Knowledge sharing barriers facing e-learners

"Knowledge sharing has become an important focus in the strategic management field, where knowledge is seen as “the most strategically-important resource which [organizations] possess”            (Grant, 1996, p. 376).

INTRODUCTION

 Knowledge sharing is the deliberate act in which knowledge is made reusable through its transform from one to another (Stewart, 1998). It is considered as one of the main pillars of knowledge management. For knowledge management to succeed, a knowledge sharing culture needs to be created and nurtured within the organization (SingHealth, 2001). Since knowledge sharing is power and no one is willing to give it away, there is a need to create a knowledge sharing environment which takes into account the social and economic factors that influence knowledge sharing (Hibbard, 1997). According to Zack (2003) sharing knowledge is not about giving people something, or getting something from them. That is only valid for information sharing. Sharing knowledge occurs when people are interested in helping one another develop new capacities for action; it is about creating learning processes (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). "Successful Knowledge that creates values in the form of innovation and creation depends on appropriate strategies that an organization adopts for its knowledge to be shared" (Hendriks, 1999, p.34). This paper is about knowledge sharing (KS) barriers facing e-learners in the Institute of Banking Studies (IBS) which is one of the biggest institutions in Kuwait. This paper reports a research project which research question is: What are the KS barriers the e-learners face ? The objectives of this paper are to(1)find out KS barriers facing e-learners;and (2)find out recommendations to overcome KS barriers facing e-learners.

 In Kuwait, the term ‘e-learning’ is relatively new, and only a limited number of local suppliers offer e-learning systems, currently implemented in the majority of petroleum and financial companies. However, an increasing number of companies are responding to the challenge of e-learners and are moving to adopt them, yet are finding significant barriers to adoption hampering their efforts. Although in Western societies the e-learning experience is relatively older, in the Gulf region there is a very limited number of studies on the implementation of e-learning in this country and nearly no research conducted on the KS barriers encountered by organizations (Al-Athari & Zairi, 2001). It is worth noting that in the Arab world only 1.2 percent of the population has access to computers and only half of that number use the Internet (Arab Human Development Report-UNDP, 2003). Hence, while highlighting the utility of e-learning as a means to develop the skills of the workforce and exploring the capacity of  the Institute Banking of Studies (IBS) to deal with the integration of e-learning, the problems addressed in this paper also reflect this reality.

The Institute of Banking Studies(IBS)

The Institute of Banking Studies (IBS) was originally established as the "Banking Studies Center" in 1970 by an Amiri Decree, issued by the Amir (Ruler) of Kuwait. It was conferred the status of a Specialized Institute in 1982 by an amendment of the Amiri Decree. The Institute, today, is well reputed for its training, professional education, applied research and consulting activities in banking, finance and investments. It also has established a distinct identity as the leading organization of its kind in the Gulf Co-Operation Council (GCC) Countries. Today's banking industry is exceptionally dynamic. It is faced with significant and complex challenges, on account of several domestic and international trends, techno-economic impacts, socio-political and regulatory factors. The IBS has aligned its mission to serve the banking and financial sectors in Kuwait so that it can contribute effectively in enhancing their decision making processes and support them in meeting their goals through providing highly professional training, educational, research and consultancy services to their main asset: People.

The IBS & E-learning

For the IBS, Self-learning is a must in today’s demanding business world. The need to continuously upgrade e-learners is essential for survival in this fast-paced global environment. Therefore the Institute of Banking Studies (IBS) is offering an e-learning service allowing e-learner to invest in himself/ herself and grow in terms of requisite knowledge and skills. This service is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from any computer in the world.. The service is designed to be user friendly and the courses are carefully planned to take trainees through the requisite learning steps in easy stages.

METHOD

The focus of this study is on KS barriers facing e-learners. 16 e-learners who study in the IBS participated in this study. A number of employees who are working in the IBS helped me selecting those e-learners by giving me their e-mails.

