Fulltext01 PDF

School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology
Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration
Barriers and Enablers of Knowledge Sharing:

A qualitative Study of ABB, Bombardier, Ericsson and Siemens
Course: EFO 703, HT 2012
AZIZ Najibullah, 800828

GLEESON Darren, 771129
KASHIF Muhammad, 840722
Instructor: Eva Maaninen-Olsson
i
Barriers and enablers of Knowledge Sharing: A qualitative study of ABB, Bombardier, Ericsson
and Siemens.
Abstract
Date: January 17, 2013
Level: Bachelor thesis in business administration, 15 ECTS
Institution: School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology, Mälardalen

University
Authors: AZIZ Najibullah GLEESON Darren KASHIF Muhammad

28th August 1980 29th November 1977 22nd July 1984
Tutor: Eva Maaninen-Olsson
Keywords: Knowledge, Knowledge Management, Knowledge Sharing, Factors Affecting

Knowledge Sharing
Research
Question: What hinders or enables knowledge sharing in Swedish-based multi-national
corporations from a cultural, motivational and trust perspective?
Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the barriers and enablers of knowledge
sharing within multi-national corporations.
Method: The research method chosen to fulfill the purpose of the thesis is a qualitative
approach. In order to achieve the purpose both primary and secondary data was sought.
In accordance with the qualitative approach, interviews have been carried out with
senior managers in ABB, Bombardier, Ericsson and Siemens. Data collected from
these interviews represents the primary data. Secondary data has been gathered from
company websites.
Conclusion: The results from the studied multi-national organizations suggest that knowledge
sharing culture is influenced by communication, rules, regulations and routines (sub-
factors of culture). This study shows that communication, rules, regulations and
routines are enablers of knowledge sharing in the organizations. However, language
and technology (sub-factors of culture) as collaborative tools are proven to be
problematic; consequently creating hindrances to knowledge sharing. When it comes to
motivational factors (rewards, power and reciprocity), this thesis shows that none of
the studied companies offer rewards for knowledge sharing. This confirms the
controversy connected with rewards which can either enable or cause hindrance to
knowledge sharing. Reciprocity seems to enable knowledge sharing in the studied
organizations whereas power remains controversial. The existence of power can either
be a barrier or an enabler for knowledge sharing depending on the individual’s
perception of power. This thesis also shows that the existence of trust enables
knowledge sharing between employees, but the difficulties of building this trust is a
key problem for management.
i
and Siemens.
Acknowledgements
This thesis could not be possible without the help and co-operation of the managers in ABB,
Bombardier, Ericsson and Siemens.
We would like to express our greatest and deepest gratitude and thanks to our course coordinator and
supervisor (tutor) Dr. Eva Maaninen-Olsson for her guidance, supervision and encouragement
throughout the process of writing the thesis.
Moreover, we also would like to thank our fellow seminar participants for their encouraging
comments and constructive and informative criticism during the completion of this thesis.
Finally and most importantly, the thesis would not be possible without the support of our family
members. We thank each and every one of our family members for their support during the writing of
this thesis.
January 17, 2013, Västerås
ii
and Siemens.
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Problem Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Research Question ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Purpose of the research ................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Definitions..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Disposition .................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Knowledge .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Types of Knowledge ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Organizational Knowledge .................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Individual Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Knowledge Management .............................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Knowledge Sharing ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Factors affecting Knowledge Sharing ........................................................................................... 7
2.5.1 Culture.................................................................................................................................... 7
2.5.2 Motivations .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.5.3 Trust ..................................................................................................................................... 11
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Choice of companies to study ............................................................................................... 12
3.2 Approach to Research ........................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Case Study ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.4 Literature Research ............................................................................................................... 13
3.5 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.5.1 Secondary Data ............................................................................................................. 13
3.5.2 Primary Data ................................................................................................................. 13
3.5.3 Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.6 Choice of Respondents.......................................................................................................... 15
3.7 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.8 Validity ................................................................................................................................. 16
3.9 Reliability.............................................................................................................................. 17
4. Empirical Findings ........................................................................................................................ 18
iii
and Siemens.
4.1 Interview with Marie-Louise Stridh – Manager at ABB ...................................................... 18

4.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Views on Culture .......................................................................................................... 18
4.1.3 Views on Motivations ................................................................................................... 19
4.1.4 Views on Trust .............................................................................................................. 20
4.2 Interview with Peter Östman – Manager at Bombardier ...................................................... 20
4.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.2 Views on Culture .......................................................................................................... 20
4.2.4 Views on Trust .............................................................................................................. 22
4.3 Interview with Mattias Åhland – Manager at Ericsson ......................................................... 22
4.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 22
4.3.2 Views on Culture .......................................................................................................... 22
4.3.4 Views on Trust .............................................................................................................. 24
4.4 Interview with Per-Olof Bohlin – Manager at Siemens ........................................................ 24
4.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 24
4.4.2 Views on Culture .......................................................................................................... 24
4.4.4 Views on Trust .............................................................................................................. 26
5. Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 27
5.1 ABB ...................................................................................................................................... 27
5.1.1 Culture........................................................................................................................... 27
5.1.2 Motivations ................................................................................................................... 29
5.1.3 Trust .............................................................................................................................. 29
5.2 Bombardier ........................................................................................................................... 30
5.2.1 Culture........................................................................................................................... 30
5.2.2 Motivations ................................................................................................................... 31
5.2.3 Trust .............................................................................................................................. 32
5.3 Ericsson ................................................................................................................................. 32
5.3.1 Culture........................................................................................................................... 32
5.3.2 Motivations ................................................................................................................... 33
5.3.3 Trust .............................................................................................................................. 33
5.4 Siemens ................................................................................................................................. 34
iv
and Siemens.
5.4.1 Culture........................................................................................................................... 34
5.4.2 Motivations ................................................................................................................... 35
5.4.3 Trust .............................................................................................................................. 35
5.5 Comparison of the Companies .............................................................................................. 35
5.5.1 Culture........................................................................................................................... 35
5.5.2 Motivations ................................................................................................................... 36
5.5.3 Trust .............................................................................................................................. 37
6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 38
6.1 Culture......................................................................................................................................... 38
6.2 Motivations ................................................................................................................................. 39
6.3 Trust ............................................................................................................................................ 39
6.4 Further Studies ............................................................................................................................ 39
Reference List ....................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix 1. ....................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix 2. ....................................................................................................................................... 46
v
and Siemens.
1. Introduction
This part of the thesis gives a background to the topic and problem area. The purpose and problem
specification of the research are outlined. Relevant terms are also defined.
1.1 Background
Knowledge is “what people understand about things, concepts, ideas, theories, procedures, practices
and the way things are done” (Armstrong, 2009:220). Knowledge is according to Wang and Noe
(2010) a critical organizational resource that provides a sustainable competitive advantage in a
dynamic economy. However, to gain this advantage the focus should not simply be on recruiting staff
with specific knowledge, skills, or abilities, but also on sharing knowledge between experts and
novices which are already part of the organization (Wang & Noe, 2010).
Previously, traditional economies and organizations relied upon assets such as capital and land having
physical values. In the modern economy this trend has changed and knowledge is now the key factor
to gaining competitive advantage (Beijerse, 1999). According to Hansen, Nohria and Tierney
(1999:106), “for hundreds of years, owners of family business have passed on their commercial
wisdom to children, master craftsmen have painstakingly taught their trades to apprentices and
workers have exchanged ideas and know-how on the job”. However, in the contemporary business
world, knowledge sharing fundamentally means that employees contribute to knowledge application,
innovation and ultimately the competitive advantage of the organization (Wang & Noe, 2010).
Knowledge sharing has distinct advantages. It is positively related to reduction in production costs,
faster completion of new product development projects, team performance, firm innovation
capabilities and firm performance, including sales growth and revenue from new products and
services (Wang & Noe, 2010).
In the business world, failing to share knowledge can bring huge financial losses. Fortune 500
companies lose at least $31.5 billion a year through deficiencies in knowledge sharing, according to
International Data Corp, the US-based market intelligence and advisory firm (Babcock, 2004).
1.2. Problem Discussion

Due to the potential benefits of knowledge sharing many organizations have invested considerable
money into knowledge management initiatives and systems which use the latest technology to collect,
store and share knowledge (Wang & Noe, 2010). However, knowledge management is more about
people than technology. A research by Davenport (1996) found that managers acquire two-thirds of
their knowledge and information from face-to-face or telephone conversations. Management also
spend considerable resources (money and time) on formal (i.e. conferences, seminars, meetings,
magazines, brochures, etc.) and informal ways (i.e. relaxed atmospheres, coffee corners, coffee
breaks, etc.) of sharing knowledge within organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Ipe, 2003; Riege,
2005). Despite these efforts, companies seem to be falling short in terms of capitalising on the
benefits of knowledge sharing and this could be due to an under-estimation or lack of understanding
of the barriers and enablers which affect it (Hendriks, 1999).
According to Babcock (2004), if the clues from past failure are taken and a different approach is
developed the problem might be solved. The research by Babcock (2004) found two main factors –
technology and barriers posed by human nature – which were behind the failure in knowledge
1
and Siemens.
sharing. More specifically the complexity of technology and inadequate consideration of

organizations to the barriers posed by human nature are considered the most important reasons behind
the knowledge sharing failure (Babcock, 2004). Barriers posed by human nature such as trust are
connected with culture and motivations to share knowledge. Furthermore, an organization’s cultural
aspects such as communication may be affected by its norms and values (Ipe, 2003; Riege, 2005).
However, it is unclear whether the main factors described in Babcock (2004) are applicable to all the
organizations or not.
This thesis focuses on main factors – culture, motivations and trust – affecting knowledge sharing in
organizations in Sweden. These factors could lead to both potential financial losses for the
organizations, and losses related to knowledge – an important asset and competitive advantage of
modern firms. Thus, researching the subject would not only question the reasons for failure in
knowledge sharing raised by Babcock (2004) in Sweden-based organizations, but it will also pave the
way for students and researchers to investigate different industries in Sweden deeper; and for
organizations to control these factors in order to avoid potential knowledge losses.
1.3 Research Question

What hinders or enables knowledge sharing in Swedish-based multi-national corporations from a
cultural, motivational and trust perspective?
1.4 Purpose of the research

The purpose of the thesis is to analyse main factors regarding culture, motivations and trust affecting
knowledge sharing in Swedish-based multi-national organizations.
1.5 Definitions
Knowledge
Knowledge is “the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through
experience or association” (Call, 2005:20).
Knowledge Management
Armstrong (2009:219) defines knowledge management as “any process or practice of creating,
acquiring, capturing, sharing, and using knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and
performance in organizations”.
Knowledge Sharing
Cummings (2004: 352) describes knowledge sharing as “the provision of receipt of task
information, know-how, and feedback regarding a product or procedure”.
2
and Siemens.
1.6 Disposition
Introduction
This chapter introduces the subject of the thesis by giving a background to the subject while
discussing the problems and stating the purpose. Furthermore, in order to familiarize the reader it
defines the key words used in the thesis.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical chapter consists of the theories suitable for this thesis, which are compiled and
collected from different literature and other sources analysing knowledge sharing within
organizations.
Methodology
This chapter includes the methodological approach, reasons behind the data collection and a
detailed description of the procedure used in the research.
Empirical Study
This chapter contains a brief introduction of the interviewed managers and background
information of the chosen companies. The results from empirical studies are gathered here while
summarizing the conducted and interpreted interviews.
Analysis
In this chapter, the findings in the empirical study in forms of primary and secondary data are
analysed using the theories previously discussed.
Conclusions
A brief conclusion is drawn from the results of the analysis in an attempt to answer the research
question of the thesis.
3
and Siemens.
2. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework presents theories relevant to knowledge sharing. The theoretical part
consists of the theories suitable for this thesis, which are compiled and collected from different
literature and other sources analysing knowledge sharing within organizations. The factors –
barriers and enablers – of knowledge sharing within organizations are also discussed.
2.1 Knowledge
Knowledge is “the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience
or association” (Call, 2005:20). Smith and Bollinger (2001) define knowledge as the individual´s
ability to interpret information according to one´s own experience, expertise and skills. Knowledge is
a highly contentious concept and infinitely extensible (Spender, 1996). This means that the use of
knowledge by an individual does not restrict another to take advantage of it. Among other
characteristics of knowledge are its intangibility and its inherent difficulty to measure (Wiig, De Hoog
& Van Der Spek, 1997).
Knowledge in organizations is the extent to which employees know about customers, techniques,
products and success (Grayson & O´Dell, 1998; Smith & Bollinger, 2001). Knowledge provides
organizations with an opportunity to gain the ability to innovate and compete with others in the
market. In order to achieve competitive advantage, strategic assets are considered the most critical for
a company and knowledge is one of the important parts of these strategic assets. Knowledge from
within organizations can be gained from databases, by sharing experiences with co-workers or by
other available means to the organization.
Scholars have divided knowledge into two forms – explicit and tacit – when it comes to the nature of
the knowledge (Nonaka, 1994; Spender, 1996; Nonaka, Toyama and Nagata, 2000; Smith, 2001;
Lindvall & Rus, 2002). Explicit knowledge is generally saved in codified form in databases and can
be easily conveyed to the receiver without any misunderstanding (Smith, 2001). Furthermore, it is
knowledge which can be presented in words and numbers and has the ability to be shared in manuals,
specifications and scientific data (Nonaka et al., 2000). Thus, this type of knowledge can be
understood as the information and individual expertise which can be stored in different types of
media, thereby providing the opportunity to reuse it for different purposes within the organization
(Lindvall & Rus, 2002). As explicit knowledge can be presented in a codified form, it is often referred
to as ‘know-what’ rather than ‘know-how’ (Nonaka, 1994).
Tacit knowledge is ‘know-why and ‘know-how’ and can be referred to as experimental knowledge
(Spender, 1996). Smith (2001) describes tacit knowledge as the unarticulated part of knowledge
residing in an individual´s mind. This type of knowledge, unlike explicit knowledge, is hard to present
in a written format thereby making it difficult to transfer to others or store (Smith, 2001). Grayson and
O´Dell (1998) go further to describe its complication to record, by defining tacit knowledge as a
lesson learned by individuals, know-how, judgment, rules of thumb and intuition (Smith, 2001). The
tacit knowledge depends upon personal skills and expertise and develops through training and
experience, therefore making it difficult to communicate with others (Nonaka, 1994).
4
and Siemens.
2.2 Types of Knowledge

Based on the literature research there are two types of knowledge – organizational knowledge and
individual knowledge – that organizations deal with today (Lindvall & Rus, 2002; Lowendahl,
Revang & Fosstenlokken, 2001; Ipe, 2003). These two types of knowledge, which are either tacit or
explicit in nature, have to be managed in today’s organisations in order to gain competitive advantage.
2.2.1 Organizational Knowledge

