![]() Team knowledge use was related to improved efficiency and quality for teams completing more complex work. For more dispersed teams, knowledge use was related to improved quality but not efficiency. Knowledge use improved project efficiency but not quality for teams with less experience. When use of knowledge was concentrated in a small number of team members, efficiency improved but quality declined. Key concepts include: Using captured knowledge had a positive effect on the team's project efficiency (delivering on budget) but not on project quality (number of defects in the code). The study did not find effects of knowledge use on the quality of the team's work, except for dispersed teams. Edmondson found that team use of an organization's captured knowledge enhanced productivity, especially for teams that were geographically diverse, relatively low in experience, or performing complex work. Looking at large-scale, objective data from Indian software developer Wipro, researchers Bradley R. companies alone spend billions annually on knowledge management programs. EdmondsonĪn organization's captured (and codified) knowledge-white papers, case studies, documented processes-should help project teams perform better, but does it? Existing research has not answered the question, even as U.S. Individual and team characteristics enable people to support each other, make use of available resources, and perform effectively.īy Bradley R. There is a pattern of greater use of a KR and success for teams working in more supportive conditions. Although some individuals are deployed into positions seen as organizationally necessary - such as remote offices or onto teams where they all may not know each other - in these positions they are less likely to make use of available organizational resources. If individuals cannot get the knowledge that they need, then both their performance and their careers may suffer. KRs were less effective at ensuring much-needed access for those on the periphery. Key concepts include: There is a cautionary note for managers: In this study, KRs supported team performance by enriching the knowledge access of central players in the organization. An organizational KR thus fails to serve as an equalizer absent intervention. Findings thus suggest that KR use is not simply an individual activity based on need, but is instead enabled by certain social conditions (such as familiarity and experience) and inhibited by others (such as status disparities and remote location). Using extensive data on KR use at a global, outsourced provider of software services, the authors' results show that despite the seeming promise of a KR to integrate or equalize peripheral players, it instead enriches knowledge access for people who are already well positioned. ![]() In this paper, the authors begin to theorize the social and structural conditions that support KR use by exploring whether individuals on the organizational periphery take advantage of KRs, or whether KRs function more to enrich individuals whose experience and position already provide them better access to other knowledge sources. However, the presence of a knowledge repository will not solve the problem of access to knowledge for those at the periphery of the organization unless it is used. Such a system may function as a knowledge-access equalizer. An electronic knowledge repository (KR) offers a practical solution to the challenges of making knowledge available to people who might otherwise lack access to relevant expertise. Individuals on the periphery of organizational knowledge-sharing networks, due to inexperience, location, or lack of social capital, may struggle to access useful knowledge at work.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |