knowledge, object-based knowledge and know-who. These
types of knowledge can be complemented with the knowledge dimensions ‘tacit’ and ‘explicit’.
Together this will make a spectrum of different kinds of knowledge that can be used in an
organizational context. It is summarized in the table below.
Explicit
Tacit
Professional knowledge
Coordinating knowledge
Object-based knowledge
Know-who
Table 2 - Categorization of knowledge, also distinguishing between the occurrence of knowledge
3.4.2 Knowledge Sharing Medium
The knowledge sharing medium can be seen as the medium through which the process of
knowledge sharing is facilitated. As with knowledge sharing in general, the concept ‘knowledge
channel’ also lack conformity in use as well as in definition. In the literature different terms are used,
for instance knowledge sharing medium, knowledge channel, knowledge sharing channel,
knowledge sharing mechanism and knowledge sharing mode. One thing that contributes to the
complexity and confusion about the concept is the close relatedness to a communication channel. In
this research the term knowledge sharing medium is used to refer to the way knowledge is being
shared.
At first, there is a distinction between traditional and technology-aided knowledge sharing (Bordia,
Irmer & Abusah, 2006; Chua, 2001; Wah, Menkhoff, Loh & Evers, 2005). Traditional knowledge
sharing is the act of sharing knowledge that is done through direct personal contact, closely related
to a face-to-face setting. Technology-aided knowledge sharing is knowledge sharing that is realized
through one or more technologies. Technology has the potential to widen the range of a
communication act. Chai (2009) used the term reach for this and defined it as: “the ability to reach
many receivers at one time”. So, the higher the amount of receivers, the higher the reach of a
medium. Furthermore, different levels of richness can be distinguished for the medium (Davenport
et al., 1997; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Markus, 2001). The richness of a medium is characterized
by its capacity for immediate feedback, its ability to support natural language, the number of cues it
provides and the extent to which the channel creates social presence for the receiver (Chua, 2001).
Social presence is the impression of the knowledge consumer that the knowledge contributor is
delivering the message, rather than the communication medium. Another distinction that can be
made is between formal and informal knowledge sharing. Ipe (2003), based on other work, claims
that most organizational knowledge is being shared within an informal context. This is also
acknowledged by for instance Ernst & Kim (2002).
Bartol & Srivastava (2002) proposed four mechanisms for knowledge sharing. The first is
contributing to knowledge databases, which is seen as formal. Knowledge sharing by formal
interactions in groups or between groups is the other formal mechanism. There are two more
informal mechanisms: informal interactions among individuals (i.e. chatting at the coffee corner) and
31
knowledge sharing in communities of practice. A community of practice is a group of people that
share interest for a certain topic.
Similarly, Markus (2001), who used the term knowledge reuse as a synonym of knowledge sharing,
identified four knowledge reuse situations: shared work producers, shared work practitioners,
expertise-seeking novices, secondary knowledge miners. Shared work producer situations, are
situations where the knowledge is shared by performing a task within the same context. In the case
of shared worked practitioners, the work is intentionally shared to other members of a community
of practice. Situations of expertise-seeking novices differ from above two situations, as the
knowledge of a consumer differ significantly from the knowledge of the contributor. It is important
that this knowledge is easy to find and do not uses jargon, as novices are not sure where to find it or
to understand it. The last knowledge reuse situation is that of secondary knowledge miners. Here,
knowledge is created out of data, that is collected by others. In such a case of reuse, extensive
understanding about the structure and limitations of the dataset is required in order to come to
valid knowledge.
Chai (2009) wrote about knowledge sharing mechanisms, taking into account two characteristics:
richness and reach. Both are already addressed above. Chai identified the following knowledge
sharing mechanisms: meetings/forums, communities of practice, apprenticeship, boundary
spanners, best practice guidelines, process audit/practice benchmarking and periodicals. Some of
these are only associated with traditional knowledge sharing (apprenticeship), others, such as best
practice guidelines, are more associated with technology-aided knowledge sharing and some
knowledge sharing mechanisms are associated with both traditional and technology-aided
knowledge sharing (i.e. communities of practice and periodicals). Chung (2001) identified similar
knowledge sharing channels. However, again, different terminology was used. Chung used
‘knowledge sharing modes’. Chung (2001) identified: technology, publications, training, discussion
group and lessons learned. A difference between Chung (2001) and Chai (2009) is that Chung
actually referred to technology as a medium, while Chai is taking the concept more abstract, not
really taking into account how the ‘mechanism’ is applied.
Using the different knowledge sharing media identified above, and combining them with the main
differences, the following categorization can be made.
Traditional
Training
Informal individual contact
Informal group contact
Meeting (i.e. departmental, project)
Process handbook/routines
Technology-aided
Video conferencing
Phone
Instant messaging
E-mail
Intranet /Collaboration software
Knowledge map
Knowledge repository
Projects database
Documents
Table 3 - Knowledge sharing media that can be used, distinguished by type of medium
32
3.4.3 Knowledge contributor
Three important aspects can be identified as describing the role of the knowledge contributor. The
most important aspect is motivation, as this is about the decision why someone is willing to share
his/her knowledge with others. Trust is another aspect that is commonly studied with respect to the
act of sharing knowledge. It appears that the amount of knowledge someone is willing to contribute,
differs with their familiarity with others. Finally, also the frequency of knowledge sharing helps in
describing a knowledge sharing process.
Motivation is recognized by many researchers as a major influence on knowledge sharing. Osterloh
& Frey (2000), talk about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sharing knowledge. They state that for
tacit knowledge, intrinsic motivation is important since these contributions can hardly be measured
(and therewith be rewarded). This is confirmed by research of Lin (2007) where the influence of
extrinsic as well as intrinsic rewards on knowledge sharing intentions were investigated. However,
the opposite is also claimed, by for instance McDermott & O’Dell (2001). They stated that rewarding
knowledge sharing could also be used in order to stimulate organizational knowledge sharing. Ipe
(2003) describes motivation to share knowledge using internal and external motivational factors to
share knowledge. Internal factors are the perceived power attached to the knowledge and
reciprocity. Reciprocity is seen as a reason for sharing, while hoping that the act of sharing
knowledge will result in others to share their knowledge too (Hendriks, 1999; Ipe, 2003; Lin, 2007).
External factors are the relationship with the recipient (trust and power and status) and rewards for
sharing. On the other hand, intrinsic motivation to share knowledge can be seen as the fulfillment
the knowledge contributor gets from helping other people (Cruz, Perez & Cantero, 2009). Social
recognition is also seen as an intrinsic motivation (Hsu, Ju, Yen & Chang, 2007). In this research, the
motivation to share knowledge includes rewards, recognition and reciprocity. Trust, although closely
related to this reciprocity, is used as a concept on itself, and will be elaborated below.
Huotari & Iivonen (2004) discuss trust as a concept of influence with regard to knowledge
management and knowledge sharing. He treat the concepts differently compared to how Ipe (2003)
did it. Ipe, included it in the relationship as part of the motivation to share knowledge. In contrast,
Huotari & Iivonen (2004) approach trust as a complex concept which is multidimensional. Huotari &
Iivonen (2004) describe the term trust as “...the expectation of other people’s willingness and ability
to fulfill our needs and wishes”. In situations where one depends on actions of others, trust comes in
to play. This also applies to knowledge sharing. Levin, Cross, Abrams & Lesser (2003) also address
this multi-dimensional aspect. They distinguish competence-based and benevolence-based trust.
Competence-based trust is about the impression that someone has the ability/skills/knowledge to
be helpful. This is applicable to the role of knowledge consumer. Benevolence-based trust is about
the impression that someone will not intentionally harm the other when given the opportunity to do
so, as well as the willingness to help (Levin et al., 2003). They link trust to the concept of ties from
social sciences. An important finding from them is that it is not only about getting strong ties in
order to result in more efficient knowledge sharing, but also the background of people’s knowledge
plays a role (competence-based trust). People normally form strong ties when they interact
frequently, most of the time based on their work practices. This assumes that they have, to a large
extent, overlapping knowledge, which could result in less strong competence-based trust. By
knowing each other, a person is able to know negative characteristics of the other person which
affects the competence-based trust. In contrast when sharing knowledge involves someone with a
different but adjacent background, and no frequent communication, it could be that the
33
competence-based trust is higher. Despite the fact that the tie is weaker, the person can for instance
only assign status from the title of the other person, which makes the competence-based trust
higher. Levin et al. (2003) claim that the trust of a tie is more important than the strength.
Another characteristic of knowledge contribution is the frequency of contributing knowledge to
others, as indicated by Wang & Noe (2010). Besides the actual frequency of contributing, also two
extreme opinions can be identified. One is that employees themselves are not happy with the
amount of knowledge they share with others (for instance because a lack of time to share), and the
other is that they think, it is enough. It is however very hard to assess the frequency of knowledge
sharing (Liebowitz, 1999).
3.4.4 Knowledge consumer
Three aspects can be identified in order to describe the role of the knowledge consumer in the
knowledge sharing process. On the side of the knowledge consumer, there is evidence that the
status of the knowledge contributor or the knowledge itself is of influence on the value of
knowledge. Argote, McEavily & Reagans (2003) as well as Andrews & Delahaye (2000) both address
this point with regard to the relationship between knowledge contributors and knowledge
consumers. The status of a piece of knowledge or a knowledge contributor can be an issue when
looking for useful knowledge. When the knowledge consumer is not satisfied with the idea he has
about the knowledge the potential knowledge contributor possesses, it can be a reason to search
somewhere else for useful knowledge. This is closely related to competence-based trust that was
explained in the section about the knowledge contributor. Status and competence-based trust are
therefore used as a synonym. Frequency, as already mentioned as a characteristic of knowledge
contribution, also applies to knowledge consuming. Another thing to take into account, is the
timeliness of the response, after a knowledge query is done. Not much research is currently done
with respect to timeliness of responses (Wang & Noe, 2010), but it can give some more insight about
the context in which knowledge can be found when contacting others.
3.4.5 Social network
The decision who to share knowledge with (as well as who to contact in search of knowledge), is
another aspect of the relationship between the knowledge contributor and the knowledge
consumer. In the literature this aspect is also regarded to as the social network aspect of knowledge
sharing and creation (Bosua & Scheepers, 2007; Cross, Parker & Borgatti, 2002; Helms, 2007; Tsai,
2001). In some of these articles, social network analysis is applied. Social network analysis is used as
a set of tools to visualize knowledge relationships between people or departments (Cross et al.,
2002). Although this analysis lies beyond the scope of this study, to some extent it will be very useful
to describe approximately how the knowledge network looks like and explain why it looks like that.
The central issue in social network analysis is which group members involved in knowledge sharing.
The focus is to get an impression about who is being contacted in order to obtain knowledge and
with whom is knowledge being shared. An extension to this, described by Helms (2007), is the
internal/external index that is used to determine the balance of connections of the social network
within the group or outside the group. This measure is very general and for instance also applied in
Behrend & Erwee (2009). Another issue influencing the shape of the social network is whether group
members are simultaneously involved in various projects or just one project (Cross et al., 2002). This
could influence the way knowledge is shared (more computer-mediated, higher lead time for
answering knowledge requests).
34
Helms & Buijsrogge (2006) also mention push and pull networks. In a push network, deeply rooted
knowledge is shared by experts to non-experts through active participation. In a pull network,
knowledge is shared at the time that a knowledge consumer needs help for a specific problem.
Therefore he consults someone of which he thinks he has the specific knowledge. Dixon (2000), also
uses this distinction between push and pull systems. Although, she uses this distinction in the
context of knowledge management systems. The differences between push and pull systems is, that
on the one side employees are searching for knowledge within a repository, and on the other side,
employees will be alerted when potential useful knowledge is added to the database. The distinction
between push and pull can be used to identify the ratio between sharing knowledge pro-actively
(push) and requests for knowledge sharing (pull).
3.5 Knowledge sharing behavior
Earlier, in Chapter 1, it has already been stated that knowledge sharing is hard to measure.
Therefore, we decided to focus on measuring knowledge sharing behavior instead of the knowledge
sharing itself. In order to come to a usable definition, we first come up with a general definition for
behavior, and look at how knowledge sharing behavior is measured in other researches.
Behavior as a concept is used in many different fields, resulting in a wide range of definitions. Some
of them are useful, others are not. One useful definition of behavior comes from Barbuceanu & Lo
(2003) in the field of agent technology and e-commerce. They define behavior as a course of action
aimed at achieving goals. Koehl (1996), from the field of biomechanics, uses a more basic approach
as she simply defines behavior as an action taken by an organism. Jaccard & Blanton (2005) define it
as “…any denotable overt action that an individual, a group of individuals, or some living system
performs.”. This is done from a social scientific point of view. The commonality of these definitions
of behavior is that it is about peoples actions.
Some research has been done on knowledge sharing behavior, for instance by Hsu et al. (2007), Ryu,
Ho & Han (2003) and Wah et al. (2005). In these research designs, they try to measure knowledge
sharing behavior by means of a questionnaire. Several social theories are used in these studies, such
as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). SCT as used by Hsu et al.
(2007), prescribes that an action will be undertaken based on two determinants: self-efficacy and
outcome expectation. TPB is described by Ryu et al. (2003) as three components, attitude towards
knowledge sharing, subjective norm to share knowledge and perceived behavioral control to share
knowledge. These three constructs together explain the intention to share knowledge. From earlier
research they stated that the intention to share knowledge has a strong causal link with the actual
behavior. This made measuring the intention to share knowledge more appropriate than measuring
amounts of knowledge, since this can be done by measuring beliefs. The way they operationalized
knowledge sharing behavior is by focusing the act of knowledge sharing and not the context
surrounding it, what causes the specific behavior. What also is the case, is that they measure
determinants of the behavior (Hsu et al., 2007) and not the behavior itself. The focus in these studies
is more on the motivators and inhibitors (Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2005).
On the contrary, in this research, the emphasis will be more on the rationale behind knowledge
sharing behavior. The goal is to explain this knowledge sharing behavior and link it to dimensions of
organizational culture. In this research knowledge sharing behavior is defined as: the choices
35
employees make during the process of knowledge sharing. The concept of the knowledge sharing
process is then used as it was introduced above.
Several examples of knowledge sharing behavior can be given, according to the definition above.
One example is an employee who is not willing to share his knowledge because he does not trust
colleagues to use the knowledge appropriately. More frequent usage of technology-aided
knowledge sharing media instead of traditional knowledge sharing, and the choice of using a specific
knowledge sharing medium like a knowledge repository, are some straightforward examples. For
every item of the process, introduced earlier, such behaviors can be identified and measured later
on. In Table 4 below, examples of knowledge sharing behavior are given. These behaviors are based
on the way these items were defined in paragraph 3.4.
Knowledge type
Knowledge sharing medium
Knowledge contributor
Knowledge consumer
Social network
Kinds of behavior
What type of knowledge is being shared
What is the state of articulation of the knowledge (tacit/explicit)
Usage of traditional/technology-aided knowledge sharing media
Dominant sharing medium
Why sharing knowledge
What are opportunities that are used to share knowledge
Considerations not to share knowledge as asked
How to find the knowledge someone is looking for
What knowledge is searched
Allocating status to knowledge contributors
Dominant behavior of the group
In what group the knowledge is being shared; what are boundaries
of the group
Table 4 – Behavior with regard to the items of the knowledge sharing process
Identifying behavioral aspects of the knowledge sharing process, gives the opportunity to be able to
measure these behaviors by means of interview questions. The data collection will be discussed in
more detail in paragraph 5.3.
36
Chapter 4
Organizational culture and knowledge sharing
This chapter is used to combine both concepts that will be studied in order to describe the research
framework for this research. Furthermore, some (possible) influences between both concepts that
are already described in the literature are discussed in paragraph 4.2.
4.1 Research framework
In this research, the relationship between two concepts is researched. These concepts are
‘Organizational Culture’ and ‘Knowledge Sharing’. Below, both concepts are shortly introduced,
followed by a graphical representation of the research framework.
4.1.1 Organizational culture
In order to measure organizational culture in a thorough way, we use a dimensional model of the
concept organizational culture. From the four models that were found, the model of Detert et al.
(2000) has the best coverage. In order to measure organizational culture, the similarities with the
DOCS questionnaire of Denison et al. (2005) can be used, in combination with creating some missing
items from scratch. Next to the quantitative measurement of the dimensions of organizational
culture, also interviews and observations will be used to get a qualitative insight.
4.1.2 Knowledge sharing
In order to be able to measure knowledge sharing, we have to focus on knowledge sharing behavior,
as measuring actual knowledge sharing will be a too comprehensive task. After defining knowledge,
knowledge sharing and the role of knowledge sharing in the knowledge management process, the
literature was used the most appropriate representation for knowledge sharing. This lead to
depicting knowledge sharing as a process, which consists of five items. The knowledge sharing
behavior that can be measured, is aiming at the behavioral aspects around these five items of the
knowledge sharing process. The behavior is seen as choices employees make during the act of
sharing knowledge.
After shortly discussing the main concepts of the research, these can be visualized into a research
framework. This is done in Figure 10 on the next page.
37
Figure 10 - Research framework based on Detert et al.’s (2000) dimensions of organizational culture and the earlier
introduced items of the knowledge sharing process that sets the boundaries for knowledge sharing behavior.
4.2 Described influences
As already stated earlier, some research is done on the relationship between organizational culture
and knowledge sharing. Below some of these influences are elaborated, in order to be possibly
included in this research. In the discussion the influences that are found are related to the influences
that are mentioned in this paragraph.
4.2.1 Employee motivation and motivation for sharing knowledge
A lot is written about how people are being motivated. If people are trying to develop themselves,
doing purposeful work and not get bored about the work they do, employees are motivated to share
knowledge just by helping others in completing fulfilling their tasks. Also, they are not stimulated for
sharing more knowledge by giving them the opportunity of earning financial bonuses by sharing
knowledge. Cruz et al. (2009) claimed that more intrinsically motivated employees (in non-profit
organizations) were more actively sharing their knowledge. Employees were insensitive for extrinsic
stimulation in their knowledge sharing intentions. Based on these claims, it is possible to look at
differences in ‘general’ motivation and the potential difference in motivation to share knowledge.
Also, when intrinsic motivation is higher, people get satisfaction out of helping people (Osterloh &
Frey, 2000). Because of this, employees are more aware of the potential value that knowledge can
have for others. Therefore, people are possibly more frequently seeking to reach more people with
their knowledge and making them aware of the expertise they possess. This can be done by sharing
it through media with a higher reach, instead of only sharing it through direct personal contact. In
the same way, it can also be that this will influence the way employees are sharing. When
distinguishing between push and pull sharing, intrinsically motivated employees are pushing their
knowledge more (since they are aware of the potential value that their knowledge has for other
employees).
38
4.2.2 Innovativeness and the use of new technologies
Innovativeness is, in the literature about knowledge sharing, promoted as an important
characteristic of successful knowledge sharing (Debowski, 2006; Leidner et al.,2006). An important
aspect of innovativeness is the openness to changes and new things. There are knowledge sharing
technologies available, that differ from the way knowledge is traditionally shared. Accepting the new
technologies to take in the place of older technologies or more personal approaches to knowledge
sharing, involves the openness to change, acknowledging benefits of the new technologies over the
older work practices.
4.2.3 Collaboration
Al-Alawi et al. (2007) emphasize the importance of collaboration for knowledge sharing, as they
describe it as one of the critical success factors for successful knowledge sharing. The way De Long &
Fahey (2001) put it, is that collaboration is a facilitator for a greater willingness to share knowledge.
So, it can be suggested that when employees are working together, more knowledge will be shared
than when working isolated.
From a pragmatic view, another influence of collaboration can be suggested. According to Huotari &
Iivonen (2004), collaboration is strongly related to trust and networking. When employees are
working collaboratively, as already stated by Huotari & Iivonen (2004), they are open to work
together and therefore it makes sense this network will be consulted first in search of knowledge.
Given the need for knowledge, but without a network of regular contacts to build on, it can also be
suggested that other means are used to retrieve the knowledge that is searched for. Knowledge
sharing technologies can then be helpful to connect with others and retrieve knowledge from
databases and documents. So, when work is done more individualistic, there is a higher need for the
use of knowledge sharing technologies, which expresses in the use of more knowledge sharing
applications than when work is done more collaboratively.
4.2.4 Formal and informal knowledge sharing
Boh (2007) describes differences between institutionalized and individualized knowledge sharing
mechanisms. In this paper he distinguishes between levels of formality that are related to these
mechanisms. Individualized mechanisms are more autonomous and ad hoc, institutionalized
mechanisms are formal and enforced by the organization. These mechanisms for sharing knowledge
can be linked to the way work is done. With regard to the operationalization of organizational
culture, this behavior can then be linked to the dimension ‘Orientation to work’ of Detert et al
(2000).
4.2.5 Trust
Benevolence based trust (Levin et al., 2003), as already discussed earlier, is about trusting others not
to harm you when the other is given the opportunity to do so. The norm of reciprocal sharing of your
knowledge can also be seen as a form of benevolence based trust. When this is the norm, it is more
or less expected that knowledge is not only shared in one direction, but also the other way around.
In this case, the knowledge contributor trusts the knowledge consumer also to be sharing his
knowledge when the knowledge contributor is in need for knowledge and the knowledge consumer
possesses this knowledge. Huotari & Iivonen (2004) describe that environments that lack trust will
end up in systems where rules and regulations play an important role in order to cooperate in some
way.
39
Chapter 5
Case study protocol
This case study protocol is used to standardize the collection of data among the cases. This is
important in order to ensure the quality of the data. First a short overview of the study will be given,
where the research goal, the research method and the case companies are discussed. Next the field
procedures for collecting the data as well as the research questions guiding the collection of data
will be explained. Finally, also the measures will be discussed, that are taken to improve the
construct validity, internal validity and reliability.
5.1 Case study overview
5.1.1 General
The research is aiming at gaining insight in the relationship between organizational culture and
knowledge sharing behavior, which could eventually lead to new theories about influences. As this
link was already made in earlier research (i.e. De Long & Fahey, 2001; Leidner et al, 2006;
McDermott & O’Dell, 2001), the added value of this research to the theory is that it dives deeper
into organizational culture. This is done by looking at dimensions of organizational culture, not
taking organizational culture as one global concept. In this research, the organizational culture is
measured by the dimensions that are identified by Detert et al. (2000). The knowledge sharing
process that is taken into account in order to study knowledge sharing behavior, is based on a
variety of literature, since no literature was found describing the knowledge sharing process from
the same perspective and with some structure. This research is done in order to obtain a masters
degree of Utrecht University. The research is conducted from December 2009 – July 2010, at Ballast
Nedam, the case company. In this period of time, the data is collected during 2.5 months of field
research. Besides the goal of adding value to the field of research, another goal of the case study is
to give advice with regard to the knowledge management practices within Ballast Nedam. Based on
the gained insight, about what knowledge sharing practices should be cherished, and what practices
need improvement, Ballast Nedam can be confronted with challenges for the coming future in order
to improve knowledge sharing within Ballast Nedam.
5.1.2 A multiple case study
The necessity of doing a case study research, is because of the qualitative character of both the
concept of knowledge sharing (behavior) as well as organizational culture. However, also
quantitative data collection was used during the case study. This was decided after weighing pros
and cons of both methods for data collection. Describing how knowledge is being shared is almost
impossible when doing this by a questionnaire. However, some attempts have been made by for
instance Al-Alawi et al. (2007) and Van den Hooff & De Leeuw van Weenen (2004). In these
questionnaires, the degree in which knowledge sharing is actually measured is limited. Most of the
time, a questionnaire is only used to measure certain aspects related to knowledge sharing. Another
reason for having a qualitative approach to measure knowledge sharing behavior (by trying to
characterize the whole knowledge sharing process), is because the context in which the knowledge
sharing takes place, can be taken into account. This is another aspect that is very hard to capture by
questionnaires, and therefore can be more easily taken into account when researching qualitatively.
40
In order to research this relationship, multiple cases are studied, to see whether there is any
influence on the knowledge sharing behavior of employees that can be related to differences in
organizational culture.
By doing a multiple case study, cross-case conclusions can be drawn. In this case study, four cases
will be studied. The case to be studied is at the level of departments, because there is evidence that
organizational cultures vary between departments within companies (see for instance Goffee &
Jones, 1996 and Schein, 2004). Another thing to take into account is that Ballast Nedam is set up
decentralized, where every single business is operating autonomous. A factor to increase the
possibility of finding different cultures, is to look at different places within the company structure,
and different departments. In this case, it is probable that different organizational cultures as well as
knowledge sharing behaviors are being found. Below, the case company is described at more detail.
Figure 11, shows the organizational structure of Ballast Nedam, in which the cases are encircled in
order to show the different operations of the individual companies.
Figure 11 - Organizational structure of Ballast Nedam N.V. The circles indicated the selected cases
41
5.1.3 Case company – Ballast Nedam
The case company is Ballast Nedam N.V. It has around 4.000 employees and realized a turnover of
1.4 billion Euro in 2008 and operates primarily in the Netherlands, but also in foreign countries in
areas as Western Africa, Middle-East and the Caribbean(only responsible for 5% of the turnover).
Ballast Nedam (BN) is a construction company, aiming at providing services and products in the
whole value chain. This means that they are involved in the development, the realization as well as
the maintenance phase of construction projects. The latest developments are that Ballast Nedam is
trying to be involved earlier in projects, where they can collaborate on the design of projects, not
only realizing the projects. This also holds for the maintenance of projects. In the vertical direction,
Ballast Nedam is also active. Specialized companies that produce raw or prefabricated materials can
be accounted to the vertical value chain of Ballast Nedam. These companies are used as a
procurement specialist of the rest of the organization, supplying goods for favorable prices, but
these companies also produce for the market. Last but not least, the services and products of Ballast
Nedam are split up in two business units; building & development and infrastructure. Furthermore,
some companies are providing their services for both business units, and are therefore positioned in
between. Each business unit has one company to organize the biggest projects. The smaller projects
are managed from regional companies. The structure of Ballast Nedam is visualized in Figure 11. The
four companies that are selected as case, are encircled. The sections below, shortly introduce the
case companies and the specific department that is subject of the case study.
Ballast Nedam Bouw West – Project execution – project ‘Rokade’
The project called Rokade, is a multi-year time span project where the project execution was
studied. This case will be further referred to as BNBW. Issues as planning, tracking of the progress,
logistics and quality assurance are central issues within project execution. The team is responsible
for ensuring that the planning for realizing the construction will be maintained, and that this will be
done taking the safety of construction personnel into account. For building the tower, a new
construction method is used, namely lean construction. All subcontractors that are hired to realize
the building were involved in a more streamlined planning method. This was possible by involving
these subcontractors in the planning phase and confront them with dependencies they have in their
work with regard to other disciplines.
The team consists of four project executors and a construction site manager. Furthermore the team
is supported by a procurement employee and lead by the project leader. The construction site
manager is responsible for the big picture, while project executors all are responsible for one specific
part of the construction. The offices are located at the shed, which consists of three frequently used
rooms. Two are workspaces for the project executors, one is a meeting room. Different meetings are
held here, like the weekly project execution meeting, the weekly project meeting and daily a ‘lean’
meeting is organized.
Ballast Nedam Engineering – Constructions department
The department construction consists of approximately 18 employees. It is further referred to as
BNE. The departmental manager is sitting in the same (large) office space as the rest of BNE. This
department is in lead of designing (mainly infrastructural) constructions. Assignments/Projects are
usually obtained by BN Infra and BN Infra region companies. The work that BNE does, starts with
creating draft designs (and different scenarios). BNE then also provides advice with regard to pros
and cons of these options.
42
Projects are internally lead by a project manager which is guiding the multi disciplinal BNE team. He
is responsible for (personnel) planning, making budgets and assuring the quality level. Construction
engineers are responsible for calculating forces and capacities for infrastructural constructions.