Organizational knowledge reflects organizational culture and defines organization (Smith, 2001).
Organization knowledge consists of its current and past employee’s tacit and explicit knowledge and
is considered to be a strategic, non-tangible asset (Cabrera, 2002). Given that knowledge is viewed as
a key resource, companies invest considerable time and money ensuring they make the most of the
potential competitive advantage. There are several other reasons behind implementing knowledge
management strategies in organizations, the main being to gain core competencies. These
competencies are dependent upon the expertise and skills of the employees working for the
organization. To maintain and build upon core competencies it is necessary for organizations to
develop systems whereby knowledge can be preserved. Demarest (1997) states that cumulative
knowledge within organizations results when knowledge is shared by employees in an organization
(Smith 2001).
Smith (2001) states that the intention with knowledge sharing should be to enhance organizational
knowledge and suggests that effective communication and networking channels are essential
ingredients. Organizational knowledge contains the following characteristics (Smith, 2001):
a) Inimitable: meaning that the organizations knowledge is unique.
b) Rare: due to its dependence on experience and knowledge of current and past employees.
c) Valuable: due to the ability to add value in products and gaining strategic advantage.
d) Non-substitutable: due to the synergy of employees which cannot be replicated.
2.2.2 Individual Knowledge

The individual knowledge held by employees, either explicit or tacit, can add value to the product,
customer and in turn the organization (Ipe, 2003).The individual knowledge is one source of
organizational knowledge. The knowledge sharing process among individuals provides even more
knowledge not only to the organization but also to the employees themselves (Ipe, 2003). An
individual’s inability to interact with others within a group or organization restricts the knowledge
sharing (Ipe, 2003). For an organization to maximise the benefit of its knowledge asset it is reliant on
knowledge being shared between employees. Without the involvement of employees sharing their
individual knowledge the ability of the organization to maximise its key knowledge asset is greatly
reduced (Cabrera 2001).
‘Know-how’, ‘know-what’ and dispositional knowledge are three kinds of individual knowledge
which create value for an organization (Lowendahl et al., 2001). Dispositional knowledge is described
as personal abilities, talents and aptitude (Ipe, 2003). Sharing of individual knowledge can occur in
large settings through external training, education and publications or small settings through private
face-to-face meetings (Liu & Lie 2008). Individuals are a part of organizations and the knowledge
held by individuals represents an important source of knowledge for organizational knowledge.
5
and Siemens.
2.3 Knowledge Management

Armstrong (2009:219) defines knowledge management as “any process or practice of creating,
acquiring, capturing, sharing, and using knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and
performance in organizations”. In addition, Tan (2000:10) describes knowledge management as “the
process of systematically and actively managing and leveraging the stores of knowledge in an
organization”. Blake (1998) supports this and adds that the process can provide great benefits.
The aim of knowledge management is to capture and distribute knowledge within an organization
before it is forgotten or lost through employees leaving (Scarborough & Carter, 2000). This
knowledge held by an organization’s employees is ultimately an asset, therefore knowledge
management and in turn, knowledge sharing should be vitally important (Scarborough & Carter,
2000). In economic terms, knowledge management is a response of an organization’s need to
intensify their creation and exploitation of knowledge (Scarborough & Carter, 2000).
Managing knowledge gives organizations competitive advantages (Spender, 1996; Blake, 1998;
Hansen et al., 1999; Scarborough and Carter, 2000; Tan, 2000; Smith, 2001; Smith & Bollinger, 2001;
Babcock, 2004; Armstrong, 2009 and Wang & Noe, 2010). Any initiative, plan, program, system or
change needs a clear strategy. According to Conley and Zheng (2009) a knowledge management
strategy chosen by an organization should be in line or integrated with its overall strategy. Knowledge
management usually follows two types of strategies – personalization and codifying (Hansen et al.,
1999). In the personalization strategy, knowledge sharing depends on the person who develops it and
mainly shares it through direct person-to-person contacts. In the codifying strategy, knowledge is
codified and stored in databases and made available to individuals within the organization (Hansen et
al., 1999). Hansen et al. (1999) suggest that companies should focus on one strategy predominantly,
while using the other strategy to support the first – an 80-20 split – 80% follows the predominant
strategy, 20% the other. Thus, firms where employees rely on explicit knowledge – documentation
and codification – should use codification strategy, whereas, organizations that rely on tacit
knowledge should follow the personalization strategy. Companies that focus on customized and
innovative products should focus on personalization (Hansen et al., 1999).
Knowledge management is a broad concept comprised of various elements such as knowledge

transfer, knowledge integration, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation (See Appendix 1.). This
thesis focuses only on knowledge sharing in Sweden-based multinational companies and factors
affecting it, which will be discussed below.
2.4 Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing is an important aspect of Knowledge Management (Riege, 2005). Cummings
(2004: 352) describes knowledge sharing as “the provision of receipt of task information, know-how,
and feedback regarding a product or procedure”. It is also defined as “the process of developing
trans-specialist understanding through creation of overlapping knowledge fields” (Berggren, Bergek,
Bengtsson, Hobday and Söderlund, 2011:24). Knowledge sharing differs from knowledge transfers,
which according to Berggren et al. (2011:24), is “unidirectional flow from unit A to unit B”.
The knowledge sharing in organizations is dependent on the nature of the knowledge being shared
(tacit or explicit). Sharing, transferring and storing tacit and explicit knowledge differ from each
other. Tacit knowledge is the unarticulated part of knowledge residing in individual´s mind (Smith,
2001). It is lessons learned by individuals, know-how, judgment, rule of thumb and intuition (Grayson
6
and Siemens.
& O´Dell, 1998) and depends upon personal skills and expertise which develop through training and
experience (Nonaka, 1994). Sharing it is a difficult task which involves only people-to-people.
Explicit knowledge is shared through different technologies such as Intranets, Group Wise and Data
Warehouses. These technologies may provide some advantages in knowledge sharing through storing
and transferring information, time-saving and overcoming geographical boundaries (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998). These can also be problematic and will be discussed under 2.5 ‘factors affecting
knowledge sharing’.
An important element of the knowledge sharing process among individuals is that it can provide more
knowledge, not only to the organization, but also to the employees themselves. This knowledge
creation process starts from individual interactions at various organizational levels and relates to
combination of knowledge from individuals within the organization. This is beyond the scope of this
thesis, however for further information see Appendix 1.
2.5 Factors affecting Knowledge Sharing

Although knowledge sharing is considered to be of a vital importance to organizations, it will not be
achieved if there is a lack of knowledge sharing culture, trust and motivations (Andrews & Delahaye,
2000; Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001; Stenmark, 2001; Smith, 2001; Levin, Huber, 2001; Abrams,
Lesser & Cross, 2003; Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Ipe, 2003; Hsiu-Fen & Gwo-Guang , 2004; Riege,
2005 and Wang & Noe, 2010). After analyzing these articles, three main factors – culture, motivations
and trust – have been identified. Each group consists of sub-factors which are either enablers or
barriers of knowledge sharing within organizations. Trust and sub-factors related to motivations are
connected to an organization’s culture or culture within specific departments or units (Ipe, 2003). The
sub-factors have been grouped so as to provide clarity to the reader and have only been included in
one main group, even if they are potentially relevant to more than one. For example, technology could
be considered under motivation and trust; however it is discussed only as a part of an organization’s
culture.
2.5.1 Culture
Organizations are becoming increasingly interested in promoting knowledge sharing culture because
it is seen as way of gaining competitive advantage (Gold et al., 2001). Organizational culture refers to
an organization’s values, norms and expectations. According to De Long and Fahey (2000) culture is
reflected in the values of an organization, where values are reflected in norms that influence specific
practices. Management within an organization influence these cultural elements through the rules and
regulations they instill and also the example managers personally set in the workplace e.g. praising
certain behaviors such as knowledge sharing (Huber, 2001; Ipe, 2003). Organizational culture affects
how individuals judge the importance of knowledge and determines the social interactions
(formal/informal methods) through which it will be shared (De Long & Fahey, 2000). In addition, Ipe
(2003) believes that culture also determines the norms regarding the sharing of knowledge between
organization and employees. Furthermore, Ipe (2003) claims that culture shapes what individuals
choose to do in regards to knowledge sharing and communication in organizations. Thus, different
cultural aspects, namely norms and values, affect knowledge sharing within the organizations. Norms
and values shape communication, language, formal and informal ways of communicating, rules,
regulations, routines and the technology which directly impacts knowledge sharing.
The tendency for a knowledge sharing culture to exist within a company is largely dependent on the
attitudes of its senior managers. This is supported by research carried out by Hsiu-Fen and Gwo-
Guang (2004) who found that senior manager’s intentions to encourage knowledge sharing behavior
7
and Siemens.
positively influences the knowledge sharing behavior of the organization. The willingness of the
senior managers within an organization to promote knowledge sharing effects its overall knowledge
sharing behavior because of the influence and status generally held by senior managers.
Organizational culture relating to communication is another important factor that can enable
knowledge sharing within an organization. Communication in the broader sense affects knowledge
sharing in that a lack of which can significantly hinder knowledge sharing or make it virtually
impossible. According to Al-Alawi (1997) communication between individuals is a critical factor for
knowledge sharing and is largely dependent on the opportunities employees have for face-to-face
communication. Furthermore, from an organizational perspective, communication may flow vertically
or horizontally within a company which may encourage or discourage individuals to share knowledge.
Hierarchical companies tend to be highly competitive which often leads to impaired flows of
communication or information being shared on a ‘need to know basis’ (Riege, 2005). Furthermore, a
less hierarchical structure can lead to increased collaboration between employees. This can create an
environment which is conducive to knowledge sharing. A company which is less hierarchical tends to
positively influence knowledge sharing because individual advancement is less important and there
are fewer reasons to withhold knowledge from co-workers (Wang & Noe 2010).
Another factor which affects the knowledge sharing process from a cultural aspect, particularly
communication, is the corporate language. This plays a significant role in the process of sharing
knowledge. According to Husted and Michailova (2002), the importance of language becomes even
more critical when the company’s employees or partner’s native languages differ from each other –
increasing ambiguity. The lack of fluency in corporate language is the greatest single possible
obstacle for knowledge sharing and is the core of communication difficulties and misunderstandings
in multicultural and multi-national settings. It also affects the process of learning and knowledge
sharing heavily (Husted and Michailova, 2002). In addition, Riege (2005) believes that obstacles
related to language have little relevance on a domestic scale but are certainly important factors that
cannot be ignored by multi-national corporations when dealing with their international subsidiaries
and partners.
Organizations and individuals need technology to communicate and share knowledge. This
technology aspect can be understood from a cultural perspective, in this case connected to the norms
and values in the organization. Furthermore, technology is central to knowledge sharing. The level of
its usage is reflected in an organization’s norms and values related to knowledge management and the
importance it places on it (Davenport, Beers & DeLong, 1998; Rowley, 1999; Armstrong, 2009).
Technologies such as Intranets, Lotus Notes, Group Wise, data warehouses, video conferencing
systems, document scanning and sharing tools, and telecommunications networks are considered vital
to facilitate knowledge sharing (Davenport et al., 1998; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Rowley, 1999;
and Armstrong, 2009). Although, Davenport et al., (1998), Rowley, (1999) and Armstrong (2009)
emphasize the importance of these technologies in knowledge management, Davenport and Prusak,
(1998) downplay the role of technology without human support and warn that technology has its
limitations. In other words, knowledge sharing requires support from the whole organization and
should not only be based upon technological developments. Husted and Michailova (2002) believe
that technology can increase the risk of the knowledge being spread to competitors. Also, it can be
taken for granted that learning new technologies can increase knowledge sharing within organizations.
Technology can also be introduced as a way to motivate and ease the process of sharing knowledge
between employees. Moreover, Perry, Votta and Staudenmaye (1994) state that while solving a
problem in the software development process a developer puts great effort into finding the person who
8
and Siemens.
knows the best solution for the problem in the organization. Henninger (1997) agrees with Perry et al.
(1994) and claims that employees may lose 3-4 days just finding the person with expertise to help
them in the absence of knowledge.
Technology has its limitations and requires human support (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), however
knowledge sharing in modern organizations also occurs through formal and informal ways and the
availability of these can point to organizational values and norms. Formal ways include the regulation,
routines and practices to archive knowledge in databases in an attempt to share it with others (Riege,
2005). Conferences, seminars, magazines, brochures, guidelines, training programs, structured group
works and even the technical tools to share knowledge are also included in the formal ways of
knowledge sharing (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Riege, 2005; and Wang & Noe, 2010). Informal ways
of sharing knowledge includes coffee breaks during conferences or seminars and relaxed physical
environments in an organization such as coffee corners and couches in the corridors facilitate this
(Riege, 2005; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Informal ways are considered the most effective way to
share knowledge among employees. Regarding the importance of informal tacit knowledge
acquisition by an individual within an organization, Armstrong (2009:220) states “this individual
knowledge may be crucial to the interests of the business and could be lost if it remains locked up in
the minds of employees or taken elsewhere by them if they leave the organizations. This can be
achieved in informal and relaxed atmospheres such as coffee rooms, where according to Davenport
and Prusak (1998), people can talk informally about current problems, exchange ideas and give advice
to each other. Informal ways of sharing knowledge help individuals develop respect and friendship
leading to building of trust which in turn is critical for knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010). A
culture which promotes knowledge sharing in these settings will tend to be less hierarchical and
competitive as hoarding knowledge provides less benefit (Wang & Noe, 2010).
Rules, regulations and routines are an essential part of any organization which reflects an
organization’s value and norms and play a major role in knowledge sharing (Michailova & Husted,
2003). In fact, a strong focus on hierarchies and internal regulation creates a business environment
and workplace climate where employees are expected to rigorously perform according to
organizational rules and procedures, thereby constraining knowledge sharing practices by, for
example, punishing mistakes and failures (Michailova & Husted, 2003).
Norms and values of an organization in the form of rules, regulations and routines relating to
knowledge sharing are an integral part of knowledge management and an organization’s lack of
attention to knowledge sharing may be a result of its lack of awareness or interest in knowledge
management. In order to exploit and facilitate the creation and sharing of organizational knowledge,
processes related to the rules, regulations and routines should be implemented which support the
organization’s knowledge management strategy. These processes could stipulate that a department
must share certain knowledge with certain employees after the completion of a project. Without
systematic processes such as this the outcomes of the knowledge management initiatives will be
negative (Conley & Zheng, 2009). It is vital that the whole organization is familiar with these
processes (Conley & Zheng, 2009). In addition, Davenport et al. (1998) argue that excessive emphasis
on developing complex and detailed processes are not preferable. According to Conley and Zheng
(2009) the best processes are those which clearly define the knowledge that is expected to be shared
by employees of the organization.
9
and Siemens.
2.5.2 Motivations
Organizations need to motivate employees in order to promote a knowledge sharing culture within the
organization. Individuals are less interested to share their knowledge without strong motivation
(Stenmark, 2001). To ensure the flow of knowledge across an organization is not an easy task and
requires intensive efforts by management. Knowledge can be bound both inextricably and intimately
connected to an individual´s ego and pre-occupations (Davenport et al., 1998).
In order to motivate individuals to share knowledge, organizations often use reward systems. Rewards
can be monetary or non-monetary incentives to encourage employees. Non-monetary rewards could
be a dinner gift or praising certificates to acknowledge services publically. Monetary rewards include
cash bonuses. These rewards could either have intrinsic or extrinsic value. Organizations have
different perceptions about the value of reward systems. Although reward systems are controversial
they are still considered to be an effective tool for management to encourage knowledge sharing
among employees (Bartol & Srivastava, 2003). However, an organisation which values individual
advancement tends to have less knowledge sharing due to employees being driven by self-
advancement rather the advancement of their co-workers (Wang & Noe, 2010).
In addition, mutual give-and-take of knowledge or reciprocity can be a motivating factor for an

