SHARING WHAT YOU KNOW, BUILDING EXPERTISE

Information Sharing between Generations in a Business Organization

Maarit Virta

and Gunilla Widén

Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business, Tarkk’ampujankatu 4 B, FI-00140 Helsinki, Finland

Abo Akademi University, School of Business and Economics, Vanrikinkatu 3 B, FI-20500 Turku, Finland

Keywords: Information Sharing, Technical Succession, Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Building.

Abstract: This paper explores the processes connected to information and knowledge sharing in the context of expert

work in an organization undergoing technical succession. The qualitative empirical research was conducted

among six senior-junior pairs participating in the technical succession in the studied company. According to

the results, factors affecting knowledge sharing between generations are interaction, expectations,

dispositions and circumstances which includes time for sharing and proximity. Knowledge sharing, which

may include both transfer and building, happens in eight phases. Informal interaction is of high importance

underlining an open information culture between generations and constitutes a prerequisite for sharing

experts’ work related knowledge. Further, the novices in this study have high trust in the experienced

employees knowledge and skills–though not necessarily in them as persons which, according to the results,

can prevent knowledge sharing even when the circumstances for sharing are favourable. An important

aspect in the study is how influential the novices’ conception of the work task is on knowledge sharing.

Depending on whether they define their work as development or maintenance work determines the nature of

knowledge shared and how it is shared.

1 INTRODUCTION

It is widely acknowledged that sharing what you

know is of great importance for business

organizations. The importance of information and

knowledge is present in many respects but especially

when a business faces retirement of experienced

employees it is evident that knowledge transfer

between generations or technical succession

(Rothwell and Poduch, 2004) is crucial. The aim of

this paper is to explore processes connected to

information and knowledge sharing especially in the

context of expert work in an organization

undergoing technical succession. What factors have

influence on sharing and what are the prerequisites

of information and knowledge sharing?

The probability of information sharing between

individuals depends very much on the context and

the nature of information (Widén-Wulff, 2007;

Wilson, 2010). In this paper we will focus on the

contextual aspects affecting information and

knowledge sharing.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to draw a picture of the information and

knowledge sharing processes in the studied company

and illuminate how knowledge is shared and new

expertise built we need to look at organizational

information behaviour in general and knowledge

building for a specific goal in particular.

2.1 Information and Knowledge

Sharing in Organizational Context

When studying information sharing in organizations

it always involve individuals and their information

behaviour which is affected by psychological, social

and environmental variables (Wilson, 2000).

Consequently the organizational information

behaviour is a result of constant interaction between

individuals in a social and cultural context. There are

many ways of defining the contextual factors

affecting sharing and from an information and

knowledge management point of view almost

impossible to cover all enablers and barriers to

sharing. Many studies have emphasized

129

Virta M. and Widén G..

SHARING WHAT YOU KNOW, BUILDING EXPERTISE - Information Sharing between Generations in a Business Organization.

DOI: 10.5220/0003626101290135

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2011), pages 129-135

ISBN: 978-989-8425-81-2

 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

organizational culture or information culture and its

influence on people’s attitudes to information and

knowledge sharing (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000;

Widén-Wulff, 2005). These studies give a good idea

about cultural incentives such as openness in

communication as enablers to effective use of the

intellectual capital in the organization.

Although we know that the goal of Information

Management is to increase information sharing

(Choo, 2002) actual information sharing has still

been a relatively unexplored part of the

organizational information behaviour (Wilson,

2010). Apart from studies on information cultures in

general, studies on information sharing in

organizations have mainly been conducted with

social aspects in the forefront (Sonnenwald and

Pierce, 2000; Talja, 2002; Mackenzie, 2005; Widén-

Wulff, 2007) underlining social networks and

collaboration.

Exploring also other disciplines Wilson (2010)

broadens the perspective of information sharing in

organizations. He points out that sharing happens

more likely where the individual experience benefits

from sharing and trusts the person sharing with. He

also relates information sharing to trust and

proximity. Persons with high trust and proximity are

most likely to share whereas persons with low trust

but still have proximity negotiate the likelihood of

sharing. Finally, without trust and proximity sharing

is unlikely. Studies on information sharing and

social exchange theory underline similar

observations. Information sharing can be compared

to a so called gift economy; social networks are

important but in the end social reward is a key to

sharing (Hall, 2003; Hall and Widén-Wulff, 2008)

Information and knowledge sharing prerequisites

in general can be concluded to be about an

information culture where social reward and

benefits, trust, and proximity are present. When it

comes to sharing connected to a specific task or goal

it might be that these prerequisites are somewhat

different which will be explored in this study.