Depending on the size of the project, some engineers might be situated externally (in another
building or at the project location) with the rest of the project team.
Ballast Nedam ICT – System Administrators
The system administrators department consists of six system administrators and are lead by a
manager that is sitting in another office. The department is further referred to as BNICT. In short,
there are two ways of how they work. First there is maintenance and next to this there is support,
where only the most complex user problems are solved. Every system administrator is responsible
for different portfolio of applications and different components of the network. Per responsibility at
least two employees are assigned, a first responsible person that is seen as the one that has the
most knowledge about the subject, and a second responsible person, etc. By making more than one
person responsible, continuity of the department is assured. Next to this, system administrators are
also involved in projects. Typical projects are for instance instance the renewal of licenses and the
migration to a newer operating system.
Ballast Nedam Infra Zuid West – Tender department
At the regional company Ballast Nedam Infra Zuid West, the department that is studied, is the
department that is responsible for tendering. Tendering means that offerings are given for
infrastructural projects that are issued by (mainly) governments. The aim is to get the permission to
realize these projects. This department is further referred to as BNIZW. Two types of projects are
involved. First there are the standard projects in which there is an extensive description of the
project and how it must be realized. The other type of projects are called design & construct
projects. In these projects the specifications are less detailed and therefore involve more work
regarding the construction companies with respect to the design. The main goal is to calculate prices
for these projects, and where needed to further detail these specifications. About 12 employees are
working in this department. The offices are spread around the floor. An office consists of 3-4
employees (from the same disciplines) most of the time.
5.2 Field procedures
In this paragraph the field procedures are discussed. These procedures will function as guidelines
and preparation for the field research. Since the case study is executed within a company,
unforeseen situations can occur. By reflecting the field research and potential risks beforehand,
unforeseen situations can be managed more easily, while maintaining the quality of the data that is
collected. Below several measures are discussed in order to smoothly execute the field research.
5.2.1 Requesting collaboration
In the stadium of identifying and approaching the cases, first a document was set up to identify
candidate cases. This document is included in Appendix A. As can be seen, external companies were
not really taken into account at the beginning of the study since this would consume considerable
more time, as well the possibility of differences in knowledge sharing contexts. One advantage of
selecting ‘internal’ companies as cases is that, to a large extent, the same resources are available.
However, replicating this case study within other companies could certainly have some advantages
43
in the context of having more variety between the cases. Although, at the beginning of the case
study there were enough leads to expect enough differences between the cases.
The first contact with the different BN companies was made by the external supervisor. To introduce
my research, a standard document was created. This document is enclosed in Appendix B, which is
written in Dutch. After this document was send by e-mail, the first exploratory meetings were
conducted. A lot of difference could be seen by the way these meetings were approached. At one
case, getting in direct contact with the director was no problem. At another case, it was very hard to
setup the meeting in first place.
After five meetings with managers of different candidate cases, Avenue2 was dropped as a
candidate, since it mainly consisted of people who were only working together for a small period of
time (what directly contradicts the definition of organizational culture, that specifies that culture
develops itself over time). Another disadvantage was that this project is a sort of joint venture in
which different companies work together. Different people with their own work values come
together, in which one could ask whether the concept ‘organizational culture’ really applies to this
situation.
After discussing the possibilities to conduct the research with the directors and managers of the
different BN companies, another challenge was to reach the employees at the departments in order
to approach them to cooperate. The best occasion was to introduce the research in departmental
meetings. Only in the case of BN Engineering, there was no possibility to introduce myself in person.
However, an introduction in a newsletter was used to announce the research.
5.2.2 Requisites for field research
First of all, to get a valuable impression of the organizational culture of the individual departments, it
is needed to have full cooperation of the employees in order to have them all filling in the
questionnaire. To stimulate this, first personal contact was sought. Then the employees were all
invited to fill in the questionnaire using first e-mail enclosed in Appendix C. After one week it was
not expected that the employees would still fill in the questionnaire. The bottom e-mail in Appendix
C was then send to remind every employee, also emphasizing the response rate until that date,
hoping to tempt the employees to fill it in.
In order to carry out the field research at the BN companies, it was needed to have a working pc. In
case of problems, bringing my own laptop was a good alternative. As far as possible, a central
workplace was preferable, which was also discussed with departmental managers. Furthermore it
was strongly desired to be able to observe during different kinds of meetings that were held during
the case study.
5.2.3 Schedule of data collection
At the start of the field research of each case, the first day was used to settle on the new place.
Before the study period at the case company, different employees of that respective company were
asked to participate in an interview. Furthermore, the manager in charge of the department was
asked to assist in selecting the best, most representative employees to approach for an interview.
For instance at least one senior employee and one employee who recently joined were asked to
cooperate with the research. Below the schedule for data collection is presented in Table 5.
44
Start date
19-04-2010
End date
30-04-2010
27-04-2010
03-05-2010
17-05-2010
31-05-2010
14-06-2010
11-05-2010
14-05-2010
28-05-2010
11-06-2010
25-06-2010
Case
BN Engineering
BN ICT
BN Infra Zuid West
BN Bouw West
BN ICT
BN Engineering
BN Bouw West
BN Infra Zuid West
Collection method
Questionnaire
Questionnaire
Observation, Interviews
Table 5 - Schedule for data collection of the field research
5.2.4 Anonymity
In order to increase the quality of the responses, both in the questionnaire and the interviews, the
anonymity of the respondent/interviewee is guaranteed. Every case has its own abbreviation. For
the questionnaire, the respondents only have to fill in the name of their participating BN company.
In the case of the interviews, the names were written only on the interview forms. Although, the
case reports aim as much as possible at describing the collective knowledge sharing practices and
the link to organizational culture, it is possible that employees are cited. In case of this, a letter of
the alphabet in combination with their BN Company will be used to refer to a person.
5.2.5 Unforeseen situations
In case of setbacks during the case studies, two more weeks are available to (28-06-2010 until 09-072010) continue the field research. This can be due to the lack of available employees to interview,
for instance. It is possible that employees are absent because of illness, education, or they are just
not available because of time pressure in their work.
5.3 Case study questions
Several levels of case study questions can be identified, as described by Yin (2008). On the first level
are the most elementary questions to be asked. Questionnaire items, the observation guide and the
interview questions can be accounted to this first level questions. Level two questions are used to
describe the individual cases and level three questions are used to identify patterns between the
cases. On level four are the main research questions.
5.3.1 Level 1 questions
The level one questions are the questions posed directly to the interviewees. This data is collected
by combining several data collection methods. In the table below, per item of the research
framework, the used data collection methods are given. Note that for the organizational culture
dimensions ‘Motivation’, ‘Orientation to work’ and ‘Control, coordination and responsibility’, new
items must be created, as can be derived from Figure 12 (and earlier from Figure 8). In the next
sections, for each data collection method that was used, some background information is given in
order to explain how the method was used within this research.
45
Item of research framework
OC dimension 1: The basis of truth
OC dimension 2: Nature of time and time horizon
OC dimension 3: Motivation*
OC dimension 4: Stability versus change
OC dimension 5: Orientation to work, task and
coworkers*
OC dimension 6: Isolation vs.
OC dimension 7: Control, coordination and
responsibility*
OC dimension 8: Orientation and focus: int. and/or ext.
Knowledge Sharing: Knowledge type
Knowledge Sharing: Knowledge sharing medium
Knowledge Sharing: Knowledge consumer
Knowledge Sharing: Knowledge contributor
Knowledge Sharing: Social network
Data collection method
Questionnaire Interview
●
●
●
●
●
●
Observation
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Table 6 - Data collection methods used for measuring items from the research framework
* Newly created or changed items in the questionnaire.
Questionnaire items
The questionnaire is, for the biggest part, based on the Denison Organizational Culture Survey
(Denison et al., 2005). This is decided because this questionnaire is already used in many
organizations, as well as that it is tested for reliability and validity (Denison et al., 2005) using a large
sample of over 35,474 employees in 160 organizations. In this study strong evidence was found for
the validity of the questionnaire. Instead of creating a questionnaire from scratch, this questionnaire
was used as a basis, as already was concluded from paragraph 2.4 . By mapping the culture traits of
the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS) on the dimensions of Detert et al (2000), the
overlapping and missing items could be identified. On page 47 this picture is shown.
46
The basis of truth and rationality in the organization
The nature of time and time horizon
Motivation
x
Stability versus change/innovation/personal growth
Orientation to work, task, and coworkers
Isolation versus collaboration/cooperation
Control, coordination, and responsibility
Orientation and focus-internal and/or external
x
x
x
x
Vision
Goals & Objectives
Strategic Direction & Intent
Organizational Learning
Customer Focus
Creating Change
Coordination and Integration
Agreement
Core Values
Capability Development
Team Orientation
Empowerment
Dimensions by Detert et al, 2000
Traits by Denison et al, 2005
x
x
x
x
x
=
=
=
Does not occur in Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS)
Does occur in DOCS to a certain degree
Does occur in DOCS
Figure 12 - Dimensions of Detert et al.(2000) mapped on culture traits of DOCS (Denison et al., 2005)
The red colored dimensions are uncovered by the DOCS questionnaire. The yellow colored items are
partly covered in the DOCS questionnaire. As can be concluded from Figure 12, the items ‘Control,
Coordination and responsibility’ and ‘Motivation’ need some adjustments, where the items ‘The
basis of truth’ and ‘Orientation to work’ need to be added in order to be measured. The following
changes were made to the questionnaire:
This lead to adding the following items:
•
•
•
Motivation (used some items of the scale ‘Empowerment’)
Orientation to work, task, and coworkers
Control, coordination, and responsibility (used some items of the scale ‘Capability
development’)
For these items, some basic validation is done. The complete questionnaire is included in Appendix
D.
The dimension ‘The basis of truth and rationality’ is used in the interviews, because the dimension is
very hard to express in a measurable scale. This is already explained in section 2.5.1. One part of the
dimension ‘Nature of time’ is also measured in the interview. As already explained in section 2.5.2,
this is due to the measurability of the time orientation.
Observation guide
Goal: gaining insight in general attitude towards knowledge sharing, typical cultural expressions,
knowing what daily working activities they perform and being able to place the interviews in their
context.
To be captured:
47
•
•
•
•
General departmental characteristics: general, organizational culture, knowledge sharing
(afterwards/during observations)
Office layout of the department.
Findings with respect to knowledge sharing and organizational culture (communication,
collaboration, meetings, permissions, applications they use, informal/formal knowledge
sharing etc.)
Basic impression of amount of knowledge sharing. To verify opinions of respondents.
Approach:
•
•
•
Making notes every day.
Asking different persons about their work practices.
Posing specific questions about knowledge sharing regarding the whole department.
Interview questions
The interview questions are mainly focused at measuring the behavioral aspect of the five items of
the knowledge sharing process:
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge type
Knowledge consumer
Social network
Next to this, there are a few items about organizational culture, general knowledge sharing issues
and Ballast Nedam specific questions included in the interview. The interview protocol is included in
Appendix E.
Below the level two questions are explained. These questions are directed at the individual cases,
hoping to cluster these into group patterns. The main goal for these question was to guide the
formulation of the case reports.
•
•
•
•
•
•
What patterns exists in knowledge sharing (common practices/behavior)?
What differences exist in knowledge sharing behavior?
What is the attitude towards technological aided knowledge sharing?
What is more applied? Formal or informal knowledge sharing?
How can the organizational culture be characterized?
What is the difference between respondents answers (with respect to the average), is this
somehow confirmed by the actual field research (contradictory answers, behavior)?
The goal of the level three questions is to find similar patterns of knowledge sharing behavior as
there can be found patterns in organizational culture across the departments. The input for analysis
of this level are the differences that can be found in knowledge sharing behavior. Below some
general questions are posed that guide finding these patterns between knowledge sharing behavior
and organizational culture:
48
•
•
•
•
•
What contrasting knowledge sharing behaviors can be found?
What are logical influences concerning dimensions of organizational culture with regard to
each of the knowledge sharing behaviors? Can differences with regard to this dimension of
organizational culture explain the difference in knowledge sharing behavior?
Can the knowledge sharing behavior be explained by external influences (outside
organizational culture)?
Looking at the plausible influences that are found on knowledge sharing, what patterns can
be seen?
What can be said with regard to the most influencing dimensions of organizational culture,
and most influenced parts of the knowledge sharing process?
The level four questions are the main research questions. There is one research question, which has
to be answered by four sub questions. Some of these sub questions are already answered by doing a
literature research, and therefore outside the scope of the case study.
Main research question:
• Can a difference in knowledge sharing behavior be explained by influences of individual
dimensions of an organizational culture? If so, how?
Sub questions:
• How can influences of an organizational culture on knowledge sharing be measured?
• Can differences in the use of knowledge sharing applications be related to differences in
organizational culture?
5.4 Validity
In order to come to valid conclusions, a number of precautions are made. The sections below will
address how construct and internal validity are improved as well as the reliability of the research.
The external validity will be addressed in Chapter 10, the discussion.
5.4.1 Construct validity
This type of validity concerns whether the empirical reality agrees with the theorized concepts (‘t
Hart & Boeije, 2005). The theoretical concepts that are described in this research are organizational
culture and knowledge sharing. In order to increase construct validity, a number of measures were
taken. First, as already stated in paragraph 5.3, three sources of evidence were combined
(sometimes questionnaire, interviews and observations, but also only questionnaire with
observations or observations with interviews) in order to always rely on more than one source.
Broadly speaking, the data regarding organizational culture consists at least of the questionnaire and
data collected from the observations. Knowledge sharing behavior is mapped by using evidence
collected by the interviews as well as observations (and informal talks with employees).
By maintaining the chain of evidence (Yin, 2008), the collection of case study data was organized,
and already thought of beforehand. The chain of evidence refers to the alignment of the level 1
questions to the research questions (level 4). So, maintaining the chain of evidence is used to ensure
that the objectives and research questions that should be addressed in the case study report are
anchored in the case study (interview) questions. It also guarantees that the data is collected in an
organized way as the data can always be found and used for the analysis of the multiple case study.
49
Before the case study was actually executed, the case study protocol was presented to both the
internal and external supervisors. This gave the opportunity to receive feedback and identify
vulnerabilities for the data collection and analysis.
5.4.2 Internal validity
Internal validity is about whether the conclusions that are made, are actually a result of the
suggested relationship and not from an external influence. Since this research is exploratory, Yin
(2008) claims that the logic for causal relations does not apply to this research. However, as this
study is the basis for more specific studies with regard to the relationship between organizational
culture and knowledge sharing, the internal validity is still important. A remark that can be made
about the internal validity, is that the findings are as much based on observations in four cases. This
created a broader base of evidence to form conclusions on, instead of only using evidence from two
cases that are compared.
5.4.3 Reliability
The reliability of a research concerns the predictable way a research is carried out. Yin (2008) states
that it should be the objective of the researcher that another researcher, that would do the research
all over again, should come to the same results as originally presented.
By formulating the case study protocol, as described in this chapterChapter 5, the procedure of
conducting a case study was written down, in order to be able to repeat the whole procedure four
times in the same way. In the end, individual case studies resulted in case study reports. These case
study reports were then used to verify findings and to get extra input from the involved
departments. Although the report also concerns the interpretations of the researcher, the feedback
always gives some extra insight which, in the end, resulted in small adaptations of case reports.
The case study protocol also consisted of the interview protocol that was used to structure the
interviews. Before the case studies were started, one pilot interview was conducted with an
employee of a BN company that was not involved in the case studies. This pilot interview resulted in
some adjustments to the interview protocol. Furthermore, around six interviews were conducted
per case study, in order to receive a broad view on how knowledge sharing can be described in the
respective department. When less than six interviewees would be used, the higher the possibility
would be that not enough data was collected to get a realistic impression about knowledge sharing
within the department.
Before the questionnaire was published online, it first had to be translated from Denison et al.
(2005). This was needed in order to make the statements better understandable for all employees.
This translation was then verified by two fellow students. This lead to three minor adjustments.
50
Chapter 6
Results
In this chapter, first the results regarding measuring the organizational culture are presented. These
results cover the questionnaire that was administered, as well as results from the observations and
interviews. In the last section a comparison is made between the departments. In paragraph 6.2, the
knowledge sharing behavior will be discussed for each department and finally a table will be
presented summarizing the knowledge sharing behavior per department.
6.1 Organizational culture
As is stated in the preceding chapter, organizational culture is measured in different ways. In the
data resulting from the questionnaire only small differences were found, which are unusable to fund
the differences found in organizational culture, as it also involved relative small numbers of
employees per department. Opposed to the small differences that were found in the questionnaire
data, the qualitative data does indicate that there are differences between the organizational
culture of the four cases. In the last section, the qualitative data was used to score the dimensions.
The differences in results of the data collection methods will be further discussed in Chapter 10,
Discussion.
6.1.1 Questionnaire
One way to measure the organizational culture per department was to use a questionnaire. The
main component was the Denison Organizational Culture, added with three item sets regarding the
uncovered dimensions of Detert et al., as was already described in paragraph 5.3. This resulted in
seven dimensions that were measured quantitatively. They are presented on the next pages in table
and figure.
The questionnaire was published online, using the standard survey tool that is used within the
organization. Screenshots of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix D. The questionnaire was
filled in by 41 of the 45 employees who worked at one of the studied departments, which results in
an average response of 91%. Within each department, the response was 80% or higher. The
questionnaire measured statements of 15 item sets. These statements were measured on a five
point Likert scale.
The main focus was on the means (that should lead to differences when compared between
departments), the standard deviation (rough estimation of the homogeneity within departments)
and the Cronbach’s alfa score of constructs (in order to create a construct out of individual items).
The descriptive figures are presented in Table 7, shown below.
51
Nature of time and time
horizon
Motivation
Stability vs. Change
Orientation towards
work
Isolation vs.
Collaboration
Control, Coordination
and Responsibility
Orientation and Focus
(internal/external)
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
BNBW
Dimension
Items
α
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
8
0,76
2,12
0,66
2,19
0,58
2,18
0,33
2,29
0,72
Max.
Dif.
0,17
5
6
4
0,6
0,71
0,71
2,44
2,43
1,72
0,43
0,29
0,31
2,66
2,08
1,73
0,41
0,47
0,33
2,43
2,36
2,6
0,57
0,9
0,41
2,85
1,9
2,02
0,45
0,75
0,54
0,42
0,53
0,88
4
0,72
2,41
0,75
2,57
0,67
2,58
0,38
2,54
0,66
0,17
3
0,65
2,33
0,69
2,78
0,39
2,78
0,4
2,5
0,66
0,45
5
0,68
2,07
0,48
2,21
0,61
2,55
0,23
2,1
0,68
0,48
Table 7 - Descriptive data of the created constructs from the questionnaire.
In this table, the results after data analysis are given. The fifteen questionnaire scales are reduced to
the seven measurable dimensions of Detert et al. (2000). Also the data was scanned for outliers,
which were left out. For each department the means were calculated for all dimensions, as well as
the standard deviation. The scores could range from 0-4, where 2 is the middle/neutral score. Also,
for each dimension, the maximum difference was calculated in order to see what the biggest
difference is between the organizational cultures of two departments. In order to make it easier to
interpret the different mean scores of a department related to that of others, a spider graph
visualization was made. In Figure 13 below, this graph is shown.
52
All BN Companies/Departments
Nature of time and time
horizon
4
Orientation and Focus
(internal/external)
3
Motivation
2
BNBW
BNE
1
BNICT
0
BNIZW
Control, Coordination and
Responsibility
Isolation vs. Collaboration
Stability vs. Change
Orientation towards work
Figure 13 - Spidergraph showing the means of each department on all dimensions.
What can be concluded from Figure 13 is that the average scores are only slightly higher than the
middle of the spider graph. This means that for most of these scores, the departments neither agree
or disagree with the statements. What also can be seen is that the differences are not as big as
preferred, since the lines of the departments are clustered together. Only on the dimension
‘Orientation towards work’ or ‘Stability vs. Change’ some larger differences were found. By
comparing the differences on each dimension with the involved standard deviations, it can be
concluded that some of the higher standard deviations are contributing to the differences in mean
score. Therefore, the differences between the departments are, in most cases, too small to rely on.
Because of the risk of finding small differences, also other sources of evidence were used to measure
organizational culture. This was also addressed in the case study protocol (page 40). These sources
are also used to describe the organizational culture qualitatively for each department. This is done in
the following sections.
6.1.2 Organizational culture descriptions
In this section, the results of observing the departments are used to form a general description of
the organizational culture of all departments. These descriptions, together with the interview data
53
are used to populate Table 8 in the next section, to score the organizational culture qualitatively on
each dimension.
BNBW
Project execution is at the heart of the construction operations of Ballast Nedam. As a department
they are responsible for realizing the project as planned on time, with the estimated amount of
resources, while guaranteeing appropriate levels of safety at the construction yard. Because of these
responsibilities there is an emphasis on planning and registration, where the progress is tracked as
well as short term planning is done in order to create conditions for meeting the planned progress.
With regard to the decision making process around the project, the only influence the project
executors have, is identifying (possible) problems that jeopardize the planning. All decisions
concerning the budget and spending of other resources are taken care of within the project meeting
or even at a higher level, where no project executor is involved. The modified plans are then again
executed under supervision of the project executors.
Tasks are mainly divided in such a way that every executor is responsible for a specific part of the
construction site and/or process. So, there is little overlap between the responsibilities of the project
executors. They are mainly managing their own personnel and planning. Looking at how the
planning is done, an innovative way of planning is implemented in this project in order to save time.
Another result of this planning is that subcontractors are more responsible for meeting this planning.
As a specific sequence has to be retained, they do not want to be held responsible for slowing down
the whole construction process because of the dependency.
With regard to the responsibilities and autonomy that project executors have, as already stated,
their main function is to identify problems and create conditions for the whole construction team in
which they can maintain the initial schedule. As the project executors are responsible for specific
parts of the construction site/process, they cannot be easily exchanged with other executors and do
always have to be present when construction is going on. However, by working according to an ISO
standard, it is their goal to make executors more exchangeable. Looking at how their operations are
determined, clients do not have much to say. They are really focusing on shaping their processes in
such a way that budgets, time and safety are guaranteed at the intended levels. This is endorsed by
making it recurring items in the weekly project execution meeting.
Looking at how the office is arranged, they are really restricted to the standard dimensions of a
construction trailer. The most important disciplines, the construction yard manager and project
executor of the largest project phase are situated in one room and the other project executors in
another. Furthermore, they always try to drink coffee together as a group and sometimes they also
order something for lunch together to eat during the project execution meeting.
BNE
BNE is a department which is responsible for designing infrastructural projects that are realized at
competing prices while assuring the quality standards that are set by clients. As the quality and
safety of a construction is very important, using the quality management system is emphasized. At
every stage of a project, the system is prescribing how work should be done. Next to the quality
management system, scientific and thorough research is also found very important, as during several
reviews, the contents and depth of arguments (on which reports were based) were criticized.
54
The office of the department is one open floor, where large workspaces are available for the
employees, organized in blocks of four office desks. Also the departmental manager is sitting at one
of these desks. This office layout implies some openness and accessibility for employees to ask help
of others. Looking at their behavior as a group, their relationships are mainly formed on a
professional basis and not really influencing their private lives. Only few employees are lunching
together, some even do not leave their office to eat. These employees are rather ‘closed’, but
capable in doing their jobs (as they possess much technical knowledge). Their technical knowledge
drives them to create sound solutions which are founded on complete and scientific calculations.
Naturally the employees are looking critically at what other employees say and do.
Although that formal processes are defined and found very important within the project work, the
work itself gives the employees freedom to act. Based on consensus and discussions, the project
team (of BNE) will review possibilities that are suggested by the project members. As prescribed by
the quality management system, depending on the size of the project, the work is always checked
twice by fellow colleagues, project managers, department manager or director. So, there is some
autonomy for employees to bring in their own insights, however the responsibilities will always lie at
least at the level of the project manager.
The department is innovating their processes through different mechanisms. These are mainly
externally based, as the clients require some of these changes, for instance on the design method
that is being used. Another influence is a yearly customer satisfaction survey, which also leads to
changes with respect to their work approach. These are always formally communicated to the
employees of the department.
BNICT
The system administrators of BNICT are responsible for the servers and software to operate
correctly, in order to create the right conditions for all Ballast Nedam employees to perform their
tasks. Over years, the importance of the ICT infrastructure is increased, as well as the responsibilities
for the department. With regard to the operations at BNICT, the work can be divided in reactive and
proactive administration. Reactive administration is determined by the problems that are reported
through the help desk, while the proactive administration is concerned with implementing new
applications or hardware. Priorities are continuously weighed at the department, where at all times
the most urgent problems have to be solved first. This responsibility lies primarily at the system
administrators themselves.
With regard to the planning on the department, some bigger projects, are carefully planned (for
instance because the business impact is higher). For the reactive administration, there is a high level
division of responsibilities for hard- and software tasks. For every task, the directive is to make at
least two employees responsible, in order to guarantee continuity. Next to the reactive
administrative tasks, employees are also assigned to do some other (research) projects. The
departmental manager is mainly expecting the system administrators to plan their own work,
according to the tasks assigned to them, where the priorities are always weighed.
The employees are located at one open floor with two bigger islands of 2-3 office desks. This makes
it possible to communicate openly and that others can become aware of the problems faced by one
system administrator. This gives them the opportunity to offer some help. Employees of BNICT
55
(excluding the departmental manager) mainly lunching together, after which most of them play a
small game of darts.
The manager of the department is located at another office which creates some distance between
the team and the manager. However, despite the distance between the manager and the rest of the
team, in case of some problems, he did consult the employees for their advice. The decisions
concerning some network problems at another location and hiring a temporal employee were made
on basis of consensus. Several options were openly discussed (by the manager) after which the best
option was selected. In case of hiring a temporal employee, he even mentioned prices of different
hire options that were available.
The operations at BNICT can be best described as results oriented. Processes are not very well
documented and standardized. So, it is not really important how a certain goal is achieved, but it is
more important that it is achieved. Next to this results orientation, the department has a strong
external focus. This is because BNICT has to offer ICT services to internal clients, as well as external
innovations that are continuously resulting in changes of hard-/ software which have to be
translated to the specific needs of internal customers in order to improve their productivity.
BNIZW
At the tendering department of BNIZW, most of the time employees work at several tenders
simultaneously. The main objective is to calculate prices for projects, which are then compared (with
competing offers) by the client after which one of the offers will be selected. The clients are regional
governments which publicly disclose their projects for companies in order to make tenders for these
projects.
The projects have a relative short lead time in which (possible) design options have to be elaborated
and decided on. This will influence the project price as well as a global planning that has to be