individual to share knowledge with a co-worker. Simply, individuals within an organization exchange
knowledge with each other if the perceived value brings positive change to their status. If the resulting
exchange adds value to their own knowledge, the individual will be motivated to share more
knowledge in the future (Wang & Noe, 2010). This factor of motivation for knowledge sharing
implies that individuals can improve their level of information and knowledge through mutual
knowledge sharing (Ipe, 2003). Reciprocity as a motivator means that individuals must be able to
anticipate that sharing will prove worthwhile, even if the exact outcome is uncertain (Wang & Noe,
2010). From the social exchange theory´s perspective, the knowledge sharing intention of individuals
depends upon the post-exchange situation. This implies that individuals will be reluctant to share
knowledge if the exchange is not favorable. A major element which can limit the reciprocity cycle is
the fear of exploitation in the knowledge sharing process among individuals (Ipe, 2003). The main
challenge for management here is to motivate employees to share knowledge even if the perceived
return for individuals does not balance.
Knowledge holds a certain power and an individual’s desire to part with this knowledge and thus
reduce its possible value can demotivate the individual to share the knowledge. Employees who hold
unique knowledge are often favorably treated within organizations. Therefore, knowledge sharing is
less motivating as individuals potentially lose their distinctiveness in relation to co-workers (Wang &
Noe, 2010). Due to the increasing importance of knowledge in the new economy, an individual
possessing required knowledge tends to create a notion of power around knowledge (Ipe, 2003).
Individuals consider professional knowledge as a source of power. The uniqueness of certain types of
knowledge held by individuals within organization provides special status. If an individual shares
knowledge, his/her status may be reduced (Wang & Noe, 2010). Smith (2001) believes that this sense
of power creates hurdles in knowledge sharing at an individual level and decreases the motivation of
sharing knowledge. Employees value their knowledge power as an important factor for job security
and position within the organization and avoid sharing it with others (Smith, 2001). This implies that
in an organization where employees are hoarding knowledge, strong motivational efforts can promote
knowledge sharing culture and reduce such tendencies.
10
and Siemens.
2.5.3 Trust
Trust is an integral part of knowledge sharing due to the inherent value in knowledge. A person
holding unique knowledge within a company can better be placed in relation to co-workers as they
may be seen as more capable or experienced in the eyes of management. This may lead to financial
rewards, promotions or salary increases for the individual.
The level of trust that exists between the individual and the recipient of the knowledge will influence
whether or not the knowledge is shared and how it is received. According to Levin et al. (2003)
benevolence-based and competence-based trust are two important types of trust which effect
knowledge sharing. Benevolence-based trust relates to individuals trusting that each party intends
good-will. Competence-based trust refers to the trust that the recipient of the knowledge has about the
provider of the knowledge. Levin et al. (2003) found that benevolence and competence-based trust are
based on the provider and the recipient sharing a common language, common vision and that the
provider demonstrates discretion. A common language is vital for the recipient to understand the
knowledge which is being shared with them. Similarly, a common vision is important as it builds an
affinity between the co-workers which can in turn lead to trust. Also, if discretion is shown then it
may demonstrate integrity and lead to the development of trust.
If knowledge is being shared by someone that the recipient regards as capable and trustworthy then
they can be confident they are not being deliberately misled or simply being given erroneous
information. In this sense, trust on the behalf of the recipient is required. It is important that the
recipient is able to trust the source and know that it is credible. If the source of the knowledge has low
credibility then the knowledge will not be accepted by the receiver (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000).
According to Andrews and Delahaye (2000) trust is one of the key determinants for the existence of
knowledge sharing. Their study found that trust was crucial because employees were concerned about
others claiming credit or plagiarizing ideas or knowledge which came through sharing. This is
supported by Bakker et al. (2006) who found that knowledge is more likely to be shared to a co-
worker who is considered honest rather than capable. It is therefore important that trust is present on
both the recipient and provider’s behalf; otherwise it is difficult for knowledge sharing to occur.
Furthermore, the level of trust that exists between the individuals knowledge sharing significantly
influences whether the exchange will occur. Wang and Noe (2010) researched the influence of trust
and found that individuals were less likely to share with those who were perceived as capable and
more with those perceived to be honest and fair.
11
and Siemens.
3. Methodology
The purpose of the methodology section is to outline methods and approaches to data collection
and analysis.
3.1 Choice of companies to study

The companies selected for this research were large multi-national companies operating in Sweden.
As the literature research (Riege, 2005) suggests, the knowledge sharing process within multinational
corporations is quite complex and differs from the small and medium enterprises. Thus, choosing
multinational corporations would provide a bigger picture of barriers and enablers of knowledge
sharing within the companies. Initial research indicated that Fortune 500 companies were losing
billions of dollars in knowledge loss, despite their investments in knowledge management. The
companies selected all had knowledge management in place and therefore their views on knowledge
sharing within the departments of their organizations are highly relevant. It was also important that
the companies were involved in technological innovations and with products of a complex nature. The
importance of knowledge sharing in these companies is more significant as they are dealing with
explicit and tacit knowledge and the interviewees are working within large departments where
knowledge sharing would be occurring formally or informally.
3.2 Approach to Research

Qualitative research is effective when the researcher’s aim is to gather data relating to attitudes,
motivations and opinions (Yin, 2003). On the other hand, quantitative research is relevant when the
aim is to test theories through statistical analysis. In this thesis it was decided that a qualitative
approach would be undertaken as the type of responses sought were largely opinion-based that require
some degree of explanation. Furthermore, face-to-face interviews were undertaken because it was
considered more personal and conversational, which would not only help elicit more detailed
responses but also attain in-depth understanding. As the research is qualitative case studies,
generalization cannot be made.
According to Yin (2003) there are two types of research; inductive and deductive. An inductive
approach involves developing a theoretical framework based on the primary data gathered for the
research. A deductive approach, however, involves using theory to form the analysis and collection of
the qualitative data. Therefore, the approach to this thesis is deductive as the literature review initially
conducted has been used to shape the collection of primary data from the companies and form the
analysis.
3.3 Case Study

A simple case study involves an in-depth analysis of a single event, organization, person or location.
Case studies are however not limited to singular events and multiple case studies are widely used for
the purpose of comparison (Bryman & Bell, 2007). A multiple case study is undertaken in this thesis
so that knowledge sharing within ABB, Bombardier, Ericsson and Siemens can be compared and
contrasted to analyze which factors enable or hinder knowledge sharing in the respective
organizations. The similarities and differences between each company can be identified along with
comparison with the theoretical framework. A distinguishing feature of a case study is that there is
focus on deriving the unique elements of each case (Bryman & Bell, 2007). This was considered to be
12
and Siemens.
important in this thesis where there was an aim to gain insight into each company through semi-
structured interviews.
3.4 Literature Research

Literature research was conducted solely through the Mälardalen University library where the main
databases used were Web of Science and Emerald. Literature research was also conducted through
Google Scholar. Articles gathered in the preliminary stages of the thesis were about knowledge
management, knowledge exchange, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and factors which hinder
or enable the sharing of knowledge within organizations. This stage of the research process provided a
background to the broader aspects of knowledge management and gave context the narrower subject
area of knowledge sharing.
The keyword searches used were knowledge sharing and organizations, knowledge sharing and
challenges and factors effecting knowledge sharing. These searches resulted in between 26,000 and
39,000 search hits. From these results more refined searches were conducted using keywords such as
knowledge sharing and organizations, knowledge sharing and individuals, knowledge sharing barriers,
knowledge sharing enablers, motivations in knowledge sharing, trust in knowledge sharing and
knowledge sharing culture. Literature found for the thesis are written and presented in accordance
with Harvard Referencing.
3.5 Data Collection

Data consists of basic facts – the building blocks – for information and knowledge (Armstrong 2009).
Data collection depends on the kind of the information needed for the research question (Ghuari &
Grohaugh, 2005). According to Malhotra (2010), there are two types of empirical data; primary and
secondary data.
3.5.1 Secondary Data

Secondary data consists of information which already exists after previous research has been
conducted. Secondary data can show existing problems, however the information needed may be
missing and more may be required (Malhotra, 2010; Kotler, et al., 2002). This sort of data can be
either internal, which is acquired from within an organization, or external which comes from outside
an organization (Malhotra, 2010). The secondary data for the thesis has mainly been taken from the
company websites.
3.5.2 Primary Data

The source of data collection for this thesis has mainly been primary data. This data is exclusively
collected to serve a particular purpose of a research (Kotler, et al., 2002). In this thesis primary data is
collected through interviewing four managers – one from each – ABB, Bombardier, Ericsson and
Siemens.
3.5.3 Interviews
Since the subject of this thesis deals mainly with human perception and knowledge, the interviews
were needed to gain an understanding of chosen subject. In fact, the interviews had all the
characteristics of the formal interview described by Holloway (1997). Accordingly, they were
arranged in advance; the respondents were contacted via telephone and e-mail prior to the interview;
and the interviews were recorded with the permission of respondents.
Since the topic of the thesis is dealing with the one of the competitive advantages in the organizations
and it is difficult to attain straightforward answers, some questions needed follow up questions. The
13
and Siemens.
interviews, therefore, were semi-structured. This means that questions can be flexible and adjusted
according to flow of discussion, giving the respondent an opportunity to express thoughts and feelings
(Holloway, 1997). This type of interview helped with pursuing and probing particular issues about the
chosen subject.
The interviews were conducted face-to-face. This sort of interview was preferable from the beginning
of the process of writing this thesis. According to Sekaran (2003), face-to-face interviews provide a
higher level of understanding between interviewer and respondent. It is a controlled interview
situation where the interviewer has the possibility to ask complicated and follow-up questions to gain
the required information (Sekaran, 2003). In face-to-face interviews, it was thought that even if the
questions were not answered clearly, the hand or facial gestures would help the interviewers to
understand the matter clearer.
Four face-to-face interviews were conducted for this study. Since the subject of the thesis deals with
sensitive issue of competitive advantage, it proved difficult to find respondents. The companies feared
that they may reveal details of their important competitive advantage to their competitors if
interviewed. However, professionalism in contacting the companies via formal e-mails and telephone
conversations was maintained and interviewees were offered the opportunity to remain anonymous
during the interviews to allay some of these concerns.
The interviews with Siemens and Ericsson were conducted in Stockholm, while interviews with ABB
and Bombardier were held in Västerås, Sweden. Each interview lasted 30-45 minutes. The
atmosphere where the interviews were conducted helped them to be conducted in a congenial way.
The interview with Siemens was conducted at the main office of the company in Kista, Stockholm on
December 03, 2012. It started at 14:15 and lasted approximately 35 minutes. As it was stated the
company ‘is very sensitive’ about knowledge and information security, the interview was conducted
in a small conference room equipped with necessary tools for conferences up to 10 people. However,
the flow of the conversation during the interview was rather friendly partly because of the way
questions were put forward and partly because the respondent felt secure after discussing the topic
face-to-face.
In order to get empirical data from Ericsson, the interview was conducted on December 05, 2012 at
Ericsson head office in Telefonplan, Stockholm. The interview was done in a very pleasant
environment where employees take coffee breaks and discuss issues related to their job. The interview
started at 14:00 and lasted around 30 minutes. Since the respondent was very well aware of the topic
there was a good understanding between parties due to the informal atmosphere and the knowledge
about the topic.
The empirical data from Bombardier was collected during the interview at the main office of the
company in Östra Ringvägen, Västerås on December 12, 2012. The 45 minute interview started at
15:30 and was conducted in a small group room close to one of the coffee corners in the building.
There was a mutual understanding due the respondent’s awareness of the topic which led to a friendly
and more open interview.
The interview with ABB was conducted on December 13, 2012 in one of the group rooms at
Mälardalen University in Västerås. The interview which started at 16:30 (after working hours) and
lasted about 40 minutes was conducted at the university building due to the closeness of respondent’s
residence to the university. Although the respondent has been living very close to the university, she
14
and Siemens.
has never been to the building. The overall atmosphere of the university, particularly the chosen room
for interview with a big glass window on both sides of the room overlooking the main entry and
library on the one side and the university’s yard on the other, helped the interview to be conducted
openly and friendly.
The interviews were started with a short introduction of the topic and then by general questions about
the overall knowledge management in the company. This was followed by specific questions about
knowledge sharing and factors enabling or hindering knowledge sharing in the company. The
respondents were challenged to give details or more explanation about the actual hindrances in the
company and their responses to the hindrances. The interviewees were also challenged regarding their
own efforts to share knowledge – how they shared and why they shared.
The interviewers were allowed to record the interview. The issue of recording interviews was not
raised in any e-mail or telephone conversation prior to the actual interviews fearing rejection. The
respondents were promised that the recordings would only be used for accuracy reasons of the
empirical data usage and would be deleted after the transcriptions of the interviews were made. Thus,
the interviews were deleted after transcribing them. (Main questions asked are attached in
Appendix.2)
3.6 Choice of Respondents