Knowledge sharing is a relatively wide concept and

will be explored more closely as knowledge transfer

and knowledge building between generations to

narrow down factors that influence this process.

2.2 Knowledge Building for a Specific

Goal

In this study the concept knowledge sharing between

generations describes such knowledge transfer

between generations that involves interaction and

that can entail knowledge building as defined by

Bereiter (2002). Paavola, Lipponen and Hakkarainen

(2004) argue that the goal of knowledge building in

the organization is to develop, assess and

reconfigure conceptual artefacts in co-operation so

that it supports the community in the long term.

Knowledge building is, thus, target-oriented,

collective action which develops knowledge useful

to the organization.

In their studies Wenger (1998) and Carlile (2002,

2004) prove that the meaning and value of

knowledge derive from its employment. This

employment of knowledge is related to the target-

orientedness of knowledge building: the goal is to

develop knowledge that facilitates successful

working, as deemed by individuals, in the prevailing

circumstances. Knowledge new to the organization

the “building blocks of organizational

knowledge” come to the organization, for example,

with the introduction of new members. (Cohen and

Levinthal, 1990; Brown and Duguid, 1991.) New

employees participating in the knowledge sharing

between generations are, thus, bearers of new

organizational knowledge which enables knowledge

building.

2.3 Knowledge Sharing between

Generations and Expert Work

Knowledge transfer between generations refers to a

process in which an experienced shortly retiring

employee and a novice transfer work-related

knowledge between themselves (DeLong, 2004;

Rothwell and Poduch, 2004). Since knowledge

transfer between generations entails interaction it is

here called knowledge sharing which can also

involve knowledge building, as described above.

In this study knowledge sharing between

generations is explored in the context of expert work.

Expert work means here “self-controlled knowledge

work” and “modern craftsmanship” which is based

on formal education (Pyoria, Melin and Blom, 2005).

The essence of this work is to use knowledge in new

ways and to combine knowledge from different

fields (ibid.; Barley, 1996). Experts continuously

develop their knowledge and skills; expert work is

about generating ideas and planning. All this requires

not only theoretical, formal education, but also co-

operation and the ability to communicate. (Pyoria et

al., 2005.)

Hence, in expert work the abilities to utilise

knowledge in various practical situations become

essential. In expert-work related knowledge sharing

this means two things. Firstly, it means that it is

important to share practical, situation bound and

KMIS 2011 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

130

experiential knowledge which cannot be transferred

without interaction (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; De

Long, 2004). Hence, knowledge sharing becomes a

necessity. Secondly, it means that knowledge is only

transferred or shared when the recipient has

understood the knowledge given and is able to use it

(Szulanski, 2003).

3 METHOD

The company involved in the study designs and

manufactures electrical equipment and systems. Its

global competitiveness and success are based on

knowledge and know-how which has been built over

decades by its experts and which transfer to the next

generation is essential for the company’s future.

At the time of the study the company was

undergoing a technical succession. The management

had chosen six key experts or "seniors" among those

retiring and assigned each a successor or a "junior"

to whom the senior was to transfer knowledge

necessary for the work. The seniors had expert duties

in R&D and production planning, as well as

management duties in sales and manufacture. At the

time of the research interviews the pairs had been

transferring knowledge for about a year. All those

involved in the technical succession were men.

The primary research data was collected in semi-

structured interviews with 12 expert-duty employees

in the senior-junior pairs. One year after the first

interviews follow-up interviews with the juniors

were conducted. All the interviews were recorded

and later transcribed by a professional.

The first phase of data analysis comprised a

thematic analysis (Hirsjarvi and Hurme, 2004). In

the second phase of the analysis the articulation

method (Grossberg, 1995; Hall, 1997) was used to

interpret the data. The method is utilised in cultural

research and defined as “a practice in which

elements that do not necessarily have a previous

relationship are connected” (Grossberg, 1995, p.