submitted. During such a project, making an offer, for each discipline the workload depends on the
different phases of making an offer. A project team makes choices which will be discussed with the
departmental manager, after which the final offer is presented and defended to him and/or the
director. In the end they are responsible for feasibility of the project, in case the offer is accepted by
the client. There is a relatively short time window in which is planned, this is around three weeks. In
the departmental meeting, all projects that are registered, are discussed and announced in order to
signal problems and divide workload. The selection of the projects is done by senior employees who
discuss the candidate projects with the manager and director of BNIZW.
The workload can be relatively high, as deadlines are hard (offers that will be send in after a deadline
will be ignored). This can sometimes lead to employees who are not able to help others, which was
also experienced personally. Two interviews had to be rescheduled and one employee was only
available for a shorter period of time as preferred.
The office allocation is mainly made based on the different disciplines of the department. There are
about five offices used by the department, which are scattered around the floor. The departmental
manager has a centrally located office room for himself. As the arrangement of offices, the
employees of different disciplines do seem to operate a little bit isolated, where collaboration is
mainly project depended. This is also confirmed by an interviewee, who said that lately different
employees were working more and more as separate ‘islands’.
56
With regard to the way how work is done, there are not many formal procedures prescribing how
work should be carried out. However, there is a “process handbook”, but it is outdated. There are
steps being made from BN Infra to introduce their new process handbook to the different regional
companies (where slight adjustments could be made to fit the processes at these locations). Some
interviewees expressed that introduction of this ‘new’ way of working as well as conforming to an
ISO standard has not much added value and only cost time and money.
With regard to how the department operates and makes use of other BN companies, they are
always looking at what the exact input is that these companies offer (also taking costs into account),
in order to decided whether or not to use and value their help. The main attention is paid internally
to what the free capacity is and how that can be used to do more tenders.
6.1.3 Summary
In this paragraph, the dimensions are scored in Table 8, based on data gathered through
interviewing and observing. For each department, characteristics based on specific dimensions are
given. Some of these characteristics are also described in the case descriptions, some of them are
not described due to the scope of the section above, to globally describe the organizational culture.
57
Dimension
The basis of truth and
rationality in the
organization
BNBW
-Project executors mainly
serve as problem signalers,
not involved in decision
making.
-Pragmatism and personal
experience are valued high.
The nature of time and time
horizon
-Lots of different plannings
are used.
-Every project executor has
a specific task and works
rather monochronic.
Motivation
-Employees mainly earned
their position over time
and started as construction
worker. They started
working in order to earn
money to sustain
themselves.
-Innovation that is used is
Stability versus
change/innovation/personal work method related; use
of a lean planning for
growth
planning the construction
process.
BNE
-Scientific argumentation is
found very important.
-Designs and calculations
are checked by
colleagues/supervisors.
-At least a project leader or
‘higher’ is responsible for
decisions. Hierarchical
responsibility.
-Planning is done on
middle long term. Dept.
manager and project
leaders map demand and
supply of labor in projects.
-Most employees are
assigned to two projects at
the same time.
-Typical employee is a little
‘little’ closed.
-Drive to use technical
knowledge to formulate
advices and reports.
-Critical on work of others.
BNICT
-Experienced employees
involved in higher level
decision making.
-Decisions made based on
consensus.
-Manager is open for
input/suggestions (input
will be discussed in
meetings).
-Short term timeframe.
-Solving calls mainly
monochronic, but due to
priorities can be
polychronic.
-For most employees only
one project will be
managed at a time.
-Employees are aware of
big responsibility for the
‘productivity’ of all BN
employees.
-Contact with clients
sometimes interrupting.
BNIZW
-Decisions made based on
consensus in a tender
team.
-Dept. manager and
director are responsible
and have to agree with
proposal.
-Quality management
system continuously
adapted after internal and
external evaluations
-Systems engineering
method is gradually more
implemented.
-Useful developments in IT
are implemented within
BN. Magazines and
websites used to be up to
date.
-BNICT implements IT
innovations for rest of BN.
-Internal operations look
solidly organized.
-Slightly negative approach
to changes.
(Implementation of ISO
standard and process
handbook regarded to as
unnecessary paperwork.)
-Usually several projects
are handled
simultaneously.
(polychronic)
-Relatively short term
planning. Planning is done
weekly with a 3-weeks time
frame.
-Transfer of experiences
from past to younger
colleagues seen as goal.
-Time pressure is
sometimes indicated as
barrier to help others.
58
Orientation to work, task
and coworkers
-Depending on earlier
determined sequence of
work.
-Employees responsibilities
are focused on parts of the
construction process.
Isolation versus
-Work is done mainly
individually. Project
executors manage their
own teams.
-Project executors do
sometimes ask other
colleagues for help/input.
-Department is tightly
organized. Decisions made
at the top.
Control, coordination, and
responsibility
-Focus is primarily internal,
where maintaining the
budget, quality and
schedule are of main
importance.
-Procedures play central
role. Order of actions are
strictly controlled.
-Elementary work process
is still creative to certain
extent: solving specific
problems.
-Work is done in individual
chunks which are grouped
into project team effort.
-Some collaboration
enforced by reviews.
-Colleagues at office are
accessible.
-Freedom to some extent
to plan working hours
-Decisions always made
after agreement of
management. Employees
do create proposals which
have to be agreed.
-Both internally and
externally focused.
-Internal: emphasis on
procedures and quality.
-External: listening to
customers, also improve
collaboration by
positioning employees at
customers.
-High level division of work.
Global tasks are divided.
-Freedom to plan own
tasks while continuity of IT
landscape is guaranteed.
-Open office layout
stimulate discussions.
-Normally only 2 persons
share a ‘responsibility’.
-As a group rather isolated.
Only ad hoc collaboration
with other IT departments.
-Employees free to plan
own work times.
-Freedom for own
initiatives.
-Retirement of employee
was countered ad hoc (but
in time).
-Internal clients play a
central role.
-Development in
technology are mapped to
situation of clients to
determine the usefulness.
-The department is not too
much organized internally,
only ‘high level’ boundaries
are set.
-Processes are results
oriented; Hard deadlines of
submitting the tender are
main goal.
-Despite of having a
process handbook, it is not
strictly used.
-Accessibility of colleagues
is sometimes under
pressure due to hard
deadlines and expansion.
-Work is put together from
individual contributions
-Responsibilities are
centralized. Calculators and
engineers create a
proposal, the manager and
the director will decide on
what to do with the offer.
-Focus is internally on the
free capacity to elaborate
project offers; there are
many public project
tenders available, only
most profitable are
selected.
-The input of other BN
companies is critically
reviewed.
Table 8 - The four departments scored at Detert et al.'s dimensions.
59
The overall and most important results of measuring the knowledge sharing behavior are presented
below per department. The knowledge sharing process, as described in paragraph 3.4, was used as a
guidance. In Appendix F until Appendix I, the complete case reports are attached, that cover these
results in more detail. Finally, a summary is given, that was used to compare the knowledge sharing
behaviors of individual departments.
6.2.1
BNBW
Knowledge type
The type of knowledge that BNBW find most important is professional knowledge. However, looking
at the documents the employees find important as well as the activities they perform, coordinating
knowledge is at least as important. Know-who is found the least important. This is also endorsed by
the minimal influence they have on the employment building personnel and subcontractors. There is
also little contact with project executors at other construction/building sites.
BNBW has a preference for using natural communication to share their knowledge. Direct contact
and a higher relevance of ‘hits’ when searching knowledge are seen as the advantage compared to
ICT-based knowledge sharing. Technology-aided knowledge sharing media as the ‘Kenniswijzer’ and
Office Communicator are not used.
Below in the table a ranking is made for the knowledge channels per type of communication.
Natural
1.Training
2.Informal individual contact
3.Informal group contact
4.Meetings (project team)
5.Process manual
6.Meetings (larger scale)
usage
3.
1.
2.
Technology-aided
7.Phone
8.Office communicator
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Company facebook
12.Kenniswijzer
13.Projects database
14.Documents
usage
2.
1.
3.
15.Outlook Address book
16.SharePoint
Table 9 - Preferred usage of knowledge sharing media at BNBW.
Knowledge consumer
When employees of BNBW are searching for knowledge, they first contact direct colleagues (other
project executors) and eventually perhaps subcontractors. They use this contact to receive either
direct help or an indication where to search further. Furthermore, BNBW employees are looking for
knowledge that is available to be reused. This is preferred over developing the knowledge
individually. Experiences from the past are determining how knowledge is valued and whether or
not to ask someone for help. This is a continuous process. When BNBW employees have contact
with employees from other BN companies, they are satisfied with the way they are helped. They do
not think they are helped in any other way than they are helped by direct colleagues.
60
When knowledge sharing takes place, in BNBW, it is normal that this will happen by the initiative of
the knowledge consumer. It is not appreciated if one is actively showing what knowledge he
possesses. A motivation for an employee of BNBW is to prevent reinventing the wheel and to reduce
costs of failures. BNBW is not receptive for bonuses or an increase of salary in order to stimulate
knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is seen as part of a normal compensation for doing their jobs.
BNBW see knowledge sharing as a reciprocal process. When a BNBW employee helps someone, he
assumes that he can also consult that person when he is in need of knowledge. Openness is an
important characteristic of the relationships they have at work. An important addition to this, is that
one has to realize that the person that is being consulted is actually spending his time helping the
other. Regarding helping employees of other BN companies, they are also open and will not treat
them differently than direct colleagues. However, they will always consider the time that they think
is available to help others. When the project they work on, asks their attention, they will not help
others directly when the request is not related to that project. When new things are learned by
someone, it does happen that they will notify others. Most of the time it will happen on an ad hoc
basis or when this knowledge is relevant to the situation.
Social network
The contact with project executors employed at other construction sites, is limited to project
execution meetings that are held 2-3 times a year. Besides this contact, there is little contact, and it
is not standard to just contact other project executors one does not know. There is contact with the
project preparation department, where usually one specific person is assigned to the project, the
contact has the context of ordering, planning, but also feedback with regard to the work method
that was used.
There is almost no contact with other (regional) construction companies. However, they do feel that
everyone is open for collaboration or help. The problem is the potential of the help that is not really
clear for everyone and the lack of knowing each other personally, while they find it very important
to know someone by name.
The dominant knowledge sharing strategy is pull. One has to look for knowledge themselves.
Exchanging best-practices and experience between project executors is not common.
6.2.2
BNE
Knowledge type
Within BNE the quality management system is an important tool to coordinate how work is done.
Furthermore they do not only rely on design documents of earlier constructed buildings to reuse
design solutions. It is important to use the know-who to find some richer background information in
the form of personal experiences with specific solutions. Documents that are important are designs
of constructions (different levels of detail).
Knowledge sharing media
The preferred way to share knowledge is by using natural communication. This way, it is easy to gain
access to experiences from the past and by communicating this way, it is easier to be referred to
other people within personal networks of others.
61
A Technology-aided channel that is barely used, is the Office Communicator. They do not see why
they should utilize this tool, as nothing of this communication is stored in cases of disagreements.
When using e-mail, this is the case.
Once in two months there is a departmental meeting. In these meetings, everyone is updated and
always some employees of the department are approached to share some experiences or bestpractices from recent projects or courses. Another way of sharing knowledge among the whole BNE
company is by the BNE News Bullets. This e-newsletter is send every week and has the function of
updating everyone with what all departments are doing. Knowledge is further shared in different
central storages; a document management system and a intranet website to share best-practices.
Natural
1.Training
5.Process manual
usage
3.
1.
2.
Technology-aided
7.Phone
8.Office Communicator
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Company facebook
12.Kenniswijzer
14.Documents
usage
2.
1.
3.
16.SharePoint
Table 10 - Preferred usage of knowledge sharing media at BNE
Knowledge consumer
When employees of BNE are searching for knowledge, they will start with looking what is available
on the internet and the knowledge database ‘Kenniswijzer’. Most of the times, one is looking for
professional knowledge or object-based knowledge. In case of object-based knowledge, experience
with design solutions are of special interest. As knowledge consumer, BNE employees are searching
for knowledge that can be reused in combination with new input result in new
products/deliverables. The development of new knowledge is still important.
Inexperienced employees of BNE are specifically searching for knowledge of the more experienced
colleagues. Usually knowledge consumers are first critically reviewing the knowledge that is being
offered to them, before they will eventually use and apply the knowledge. As knowledge consumers
they experience that everyone is willing to help and no knowledge is hidden.
At BNE knowledge is usually being shared in different ways. The most common way of sharing
knowledge is through informal individual contact. This happens for instance through the reviewing
process, but also ad hoc when an employee is in need for specific knowledge of which he knows a
colleague is a subject matter expert. Also the departmental meeting is used to share knowledge,
more related to experience for specific technical solutions that were applied or specific problems
that were solved during a project.
62
The motivation for sharing their knowledge is to contribute to a better performance. This cannot be
stimulated by financial rewards like bonuses or raises. Amongst others, because it is simply an act
that happens during working hours and is needed to perform the job as required.
Most of the colleagues expect help back when they reserved time for others earlier in time. When
no or disappointing help is offered, they will be more reserved for helping those persons in the
future. However this does not often occur. The employees of BNE are also open to help other
companies of BN, when their help and knowledge is asked. The only things that will be considered is
where the knowledge will be applied (inside or outside BN) and the time that is available for helping
others.
Knowledge, that is or could be relevant to other employees of BNE, is shared trough the BNE News
Bullets or by presenting at the departmental meeting. Knowledge will also be shared ad hoc, with
colleagues that are present at the time someone learns something.
Social network
Contact with direct colleagues are normally face-to-face and informal. However, when someone is
externally deployed at a project, the contact is normally restricted to expertise areas. The
constructions department play a central role within BNE, and are therefore well known with other
disciplines of BNE. This cross-departmental contact is more formal. Contact with other BN
companies is mostly project related with BN Infra companies. Collaboration with BN Infra (bigger
infrastructural projects) is better than with regional BN Infra companies, which are approaching BNE
more as a subcontractor and less as a full partner. Regarding the way of knowledge sharing, in the
department pull as well as push methods are used to share knowledge. Many channels exist and are
used.
6.2.3
BNICT
Knowledge type
Gaining professional knowledge is important for BNICT employees. Also because the burden that is
on their shoulders to support the complete IT network infrastructure, company information (files for
instance) and the application portfolio. Coordinating knowledge is something employees are not
paying too much attention to, but unconsciously it is important in the way that some coordinating
documents function as a way of dividing tasks among the team. Knowledge is approached as explicit
in the form of documentation for installation of servers or applications for instance.
Within BNICT there is a slight preference for using ICT-based communication to share knowledge.
The combination of telephone, Office Communicator and e-mail works very good for them. When
there is no urgent need for an answer, Office Communicator is used frequently. But, when there is
some urgency, telephone works more direct. The advantage of e-mail is that the communication is
stored and can be retrieved when needed (to look something up or to settle a disagreement).
Informal individual contact is used at the department, most of the time when they are in need for
specific knowledge.
63
The central knowledge repository that is used, is SharePoint. All kinds of documentation and
background information regarding the regular activities or previous projects can be found. However
usage of it can be more frequent and storage more consistent (in the sense of categorization).
Natural
1.Training
5.Process manual
usage
3.
2.
1.
Technology-aided
7.Phone
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Company facebook
12.Kenniswijzer
14.Documents
usage
3.
2.
1.
16.SharePoint
Table 11 - Preferred usage of knowledge sharing media at BNICT
Knowledge consumer
The system administrators always try to work out the problems themselves, before they would ask a
direct colleague. Internet can be a really good tool to locate lacking knowledge and sometimes
SharePoint can be used to solve a problem. The knowledge that is being looked after, is often
professional knowledge.
System administrators of BNICT find it very important to gain knowledge by themselves, not by
reusing already available knowledge. A trial and error process is an example of this. They think they
would learn more when they are actively performing a task, which involves reasoning about the
operation of software/hardware which could result in better knowledge.
It is common for less experienced system administrators to ask experienced system administrators
for help or their opinion in order to learn new things. When in need for help, they would think which
system administrator could help the best, based on expertise, to contact that person. Also they
would critically assess the knowledge that is being retrieved. When the system administrator is not
convinced of the quality of the provided knowledge, he would look further for more evidence.
Knowledge sharing usually is done by informal (individual) contact. It is not common to store
knowledge (for instance on SharePoint). This is partly due to time constraints and partly because
information ages rather quickly. When knowledge is being shared, the system administrators think
of the relevance for others. Not all is being shared with everyone, because it would not help him to
fulfill their tasks.
The importance of sharing knowledge is that information about settings and usage of soft- and
hardware has to be shared widely, as the complete company is constantly using these systems.
Financially rewarding knowledge sharing behavior would only be a short term stimulus.
64
Knowledge sharing is seen as an act on itself. So, when someone has helped a person earlier, this
does not require him to offer his help back. And when he is not offering this help, this will not
influence the way the knowledge contributor is behaving towards the knowledge consumer. When
new knowledge is gained, the relevance for others is considered, before actually sharing it. Channels
to share the knowledge are informal contact (with the available persons at that time), e-mail and
Office Communicator.
Social network
Professionally there is only contact with other BNICT (mainly system administrators) colleagues.
Sharing information between departments could be done more effectively (in order to diagnose
problems more quickly). For the system administrators it is important to show initiative to search for
knowledge, because it will not be actively pushed around the department.
6.2.4
BNIZW
Knowledge type
Professional knowledge is seen as the most important type of knowledge. (One employee told: “This
is the start of doing your job.”) Coordinating knowledge is seen as least important. This can be
related to the type of work that has to be done. This is very specific work, most of the time only
done specifically for one offer. This is then discussed with the departmental manager and the other
members of the team. The teams are also very small. A project team only consist of 3-4 man in
normal tendering.
The preferred way of sharing knowledge is clearly by natural communication, and especially informal
individual contact. This communication is richer, and is able to transfer experiences the best.
Experiences are very hard to codify.
Natural
1.Training
5.Process manual
usage
1.
2.
3.
Technology-aided
7.Phone
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Company facebook
12.Kenniswijzer
14.Documents
usage
1.
2.
16.SharePoint
3.
Table 12 - Preferred usage of knowledge sharing media at BNIZW
A Technology-aided knowledge channel that is barely used is Office Communicator. It is experienced
as an obtrusive way of communicating by means of the blinking message on the screen, when new
messages are received when doing something else. The project database is another useless tool for
BNIZW. It contains only little useful information. The knowledge repository ‘Kenniswijzer’ is only
used by the BNE employees that are working at projects of BNIZW. All other employees are not using
65
this at all. A few negative or disappointing experiences will ensure that no one is looking at it again.
Centrally stored knowledge is the project information without further processing (can be found on
project number).
Knowledge consumer
When the employees of BNIZW are looking for knowledge, they start with contacting direct
colleagues. If they cannot help any further (which is not common), then they would look further, for
instance on the internet. Most of the times employees consider the availability of the person they
want to disturb, before they would actually disturb the colleague.
Reusing knowledge is found more important than gaining knowledge by going through an own
learning process. This would take considerable more time, than the preferred way of working. The
person who are contacted to share knowledge are chosen because the colleagues have a positive
experience with them and preferably the same ‘vision’ on how work should be done.
There are other BN companies contacted to share their knowledge. They find them all accessible for
help, but BNIZW always checks their input. It is not experienced that knowledge is protected. When
colleagues are refusing to help others, this is most of the time caused by a lack of time to do so.
Knowledge is generally shared on ad hoc basis. It is not planned, and guided by the context of a
moment. Normally more experienced employees have a mentor/coaching role to less experienced
employees. Sharing of mistakes made in the work is not emphasized.
Looking at the motivation for sharing knowledge, this cannot be boosted by rewarding employees
financially. They unanimously stated this would not work out. However, they do think rewarding
good performance is a good thing. When projects are done better than expected, for instance, the
department should also be rewarded for this.
Knowledge sharing is seen as a twofold process. It is about contributing and consuming knowledge.
At BNIZW the employees are somewhat divided. They do think one should not look at how much
knowledge others contributed to the rest of the group, but they do endorse sharing of knowledge
should not be done only in one-way.
When help of other BN companies would be asked (and not demanded), the employees of BNIZW
are open to share their knowledge. The speed of helping others is influenced by whether someone is
already known and positive or negative experiences with earlier collaboration.
Knowledge is normally shared by the more experienced employees of BNIZW to their colleagues.
Another thing that is appreciated is that knowledge is being shared at moments that it is relevant
and useful to apply in the context of a project. This is in contrast with actively pushing knowledge.
Social network
The department is grouped in such a way that disciplines or similar jobs are put together in a room.
Within these disciplines there is the most contact, which is mainly informal. Despite of the separated
division of work space, doors are always ‘open’ for others to ask for help.
66
The departmental meeting is mainly held for planning and feedback purposes. Experiences gained by
working in projects are most commonly shared informally and within the context of a project group.
Contact with project preparation and execution is at this moment mainly project-based and only ad
hoc. Interesting for BNIZW is to know about the accuracy of their first calculations and reasons for
deviation of this calculation. Therefore BNIZW recognizes the importance of being involved in the
project evaluations, but at this time they are not. Contact with other BN companies is primarily with
specialist companies for tarmac, concrete and so on. There is no structured contact with other
regional companies and BN Infra (doing larger infrastructural projects).
Knowledge is generally shared by initiative of the knowledge consumer. This initiative is of great
importance, in order to let knowledge flow in the department. Everyone is open and motivated to
share their knowledge but they are not actively doing this.
67
6.2.5 Summary
In this summary, the most important findings from this paragraph are presented per part of the knowledge sharing process. This is presented in Table 13,
below.
Knowledge Type
BNBW
-Professional and
Coordinating knowledge
most important
-Know-who least important
-Experience-minded
-Drawings/planning are
important
BNE
-Professional knowledge
most important
-Detail drawings are
important
-Experience-minded
KS Medium
Knowledge
Consumer
-Natural communication -Contact direct
preferred
colleagues /
-Informal individual
subcontractors first
contact preferred (nat.) -Professional / object-E-mail preferred (ICT)
based knowledge
-Office Communicator,
-Knowledge reuse
kenniswijzer not used
-Experiences input for
-Photographs serve as
contacting persons
evidence and quality
and valuing knowledge
insurance
-Other BN companies
are helpful
-Natural communication
preferred
-Informal individual
contact and e-mail most
important
-Office Communicator
barely used.
-E-mail used for storage
of communication
-Dept. meeting used for
sharing best-practices
and experiences
-Central repository in
DMS, network drive,
intranet site
-First looking
themselves, internet
or kenniswijzer
-Professional or
object-based
knowledge
-Slight preference for
knowledge reuse.
Gaining knowledge by
doing it yourself also
important
-Specially looking for
more experienced
colleagues for help
Knowledge Contributor
Social Network
-Initiative for knowledge
contributor
-Disturbing to push knowledge
-Reduce cost of failure by
sharing knowledge
-Financial rewards no incentive
-Reciprocity important in
knowledge sharing relationship
-Open to help other BN
companies; only taking
priorities into account
-Knowledge sharing ad hoc
-Different ways of sharing
knowledge (informal at
someone’s desk, departmental
meeting, formal by quality
management system)
-Sharing knowledge to improve
quality of the product
knowledge sharing relationship
- Open to help other BN
companies, want to know
application of knowledge, also
priorities are important
-Contact with colleagues
depend on project
-Contact with project
executors at other sites, only
at departmental meeting
-No contact with same
discipline of other BN
companies
-One wants to know the other
in person
-Pull is standard for knowledge
sharing
-In office f2f contact
-External colleagues only
contacted based on expertise
-Much contact with other
departments BNE
-Other BN companies project
based contact
-Knowledge sharing with other
BN companies by locating
colleagues at these companies
-Collaboration with BN Infra
‘smoother’ than regional BN
Infra companies
-Both push and pull are used
68
BNICT
-Professional knowledge
most important
-Coordinating knowledge
found less important, but
coordinating documents are
found important
-Documentation-minded
BNIZW -Professional knowledge
most important
-Coordinating knowledge
least important
-Experience-minded
-Slight preference for
ICT-based knowledge
sharing
-Knowledge sharing by
meetings and e-mail
found most important
-Customer contact
preferred through email for storage reasons
-Documents stored in
SharePoint
-Natural communication
preferred
-Preferred channels are
informal individual
contact and phone
-Office Communicator
barely used, too
obtrusive
-Kenniswijzer only used
by BNE employees
-Central knowledge
repository is only
project information
-First looking
themselves, mainly
internet (or
SharePoint)
-Then ask colleagues
-Most of the time
looking for
professional
knowledge (errors),
non routine solutions
-Gaining knowledge by
learning themselves
-Taking expertise of
colleagues into
account to contact
specific persons
-Contact direct
colleagues first
-When looking
themselves, they use
internet
-Most of the time,
availability is
considered first.
-Reusing knowledge is
important
-Contacting other
colleagues based on
earlier experience and
same vision
-Input of other BN
companies scanned
critically
-Especially informal individual
contact used for sharing
knowledge
-Relevance for others is
considered before contributing
-Financial reward, only short
term motivation
-Knowledge sharing is isolated
act
-Knowledge sharing next to
individual contact, also by
Office Communicator and email
-Professional contact only with
BNICT colleagues (other
departments of the BNICT
company)
-Knowledge consumer has
initiative to find/locate
knowledge
-Pull is dominant knowledge
sharing strategy
-Ad hoc knowledge sharing,
only few knowledge is
codified. No real policy for this
-Only basic project related
knowledge sharing with other
BN companies
-Knowledge is shared ad hoc
-Knowledge shared by more
experienced colleagues to
others
-Not much attention for sharing
mistakes
knowledge sharing relationship,
but distrust in what is
contributed by others is not
preferable
-Open for contact with other BN
companies, earlier contact
important for speed of help
-Knowledge is accessible
- Available time can be limited
-Office divided in offices based
on disciplines
-Door always ‘open’ for help
-Dept. meeting mainly for
planning/update purposes to
divide work and get
impression of workload
-Contact with project
preparation and execution is
project based, no involvement
in evaluation process yet
-No contact with other Infra
companies based on
disciplines
-Knowledge sharing based on
pull. However everyone is
motivated to help others
Table 13 - Summary with most important findings per department.
69
Chapter 7
Cross-case analysis
Since the objective of the research is to relate differences in knowledge sharing behavior to differences in organizational culture,
these differences in knowledge sharing behavior are the input for the cross-case analysis. Although the table in paragraph 6.2.5
summarizes the differences in knowledge sharing behavior that were found, the table on the next page is created to emphasize
the differences in knowledge sharing behavior that were found. For most of the differences, two contrasting behaviors could be
identified. In some cases not all departments were involved in these differences. In the next sections each difference will first be
explained in more detail.
Next to explaining the contrasting behaviors, in this paragraph the emphasis is on explaining whether or not it is plausible that
the behavior could be influenced by organizational culture, and in what way. Table 15 on page 73 is used to find similarities in
organizational culture between departments, which could suggest influences on knowledge sharing behavior. The observed
expressions of organizational culture, originating from Table 8, are sometimes generalized in order to make the observations
comparable.
As organizational culture as an influence on knowledge sharing is the scope of this research, only basic explanations will be given
when a behavior cannot be linked as an influence of organizational culture. First the differences in behavior related to the type of
knowledge will be discussed. Next to this, behavior related to the usage of knowledge sharing media are explained, followed by
behaviors of employees related to a knowledge consumer and knowledge contributor and behaviors regarding the social network
will be the subject. In the last section, a higher level perspective will be used to look at the influences that were found, relating
this to the specific parts of the knowledge sharing process. This will be done in order to find patterns of influences and other
remarkable findings regarding both concepts.
70
Knowledge Type
KS Medium
Knowledge Consumer
Knowledge
Contributor
Social Network
use of basic technology-aided KS
media
no use of formal KS
“critically looking at input of
other BN companies“
using earlier experiences with
other people for help
gaining knowledge
start with locating knowledge
individually
“disturbing” to push knowledge
motivation for sharing knowledge
driven by financial gains
knowledge sharing for reciprocity
important