The tendency for a knowledge sharing culture to exist within a company is largely dependent on the
attitudes of its senior managers. This is supported by research carried out by Hsiu-Fen and Gwo-
Guang (2004) which found that senior manager’s intentions to encourage knowledge sharing behavior
positively influences the knowledge sharing behavior of the organization. Therefore, four managers
were interviewed for this thesis.
Initially the focus of the thesis was to interview a project team and investigate its knowledge sharing
barriers and enablers. However, due to knowledge sharing being considered one of the most important
competitive advantages, all the attempts to find and interview such teams was unsuccessful. Thus, the
thesis focuses on enablers and barriers of knowledge sharing within a particular department in ABB,
Bombardier, Ericsson and Siemens. Judgmental sampling approach is used in the study and
accordingly the choice of respondents is based on the judgment of the researchers (Sekaran, 2003).
Based on this, it was important to select managers who work within departments performing similar
functions so that any conclusions drawn will have relevance. Accordingly, the chosen managers –
four managers, one from each company – were either directly involved in the sales department or had
experience working in the sales sector of the chosen companies. Since the sales sector involves much
knowledge about customers it was reasonable to gain empirical data about factors affecting the
knowledge sharing process within the chosen companies as the managers would be aware of
knowledge management.
Furthermore, another criterion was to select managers who have a good knowledge of the company
and significant work experience. Thus, the chosen respondents fulfilled this criterion and each is
presented briefly below.
Marie-Louise has worked in ABB for 28 years. During the 28 years of her career in ABB she has
worked in different positions in different divisions of ABB including Sales Operations. She has been
working as a General Manager in Central Stock Nordic department of ABB for several years.
15
and Siemens.
Peter Östman has worked in Bombardier for 12 years. He has been working as a Sales Manager in the
Sales and Marketing department of the vehicle division in Västerås for about 2 years. His area of
Sales Operations in the Sales Nordic sector of the Bombardier includes products related to mainline
and metros.
Mattias Åhland has been in charge of different projects in Ericsson for several years. Apart from those
projects he is also responsible for the coordination of different SCRUM teams, project teams and
cross functional teams in different departments of Ericsson including sales. Organization learning and
sharing knowledge is not only his area of interest, but he is also responsible to encourage, motivate
and oversee the process of sharing knowledge and learning within the whole organization.
Per-Olof Bohlin works at Siemens as Operations Manager of the company’s Nordic Operation,
particularly Nordic Sales and Services based in Stockholm, Sweden. He is also responsible for
compliance of Siemens’ rules and regulations in different divisions of the company’s Swedish branch
– Nordic Sales and Service and Product Lifecycle Management, in particular.
3.7 Data Analysis

As the research in the thesis is qualitative and the research strategy is a deductive approach, analysis
is done by combining the theories and the empirical findings. The findings are then compared with the
theoretical research of the thesis. More specifically, each factor affecting knowledge sharing which
was discussed in the literature review was matched with the answers of respondents about that factor.
Then, the factor was analyzed through finding contradictions and similarities both in literature review
and interviews. Besides drawing comparisons, short comments based upon the literature review are
also added on some occasions.
3.8 Validity
Validity relates to the integrity of the conclusions drawn from the research (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
This can be improved by asking different types of questions. Lundahl and Skärvad (1999) divide
validity into two parts; internal validity and external validity. Internal validity refers to the extent
theories are in accordance to the operational definition. This means that the interviews and or
questionnaires selected provide required information. In order to attain internal validity and to connect
empirical findings with theory, an interview guide is formulated in accordance with theoretical
framework in this thesis. This in turn ensures that relevant questions are covered during interviews.
To do this, questions asked were in accordance with the operationalization which was developed to
show the connection between the research question and the theoretical framework (Appendix.2). The
interview questions therefore related to:
a. the types of knowledge the departments were involved with

b. the management systems they use
c. the formal or informal processes they have in place to share knowledge
d. perceived barriers to sharing knowledge
The external validity concerns the authenticity of results and their usefulness in different situations
other than the researched one. Due to the fact that this research is based on only four companies in
Sweden, it is reasonable to believe that the results of this study can be applied to other similar
business entities.
16
and Siemens.
3.9 Reliability
The reliability of qualitative research is assessed on its transferability, trustworthiness, credibility and
dependability (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Credibility is based on to the believability of the findings. The
transferability of the findings is reflected in whether they are able to be applied to other contexts. The
dependability of the findings relates to whether the findings would be likely to be found at different
times. The confirmability of the findings is the level to which the researchers have allowed their own
attitudes to influence the findings (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
In this thesis respondents were chosen on the basis of seniority and experience within the company.
This enhanced the credibility of the findings as they were in a position to give relevant responses. The
opportunity to remain anonymous was also provided which further encouraged trust and promoted
honesty in the respondents’ answers. Similarly, the research was undertaken in a conscientious
manner where there was a complete absence of vested interest and therefore no adverse effect on the
confirmability. All reasonable attempts have been made to increase the transferability of the findings
through conducting interviews with large international companies.
17
and Siemens.
4. Empirical Findings
In this section, background information of the chosen companies is briefly presented. The results
from empirical studies are gathered here while summarizing the conducted interviews. Each
respondent’s views on culture, motivations and trust are separately written.
4.1 Interview with Marie-Louise Stridh – Manager at ABB
4.1.1 Introduction
ABB (ASEA Brown Boveri) is one of the key global leaders in power and automation technologies. It
is based in Zurich, Switzerland and operates in about 100 countries around the world. ABB was
named after the 1988 merger of the corporations Allmänna Svenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget (ASEA)
and Brown, Boveri & Cie. It has more than 145,000 employees globally. With 120 years of
experience and history, it is currently the largest supplier of motors and drives, the largest provider of
generators to the wind industry and the biggest supplier of power grids worldwide. Innovation
resulting from its research and development is considered to play an important role behind its success.
In Sweden, ABB has around 8,800 employees in more than 30 cities in the country. Nearly half of its
Swedish employees are based in Västerås (abb.com & abb.se).
4.1.2 Views on Culture

ABB does have a knowledge management system where the information and knowledge gained
through different projects and product developments is stored. In some departments of ABB
knowledge management systems are better than others. The general knowledge, which is stored on a
central database, is standard and accessible for all employees, whereas, the knowledge or information
gathered by different units and departments is managed and stored by individual units in the form of
paper documents and files. However, there are certain departments which do not have any proper
system to take care of knowledge learned through different activities. The database, intranet and
several other tools, where the organizational knowledge is stored, is easier to use and extract
information.
Apart from these technological tools, there are instructions and manuals which can be accessed to
perform a particular job including knowledge sharing. These tools are well equipped with graphical
user interface (GUI), which eases access to them. Commenting upon the sort of knowledge stored in
ABB, Ms. Stridh, said, “For example, after the end of a project, there is usually a meeting where
knowledge from the project is documented and stored in these systems. In the system, where we put
the documents, is simple to use. It has headings and other stuff thought to be necessary. Reading and
reaching the documents in the system is quite easy. Everybody has access to them.”
Despite all the facilities and convenience, there are very few people that share the knowledge or put
the documents in it. A visible challenge with centralized organizational knowledge sharing is that,
everybody cannot share knowledge or put documents there. Stridh said, “If they (employees) would
like to add something then they have to contact the secretary or manager. This in turn, can take
longer time”.
When it comes to communication, the main source is through face-to-face conversations, emails and
via telephones which are used for internal and external communication in her department. The main
18
and Siemens.
challenge which her department faced was the communication distortion. A great deal of information
is exchanged through emails. She added, “Sometimes, it happens that a message is sent via email, but
the receiver claims that he did not received that information. The possible reason is that, their mail
box is overloaded and they simply just not noticed”.
The corporate language is English at ABB, but in Ms. Stridh´s department all employees are Swedish
so in their routine work they communicate in Swedish. When it comes to external contacts with other
divisions, such as communication with international office or the persons whose native language is
not English, it creates difficulty to communicate with them. Ms. Stridh further elaborated that, “This
challenge is visible for both sides. The language is problematic especially when you are having
telephone conferences, where sometimes it is really hard to understand the other end”.
In order to clarify the issue further she added, “A few weeks ago, I got an email from another office
outside Sweden, the language was so difficult to understand (…) I wrote back to him and he could not
understand clearly what I meant. Similarly with telephone conversation, it is even hard to explain
exactly what you want, because of different language”
The knowledge sharing in Ms. Stridh´s department takes place both formally and informally.
Employees sit very close to each other and have informal discussions constantly. The other informal
ways of such exchange of views occur at coffee breaks and lunch breaks. Discussing formal ways of
knowledge sharing, she mentioned that there are management meetings at different times occurring on
a regular basis. The other typical ways of sharing information and knowledge is through seminars and
conferences. Talking about the best way of sharing knowledge she said, “It was very nice that all of
meetings and sharing knowledge (…). But, now I start to think it is not really good, because if we talk
about things and do not document them, we forget them after a month”.
According to Ms. Stridh, another important aspect of organizational culture within ABB which can
affect the knowledge sharing process is personal ties and finding the right person with the required
knowledge. It was clear from the discussion that as far as her department was concerned, there was no
issue. She said, “Employees know about each other and are well aware of each other´s expertise”.
However, she added that “when it comes to ABB as a whole organization, there is a big challenge to
find the right person with required expertise”.
4.1.3 Views on Motivations

There is no direct monetary reward in ABB for sharing the knowledge. “If an employee did a great
job, which helped the organization to improve its productivity or efficiencies, he will be rewarded by
appraisal on special annual day of ABB”, said Marie-Louise. She then spoke about how she
motivated her staff to share knowledge: “What I like the most by being a manager to see my people,
those who I manage, to grow and make them know more and more, and take more responsibilities. I
don’t exactly know how I do it, but I want them to get much knowledge so they can be able to grow
and develop themselves”.
When Ms. Stridh was asked whether she expected something in return when she shared knowledge
and what that would be, she said after thinking for a while, “For people around me, the main thing is
that I give (share) them knowledge. But, then there are other people, where it is opposite that they
should give me knowledge, because they know more than me. It doesn’t have to be the same person”.
When Ms. Stridh was asked if there was any tendency among her colleagues in this regard
(reciprocity) she said, “I am pretty sure it might not exist in the Swedish ABB organization, it might
because of the language or I believe Sweden is pretty open country. But, within the global
19
and Siemens.
organization I can sometimes feel it. For example, when I ask question, how do you do this, sometimes
it can be hard to get an answer”.
The power factor could be problematic in some cases but this is not a significant issue for ABB at the
moment. Ms. Stridh thought that it is better to share knowledge with colleagues, so that one has
alternatives. According to her, if the knowledge is limited to one individual then it gives some power
to the individual but at the same time it brings certain difficulties, as well. For instance, the possibility
to take leave from work becomes difficult. When asked if she felt threatened to share her knowledge
because of the power issue, she said, “I don’t think so that when I am sharing knowledge, I might lose
my power. I have been here for a long time, and I don’t have something to defend. If everyone in my
department knows what I know, I am pretty sure that I won’t be kicked out of the company.”
4.1.4 Views on Trust

Trust is generally not an issue to share knowledge within Ms. Stridh´s department. She said, “The
employees share knowledge with each other without thinking about the returns. They help each other
to reach common goal”. However, within the global employees Ms. Stridh sometimes feels there is a
tendency to not share knowledge due to a lack of trust. The employees working in Ms. Stridh´s
department trust each other due to the personal ties which have developed over time. This facilitates
pleasant knowledge sharing atmosphere among employees.
4.2 Interview with Peter Östman – Manager at Bombardier
4.2.1 Introduction
Bombardier is one of the leading international organizations in the transportation industry. It is the
world’s only manufacturer of both planes and trains. Based in Montreal, Canada, it employs more
than 70,000 people in more than 60 countries. High speed trains, business jets and commercial
aircrafts are among its main products produced in its 76 sites around the world. With 2,500 employees
in Sweden, Bombardier provides range of services from delivery of vehicles to drive and control
systems and full maintenance service (bombardier.com & bombardier.se).

Bombardier has very clear processes about what kind of documentation should be created in a project
and how to store this documentation. Mr. Östman explained, “There are always lessons to learn from
successful projects and unsuccessful projects. We use both PDM (product data management) and
Intranet systems to store such information. They work well”.
The lessons learned from different projects are kinds of information that are not really the type of
knowledge that fits in all projects related systems in PDM. PDM system includes all the data about
specification, functional descriptions, drawing software solutions, etc. Confirming this, Mr. Östman
said, “But the lessons learned (tacit knowledge) are not there”.
There are other quality tools as well such as the Engineering Book of Knowledge and Intranet, where
much of the lessons learned are stored. Mr. Östman said that the Winter Expertise Center in
Bombardier globally comprised of sharpest engineers in the field and they deliver and manufacture
trains for harsh climate areas. They have developed the Engineering Book of Knowledge and also the
Bombardier Transportation Winter Guidelines and this is accessible to all the employees. The same
routine is followed in other departments of the company; the Lessons Learned is stored in Intranet.
20
and Siemens.
At Bombardier technology is a main source of communication. A great deal of information and

knowledge is shared and distributed through emails and telephone conversations. The challenge which
they face with this type of exchange is that quite often the mailbox is overloaded with emails.
Employees do not have enough time to go through all the emails thoroughly. This often leads to
misunderstanding and misperception. Mr. Östman said, “Despite the several benefits of such fast
modes of communication, sometimes I think it is better to prohibit the usage of emails in corporate
sector”.
The other issues in Bombardier which are connected with technology are the lack of knowledge and
awareness to use and take advantage of the available tools and data bases. They are very complicated
due to their size, capacity and location, according to Mr. Östman.
As Bombardier is a large global company having its physical offices in different parts of the world, it
naturally has employees from different countries and cultures. Particularly, employees at Västerås
office work closely with their German colleagues. Due to this multicultural environment,
communication in a perfect way is a significant challenge. Mr. Östman said, “We can see too often
different cultural issues, especially how we manage things, there we have some challenges in
communication, either it is misunderstood or the lack of communication".
Regarding the language, English is corporate business language but it is not the native language for
most of the employees, which also provides a challenge. Mr. Östman said, “Due to different native
languages, sometimes, it became very difficult to communicate with employees in different parts of the
world”.
Employees at Bombardier share knowledge in both formal and informal ways. According to Mr.
Östman, the formal knowledge sharing process takes place through several activities such as
meetings, seminars and briefing about projects, where lessons learned are carried over from person to
person in the form of conferences and seminars. The informal way of knowledge sharing occurs
during lunch breaks, coffee breaks and even during working hours due to the physical environment of
the work place. Mr. Östman said, “This daily contact over a cup of coffee or whatever is at least as
important as the formal way of sharing knowledge. In fact, it is an area where we can do more or
much better. In my opinion, we have developed this awareness that how important is to share
knowledge”. However, he preferred the formal ways of sharing knowledge due to the possibility of
referring to the shared knowledge when faced by a problem.
In the Marketing and Sales department within the vehicle division of Bombardier, knowledge sharing
works well, according to Mr. Östman. He said, “We sit together and meet on daily basis to discuss
task related things. But every two weeks, we have a half-day internal meeting, where we bring up
highlights on what is going on in each person’s area”. Describing his own motives about knowledge
sharing he said, “For me as an individual, what is good for the company is good for me too. If the
company benefits and as an employee it is good for me”.

Generally there is no reward system for sharing knowledge at Bombardier. However, when a new
individual is employed with required competences, skills and knowledge because of another
employee’s recommendation, then there is a financial reward, which according to Mr. Östman is also
a kind of reward for knowledge sharing.
21
and Siemens.
Reciprocity is quite a natural phenomenon, but at Bombardier Mr. Östman said that individuals share
information with others and seek information from colleagues when needed without thinking anything
in return. He said they try to help each other as much as possible according to their knowledge.
However, he believed, “In some cases there is still a tendency that some employees are not as open to
share their particular expertise with counterparts as others”.
Mr. Östman felt positive about sharing his knowledge with colleagues and did not think that by
sharing knowledge he loses his power within the organization. However, he believed, “There are
some tendencies among employees to not share knowledge because of the power issue”. Sharing
information with a newly employed person makes the working life “a little easier” both for
employees and for the company, he said.