269). Articulation, thus, means interconnecting or

linking concepts and phenomena. In this study the

applying of the articulation method revealed that

work is the interviewees’ context of interpretation

involved in knowledge sharing between generations.

4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Here the main results of the data analysis are

presented. The factors of knowledge transfer and the

phases of knowledge sharing were conducted by

thematic analysis. The contexts of work in the

interviewees’ speech were constructed by applying

the articulation method. Finally, by linking the

results of these two analysis the formation of

knowledge sharing between generations is explained.

4.1 Factors of Knowledge Transfer

between Generations

The interviewees identify four factors that influence

their knowledge transfer in each pair. These factors

are the senior and

junior’s mutual interaction,

external expectations of them, their personal

dispositions and the circumstances of knowledge

transfer (Virta, 2011).

1. Interaction

In the knowledge transfer interaction is essential

because written knowledge or

“documented

knowledge” is not enough to absorb conducting the

work, but rather the transfer requires dialogue.

Knowledge transfer between the senior and junior,

thus, presupposes a practice in which things and

phenomena are observed and therefore understood.

Intertwined in their mutual work, dialogue is

maintained and fuelled by the junior’s questions

which lead the senior to communicate things

necessary to the junior. The interaction between the

senior and the junior, that is, dialogue and working

together, is thus a prerequisite for knowledge

transfer.

On the basis of the data analysis there is a

haphazard custom of documenting knowledge within

the company which can be seen as a part of its

organizational culture. At the same time, unofficial

interaction is very common and abundant in the

company. The interviewees emphasize that unofficial

meetings and discussions are essential in their work-

related knowledge acquisition and development.

2. Expectations

The company management has given the seniors and

juniors haphazard or “loose” guidance about the

knowledge transfer: there are no common or pair-

specific plans, schedules or follow-up procedures.

Despite of their “loose” guidance, the seniors and

juniors are aware of the expectations the company

has set on them concerning their knowledge transfer,

and they also want to meet those expectations. In this

case the external expectations are, thus, enablers of

knowledge transfer.

3. Dispositions

The interviewees endow the knowledge transfer with

the seniors and juniors’ personal dispositions and

qualities which facilitate or, on the other hand,

SHARING WHAT YOU KNOW, BUILDING EXPERTISE - Information Sharing between Generations in a Business

Organization

131

hamper interaction and also the knowledge transfer

within it. The seniors consider the juniors’

university-level technical education to be their

“common good quality” because it is the best

possible foundation for learning the seniors’ work.

The juniors consider the seniors’ expertise and the

underlying experience to be their best quality, that is,

what they themselves wish to achieve. These positive

disposition act as enablers of knowledge transfer

between the seniors and juniors.

All the juniors, thus, trust in the seniors’

knowledge and skills and believe that these will be

useful in their own work, too. However, on the basis

of the results, knowledge transfer between the senior

and junior may not necessarily occur if the junior can

acquire the knowledge he needs also from another

source and if he feels that the risks in using this

source are lower than in transferring the knowledge

with the senior. For example, if the senior tries to

transfer an underlying attitude to the conduct of a

work and this attitude differs from the junior’s, the

junior sees knowledge transfer including more

negative rewards than positive rewards or benefits

and knowledge transfer does not happen.

4. Circumstances

Knowledge transfer between the senior and junior is

also influenced by their possible busy work

schedules and their physical distance from each other

at the workplace. These two factors are here called

circumstances. If the senior and junior have enough

time for knowledge transfer and if they work close to

each other, circumstances act as enablers of

knowledge transfer. In the contrary case they can be

barriers. However, according to the results, this is

not the case in all situations.

4.2 Knowledge Sharing between

Generations: Transfer and

Building

The results show that knowledge sharing between

generations, which may include both transfer and

building, happens in eight phases. Outlining them

illustrates how knowledge sharing proceeds. The

phases, thus, present a simplified framework of the

process of knowledge sharing. The phases of

knowledge transfer related to expert work are the

following (Virta, 2011):

1. Familiarisation

In familiarisation the senior familiarize the junior

with the knowledge being transferred through

documents, discussions and work situations. Hence,

the senior is the initiator of the activity. As a result

the junior receives knowledge that the senior has

chosen and defined to be transferred.