knowledge sharing in projects,
where other BN companies are
involved
pull based KS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
looking at most experienced
(oldest) employees for help
reusing knowledge
start with locating knowledge in
personal network
encouraged to push knowledge
“enriching others” motivation for
sharing knowledge
knowledge sharing as an isolated
act
no contact with similar disciplines
of other BN companies
push & pull based KS
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
Contrasting behavior
documentation mindedness
coordinating knowledge seen as
unimportant
data (photos/emails) not stored
for specific reasons
technology-aided communication
(slightly) preferred
use of more advanced
technology-aided KS media
use of some formal KS
“other BN companies are helpful”
BNBW
x
BNIZW
x
BNICT
BNE
Observed behavior
experience mindedness
coordinating knowledge
important
data (photos/emails) used as
proof
natural communication preferred
BNBW
Part of KS process
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 14 - Summary of differences between departments regarding the knowledge sharing process.
71
Basis of truth and rationality
The nature of time and time
horizon
Motivation
Orientation to work, task and
coworkers
Isolation versus collaboration
Control, coordination and
responsibility
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
Observations
pragmatism and personal experience important
problem signaler, excluded from decision making
scientific argumentation basis for discussion
work is always checked by others
responsibility with project leader or higher
experienced employees involved in higher level
decision making
decision made on basis of consensus
work is done monochronic
work is done polychromic
many different types of planning used
planning on short term
planning on middle/long term
division of tasks based on planning document
positions are earned over time
self sustainability a theme to start working
employees are ‘little’ closed
drive to use technical knowledge for solving problems
serving the company
learning and development are very important
transfer of experience to younger employees
innovation is work-method related
stable internal organization
signaling potential technology for BN
testing new technologies and implement it for whole
company
continuous feedback loops for improvements
some resistance to changes
sequence of work predetermined
procedures play central role
procedures are formulated but not strictly maintained
only global work division
specific tasks used to guide output
employees are separated on the work floor
employees are situated in an open work floor
managers are separated from employees
work is divided in individual chunks
individual work is alternated with more collaborative
work
time pressure sometimes prevents employees to help
others
freedom to plan own working hours
autonomy for own initiatives
BNBW
Dimension
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
72
x
employees feel big responsibility
manager will be on background as long as problems do
not escalate
responsibilities are centralized
focus on internal operations
clients involved
business environment is influencing operations
realizing an end-product
offering services to other BN companies
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 15 - Generalized observations of organizational culture, arranged per dimension.
73
7.1 Knowledge type
Experience/documentation mindedness
The first difference that was found with regard to the type of knowledge, is the knowledge where
employees of the departments are looking for. In this case two behaviors were observed. Employees
of BNICT are looking for documents and other articulated knowledge in order to help them solving
‘calls’ made by internal clients. In the other departments, the knowledge that employees are looking
for is more frequently related to experiences from the past of other employees. This behavior is
closely related to the personalization and codification strategies described by Nohria, Hansen &
Tierney (1999). For BNICT, a codification strategy seems to work out best, where for the other
departments, a personalization strategy would be most appropriate to use given the importance of
sharing experiences from the past.
For this behavior it is really hard to link it to one of the dimensions of organizational culture. It rather
looks like a contextual influence, as work in BNICT department concerns the application of already
articulated knowledge of soft- and hardware (which is needed to properly use it). In contrast, the
other departments work within a context where every project has different ‘parameters’ and
conditions. These differing situations automatically create a sense of complexity, which asks for
interpretations and abstractions to map these situations to what someone already knows.
Experiences from the past are an important input when new insights are needed.
With regard to the three experience minded departments, a difference can be found in usage of
their personalization strategy. Within BNE, there is more attention for letting everyone know what
knowledge and experience is available within the department. In the departments BNBW and
BNIZW, the strategy is only executed by initiative of individual employees. This difference is thus
mainly caused by the (management) awareness for useful experience, than that it can be related to
differences in culture.
Importance of coordinating knowledge
Coordinating knowledge consists of rules and standards and routines used to describe how work
must be done. Roughly speaking, this concerns planning on the one hand side and work methods on
the other side. Looking at the importance of coordinating knowledge, contrasting behavior was
found. This is visualized in Table 16, where also the related cultural observations are mentioned. In
departments with a monochronic time-orientation, this behavior can be explained by the role of a
planning within in their work situation. In BNBW and BNICT, employees are either confronted with a
lot of different planning documents or the task division document is used as a way of planning daily
work. In the polychronic-oriented departments BNE and BNIZW, planning is still important (since
meeting deadlines is always important), but employees are less involved with planning. The plausible
influence that a monochronic time-orientation is influencing the importance of coordinating
knowledge, can be seen as a contradiction to what would be expected. It could be argued that, in
case of a polychronic time-orientation, it would be harder to manage the sometimes conflicting
interests. In such a case, planning could be a useful tool, and thus coordinating knowledge would be
valued higher than in the case of working in single projects. However it looks like a monochronic
time-orientation can involve a complex sequence of tasks that enlarges the need for coordinating
knowledge. In the case of a polychronic time-orientation the sequence of tasks could be simpler and
clearer, which makes it easier to manage time.
74
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
BNBW
Knowledge sharing behavior coordinating knowledge important
x
related organizational culture dimension: The nature of time and time horizon
work is done monochronic
x
work is done polychronic
Cultural observations
many different types of planning used
x
division of tasks based on planning document
x
x
x
x
x
Table 16 - Cultural observations linked to the importance of coordinating knowledge.
Use of data as ‘hard’ proof
Within the departments BNBW, BNE and BNICT data such as drawings, photographs and e-mails are
used and stored as evidence, in case when this is needed. In the department BNIZW this is not
specifically done. The reason for using this proof is to prevent disagreements about agreements
made earlier. It looks like this is another contextual influence, which is hard to link to one of the
dimensions of organizational culture. The most reasonable explanation is that this is a consequence
of the construction industry, Ballast Nedam is in. In general, projects involve a lot of different parties
(such as governments, sub-contractors and consultancy companies) where responsibilities are
sometimes unclear. Another factor are the high costs to realize a construction project. By storing all
data concerning the actions that are done and agreements that are made, liability is minimized.
7.2 Knowledge sharing medium
Preference for technology-aided knowledge sharing
The preference of which knowledge sharing media to use can be linked somehow to the dimension
‘Stability versus change’. In this case, only BNICT is (slightly) preferring technology-aided knowledge
sharing media above the traditional knowledge sharing media. What can be seen, by looking at this
dimension of organizational culture, is that there is a difference in the way they make use of
innovations within the departments. This is visualized in Table 17. The departments BNBW, BNE and
BNIZW are innovating primarily by changing the way they work, what can be seen as work method
related innovations. In this case BNBW is implementing the usage of a new way of planning
construction work. For BNE holds that they are continuously adapting their quality management
system which is driven by doing evaluations internally but also by involving clients in this process.
BNIZW is also changing their work method, as the new process handbook of BN Infra is implemented
in their context. In contrast, the innovations that are implemented in BNICT are all involving the
usage of new technology, while the work method they use is stable.
75
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
BNBW
technology-aided communication (slightly) preferred
natural communication preferred
related organizational culture dimension: Stability versus change
innovation is work-method related
stable internal organization
company
Knowledge sharing behavior
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 17 - Cultural observations linked to the preference of knowledge sharing media.
One thing that should be taken into account, is the affinity all departments have with the usage of
ICT. Looking at BNBW for instance, the employees only have basic or self learned skills in using ICT.
This is therefore influencing their acceptance of technology, so it cannot be said that the preference
for a type of knowledge sharing is only influenced by an organization’s view on innovation.
Usage of technology-aided knowledge sharing
With regard to the usage of technology-aided knowledge sharing media, another difference can be
observed. In the departments BNBW and BNIZW mainly basic technology-aided knowledge sharing
media are used as telephone and e-mail, while in the departments BNE and BNICT, more advanced
technology-aided knowledge sharing media are used. This behavioral difference and the related
cultural observations are visualized in Table 18.
It is plausible that the innovation mindedness of the departments is linked to the type of usage of
knowledge sharing technology. BNIZW have expressed some resistance to change their way of
working (amongst others the development of involving design in tendering of project) and applying
quality standards, while BNE change their way of working by for instance locating employees at the
location of collaborating BN companies. For BNICT also holds that they are innovating, as already
said, by implementing (and using) new technologies as for instance the integration of telephone and
outlook. What thus can be seen is that the pace of innovation is higher in the departments BNE and
BNICT. However, in this case, also the familiarity with ICT and technology acceptance should be
taken into account in order to get the best insight in what determines the usage of knowledge
sharing technology.
76
x
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
BNBW
use of basic technology-aided KS media
use of more advanced technology-aided KS media
related organizational culture dimension: Stability versus change
company
continuous feedback loops for improvements
some resistance to changes
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 18 - Cultural observations linked to the usage of technology-aided knowledge sharing media.
Usage of formal knowledge sharing
Looking at the different ways that are possible to share knowledge, a distinction can be made
between formal and informal knowledge sharing. Formal knowledge sharing is when the knowledge
is shared as intended by the organization, often captured in procedures. Informal knowledge sharing
can then be seen as knowledge sharing occurring outside the intended occasions. A possible result of
this sharing is that only selective employees will be involved in the knowledge sharing act and, in the
end, that it will not be stored. With regard to the usage of formal knowledge sharing, what can be
seen is that the departments BNBW, BNICT and BNIZW are not really using formal channels to share
knowledge, where BNE do use some formal knowledge sharing channels as a departmental meeting,
a newsletter and the sharing through the intranet. This behavior and related cultural observations
are included in the table on the next page.
Looking at how the work is organized at the departments, an influence can be described. Work is
done rather process-oriented at BNE in contrast to the other departments. At BNE, the quality
management system strictly imposes a way of working on the employees as well as an expected
behavior to inform other colleagues. In all other departments, procedures are often described but
not enforced in such a way that employees cannot work around this. What can be seen as a sideeffect of the presence and enforcing of many procedures, is that also knowledge sharing acts are
enforced in this way. In the other departments knowledge sharing is occurring mainly ad hoc, when
one of the employees is in need of knowledge. Knowledge sharing not often occurring in other, more
formal organizational settings. It seems plausible that the dimension ‘Orientation towards work’ is
influencing the way knowledge is being shared.
77
Table 19 - Cultural observations linked to the formality of knowledge sharing media usage.
7.3 Knowledge consumer
Evaluating others input
With regard evaluation of the input of other BN companies, a difference in behavior was found. For
BNICT this difference did not apply, as their collaboration with other BN companies differs from that
of the other departments since they provide a service and are not involved in a construction project.
In the department BNIZW, a critical attitude was adopted with regard to the input of other BN
companies. This was also endorsed by BNE, where they stated that projects done with BN Infra
(larger infrastructural projects) resulted in better collaboration and involvement in the decision
making process compared to projects with regional BN companies. At BNE and BNBW a contrasting
attitude was adopted where they were automatically open for help of other BN companies and
finding them helpful.
The difference in openness for collaboration between the departments is hard to relate to one of
the dimensions of organizational culture. The most straightforward link is that the internal/external
orientation influences this behavior. Looking at the orientation of these departments, no for this
behavior explainable differences can be identified. Both BNBW and BNIZW are namely focused more
internally than externally. However, a difference can be found. By taking the context into account
that BNE is primarily depending on providing their (consulting) services to other BN Infra companies
and only basically to BN Construction companies, the difference can be explained. BNE is depending
on their external collaborations and are thus very open for being involved in BN Infra projects.
BNIZW on the other hand can also use knowledge from other engineering companies, and are
therefore focused on the advantages of the collaboration over consulting other companies. In the
case of BNBW, there is only some basic interaction with other BN companies, and more focused on
supply of construction tools. The differences in knowledge sharing behavior and cultural
observations are mentioned in Table 21 below. What looks plausible is that the orientation of an
organization and the dependence on collaboration are influencing the way knowledge sharing is
evaluated within this relation.
78
BNICT
BNIZW
BNE
BNBW
no use of formal KS
x
use of some formal KS
x
related organizational culture dimension: Orientation to work, task and coworkers
x
x
x
x
x
x
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
BNBW
“critically looking at input of other BN companies“
“other BN companies are helpful”
related organizational culture dimension: Orientation and focus
clients involved
realizing an end-product
offering services to other BN companies
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 20 - Cultural observations linked to evaluating others’ contributions.
BNIZW
x
BNICT
using earlier experiences with other people for help
looking at most experienced (oldest) employees for
help
related organizational culture dimension: Basis of truth and rationality
scientific argumentation basis for discussion
decision made on basis of consensus
BNE
BNBW
Consulting colleagues
Another difference in behavior concerning the role of a knowledge consumer, is how employees
determine which colleagues they are going to consult. At the departments BNBW, BNICT and BNIZW
employees are using their experience from the past to decide which colleagues will be consulted for
missing knowledge. At BNE, employees are specifically looking for the older and most senior
colleagues to consult for missing knowledge. This difference can possibly be explained by how a
group perceives where the truth can be found. In the case of BNE, scientific argumentation is found
extremely important and experience is linked to the most senior colleagues (as they have seen most
different situations by definition and therefore have a better idea about most complex situations).
At the other departments, more social considerations are made in order to decide who to consult for
help. Collaboration with others somewhere in the past are taken into account, as well as the
relationship with colleagues. In Table 22 this knowledge sharing behavior is linked to the
observations related to the dimension ‘Basis of truth and rationality’.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 21 - Cultural observations linked to the search strategy of knowledge consumers.
Reasons for locating knowledge
Two different reasons for locating knowledge were given. On the one hand, BNBW and BNIZW are
looking for knowledge in order to reuse it, where on the other hand, BNICT is looking for ways to
gain knowledge. Within BNE they are looking for both. Arguments that were used for gaining
knowledge was that the employees would not want to ask questions twice and excessively make use
of others time. Also employees wanted to develop their skills by more actively learning through
gaining knowledge themselves.
79
Correspondingly, with regard to strategy of employees to locate knowledge, similar behavior can be
identified. At BNE and BNICT employees start locating knowledge by searching themselves in
resources that are directly available. In BNBW and BNIZW the employees almost directly involve
colleagues in their search of knowledge. Reasons not to contact colleagues directly were based on
not keeping others unnecessary from their work, as well as being autonomous and not to depend
too much on others. Since both behaviors are related and can be linked to the same cultural
characteristics, these behaviors are combined into Table 22.
gaining knowledge
reusing knowledge
x
start with locating knowledge individually
start with locating knowledge in personal network
x
related organizational culture dimension: Control, coordination and responsibility
freedom to plan own working hours
freedom for own initiative
employees feel big responsibility
not escalate
x
x
x
x
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
BNBW
A difference in organizational culture between these departments is the freedom the employees
have to plan tasks in their own time, and how it is decided what tasks needs to be done. In the case
of BNICT, the employees feel responsible (and therefore willingness to know everything where they
are responsible for) and are operating rather autonomously. At BNE some intermediate form can be
identified, whereas at BNBW and BNIZW, employees do not have that much freedom. The
motivations for locating knowledge can thus be explained in some way by the autonomy of
employees, as can be seen in the table below.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 22 - Cultural observations linked to the motivation of knowledge consumers.
7.4 Knowledge contributor
Pushing knowledge
With regard to pushing knowledge, in BNBW and BNE contrasting behaviors can be found. At BNBW
employees stated that it is disturbing to actively push knowledge to other colleagues. Contrasting
behavior can be identified at BNE, where employees are actively stimulated to push their
knowledge. An example are employees who are telling others about what they have learned at
courses or seminars. The newsletter as well as the departmental meeting are used as a channel for
this. With regard to BNBW, project executors are afraid not to know that what other project
executors do know, whereas within BNE the other way around is true; employees are expected to
share all they know in order to broaden the knowledge of colleagues what can be used for better
consulting reports. Within BNBW, truth and knowledge is rather based in experience of individuals,
where BNE rather work scientifically as employees can use others knowledge and methods and
depend on critical reviews of other colleagues in order to determine what approach suits best. Thus,
80
x
“disturbing” to push knowledge
encouraged to push knowledge
related organizational culture dimension: Basis of truth and rationality
scientific argumentation
x
x
x
x
Table 23 - Cultural observations linked to perception of pushing knowledge.
Motivation for sharing knowledge
Another difference in behavior could be found in the motivation of employees to share their
knowledge. Within the departments BNBW and BNE, employees come up with financial gains as
reasons for them to share knowledge. In many cases a motivation like ‘I share my knowledge in
order to reduce cost of failure’ were used. In the departments BNICT and BNIZW, the motivations
were primarily based on intrinsic reasons as ‘I am sharing because I love to enrich my colleagues
with my experiences’. In this sense a difference in motivation can be seen that is used for why things
are done. BNBW and BNE can be described as more extrinsically motivated, as they are doing things
more motivated because it is expected of them. They are more easily saying ‘it is simply part of my
job description’, than BNICT and BNIZW would use this explanation. So the general motivation for
working is influencing the way they perceive the need to share their knowledge. Extrinsic motivation
will result in referring to the recognized advantages for the company, and intrinsically motivated
employees will refer to what sharing knowledge means to them. This behavior and the related
cultural characteristics are visualized in the table below. On the other hand, what also can be seen is
that this general motivation of an employee is not influencing their perception on financially
rewarding knowledge sharing. As differences in motivation can be found, it could be expected that
also differences could be identified regarding their perception on financially stimulating knowledge
sharing. However, the majority of all interviewees directly answered that such measures would not
work out.
81
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
BNBW
it looks like that what a group views as a source of evidence and truth will influence their view on
whether or not it is appropriate to push knowledge. The contrasting behaviors and the related
cultural observations are visualized in Table 23.
x
BNIZW
BNE
x
BNICT
BNBW
motivation for sharing knowledge driven by financial
Knowledge sharing behavior gains
“enriching others” motivation for sharing knowledge
related organizational culture dimension: Motivation
positions are earned over time
self sustainability a theme to start working
drive to use technical knowledge for solving problems
serving the company
learning and development are very important
transfer of experience to younger employees
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 24 - Cultural observations linked to motivations for contributing knowledge.
knowledge sharing for reciprocity important
x
x
knowledge sharing as an isolated act
related organizational culture dimension: Control, coordination and responsibility
not escalate
x
x
Table 25 - Cultural observations linked to perception of a knowledge sharing act.
82
BNIZW
BNICT
BNE
BNBW
Reciprocity
With regard to perception of an act of knowledge sharing also two contrary behaviors can be
observed. Within BNBW and BNE, it is a norm that when knowledge is being shared, later on, the
knowledge consumer will also contribute his knowledge. They find it very important that an act of
knowledge sharing is in fact a two way ‘transaction’. In the department BNICT, they don’t see this
need and find it normal that an act of knowledge sharing is not automatically followed by an act of
knowledge sharing where the knowledge goes the reversed way. This can be seen as a matter of
trust. In the first, by far, more strictly lead departments, employees have less trust in the intentions
of knowledge consumers and will therefore want to be sure that they can also consult these
knowledge consumers. Within BNICT, employees trust that their colleagues are also open to share
knowledge when they think they can consult these former knowledge consumers. Therefore
knowledge contributors do not worry about what others give back for their act of sharing. The
knowledge sharing behavior and related cultural observations are mentioned in Table 25. Looking at
this behavioral difference, it can thus be linked to the dimension ‘Control, coordination and
responsibility’.
x
x
x
7.5 Social network
Shape of the social network
Looking at the shape of the social network of the departments a difference can be identified. Within
BNBW and BNIZW, there is no structural contact with similar departments of other BN companies.
They are operating rather autonomously, where BNICT and BNE really depend on serving other BN
companies. What can be observed, is that they are sharing knowledge with other BN companies.
Although BNE is also focusing on internal operations, they are by far the most external oriented BN
company. In the case of BNICT, what can be seen is that they only share basic knowledge with their
clients in case of projects involving implementation of hardware or software. This is due to the
differences regarding the core business between the companies. In contrast to BNICT, BNE is
involved in the core business of other BN companies. This is expressed in the amount of knowledge
that is shared between the companies. The internal oriented departments BNBW and BNIZW are not
sharing knowledge on a regular basis between departments of the company or with related
disciplines of other BN companies. In the case of BNBW, there is even only little knowledge sharing
going on between projects that are realized by the same company.
x
x
x
x
BNIZW
BNICT
knowledge sharing in projects, where other BN
companies are involved
no contact with similar disciplines of other BN
companies
related organizational culture dimension: Orientation and focus
focus on internal operations
clients involved
BNE
BNBW
This knowledge sharing behavior can be linked to the dimension ‘Orientation and focus’. As can be
seen in the table below, regarding BNE and BNICT, their clients are involved in their business, where
the departments BNBW and BNIZW are primarily focusing on internal operations. What thus is
suggested, is a link between the orientation of an organization (internal/external) and the shape of
the social network (who/which parties is/are involved in knowledge sharing).
x
x
x
Table 26 - Cultural observations linked to knowledge sharing with other BN companies.
Push & pull knowledge sharing
Another difference that was found regarding the social network of the departments, is the balance
of the way knowledge is being shared. Within BNBW, BNICT and BNIZW, the main ‘mode’ of sharing
knowledge is that knowledge consumers must take the initiative to locate knowledge. In the
department BNE, next to the pull mode of knowledge sharing, also knowledge is being pushed more
frequently by knowledge contributors, for instance on the departmental meeting. This difference in
behavior can be linked to the already earlier mentioned difference in use of more formal knowledge
sharing media. Many of these push-mode knowledge sharing media can namely be seen as formal.
Examples are the departmental meeting, newsletter and the intranet. In the table below the cultural
observations are shown that can be related to the dominant ‘mode’ of knowledge sharing.
83
x
x
Table 27 - Cultural observations regarding the dominant strategy of knowledge sharing within a social network.
7.6 Overview of influences
After identifying the individual influences of organizational culture on knowledge sharing, a higher
level of analysis is possible. By mapping the influences that are found to the related parts of the
knowledge sharing process, patterns can be identified. In Figure 14 the mapping is shown. In this
figure, the dimensions are placed as a ‘sticky note’ on top of the part of the knowledge sharing
process the dimensions are influencing. The position of the dimension ‘Isolation versus
collaboration’ directly catches the eye. This dimension is placed outside the knowledge sharing
process, because none of the differences in knowledge sharing behavior could be related to this
dimension. It will be discussed in more detail below. Below Figure 14, the most striking results are
discussed.
84
BNICT
BNIZW
BNE
BNBW
pull based KS
x
push & pull based KS
x
related organizational culture dimension: Orientation to work, task and coworkers
x
x
x
x
x
x
Figure 14 - Mapping of dimensions of organizational culture to the parts of the knowledge sharing process they are
influencing.
Influenced KS process parts
Looking at the influences that were found, knowledge type is the least influenced part of the
knowledge sharing process. It looks like behavior related to this part of the knowledge sharing
process is more subject to other influences than influences of an organizational culture. In the case
of the knowledge type it is plausible that the context (function of a department, sector and type of
market for instance) in which knowledge is being shared, is more important than for instance the
way time is being managed within the organization.
Knowledge sharing medium and social network are both influenced by two dimensions. With regard
to the knowledge sharing medium, the influence of the dimension ‘Stability vs. change’ is rather
straightforward and already described in literature to a certain degree. The same holds for the
dimension ‘Orientation and focus’ regarding the influences on the social network. The influence
85
these parts have in common regards the way knowledge is being shared, as in this case study the
formality of knowledge sharing is identical to usage of push and pull systems within the social
network.
The behavior regarding consuming and contributing knowledge is most influenced by dimensions of
organizational culture compared to the other parts of the knowledge sharing process. This can be
best explained by the fact that these parts involve more behavioral decisions than the other parts of
the knowledge sharing process. The other parts of the knowledge sharing process, knowledge
sharing medium, knowledge type and social network, are more specific and thus concerning specific
behavior that can be related to these parts.
Most influencing dimensions
Looking at the figure from the other side, four dimensions can be seen as the most influencing
dimensions of organizational culture on knowledge sharing behavior. These are ‘The basis of truth
and rationality’, ‘Control, coordination and responsibility’, ‘Orientation to work, task and coworkers’
and ‘Orientation and focus’. When knowledge sharing behavior is to be changed, with regard to the
organizational culture, focusing on these dimensions can be a good start. However, it is better not to
omit the other influences, since all dimensions have specific influence on knowledge sharing
behavior. Furthermore, for some dimensions, it is hard to change the dominant culture since it can
be influenced by the context of an organization.
Isolation versus collaboration
It is striking that the dimension ‘Isolation versus collaboration’ is not indicated as an influence on
knowledge sharing behavior. This is even more notable since this is one of the characteristics of an
organizational culture that is, in the current literature, seen as a major influence on knowledge
sharing. However, an explanation can be given for this. It can be argued that this dimension is more
influencing the (amount of) knowledge sharing occasions than the behavior surrounding knowledge
sharing. And because of the difficulties of measuring the occasions of knowledge sharing this is left
outside the scope of this research. Looking at the gathered data and making a rough estimation
about the amount of knowledge that is being shared, the influence described above can be
confirmed. BNE and BNICT are having the most open work floor layout as well as more collaborative
aspects integrated in their work. What can be estimated about the amount of knowledge that is
being shared, is that BNE is sharing the most knowledge, where at BNICT knowledge is also
continuously being shared. BNBW and BNIZW are sharing less knowledge, and are also working more
individually.
Besides identifying influences on knowledge sharing, not finding or denying influences can also
enrich the insight on a specific dimension that is being obtained. For example, an influence of
‘Isolation and collaboration’ on knowledge sharing behavior that could be argued is that the more
individual employees are working, the more advanced knowledge sharing media will be used
(focusing on higher reach) in order to fulfill their always present need for knowledge. This influence
is not confirmed, since other dimensions are more accurately explaining the usage of knowledge
sharing media.
Similarity between knowledge consumer and knowledge contributor
Another thing that can be seen in the figure, is that both knowledge consumer and knowledge
contributor related behavior are influenced by two of the same dimensions of organizational culture.
86
These are ‘Basis of truth and rationality’ and ‘Control, coordination and responsibility’. Both on the
side of a knowledge consumer as well as a knowledge contributor, related behavior can be found.
This related behavior concerns the strategy of how to look for knowledge or how to contribute
knowledge and the expectations of how knowledge can be found and what is being expected from a
knowledge sharing act.
However something remarkable can be identified. Expectations on the side of a knowledge
consumer are mainly influenced by the dimension ‘Basis of truth and rationality’, while the influence
that was found regarding the expectations on the side of a knowledge contributor was caused by the
dimension ‘Control, coordination and responsibility’. For the strategies of a knowledge consumer
and a knowledge contributor, the reversed influence can be found. It would be logical that
expectations of a knowledge consumer as well as a knowledge contributor would be influenced by
the same dimension of organizational culture. This is, however, not the case.
A possible explanation for this is the interrelationship between expectations from the one side with