Mr. Östman agreed when asked about personal ties leading to trust among colleagues and between
managers and colleagues who share knowledge by saying, “This is absolutely true that personal ties
which lead to trust can affect who to share knowledge with”.
In the marketing department of Bombardier it is focused on market knowledge, said Mr. Östman. He,
in fact, acknowledged that sharing sensitive knowledge is challenging. He also believed that there is a
high risk to share everything to everybody either formally or informally. However, Mr. Östman
believed that the personal ties and relations within his department are strong enough to facilitate
knowledge sharing with colleagues about different ongoing projects and issues related to them.
4.3 Interview with Mattias Åhland – Manager at Ericsson
4.3.1 Introduction
Ericsson is a world-leading provider of telecommunication equipment and services to mobile and
fixed network operators. Its networks are being used in 180 countries and 40% of the world’s mobile
traffic passes through its networks. Founded in 1876 and based in the capital Stockholm, it employs
about 18,000 people in Sweden and 92,000 people around the world (ericsson.com).

When Mr. Åhland was asked about sharing his views on knowledge sharing culture in Ericsson, he
described certain central tools such as Ericsson academy, educational portal, internal web and courses
where most of the knowledge is available for employees to take advantage of. He said these tools
contain knowledge about products, technology, communication and time management. However, if
employees want to add new information to these tools, they should go via the central organization
system.
The most visible challenge is the bureaucratic system of Ericsson´s structure which creates difficulties
when attempting to acquire help from an expert in another department, according to Mr. Åhland. He
also acknowledged, “The structure of the organization today is the most important barrier to
knowledge sharing in Ericsson. It is an invisible border. The challenge is that to give the people
(employees) freedom to help people that ask for help. There is a weakness of knowing about right
person with required competencies within the organization. In addition, it is really hard to get access
to people with knowledge within organization due to the fact that “they are booked 120% of their
time”. The reason behind that he said is, “managers are only concerned about their project deadlines
or commitments and it makes them to say no to allow his team member to help another department”.
22
and Siemens.
Describing the formal ways of knowledge sharing, he said that Ericsson offers internal courses to its
employees provided by experts and specialists, not only to newcomers, but also to those who switch
departments within Ericsson. Discussing informal ways, he mentioned that Ericsson focus too little on
this area of knowledge sharing. He further elaborated by saying that there could be better places in the
organization to sit, relax and talk about things and that conference rooms are mostly of the same
design and layout which is not good for creativity, innovation and knowledge sharing. He, however,
raised concern about informal and formal ways of sharing knowledge, “It is very ineffective that
someone has found something great and interesting, he will describe it to others, they will appreciate
it but they might not need that information right away. After six months they might need that
information but then they forget about that”.
In addition, when Mr. Åhland was asked about language hindering knowledge sharing, he replied
“Although the corporate language is English in Ericsson, sometimes understanding different dialect
could be problematic”. He also said that the problem is somehow solved by communicating through
e-mailing, however, it is still sometimes challenging partly because of the distortion and over-flow of
the information through e-mails.
Explaining routines, rules and regulations relating to knowledge sharing Mr. Åhland said that they
exist throughout the organization, but vary from unit to unit. Describing a particular routine, rule and
regulation to share knowledge in Ericsson, Mr. Åhland said, “When it comes to adding new stuff
(knowledge) in data bases employees need to contact the responsible person in central organization
system”. He also talked about the existence of different sorts of routines and norms to share
knowledge in Ericsson: “There are internal courses that are provided by people such as experts and
specialists to newcomers and people who move to new job or internal job rotations. And there are
innovation days and we have these days on regular basis for people to innovate and prototype and
learn new stuff and so on. There are certain days for you (employees) that are not related to project
jobs. You (employees) must be here at work and do something but not project work, something else”.

When Mr. Åhland was asked about the impact of reward systems on knowledge sharing in Ericsson,
he replied, “The employees discuss with managers about their individual responsibility and
developments, so, it is up to employees how they set their performance goals and connect them to
learn and share knowledge and technology with others. In that way employees are measured on the
basis of their performance goals. So, in a way it is up to individuals to take such role”.
Mr. Åhland’s beliefs about reciprocity are, “I also ask for help. Then in many cases, for example, I
have this team, I want to help, and I see some needs there but I am not probably the best person to
help them. So instead of getting the knowledge, I think who in this company could actually help them
the best, then I ask that person. Then I observe and see that this guy did great so I can learn from that
person as well. But I don’t see myself as a proxy there”.
Regarding the power factor of knowledge sharing motivations, Mr. Åhland acknowledged, “There
might be some tendency in people at Ericsson to consider knowledge as power”. He further explained,
“There might be a tendency to say no so that they keep the knowledge which is a symbol of power. For
example, right now Ericsson is having layoffs so if you are an expert and if the part of the work
cannot continue with your skills then it gives you some kind of power. So, there might be in some
cases a reason for not sharing the knowledge, competence and skills”. Speaking about knowledge as
power Mr. Åhland said, “In general there is a driving force that we should not have key roles, with
23
and Siemens.
only a single person knowing a certain area. This is due to the risk that vast amounts of knowledge
could be lost if that person leaves the organization”.
When he was asked about his personal perception of sharing knowledge, he replied that he feels
positive about sharing his knowledge. Adding more he commented, “When I go for an outside course
I already plan that when I will get back I will share this knowledge with my colleagues. The reason is
that it is good for me and for others with whom I share. It is also good for Ericsson”. Answering to a
follow up question he said that knowledge sharing for him was not about losing or gaining power, but
was about his personal interest.
When questioned about whether there was any tendency for managers not to share knowledge with
employees he said, “Today the managers at Ericsson ask for when will you deliver, why are you late?
Instead they can ask what are you proud of by delivering this project and what did you learn from it?”

In Mr. Åhland´s view trust is not a hurdle for knowledge sharing in Ericsson. Since most of the
employees work in teams and projects for a long period of time to reach common goals, it helps them
to build both personal ties and trust. However, he added that it also depends on the person who is
asking for knowledge in a specific matter or some sort of help. He then explained, “It depends on the
person being asked to help share his knowledge regarding a problem. If somebody asks for help, it
feels great to help. So if there were no other reasons to say NO, I think, in the most cases the person
asked would say YES to the help. So something makes them to say NO or I am not allowed or I don’t
have time are the most common answers”.
4.4 Interview with Per-Olof Bohlin – Manager at Siemens
4.4.1 Introduction
With the world’s largest environmental portfolio, Siemens offers innovative and high-tech solutions in
the fields of infrastructure, industry, energy and healthcare. It is Europe’s largest electronics and
electrical engineering company and is based in Munich, Germany. Siemens has 370,000 employees in
190 countries around the world. Siemens has been present in Sweden since 1893 and its headquarters
are located in Upplands, Väsby. Siemens has around 4,700 employees in 40 locations in Sweden
(siemens.se & siemens.com).

Mr. Bohlin described knowledge sharing in general within Siemens as an integral part of their daily
business. Siemens has a knowledge management system both at central organizational and subsidiary
level. These databases include knowledge about products, customers, employees, past history about
specific products and projects, which are stored on databases and other technological tools. Stressing
upon the Swedish subsidiary, Mr. Bohlin said that a great deal of our work is actually done through
cooperation with each other both internally among individuals within our company and externally
with other Siemens subsidiaries and central organization. Explaining further about the organizational
role in knowledge sharing Mr. Bohlin said, “Three years ago we were the best company in Europe
and we could not possibly be the best company if we did not share knowledge. So there are formal
meetings and there are informal meetings.”
Talking about communication, Mr. Bohlin said that most of the communication takes place via mail
and telephone with other units, but within the organization it is mostly done via face-to-face
conversation. While explaining the potential challenge in knowledge sharing due to communication
24
and Siemens.
failure, Mr. Bohlin said that it could be challenging sometimes. He explained, “Sometimes we just
assume that the other employee knows about some particular issue and we do not communicate”. In
this area Mr. Bohlin thinks that they need to work more so the information can flow and reach all
intended employees.
Speaking about the language factor in knowledge sharing, Mr. Bohlin was sure that it is not a
challenge for sharing knowledge within the whole organization. He added, “The language is not a
problem at all when it comes to knowledge sharing in Siemens. Even though Siemens is a German
company but traditionally our company is an American company. Because it was purchased by
Siemens. But it has a long history of American ownership. Anyway, the corporate language is English
and we don’t have any problem with that”.
Mr. Bohlin further described the formal and informal ways of sharing knowledge in their organization
as they have continuous meetings within their organization among employees or among management
where they exchange their views and information on a particular agenda. He further explained, “We
have action lists. In today’s meeting we agree on actions and we appoint we responsible persons, and
in the next meeting we go through the action list and see what we have done what we should do”.
Mr. Bohlin also mentioned that altogether they have eight big conference rooms where they arrange
the formal meetings. All these conference rooms are fully equipped with technological device
facilities such as conference telephones, projectors, DVD´s to assist the employees and management.
Describing informal meetings Mr. Bohlin said that they actually share more knowledge and
experiences in informal meetings. These informal meetings usually take place during coffee breaks,
lunch breaks and weekly “Swedish Fika” breaks. During these meeting they share their views and
experiences and questions regarding routine work with each other. Usually the informal meetings are
very important and they can happen at any time, according Mr. Bohlin. Furthermore, he described
these informal meetings by saying, “We communicate things. We are not only talking about
yesterday’s TV program, but we share knowledge, as well. That is why I did not invite you there,
because we are very strict about information security. Since we have so many discussions out there
between colleagues”
Briefing on rules and norms in Siemens Mr. Bohlin said, “Siemens issue certain circulars directing
employees to follow certain rules and regulations which have be followed by employees, whether
employees like them or not”. Whenever a new employee joins Siemens, they have introduction
programs both locally and centrally, through which individuals receive information about different
rules and regulations, he added. These relate to how to perform their jobs and use central and local
databases and other systems.

Siemens do have reward systems for employees as an acknowledgment for their hard work, but there
is as such no specific reward system for sharing knowledge. He explained, “Everybody here has a
commission. If the projects are successful, these people get high commission that is a reward. (...)
Salesman and technical persons have different types of commissions. The sale man would have a
commission on what he sells, but it does not matter if you do not share the information, because each
salesman has his dedicated customers. If one salesman withholding the information, it would not
benefit the other salesman.”
25
and Siemens.
Commenting on a follow up question Mr. Bohlin said that performance rewards were not a hindrance
for knowledge sharing in Siemens. “As everybody has their own dedicated clients and is not in
competition with each other, it helps them enhance their own abilities by sharing knowledge”, added
Mr. Bohlin.
Talking about reciprocity Mr. Bohlin said, “We work together towards the same organizational goal
and we want our projects to be successful. This makes us to share our expertise and knowledge
without thinking about any return”.
Responding to question regarding own experience about knowledge sharing, Mr. Bohlin felt positive
about sharing knowledge with others in the organization, but he did perceive knowledge to be a
source of power. Tacit knowledge in Siemens is shared through practicing. He further added, “I am
involved in so many things. Very often people say that you can ask Peo (me). And it is like that I share
my experiential knowledge. Also the meeting I had today with people from finance it was also
knowledge sharing”.