2. Deliberation

In deliberation the junior makes the knowledge

being transferred clear to himself by understanding it

in the light of his own knowledge and experience.

Hence, the result of deliberation is the junior’s

understanding of the knowledge being transferred.

3. Corroboration

In corroboration the junior goes to the senior to

seek corroboration of his knowledge conception or

“check the validity of the knowledge” from the

senior. Hence, the junior is the initiator of

interaction. Corroboration leads to the senior and

junior’s mutual understanding of the knowledge

being transferred.

4. Use

In using the junior starts using the knowledge

being transferred in his work. By using the

knowledge, it becomes the junior’s “own skill” when

he is able to act independently based on it and

hence, knowledge transfer ends.

The phases of knowledge building related to

expert work are the following (Virta, 2011):

5. Assessing

When using the knowledge transferred, the junior

may identify shortcomings in the knowledge or the

activity based on it. This is why he starts assessing

the knowledge. This may lead to the junior’s idea of

how the knowledge can be transformed or

developed.

6. Modifying

In modifying the junior begins, on the basis of his

idea, developing the knowledge transferred to him.

He acts alone, that is, he gets no help from the senior

or anyone else in the company, because they do not

possess such knowledge or competence that would

help him.

7. Honing

In honing the junior checks with the senior

whether the modified knowledge is applicable in the

company and whether it fulfills the company’s

needs. A result of this senior’s and junior’s co-

operation is knowledge modified and applied to the

company.

8. Use

In using the junior starts using the new

knowledge in his work. In knowledge building, the

phases of assessing, modifying and honing are

planning the knowledge or examining it through

theory, during which the junior and senior are not

certain how the knowledge in practice facilitates or

KMIS 2011 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

132

enhances work. The relevance of the new knowledge

both to the individual and to the company is only

proven in use. Hence, the knowledge building is not

finish until the junior starts using the new

knowledge.

In knowledge sharing between generations the

transfer of existing knowledge is the prerequisite for

building new knowledge because knowledge is built

on the knowledge transferred. This means that only

after the phases of transfer (Phases 1–4) can one

proceed to the phases of knowledge building (Phases

5–8). The senior and junior may also continue

knowledge transfer without ever building

knowledge. In knowledge sharing, the phase of

knowledge use (Phase 4) leads to assessing

knowledge building (Phase 5) when the junior

notices shortcomings in the transferred knowledge

when using it. Knowledge building begins if the

junior starts modifying the knowledge transferred.

4.3 Knowledge Sharing in the Context

of Expert Work

The interpretation of the interviewees’ verbal

accounts by applying the articulation method made it

possible to understand knowledge sharing by

examining it in the context of work. In the subject

company both the seniors and the juniors are

employed in expert duties as defined officially. All

the interviewees, furthermore, communicate that

their work entails carrying out both current

procedures, that is, “maintenance” work, and their

“development”. However, the interviewees have two

separate views of their own work and performing it,

and these differ with regard to what the role or

significance of “development” is in work. In practice

the interviewees can to some extent adapt the content

of their work by “choosing” between maintenance

and development which means that the tasks in the

particular type of work become emphasized while

the other type receives less attention.

The differences in the knowledge and its use

between maintenance and development work depend

on whether the work primarily concerns using the

knowledge or applying and adapting it. In

maintenance work, knowledge is used as such and

work is reactive: adapting to the company’s

operation and acting in the present. The juniors

speaking in the context of maintenance work do not

necessarily need their seniors’ knowledge in order to

do their job.

In development work, the knowledge is material

to be refined and accommodated to one’s own and

the company’s use. Development work is proactive:

spontaneous assessing and reconfiguring the

company’s operations, as well as orienting to the

future. For the juniors speaking in the context of

development work their seniors’ knowledge is

essential: without it they are not able to do their job.

The linking of the findings of the thematic

analysis and articulation method proved that the

junior’s conception of his own work either as

maintenance or development explains the knowledge

transfer and building between the senior and the

junior. The juniors who talk of their work as

maintenance work possibly transfer knowledge with

their seniors. These juniors do not build new

knowledge based on the knowledge transferred. The

juniors, however, who talk of their work as

development work transfer knowledge with their

seniors. These juniors also build new knowledge.