the strategies for the other side. What can be seen is that expectations as a knowledge consumer
are influenced by ‘Basis of truth and rationality’, as well as the strategy of a knowledge contributor.
This finding confirms the interrelationship between the contributing part on the one side and the
consuming part on the other side. In other words, expectations of a knowledge contributor are
influenced in the same way as the strategy of locating knowledge (as a knowledge consumer).
87
Chapter 8
Advice
After researching knowledge sharing behavior within four different companies of Ballast Nedam, and
observing the current state of the knowledge management initiatives within Ballast Nedam, this
chapter will be dedicated to giving recommendations for improvements with regard to the
knowledge management for the whole company. After seeing the company from different angles
during several months and talking to employees with different backgrounds, as well as having the
neutral view of an outsider, some valuable recommendations can be done. It will first start with the
foundation of knowledge management within the company, then some characteristics of knowledge
sharing that typify how knowledge is currently being shared. Finally some recommendations will be
done with regard to knowledge management applications.
8.1 Knowledge management foundation
Although the annual reports of Ballast Nedam mention the importance of knowledge briefly, it
seems there is no formulated knowledge management strategy. An effect of this, is the little
attention that is being paid to the subject, although it is recognized by many employees and
managers as very important. The fact is that actively applying knowledge management does not
happen naturally.
The overall impression is that knowledge management and improvements to knowledge
management are not very centrally organized. From within the business (at different
companies/departments) initiatives are started, without central guidance, to use the solutions (can
be electronic or not) that are used in one place, also at other places within the company. However
with the newly introduced post of director of innovation, there is the possibility to realize this. Since
all new things are unknown at the beginning, also communication is important to get attention for
the activities concerning innovation. The new to be created intranet site dedicated to innovation is
one step. But it is important to integrate knowledge management into this post, or else creating
opportunities for another manager to focus on Ballast Nedam wide knowledge management.
Looking at the usage of the knowledge repository ‘Kenniswijzer’, communication has to be more
effective about KM initiatives, the central innovation and KM page on intranet should be used as one
mean to communicate how knowledge management is embedded in work practices, what systems
are available and how they can be used. What also is the problem here is the ownership of the
system, as kenniswijzer was originally created within one specific BN company. It is now promoted
as the company wide knowledge repository, without having employees that are actively trying to fit
the usage of Kenniswijzer more within working practices.
After studying the knowledge sharing behavior of employees in the different departments from
different companies, a number of observations are done that can be valuable to characterize the
knowledge sharing behavior. Doing this gives the opportunity either to anticipate this behavior
regarding to KM initiatives, or to try influencing this behavior.
88
8.2.1 Initiative for knowledge consumer
Employees of Ballast Nedam are open to help each other almost unrestrictedly. It is however very
important that the one who is looking for knowledge, is the one that should go and locate the
knowledge he is looking after. In many of the departments that were observed, only few pushing
mechanisms were used. Events like departmental meetings are not broadly used as a medium to
push knowledge, for instance regarding the outcomes of evaluations.
In terms of knowledge sharing applications, Dixon (2000) refers to such a system, where knowledge
consumers are the initiator of a knowledge sharing act, as pull systems. Kenniswijzer can in this
sense be seen as a pull system. With regard to the usage of knowledge sharing applications, a
contrasting behavior can be observed. The dominant strategy, described above, to locate knowledge
matches the way knowledge is located in Kenniswijzer. It could thus be expected that the employees
are using this knowledge sharing application (frequently), however the opposite is true. Only a
selective group of people uses the system on a frequent basis (mainly BNE employees). Apparently
there are some additional reasons why this type of knowledge sharing technology does not work at
its full potential at this moment. Turning Kenniswijzer more into a push system could be valuable for
employees. Only to remind them to the existence of Kenniswijzer as a knowledge repository, it
would already be valuable, since many employees do not know the system exists. In the next
paragraph specific attention will be given to improving Kenniswijzer.
8.2.2 Personal acquaintance
A concern for using the large network of Ballast Nedam employees is that personal acquaintance is
found very important. Employees of Ballast Nedam are not usually contacting persons they do not
know in person. They rely heavily on contact from earlier projects and the second level of a personal
network of direct colleagues that can recommend specific people to be contacted for the problem
someone is facing. An observation that is closely related to the preference for knowing other
colleagues face-to-face, is that there is almost no knowledge being shared between disciplines
across BN companies.
In the next paragraph, also some recommendations are given in transforming the face book towards
a yellow pages categorization of knowledge and experiences of the whole company. When
employees were asked whether they would use such a system, they tended to appreciate the idea
and acknowledging that it could be useful, but the majority said they do not need such a system,
since they already have access to knowledge and experience through their own personal network.
To let such a system succeed, communication is again very important, in order to point at the
availability as well as the benefit s of using this system (Bishop, Bouchlaghem, Glass & Matsumoto,
1997). Debowski (2006) also emphasizes the need of making a communication plan or otherwise
bringing the knowledge management program (or initiative) under attention.
8.2.3 Informal knowledge sharing
The majority of the knowledge that is being shared, is shared through informal contact. Although
this is not a bad thing, there are some threats when sharing knowledge in informal networks. Most
of the knowledge that is being shared this way, will not be stored and disseminated to other
employees. To prevent this knowledge from being lost, some formal knowledge sharing can be a
valuable addition (Staab, Schnurr, Studer & Sure; 2001). Staab et al. (2001) further emphasize that
codifying knowledge always come with some costs. This advocates to create an optimal mix of
89
formal and informal knowledge sharing. This formal knowledge sharing should then be used to
ensure that the knowledge is available at least for the whole department. By collecting best
practices or other useful knowledge blocks, this knowledge can then become available to be shared
formally to all employees who can potentially benefit from it. This can be realized for instance by
making one employee per department responsible for knowledge collection. Another possibility is to
dedicate a part of the departmental meetings to knowledge that is gained recently. The result of this
recommendation is that at least one person per department should be spending some time with
highlighting valuable knowledge.
Another way of formalizing knowledge sharing is to insert procedures in the process handbook. By
looking up work that has already been done, or lessons learned earlier, in the initiation stage of a
project, knowledge will be reused and applied. The goal of a first procedure is to create a profile for
the type of project. This can then be used to identify related projects in order to extract and use the
knowledge gained by doing these projects. Including and enforcing the usage of such a step is also
supported by the current policy of using (and re-introducing) the process handbook.
8.3 Knowledge management applications
Within Ballast Nedam, three major KM(-related) applications are in use. Kenniswijzer is the Ballast
Nedam wide knowledge repository, SharePoint is at this moment used in some departments and for
bigger projects. And there is a corporate intranet site, which in time will be replaced by SharePoint.
In this section some specific recommendations will be done.
8.3.1 Kenniswijzer
As some steps are already taken to renew the knowledge repository and to change the Lotus Notes
platform for MS SharePoint platform, the critics that are given below, are probably already
recognized. However, because of the possibility of hearing new critics, it is still valuable to include
these in this advice.
The interviews made clear that limited usage of Kenniswijzer, was mainly based on
disappointing/negative experiences with the system. Amongst others the search functionality in
combination with lacking features for browsing the contents, gave the users a bad feeling, which
resulted in never using the system again. Two important things can be said about this. First the
functionality is lacking, and finally usage is very limited (mostly to employees of BNE and few BN
Infra employees).
Firstly, the knowledge repository lacks structure. There are basically only two ways of retrieving
knowledge. There is normal searching feature, the other possibility is by seeing the new entries at
every visit. The knowledge should be (better) categorized. In this way, the same knowledge can be
found in different ways, where every individual has its own retrieval strategy. Some of these
categories are already available in some way, as the type of knowledge and the location (employee,
department, BN company) where the knowledge is stored per object. Other important categories
that should be stored, are the topic, tags, date added and part of Ballast Nedam where it belongs to
(since knowledge about infrastructure is most of the time not relevant for construction and
development of buildings). By categorizing this way, searching could be done on all these categories
(so on location, title, topic, and so on). The contents of the repository can then also be browsed in
each of these categories. This creates the possibility for persons to look a little more focused in the
90
contents of the repository without having to know exactly some metadata about the knowledge
they are looking for. In this case there is a possibility of accidentally finding knowledge instead of
having to search specifically for it. This will make the system more flexible.
Next to this categorization, tracking the usage of the system should also be an important task. It is
clear that without usage there is no added value. The system should be able to track usage
(searches, retrieved documents, contributions). Not directly in terms of individual usage, but mainly
keeping track of usage by different departments and companies of Ballast Nedam. These figures can
then be monitored (for instance) monthly, in order to inform managers about the usage this to
trigger them to better embed the usage within working practices. Next to this someone should be
responsible for the usage of the system. The most obvious central (Ballast Nedam) wide function to
make responsible for this, would be the Director of Innovation.
Another thing that should be secured for successful usage, is how everyone contributes to the
system. It is important to set up a policy, for how the repository should be managed. From every
department one senior employee should become responsible for managing the documents for their
department. This means someone should be responsible for contributing new knowledge and
updating or removing outdated knowledge. This could be easier when employees can propose their
knowledge to be contributed digitally, so that the responsible employees can efficiently check and
approve the knowledge to be added to the repository. Another advantage of categorizing knowledge
per department, the amounts of knowledge where employees are responsible for are reduced to
manageable amounts.
8.3.2 SharePoint
The current usage of SharePoint is reduced to (large) projects. In this way documents can be easily
exchanged, while guaranteeing the last versions are used with version control. Feedback from the
interviews was focusing on the time that was needed to set up these project sites and access rights
by BNICT. Sometimes it takes too long before the site was operational for the project team to use
during the work activities. Before the site was then set up, the project members are already using email to send documents to other members, which is threatening the version control of the
documents. Reducing the time that is needed to set up a project site, for instance by creating and
communicating a clear procedure (and integrating this in the process handbook), can be a way to
make the usage more efficiently and satisfactory. For BNICT, it is then ensured that the right
information is provided in time, triggering the right actions that are needed to let the SharePoint site
be operational in time. Other issues that were brought up are the problematic access of external
project members (from partnering companies) and the incompatibility of SharePoint with the
systems engineering database that is used.
Per BN company it could also be helpful to have specific company SharePoint sites where they can
share specific information, documents and news. This news feature was another remark made by
interviewed employees. As every company has specific news about projects, policy and other news,
this could be included in the news section of that specific SharePoint site. From this access point,
newsletters can be created to push news from these BN companies to interested employees. This
can then also be colleagues from other companies. The BNE News Bullets are a good example of
such a news dissemination. Every company or department (depending on the size of the respective
companies/departments) can also use the agenda function to share information about events. In the
91
case of BNICT this was for instance indicated as something that could be improved. Since activities
within BNICT but outside the scope of a department can interfere with the activities of other
departments, it is essential that this information is shared. When every employee at the helpdesk
knows for instance that there are some emergency repairs going on, on a specific server, they could
use this information to diagnose problems earlier and more effectively. The information can also be
used for communication purposes, which could lead to more understanding of clients.
8.3.3 Other
During the internship, also a meeting of the ‘young employees’ community of Ballast Nedam was
held about knowledge sharing. Some current practices were discussed, but also improvements were
presented after three interviews with experienced employees from different companies of BN, in
different functions. During the concluding discussion, the fear for not doing anything with the useful
results was emphasized. Therefore a minute was made for this session, in order to store outcomes
and use the recommendations made by the approximately 35 (mainly young and) motivated people
that were present. The most important findings are repeated in the rest of this section.
When introducing new employees, also some time has to be taken to introduce them how to find
knowledge within Ballast Nedam. At this moment, it still occurs that people have never heard from
the Kenniswijzer repository or do not know anything about the current state of the SharePoint sites.
Next to this, doing evaluations and especially reusing this feedback, is not done enough. This was
said to be due to time pressure in order to start up a new project and actually ‘earn’ money for the
company. By better monitoring the usage of the process handbook, doing evaluations will be
ensured. Departmental meetings or creating a best-practice section within SharePoint (in the future)
or just a document with lessons learned that is located centrally within the department, are good
places to store this knowledge centrally. Such a central storage of best-practices or pitfalls will make
it easier to use this information.
The face book (‘smoelenboek’) should more become a yellow pages type of application, in which
directly some background information of employees is given, beside personal information. Project
history and description of expertise can be valuable to find expertise. Improving this application will
have consequences with regard to updating the information within the system. Some people have to
be made accountable for the reliability of the information. Someone has to verify that the system is
updated with the right information. Ownership of the information can thus become a problem. A
possible solution is to reward employees who are updating their ‘profile’ information frequently,
while the manager is accountable for keeping track of the updates. This verification process should
however be established in an efficient way, not taking too much resources.
The last recommendation that was done, was creating an interactive platform. This should become a
wiki-like web application, that can be used to collaborate in creating and expanding corporate
knowledge. Another usage of the system can be to pose questions to experts of the whole company.
Ranking systems could add some value here, in order to find and honor the real experts. SharePoint
could be used as this platform, by expanding the knowledge repository section, where the
topic/discipline could be used to categorize the questions that are asked. After collaborating to
provide an answer, this ‘codified’ knowledge can then also be stored within the repository (in case it
was not already available).
92
It is obvious that these improvements to knowledge management of Ballast Nedam will need some
funding. In the way of developing/expanding the system, capacity to moderate the knowledge
‘platform’, as well as time for experts to codify parts of their knowledge and share it throughout the
company. Since all applications will have their own price, it is inevitable that some choices will have
to be made. By prioritizing systems with the funds that are available, it is possible to ensure that
systems are implemented and maintained as intended and not only introduced with limited
functionality and an unsatisfactory user base. So, the focus should only be on introducing complete
systems.
93
Chapter 9
Conclusion
As the sub questions were mainly formulated to direct the research and data collection, only the
main research question will be answered in this chapter. Furthermore, there is some unavoidable
overlap with the next chapter, where the research will be reflected.
By starting with exploring the studied concepts organizational culture and knowledge sharing, the
research framework could be created. Organizational culture was approached as a dimensional
concept, consisting of eight dimensions. Knowledge sharing was studied as a process with 5
elements, which could be described separately (result of sub question two). With regard to
knowledge sharing, the focus had to be shifted to knowledge sharing behavior instead of actually
measuring knowledge sharing, since it is very hard to measure this. Especially in the case of sharing
of tacit knowledge.
The case study protocol as included in Chapter 5, was used to guide the data collection. The
dimensions of organizational culture were measured both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on
a questionnaire, interview and observation data (result of sub question one). Knowledge sharing
behavior was mainly measured by interviewing around six employees per department. The results
were presented in Chapter 6, where also a cross-case analysis was done (result of sub question
three). In this cross-case analysis, specific attention was paid to the possible influence of dimensions
of organizational culture to usage of knowledge sharing technology (result of sub question four). The
cross-case analysis from Chapter 7 is used to answer the main research question in paragraph 9.1.
9.1 Main research question
Can a difference in knowledge sharing behavior be explained by influences of individual dimensions
of an organizational culture? If so, how?
The main research question can now be answered. There is evidence for a number of organizational
culture dimensions that influence knowledge sharing behavior. By formulating propositions, based
on case study evidence, these relationships are described. These propositions were formulated after
doing a cross-case analysis where the differences in knowledge sharing behavior formed the input.
As some of the links between both concepts are already described in some way in the literature, as
discussed in paragraph 4.2, a reflection is given in what way the findings of this research adds,
confirms or contradicts the findings from earlier research. With regard to the general value of the
findings it can be said that the propositions can be used to create a more detailed view on the
influence of organizational culture on knowledge sharing behavior.
•
•
The basis of truth
In organizations where scientific argumentation is important, more objective measures will
be used to decide who the wisest colleagues are to consult. When truth is seen as personal
experience, more social considerations are made in order to determine colleagues to
consult.
When scientific and solid argumentation is found important, pushing knowledge is more
appreciated than when one’s truth is based on their own personal experience.
94
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nature of time
When work is done with a monochronic time-orientation, coordination knowledge is found
more important, than in case of polychronic time-orientation.
Motivation
Extrinsically motivated employees are sharing for financial gains of the organization or
simply because it is asked from them, where intrinsically motivated employees are sharing
because they like to enrich colleagues with their knowledge and experiences.
This finding complements the literature in that stimulation for knowledge sharing is not
directly influenced by extrinsic motivation. Employees of all departments were negative
towards the usage of bonuses to stimulate knowledge sharing, while the motivations of
these employees did differ (some were more intrinsic/extrinsic than others).
Stability vs. change
When innovations in an organization also concern the introduction of new technologies
(next to changing the work method or adapting the processes), knowledge sharing
technology is preferred over traditional knowledge sharing, then when only work method
related changes are occuring.
When the pace of innovation is higher, also the usage of knowledge sharing technology will
be more advanced.
This finding complements the literature in that it gives a more detailed view on how
innovativeness influences the usage of knowledge sharing technology. As can be seen from
the first influence described above, the type of innovation seems to play a role, not only the
fact that an organization is innovative.
Orientation towards work
In process oriented organizations where procedures are detailed and strictly followed,
formal knowledge sharing is more easily ensured and maintained, than when an
organization is goal oriented. Also in process oriented organizations more knowledge is
being pushed than in goal oriented organizations.
This finding confirms that what can be deduced from the literature. By combining what is
described on levels of formality of knowledge sharing mechanisms and what is known about
formality within the context of doing work.
No specific influences on knowledge sharing behavior with regard to this dimension were
found. It is likely that the dimension isolation vs. collaboration is influencing the amount of
knowledge sharing, as already explained in Chapter 7. For instance this dimension influence
conditions that are needed in order to share knowledge.
Control, coordination & responsibility
When employees have more autonomy, they start with locating knowledge by searching
themselves instead of consulting other colleagues (in order to actively learn the matter and
not to depend too much on others).
Employees find reciprocal sharing important in organizations that are more strictly lead,
than in organizations where employees have much freedom.
95
The last influence is also confirming what can be deduced from the literature. In more
strictly lead departments, trust is sometimes an issue. This leads to the need for systems
where rules and regulations are in place in order to ensure cooperation. This is also the case
with sharing knowledge for reciprocity, which can be seen as a condition for sharing
knowledge.
•
•
Internally focused organizations are more critical in evaluating a collaboration than
organizations that depend on collaborations with other organizations.
The shape of the social network depends on the orientation and focus of an organization.
9.2 Perspective of findings
The findings presented in paragraph 9.1, are all very specific and reflect a high level of detail
corresponding to the research goal. However, also some higher level findings can be formulated. The
first finding regards the personalization or codification strategy for knowledge management, as
discussed by Hansen et al. (1999). It is hard to relate the usage of a personalization/codification
strategy to the organizational culture of an organization. The usage of such a knowledge
management strategy seem to be directed by contextual factors: it is related to the type of work
that has to be done. Examples of these factors are the type of department, the industry or the
environment of an organization. The influence of organizational culture on knowledge sharing
manifests at a lower level than this ‘high level’ decision to pursue a personalization or codification
strategy.
Furthermore, what also can be said is that this research provides more insight on the way knowledge
sharing behavior is influenced by organization culture. Influences of dimensions of organizational
culture are found on specific (behavioral) parts of the knowledge sharing process. This contradicts
the study of for instance Al-Alawi et al. (2009), where the influence of organizational culture is
related to the amount of knowledge sharing (i.e. better relationships, more trust, which will lead to
better/more knowledge sharing). The specific relations that were found are given in previous
paragraph. By visualizing these influences in Figure 15, also some more high level findings can be
done. (Note that this is the same as Figure 14.)These findings will be discussed on next page.
96
Figure 15 - Mapping of dimensions of organizational culture to the parts of the knowledge sharing process they are
influencing.
The parts knowledge contributor and knowledge consumer are most influenced by dimensions of
organizational culture. These influences also show some relatedness between the role of knowledge
contributor and knowledge consumer within the knowledge sharing process. The result of this
finding is that these parts of the knowledge sharing process should get the most attention, when the
organizational culture is taken into account. Furthermore, the dimensions ‘basis of truth’, ‘control,
coordination & responsibility’, ‘orientation to work’ and ‘orientation & focus’ are the most
influencing dimensions. When looking at the organizational culture of an organization, in order to
change or understand the knowledge sharing behavior, focusing on these four dimensions will be
the most effective way to get a good insight in the way knowledge sharing behavior is influenced.
These insights can be used to focus on the most important relationships between both concepts,
what eventually should result in selecting the best measures to stimulate knowledge sharing within
the organization.
97
Chapter 10
Discussion
In this discussion, three issues will be addressed. First, the research will be reflected. In this
paragraph problems and challenges during the research are discussed. Next, the validity of the
research will be addressed. In the last paragraph, recommendations for future research will be
given.
10.1 Reflection
With regard to the usage of the questionnaire as main instrument for measuring organizational
culture, a few remarks can be made. Since there are always limitations for research, it was also the
case in this research. The limited time that was available and limiting the interference with daily
working activities were not ideal. This lead to the choice of using a questionnaire to measure
organizational culture. Although there is evidence from literature that questionnaires can be used to
measure organizational cultures (amongst others Denison & Mishra, 1995; Hofstede et al., 1990;
O’Reilly et al., 1991), the comments made by researchers that have the opposite view like Schein
(2004) for instance, do also have some ground. In this research it was not possible to spot significant
differences between departments on most dimensions, by using the questionnaire. A possible
explanation of the lack of distinctive power of the questionnaire, could be socially desirable answers.
This phenomenon is for instance described by ‘t Hart & Boeije (2005). Looking at the questionnaire
data, it is observable that from the five options the employees could choose, the central (most
neutral) options were chosen the most. It could be caused by employees who do not like to express
their opinions in the case that it is negative or deviating too much with the ‘overall’ opinion within
the department. In this research, the questionnaire was used with a five-point Likert scale, as also
was originally used in the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (Denison et al., 2005). A way to
increase the distinctive power could be to use a seven-point Likert scale. In this way, employees are
offered more choice without having to select the most extreme choice.
Given the limited distinctive power of the questionnaire, an important remark can be made. In most
cases, observations and data collected through interviewing did give a more diversified picture on
the dimension, than when only quantitative data would have been used. By observing and posing
specific questions, the picture on the respective dimensions could be formed more clearly than
when only relying on data from the questionnaire. So, using observations and interviewing as
methods for data collection next to the questionnaire was in the end valuable. A repetitive research
should be done, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, in order to verify that quantitative
insights are significantly worse than the insight gained by qualitative methods.
Knowledge sharing behavior and the knowledge sharing environment (like what knowledge sharing
media are available and used) were particularly measured by interviewing the employees of
respective departments. Some things can be said about the interviewing. The interviews are
effective to get insight in knowledge sharing behavior and the attitude of people, but it is harder to
get a good idea about the (actual) usage of knowledge sharing media. First, as an interviewer, you
are depending on the perception of a interviewee. This will influence how he experiences to apply
knowledge sharing within daily work. But also what he thinks of as knowledge sharing. As
98
interviewer, some experience is needed to get a feeling of how the interviewees actually perceives
knowledge sharing and then being able to respond adequately to that specific perception. This
experience was gained over time, and combined with the interviewees that were willing to
cooperate it both influenced the quality of the data that was collected. Having more time to
investigate or observe work related to knowledge sharing, can also be helpful to get more insight on
the actual and type of usage of knowledge sharing media. This is however a trade-off, where the
research will become more intrusive with regard to the daily work practices. The consequence could
be that managers are more reluctant in cooperating in such a research design, as well as employees
who will behave different than when they do not feel continuously watched. Such a research will
need broad management support as well as some incentives (like process improvements) for
employees.
With regard to cases that were selected, it can be said that getting the commitment of the four case
companies was time consuming. Most of the time it took 2-3 meetings with employees from
different hierarchical levels in order to get permission for researching their department. The time
that was reserved for arranging the commitment of four case companies was nine weeks. This
started with identifying the possible cases and trying to contact the contact persons for these cases.
In the end, there was barely enough time left to conclude the meetings successfully on time.
Because of these delays, it was not possible to arrange commitment from an external case company,
while still maintaining the schedule for the research. In a next research, such external case
companies should be included to get a more diversified picture.
Looking back at the research, one more thing can be said. The goal of a research study is always to
describe a concept as thoroughly as possible. Since this research concerned two concepts, two
concepts had to be described in detail. This resulted in some concessions that had to be done to the
way the study was conducted. A questionnaire was used for measuring organizational culture, only
four Ballast Nedam companies were included in the study and little experience in interviewing within
the context of sharing knowledge are some of these concessions that were made.
10.2 External validity
External validity concerns whether the findings (and theory) that are formulated from the cases
could be generalized to a broader theory (Yin, 2008). In this case, the aim of the study is not directly
about generalizing a theory, it is more about building towards a theory. However some
measurements were taken in order to find more general influences. Especially the selection of the
cases was important. Although all companies are part of Ballast Nedam, all companies are operating
autonomously, in different business environments, what can be seen in Figure 11. Furthermore, in
finding the influences specific attention was paid to find similarities with other departments, instead
of only looking at specific contrasting behavior that was found in one single department. In this way
more generic influences on organizational culture are described.
Since this research is focusing on a construction company, it can be plausible that the influences that
are found are valid for the whole construction industry. But then there can still be a gap between
the construction industry and other sectors. In a future research, this type of validity will be a bigger
concern, and should be countered by focusing on researching other industries as well as competing
companies within an industry.
99
10.3 Future research
The objective of this research was to explore influences of dimensions of organizational culture on
knowledge sharing behavior. In Chapter 9, a number of influences are given as input for further
validation as well as a basis for a more comprehensive theory building, in order to better understand
these phenomena. Future research can be done in a number of directions.
In order to gain better insight in the external validity of the propositions as well as the presence of