According to Mr. Bohlin, trust is not an issue among employees and they share their knowledge and
help each other whenever needed. “Most of us have worked together for a long time. So, whenever we
need help from each other, we feel free to ask each other, and most of the time we get that help which
we need. So, I do not think that trust is an issue among us for sharing our expertise with each other”.
The only possible issue, which can prevent them from sharing knowledge, is the lack of time or
competence concerning questioned issue. However, Mr. Bohlin pointed out that “I personally feel
that it is difficult to trust a newly employed person when I have to share sensitive information
concerning some projects with him/her”.
26
and Siemens.
5. Analysis
In this chapter, the findings in the empirical study in the form of primary and secondary data are
analysed using the theories previously discussed. The research question of the thesis is used as
the guideline of the analysis. The result of the analysis would answer the purpose of the research.
The interviews are first evaluated in relation to the theoretical framework. Then, the factors
affecting the knowledge sharing in each company are evaluated.
5.1 ABB
5.1.1 Culture
Smith (2001) suggests that the intention with knowledge sharing should be to enhance organizational
knowledge. From the empirical study of ABB it is shown that management is focusing more and more
on enhancing organizational knowledge. The interesting fact about knowledge management and
thereby knowledge sharing in ABB is that knowledge management is different within ABB at
departmental levels – some units have not knowledge management at all. This could be problematic
and hinder knowledge sharing when new employees are hired or when inter-departmental exchange of
employees occurs.
The databases and other technological tools at ABB contain explicit knowledge gathered from
different projects and employees working at different departments. This provides an opportunity for
individuals to take advantage of not only organizational knowledge, but also to transfer and share
their explicit knowledge in those databases and other supportive documents. This also means that
technology enables knowledge sharing at ABB by providing opportunities to store knowledge in
databases and other tech-related tools. This in turn provides consistency with literature review. Thus,
ABB is focusing more on personalization strategy of knowledge management while using the
codification strategy to support it, which is in accordance with the research by Hansen et al. (1999).
The empirical finding also highlighted the importance of senior management´s attitude to promote the
knowledge sharing culture within the organization, which is in accordance with research carried out
by Hsiu-Fen and Gwo-Guang (2004). This means that if there is system and opportunities available to
support knowledge sharing culture, but the senior managers are not interested in motivating
employees to follow them, then knowledge sharing will not occur. It was believed that knowledge
sharing can be encouraged through the example set by managers. This is supported by Hsiu-Fen and
Gwo-Guang (2004) who found that senior management attitudes can positively influence knowledge
sharing within an organization. Furthermore, it is important that employees see management setting a
positive example in regards to knowledge sharing and see that they have no misgivings about any
implications. The empirical study shows the value in projecting positivity towards knowledge sharing
as it will affect employee’s willingness to knowledge sharing. If employees see that sharing
knowledge happens willingly without any hesitation, then this will help promote knowledge sharing
within the organization. Certainly, it would be difficult for management to promote knowledge
sharing among co-workers while hoarding knowledge or reluctantly sharing it themselves.
The empirical study at ABB also confirms the impact of hierarchal structure on knowledge sharing
behavior within an organization. In the Swedish part of ABB the knowledge sharing is ongoing
continuously, but when employees from the Swedish organization seek help from their counterparts in
27
and Siemens.
other parts of ABB around the world it is not always forthcoming. In fact, there could be differences
in the level of knowledge sharing between different departments of the same company, depending
upon the geographical location and characteristics of senior managers.
The literature review suggests that communication is one of the important factors in the knowledge
sharing process and this was confirmed in the empirical study. Face-to-face conversation at ABB
provides more opportunities to employees working in the Sales and Marketing department in Västerås
to share their experience and knowledge with each other. This confirms Al-Alawi (1997) views about
communication´s role in knowledge sharing. The interview also confirms the different problems in the
communication process when sharing knowledge, such as language barriers and e-mailing. Although
the empirical study showed that there is a problem in communicating with people working in other
countries, this is not the case at local offices where employees speak the same language. In regards to
language and e-mailing, both sub-factors are proven to pose barriers in knowledge sharing. Language
is a natural issue and might remain problematic at all stages of company´s life cycle, however
knowledge sharing through e-mail can surely be improved by adopting proper measures and by
improving the rules and regulations within the organization.
Literature review of various scholars such as Davenport et al. (1998), Rowley (1999) and Armstrong
(2009) suggest that without technology the individual and organizational knowledge sharing is
incomplete. The empirical study shows that although ABB has technological equipment to facilitate
knowledge sharing and knowledge management, still the main part of knowledge sharing occurs
through face-to-face conversation during informal and formal meetings. Technology (e-mail, video-
conferencing and its tools) is used mostly for external communication when face-to-face knowledge
sharing is not possible. However, the combination of human beings and technology is essential for the
knowledge sharing process, which is consistent both with literature review of Davenport and Prusak
(1998) and the empirical study. More efficient use of technological equipment and opportunities for
proper training to use technological facilities could positively affect the knowledge sharing culture in
ABB.
The empirical findings are consistent with various literature reviews (Armstrong, 2009; Scarborough
& Carter, 2000) in regards to informal ways of knowledge sharing. It was insisted that coffee and
lunch breaks are vitally important for exchanging views and sharing individual tacit knowledge.
When it comes to the formal way of knowledge sharing, it is an important function of business and
paves the way to boost organizational knowledge. The meetings, seminars and conferences at ABB
are held on a routine basis to share individual experiences and knowledge concerning a particular
project or issue. The literature review suggests that the main enabler for tacit and explicit knowledge
sharing is informal but at ABB it is believed that formal procedures are the best facilitators for
knowledge sharing and lead to better management of individual and organizational knowledge.
However, from a managerial perspective it should be equally important to provide opportunities for
both formal and informal ways of knowledge sharing. The knowledge shared through informal ways
can however be utilized and managed in organizational systems when necessary.
When it comes to rules and regulations, there are similarities between the literature review of
Michailova and Husted (2003) and the empirical findings. It was commented that ABB do have rules
and regulations which should be followed while performing a task such as knowledge sharing, but
sometimes people do not care about it. It may be worthwhile to review such rules and regulations
from time to time so that knowledge sharing among employees could be improved and both the
28
and Siemens.
organization and employees can benefit from it. This in turn will help enhance both the organizational
and individual knowledge.
5.1.2 Motivations
Reward systems are not directly used by ABB to encourage individual knowledge sharing, due to
their sensitivity. The employees however can have other performance-related, indirect non-monetary
incentives to share their knowledge at ABB. This in turn enables knowledge sharing. The lack of
rewards for sharing knowledge could be because senior management at ABB feels that knowledge is
flowing across the organization at a satisfactory pace or level. Another possible reason could be the
controversy of offering direct rewards for knowledge sharing, which is in accordance with the
literature review of Bartol and Srivastava (2003).
Reciprocity is not considered to be an important factor that influences individual knowledge sharing
at ABB as far as units based in Sweden are concerned. It could be a potential barrier when it comes to
knowledge sharing among units located outside Sweden; however such issue is beyond the scope of
the thesis. However, the studied literature (Ipe, 2003; Wang & Noe, 2010) stress that mutual interest
of involved parties can affect individual knowledge sharing in either way (hinder or enable).
Reciprocity does not directly affect the tendency to share knowledge at ABB, but if the reward system
is visible to employees then it can be a barrier to knowledge sharing. Reciprocity mainly encourages
the improvement of individual capabilities and therefore has less effect on organizational knowledge.
The individual knowledge shared through reciprocity can still add value to the organizational
knowledge and thereby products or services offered by ABB to its customers.
The literature study (Smith, 2001; Ipe, 2003; Wang and Noe, 2010) suggests that knowledge as a
source of power can either be a barrier or an enabler of individual knowledge sharing. Since the
empirical findings show that there is no visible trend of using individual knowledge power either as a
source of distinction among employees or as a source of job security, it seems that knowledge power
has no negative effects on knowledge sharing at ABB. Job security and the power that comes with
holding knowledge influences whether knowledge sharing will occur. If an employee feels safe in
their position then they will tend to share knowledge more freely. However the feeling of superiority
by sharing individual tacit and explicit knowledge can lead to a sense of power. This in turn enables
knowledge sharing at ABB.
5.1.3 Trust
The reason that benevolence-based trust is well developed among employees at ABB is they have
personal ties with each other. This enables individual knowledge sharing at ABB. Furthermore, in
some cases management feels that due to the power of knowledge there may be a lack of competence-
based trust among employees which testifies the Levin et al. (2003) argument. Thus, trust can either
be an enabler for individual knowledge sharing, as in the case of ABB, or a barrier if employees are
unable to trust upon their colleagues or management. The lack of trust from the employee’s side upon
management can also potentially affect the accumulation of organizational knowledge and its value.
However, as earlier mentioned in the analysis, the absence of common language sometimes hinders
knowledge sharing. As Levin et al. (2003) suggests, this issue can further affect the trust among
employees and whether they share their individual knowledge.
From the above discussion, the relationship between power, reward systems, reciprocity, personal ties
and trust seems to have emerged. All these factors are apparently interlinked. The extensive literature
review of different scientific articles and the empirical findings for this particular study generates an
29
and Siemens.
opinion that a minor change in any of these connected factors will affect knowledge sharing in the
organization.
5.2 Bombardier
5.2.1 Culture
At Bombardier, management is well aware of the importance of knowledge management, which
affects the individual knowledge sharing and organizational knowledge. Knowledge management is
possible without the use of technology to some extent, but for a multi-national company like
Bombardier, knowledge management without the use of technological tools such as databases and
intranet is incomplete. This also validates the literature review of Armstrong (2009). The
organizational knowledge at Bombardier is stored in databases, intranet and in different manuals. This
means that organizational knowledge is saved and managed in different ways to facilitate individuals
in order to perform their tasks. This also implies that individuals share their knowledge with
organizations by submitting their learning from different projects to the central database or intranet. In
short, managing knowledge in the organization not only enhances organizational knowledge but also
enhances individual knowledge. Knowledge management systems at Bombardier only provides
facilities to share explicit knowledge, whereas, the tacit knowledge in the company is shared through
communication. This in turn testifies literature review of Nonaka (1994). This is also related to the
study by Hansen et al. (1999) where the personalization strategy is dominant in Bombardier and
supported by the codification strategy.
The organizational structure of the Bombardier is very flat. This enables knowledge sharing among
employees. This factor is consistent in both the literature review (Wang & Noe, 2010) and empirical
study; however the interview at Bombardier highlighted that occasionally senior management limit
sharing their knowledge with employees if the knowledge is sensitive or valuable. Senior
management´s attitude can be justified as it is not necessary to share the same type of knowledge with
all the employees as it may be irrelevant for them. However, employees feel satisfied to share their
individual knowledge with each other and management. In short, the flat organizational structure at
Bombardier enables knowledge sharing.
There are two main aspects of communication which are discussed in this thesis: language and
technology. Findings about the language aspect in the empirical study and in literature review (Husted
& Michailova, 2002) reveal that use of a different language is problematic. This restricts both
individual and organizational knowledge sharing because of miscommunication through lack of
clarity in verbal and written communication. In short, language is not a barrier for individual
knowledge sharing locally; however it becomes a barrier when communicating and sharing
knowledge with fellow employees abroad. The second aspect connected with communication is
technology. It was stated that technology can be a good enabler for communication and sharing
knowledge. However, the mode (such as email or telephone) and overuse of technology can be a
potential barrier to knowledge sharing. It also validates the point raised by Davenport and Prusak
(1998). The empirical study also confirms that face-to-face communication is the best way to share
both tacit and explicit knowledge. Communication can be improved through providing better
technological tools and solutions for the issues connected with them. Knowledge sharing without
communication is not possible.
The technological facilities are available at Bombardier, containing extensive amounts of data and
information, but still there is a difficulty to interact with these technological tools to find required
30
and Siemens.
knowledge. Another limitation with technology at Bombardier was the inability to store the tacit
knowledge. This also validates the thoughts of Nonaka (1994) in the literature review.
When it comes to informal ways of knowledge sharing at Bombardier, it correlates with the literature
review (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Scarborough & Carter, 2000; Husted & Michailova, 2002;
Armstrong, 2009) . Based upon this and empirical findings, the informal ways are the best solution to
share not only tacit but also explicit knowledge. This implies that it is of immense importance to
provide facilities in the workplace, where employees can sit together during coffee breaks and lunch
breaks in a relaxed atmosphere. This will provide an opportunity to discuss and share individual
knowledge even with employees from other departments.
Rules, regulations and procedures are considered very important in an organizational culture to
facilitate knowledge sharing as it will facilitate knowledge management and also enhance the
organizational knowledge. This is clear both from the empirical findings and the literature review
(Michailova & Husted, 2003; Conley & Zheng, 2009). However, it was stated that there is no formal
concept of punishment for not following those rules and regulations in ABB. It could be possible that
no such incident has occured previously or the employees are extremely responsible. Furthermore, the
impact of culture is very important in the formation of such rules and regulations and thereby the
concept of punishment. This could in turn affect the knowledge sharing and knowledge management
in an organization.
5.2.2 Motivations
Empirical findings concerning rewards show that Bombardier do not offer any predetermined rewards
and incentives to its employees on account of individual knowledge sharing. This attests the literature
review (Bartol & Srivastava, 2003; Wang & Noe, 2010) to some extent. However, the employees
working in the marketing department, having their own dedicated customers and projects can share
their expertise with each other to assist themselves in order to reach organizational and individual
goals. The resulting reward for them could be the appreciation they receive from fellow employees by
sharing their knowledge. This in turn will also enhance the organizational capabilities and knowledge
as well.
Empirical findings suggest that reciprocity does not affect knowledge sharing directly, which
contradicts the literature review. The reason why reciprocity is not affecting knowledge sharing could
be to achieve and concentrate on organizational goals due to the directions given by management.
Another aspect of disregarding the give and take or reciprocity factor could be due to working in
small teams and relationships among group members who have worked together for a long time.
The empirical findings suggest that power may hinder knowledge sharing within Bombardier as
employees tend to view knowledge as a source of power. According to the literature review (Wang &
Noe, 2010) power can be a barrier and an enabler of knowledge sharing. Employees may believe that
hoarding knowledge will increase their status and job security within Bombardier and place them in a
better position in relation to their fellow employees. This will clearly hinder the sharing of knowledge
within the company. However, if job security was not deemed to be an issue within Bombardier then
the improved status that comes with holding knowledge may encourage sharing knowledge as the
employees may want to show colleagues the extent of their knowledge.
The above mentioned comparison and analysis of literature review and findings at Bombardier
suggest that motivational factors actually have no or very little impact on knowledge sharing. The
reason could be that employees are cooperative and are well aware of the importance of sharing their
31
and Siemens.
expertise and knowledge with each other. Furthermore, they could be aware that it provides them with
a certain degree of freedom in performing their duties and having opportunities to enhance each
other´s knowledge and organizational knowledge.
5.2.3 Trust
The empirical findings show that the trust issue at Bombardier is equally as important as the literature
review shows. The reason behind competence-based trust among employees at Bombardier seems to
be partly because of job security and partly due to common interests to reach the same organizational
goals. The other factors which could affect trust, such as power and personal ties do seem to exist
among the employees. However the tendency among some employees, who do not contribute in
knowledge sharing as much as others, could be due to personal characteristics. Furthermore, it is
difficult to maintain trust in today´s uneven and uncertain economic situations. This in turn can affect
knowledge sharing among employees. In this perspective, employees can be reluctant to trust each
other and distribute their expertise among colleagues. However, despite all these changing tendencies
the personal ties developed among individuals could build benevolence-based trust. This confirms the
findings by Levin et al. (2003) about the trust.
5.3 Ericsson
5.3.1 Culture
Organizational and individual knowledge in Ericsson is shared both via Knowledge Management
systems and in formal and informal ways. This means the company is following both personalization
and codification strategy to share knowledge. Since it is not clear which strategy Ericsson focus on
more, it is difficult to elaborate upon. However, according to Hansen et al. (1999) companies should
focus predominantly on one strategy and use the other strategy to support the first – 80-20 split – 80%
follows the predominant strategy, 20% the other. Thus, focusing more on informal ways of sharing
knowledge depends on the predominant strategy in Ericsson. In fact, for a company focusing on
innovation such as Ericsson, the personalization strategy is recommended by Hansen et al. (1999).
However, when it comes to identifying a particular knowledge it is important ‘to find the right person
with the knowledge’, which is a normal problem in tech-related industries (Perry, et al., 1994).
There is knowledge sharing culture supported by management in Ericsson, however, there seems to be
obvious problems when it comes to the particular issue of communication in knowledge sharing. The
empirical studies at Ericsson shows that there are certain issues connected with knowledge sharing
when it comes to communication. These issues are more visible when corporate language is different
to the native language of employees. This also testifies the argument raised by Husted and Michailova
(2002) and Reige (2005). However, according to the respondent the language barrier is controllable to
some extent through the use of technology such as e-mail. The e-mailing solution implemented by
Ericsson in turn highlights the importance of technology as collaborative tool for communication; as
an enabler for knowledge sharing and as a facilitator for organizational knowledge and individual
knowledge.
The empirical study also shows the existence of formal and informal ways of sharing knowledge
throughout Ericsson, however, the respondent was concerned about the shortage of informal physical
environments for the employees to share their tacit knowledge. The importance of this is stressed in
the study of Davenport and Prusak (1998), Riege (2005) and Armstrong (2009). Improving or
increasing the physical environment which paves the way for sharing individual tacit and explicit
knowledge could eventually increase the organization’s tacit and explicit knowledge.
32
and Siemens.
Furthermore, the empirical studies at Ericsson show that bureaucratic and hierarchical organizational
structure poses a potential hindrance to knowledge sharing. This testifies the literature review of
Riege (2005) and Wang and Noe (2010). In order to promote knowledge sharing culture within an
organization, the role of hierarchical organizational structure is considered to be critical. Thus, the
flatter the organizational structure, the more the knowledge sharing is enabled in Ericsson. The
structure of a company affects the rules, regulations and routines about knowledge sharing put
forward by a firm (Michailova & Husted, 2003). The empirical data shows that Ericsson applies
different rules, regulations and routines (a formal way of knowledge sharing) to share knowledge
which differ in each unit. This is consistent with the study of Conley and Zheng (2009); however, it
sometimes poses a barrier to put individual explicit knowledge in knowledge management system due
to the hierarchical structure, which in turn limits the organizational knowledge.
5.3.2 Motivations
One perception of the empirical data was the lack of rewards offering both in intrinsic and extrinsic
forms to share knowledge. However, individuals can show their intentions for knowledge sharing to
the management in order to gain certain benefits in terms of promotion or their future goals in the
organization. This in turn confirms the study by Bartol and Srivastava (2002). A reward in this form
seems to enable knowledge sharing in Ericsson.
The empirical data shows that reciprocity enables knowledge sharing at Ericsson. The respondent
claims that the intention behind sharing knowledge among employees is not necessarily due to
reciprocity. However, close analysis of his statement gives a very clear message that when employees
share knowledge, they seek return from their counterparts in terms of knowledge, which can improve
their own abilities. This is in accordance with the reviewed literature of Ipe (2003) and Wang and Noe
(2010). The main challenge for management here is to motivate employees to share knowledge even
if the perceived return for individuals does not balance.
The literature review (Smith, 2001; Ipe, 2003; Wang & Noe, 2010) suggests that knowledge is power.
The tendency to not share knowledge due to potentially losing power, status or position could be a big
hurdle when sharing knowledge. Tendencies exist among some of the employees at Ericsson to not
share their knowledge because of a fear of losing power, status or position. Strong motivational efforts
by management are needed to minimize and finally end such a critical barrier for knowledge sharing
in Ericsson.
5.3.3 Trust
The empirical findings suggest that trust enables knowledge sharing in Ericsson. Empirical findings
suggest that this is due to the presence of both benevolence-based and competence-based trust among
employees in the organization. This in turn validates the argument regarding the trust factor by Levin
et al. (2003). However, the degree of trust among employees when sharing knowledge can differ
depending upon benevolence-based trust. This could be due to the fact that employees measure what
they gain or lose through sharing their knowledge. Language presents a hindrance in knowledge
sharing within Ericsson and literature review of Levin et al. (2003) shows that language is an
important element which can affect the level of trust among individuals when sharing knowledge.
Therefore, there may be some invisible hindrance in knowledge sharing tendencies due to trust and it
being affected by language of employees at Ericsson.
33
and Siemens.
5.4 Siemens
5.4.1 Culture
The general impression from the interviews is that there is knowledge sharing culture in Siemens, but
the company lacks motivations to share knowledge. Trust seems to be not an important issue in
knowledge sharing at Siemens.
The organizational knowledge at Siemens lies in databases, intranet and other technical tools. The
lessons learned from different problems in their products are stored on these databases, which can be
retrieved and used by different employees when needed. These technological facilities also include
individual knowledge and expertise which they gain through performing their tasks. As mentioned in
the literature review (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2000; Smith, 2001; Rus & Lindvall, 2002), this
stored knowledge is in the form of explicit knowledge. The tacit knowledge at Siemens lies in
individuals and is shared through communication and practices. It also confirms that the
personalization strategy is focused more in Siemens while using the codification strategy to support it,
which is in accordance with the literature review (Hansen, et al., 1999).
Communication is a critical factor for knowledge sharing and the empirical study shows that it
apparently enables knowledge sharing at Siemens. However, communication through e-mail caused
some problems when sharing explicit knowledge within organization. This was due to the assumption
that the receiver might have misunderstood what was shared. Siemens can use this challenge with
knowledge sharing as an opportunity to improve their internal communication by stressing upon the
employees to use technology properly in order to enable knowledge sharing.
The empirical findings at Siemens suggests that the corporate language at the company is English and
is not considered to be a problem as Siemens is traditionally an American company. This contradicts
the literature review of Husted and Michailova (2002) and Riege (2005). However, all other
researched companies agreed that language is a problematic while sharing tacit and even sometimes
explicit knowledge as well. Language may not be a hindrance for knowledge sharing at the Swedish
subsidiary of Siemens due to Swedish being the common language of employees. However, the
language hindrance may have been shown in the company if more extensive research was carried out
and interviews were conducted with other employees.
Formal and informal ways of knowledge sharing in Siemens seems to be working and enabling
knowledge sharing. However, the empirical study shows that the informal knowledge sharing is more
crucial, since it is seen more effective than formal knowledge sharing. This testifies the literature
review of Armstrong (2009) and Davenport and Prusak (1998). The importance of informal ways of
tacit knowledge sharing was stressed by the respondent as it provides opportunities for face-to-face
conversation. However, Siemens prioritize the formal ways of knowledge sharing as it not only
provides record of failures and achievements but also provides an opportunity to enhance
organizational knowledge.
Since rules, regulation, routines and norms to use data bases and other tools to share knowledge exist
in Siemens, this in turn enhances both individual and organizational knowledge depending upon the
nature of knowledge. Siemens also have internal circulations directing employees to perform tasks
and behave in a certain manner even if employees do not like those rules; this in turn provides validity
to the literature review of Michailova and Husted (2003). These directives, rules, regulations and
34
and Siemens.
norms are mainly enablers of explicit knowledge sharing but it may also hinder the informal tacit
knowledge sharing due to the strictness to follow such rules, regulations and norms.
5.4.2 Motivations
Employees are less interested to share their individual knowledge without strong motivation (Stemark,
2011). To ensure the flow of knowledge across Siemens requires intensive effort by management to
motivate employees to share knowledge. One solution is to use reward systems – monetary or non-
monetary incentives to encourage employees. Reward systems are an effective management tool to
encourage knowledge sharing among employees (Bartol & Srivastava, 2003). However, since
Siemens uses bonuses to reward an employee for strong performances, the managers should make
sure that this does not affect the trust, reciprocity and power factors. Literature reviews (Bartol and
Srivastava, 2003; Wang & Noe, 2010) also suggest that rewards system could also be a barrier when
the system is not consistent with management initiatives to build trust in the company.
Similarly, when it comes to reciprocity as another motivational factor for knowledge sharing, the
empirical study shows that the common organizational goals motivate employees to share their
individual knowledge with fellow employees without thinking about mutual give and take. Hence it
seems that reciprocity actually does not affect the knowledge sharing in either way at Siemens.
The knowledge power is considered as an enabler within Siemens as the respondent is positive about
sharing his individual knowledge with other employees. Management perceives knowledge as a
source of power which provides them with an opportunity to be prominent in the organization, which
is consistent with the literature review of Wang and Noe (2010). This sense of power from possessing
individual tacit knowledge enables knowledge sharing in Siemens.
5.4.3 Trust
The reasons why trust was not an issue in Siemens is in accordance with the literature review. This is
due to trust developing where there are personal ties, honesty, fairness, capability and trustworthiness
between parties sharing knowledge (Levin et al., 2002; Wang & Noe, 2010; Bakker et al., 2006; and
Andrews & Delahaye, 2000). Employees do not expect anything in return when these factors exist.
Apart from above mentioned benevolence-based and competence-based trust factors, the common
language as mentioned in empirical findings may be another reason for trust being an enabler for
knowledge sharing.
5.5 Comparison of the Companies
5.5.1 Culture
All the studied companies have rules, regulations and norms to perform tasks and manage their
routine work. However none of them impose any particular punishment for not following those rules,
regulations and norms. One aspect particularly special about Ericsson was the arrangement of
compulsory innovation days. This provides an initiative for employees to share their views and ideas
with each other. Siemens also had an initiative called action lists to control and check what has been
followed or achieved since the last formal meeting.
All organizations have knowledge management system where they store organizational knowledge,
but due to the bureaucratic systems employees are reluctant to add more knowledge in those
databases. Another common issue is the difficulty to use those databases.
35
and Siemens.
ABB, Ericsson and Bombardier consider language as a barrier to knowledge sharing, whereas,
Siemens is the only studied company which claims that language is not a barrier for knowledge
sharing at all. This claim by the Siemens manager gives an impression that he is trapped into self-
criterion and most probably his views about language proficiency reflects solely his own personality.
The other possibility which can justify his claim could be due to his post in the company as
Operations Manager. The kind of communication and contact due to his extra role as auditor for ISO
certifications in other subsidiaries within Europe may mean that he deals largely with technical
language. However, it would be interesting to listen to the views of other employees working at
Siemens regarding the role of language factor in the company when it comes to knowledge sharing,
but that is beyond the scope of the thesis.
In the communication process, e-mailing is also considered a challenge by all studied companies.
However, at Bombardier this problem is considered to be a major barrier to knowledge sharing.
However, it would be a great misunderstanding to blame technology for being a barrier or hindrance
to knowledge sharing, rather the studied companies should focus more on efficient solutions to use
technology as an enabler for knowledge sharing.
Ericsson and Siemens stress informal ways of knowledge sharing whereas ABB and Bombardier
acknowledge the importance of informal way of knowledge sharing, but prefer the formal way of
knowledge sharing.
5.5.2 Motivations
None of the studied companies offer any intrinsic or extrinsic rewards for knowledge sharing.
However, at ABB if management feels that due to the particular expertise of an employee others are
benefitting, that individual will receive good remarks in his/her service book. This in turn could give
the individual a chance to receive acknowledgement at the annual day of ABB in a ceremony.
Reciprocity is a natural phenomenon. Although all the studied companies denied that they share
knowledge with their colleagues because of reciprocity intentionally, close analysis of the interviews
shows that when they share knowledge they expect to receive something in return. Sometimes they
look for return for their own part and sometimes as in case of Ericsson they look for indirect return
from other colleagues in the form of knowledge, expertise and skills.
When it comes to power, managers at all the studied companies are positive about sharing their
knowledge. However, the management at Ericsson feels that there might be some tendencies among
employees to avoid sharing their knowledge. That is because they perceive their knowledge as a
power to secure their jobs. In Bombardier, senior management considers knowledge as their source of
superiority and therefore sometimes hides information from their employees. Management at Siemens
believes that it is necessary to share their knowledge with employees, and when they share
knowledge, they feel a sense of superiority. The manager at ABB also feels positive about sharing
knowledge but she also felt that sometimes there might be some tendencies among employees to not
share their knowledge because of the sense of power that comes with holding knowledge.
In short, there is a sense of power both as superiority and as a job security among employees and
management at all studied companies. However, from the management side, knowledge is considered
to be power and an opportunity to gain superiority and pride. This can enable knowledge sharing.
36
and Siemens.
5.5.3 Trust
Trust is considered one of the most critical factors for sharing knowledge in all studied companies.
Sometimes employees are reluctant to share their expertise because they perceive their expertise,
skills and knowledge as their source of power to survive in the organization. This hinders knowledge
sharing. If employees have worked for a reasonable time together it helps them to trust each other and
management as well. The driving force behind building trust among employees at the studied
companies is their desire and mission to reach organizational goals. Thus, in order to successfully
reach assigned targets and goals, employees should be instructed and encouraged to share their
expertise with their counterparts.
The analysis of the empirical study at all four studied companies also shows that in the absence of
trust among employees within a company, it is hard to achieve knowledge sharing. This in turn means
that the degree of trust among employees within an organization determines whether it enables
knowledge sharing or poses a barrier to knowledge sharing. The respondents from studied companies
firmly believe that trust is well developed among their employees at their respective departments,
which in turn enables knowledge sharing. However, when it comes to interdepartmental matters the
level of trust is weaker. Similarly, when it comes to knowledge sharing with other subsidiaries in
different parts of the world trust is also considered to be weak.
37
and Siemens.
6. Conclusion
A brief conclusion is drawn from the results of the analysis in attempt to answer the research
question of the thesis.
The research was started with the aim to investigate about the influence of various mentioned factors
such as culture, motivations and trust on knowledge sharing within multi-national organizations. This
study reveals that apart from knowledge sharing, the above mentioned factors also greatly influence
individual knowledge, capabilities and organizational knowledge. Furthermore, this research also
shows the impact of the discussed factors upon knowledge management within the studied
organizations. In short, if any of the studied factors pose a barrier to knowledge sharing within
organizations it will also limit the opportunities to enhance both individual and organizational
knowledge and, in some cases, knowledge management opportunities. This was evident in the
empirical findings.
A more in-depth conclusion concerning the studied factors affecting knowledge sharing is presented
below.
6.1 Culture
The culture of the organization and its hierarchal structure affects the knowledge sharing within an
organization. This study shows that communication being part of culture is one of the key elements
that enable knowledge sharing, but if the organizational culture and structure is too bureaucratic and
hierarchal, the communication procedure will take longer time. This in turn will affect the knowledge
sharing and in some cases (as in Ericsson) hinder knowledge sharing. Besides hierarchy, technology
also plays an important role to make communication process occur quickly in order to enable
knowledge sharing among employees. The study results shows that the usage of technology for e-
mailing purposes causes hindrances to knowledge sharing in all the studied companies. This study
also highlights language being part of culture as another factor which affects the communication
process and cause hindrance to knowledge sharing. Study results show that difficulties in
communicating in foreign or second language causes hindrance to knowledge sharing. This hindrance
for knowledge sharing is even more significant when communicating internationally.
It is also clear from the study that both informal and formal ways to communicate enables knowledge
sharing. Indeed, the employees gain and share more knowledge from informal ways, but the formal
ways of sharing knowledge enhance organizational knowledge and are appropriate for knowledge
management. Rules, regulations and routines enable knowledge sharing to a certain extent in studied
companies and are good for knowledge management within an organization but with a disadvantage
of limiting the informal individual knowledge sharing among employees.
The use of technology not only enables faster knowledge sharing among individuals within an
organization but also enables knowledge sharing between individuals and organizational knowledge
residing in knowledge management systems. The results from studied companies shows that
technology, seemingly causes hindrance to knowledge sharing when retrieving information from
databases and intranet. Technology is also proven to be a hindrance while adding more knowledge
into knowledge management systems of the organizations. The results from studied companies
suggest that, it is partly due to rules, regulations, and routines and partly due to lack of awareness with
the usage of technological equipment. In fact, the technical difficulties with the use of technology for
38
and Siemens.
knowledge sharing are not impossible to deal with in the studied companies. The management at the
respective case companies need to boost their training programs to make employees familiar with the
organization’s technological data warehouses, otherwise the use of technology will not enable
knowledge sharing.
6.2 Motivations
Motivational tools used by an organization can greatly affect the knowledge sharing within it, as
argued in literature review. However, the findings suggest that none of the organizations use rewards
to encourage employees to share knowledge. The attitude of the studied companies towards rewards
proves that rewards can either be an enabler or barrier to knowledge sharing. There is no evidence
about the influence of rewards on knowledge sharing from the studied companies; however, non-
monetary invisible rewards as in the case of ABB or Ericsson seems to enable knowledge sharing.
Furthermore, the introduction of rewards will also affect the other factors such as power, trust and
reciprocity negatively. This in turn will have an overall impact on knowledge sharing culture within
an organization. Reciprocity being another motivation more or less enables knowledge sharing within
all studied organizations. However, this study also shows that it seems to create hindrances to
knowledge sharing if management fails to provide an environment within organization where
employees do not feel job security or if they feel they are being exploited by fellow employees or
management, as in case of Ericsson.
Power is more complicated motivation to encourage knowledge sharing within organization. Power
can either be an enabler or barrier to knowledge sharing. The degree of knowledge as power also
differs from organization to organization and person to person. This research shows that knowledge
power is connected with job security. This means that if an employee does not feel secure about his
job or position within organization, there are great chances that knowledge power will be greater and
consequently will pose barriers to knowledge sharing. However, it depends upon the manager’s skills
in motivating their employees and gaining their trust to use knowledge power as an enabler to
promote knowledge sharing. However, the results from all studied companies suggest that a sense of
knowledge as power partly enables knowledge sharing and partly causes hindrance to knowledge
sharing again specially in case of Ericsson.
6.3 Trust
It is concluded that the existence of trust is a definite enabler for knowledge sharing. The reason
behind trust is well developed among employees and thereby enabling knowledge sharing is due to
relationships and ties among employees working at respective companies. This means that both
benevolence-based and competence-based trust is dependent upon the duration of time employees
have worked with each other. They develop relationships with each other which in turn can build
trust. However, the challenging issue with trust from a managerial perspective is how to build trust
among newly employed individuals. If the management fails to build trust among employees, it will
be difficult to imagine the occurrence of knowledge sharing. As previously mentioned, the level of
trust can be influenced by reward systems within an organization. This study also shows apart from
reward systems, the job market and economic position of the organization, as in case of Ericsson, will
also affect the level of trust and thereby causes barriers to knowledge sharing.
6.4 Further Studies

