The Factors Influence Online Tacit Knowledge Sharing in Public Organisations: A Qualitative Case Study from Turkey

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 3, 1121 - 1142, 02.07.2019

Furkan Metin

https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.442144

Cited By: 2

Öz

Is knowledge considered a valuable asset in public sector? Most of the answers of top public managers would be yes to this question; however it is quite rare to see a public organisation with software systems to manage their knowledge repositories. Even top management support and the latest information technologies tools may not be enough to create an effective and efficient online tacit knowledge sharing (OTKS) system, as the case happened in Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), a large public organisation from Turkey. Even though the strategic decisions about OTKS are made by top managers, the success of these strategies depends on OTKS behaviour of employees.

This article, therefore, proposed a framework and reports the results of an exploratory study based on an in-depth qualitative investigation of factors influence OTKS behaviour of not only public managers but also public employees (n=50) of TurkStat. The results indicated that the OTKS platform was mostly used by the younger and well educated public employees. Apart from that nine out of a total number of sixteen OTKS factors were considered significant by public employees and the top management. Interestingly the public officers and the public managers, as two parties, considered the other party had more responsibility and impact on fostering OTKS. Moreover, each OTKS factor had considerable different significance levels for the managers and the employees. This paper is one of the first studies to explore the factors influence OTKS in a Turkish public sector institution from two different hierarchical perspectives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

online tacit knowledge sharing, public organisations, computer-mediated communication and collaboration, knowledge management

Kamu Örgütlerinde Çevrimiçi Örtük Bilgi Paylaşımını Etkileyen Faktörler: Türkiye'den Bir Vaka Çalışması

Öz

Bilgi, kamu örgütleri açısından gerçekten önemli midir? Kamu yöneticilerinin tamamına yakını bu soruya evet yanıtını verecektir. Lakin etkin ve verimli bir biçimde kullanılan yazılı kurumsal hafızaya sahip bir kamu kurumu görebilmek neredeyse imkansız. Bu araştırma kapsamında Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu'nda (TÜİK) yürütülen vaka çalışmasında da tespit edildiği üzere; kamu kurumlarında üst yönetici desteği ve uygun bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri araçları sağlansa dahi sanal ortamda çalışan etkin ve verimli bir Çevrimiçi Örtük Bilgi Paylaşım (ÇÖBP) sistemi tesis edilebilmesi mümkün olamayabilmektedir. Her ne kadar örgütsel ÇÖBP stratejileri büyük oranda üst yöneticiler tarafından şekillendirilse dahi, bu stratejilerin başarıya ulaşması esas itibari ile çalışanların ÇÖBP davranışlarına bağlıdır.

Nitel araştırma yöntemleri kullanılarak TÜİK'de yürütülen bu araştırmada sadece kurum üst yöneticileri değil aynı zamanda yönetici pozisyonunda olmayan 50 çalışandan da sırası ile derinlemesine mülakat ve yarı yapılandırılmış mülakat yöntemi ile veri toplanmıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre TÜİK ÇÖBP platformu ağırlıklı olarak genç ve yüksek eğitimli kamu görevlilerince kullanılmıştır. Diğer yandan TÜİK'te ÇÖBP etkileyen toplam on altı faktör tespit edilmiştir. Bu faktörlerin dokuz tanesi hem yönetici hem de çalışanlar tarafından farklı derecelerde önemli olarak nitelendirilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları ayrıca ÇÖBP başarısı hususunda yöneticilerin çalışanları, çalışanların ise yöneticileri daha fazla sorumluluk sahibi olarak gördüklerine işaret etmektedir. Bu araştırma, Türk kamu sektöründe ÇÖBP faktörlerinin yönetici ve çalışan bakış açılarından ayrı ayrı aydınlatıldığı ilk çalışmalardan birisi olması hasebi ile önem arz etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

çevrimiçi örtük bilgi paylaşımı, kamu örgütleri, bilgisayar destekli iletişim ve işbirliği, bilgi yönetimi

Kaynakça

• Ardichvili, A., Page V. & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7,1, 64-77, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270310463626.
• Barker, R. (2015). Management of knowledge creation and sharing to create virtual knowledge-sharing communities: a tracking study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19,2, 334-350, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0229.
• Bhatt, GD. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5,1, 68-75, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270110384419.
• Bhatt, GD. (2002). Management strategies for individual knowledge and organizational knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6,1, 31-39, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270210417673.
• Chen, CA. & Hsieh, CW. (2015). Knowledge sharing motivation in the public sector: the role of public service motivation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81,4, 812-832, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020852314558032.
• Chiu, CM., Hsu, MH. & Wang, ETG. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories, Decision Support Systems, 42, 1872 - 1888, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001.
• Chow, WS. & Chan, LS. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information and Management, 45,7, 458-465, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.06.007.
• Creswell, JW. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage. Edvardsson, I.R. (2008). HRM and knowledge management. Employee Relations, 30, 5, 553-561, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425450810888303.
• Faraj, S., Kudaravalli, S. & Wasko, M. (2015). Leading Collaboration in Online Communities. MIS Quarterly, 39, 2, 393-412, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.06.
• Grant, RM. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. S.l.: s.n..
• Hau, YS., Kim, B. & Lee, H. (2014). What drives employees to share their tacit knowledge in practice?. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14,3, 1-14, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.32.
• Hau, YS., Kim, B., Lee, H. & Kim, YG. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal of Information Management, 33,2, 356-366, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009.
• Iskoujina, Z. & Roberts, J. (2015). Knowledge sharing in open source software communities: motivations and management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19,4, 791-813, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2014-0446.
• Kalof, L., Dan, A. & Dietz, T. (2008). Essentials of social research. England: Open Univ Pr.
• Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
• Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3,3, 383-397, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383.
• Llopis, O. & Foss, NJ. (2016). Understanding the climate-knowledge sharing relation: The moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and job autonomy. European Management Journal, 34, 2, 135-144, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.11.009.
• Mason, D. & Pauleen, JD. (2003). Perceptions of knowledge management: a qualitative analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7,4, 38-48, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270310492930.
• Massaro, M., Dumay, J. & Garlatti, A. (2015). Public sector knowledge management: a structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19,3, 530-558, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2014-0466.
• Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Dt. Studien-Verl.
• Noble, H. & Smith, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: a practical example. Evidence-based Nursing, 17, 1, 2-3, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2013-101603.
• Nonaka, I. (1991) The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69,6, 96–104, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7009-8.50016-1.
• Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
• O'Dell, C. & Grayson, CJ. (1998). If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, 40,3, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165948.
• Saint-Onge, H. & Wallace, D. (2003). Leveraging communities of practice for strategic advantage. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Tangaraja, G., Rasdi, RM., Ismail, M. & Samah, BA. (2015). Fostering knowledge sharing behaviour among public sector managers: a proposed model for the Malaysian public service. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19,1, 121-140, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2014-0449.
• Turkish Statistical Institute (2017). FAQ, What does Turkish Statistical Institute do? Retrieved from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=sss