Instruments

A multiple choice five points scale questionnaire was used in this study ( plz see appendix-1 p.73 ). Also a personal interview with the manager of the IBS; Dr. Dr. Ridha M. Al Khayyat, was the second technique in order to collect data for this study ( plz see appendix-2,  p.75). Some interviews were also conducted with a number of e-learners as well as some employees in the IBS.

Procedure

The questionnaire was sent to 16 e-learners who are studying in the IBS by sending it to their emails. The interview with the manager of the IBS was laid in two sections. The first section sought to obtain general background information about the IBS. Another objective of this section was to determine the position of e-learning among the traditional methods of training regarding the implementation of e-learning. The second section was to obtain information about knowledge sharing barriers facing e-learners. This section was done after I finished the results of the questionnaire. Notes and comments taken during the interviews were then analyzed. According to Leonard and Sensiper (1998) knowledge sharing is influenced by eight primary constructs that might constitute organizational context for knowledge sharing (plz see figure-1). These constructs are (1) organizational culture, (2) human resource management (HRM) strategies, (3) organizational structure, (4) leadership, (5)  people, (6) Communication channels, (7) physical space & design and (8) technology. 

The majority of e-learners who participated in this project were females (70%) compared to 30% males as illustrated above. For the ages of participants 80% were

between 18-25 whereas 20% were between  26-31. The results show that gender as well as age group are not significant predictor of e-learning  KS barriers confirming what other studies found such as Feldhaus (1999), Giles (1999), and a review of literature by Sheets (1992).

 KS barriers facing e-learners in the IBS

 From the given results, several KS barriers facing e-learners can be seen. They are divided into seven KS barriers categories. They are personal barriers, situational barriers, content barriers, instructional barriers, organizational barriers, technology barriers and health barriers as follows

Personal Barriers

• Difficulty to share knowledge with others
• Worry of damaging everything
• Language skills (Reading and writing)
• Resistance to change

 Situational Barriers

• Feeling of isolation due to the lack of interaction with colleagues and instructors.
• Time management problems

Content Barriers

• A gap between the presented content and expectations
•  Questioning was disorderly: "Some questions were asked before the content     was covered

 Instructional Barriers

• Lack of training to share knowledge
• Computer skills
• Lackof instructor presence/interaction
• Instructor not able to respond to detailed technical questions

 Organizational Barriers

• Misunderstanding of terms relating to the Internet
• Technical problems in the e-learning tool itself
• Problems with the ‘help’ function
• Difficulty accessing courses

DISCUSSION

 According to the given results, e-learners relations with the IBS are crucial consideration when it comes to knowledge sharing. Sharing of ideas and expertise among e-learners is one of the several processes underlying collective knowledge within an organization, but it is a key process that the  IBS may not be able to leverage its most valuable asset ( Wasko & Faraj, 2000 ).

Starbuck ( 1992 ) and  Szulanski ( 1996 ) asserted that knowledge sharing is innately human-driven in organizations. This also applies on the IBS. If the focus of sharing is on creating a technological infrastructure without encouraging active and personal social networking, it could have a negative rather than a positive impact on knowledge sharing  ( Hendrinks, 1999). According to e-learners' responses the IBS needs community model of Knowledge Sharing. Swan and colleagues (1999) presented community model of knowledge sharing where knowledge is believed to the socially constructed and essentially embedded in given webs of social relations where it is reproduced and shared through the process of socialization. More and more researches and practitioners are realizing the importance of people as creators of knowledge; e-learners and e-tutors here, within the organization they are also realizing that knowledge is more of a process and flow between people and not static as some researchers believe ( Hendrinks, 1999 ).

1- Organizational culture

Culture influences the creation, sharing and use of knowledge. Culture is defined as shared values, beliefs and practices of e-learners in the IB. According to the given results culture creates a context for social interaction that ultimately determines how effective the IBS can be at creating, sharing and applying knowledge. Culture shapes the process by which new  knowledge organizational knowledge together with it’s accompanying and certainties is creative. Legitimated and shared. In the IBS the most important dimension of organizational culture includes trust, collaboration and care.