The conclusion has been reached based on the interviews conducted with the managers of the four
companies – ABB, Bombardier, Ericsson and Siemens. However, the topic could be studied from
both manager and employees perspectives within departments and units. Furthermore, another
39
and Siemens.
important finding in empirical study of case companies, except Siemens, is the lack of awareness
among employees about the competencies of fellow employees working in other departments of the
same organization. Thus, finding the right knowledge and right person in the organizations studied
was a common problem for ABB, Bombardier and Ericsson, which could be studied further.
Another important issue which arose during the analysis of the thesis was the impact of rewards
(financial and non-financial) on trust, reciprocity and power factors of knowledge sharing. These
could also be further investigated.
40
and Siemens.
Reference List
Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y. and Mohammed, Y.F., 2007. Organizational culture and
knowledge sharing: critical success factors, Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), pp.22-42
Andrews, K.M. and Delahaye, B.L., 2000. Influences on knowledge processes in organizational
learning: the psycho-social filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), pp.797-810
Armstrong, M., 2009. Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. 11th ed.
London: Kogan Page.
Babcock, P., 2004. Shedding light on knowledge management. HR Magazine, 49(5), pp.46-50.
Bakker, M., Leenders, R.T.A.J., Gabbay, S.M., Kratzer, J. and Van Engelen, J.M.L., 2006. Is trust
really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects. The Learning
Organization, 13(6), pp.594-605.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A., 2002. Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational
reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), pp.64-77.
Bell, E. and Bryman, A., 2007. Business Research Methods. 2nd Ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Beijerse, R., 1999. Questions in knowledge management: defining and conceptualizing a