The junior’s understanding of his work as

maintenance is, therefore, not a sufficient

prerequisite for either knowledge transfer or

knowledge building. On the other hand, the junior’s

conception of his duties as development work is a

sufficient prerequisite for knowledge transfer and an

essential one for knowledge building.

The circumstances related to knowledge transfer,

the busy schedules and the physical distance between

the senior and the junior, cannot fully explain why

some senior–junior pairs transfer knowledge while

others do not. In the pairs, in which the junior speaks

in the context of development work, busy schedules

and physical distance do not prevent knowledge

transfer. In the pairs, however, in which the junior

assumes the context of maintenance work, busy

schedules and physical distance can prevent the

transfer.

5 DISCUSSION

In earlier studies it has been shown that information

and knowledge sharing prerequisites in business

organizations are embedded in an information

culture where social reward and benefits, trust, and

proximity are present (Hall, 2003; Widén-Wulff,

2007; Wilson, 2010). Knowledge sharing connected

to a specific task such as knowledge sharing

between generations, shows that these prerequisites

can be further specified and that they are highly

context bound.

This explorative study shows that expert-work

related knowledge sharing between generations, that

is, knowledge transfer and building take place

between the expert and the novice in eight phases.

Knowledge transfer and building end when the

SHARING WHAT YOU KNOW, BUILDING EXPERTISE - Information Sharing between Generations in a Business

Organization

133

novice has understood the knowledge transferred or

built and is capable of independently using it. Expert

work-related knowledge sharing between

generations, thus, proceeds in interaction in the

course of which the novice receives the knowledge,

understands it and takes it to use (Szulanski, 2003).

Based on these results we can argue that an

important starting point is that knowledge sharing

between generations takes place in a dialogue and

working together involved in work situations.

Informal interaction is of high importance,

underlining in this context an open information

culture between the generations, and constitutes a

prerequisite for sharing experts’ work-related

knowledge.

The common aims and expectations are also

strong enablers to sharing where both novices and

seniors know that it is important for the company

that knowledge is shared to keep the expertise within

the company.

Further, the novices in this study have high trust

in the experienced employees knowledge and skills–

though not necessarily in them as persons which,

according to the results, can prevent knowledge

sharing even when the circumstances for sharing are

favourable.

Finally, an important aspect in this study is how

influential the novices’ conception of the work task

is on knowledge sharing. Depending on whether they

define their work as development or maintenance

determines the nature of knowledge shared and how

it is shared. Work task and context is highly

important when defining enablers and barriers to

knowledge sharing. On the basis of the results the

circumstances, time for knowledge sharing and

physical distance or proximity between the

experienced employee and novice, do not prevent

knowledge sharing if the novice necessarily needs

the knowledge and if the experienced employee is

the only source of the knowledge. This is the case

when the novice understands and implements his

work as development instead of maintenance.

6 CONCLUSIONS

This paper has explored information and knowledge

sharing in the context of expert work in a business

organization undergoing technical succession. The

study has put forward important insights to the

knowledge sharing process showing enablers and

barriers to knowledge sharing in a specific context.

As in earlier studies an open information culture is

shown to be important but further contextual aspects

are underlined such as conception of work tasks

affecting knowledge sharing. Also the importance of

an interactive work situation is put forward.

Trust has been shown in many earlier studies to

be of high importance for knowledge sharing. Also

in this study trust was underlined but more

specifically trusting the other person’s expertise than

trust on an individual level.

The results show that knowledge sharing between

generations is a process based on interaction, and,

therefore, it is more important to focus managerial

efforts on people and what they know than on the

knowledge itself (Spender, 2006; Widén-Wulff,

2007). This means that knowledge sharing between

generations should be planned and managed from the

needs and conceptions of its participants by finding

out whether they define their work mainly

development or maintenance.

Creating favourable circumstances for knowledge

sharing means that sufficient time is allocated to the

sharing and that the expert and novice work in close

proximity. These circumstances facilitate knowledge

sharing in particular among those novices who

understand their work as maintenance.