other theoretical components, this study should be replicated within another setting. In another
multiple case study, attention has to be paid at differences between companies within the same
disciplines. It would then also be better to include at least two different disciplines in the study.
Results from such a study would give a better view on the external validity of these findings. In case
of such a replicate study, the recommendations that are made in paragraph 10.1 should be included.
With regard to the knowledge sharing behavior to collect and store data as emails and photographs
to serve as evidence, representing different industries in a repetitive research could lead to an
improved insight on whether this can be related to the differences in organizational culture or not. It
could be that this is related to the role of risks within the business environment. Given the research
setting, this could not be proved within this research.
The influence of the dimension ‘Stability versus change’ in combination with other influences on
usage of knowledge sharing applications could be subject of a specific research. In the literature, for
instance technology acceptance is widely described and accepted as a theory for predicting the
acceptance of new technologies. Since researching the rationale behind the usage of technology was
outside the scope of the research, combining the theory around the influence of organizational
culture and technology acceptance into one research, it could result in a more refined insight in the
usage of knowledge sharing applications.
Another direction for future research would be to expand the used knowledge sharing process, as
depicted in Figure 9. As already said, focusing on two concepts, given the time constraints, came
with some concessions. By doing a more thorough literature study on knowledge sharing and the
knowledge sharing process, this could be used to improve the quality and in depth coverage of the
interview. Doing such a research would create the possibility for better theory building.
100
Chapter 11
References
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational
learning: the psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 797–810.
Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge
sharing: critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22-42.
doi:10.1108/13673270710738898
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2006). An empirical examination of the influence of
organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 22(3), 191–224.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management
Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative
framework and review of emerging themes. Management science, 49(4), 571–582.
Barbuceanu, M., & Lo, W. K. (2003). Multi-attribute utility theoretic negotiation for electronic
commerce. Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce III, 15–30.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational
Reward Systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-76.
doi:10.1177/107179190200900105
Behrend, F. D., & Erwee, R. (2009). Mapping knowledge flows in virtual teams with SNA. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(4), 99–114.
Birkinshaw, J., & Sheehan, T. (2003). Managing the knowledge life cycle. IEEE Engineering
Management Review, 31(3), 19–27.
Bishop, J., Bouchlaghem, D., Glass, J., & Matsumoto, I. (2008). Ensuring the effectiveness of a
knowledge management initiative. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 16-29.
doi:10.1108/13673270810884228
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation.
Organization studies, 16(6), 1021.
Blackmore, A. (2004). Improving the use of know-how in organizations by reconciling enablers and
contributors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 112-127. doi:10.1108/13673270410529154
101
Boh, W. F. (2007). Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Inf. Organ.,
17(1), 27-58.
Bordia, P., Irmer, B. E., & Abusah, D. (2006). Differences in sharing knowledge interpersonally and via
databases: The role of evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 262–280.
Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2007). Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex
organizational environments. Knowledge Management Research &# 38; Practice, 5(2), 93–109.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. John Wiley
and Sons.
Chai, K. H. (2009). Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information
Sciences (Third Edition., pp. 3176-3183). Taylor & Francis. Verkregen van
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.proxy.library.uu.nl/246250_751309821_917633623.pdf
Christensen, E. W., & Gordon, G. G. (1999). An Exploration of Industry, Culture and Revenue Growth.
Organization Studies, 20(3), 397-422. doi:10.1177/0170840699203002
Christensen, P. H. (2007). Knowledge sharing: moving away from the obsession with best practices.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(1), 36–47.
Chua, A. (2001). Relationship between the types of knowledge shared and types of communications
channels used. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 2.
Chua, A. (2003). Knowledge sharing: a game people play. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 55, pp. 117–129).
Chung, L. H. (2001). The role of management in knowledge transfer. South Australia.
Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1989). Organizational culture inventory. Human Synergistics, Plymouth,
MI.
Cross, R., Parker, A., & Borgatti, S. P. (2002). A bird’s-eye view: Using social network analysis to
improve knowledge creation and sharing. IBM Institute for Business Value, 1669–00.
Cruz, N. M., Perez, V. M., & Cantero, C. T. (2009). The influence of employee motivation on
knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 478 - 490.
doi:10.1108/13673270910997132
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1999). Successful knowledge management projects.
The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000, 89–107.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Business Press.
De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational
psychologist, 31(2), 105–113.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management. The
Academy of Management Executive (1993), 14(4), 113-127.
102
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of organizational life.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Debowski, S. (2006). Knowledge management. Milton, Australia: Wiley.
Delobbe, N., Haccoun, R. R., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Measuring core dimensions of
organizational culture: A review of research and development of a new instrument. Universite
catholique de Louvain, 1–25.
Denison, D. R., Jovanovics, J., Cho, H. J., & Young, J. (2005). Diagnosing organizational cultures:
Validating a model and method. International Institute for Management Development, Working
paper, 11.
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness.
Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223.
Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A Framework for Linking Culture and
Improvement Initiatives in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 850-863.
Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know.
Harvard Business Press.
Dul, J., & Hak, T. (2007). Case Study Methodology in Business Research. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Edvinsson, L. (1997). Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 366–
373.
Ernst, D., & Kim, L. (2002). Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability
formation. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1417–1429.
Fagerberg, J. (2005). Innovation: a guide to the literature. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Oxford University Press, New York, S, 1–26.
Gammelgaard, J., & Ritter, T. (2000). Knowledge retrieval processes in multinational consulting firms.
International Økonomi og Virksomhedsledelse, Handelshøjskolen København.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1996). What holds the modern company together? Harvard Business Review,
74, 133–150.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some
practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23-30.
doi:10.1108/13673270210417664
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17, 109-122.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations.
Strategic management journal, 473–496.
103
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge.
Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.
Harrison R. “Understanding Your Organization's Character.” Harvard Business Review.
1972;5(3):119–28.
Harrison, Roger & Stokes, Herb (1992) Diagnosing Organizational Culture. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
't Hart, H., & Boeije, H. (2005). Onderzoeksmethoden. Uitgeverij Boom.
Helms, R., & Buijsrogge, K. (2006). Application of knowledge network analysis to identify knowledge
sharing bottlenecks at an engineering firm. In Proceedings of the 14th European conference on
information systems.
Helms, R. W. (geen datum). Redesigning communities of practice using knowledge network analysis.
2007, Hands-On Knowledge Co-Creation and Sharing: Practical Methods and Techniques.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing. Knowledge and process management, 6(2), 91–100.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 15–41.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring Organizational Cultures: A
Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2),
286-316.
Holsapple, C. W., & Singh, M. (2001). The knowledge chain model: activities for competitiveness.
Expert Systems with Applications, 20(1), 77-98. doi:10.1016/S0957-4174(00)00050-6
Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130. doi:10.1108/13673270410567675
Van den Hooff, B., & van Weenen, F. L. (2004). Committed to share: commitment and CMC use as
antecedents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(1), 13–24.
Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual
communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169.
Huotari, M., & Iivonen, M. (2004). Managing knowledge-based organizations through trust. In Trust
in knowledge management and systems in organizations (pp. 1-29). IGI Publishing.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource
Development Review, 2(4), 337.
Jaccard, J., & Blanton, H. (2005). The origins and structure of behavior: Conceptualizing behavior in
attitude research. In The handbook of attitudes (pp. 125–171).
104
Kang, Y., Kim, S., & Chang, G. (2008). The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Work Performance: An
Empirical Analysis of the Public Employees' Perceptions in South Korea. International Journal of
Public Administration, 31(14), 1548. doi:10.1080/01900690802243607
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic repositories: an
empirical investigation. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 29(1), 7.
Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2001). A stage model of organizational knowledge management: a latent content
analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(4), 299-311. doi:10.1016/S0957-4174(01)00015-X
Koehl, M. A. R. (1996). When does morphology matter? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
27(1), 501–542.
Lee, J. H., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). A stage model of organizational knowledge management: a latent
content analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(4), 299–311.
Leidner, D., Alavi, M., & Kayworth, T. (2007). The role of culture in knowledge management: A case
study of two global firms. E-Collaboration in Modern Organizations: Initiating and Managing
Distributed Projects, 199.
Levin, D. Z., Cross, R., Abrams, L. C., & Lesser, E. L. (2002). Trust and knowledge sharing: A critical
combination. IBM Institute for Knowledge-Based Organizations, 1–9.
Lichtenstein, S., & Hunter, A. (2006). Toward a receiver-based theory of knowledge sharing.
International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 24–40.
Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic management
journal, 17, 93–107.
Liebowitz, J. (1999). Knowledge management handbook. CRC Press.
Lin, H. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149. doi:10.1177/0165551506068174
Liu, A. M., Shuibo, Z., & Meiyung, L. (2006). A framework for assessing organisational culture of
Chinese construction enterprises. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13(4),
327-342. doi:10.1108/09699980610680153
Mannion, Konteh, McMurray, Davies, Scott, Jung, Bower, e.a. (geen datum). Measuring and
assessing organisational culture in the NHS (OC1): research report (Research Study). Verkregen van
http://www.library.nhs.uk/Improvement/ViewResource.aspx?resID=332564
Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and
factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 57–93.
McDermott, R., & O'dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science,
5(1), 14–37.
105
O'Reilly, C. A. O., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile
Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. The Academy of Management Journal,
34(3), 487-516.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms.
Organization science, 538–550.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run
corporations. New York: Harper and Row.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative science quarterly, 570–
581.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing
Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of
Rowley, J. E. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of
Information Science, 0165551506070706v1.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New
Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert
Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113–122.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership (1st ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Fransisco: John Wiley and
Sons.
Schneider, W. E. (2000). The reengineering alternative: A plan for making your current culture work.
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Shannon, C. E. (2001). A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing
and Communications Review, 5(1), 55.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.
Soekijad, M. (2005). Dare to share-Knowledge sharing professionals in co-opetitive networks.
Staab, S., Studer, R., Schnurr, H. P., & Sure, Y. (2001). Knowledge processes and ontologies. IEEE
Intelligent systems, 16(1), 26–34.
Storey, J., & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure. Journal of
106
Thompson, M. P., & Walsham, G. (2004). Placing knowledge management in context. Journal of
Management Studies, 41(5), 725–747.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and
absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of Management
Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
Van de Weerd, I., & Brinkkemper, S. (geen datum). Meta-modeling for situational analysis and design
methods. In Handbook of Research on Modern Systems Analysis and Design Technologies and
Applications (pp. 28–38).
Van Muijen, J. J. (1994). Organisatiecultuur en organisatieklimaat, de ontwikkeling van een
meetinstrument op basis van het competing values model. (Doctoral dissertation, Free University of
Amsterdam, 1994). Retrieved from http://dspace.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/15432/1/251.pdf
Van Wijk, C. (2000). Toetsende Statistiek: Basistechnieken. Een Praktijkgerichte Inleiding voor
Onderzoekers van Taal, Gedrag en Communicatie.
Wah, C. Y., Loh, B., Menkhoff, T., & Evers, H. (2005). Theorizing, Measuring, and Predicting
Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Organizations - A Social Capital Approach. In Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 8, p. 252b). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
doi:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.622
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2009). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
Human Resource Management Review.
Wilkesmann, U., Fischer, H., & Wilkesmann, M. (2009). Cultural characteristics of knowledge
transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 464 - 477. doi:10.1108/13673270910997123
Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Pubns.
107
Appendix A.
Candidate cases matrix
Requirements:
•
•
•
•
•
Department size is +/- 10-30 employees. Measuring culture by a questionnaire (20-25 min.)
Must be one department; the highest probability of homogeneous culture
Possibility of observation (+/- 2 weeks); located on department, making notes, sometimes
asking observants specific questions.
Different parts/types of ‘companies’ within BN (the higher the probability to find different
practices around knowledge sharing)
+/- 6 interviews (duration app. 1-1,5 hours each). To be conducted after measuring the
culture, which will be done to decide which cases to select (probably in period of May-June)
Variables
•
•
•
•
•
Location
External influences on knowledge sharing
Probability of having a homogenous organizational culture
Size
Possibility to observation
Comparison matrix
Location
External Factors
Size
Homogenous
culture
Observation
Resultaat
BN ICT
++
+
+/-
+
++
++++++
BNE
++
+
+
+
+
++++++
Avenue2
++
-
+
--
?
+/-
BN bouw zuid-west
+
+
+/-
+
++
+++++
BN infra zuid-west
+
+
+/-
+
++
+++++
External company
?
+/-
?
?
?
?
Other regional
companies
-
+
?
?
?
?
BN Sustainability
++
+
-
+/-
?
++
108
Appendix B.
Research requirements (Dutch)
Onderzoek: De invloed van organisatiecultuur op kennis delen.
Door: Vincent de Jong, student masteropleiding Business Informatics (Universiteit Utrecht)
Korte introductie:
Kennis delen is een belangrijk onderdeel van kennismanagement, en wordt daarom ook belangrijk
bevonden in veel bedrijven. De laatste jaren is er al aardig wat onderzoek gedaan naar
kennismanagement en kennis delen; over wat kennis deling nou precies beïnvloedt, hoe het
afgedwongen kan worden, of hoe condities geschapen kunnen worden om kennis stromen op gang te
brengen. Een veelgenoemde invloed is die van organisatiecultuur. Er is alleen weinig specifiek
onderzoek gedaan naar deze invloed (heel vaak wordt de term alleen globaal genoemd als barrière of
stimulans voor kennis delen maar wordt er niet in gegaan waarom dat precies zo is).
Mijn onderzoek richt zich op specifieke aspecten van organisatiecultuur en hun invloed op praktijken
rondom delen van kennis (op welke manier wordt kennis gedeeld, in welke situaties, met wie wordt
kennis gedeeld, enz.).
Door hier onderzoek naar te doen bij vier of vijf afdelingen binnen verschillende bedrijven van Ballast
Nedam hoop ik een beter inzicht te ontwikkelen in deze invloeden van organisatiecultuur op de manier
waarop kennis gedeeld wordt. Gezien de verscheidenheid aan bedrijven van Ballast Nedam, verwacht
ik in verschillende bedrijven van Ballast Nedam genoeg verschillende organisatieculturen aan te
treffen. Ik heb de volgende bedrijven op het oog:
• BN ICT
• BN Engineering
• BN Sustainability Services
• BN Bouw West
• BN Infra Zuid West
• Project Avenue2
• (Evt.) Extern bedrijf
Allereerst wil ik organisatieculturen meten door middel van enquêtes die door de afdelingen ingevuld
worden. Dit is voor mij een middel om een inschatting te kunnen maken in de mate waarin culturen
verschillen en waarschijnlijk leiden tot verschillende praktijken rondom kennis delen. Op basis van
resultaten van de enquêtes zal ik vier afdelingen benaderen om mee te doen aan het
vervolgonderzoek. Deze zal bestaan uit observatie en interviews (zie eisen hieronder).
Om het onderzoek zo gecontroleerd mogelijk te houden heb ik de volgende eisen aan de afdelingen
binnen de bedrijven:
• Het moet een enkele afdeling zijn; dit geeft de meeste kans op een homogene cultuur;
• Grootte van de afdeling is ongeveer 10-30 man. Bij hen wordt een enquête afgenomen voor
het meten van organisatiecultuur (20-25 min.);
• Mogelijkheid tot observatie. Hierbij wordt ik geplaatst op de afdeling (+/- 2 weken). Ik zal
hierbij aantekeningen over cultuuraspecten en delen van kennis maken en de medewerkers
van de afdeling korte vragen stellen m.b.t. het onderwerp;
• Ongeveer 6 interviews met medewerkers van de afdeling (duur +/- 1-1,5 uur per interview).
109
Appendix C.
E-mails send for filling in questionnaire
Introduction mail
Mail opzet Enquete
Onderwerp: Medewerking gevraagd onderzoek organisatiecultuur en kennis delen
Beste medewerkers van afdeling Constructies,
Graag wil ik vragen mee te werken aan mijn onderzoek. Onlangs, in de news bullets 173 (d.d. 2 april
jl.) heeft Wim al een aankondiging geplaatst inclusief een korte omschrijving. Ik wil je vragen mijn
enquête in te vullen. De link staat onderaan de mail. Allereerst zal ik kort mijn onderzoek toelichten.
Ik ben als student van de masteropleiding Business Informatics (UU), bezig met een onderzoek naar
de invloed van organisatiecultuur op kennis delen. Menno de Jonge is hierbij mijn begeleider van
Ballast Nedam. Bij afdelingen van vier bedrijfsonderdelen (BN Bouw West, BN Infra Zuid West, BN
ICT en BN Engineering) ga ik onderzoeken hoe de organisatiecultuur eruit ziet en kijken hoe kennis
gedeeld wordt en of hier verbanden tussen te leggen zijn. Het praktische doel van het onderzoek is
om inzicht te verkrijgen in manieren en methoden die gebruikt worden om kennis te delen in
verschillende bedrijfsonderdelen van Ballast Nedam. Dit inzicht dient als basis om een advies uit te
brengen over hoe kennis delen verbeterd kan worden binnen Ballast Nedam als geheel. Ik ga er dan
ook vanuit dat je hier aan mee willen werken.
Per afdeling wil ik hiervoor een enquête afnemen, om een indruk te krijgen van de organisatiecultuur.
Daarna ga ik per bedrijfsonderdeel gedurende twee weken observeren en zes interviews afnemen. De
observatie heeft als doel om een globale indruk te krijgen hoe er gewerkt wordt. Voor BN Engineering
heb ik de observatie en interviews gepland in de periode 17-28 mei. De interviews zullen met name
dienen om duidelijk te krijgen op welke manieren kennis gedeeld wordt (zowel intern als naar andere
afdelingen en bedrijfsonderdelen toe). Ik verwacht dat een interview 1-1,5 uur duurt. Heb je interesse
en wil je meewerken aan een interview, dan kun je me dat alvast laten weten per mail of per telefoon.
De enquête kun je benaderen via de volgende link:
http://www.ballast-nedam.nl/modules/Tribal_Enquete/Enquete.asp?i=55&_PTPLOC=MAINCONTENT
De verwachte invultijd is 10-15 minuten.
Alvast heel erg bedankt voor je medewerking. Als je vragen hebt, kun je mailen naar
[email protected] of je kunt me bellen op 06-14775999.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Vincent de Jong
110
Reminder mail
Mail opzet Enquête Reminder
Onderwerp: Reminder onderzoek organisatiecultuur en kennis delen
Beste medewerkers van afdeling constructies,
Begin deze week heb ik jou en andere medewerkers van de afdeling constructies gevraagd mee te
doen aan mijn onderzoek. Tot op heden hebben slechts 5 medewerkers onderstaande enquête
ingevuld. Dit betekent dat slechts 28% van de medewerkers de enquête heeft ingevuld. Om een
nauwkeuriger beeld te krijgen van de cultuur, is het belangrijk dat iedereen deze enquête invult. Heb jij
de enquête nog niet ingevuld? Ik stel het enorm op prijs als je dit alsnog doet. Het kost je hooguit 15
minuten.
De enquête kun je benaderen via de volgende link:
http://www.ballast-nedam.nl/modules/Tribal_Enquete/Enquete.asp?i=55&_PTPLOC=MAINCONTENT
De geschatte invultijd is 10-15 minuten.
Alvast heel erg bedankt voor je medewerking. Als je vragen hebt, kun je mailen naar
[email protected] of je kunt me bellen op 06-14775999.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Vincent de Jong
111
Appendix D.
Questionnaire
112
113
114
115
116
117
Appendix E.
Interview protocol
Interview Protocol
Invloed van organisatiecultuur op kennis delen door Vincent de Jong
Datum:
Naam:
Functie:
Afdeling/BN:
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………
118
Introductie
Dit interview is onderdeel van mijn afstudeeronderzoek. Ik doe onderzoek naar de invloed van
organisatiecultuur op kennis delen. Door dit onderzoek bij vier afdelingen te herhalen, krijg ik inzicht
in verschillen die er zijn tussen afdelingen en kan dat, waar mogelijk, relateren aan verschillen in de
organisatiecultuur.
Het interview is er op gericht om een duidelijk beeld te krijgen hoe kennis gedeeld wordt op deze
afdeling. Daarbij worden er nog vragen gesteld over bepaalde aspecten van een organisatiecultuur.
Allereerst worden enkele inleidende vragen gesteld om de context goed duidelijk te krijgen. Het
interview wordt anoniem verwerkt in een case study report, je naam wordt alleen genoteerd om de
data uit dit interview te kunnen koppelen aan een persoon. Zo kan ik, in het geval dat ik nog vragen
heb, naderhand nog contact opnemen voor opheldering.
Het interview duurt 1 tot 1,5 uur.
Allereerst stel ik wat algemene vragen om een beter beeld te kunnen krijgen van de werkzaamheden
die jij verricht om dit in de juiste context te kunnen plaatsen. Vervolgens vraag ik kort wat specifieke
dingen met betrekking tot de organisatiecultuur. Vervolgens focus ik me op verschillende zaken
aspecten van het proces van kennis delen waarna ik afsluit met enkele algemene vragen over het
delen van kennis.
Inleiding; algemene vragen
Hoe lang werk jij op deze afdeling?
Zou je in het kort je dagelijkse werkzaamheden kunnen omschrijven?
1.Organisatiecultuur specifiek
1.1. Waarheidsvinding en besluitproces
1.
Hoe worden beslissingen genomen? Gebeurt dit op basis van nader onderzoek en harde
feiten, of wordt het onderwerp van beslissing aan een debat onderworpen, wordt de mening van
leidinggevenden heilig verklaard, of gebeurt het op basis van pragmatisme waar men kijkt wat de
oplossing zou moeten doen en dit vergelijken met wat mogelijk is?
119
2.
Als iemand bedenkingen heeft, in hoeverre moet hij deze uitgedacht hebben en baseren op
feiten voordat het serieus genomen wordt?
1.2. Tijd orientatie
3.
Werk je meestal aan één project tegelijk, of meerdere projecten tegelijkertijd?
4.
Wat vind jij ervan als je meerdere taken tegelijkertijd moet doen, t.o.v. taken achter elkaar
af te handelen? Is dat prettiger, functioneler of juist niet?
5.
Hoe wordt er gepland op jullie afdeling. Wie bepaald de planning en wat drijf de planning?
2.Kennis delen specifiek
2.1Kennis type
6.
Kun je voorbeelden geven van alle types kennis zoals jij ze gebruikt? Waar haal je dit
vandaan? [zelf: probeer onderscheid te maken in tacit/explicit]
7.
Kun je een voorbeeld geven van documenten die belangrijk zijn voor jou? Hoe komen deze
tot stand, of hoe krijg jij ze tot je beschikking? Gebruiken jullie veel model/standaard documenten?
120
8.
Kun je de types kennis rangschikken op mate van belangrijkheid voor je werk? Kun je de
keuze voor belangrijkste en minst belangrijkste motiveren?
2.2 Kennisdeel media
9.
Kun je per type kanaal de drie meest gebruikte manieren omschrijven om kennis te delen?
En kun je het gebruik omschrijven? Zie bijlage…
10.
Wordt er op deze afdeling centraal kennis verzameld waarin handige informatie,
documenten (op netwerkschijf bijvoorbeeld), ervaringen, templates, geleerde lessen,
projectinformatie staan? Wat voor kennis is dit?
11.
Spelen deze kennis verzamelingen (handboek, databases, enz.) ook een rol binnen jouw
werkzaamheden, gebruik je ze wel eens, gebruiken anderen het? Wanneer gebruik je ze en hoe?
121
12.
Heb je een voorkeur voor een bepaalde manier van kennis delen (natuurlijk/ict)? Waarom?
13.
niet?
Kun je een of meerdere kennisdeel kanalen noemen die je zelf nooit zal gebruiken, waarom
2.3 Kennis zoeker
14.
Als je specifiek op zoek bent naar kennis, hoe ga je dan te werk? (waar zoek je, zo concreet
mogelijk) Loop je dan tegen problemen aan?
15.
Kun je dat terugvoeren op een bepaalde soort kennis? of bijvoorbeeld terugkerend patroon?
Dus dat je ergens in een proces altijd kennis van anderen nodig hebt?
16.
Hoe vaak gebruik je externe bronnen (mens of systeem) voor kennis?
17.
Welke situatie beschrijft jouw handelen het best? Zoeken waar kennis is en deze
hergebruiken of zelf kennis opdoen door het te ervaren?
18.
Speelt de afkomst van de kennis ook een rol? Kijk je naar de status van een collega? Zo ja,
hoe zie jij die status? Neem je eerder iets voor waar aan of wijs je het af o.b.v. wat je van iemand
vind?
122
19.
Vraag je wel eens hulp/informatie/kennis aan andere afdelingen of andere
bedrijfsonderdelen? Zo ja, bemerk je dan verschil in snelheid van antwoorden? Pak je dit daarom
anders aan dan in het geval van directe collega’s?
20.
Kom je het wel eens tegen dat bepaalde kennis niet toegankelijk is? Dat iemand je bewust
niet helpt als je verwacht dat hij je wel kan helpen? Wat doe je dan?
Kennis bijdrager
21.
Deel je wel eens kennis met collega’s? Kun je voorbeelden geven?
22.
Wat vind jij belangrijk aan kennis delen?
23.
Zou het je stimuleren om meer kennis te delen als leidinggevenden hier extra op gaan letten
zodat je hiervoor beloond kan worden? Denk hierbij dan bijvoorbeeld aan een geldbonus, opslag of
een prijs. Zou dit werken binnen de afdeling?
24.
Wanneer jij bepaalde kennis gedeeld hebt met een ander, verwacht je daar ook zijn hulp
voor terug als jij hulp nodig hebt, of zie jij dit hier los van staan? Verwacht jij hier niets voor terug?
25.
Hoe ga je om met kennis delen als je de persoon waaraan je de kennis deelt niet kent?
(Maakt het hierbij uit of deze persoon is van een andere afdeling of van een heel ander
bedrijfsonderdeel van Ballast Nedam?) Doe je dit anders in vergelijking met bekenden? Verschil in
responstijd?
123
26.
Als je iets nieuws geleerd hebt (aanpak van probleem, professionele kennis, persoon die veel
weet), laat je dit dan weten aan je collega’s? Meld je dit dan, en hoe? Verwacht je dit ook van
anderen?
27.
Kun je een idee geven hoe vaak jij anderen helpt of kennis vastlegt waarmee anderen ook
baat hebben van jouw kennis? Wanneer doe je dit bijvoorbeeld?
Sociaal netwerk
28.
Kun je omschrijven met wie je wel eens contact hebt en wat de strekking is van het contact
met de volgende collega’s:
*Collega’s van deze afdeling:
*Collega’s van een andere afdeling van dit BN onderdeel:
*Collega’s van andere bedrijfsonderdelen:
29.
Weet je van je collega’s op welke gebieden ze nuttige kennis hebben? Hoe ben je hier achter
gekomen? Door opbouw van relatie over tijd of op andere manier?
30.
Op welke manier wordt er hier op de afdeling kennis gedeeld? Is dat meer op initiatief van
degene die naar kennis op zoek is, of doen jullie dat uit jezelf? Dus, gebeurd dit bijvoorbeeld op het
moment dat iemand vastloopt met zijn werk, of wanneer iemand ergens achter is gekomen en dat
wil delen met anderen?
124
Kennis delen, algemeen
31.
Terugkijkend op het (nabije) verleden kun jij je situaties herinneren (bijvoorbeeld een
bepaald project) waar je veel baat had bij het delen van kennis, waarbij het werk soepel verliep. Op
welke manier werd toen kennis gedeeld?
32.
Dezelfde vraag maar dan het tegenovergestelde; kun je je situaties herinneren waarin het
delen van kennis slecht geregeld was, waardoor het werk negatief beïnvloed werd? Zo ja, wat
veroorzaakte de problemen, waardoor werd kennis niet gedeeld?
33.
Komt het voor dat je kijkt of er soortgelijk werk is verricht in eerder voltooide projecten
binnen Ballast Nedam? Zo ja, kun je dan meer vertellen over hoe je te werk gaat?
- Hoe vaak doe je dit, is het incidenteel of doe je dit altijd? Is dit dan een initiatief van jezelf of is dit
een vaste stap in een procedure?
-Kun je hier een voorbeeld van geven?
-Waar of bij wie kijk je dan het eerst?
-Kun je dit soort informatie makkelijk vinden? Wat zou hier beter aan kunnen?
34.
Zijn er ook situaties aan het einde van een project waarin je zorgt dat kennis over het project
wordt vastgelegd? Zo ja, hoe dit je dit?
35.
Wat zou je van collega’s willen weten? Voor welke kennis ga jij te rade bij je collega’s? Welke
collega’s zijn dit?
36.
Een veelvoorkomend probleem is het opnieuw uitvinden van het wiel. Dus kennis/kunde die
op plaats X in de organisatie al aanwezig is, waarvan dat niet bekend is op een andere plek, die
vervolgens precies hetzelfde doen. Wat denk jij, gebeurt dit veel binnen Ballast Nedam als geheel?
En met betrekking tot jouw afdeling?
125
37.
*Optioneel*
Aangezien je nog niet zo heel lang geleden bent begonnen, hoe ben jij ingewerkt? Wordt je aan de
hand genomen, bij wie kan je terecht met vragen? Wordt je meer aan je lot over gelaten? Beviel de
manier waarop dit ging of niet? Kreeg je uitgelegd welke systemen je kan gebruiken?
Ballast Nedam specifieke vragen
38.
Maak je wel een gebruik van de Kenniswijzer, zo ja, wat vind je hiervan? Zo nee, waarom
gebruik je die niet? Kun je vaak vinden wat je zoekt?
39.
Heb je wel eens gebruik gemaakt van SharePoint, zo ja, wat vind je hier van?
40.
Wat vind je van de manier waarop kennis gedeeld wordt op de afdeling zelf? En wat vind je
van de manier waarop kennis gedeeld wordt met andere afdelingen? Kun je aangeven welke kennis
niet goed wordt gedeeld?
41.
Zou je smoelenboek als know-who instrument gaan gebruiken als deze hierin voorziet?
126
Bijlagen
Kennis soorten
Professionele kennis (vakkennis)
Dit is kennis die opgedaan wordt tijdens studie en cursussen, alsmede de expertise vergaard door
het uitvoeren van je werk. Deze kennis is benodigd om je werk uit te oefenen.
Coördinatie kennis
Dit is kennis die vastgelegd is in regels en standaarden. Methoden en een standaard werkaanpak zijn
hier voorbeelden van. Het (her)gebruik van documenten is een ander voorbeeld hiervan. Deze
kennis begeleid het toepassen van professionele kennis. Coördinatie kennis legt vooral vast wie wat
doet en wanneer.
Object gebaseerde kennis
Object gebaseerde kennis is kennis met betrekking tot een object gedurende de verschillende stadia
in de ‘productiefase’ van het bedrijf. Kennis van een project is hier een voorbeeld van. Tijdens de
tenderfase ontstaat er kennis over het project, welke zich ontwikkeld en uitbreidt richting het
stadium van realisatie en beheer.
Know-who
Dit is kennis over de expertise en competenties van andere personen. Know-who zorgt ervoor dat je
weet waar kennis zich welke kennis bevindt. In probleemsituaties waar specifieke kennis benodigd
is, kan deze kennis dienen om de juiste personen te identificeren die een waardevolle inbreng
kunnen hebben in het oplossen van het probleem.
Kennis kanalen
Overzicht van kanalen die globaal binnen Ballast Nedam ingezet kunnen worden om kennis te delen:
Natuurlijk
1.Training
2.Informeel individueel contact (ervaringen)
3.Informeel groepscontact
4.Overleg (verschillende vormen)
5.Proces handboek
6.Bijeenkomsten
gebruikt
ICT-gebaseerd
7.Telefoon
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Smoelenboek
12.Kenniswijzer
13.Projectendatabase
14.Documenten
gebruikt
15.Outlook Adresboek
16.SharePoint
17.Ander systeem…
127
Appendix F.
Case study report BNBW
Inleiding
Dit rapport is onderdeel van mijn afstudeeronderzoek naar invloeden van organisatiecultuur op
kennis delen. De data, die verzameld is gedurende +/- 4 weken, bestaat uit enquêtes, interviews en
notities (welke gemaakt zijn tijdens 2 wekenlange aanwezigheid op de afdeling). Per bestudeerde
afdeling wordt een onderzoeksrapport opgemaakt, waarna deze uiteindelijk de input zullen vormen
voor de analysefase van mijn onderzoek. Het onderzoeksrapport wordt slechts als bijlage
opgenomen in het afstudeerverslag.
De enquête is online gepubliceerd. Deze is open gesteld van 27-04-2010 tot en met 10-05-2010. Na
een extra herinneringsmail verstuurd te hebben op 04-05-2010, is de enquête uiteindelijk ingevuld
door alle zes systeembeheerders, waarmee de respons op 100% komt. De observaties en interviews
hebben plaatsgevonden in de periode 31-05-2010 tot en met 11-06-2010.
Afdelingsbeschrijving
Voor BNBW is de uitvoering betrokken van het project Rokade, te Spijkenisse. Dit project wordt
verder aangeduid met BNBW. Centraal staan binnen de uitvoering de planning, het bewaken van de
voortgang en het regelen van de bijbehorende logistiek. De logistiek omvat het indelen van het