phenomenon. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), pp.94-110.
Berggren, C., Bergek, A., Bengtsson, L., Hobday, M. and Söderlund, J., 2011. Knowledge integration
& innovation: Critical Challenges Facing International Technology-Based-Firms. London: Oxford
University Press.
Bergiel, B., Bergiel, E. and Balsmeier, P., 2008. Nature of virtual teams: a summary of their
advantages and disadvantages. Management Research News, 31(2), pp.99-110.
Blake, P., 1998. The knowledge management explosion. Information Today, 15(1), pp.12-13.
Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E., 2002. Knowledge Sharing Dilemmas. Organizational Studies, 23(5),
pp.687-710.
Call, D., 2005. Knowledge Management – Not rocket science. Journal of Knowledge Management,
9(2), pp.19-30.
Conley, C.A. and Zheng, W., 2009. Factors Critical for Knowledge Management Success. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), pp.334-348.
Cummings, J.N., 2004. Work Groups, Structural Diversity and Knowledge Sharing in a Global
Organization. Management Science, 50(3), pp.352-64.
Davenport, T.H., 1996. Why re-engineering failed: the fad that forgot people. Fast Company, Premier
Iss, pp.70-74.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L., 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know. Bostan: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T.H., DeLong, D.W. and Beers, M.C., 1998. Successful knowledge management projects.
Sloan Management Review, 39(2), pp.43-57.
41
and Siemens.
DeLong, D.W., and Fahey, L., 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), pp.113-127.
Demarest, M., 1997. Understanding Knowledge Management. Long Range Planning, 30(3), pp.374-
384
Ghauri, P. and Gronhaug, K., 2002. Research Method in Business Studies: A Practical Guide.
London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H., 2001. Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), pp.185-214.
Grayson J. and O'Dell, C., 1999. Knowledge Transfer: Discover your value proposition. Strategy &
Leadership, 27(2), pp.10-15.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Kierney, T., 1999.What's your strategy for managing knowledge?
Harvard Busines Review, 77(2), pp.106-116.
Hendriks, P., 1999. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), pp.91-100
Henninger, S., 1997. Case-Base Knowledge Management Tools for Software Development.
Automated Software Engineering, 4(1), pp. 319-340
Holloway, I., 1997. Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. United Kingdom: Blackwell Science
Ltd.
Hsiu-Fen, L. and Gwo-Guang, L., 2004. Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing
behaviour. Management Decision, 42(1), pp.108 -125
Huber, G., 2001. Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: Unexplored issues and
suggested studies. European Journal of Information Systems, 10(2), pp.72-79.
Husted, K. and Michaiova, S., 2002. Knowledge Sharing in Russian Companies with Western
Participation. Management International, 6(2), pp.17-28.
Ipe, M., 2003. Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework. Human Resource
Development Review, 2(4), pp.337-359.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., Wong, V., 2002. Principles of Marketing. 3rd European ed.
Essex: Pearson Education.
Lekvall, P. and Wahlbin, C., 2001. Information för marknadsföringsbeslut. 4th ed. Göteborg: IHM
Publishing.
Levin, D.Z, Abrams, L.C., Cross, R. and Lesser, E., 2003. Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-
sharing networks. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(4), pp.64-77
Lowendahl, B.R., Revang, O. and Fosstenlokken, S.M., 2001. Knowledge and value creation in
professional service firms: A framework for analysis. Human Relations, 54(7), pp.911-931.
Lundahl, U. and Skärvard, P.,1999. Utredningsmetodik för Samhällsvetare och Ekonomer. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
42
and Siemens.
Malhotra, N., 2010. Marketing Research, 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Michailova, S. and Husted, K., 2003. Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms, California
Management Review, 45(3), pp.59-77.
Nonaka, I.A., 1994. Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science,
5(1), pp.14-37
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Nagata, A., 2000. A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new
perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), pp.1-20
Perry, D.E., Staudenmayer, N. and Votta, L., 1994. People, Organizations and Process Improvement.
IEEE Software, 11(4), pp.36-45
Riege, A., 2005. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(3), pp.18-35
Rowley, J., 1999. What is knowledge management?. Library Management, 20 (8), pp.416-420
Lindvall, M. and Rus, I., 2002. Knowledge Management in Software Engineering, IEEE Software.
19(3), pp.26-38.
Scarborough, H. and Carter, C., 2000. Investigating Knowledge Management. London: CIPD.
Sekaran, U., 2003. Research Methods for Business.A Skill-Building Approach. 4th ed. New York: John
Willey & Sons Inc.
Smith, R.D., and Bollinger, A.S., 2001. Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), pp.8-18.
Spender, J.C., 1996, Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), pp.45-62.
Stenmark, D., 2001. Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 17(3), pp.9-24.
Swart, J. and Kinnie, N.,2003. Sharing knowledge in knowledge-intensive firms. Human Resource
Management Journal, 13(2), pp.60-75
Tan, J., 2000. Knowledge Management – just more buzzwords? British Journal of Administrative
Management, 19(March/April), pp.10-11.
Wang, S. and R.A. Noe., 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
Human Resources Management, 20(June), pp.115-131.
Wiig, K.M., DeHoog, R., and Van Der Spek, R. (1997), Supporting knowledge management: a
selection of methods and techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Yin, K.R., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. London, Thousand Oaks, New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
About global ABB, http://new.abb.com/about/abb-in-brief [Accessed at December 27, 2012]
43
and Siemens.
ABB in Sweden, available at:

<http://www.abb.se/cawp/seabb360/482EC92B7276EECCC1256AFD00375C9A.aspx> [Accessed at
December 27, 2012]
About global Bombardier, available at: <http://www.bombardier.com/en/corporate/about-us

>[Accessed at December 27, 2012]
Bombardier in Sweden, available at: <

http://se.bombardier.com/se/about_bombardier_in_sweden.html> [Accessed at December 27, 2012]
About global and Swedish Ericsson, available at: <

http://www.ericsson.com/se/thecompany/company_facts> [Accessed at December 27, 2012]
About global Siemens, available at: <http://www.siemens.com/about/en/worldwide.htm> [Accessed

at December 27, 2012]
Siemens in Sweden, available at:

<http://www.nwe.siemens.com/sweden/internet/se/omsiemens/Pages/Default.aspx > [Accessed at
December 27, 2012]
44
and Siemens.
Appendix 1.
The four knowledge conversion modes:

Knowledge can be shared in different ways depending on whether it is tacit or explicit. For knowledge
to be created it must be externalised by the holder then internalised by the recipient. Tacit and explicit
knowledge are typically shared in different settings and these are discussed below.
Tacit Knowledge to Tacit Knowledge/ Socialization
This type of knowledge can be gained through training, observations, practice and imitation. The
unique attribute of this knowledge is that it can be gained without language. The only essential
element to acquiring this knowledge is that it is gained through personal- interaction with mentors.
Typically, these types of procedures create tacit knowledge through shared experience and are
referred to as socialization. Usually this mode of knowledge sharing is said to have direct links with
organizational culture (Nonak, 1994).
Explicit Knowledge to Explicit Knowledge/ Combination
This occurs through the sharing and interaction of explicit knowledge of one individual with another.
This type of interaction and sharing arises from different mechanisms such as meetings,
conversations, casual meetings etc. The knowledge created through such sharing and editing,
developing and re-contextualizing by individuals is known as combination. This mode of knowledge
enhancement has its roots in the organization´s information processing (Nonak, 1994).
Tacit Knowledge to Explicit Knowledge/ Externalization
This mode of knowledge building occurs when an individual with experiential knowledge shares his
experience, techniques or skills with other individual possessing “know-what” knowledge. The
fundamental rule behind this conversion and sharing of knowledge between two different types of
personality is that “know-what” and “know-how” complement each other. Such interaction results in
higher competencies for both participants. The externalization concepts find its way back to the
organization´s information creation process, an area still needing more attention by the companies
(Nonak, 1994).
Explicit Knowledge to Tacit Knowledge/ Internalization
Knowledge sharing between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge occurs when two individuals
with different attributes of knowledge interact. The internalization mode of sharing knowledge is
rooted in organizational learning behaviour (Nonak, 1994).
45
and Siemens.
Appendix 2.
Interview Questions
Question No Theory Question
Culture Tacit and explicit knowledge in their org - what are

they dealing with?
How is knowledge shared within your department?
Conference, Seminars, Fika, Coffee Breaks, LS,LL
Motivation: Reciprocity Do you expect anything in return when sharing

knowledge?
Culture: Communication Does the knowledge sharing differ from person to

person in your department? Which one is easier to
share, with someone speaking the same language or
different language than your mother tongue?
Motivations: Do they encourage knowledge sharing? How?
Why? Why not?
Culture: Is the work environment competitive? Does this

impact on knowledge sharing? How, Why not?
Power Do you feel threated by sharing knowledge, which is

the symbol of power in many individuals? If yes,
why? If no, why not?
Trust: Culture Manager's perception of their employees sharing

knowledge?
Culture: What are the biggest challenges from managers

perspective in knowledge sharing among employees in
your organization?
If they say any factor, then how do you plan to

overcome them?
Culture Do they have any knowledge management systems?
Culture Are they providing informal physical environment? If

yes, how and if no, why?
Culture: Processes Are there any formal processes for sharing

knowledge? Describe.
Culture: Processes Informal processes? What’s more beneficial?
46
and Siemens.
Do you have routines, rules, guidelines to share

knowledge? If yes, can we get an example of it?
Culture: Processes
Describe a situation where they feel knowledge was

'lost'. What happened and why?
Communication Which way of communicating do you prefer to share

your knowledge in a better way? Why?
47

Fulltext01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fulltext01 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fulltext01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology

Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration

Barriers and Enablers of Knowledge Sharing:

Course: EFO 703, HT 2012

AZIZ Najibullah, 800828

Instructor: Eva Maaninen-Olsson

Date: January 17, 2013

Level: Bachelor thesis in business administration, 15 ECTS

Institution: School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology, Mälardalen

Authors: AZIZ Najibullah GLEESON Darren KASHIF Muhammad

Tutor: Eva Maaninen-Olsson

Keywords: Knowledge, Knowledge Management, Knowledge Sharing, Factors Affecting

January 17, 2013, Västerås

4.1 Interview with Marie-Louise Stridh – Manager at ABB ...................................................... 18

1.2. Problem Discussion

sharing. More specifically the complexity of technology and inadequate consideration of

1.3 Research Question

1.4 Purpose of the research

2.2 Types of Knowledge

2.2.1 Organizational Knowledge

2.2.2 Individual Knowledge

2.3 Knowledge Management

Knowledge management is a broad concept comprised of various elements such as knowledge

2.4 Knowledge Sharing

2.5 Factors affecting Knowledge Sharing

In addition, mutual give-and-take of knowledge or reciprocity can be a motivating factor for an

3.1 Choice of companies to study

3.2 Approach to Research

3.3 Case Study

3.4 Literature Research

3.5 Data Collection

3.5.1 Secondary Data

3.5.2 Primary Data

3.6 Choice of Respondents

3.7 Data Analysis

a. the types of knowledge the departments were involved with

4.1 Interview with Marie-Louise Stridh – Manager at ABB

4.1.2 Views on Culture

4.1.3 Views on Motivations

4.1.4 Views on Trust

4.2 Interview with Peter Östman – Manager at Bombardier

4.2.2 Views on Culture

At Bombardier technology is a main source of communication. A great deal of information and

4.2.3 Views on Motivations

4.2.4 Views on Trust

4.3 Interview with Mattias Åhland – Manager at Ericsson

4.3.2 Views on Culture

4.3.3 Views on Motivations

4.3.4 Views on Trust

4.4 Interview with Per-Olof Bohlin – Manager at Siemens

4.4.2 Views on Culture

4.4.3 Views on Motivations

4.4.4 Views on Trust

5.5 Comparison of the Companies

6.4 Further Studies

Beijerse, R., 1999. Questions in knowledge management: defining and conceptualizing a

About global ABB, http://new.abb.com/about/abb-in-brief [Accessed at December 27, 2012]

ABB in Sweden, available at:

About global Bombardier, available at: <http://www.bombardier.com/en/corporate/about-us