Trust : Trust is the most commonly cited value of culture that is linked with knowledge sharing, According to the given results, trust is not existing on between e-learners and the IBS. McEvilt, Peronne & Zaheer (2003) found that trust leads to effective knowledge sharing, but distinguished between two types of trust: benevolence-based trust in which an e-learner will not intentionally harm another when given the opportunity to share knowledge, and a competence- based trust e-learner believes another instructor is knowledgeable about given subject area. Competence based- trust has a major impact on knowledge sharing, involving highly tacit knowledge. Benevolence based- trust is to be significant , in sharing both explicit and tacit knowledge (Heuner, 1998).

So, e-learners who trust the IBS they study in are self-assured, open and honest, willing to take risks, less resistant to change, and inclined to act in a trustworthy manner.  Trust is empowering.  In contrast, e-learners who distrust the IBS tend to be less productive because they feel unsupported and alone, they do not believe what they are told and therefore often do not listen, and they must take time to corroborate what they have been told before they can believe it.

Collaboration: A major advantage to interpersonal trust is information sharing and Collaboration.  When e-learners trust that they will be given credit for their ideas and that sensitive information that they share will be kept confidential, they are more inclined to discuss their creative ideas and personal goals and concerns.  Such an open environment is the ideal context for developing innovative ideas and resolving conflicts with "win-win" solutions.  Managers who trust their subordinates are more inclined to delegate tasks to them, and subordinates who trust their managers are more comfortable taking on the additional responsibility even when there is some risk of failure.  Such subordinates know that their mistakes will be treated as learning opportunities rather than threats to their careers (McEvily et al., 2003).

Care: According to the given results, care is very important in knowledge sharing. Von Krogh (1998) stresses the need to make knowledge sharing less fragile by fostering the enabling condition of  care in organizational norms and relationships, which gives rise to trust, active empathy, access to help, lenience in judgment, and courage. Indwelling, which is important in sharing tacit knowledge is only possible when there is a high level of care from the IBS. In a supportive environment, colleagues show interest in each other's experience, perspectives and concepts. 'looking at' becomes 'looking with' as the emotional experience can be shared.

 2. Organizational Structure

 The way the IBS coordinates different units significantly affects the pattern of intra-organizational knowledge sharing. A hierarchical structure of internal organization is primarily built upon centralization of authority where coordination is achieved through vertically imposed bureaucratic processes. Centralization determines whether the locus of decision making authority lies in the higher or lower levels of hierarchical relationship. Dixon (2000) argued that when organizations were viewed as institutions for integrating knowledge, a major part of which is tacit and can be exercised by those who posses would fail. Grant also emphasized the importance of team-oriented work structure as an essential characteristic of organizational structures.

Team-oriented work environments provide opportunities for instructors in the IBS to learn from colleagues with expertise who are supportive and wiling to help one another through working together, sharing information and knowledge, and watching out for one another (Mikkelsen, et al, 2000). Teams comprise a communication channel for knowledge seekers and knowledge senders to exchange knowledge. This applies also on e-learners. And this exchange behavior in turns leads to superior performance. 

 3. HRM Strategies

 Recruitment: IBS hired individuals who have positives attitudes and who lend themselves to causes; using interview as a selection tool by placing emphasis on sharing and cooperative behavior in sharing ; using critical incidence technique to accreting sharing behavior; and determining teamwork capabilities of individual. This influences on e-learners. If those individuals focus their attention to e-learners, e-learning will be more effective in terms of knowledge sharing.

 Training and Development: Training and development are very important to e-learners. According to the given results, the IBS did not provide enough training course for e-learners, this may effect negatively on knowledge sharing. Cross, et al. (2001) believes that orientation program should build practices that teach e-learners what newcomers know. In other words, it is like creating awareness among these e-learners about who knows what. This could be a very important element in identifying the credibility of the source of knowledge and the validity if the knowledge itself. Training increases the ability of e-learners in building common knowledge. Training in logical reasoning, for example, increases an individual ability to share knowledge accumulated on one task to related task (Thompson, et al. 2000).