bouwterrein, het op tijd afroepen en doen van bestellingen. Kwaliteitsborging, het binnen de perken
houden van het budget en toezien op het doorvoeren van de bestekseisen zijn hier nauw mee
verbonden. Kwaliteit wordt geborgd door metingen te doen en controle te houden op de
maatvoering. Het budget wordt in de gaten gehouden door toe te zien op aanwezigheid van CAO
personeel en onderaannemers, o.a. door middel van aftekenlijsten. Ook wordt geprobeerd meeren/of minderwerk tijdig te signaleren om hier toepasselijke maatregelen tegen te nemen. De
bouwplaatsmanager heeft wekelijks een overleg met andere leden van het projectteam (de
projectleider en werkvoorbereider) over de gang van zaken, waarna hij dit altijd de dag erna
bespreekt met alle uitvoerders onderling.
Het team bestaat uit 4 uitvoerders en een bouwplaatsmanager. De bouwplaatsmanager overziet de
globale lijn en de uitvoerders zijn ieder voor zich verantwoordelijk voor een apart deel van het werk.
Zo wordt er onderscheid gemaakt in een verantwoordelijke voor het bouwterrein (inclusief
bebouwing en inrichting), de commerciële ruimtes en de kelders. Er is een uitvoerder
verantwoordelijk voor de laagbouw, een voor de ruwbouw en een voor de afbouw van de toren.
Binnen deze specifieke onderdelen van het bouwproces, zijn de uitvoerders verantwoordelijk voor
de voortgang, de kwaliteit, de veiligheid, de inzet van het eigen BN personeel en de manier waarop
onderaannemers te werk gaan.
De bouwkeet heeft drie frequent gebruikte ruimtes. Allereerst is er een kamer waar een uitvoerder
en de bouwplaatsmanager een ruime werkplek hebben en tegenover elkaar zitten. De grootste
kamer, waarin twee ruime werkplekken zijn ingericht en twee kleinere bureaus waar een werkplek is
ingedeeld, wordt bezet door drie uitvoerders. Verder is er nog een vergaderruimte die wordt
gebruikt voor verschillende overlegvormen. Bijvoorbeeld het uivoerdersoverleg, de lean vergadering
en specifiek overleg van het projectteam met leveranciers.
128
Organisatiecultuur
In dit onderzoek wordt organisatiecultuur aangeduid met “een manier van werken die door een
groep is aangeleerd in een proces van aanpassing aan de omgeving en interne integratie op een
manier die acceptabel werkt en als geldig wordt beschouwd, en daardoor wordt geleerd aan nieuwe
leden als de juiste manier van werken.”
Organisatiecultuur wordt in dit onderzoek voornamelijk gemeten door de afgenomen enquête.
Daarbij hebben observaties en interviews ook bijgedragen om inzage te geven in het gedrag van de
groep.
Een organisatiecultuur vormt zich in groepen, over een bepaalde tijd. Door per afdeling de enquête
af te nemen, wordt er inzicht verkregen van de verschillende dimensies van organisatiecultuur die
op de afdeling leidend is. De gebruikte enquête is een vertaalde versie van de Denison
Organizational Culture Survey. Daarbij zijn nog drie eigen dimensies toegevoegd, welke apart
worden besproken. De resultaten van de enquête worden hieronder getoond. Daaronder worden de
toegevoegde dimensies besproken. Extra bewijzen vanuit interviews en observaties worden hier ook
bij vermeld.
Denison Organizational Culture Survey
BNBW
Vision
Goal
Strat
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
EMP
TEAM
CAP
CV
OL
BNBW
Gemiddeld
Agree
Cust
CI
Change
Figuur 1 - Figuur met scores op dimensies. Een score van '0' staat laag en een score van '4' staat hoog.
In de tabel hieronder worden de afkortingen, die gebruikt zijn in Figuur 1, kort toegelicht.
129
Afkorting
EMP
TEAM
CAP
CV
Agree
CI
Change
Cust
OL
Strat
Goal
Vision
Toelichting
Empowerment: De mate waarin individuen de vrijheid hebben hun eigen werk in te
delen.
Team Orientatie: Er wordt ingezet op samen te werken aan coöperatieve doelen
waarvoor alle medewerkers een gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid hebben.
Competentie Ontwikkeling: De organisatie investeert continu in de ontwikkeling van
de vaardigheden van medewerkers om competitief te blijven en tegemoet te
komen aan de bedrijfsbehoeften.
Kernwaarden: Leden van de organisatie delen een aantal waarden die een gevoel
van identiteit geeft en een duidelijk verwachtingspatroon creëert.
Overeenstemming: Leden van de organisatie zijn in staat om overeenstemming te
bereiken op kritische punten. Ook het oplossen van onenigheid hoort hierbij.
Coördinatie en integratie: Verschillende functies en afdelingen van de organisatie
zijn in staat om goed samen te werken om gezamenlijke doelen te bereiken.
Organisatie grenzen vormen geen belemmeringen om werk gedaan te krijgen.
Veranderperspectief: De organisatie is in staat om te gaan met veranderende
behoeften. De organisatie is in staat om de bedrijfsomgeving te ‘lezen’, en snel te
reageren op huidige trends en om toekomstige veranderingen te anticiperen.
Klantgerichtheid: De organisatie begrijpt haar klanten en reageert op input van
klanten en anticipeert op toekomstige behoeften. Ook geeft dit de mate weer
waarin een de organisatie de klant tevreden wil houden.
Organisatorisch leren: De organisatie ontvangt, vertaald en interpreteert signalen
uit de omgeving naar kansen om innovaties toe te passen, kennis op te doen en
vaardigheden te ontwikkelen.
Strategische richting en voornemen: Duidelijke strategische intenties die de doelen
van het bestaan van de organisatie overbrengen en het voor iedereen duidelijk
maken hoe iedereen kan bijdragen aan de organisatie.
Doelen: Duidelijke doelen die gelinkt kunnen worden aan de missie, visie en
strategie en iedereen een duidelijke richting geven voor hun werk.
Visie: De organisatie heeft een gedeelde kijk op de toekomstige staat. Het
belichaamd kern waarden en veroveren het hart en brein van medewerkers, door
begeleiding en richting te geven.
Tabel 1 - Toelichting van de dimensies van Denison Organisational Culture Survey
Toelichting resultaten
De resultaten van BNBW zijn uiteengezet tegen de gemiddelde resultaten van alle onderzochte
afdelingen. Een hoge score wil zeggen dat men goed op de betreffende dimensie scoort, wat
betekentdat de afdeling van mening is dat men dit goed voor elkaar heeft. Hieronder worden de
opvallendste bevindingen besproken. De eerste constatering is dat de scores op bijna alle dimensies
redelijk rond het gemiddelde scoren. Er is een grote afwijking op empowerment en een aantal
kleinere afwijkingen op strategie, klantgerichtheid en veranderperspectief.
Empowerment:
Op het gebied van empowerment wordt het laagst gescoord van alle onderzochte afdelingen. Dit
komt met name doordat men vindt dat beslissingen niet altijd op de juiste niveaus genomen worden
en de juiste informatie niet altijd beschikbaar is wanneer zij hierover beschikken. Een mogelijke
verklaring is dat het grootste deel van het werk dat gedaan moet worden al in detail uitgedacht is,
waarbij aanpassing en eigen invulling vaak niet meer mogelijk is.
130
Strategische richting en voornemen:
Op het item strategie werd ook het laagst gescoord van alle onderzochte afdelingen. Een goede
verklaring hiervoor is wellicht de plaats die een afdeling uitvoering heeft in het hele bouwproces. Bij
het realiseren van een bouwproject als die bij BNBW vinden minder concurrentie veranderende
innovaties plaats. Daarbij is het zo dat de realisatie van een bouwproject relatief ver achterin de
bouwketen zit, in vergelijking met de andere onderzochte afdelingen, waarbij veranderingen aan de
strategische richting van het bedrijf minder snel of duidelijk doorkomen.
Klantgerichtheid:
De uiteindelijke klant is in het kader de uitvoering van een bouwproject de huizenkoper,
woningcorporatie of vastgoedbeheerder. Bij BNBW is het van belang erop toe te zien dat alles
gebouwd wordt zoals dit oorspronkelijk door de opdrachtgever is opgegeven. Zoals eerder al
aangegeven, zal bij een fout van de ene onderaannemer, andere onderaannemers weer vertraagd
worden. De onderaannemers zijn vaak met hun eigen vak bezig waarbij een overzicht ontbreekt,
daar zijn de uitvoerders voor. Deze corrigerende en toezichthoudende taak zorgt ervoor dat de
uivoerders de mening hebben dat de wensen niet altijd goed begrepen worden. BNBW scoort ook
op dit item het laagst.
Veranderperspectief:
Op het item veranderperspectief wordt hoger dan gemiddeld gescoord. Er werd aangegeven dat er
continu nieuwe manieren van werken worden gehanteerd en dat dit niet op veel verzet stuit. Een
voorbeeld hiervan is de invoering van de lean planning en de manier waarop de uitvoerders, zonder
enige ervaring vooraf, hiermee zijn gaan werken en zich ook bewust zijn van de voordelen die deze
manier van werken biedt.
131
Andere dimensies
BNBW
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
BNBW
Gemiddeld
1,5
1
0,5
0
Motivatie
Orientatie op Werk
Controle Coordinatie en
Verantwoordelijkheid
Figuur 2 - Figuur met scores op drie andere dimensies. Een score van '0' staat laag en een score van '4' staat hoog.
Motivatie:
Bij motivatie werd gemeten of men vooral vreugde onttrekt uit het werk zelf (intrinsieke motivatie),
dan wel dat men externe middelen nodig heeft om werk te waarderen (extrinsieke motivatie),
bijvoorbeeld door het salaris zelf, of door bonussen uit te keren. Er werd iets lager dan gemiddeld
gescoord op het gebied van motivatie. Men is meer intrinsiek gemotiveerd. Persoonlijke
ontwikkeling is hier een belangrijk onderdeel van. Aan extrinsiek gerichte secundaire
arbeidsvoorwaarden wordt meer waarde gehecht dan intrinsieke secundaire arbeidsvoorwaarden.
Een mogelijke verklaring hiervoor is dat de gegeven voorbeelden niet geheel van toepassing zijn op
de werksituatie van BNBW.
Oriëntatie op werk:
De dimensie oriëntatie op werk meet of er meer proces gericht of resultaat gericht gewerkt wordt.
Een hoge score staat voor procesgericht werken en een lage score staat voor resultaatgericht
werken. Procesgericht wil zeggen dat de nadruk ligt op werk dat op een vooraf gedefinieerde manier
gedaan moet worden, waarbij doelgericht werk draait om doelen die gehaald moeten worden en
niet zozeer de manier waarop deze doelen gehaald worden. Voor BNBW geldt dat er gemiddeld
gescoord wordt op dit item, iets meer procesgericht dan resultaatgericht. De score komt met name
tot stand doordat deadlines heel strikt worden aangehouden. Als een bouwwerk niet tijdig
gerealiseerd wordt, zoals contractueel vastgelegd is, zijn er vaak boeteclausules opgenomen voor
het te laat opleveren van het project. De voortgang bewaken is de belangrijkste functie van een
uitvoerder. Er wordt relatief laag gescoord op het routinematige aspect van het werk. Ondanks dat
een bouwproject op papier vaak al goed is uitgedacht, komen er altijd nieuwe en afwijkende zaken
132
aan het licht. Verder zijn er altijd factoren die niet ver van tevoren goed in te schatten zijn (bijv.
levering van materialen). Hierdoor is vaak weinig sprake van routinematig werk.
Controle, coördinatie en verantwoordelijkheid:
Hier wordt de mate gemeten waarin men de vrijheid heeft zelf beslissingen te nemen. Op dit item is
relatief de laagste score behaald, dus ook onder het gemiddelde. Er wordt laag gescoord mede door
de gebruikelijke werktijden op de bouw en de aard van het werk van de uitvoerders, waarin zij altijd
tijdens productietijden aanwezig zullen moeten zijn. Dit geeft weinig mogelijkheden om tijd flexibel
in te delen. Verder zijn belangrijke bouwgerelateerde beslissingen al genomen zonder inspraak van
uitvoerders en wordt er relatief gezien veel gebruik gemaakt van procedures (bijv. m.b.t.
aanwezigheid controleren, veiligheid op de bouw).
Overige aspecten
Traditioneel wordt er vanuit de werkvoorbereiding een planning gemaakt welke leidend is voor het
verloop van het project. De inzet van personeel en onderaannemers wordt in het stadium van
werkvoorbereiding al gepland en vastgelegd. Een toevoeging hieraan is de aanpak van de afbouw
van de toren. Hier is gebruik gemaakt van een lean planning. De lean planning komt tot stand door
vanuit de initiële, door de werkvoorbereiding, standaard wat ruimer opgezette planning, te gaan
versnellen door de planning te communiceren met onderaannemers waardoor de verschillende
disciplines beter van elkaar op de hoogte zijn en werkzaamheden op elkaar afgestemd kunnen
worden. Uiteindelijk zorgt dit ervoor dat de tijdspanne die nodig is voor de productie effectief
teruggebracht wordt. Een ander aspect is dat onderaannemers hierdoor meer verantwoordelijkheid
voelen om hun planning zoals afgesproken te gaan halen, om zodoende niet het achterliggende
bouwproces te verstoren.
Verder zijn er verschillende andere zaken, met name vanuit logistieke achtergrond, waar planningen
voor gemaakt worden. Een voorbeeld is de planning van de goederenliften, waarop wordt
bijgehouden wanneer een van de goederenliften nodig is voor een specifieke onderaannemer of
voor werkzaamheden aan de lift. Zo ook wordt een planning gemaakt waarop leveringen van
goederen worden bijgehouden en een planning voor het gebruik van de kranen, aangezien er
verschillende werkzaamheden mee verricht worden.
Qua besluitvorming, zijn de grootste beslissingen al genomen. De grootste bedreigingen zijn
overschrijdingen van de kosten, kwaliteit en veiligheidseisen. Dit zijn items die standaard op de
projectvergadering aan de orde komen. Bij grote overschrijdingen worden de echte beslissingen
door de projectleiding genomen.
Kennisoverdracht
Op het gebied van kennisoverdracht zijn, met name door middel van de interviews, de volgende
aspecten in beeld gebracht:
Kennis type
Er werd onderscheid gemaakt in vier types kennis, waarvan werd geprobeerd een beeld te vormen
hoe daar op de afdeling gebruik van gemaakt wordt. De vier types kennis zijn: professionele
(vak)kennis, coördinatie kennis, object gebaseerde kennis en know-who.
133
Bij BNBW wordt voornamelijk bevonden dat professionele kennis van belang is. Gezien de grote rol
die het toezicht houden en coördineren van werkzaamheden in de uitvoering speelt, is coördinatie
kennis minstens zo belangrijk. Dit uit zich in het continu observeren van de gerealiseerde voortgang
ten opzichte van de planning, het aansturen van het gebruik van de goederenliften en de coördinatie
van werkzaamheden van de kraanploegen. Know-who wordt het minst belangrijk geacht. Hier wordt
ook niet veel direct gebruik van gemaakt. Kennis over onderaannemers en eigenpersoneel is
periodiek (hangt af van looptijd project) wel van waarde wanneer over hen een beoordeling
gevraagd wordt. Dit heeft invloed op inzet van eigen personeel of onderaannemers in andere
projecten. Invloed op de samenstelling van teams op basis van kennis over competenties en
ervaringen is er niet. Verder zoeken uitvoerders op verschillende werken ook niet heel veel contact
met elkaar.
Het gebruik van coördinatie kennis uit zich in de documenten die belangrijk gevonden worden.
Tekeningen en verschillende planningen, bijvoorbeeld van de productie van tunnels, reservering van
de liften en die van personeelsinzet zijn hier een voorbeeld van.
Kennis kanaal
Er is een onderverdeling van kennis kanalen te maken in persoonlijke kennisoverdracht en ICTgebaseerde kennisoverdracht. Bij persoonlijke kennisoverdracht wordt kennis face to face
overgedragen of door een natuurlijke manier. Bij ICT-gebaseerde kennisoverdracht wordt actief
gebruik gemaakt van ICT toepassingen om kennis over te dragen. De meest gebruikte middelen
staan hieronder in tabel aangegeven:
Natuurlijk
1.Training
2.Informeel individueel contact
4.Overleg
5.Proces handboek
6.Bijeenkomsten
gebruikt
3.
1.
2.
ICT-gebaseerd
7.Telefoon
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Smoelenboek
12.Kenniswijzer
14.Documenten
gebruikt
2.
1.
3.
16.SharePoint
Tabel 2 - De meest gebruikte middelen om kennis te delen. De cijfers geven de volgorde van gebruik aan.
Van de twee verschillende manieren om kennis te delen worden informeel individueel contact en email het meest gebruikt. Gebruik van natuurlijke kanalen heeft de voorkeur boven ICT-gebaseerde
kanalen wanneer het kennis delen betreft. Voordelen hiervan zijn het meer directe contact,
waardoor je meer direct een antwoord krijgt en een betere relevantie wanneer je kennis zoekt
(sneller informatie overload wanneer je ICT-gebaseerd kanaal gebruikt). De kenniswijzer en Office
communicator zijn voorbeelden van middelen die niet of nauwelijks gebruikt worden en soms zelfs
nog nooit gebruikt zijn.
Centraal wordt er aan kennis niet veel opgeslagen. Foto’s die gemaakt worden om kwaliteit te
bewijzen en keuzes vast te leggen, en het handelen van onderaannemers te fotograferen, worden
134
wel centraal op de afdelingsschijf opgeslagen. Voor de rest worden alleen notulen van projectteamen uitvoerdersvergadering vastgelegd.
Kennis zoeker
Wanneer de uitvoerders van BNBW op zoek zijn naar specifieke kennis, gaan ze hiervoor te rade bij
directe collega’s en eventueel onderaannemers die op de bouwplaats rondlopen. Het type kennis
waar men naar op zoek is verschilt. Meestal gaat het om vakkennis, maar het komt ook voor dat het
object-gebaseerde kennis betreft. Dus meer specifieke informatie over het huidige werk of een werk
uit het verleden. Deze kennis kan bijvoorbeeld worden aangeleverd door de werkvoorbereiding.
In het verlengde van de zoektocht naar kennis wordt ook door BNBW aangegeven op zoek te zijn
naar waar kennis beschikbaar is, om het uiteindelijk te hergebruiken. Het is niet de insteek om
kennis die ontbreekt zelf te ontwikkelen. Pas de kennis die ontbreekt dusdanig van belang is, wordt
bijvoorbeeld afgewogen zelf kennis op te doen door een gerichte cursus te volgen.
Eerdere ervaringen met mensen zijn de basis om de verkregen kennis op waarde te schatten. Ook is
het zo dat deze eerdere ervaringen vaak bepalend zijn of men in de toekomst nog voor kennis of
ervaringen te raden zal gaan bij deze personen.
Op zoek naar hulp in de vorm van ervaringen of specifieke kennis komt het wel voor dat andere
bedrijfsonderdelen van BN om hulp worden gevraagd. De geboden hulp wordt niet anders ervaren
dan wanneer directe collega’s om hulp gevraagd wordt.
Kennis bijdrager
Wanneer er door BNBW kennis gedeeld wordt, is dit vaak op initiatief van de kennis zoeker. Het
wordt niet op prijs gesteld als er actief kennis gedeeld wordt en men laat blijken wat men allemaal
weet. Een motivatie voor BNBW om kennis te delen is vooral om niet het wiel opnieuw uit te vinden
en daarmee faalkosten terug te brengen.
Het stimuleren van kennisoverdracht door bonussen en bijv. salarisverhogingen in het vooruitzicht
te stellen zal voor BNBW niet gaan werken. Het delen van kennis wordt al gezien als onderdeel van
de standaard beloning. Bijvoorbeeld dat vanwege de hoeveelheid ervaring (en vaak hogere functie)
ook verwacht wordt dat men een mentor rol op zich nemen om de minder ervaren en vaak jonge
collega’s op weg te helpen.
BNBW is van mening dat wanneer hulp wordt geboden, er ook wat terug verwacht mag worden. In
principe gebeurt dit echter automatisch. Belangrijk is dat men open staat voor elkaar en het bieden
van hulp (in de zin van ervaringen en kennis delen) als vanzelfsprekend ziet. Voor de
vanzelfsprekendheid is het belangrijk te weten dat er door anderen (bijv. directe collega’s) tijd wordt
geïnvesteerd om de gevraagde hulp te bieden, waardoor het gewoon is dat er ook hulp de andere
kant op geboden wordt als dat van toepassing is.
Het delen van kennis met onbekende collega’s, zal niet anders verlopen dan wanneer het bekende
collega’s betreft. Een afweging die wel op de loer ligt is wat het belang hierin is van het project dat
men onder handen heeft. Dit kan ervoor zorgen dat men minder tijd/aandacht kan besteden.
135
Als een van de uitvoerders iets nieuws geleerd heeft komt het wel voor dat hij dit deelt met
collega’s. Vaak gebeurd dit op ad hoc basis met degenen die op dat moment aanwezig zijn of op
later moment wanneer de kennis relevant lijkt voor anderen.
Sociaal netwerk
Het contact dat uitvoerders hebben lijkt erg afhankelijk en bepalend door het project dat men moet
realiseren. Binnen het project is er frequent informeel contact om elkaar op de hoogte te houden en
elkaar, waar nodig, aan te vullen. Het formele contact verloopt via een wekelijks werkoverleg. Het
contact met uitvoerders van BNBW die op andere projecten zitten, is vooral gereduceerd tot het
uitvoerdersoverleg dat ongeveer 2 a 3 keer per jaar gehouden wordt. Verder is er incidenteel
contact met uitvoerders die men kent uit eerdere projectteams.
Het contact met andere afdelingen binnen BNBW bestaat voornamelijk uit contact met
werkvoorbereiders. Het kan hier gaan om vragen over een planning en bestellingen, maar ook
feedback over bijvoorbeeld gebruikte methoden en delen van het werkplan.
Zoals eerder al aangegeven is er nauwelijks contact met andere bedrijfsonderdelen. Het idee dat
binnen BNBW bestaat is dat men wel voor samenwerking open staat als de situatie hier om vraagt.
Ervaringen uitwisselen tussen uitvoerders van andere regio’s of van BNB Speciale Projecten komt
niet voor. Een belangrijke oorzaak hiervoor is dat men mensen van andere bedrijfsonderdelen niet
kennen, terwijl er juist veel waarde aan gehecht wordt om elkaar persoonlijk te kennen, waardoor er
geen ondergrond is om met elkaar in contact te komen.
De manier waarop kennis gedeeld wordt kan worden getypeerd als ‘pull’. Het betekent dat eigen
initiatief belangrijk is. Men is wel bereid om te helpen, maar dan moet er wel om hulp gevraagd
worden. Er wordt benadrukt dat juist het actief delen van kennis minder op prijs gesteld wordt. Ook
wordt er over het algemeen bevonden dat het niet gebruikelijk is om als uitvoerder hulp te vragen of
ervaringen uit te wisselen met andere uitvoerders. Dit omdat men zich dan kwetsbaar opstelt met
de mogelijkheid scheef aangekeken te worden omdat men niet beschikt over gevraagde kennis.
Algemeen
Kijkend naar de huidige situatie zijn er een aantal zaken die goed gaan en een aantal dingen die
beter kunnen. Een voorbeeld van wat goed gaat binnen het team, is het elkaar op de hoogte houden
waar men mee bezig is. In informele setting wordt altijd wel geprobeerd contact te houden, waarbij
altijd wel iets dat gerelateerd is aan het werk voorbij komt.
Verbeterpunten liggen er rondom het contact met uitvoerders op andere projecten, zowel binnen
als buiten de regio. Er is nog te weinig bewustzijn van de waarde van ervaringen die anderen al
opgedaan hebben. Anderzijds is het lastig om dit contact te krijgen omdat uitvoerders onderling van
elkaar vaak niet goed weten wat men aan het doen is. Voor veel van dit contact is projectinformatie
noodzakelijk, wat eigenlijk alleen maar via de projectleiders bemachtigd kan worden.
136
Appendix G.
Case study report BNE
Inleiding
door 17 van de 18 aangeschreven medewerkers van Constructies, waarmee de respons op 94%
komt. De observaties en interviews hebben plaatsgevonden in de periode 17-05-2010 tot en met 2805-2010.
De afdeling Constructies van BNE heeft een leidende rol in het ontwerp van constructies, waarin
meerdere afdelingen van BNE betrokken worden. Opdrachten komen meestal binnen via BN Infra
Projecten of een van de regiobedrijven. Ook komt het voor dat BNE betrokken wordt in
internationale projecten, welke binnen komen via BN International. Constructies wordt tijdens het
hele bouwproces, van ontwikkeling tot beheer betrokken. Het werk van BNE begint met ontwikkelen
een voorontwerp waarin verschillende scenario’s gemaakt kunnen worden. Hierbij geeft het BNE
team advies over de voordelen en nadelen, waarna de opdrachtgever een keuze maakt voor een
ontwerp. Dit ontwerp zal vervolgens, naarmate het project zich richting de realisatiefase begeeft,
worden uitgewerkt in detailontwerpen.
Projecten komen intern (binnen BNE) onder leiding te staan van een ontwerpleider. Deze stuurt het
team van verschillende BNE disciplines aan. Een belangrijk onderdeel hiervan is het maken van
planningen, begrotingen en het waarborgen van de kwaliteit. Constructeurs zijn belast met het
maken van berekeningen van constructies (zoals bijv. damwanden en bouwkuipen). De krachten die
op constructies werken worden berekend en afgezet tegen de capaciteit ervan.
Afhankelijk van het type project en de wens/eis van de opdrachtgever, kan gewerkt wordt volgens
de systems engineering methodiek. Er zijn binnen Constructies system engineers werkzaam die
binnen projecten de taak hebben om deze gestructureerde manier van werken te waarborgen.
De afdeling Constructies is een grote open ruimte waarin vier eilanden (afgescheiden door halfhoge
kasten) van twee keer vier bureaus zijn ingericht. Het zijn grote bureaus die bij de ene medewerker
helemaal vol ligt met documenten, ordners en tekeningen en bij de andere bijna leeg is. Ook de
afdelingsleider heeft een plek op deze kamer. Door deze indeling is het voor medewerkers
laagdrempelig om bij collega’s langs te lopen. Verschillende bureaus zijn afwisselend bevolkt,
aangezien een aantal medewerkers, die (deels) werken op grotere projecten, vaak op een externe
locatie werken.
137
Organisatiecultuur
groep.
bij vermeld.
Vision
Goal
Strat
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
BNE
EMP
TEAM
CAP
CV
OL
BNE
Gemiddeld
Agree
Cust
CI
Change
138
Afkorting
EMP
TEAM
CAP
CV
Agree
CI
Change
Cust
OL
Strat
Goal
Vision
Toelichting
delen.
Tabel 3 - Toelichting van de dimensies van Denison Organisational Culture Survey.
De resultaten van Constructies zijn uiteengezet tegen de gemiddelde resultaten van alle
onderzochte afdelingen. Een hoge score wil zeggen dat men goed op de betreffende dimensie
scoort, wat betekentdat de afdeling van mening is dat men dit goed voor elkaar heeft. Hieronder
worden de opvallendste bevindingen besproken. Hieronder worden de opvallendste bevindingen
besproken. Op bijna alle dimensies scoort Constructies gemiddeld. Enkele kleine uitschieters zijn te
zien: op ‘competentie ontwikkeling’ scoort Constructies hoger dan gemiddeld. Op de dimensie
‘doelen’ en ‘veranderperspectief’ scoort Constructies lager.
De afdeling scoort van alle afdelingen het laagst op het gebied van veranderperspectief, mede
doordat men vindt dat er niet goed wordt samengewerkt tussen verschillende afdelingen van BNE
om veranderingen teweeg te brengen. Daarbij is men ook van mening dat er slecht gereageerd
wordt op de ontwikkelingen bij concurrenten en andere veranderingen in de bedrijfsomgeving.
139
Doelen:
Een andere dimensie waarop slechter dan gemiddeld gescoord wordt, zijn de doelen. Het vastleggen
wordt wel gedaan, maar overeenstemming van de doelen en het relateren van voortgang aan de
gestelde doelen gebeurt minder nadrukkelijk.
Competentie ontwikkeling:
Competentie ontwikkeling wordt bovengemiddeld op gescoord. De medewerkers van Constructies
zijn van mening dat iedereen zich continu ontwikkelt en dat er geïnvesteerd wordt in de
vaardigheden van medewerkers. Dit werd ook bevestigd tijdens een van de interviews waarin
gesteld werd dat er genoeg mogelijkheden zijn om cursussen te volgen, waarbij soms de toepassing
voor de praktijk wel eens uit het oog verloren lijkt te gaan. Wat op de afdeling nog wel beter kan is
erkenning dat de vaardigheden van het personeel de belangrijkste bron van concurrentievoordeel is.
Overeenstemming:
Op de dimensie ‘overeenstemming’ wordt het laagst gescoord van alle afdelingen. Het algemene
oordeel is echter nog altijd dat men op een lijn ligt. Tijdens mijn aanwezigheid vonden vele
discussies plaats, waarbij op basis van argumenten werd gediscussieerd. Uiteindelijk werd er altijd
wel overeenstemming bereikt. Dit werd ook bevestigd in interviews.
Coördinatie en integratie
Dit zit op een niveau dat hoger ligt dan het gemiddelde. De consistente werkaanpak scoort
gemiddeld gezien hoog. Dit word grotendeels afgedwongen door het kwaliteitssysteem dat duidelijk
voorschrijft hoe gewerkt dient te worden. Verder wordt het hoogst gescoord op de geïntegreerde
werkaanpak en samenwerking met andere afdelingen en bedrijfsonderdelen. Dit wordt ondersteund
door de rol die BNE speelt in projecten. Goede samenwerking is vereist tussen de verschillende
disciplines om projecten succesvol te voltooien.
140
Andere dimensies
BNE
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
BNE
Gemiddeld
1,5
1
0,5
0
Motivatie
Orientatie op Werk
Motivatie:
Bij motivatie werd gemeten of men vooral vreugde onttrekt uit het werk zelf (intrinsieke motivatie),
dan wel dat men externe middelen nodig heeft om werk te waarderen (extrinsieke motivatie),
bijvoorbeeld door het salaris zelf, of door bonussen uit te keren. Er werd gemiddeld gescoord op het
gebied van motivatie. Men is meer intrinsiek gemotiveerd. Persoonlijke ontwikkeling is hier een
belangrijk onderdeel van.
Oriëntatie op werk
niet zozeer de manier waarop deze doelen gehaald worden. Voor BNE geldt dat het werk niet
routinematig is, maar deadlines wel ‘hard’ zijn en een juiste volgorde heel belangrijk is. Dit ligt
verankerd in het kwaliteitssysteem. Eerst worden tekeningen en berekeningen gecontroleerd door
een ontwerpleider of andere aangewezen collega, waarna afdelingsleider of ook nog een controle
uitvoeren. Als deze volgorde niet aangehouden wordt, is het geen definitieve versie en kan hij niet
aan de klant voorgelegd worden. De manier van werken is meer proces georiënteerd dan resultaat
georiënteerd..
Controle, coördinatie en verantwoordelijkheid
Hier wordt de mate gemeten waarin men de vrijheid heeft zelf beslissingen te nemen. Bij BNE geldt
141
dat de medewerkers wel veel vrijheid hebben hun eigen tijd in te delen, maar minder vrij zijn om
beslissingen te nemen over het ontwerp van constructies, dit zal altijd in overleg moeten gebeuren
met ontwerpleider, afdelingsleider en/of operationeel manager, gebaseerd op steekhoudende
argumenten.
Overige aspecten
Planning wordt in grote lijnen gedaan door de afdelingsleider, die houdt een overzicht bij met alle
projecten die lopen en de mankracht die ervoor benodigd is en ingezet is. Ontwerpleiders worden
toegewezen aan projecten en zij dienen een planning te maken van de inzet van mankracht, waarna
de afdelingsleider hierover geïnformeerd wordt.
Onder leiding van een ontwerpleider, draagt men vaak, binnen de eisen van een opdrachtgever,
verschillende ontwerpen aan. BNE heeft een adviserende rol, waarbij altijd gekeken wordt naar
minimum eisen waaraan constructies moeten voldoen. Vervolgens wordt er dan een van de
voorgelegde ontwerpen verder uitgewerkt wordt in detail naarmate het project vordert. Binnen BNE
wordt, zoals eerder al beschreven een kwaliteitssysteem gehanteerd. Hierdoor worden tekeningen
en berekeningen altijd minimaal twee keer gecontroleerd (eerst door een collega of ontwerpleider
en daarna door de afdelingsleider of operationeel manager). Op deze manier wordt er afgedwongen
dat er overleg is over keuzes gemaakt in de ontwerpen en heeft uiteindelijk de afdelingsleider of
operationeel manager de verantwoordelijkheid.
Kennisoverdracht
Kennis type
(vak)kennis, coördinatie kennis, object gebaseerde kennis en know-who. Belangrijke documenten
geven een indicatie over hoe deze kennis gebruikt wordt.
De standaardwerkaanpak, voorgeschreven in het kwaliteitssysteem, drukt een grote stempel op het
werk. Dit is een vorm van coördinatie kennis.
Professionele kennis is de kennis over berekeningen en constructies, eigenschappen van materialen.
Naar verloop van tijd kan men specialismen ontwikkelen.
Object gebaseerde kennis is de kennis over projecten. Voor BNE gaat het hier vaak om de eisen die
het kader vormen voor het ontwerp. Ook tekeningen spelen een belangrijke rol.
Know-who: men is vooral naar verloop van tijd op de hoogte over kennisgebieden van de collega’s
van Constructies.
Kennis wordt vooral benaderd in termen van ervaring met bepaalde berekeningen/type werken. Als
men op zoek is naar overeenkomende projecten gaat men nooit alleen van tekeningen en
berekeningen uit, maar zal altijd geprobeerd worden meer achtergrondinformatie in de zin van
ervaringen en ontwerpbeslissingen van directe betrokkenen te achterhalen.
Kennis kanaal
Er is een onderverdeling van kennis kanalen te maken in persoonlijke kennisoverdracht en ICT142
gebaseerde kennisoverdracht. Bij persoonlijke kennisoverdracht wordt kennis face to face
Natuurlijk
1.Training
4.Overleg
5.Proces handboek
6.Bijeenkomsten
gebruikt
3.
1.
2.
ICT-gebaseerd
7.Telefoon
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Smoelenboek
12.Kenniswijzer
14.Documenten
gebruikt
2.
1.
3.
16.SharePoint
Er is binnen Constructies een voorkeur voor het gebruik van natuurlijke kennis kanalen. Met name
doordat het goed gebruikt kan worden om ervaringen te delen maar ook omdat het makkelijk
gebruikt kan worden om doorverwezen te worden naar kennisbronnen.
Een nauwelijks gebruikte manier om te informatie en kennis te delen is de Office Communicator.
Men ziet er het nut niet van in, en ter vergelijking met e-mail wordt er niets vastgelegd. Daarom
heeft men een voorkeur voor gebruik van e-mail.
Op de afdeling wordt +/- 2 maandelijks een afdelingsoverleg ingepland, dat in het teken staat van
iedereen op de hoogte stellen van de projecten die op dat moment spelen. Ook welke mogelijk in de
toekomst aangenomen zullen worden. Een of twee medewerkers van de afdeling wordt gevraagd
zijn/haar ervaring te delen over een bepaald project, of neemt daartoe zelf het initiatief. Een andere
manier die wordt gebruikt om kennis te delen is via de nieuwsbrief, BNE News Bullets. Deze
nieuwsbrief wordt wekelijks op alle afdelingen van BNE verspreidt.
Kennis wordt centraal opgeslagen in verschillende systemen. Er wordt gebruik gemaakt van
Windchill, waarin berekeningsrapporten, standaardrapporten, in- en externe communicatie). Verder
wordt de BNE intranetsite ook gebruikt om bijvoorbeeld best practices te delen. Deze best practices
zijn gevalideerde spreadsheets met standaardberekeningen. Verder wordt de kenniswijzer ook
redelijk vaak gebruikt. De afdelingsschijf wordt gebruikt om overige project informatie te raadplegen
en deze informatie in op te slaan.
Kennis zoeker
Medewerkers van Constructies gaan, als ze op zoek zijn naar kennis, veelal eerst zelf zoeken op
internet of bijvoorbeeld in de kenniswijzer. Dit wordt onder andere gedaan om collega’s niet
onnodig te storen. Pas als men er op deze manier zelf niet uit komt, of nadere informatie wil, zal
men zich richten tot een collega. De type kennis waar men naar op zoek is, is vaak vakkennis of
object gebaseerde kennis.
143
Er is een lichte voorkeur voor het hergebruiken van kennis, waarbij aangegeven wordt dat er gezocht
wordt naar een manier om kennis van anderen te gebruiken als basis om vervolgens eigen
producten te maken. Een voorbeeld hiervan is het hergebruiken delen/passages van
berekeningsrapporten.
De minder ervaren medewerkers gaven aan zelf altijd gericht hulp te vragen bij ervaren werknemers.
Ook werd aangegeven altijd kritisch de gegeven informatie te beoordelen en niet blind iets aan te
nemen. Er wordt altijd ervaren dat men behulpzaam is, en kennis nooit wordt afgeschermd.
Kennis bijdrager
Op de afdeling Constructies is het gebruikelijk om op verschillende manieren kennis te delen. Een
veel voorkomende manier is informeel individueel contact. Het is dan gebruikelijk dat een minder
ervaren medewerkers aan het bureau van de meer ervaren medewerkers langs gaan om
bijvoorbeeld een berekening door te spreken, of advies te vragen. Anderzijds vindt er ook
kennisoverdracht plaats, dat afgedwongen wordt door het kwaliteitssysteem. Hierdoor worden altijd
de ervaringen van ontwerpleiders en het afdelingshoofd en de operationeel manager betrokken. Het
afdelingsoverleg is een andere mogelijkheid om kennis te delen. Dit wordt ongeveer een keer in de
twee maanden gehouden. Medewerkers van de afdeling worden dan bijvoorbeeld gevraagd om hun
ervaringen delen over een project, of over de inhoud van een gevolgde cursus. Verder is er nog een
apart Ontwerpleiders overleg (+/- 4 x per jaar) en een Systems Engineering overleg (tweewekelijks).
Wat de afdeling motiveert om kennis te delen, is dat het hele bedrijf (en daarmee de afdeling) kan
profiteren van wat er allemaal gedaan is en dat men allemaal bijdraagt om een beter product te
leveren.
Geconfronteerd met de vraag of financiële prikkels (salarisverhoging of bonussen) een stimulans
zouden zijn om meer kennis te delen was het antwoord overduidelijk dat dit niet zal werken. Het
wordt eigenlijk al als onderdeel gezien van de taakomschrijving, mede ook omdat het delen van
