1
Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Sharing

1.1. Articulation of Chapter 1

The purpose of this chapter is to explore conceptually and practically the third step in the virtuous cycle of knowledge management. described in Volume 1, Chapter 1, which is dedicated to the transfer and sharing of the organization's knowledge.

In section 1.2, we recall the main concepts of transfer and sharing operations that are sufficient to fully understand the case studies.

The practical exploration of knowledge transfer and sharing will then be done through case studies, respectively of a banking company (section 1.3), Sonatrach (section 1.4), Hydro-Québec (section 1.5), analysis of the choice of a knowledge transfer method (section 1.6) and an agricultural field (section 1.7).

Section 1.8 summarizes the lessons learned from these five case studies on knowledge transfer and sharing.

1.2. Introduction to knowledge transfer and sharing

This paragraph is based on the study written by Thierno Tounkara [TOU 13] (sections 1.2.1 to 1.2.5) and that written by Jean-Louis Ermine [ERM 10].

1.2.1. Introduction

The concept of knowledge transfer was introduced by [TEE 77] in the classic case of technology transfer. It can be defined as the process by which an organization regenerates and maintains a complex, causal and ambiguous set of routines in a new context [SZU 96]. This process is a key element of the knowledge management cycle and allows organizations to absorb and make optimal use of critical knowledge. We are interested here in this process as an intra-organizational transfer of knowledge.

Knowledge transfer (or sharing) is an exchange process based on a binary relationship that depends on the contexts in which the actors operate. A knowledge transfer action is therefore characterized by the target audience (receivers), by the source that provides the content and participates in the transfer, by the characteristics of the knowledge that is transferred and by description of the environment (technical, social, organizational, cultural, etc.) in which this transfer takes place. A transfer process is easily described by a model (Figure 1.1) and thus provides the reference model for transfer or sharing operations (see Volume 1, Chapter 1). It is not a priori a unidirectional model from the holders to the receivers, because many crossinfluences and retro-adjustments are implemented in its implementation.

Figure 1.1. Model of the knowledge transfer process

This model makes it possible, for any transfer action, to specify in detail which elements are to be taken into account in the implementation. It is extremely useful for the success of the transfer. A large number of criteria can be established that can be used to characterize these processes. This is the purpose of this paragraph.

Research on knowledge transfer in general focuses on three themes [HAR 12, DAL 11, GUP 00, ZAC 99, SIM 99, SZU 96, ZAN 95]:

• - factors that affect knowledge transfer: these are parameters to measure the degree to which knowledge can be easily communicated, understood and transferred;
• - knowledge transfer modes or processes that address the respective transformation between tacit and explicit knowledge;
• - evaluation and measurement of the performance of knowledge transfer, with the aim of developing indicators to measure the effectiveness of knowledge transfer.

We deal here with the first two themes. We focus here on knowledge transfer where knowledge codification is a possible step in knowledge sharing and transfer, including the use of knowledge engineering techniques for knowledge codification and the development of organizational memories. We can thus observe the effects of codification on the factors that affect knowledge transfer. We then propose an approach that provides optimal continuity between knowledge capture using knowledge engineering methods and knowledge transfer at the individual and organizational levels.

1.2.2. Factors influencing knowledge transfer

We can group the factors influencing knowledge transfer into four dimensions:

• - characteristics of knowledge;
• - knowledge transfer mechanisms;
• - the absorption capacity of the receptors;
• - cultural and organizational contexts.

1.2.2.1. Characteristics of knowledge

With the characteristics of knowledge, we can measure different aspects that can be facilitators or barriers to knowledge transfer.

The work of [ZAN 95] and [SIM 99] highlights three characteristics that affect knowledge transfer: their tacit nature, the complexity and specificity (or degree of contextualization) of knowledge.

Tacit knowledge versus explicit knowledge

Polanyi described tacit knowledge as "things we know, but cannot express" [POL 67] and can therefore only be transferred through interaction. Tacit knowledge is not easily expressed or formalized and is difficult to translate into words, texts, drawings or other symbolic forms. In fact, tacit knowledge is the property of those who possess it: it can be easily expressed by one person, but another may find it very difficult to explain.

Tacit knowledge is generally considered to be more valuable than explicit knowledge and requires more cognitive effort on the part of transmitter and receiver [DAL 11], [HAR 12].

Explicit knowledge is associated with declarative knowledge, consisting of descriptive elements [GAR 97]. Explicit knowledge is a set of elements collected in tangible form, such as texts, sound recordings or graphic representations.

Complexity

Knowledge complexity can be defined as the number of tools and operations used in the knowledge transfer procedure [PTR 90]. Operations are actions based on implicit conventions from past experience that can embody knowledge translation within an organization [SZU 96].

Therefore, the greater the number of operations required to interpret and appropriate knowledge, the more difficult it can be to transfer this knowledge [ARG 00].

Specificity or degree of contextualization

Specificity describes the degree to which knowledge (and the operations in which it is integrated) can satisfy the beneficiary of the knowledge transfer (the receiver). In other words, "specificity" represents the degree to which knowledge is dependent on many different contexts of use [ZAN 95]. The more knowledge is adapted to the receiver's context, absorbed and understood by him, the more valuable it is.

For example, knowledge that is closely linked to local experiences and culture can be a barrier to transfer and difficult to transplant to another environment.

Key transfer elements (ECT) [ERM 10]

In a knowledge transfer action, it is important to characterize the difficulties specific to the flow of knowledge from transmitter to receiver. This characterization consists of identifying the difficult points in the transmission of knowledge in the field. This identification is mainly done in cooperation with experts in the field, who de facto always have experience of transmission to less experienced people and who are familiar with the difficult points that are generally a problem for novices. To assist in this identification, a grid is used to classify what are called "key transfer elements", an example of which is given in Figure 1.2. These elements are classified according to whether they involve theory, technique or practice, and in general in two classes: the key points to know and the classical errors to avoid [CAS 04]. Identification of these characteristics is a valuable aid for any transfer device.

Figure 1.2. Key transfer elements

1.2.2.2. Knowledge transfer mechanisms

Transfer channels

Communication mechanisms and information flows stimulate knowledge transfer in organizations. The existence and richness of transmission channels are success factors for knowledge transfer [GUP 00].

Knowledge transfer channels can be informal or formal, personal or impersonal [HOL 98].

Informal mechanisms (such as informal seminars or coffee break conversations) are part of socialization and are more effective in small organizations [FAH 98]. However, such mechanisms may involve some loss of knowledge due to the absence of a formal coding of knowledge.

Formal transfer mechanisms (such as training sessions) can ensure a wider dissemination of knowledge, but they can inhibit creativity.

Personal channels (such as learning) can be more effective in disseminating highly contextual knowledge, while impersonal channels (such as knowledge repositories) can be more effective in providing knowledge that can be easily codified and generalized to other contexts.

Information technology can be beneficial for all four types of knowledge transfer channels.

Transfer devices [ERM 10]

The transfer of knowledge is a rich issue that has many tools [ROS 08]. There are many methods of knowledge transfer (Companionship, Twinning, Tutoring/Mentoring, Community of Practice, Training, etc.)...