The eight phases of knowledge sharing can be

utilised in companies to set a schedule for knowledge

sharing and to follow up its implementation. The

progress is, therefore, not assessed based on what

knowledge moves between the expert and the novice

at any particular instance, but the goal is to be aware

of how the novice’s assimilation of the knowledge

being transferred or new knowledge building

proceeds.

REFERENCES

Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the Workplace:

Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into

Organization Studies. Administrative Science

Quarterly , 41 , 404-441.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge

Age. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational

Learning and Communities-of-practice: toward a

Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation.

Organization Science 2(1), 40-57.

Carlile, P. R. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge

and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product

Development. Organization Science 13(4), 442-455.

Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and

Transforming: An Interactive Framework for

Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries.

Organization Science 15(5), 555-568.

KMIS 2011 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

134

Choo, C. W. (2002). Information management for the

intelligent organization. Medford, NJ: Information

Today.

Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive

Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and

Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1) ,

128-152.

Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working

Knowledge, How Organizations Manage What They

Know? Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

DeLong, D. W. (2004). Lost Knowledge, Confronting the

Threat of an Aging Workforce. New York: Oxford

Univeristy Press.

Grossberg, L. (1995). Mielihyvän kytkennät [in Finnish:

Connections of Gratifications]. Tampere: Tammer-

Paino.

Hall, H. (2003). Borrowed theory: applying exchange

theories in information science research. Library &

Information Science Research 25, 287-306.

Hall, H. and Widén-Wulff, G. (2008). Social exchange,

social capital and information sharing in online

environments: lessons from three case studies. In

Huotari, M-L. and Davenport, E. (Eds.) From

information provision to knowledge production (pp.

73-86). Oulu: University of Oulu.

Hall, S. (1997). Representation. Cultural Representations

and Signifying Practices. London: Sage Publications.

Hirsjarvi, S. and Hurme, H. (2004). Tutkimushaastattelu -

Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö [in Finnish:

Research interview-theory and practice of thematic

interview]. Helsinki: Helsinki University Print.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. and Staples, D. S. (2000). The use of

collaborative electronic media for information sharing:

an exploratory study of determinants. Strategic

Information Systems 9, 129-154.

Mackenzie, M. L. (2005). Managers look to the social

network to seek information. Information Research:

an International Electronic Journal 10(2).

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen K. (2004).

Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and

Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational

Research 74(4), 557-576.

Pyoria, P., Melin, H. & Blom, R. (2005). Knowledge

Workers in the Information Society. Tampere:

Tampere University Press.

Rothwell, W. J. and Poduch, S. (2004). Introducing

Technical (Not Managerial) Succession Planning.

Public Personnel Management 33(4).

Sonnenwald, D. H. and Pierce, L. G. (2000). Information

behavior in dynamic group work contexts: interwoven

situational awareness, dense social networks and

contested collaboration in command and control.

Information Processing & Management 36, 461-479.

Spender, J-C. (2006). Getting Value from Knowledge

Management. The TQM Magazine 18(3), 238-254.

Szulanski, G. (2003). Sticky Knowledge, Barriers to

Knowing in the Firm. London: Sage Publications.

Talja, S. (2002). Information sharing in academic

communities: types and levels of collaboration in

information seeking and use.

New Review of

Information Behaviour Research 3, 143-159.

Virta, M. (2011). Knowledge Sharing between

Generations in an Organisation - Retention of the Old

or Building the New? Lappeenranta: Lappeenranta

University of Technology.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning,

meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Widén-Wulff, G. (2005). Business information culture: a

qualitative study of the information culture in the

Finnish insurance industry. In Maceviciute, E. and

Wilson, T.D. Eds.) Introducing Information

Management: an Information Research reader (pp.

31-42). London: Facet.

Widén-Wulff, G. (2007). Challenges of Knowledge

Sharing in Practice: a Social Approach. Oxford:

Chandos Publishing.

Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behaviour.

Informing Science 3(2), 49-55.

Wilson, T. D. (2010). Information sharing: an exploration

of the literature and some propositions. Information

Research: an International Electronic Journal 15(4).

SHARING WHAT YOU KNOW, BUILDING EXPERTISE - Information Sharing between Generations in a Business

Organization

135