kennis plaats vindt tijdens werktijd.
De meeste medewerkers van Constructies verwachten hulp terug als zijn hun tijd en kennis
beschikbaar hebben gesteld aan hun collega’s. Op het moment dat men geen of te weinig hulp
ervoor terug krijgen, zal men zelf ook terughoudender worden om deze collega’s te helpen.
Wanneer onbekenden, bijvoorbeeld nieuwe collega’s of collega’s van andere bedrijfsonderdelen
vragen om kennis, is men bereid gewoon te helpen alsof men te maken heeft met directe collega’s
van de afdeling. Enige afwegingen die wel worden gemaakt is of de verkregen kennis ingezet wordt
voor Ballast Nedam of een extern bedrijf. Prioriteiten worden ook afgewogen. Als er
werkzaamheden voor een project gedaan moeten worden, wordt dit altijd voorrang gegeven boven
het helpen van onbekende collega’s.
Het delen van nieuw opgedane kennis die als relevant wordt gezien voor anderen, wordt gedeeld in
afdelingsoverleg en de news bullets. Verder komt het ook voor dat het informeel en op ad hoc basis
gedaan wordt met collega’s die in de buurt zijn.
Sociaal netwerk
Op de afdeling Constructies is er vaak tussen de aanwezige collega’s face to face contact. Hier maakt
men bijvoorbeeld gebruik van als men met vragen zit. Met collega’s die op externe op projecten
144
zitten is er minder contact. Het contact bestaat dan meestal uit specifieke vragen binnen het
vakgebied van de ‘externe’ collega. Het contact wordt dan meestal via e-mail of telefoon gelegd.
Gezien de centrale rol die Constructies speelt binnen BNE, is er ook relatief veel contact met de
andere afdelingen van BNE. Dit contact verloopt ook vaak face to face, maar heeft wel een formele
achtergrond. Allereerst moet er een akkoord zijn over de inzet van mankracht, waarbij het contact
verloopt via de afdelingsleider. Daarna kan een ontwerpleider gebruik maken van de inzet van BNE
collega’s. Met collega’s van andere bedrijfsonderdelen is men projectmatig betrokken. Het gaat dan
voornamelijk om Infra bedrijven, waarbij er contact is met BN Infra Projecten en BN Infra
regiobedrijven. Hier werd verder nog over opgemerkt dat samenwerking met Infra Projecten
makkelijker en soepeler verloopt dan met Infra regiobedrijven. Infra Projecten zijn zich meer bewust
van de samenwerking die moet plaats vinden en Infra regiobedrijven benaderen BNE meer in de
traditionele rol van onderaannemer.
Onderscheid makend tussen twee manieren waarop kennis gedeeld kan worden, het actief
verspreiden van kennis (push) en het ophalen van kennis (pull), is er binnen de afdeling Constructies
niet echt de overhand voor een van deze manieren. De pull-functie van het netwerk is standaard
aanwezig en wordt ook aangemoedigd door de open afdeling waarbij alle medewerkers toegankelijk
zijn voor elkaar. Alleen er zijn ook groot aantal initiatieven en mogelijkheden die gebruikt worden
om kennis te ‘pushen’. De BNE News Bullets, afdelingsoverleg (daarbij ook het
Ontwerpleidersoverleg en Systems Engineering overleg) en de kenniswijzer (waaraan kennis
toegevoegd kan worden) zijn hier voorbeelden van.
Algemeen
Het terugkijken naar eerder voltooide werken is een stap die door bijna alle medewerkers van
Constructies worden gedaan. Op deze manier wordt gebruik gemaakt van eerder ontwikkelde
kennis. De manier waarop dit gedaan wordt, is veelal door terug te grijpen op eigen ervaringen en
door na te vragen bij directe collega’s of er ervaringen zijn met bepaalde ‘type’ werken. Belangrijke
middelen hiervoor zijn de tekeningen.
Projectevaluaties vinden plaats. Dit gebeurt afhankelijk van de grootte van het project, bij klachten
of op aanvraag van de afdelingsleider. Het is voor de medewerkers verder niet echt duidelijk wat er
met deze evaluaties gedaan wordt.
Verder zijn de medewerkers over het algemeen positief over de manier waarop kennis gedeeld
wordt. Er zijn verschillende middelen (formeel en informeel) beschikbaar om kennis te delen. Verder
staat iedereen er voor open om anderen te helpen.
145
Appendix H.
Case study report BNICT
Inleiding
door alle zes systeembeheerders, waarmee de respons op 100% komt. De observaties en interviews
hebben plaatsgevonden in de periode 03-05-2010 tot en met 14-05-2010.
Afdeling systeembeheer binnendienst (verder afgekort als BNICT) houdt zich kortweg bezig met
zowel proactief en reactief beheer. Het beheer van de servers, printers en applicaties en
aanpassingen aan het bestaande ‘landschap’ kan worden gezien als proactief beheer. Daarbij houdt
men zich bezig met tweede en derdelijns calls, het reactieve beheer. Dit zijn wat complexere
problemen, die niet opgelost kunnen worden door de helpdesk, of te veel tijd kosten. Iedere
systeembeheerder heeft specifieke taken toebedeeld gekregen op het gebied van applicaties,
serverbeheer en overige werkzaamheden. Standaard wordt geprobeerd om per taak in ieder geval
twee mensen verantwoordelijk te maken. Hierbij wordt dan onderscheid gemaakt tussen een eerste
aanspreekpunt en tweede aanspreekpunt, dit om er voor te zorgen dat een afwezigheid van een
enkel persoon altijd wordt opgevangen.
Organisatiecultuur
groep.
bij vermeld.
146
Vision
Goal
Strat
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
BNICT
EMP
TEAM
CAP
CV
OL
BNICT
Gemiddeld
Agree
Cust
CI
Change
147
Afkorting
EMP
TEAM
CAP
CV
Agree
CI
Change
Cust
OL
Strat
Goal
Vision
Toelichting
delen.
Tabel 5 - Toelichting van de dimensies van Denison Organisational Culture Survey.
De resultaten van BNICT zijn uiteengezet tegen de gemiddelde resultaten van alle onderzochte
betekentdat de afdeling van mening is dat men dit goed voor elkaar heeft. Hieronder worden de
opvallendste bevindingen besproken. De eerste constatering is dat de scores op bijna alle dimensies
bij BNICT hoger liggen dan de gemiddelde scores.
Doelen:
De doelen dimensie scoort voornamelijk hoog doordat de gestelde doelen ambitieus, maar
realistisch zijn, en doordat het voor iedereen wel duidelijk is wat er gedaan moet worden om op
lange termijn succes te hebben. Dit heeft wellicht ook verband met het ondersteunende karakter
van de afdeling, zoals hieronder beschreven.
Klantgerichtheid:
BNICT is een ondersteunende afdeling van Ballast Nedam, waardoor het duidelijk is wie de klant is
en wat de bestaansreden is voor BNICT als geheel. Namelijk het leveren van de
148
automatiseringsinfrastructuur aan alle ondernemingen van Ballast Nedam. Dit uit zich ook in het feit
dat er veel waarde gehecht wordt aan de feedback van klanten. Een voorbeeld van de
klantgerichtheid is dat, tijdens de observatieperiode vanwege acute problemen met het netwerk,
een van de systeembeheerders, hier nog dezelfde dag naartoe is gegaan om het te proberen op te
lossen. Anderzijds is het ook zo dat er maar beperkt direct contact is met de klanten op de afdeling.
Dit omdat calls zoveel mogelijk via de helpdesk worden aangenomen en vaak per mail ‘afgesloten’
worden.
De afdeling scoort relatief goed op het gebied van veranderperspectief doordat men een flexibele
werkaanpak hanteert. Zoals ook uit de interviews blijkt is dat er flexibel wordt omgegaan met taken
die nog gedaan moeten worden. Er worden namelijk continu prioriteiten afgewogen, zodat het werk
gedaan wordt dat het hardst nodig is.
Empowerment:
Medewerkers van BNICT voelen van alle onderzochte afdelingen de meeste vrijheid (qua planning)
en het meeste verantwoordelijkheidsgevoel. Dit is bevestigd tijdens het interview, waarbij meerdere
malen werd aangegeven dat BNICT zorgt draagt om alle systemen draaiende te houden. Een andere
constatering is dat er een ‘ad-hoc’ overleg was tussen Hendrik en met name de meest ervaren
systeembeheerders over bijv. het aannemen van extra mankracht om capaciteitsproblemen het
hoofd te bieden.
Stratische richting en voornemen:
De strategische richting is duidelijk, mede ook veroorzaakt doordat doelen duidelijk zijn. Enige punt
waar minder op gescoord wordt heeft betrekking op de ondersteunende rol van BNICT en de mate
waarin zij een bepalende rol spelen op de manier waarop andere organisaties concurreren.
Coordinatie en integratie:
Coördinatie en integratie is een ander punt waar bovengemiddeld op gescoord wordt. Dit komt
voornamelijk door de manier van samenwerken. Zowel in positieve zin als in negatieve zin zijn hier
voorbeelden van te noemen. Goed is het dat er samengewerkt wordt door elkaar op te zoeken. Zo is
er redelijk vaak contact met collega’s van Beheer Buitendienst, Helpdesk en Datacom. Echter bij
afdelingsoverstijgende samenwerking werd wel opgemerkt dat er verbeteringen mogelijk zijn in de
sfeer van bijvoorbeeld een betere informatie uitwisseling (elkaar op de hoogte houden).
149
Andere dimensies
BNICT
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
BNICT
1,5
Gemiddeld
1
0,5
0
Motivatie
Orientatie op Werk
Motivatie:
Op het gebied van motivatie, waar gemeten werd of de motivatie zich laat kenmerken doordat men
vooral vreugde onttrekt uit het werk zelf, dan wel dat men externe middelen nodig heeft om werk te
waarderen (bijvoorbeeld het salaris zelf, bonussen of extraatjes). BNICT scoort hier het laagst van
alle onderzochte bedrijfsonderdelen. De score op dit punt ligt echter wel nog altijd op een punt dat
het zich meer laat kenmerken als intrinsiek dan extrinsiek. Voor medewerkers van BNICT is het
belangrijker om nuttig werk te doen, dan de beloning die ze hiervoor krijgen. Om tevreden te zijn
over het werk dat gedaan wordt, is BNICT niet perse uit op erkenning van leidinggevenden.
Anderzijds wordt persoonlijke ontwikkeling wel erg belangrijk gevonden.
Orientatie op werk:
niet zozeer de manier waarop deze doelen gehaald worden. BNICT bevindt zich qua oriëntatie
precies in het midden van procesgericht en resultaat gericht werken. Wel scoren ze hierop het laagst
van alle onderzochte bedrijfsonderdelen. Dit komt onder andere terug in de vrijheid die er is om
eigen tijd in te plannen. Er is wel een taakverdeling gemaakt maar de exacte inhoud van
werkzaamheden regelt het niet. Als er al sprake is van procedures, dan gaat het voornamelijk om
installatiehandleidingen. De beheerdersmanual beschrijft ook wel groot aantal werkzaamheden op
de afdeling, maar deze lijkt niet in veel gevallen leidend in de dagelijkse werkzaamheden van BNICT.
Voor nieuwkomers is het wel een nuttig verzameldocument van informatie en kennis over de
afdeling.
150
Controle, coördinatie en verantwoordelijkheid:
Hierop wordt gemiddeld gescoord. Hierbij is het wel zo dat men vindt dat beslissingen niet echt
decentraal genomen worden. Dit wordt weer deels bevestigd in interviews waarin wordt
aangegeven dat beslissingen doorgaans genomen worden door Hendrik, maar wel in overleg met de
betreffende systeembeheerders. De vrijheid in de planning is er voornamelijk de reden van dat op
dit punt wel redelijk hoog gescoord wordt.
Overige aspecten
De planning wordt vrij globaal gedaan door de verantwoordelijkheden en eventuele projecten te
verdelen. Iedereen moet daarbinnen zijn eigen prioriteiten stellen. Prioriteiten worden continu
opnieuw afgewogen.
Besluiten worden voornamelijk genomen door Hendrik. Het is echter wel normaal dat iemand
binnen het team een advies uitwerkt waarna deze binnen de groep, bijvoorbeeld in het
beheerdersoverleg, besproken kan worden. Daarna worden besluiten genomen. Verder is men vrij
om de meer routinematige besluiten te nemen. Verder heerst er een open sfeer waarin
bedenkingen makkelijk geuit kunnen worden, binnen de groep, maar ook door naar Hendrik te
stappen.
Kennisoverdracht
Kennis type
(vak)kennis, coördinatie kennis (kennis die inzet van professionele kennis regelt), object gebaseerde
kennis (kennis gekoppeld aan objecten bijv. specifieke gebruikersgroepen) en know-who (kennis
over wie welke kennis bezit). Belangrijke documenten geven een indicatie over hoe deze kennis
gebruikt wordt.
Voor BNICT geldt dat er vooral waarde wordt gehecht aan de inzicht en vergaring van professionele
kennis. Er is enige verdeeldheid over de waarde van coördinatie kennis. Enkele systeembeheerders
geven aan deze type kennis het minst belangrijk te vinden, maar als belangrijke documenten worden
wel de beheerdersmanual en het overzicht van verantwoordelijkheden van systeembeheer
aangegeven. Ook de actiepuntenlijst voor het beheerderoverleg is hier een voorbeeld van. Knowwho speelt op de afdeling een bescheiden rol, er is sprake van een relatief kleine groep mensen,
waarbij iedereen vrij snel van elkaar duidelijk heeft wie over welke kennis beschikt. In zekere zin is
de know-who van de afdeling ook direct de input voor de taakverdeling.
Verder valt het vooral op dat BNICT kennis heel erg benaderd als expliciet. Men praat vaak in termen
van documentatie over applicaties en servers.
Kennis kanaal
Er is een onderverdeling van kennis kanalen te maken in natuurlijke kennisoverdracht en ICTgebaseerde kennisoverdracht. Bij natuurlijk kennisoverdracht wordt kennis face to face
151
gebruik gemaakt van ICT toepassingen om kennis over te dragen. De collectief gebruikte middelen
staan hieronder in een tabel vermeld:
Natuurlijk
1.Training
4.Overleg
5.Proces handboek
6.Bijeenkomsten
gebruikt
3.
2.
1.
ICT-gebaseerd
7.Telefoon
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Smoelenboek
12.Kenniswijzer
14.Documenten
gebruikt
3.
2.
1.
16.SharePoint
Tabel 6 - Tabel met rangschikking in meest gebruikte manieren op kennis te delen
BNICT heeft een lichte voorkeur voor gebruik van ICT-gebaseerde kennis kanalen. Met name een
combinatie van telefoon, Office Communicator en e-mail. Documentatie is centraal opgeslagen op
SharePoint. Verder werd opgemerkt dat Office Communicator gebruikt werd als er niet echt haast
achter iets zit. Is een snelle reactie wel van belang, dan wordt vaak gekozen om de telefoon te
gebruiken.
Een opmerking die gemaakt werd, om de voorkeur voor contact met klanten uit te spreken, was dat
contact met klanten per e-mail het voordeel had dat hiermee zaken zwart op wit komen te staan.
Informeel sociaal contact wordt vaak gebruikt om elkaar op de hoogte te houden waar men mee
bezig is. Daarbij is het ook de makkelijkste manier om elkaar om hulp te vragen in het geval men
kennis zoekt. Dit komt mede door de kantoorindeling, die grotendeels bestaat uit twee open
eilanden.
Verder is centraal opgeslagen kennis niet altijd even makkelijk te doorzoeken. Documenten worden
er wel neergezet maar er wordt te weinig gebruik van gemaakt.
Kennis zoeker
Als men op zoek is naar kennis, hebben de systeembeheerders er de voorkeur voor om eerst te
proberen zelf uit te komen. Dit uit zich veelal in zoeken op internet voor mogelijke oplossingen. Een
andere mogelijkheid die ook wel gebruikt wordt is rondkijken op SharePoint. Pas als men er niet
uitkomt, zal men gaan navragen bij collega’s. Weten zij het niet zelf, dan kennen ze vaak wel weer
een collega die over de gevraagde kennis beschikt. Men is vaak op zoek naar vakkennis, meestal
tijdens het oplossen van problemen. Dit is vaak gerelateerd aan foutmeldingen waar men tegenaan
loopt. Dit heeft ook verband met de aard van de problemen die op de afdeling terecht komen. Dit
zijn vaak complexere problemen die niet door de helpdesk opgelost kunnen worden, waarbij een
routine oplossing niet altijd voor de hand ligt.
Verder is het opvallend dat er voornamelijk wordt gekozen om kennis zelf op te doen, in plaats van
het hergebruiken. Het motief erachter is vaak om zelf te leren. Door zelf iets te ervaren of er actief
152
mee bezig te zijn, kan de stof makkelijker geleerd worden, waardoor later inzetten van de kennis
sneller werkt.
De systeembeheerders maken, als ze hun collega’s raadplegen, een afweging van hun expertise. De
leidraad om hulp van een collega te vragen is om te kijken wie ergens verstand van heeft. Wel wordt
er altijd kritisch gekeken naar de manier waarop iets verteld wordt, als men onzeker overkomt, gaat
men zelf verder zoeken. Over het algemeen zijn het de minder ervaren systeembeheerders die bij de
ervaren systeembeheerders gaan zoeken naar kennis. Verder leeft er niet het gevoel dat kennis
wordt afgeschermd (men niet alles deelt met anderen).
Kennis bijdrager
Kennis wordt voornamelijk gedeeld in informeel individueel contact. Kennis delen gebeurt weinig
door het vast te leggen. Deels is dit omdat de informatie anders verouderd of niet meer relevant is,
maar aan de andere kant wordt hier geen tijd voor genomen. Bij het bijdragen wordt wel vaak een
afweging gemaakt voor wie de kennis relevant is.
Het belang van kennisoverdracht voor BNICT zit hem in het feit dat kennis breed gedeeld moet
worden, met name binnen de verantwoordelijken per taak in de verantwoordelijkheden matrix, dit
omdat BNICT belast is met het draaiend houden van de systemen die door heel Ballast Nedam
gebruikt worden.
Geconfronteerd met de vraag of financiële prikkels (salarisverhoging of bonussen) een stimulans
zouden zijn om meer kennis te delen was het antwoord overduidelijk dat dit niet zal werken. Het zou
alleen op korte termijn een stimulans zijn.
De meeste systeembeheerders zien kennisoverdracht als een op zichzelf staande gebeurtenis. Het is
dus niet zo dat ze verwachten van collega’s die men eerder al geholpen heeft, dat ze zelf ook altijd
hun hulp/kennis/tijd beschikbaar moeten hebben.
Als men nieuwe kennis opgedaan heeft, gaat men meestal na of de kennis relevant is voor anderen,
alvorens het gedeeld wordt met hen. Om kennis te delen worden, naast informeel contact, ook wel
Office Communicator en e-mail gebruikt. Een typisch moment om kennis te delen is als men wat te
weten is gekomen over nieuwe soft- of hardware.
Sociaal netwerk
Vakinhoudelijk is er eigenlijk alleen maar contact met collega’s van BNICT. Intensief en voornamelijk
face to face met collega systeembeheerders, minder intensief met andere afdelingen. Bij BNICT is
eigen initiatief om aan kennis te komen doorslaggevend. Dit begint vaak met rondvragen bij directe
collega’s. Zoals eerder al aangegeven gebeurt het vastleggen niet op grote schaal. Het proactief
delen van kennis komt ook wel voor, maar in mindere mate. Het beheerdersoverleg is hier een
voorbeeld van. Verder gebeurt het proactief delen van kennis vooral adhoc door het te delen op het
moment dat iemand iets nuttigs tegenkomt waarvan hij het wil delen. Doordat de
systeembeheerders al enige tijd op de afdeling zitten, is bij iedereen wel goede kennis over de
kennisgebieden van de directe collega’s.
Algemeen
beter kunnen. Een voorbeeld van wat goed gaat binnen het team, is het elkaar op de hoogte houden
153
waar men mee bezig is. Het op de hoogte houden van afdelingen onderling kan echter juist beter.
Gezien de samenhang in de werkzaamheden van de afdelingen allemaal delen van de ICTinfrastructuur onder handen hebben, kan het helpen dat er beter gedeeld wordt als er
werkzaamheden zijn. Dit kan helpen om beter en efficiënter gemelde problemen te diagnosticeren.
Verder worden evaluaties vooral toegepast in informele sfeer en alleen als de situatie er om vraagt.
Alleen bij grotere projecten wordt hier wel wat van vastgelegd. Dit heeft ook deels te maken met de
scope van projecten, die vaak verschillend van aard zijn.
154
Appendix I.
Case study report BNIZW
Inleiding
door 12 medewerkers, waarmee de respons op 80% komt. De observaties en interviews hebben
plaatsgevonden in de periode 14-06-2010 tot en met 25-06-2010
Bij het regiokantoor Zuid West van Ballast Nedam Infra is op de afdeling bedrijfsbureau in kaart
gebracht hoe kennis wordt overgedragen. In de rest van het rapport zal BNIZW refereren aan deze
specifieke afdeling tenzij anders vermeld is.
BNIZW houdt zich bezig met het verwerven van projecten. Projecten kunnen worden verworven via
het doen van aanbiedingen op aanbestedingen door opdrachtgevers. Onder de aanbestedingen is
een onderscheid te maken tussen de ouderwetse aanbestedingen en het tenderen. De tenders zijn
zogenaamde ‘design & construct’ projecten, waarbij, in tegenstelling tot de reguliere
aanbestedingen, er gevraagd wordt zelf met een ontwerp te komen binnen de kaders van het
programma van eisen. Bij het tender-team worden zodoende ook engineers van BNE betrokken. De
werkzaamheden op de afdeling bestaan allereerst uit het selecteren van aanbestedingen, waarvoor
capaciteit vrijgemaakt wordt, om een aanbieding te doen. Bij het doen van een aanbieding gaat het
erom de kosten voor het realiseren van een project in kaart te brengen, waarna een prijs gegeven
kan worden. De gunning van aanbestedingen vindt bij traditionele aanbestedingen meestal plaats op
basis van laagste prijs, maar bij de design & construct is dit meestal op basis van de economisch
meest voordelige inschrijving. In het laatste geval spelen meer factoren dan alleen prijs een rol bij
het gunnen van het project. Op het moment dat een project gegund is, wordt het project zoals
aangeboden overgedragen aan de voorbereiding.
155
Organisatiecultuur
leden als de juiste manier van werken.” Organisatiecultuur wordt in dit onderzoek voornamelijk
gemeten door de afgenomen enquête. Daarbij hebben observaties en interviews ook bijgedragen
om inzage te geven in het gedrag van de groep.
bij vermeld.
BNIZW
Vision
Goal
Strat
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
EMP
TEAM
CAP
CV
OL
BNIZW
Gemiddeld
Agree
Cust
CI
Change
156
Afkorting
EMP
TEAM
CAP
CV
Agree
CI
Change
Cust
OL
Strat
Goal
Vision
Toelichting
delen.
Tabel 7 - Toelichting van de dimensies van Denison Organisational Culture Survey
De resultaten van BNIZW zijn uiteengezet tegen de gemiddelde resultaten van alle onderzochte
betekent dat de afdeling van mening is dat men dit goed voor elkaar heeft. Hieronder worden de
opvallendste bevindingen besproken. De eerste constatering is dat de scores op enkele dimensies
onder het gemiddelde scoren en eigenlijk nooit erboven. Er is een grote afwijking op de dimensie
kernwaarden en een aantal kleinere afwijkingen op competentie ontwikkeling, coördinatie en
integratie, veranderperspectief en doelen.
Kernwaarden:
Op het item kernwaarden wordt relatief gezien het laagst gescoord. Over het algemeen is men
binnen BNIZW niet helemaal tevreden met de rol van leidinggevenden. De manier van leidinggeven,
een consistente aanpak en dezelfde inzet tonen zoals die van medewerkers gevraagd wordt, waarop
verbetering mogelijk is.
157
Competentie ontwikkeling:
Met betrekking tot de ontwikkeling van de medewerkers is men licht positief gestemd. Wel is het zo
dat ook hier relatief gezien laag gescoord wordt. Er werd neutraal geantwoord op dat medewerkers
meer zeggenschap zouden moeten krijgen en de investering die gedaan wordt in de ontwikkeling
van de medewerkers. Daarentegen wordt wel erkend dat de medewerkers van BNIZW een
ontwikkeling doorgemaakt hebben.
Coördinatie en integratie:
Zoals eerder al aangegeven bij kernwaarden, wordt laag gescoord op een consistente werkaanpak.
De samenwerking met andere afdelingen wordt echter wel als positief ervaren. Het gebrek aan een
consistente werkaanpak kwam tijdens de interviews ook aan bod. Er werd aangegeven dat het
(oude) managementsysteem eigenlijk te weinig gebruikt werd. Er is echter een begin gemaakt om
het nieuwe bedrijfshandboek van BN Infra te gaan toepassen op de bedrijfsprocessen van BNIZW.
Aansluitend op het voorgaande item, wordt erkend dat veranderingen vaak stuiten op verzet. Er
werd ook aangegeven dat andere manieren van werken niet vaak geïntroduceerd worden. Dit houdt
mogelijk verband met het doen van evaluaties, waarvan tijdens de interviews werd aangegeven dat
dit wel erkend werd als tekortkoming en dat hier aan gewerkt wordt.
Doelen:
Op het item doelen wordt licht positief gescoord, maar weliswaar het laagst, vergelijkend met
andere afdelingen. Men is hierin van mening dat de doelen die gesteld worden wel realistisch zijn,
maar niet duidelijk vastgelegd worden en dat het niet voor iedereen duidelijk is wat gedaan moet
worden om op lange termijn succes te hebben.
Andere dimensies
Op de drie toegevoegde dimensies werd hoger gescoord dan op alle andere dimensies, wat duidelijk
wordt als figuur 1 en 2 naast elkaar gelegd worden. De scores van BNIZW zijn ook op alle drie de
dimensies hoger dan het gemiddelde.
158
BNIZW
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
BNIZW
Gemiddeld
1,5
1
0,5
0
Motivatie
Orientatie op Werk
Motivatie:
Op het gebied van motivatie, waar gemeten werd of de motivatie zich laat kenmerken doordat men
vooral vreugde onttrekt uit het werk zelf, dan wel dat men externe middelen nodig heeft om werk te
waarderen (bijvoorbeeld het salaris zelf, bonussen of extraatjes). Jezelf ontwikkelen en het verschil
maken voor het bedrijf staan hoog in het vaandel bij BNIZW. De motivatie is relatief gezien het
meest intrinsiek van alle afdelingen.
Oriëntatie op werk:
niet zozeer de manier waarop deze doelen gehaald worden. Het betrekken van de juiste personen in
beslissingen en harde deadlines zorgen ervoor dat er hoog gescoord wordt op dit item. Het werk is
meer procesgericht dan resultaatgericht en scoort ook hier het hoogst van alle afdelingen.
Routinematigheid wordt niet veel ervaren, daarop onderscheidt BNIZW zich van een echte
procesgerichte aanpak. Een van de geïnterviewden vatte dit dan ook treffend samen “elk werk is
anders”.
Controle, coördinatie en verantwoordelijkheid
Hier wordt de mate gemeten waarin men de vrijheid heeft zelf beslissingen te nemen. Op de
afdeling is men vrij zijn eigen tijd in te delen, mits het werk aan verschillende aanbiedingen maar
gedaan wordt. Verder is het gebruikelijk dat directe collega’s worden geholpen zonder er formeel
159
tijd vrij voor gemaakt moet worden. Ook is er vrijheid om zelf te handelen, omdat er niet overal
procedures voor gehanteerd worden.
Overige aspecten
Op de afdeling wordt de aanbestedingskalender bijgehouden voor openbare aanbestedingen, als
ook onderhandse aanbestedingen die binnen komen. Op basis van een inschatting van beschikbare
capaciteit en de inhoud van de aanbesteding worden deze weggelegd bij het hoofd bedrijfsbureau
en de bedrijfsdirecteur. Zij beslissen vervolgens of er capaciteit voor vrijgemaakt moet worden om
met een aanbieding te komen. Het wekelijkse werkoverleg van de afdeling, is er om bijgepraat te
worden over lopende, toekomstige en volbrachte aanbiedingen en om een accurate inschatting te
hebben van beschikbare en benodigde capaciteit voor de lopende aanbiedingen. De medewerkers
van BNIZW zijn vaak met meerdere aanbiedingen tegelijk bezig. Deze bevinden zich dan vaak in
verschillende stadia, van inlezen, tot uitvoeren en afronding van de aanbieding.
Kijkend naar de grootste beslissingen die binnen BNIZW genomen worden, zijn er enkele ervaren
medewerkers die zich bezighouden met het inspecteren van welke aanbiedingen gevraagd worden
in de markt. Nadat een inschatting wordt gemaakt van de beschikbare capaciteit voor een
aanbieding zal door deze medewerkers een voorstel worden gedaan om een project wel of niet te
doen. De beslissingen omtrent het doen van een aanbieding wordt uiteindelijk genomen door het
hoofd bedrijfsbureau, welke hij mogelijk nog voorlegt aan de bedrijfsdirecteur. Nadat er prijzen
opgesteld zijn, wordt de begroting altijd nog besproken met het hoofd bedrijfsbureau, mogelijk
aangevuld met de bedrijfsdirecteur. Dit kan aanleiding zijn om de aanbieding officieel in te dienen,
of de aanbieding nog een keer te herzien.
Kennisoverdracht
Kennis type
(vak)kennis, coördinatie kennis, object gebaseerde kennis en know-who. Belangrijke documenten
geven een indicatie over hoe deze kennis gebruikt wordt.
De vakkennis wordt bij BNIZW het belangrijkst geacht. Gezien de verschillende disciplines die
betrokken zijn op de afdeling, loopt de strekking hiervan uiteen. Object gebaseerde kennis, de
kennis die betrekking heeft over projecten (bestek, beschrijving van omgeving, enz.) en know-who
(kennis over de kennis en competenties van anderen) worden hierna het belangrijkst geacht. Aan
coördinatie kennis wordt het minste belang geacht. Dit heeft wellicht ook te maken met het feit dat
het specialistisch werk betreft, waarbij de hoeveelheid vaak te overzien valt. De aanbiedingen
worden ook vaak in kleine teams gemaakt en hebben een relatief kleine doorlooptijd waardoor
coördinatie makkelijker is, dan bijvoorbeeld in de uitvoeringsfase van een project.
Kennis kanaal
Er is een onderverdeling van kennis kanalen te maken in persoonlijke kennisoverdracht en ICTgebaseerde kennisoverdracht. Bij persoonlijke kennisoverdracht wordt kennis face to face
160
Natuurlijk
1.Training
4.Overleg
5.Proces handboek
6.Bijeenkomsten
gebruikt
1.
2.
3.
ICT-gebaseerd
7.Telefoon
9.E-mail
10.Intranet
11.Smoelenboek
12.Kenniswijzer
14.Documenten
gebruikt
1.
2.
16.SharePoint
3.
Van de natuurlijke manieren om kennis over te dragen, is informeel individueel contact het meest
gebruikte kanaal. De telefoon is het meest gebruikte ICT-gebaseerde kanaal. Er is bij BNIZW een
voorkeur voor gebruik van natuurlijke kanalen boven ICT-gebaseerde kanalen. Een belangrijke
verklaring hiervoor is dat natuurlijk contact een ‘rijkere’ manier is om kennis, en dan met name
ervaringen over te dragen. Bevonden wordt dat ervaringen moeilijk vast te leggen zijn, terwijl
ervaringen met natuurlijke kanalen wel goed te delen zijn.
Geconfronteerd met een bovenstaande middelen, genoemd in tabel 2, werd aangegeven dat er
maar weinig gebruik gemaakt wordt van Office Communicator. Het wordt ervaren als irritant en een
opdringerige manier van communiceren. De projectendatabase wordt ook weinig gebruikt. Deze
bevat vaak weinig nuttige informatie, en ook niet de informatie waarin men geïnteresseerd is. Wat
voornamelijk door de BNE gestationeerde medewerkers wel wordt gebruikt en niet door de rest, is
de kenniswijzer. Een reden waarom deze niet gebruikt wordt is omdat deze geen relevante kennis
voor deze disciplines bevat, ofwel omdat de kenniswijzer in het verleden de medewerkers niet in
hun behoefte kon voorzien waardoor er na één of twee vruchteloze pogingen niet maar naar
gekeken wordt.
De kennis die centraal opgeslagen wordt, is beter te omschrijven als projectinformatie en wordt
opgeslagen op de afdelingsschijf. Er is geen opslag van overkoepelende kennis over projecten.
Kennis zoeker
Wanneer men binnen BNIZW op zoek is naar kennis, wordt er bij voorkeur eerst gezocht bij directe
collega’s, en wanneer zij niet verder kunnen helpen, wordt er verder gezocht. Als men zelf gaat
zoeken wordt hiervoor het internet veelvuldig gebruikt. Er wordt wel vaak een afweging van de
beschikbaarheid gemaakt, voordat er besloten wordt een collega ‘lastig te vallen’.
Het hergebruiken van kennis die beschikbaar is bij anderen, wordt belangrijk gevonden. Zelf kennis
ontwikkelen door bij andere beschikbare kennis te raadplegen, wordt geprefereerd boven kennis
opdoen door een eigen leercurve te ondergaan. In het laatste gaat meer tijd in zitten, die er vaak
niet is.
161
Bij de afkomst van kennis en de beslissing welke persoon te benaderen, spelen twee overwegingen
een rol. Enerzijds zijn het altijd eerder ervaringen met personen die een rol spelen om de volgende
keer juist wel of juist niet bij dezelfde persoon aan te kloppen. Anderzijds wordt er geprobeerd
personen met dezelfde visie te vinden, daar wordt eerder wat van aangenomen ten opzichte van
personen waar men niet mee op dezelfde lijn zit.
Er is op de afdeling contact met verschillende bedrijfsonderdelen van Ballast Nedam. Met BNE is het
contact directer geworden sinds dat er engineers vast geplaatst zijn, met andere onderdelen is het
contact meer op afstand. De geboden hulp wordt als positief ervaren. Wel wordt altijd kritisch
gekeken wat de uiteindelijke inbreng is van de verschillende onderdelen.
Het wordt nauwelijks ervaren dat kennis niet toegankelijk is. Dus dat collega’s niet kunnen of willen
helpen, waar de verwachting is dat ze dit wel zouden moeten kunnen. Meestal is de reden dan dat
men geen tijd heeft anderen te helpen.
Kennis bijdrager
De medewerkers van BNIZW dragen hun kennis vooral over op ad hoc basis. Dat wil zeggen,
ongepland en geleid door de context van het moment vindt er kennisoverdracht plaats. De meer
ervaren medewerkers spelen proberen een coach/mentor rol op zich te nemen en hun ervaringen
over te dragen. Waar minder de nadruk op ligt, is het delen van fouten.
Het stimuleren van kennisoverdracht door er bonussen of een salarisverhoging tegenover te zetten
zal weinig uitwerking hebben. De medewerkers van BNIZW waren unaniem van mening dat dit niet
de juiste manier van motiveren is. Wel is men van mening dat prestatie beloond zou moet worden.
Dus als een werk bijzonder goed verlopen is, de afdeling hier uiteindelijk ook voor beloond wordt.
Het overdragen van kennis wordt vaak gezien als een wisselwerking van bijdragen en zoeken. Het
moet hierbij van twee kanten komen. Binnen BNIZW is men hierover verdeeld. Enerzijds wordt
gevonden dat kennis gewoon gedeeld moet worden en dat er niet terughoudend of wantrouwend
moet worden gekeken hoeveel kennis anderen bijdragen. Anderzijds vindt een deel dat het delen
van kennis niet eenrichtingsverkeer zou moeten zijn.
BNIZW is bereid tot het delen van kennis met andere bedrijfsonderdelen van Ballast Nedam. Binnen
dat contact zal men zich in principe niet anders gedragen dan wanneer de kennis intern
overgedragen zou worden. Wanneer op een normale manier hulp wordt gevraagd zal men gewoon
helpen. Belangrijk voor de snelheid waarmee men kan helpen zijn de prioriteiten en eerdere
ervaringen met collega’s (door positief contact in eerder stadium, heeft men een streepje voor ten
opzichte van wanneer ze de collega niet kennen).
Kennis wordt vooral overgedragen door de meer ervaren medewerkers van BNIZW aan de rest van
de collega’s. Ook wordt er waarde aan gehecht dat relevante en nuttige kennis ingezet wordt op het
moment dat het van belang is binnen een project. Dit in tegenstelling tot actief pushen van kennis.
Sociaal netwerk
De afdeling is zodanig ingedeeld dat de medewerkers die vanuit hun werkzaamheden veel
raakvlakken hebben met andere medewerkers, bij elkaar op de kamer zitten. Verder is het
gebruikelijk dat de deur altijd ‘open’ staat voor eenieder. Het afdelingsoverleg dient vooral om te
162
plannen, nieuwe aanbestedingen aan te kondigen en om een beeld te krijgen van de werkdruk op de
afdeling. Ervaringen worden vooral informeel gedeeld, op ad hoc basis, zoals eerder al vermeld.
Contact met afdelingen projectleiding en uitvoering zijn meestal project gerelateerd. BNIZW is zeer
geïnteresseerd in hoe de initiële plannen en begrotingen uiteindelijk overeind blijven tijdens de
realisatie van een project, alleen vindt hier momenteel nog te weinig terugkoppeling in plaats, zodat
sterke en zwakke punten van werk uit de aanbiedingsfase vaak onbenoemd blijven. Inmiddels is men
zich hiervan wel bewust zodat de afdeling ook bij evaluatie van projecten betrokken wil worden.
Verder is er nauwelijks contact met bedrijfsbureaus van andere BN Infra regio bedrijven. Contact
met andere BN onderdelen is er met name met specialistische bedrijven als BNF, BN Asfalt, Haitsma
en Waco Lingen en Spanstaal.
De meest voor de hand liggende manier waarop kennis gedeeld wordt binnen BNIZW, is dat het
initiatief voor het delen van kennis en ervaringen bij de zoeker ligt. Kennis is toegankelijk, iedereen
vindt het belangrijk en leuk om zijn ervaringen te delen, alleen moet degene die hier baat bij kunnen
hebben zelf op zoek gaan naar de input van anderen.
Algemeen
beter kunnen. Iedereen is te spreken over de openheid en toegankelijkheid van de collega’s op
BNIZW. Zoals in de vorige sectie al aangegeven was, kan het doen en betrokken worden bij
evaluaties beter. Mocht dit uiteindelijk geregeld zijn, is het altijd nog belangrijk om de opgedane
ervaringen en geleerde lessen binnen de gehele afdeling te delen. Dat is iets wat op dit moment
beter zou kunnen, omdat kennis en ervaringen
163

Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing

Transcription

Similar documents

Roy Bouhuis en Rolf Timmerman, Chrysal International

univERsity oF copEnhAGEn

A-Z - Faculteit Architectuur

2016-08-24 How to effectively grow a development team

activiteiten van la protectora avilés

Current Affairs - Christiaan Huygens

27 Augustus, 2010

Examen VMBO

CV Susanne Janssen - EGS3H - Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

Wiefelstede ontdekken Vakantie magazine

Welkomstwoord

IT training - Global Knowledge

“The influence of HR practices on employees` attitudes: the