Appraisal and Rewards: According to the given results, the IBS does not offer rewards for successful e-learners! People often work to product or project deadlines and are rewarded based on their performance against these goals to the extent that sharing one's expertise is at least as valued and rewarded as other goals. Organizations can reduce their reliance on individual and unit- level reward systems that are zero –sum. They can avoid zero-sum situations where an increase in one person's raise precludes an increase in another person's raise by setting aside enough resources so that all e-learners can receive the highest raise if the IBS does well as a whole  (Hinds & Pfeffer, 2001).

4. Leadership

Leadership is very necessary for knowledge sharing. There are various strands of literature around the notion of leadership as building capacity among a wider group of people. Related terminology and concepts include notions of leadership density through expansion of leadership capital (Sergiovanni,1992); distributed leadership, systemic leadership; teacher leadership (Harris, 2003b); relational or post-heroic leadership (Sessa, 2003); shared leadership, dispersed leadership, collective leadership, parallel leadership, or a leader-rich

culture (Frost and Durrant, 2003). Raelin (2003) also refers to “creating leaderful  organizations”. The salient idea shared by these notions of leadership is that leadership is no longer purely an individual matter, but is spread throughout an organization with leadership roles and functions being performed by various people who do not necessarily hold formal leadership positions.

Constructivist learning entails actively creating knowledge . In particular, social constructivism emphasizes that learning occurs when e-learners interact in order to construct knowledge, within collaborative learning environments. When leadership is viewed as constructivist learning, “leadership is about contributing to, learning from, and influencing the learning of  others”( Lambert, 1998, p. vii). Leadership is about creating opportunities for others to learn. Leadership is about learning together toward a shared purpose or aim. “Learning and leading are deeply intertwined,... Indeed, leadership can be understood as reciprocal, purposeful learning in a community” (p.2). By defining leadership as constructivist learning, Lambert (1998) emphasizes that “The key notion in this definition is that leadership is about learning together, and constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and collaboratively. It involves opportunities to surface and mediate perceptions, values, beliefs, information, and assumptions through continuing conversations; to inquire about and generate ideas together; to seek to reflect upon and make sense of work in the light of shared beliefs and new information; and to create actions that grow out of these new understandings. Such is the core of leadership” (pp.5-6). There are links between leadership and learning, particularly as it occurs collectively and within a community. For example, Senge (1990) regards leadership as collective learning, and leaders as responsible for learning. He argues that organizations in the knowledge sharing era should be “communities of leaders and learners. In a similar vein, Sergiovanni (1992) also takes a constructivist view of leadership and learning, asserting “In communities, leadership and learning go together. So does leadership and sense-making” (pp.40-41). This is further supported by Harris (2003) who suggests “that leadership is part of the interactive process of sense-making and creation of meaning that is continuously engaged in by organizational members…. Taking this view, leadership is about learning together and constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and collaboratively” (p.314). Fullan (2002) argues that learning in context helps to produce leaders at many levels within the organization. There is strong support for the notion therefore that leaders must be learners (Robertson and Strachan, 2001).

 5. Technology

 According to the results most of the e-learners in the IBS agree that "technology is very essential in our organizations". What matters for successful knowledge sharing between e-learners is making technology  successful tool (plz see figure-1).

6. People

 If knowledge sharing becomes a routine and part of every day work where e-learner involvement and trust are essential ingredients, it will lead to a successful knowledge sharing (Hysman & Wit, 2002). People engaged in organizational work have to be motivated with adequate absorptive capacity of the knowledge to be shared, and should be networked with other colleagues in social relations.

