Structural effects on inter-unit knowledge sharing: The role of coordination under different knowledge sharing needs

This paper aims to develop an analytical model of the effects of organisation structure on the sharing of knowledge within organisations. The importance of such effects has been identified in a number of different studies which have stressed the difficulty of sharing knowledge across internal organisational We draw on a review of the existing literature to analyse the interplay between structure and knowledge sharing. Three major perspectives are identified which reflect different epistemological assumptions and disciplinary perspectives; business strategy (Cohen Wenger, 1991) perspectives. These identify several structural effects on knowledge sharing, including; the impact of knowledge specialisation and absorptive capacity; the distribution of inter-personal networks; the distributed nature of participation in the work process. We draw on these existing perspectives to develop a synthetic model of the interplay between knowledge sharing and structure. Knowledge sharing is defined as a reciprocal process of understanding, influence and exchange which is embedded in the activities of the organisation. The interplay between structure and knowledge sharing is thus defined in terms of the relative interdependencies between people resulting from the differentiation and coordination of organizational produce important effects (opportunities and constraints) on knowledge sharing. These effects are analysed using a classification of integration mechanisms between units based on the two dimensions of formal-informal coordination and personal-impersonal coordination. This analysis produces a typology of integration based on four modal forms; norms, systems, informal networks and formal networks. Norms refer to the existence of common knowledge, mental models and shared identity. The systems mode is formed by procedures and processes. The third modal form relies on personal networking, while formal networks, e.g. teams and liaisons, are enabling the formal (official) relationships between units. Our analysis highlights the characteristics of each of these modal forms in terms of the amount of knowledge, complexity of knowledge and flexibility in the knowledge that can be shared. We observe that each modal form is associated with distinctive constraints for particular kinds of knowledge needs (Hansen, 1999). Some modes, such as informal networks and norms are able to deal with the need for sharing complex knowledge but do not allow enough flexibility in the knowledge sharing possibilities. 3 1. Introduction.