 Motivation: Lack of motivation for different reasons could play a vital part in prohibiting knowledge sharing. Several reasons were mentioned for the lack of motivations. Hezberg's (1987) found that motivation theory distinguishes between motivation factors and maintenance. He identifies rewards, working conditions and impersonal relations. He considers the challenge of work, promotional opportunities, and sense of achievement and recognition as motivational factors. Hendriks (1999) believes that  quantity of knowledge sharing may perhaps be enhanced with money, but this quality can not be enhanced. He believes that factors may frustrate knowledge sharing, when absent, but they are unlikely to enhance knowledge sharing. People in his opinion, share knowledge as hey expert recognition and appreciation of their knowledge, promotional chances or have a sense of responsibility. He also states that reciprocity is a very strong motivational factor, as people share knowledge because they expect or hope that others too will share their knowledge that may be useful to them on another occasion.

 Absorptive Capacity: Absorptive capacity is very important to e-learners. It was found to be vital in enhancing sharing of knowledge. In an empirical study of sharing of best practices, Szulanski (1996) found that knowledge transfer is easier when recipients are prepared to receive knowledge. This finding is going with what has been found here in this study. E-learners that lack of such knowledge will be less likely to see the value of new knowledge and will less likely to be able to integrate it within its knowledge base.

 Social Relations: Sharing of knowledge may require numerous e-learners exchanges (Nonaka,1994). Social relations are very important to e-learners. Social relations might increase knowledge sharing process. As found here in this paper, the quality of relationship between the source and recipient is considered a major barrier to knowledge sharing. Uzzi's ethnographic study (1997) revealed that strong ties develop heuristics that ease sharing of knowledge. Consequently, weak ties aid in the search of new knowledge might complex sharing of knowledge. Social capital specifically results from the willingness of the IBS to help e-learners, subordinates their interests, and to take a  genuine interest in the organizational activities and overall mission. When the IBS takes part in the social life, it is likely to meet e-learners' interests. Social relations are likely to give organizations a sustainable edge over their competitors (Cohen & Prusak, 2001).

7. Communications channels

 A critical success factor for knowledge sharing is the appropriate correlation between communication channels and educational purpose. A theoretical background to fulfill this task can be found in the media synchronicity theory (Consumer Union, 2000). According  Wegner & Holloway (1999).  E-learners to share knowledge are to use diverse ways and means of knowledge sharing with each other. These include channels of email, discussion board, mail, telephone, teleconference, and so many other ways.

 8. Physical Space & Design

 According to the given results, most of the e-learners don not agree that the IBS designed spaces that promote interactions among them. Physical space and design are very important to knowledge sharing. In terms of design, e-learning poses its own version of a single, relatively new, and overarching design challenge; namely, how to provide unity or convergence in a distributed learning environment. One way to meet the challenge of unity or convergence is through elevating the role of design. Early researchers and observers of e-learning noted that, “Online teachers become designers of student learning experiences rather than just providers of content” (Berge & Collins, 1996, p.32).

 CONCLUSION

 E-learners face KS barriers in the process of starting, continuing, and completing e-learning. E-learners' KS barriers are similar to diseases, which can only be cured by finding their root cause and prescribing appropriate medication. Identifying the cause and nature of e-learners' KS barriers was the purpose of this study. Recognizing barriers and using the recommended barrier reduction strategies should assist organizations already engaged in or planning for e-learning.

Learning from evaluation and research results is a common factor in high performance distance learning. Organizations need to pay attention to the eight constructs that lead to successful knowledge sharing between e-learners. These constructs are (1) organizational culture, (2) human resource management (HRM) strategies, (3) organizational structure, (4) leadership, (5)  people, (6) Communication channel, (7) physical space & design and (8) technology.

The key facets to reducing KS barriers include raising e-learners', offering computer training to increase their skills, and looking at organizational dynamics that affect e-learning. The challenge for all organizations is that as more demands are placed on e-learners, so will be the pressure to improve online training and professional development efforts. This calls for more investment in time, people, and financial resources designated for e-learning.