Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Information Technology Usage in

Universities

Ritesh Chugh

School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Melbourne, Australia

Keywords: Tacit Knowledge, Tacit Knowledge Transfer, Information Technology, Technology, IT, Knowledge

Management, Universities.

Abstract: The importance of transferring tacit knowledge transfer is acknowledged in the literature, but the usage of

information technology for tacit knowledge transfer is not well researched. Through a mixed methods

approach, employing an online questionnaire and interviews, this study explored the perceptions of university

academic staff with regards to information technology usage, specifically relating to the transfer of tacit

knowledge. The study found a lack of specific tacit knowledge transfer technologies but relatively high use

of communication tools, a need for training on the use of new information technology was identified and

academic staff are generally quick to adapt to information technology. However, there appeared to be a lack

of confidence in information technology for the transfer of tacit knowledge and staff willingness to use

technology for sharing tacit knowledge was not high, exhibiting uncertainty. This study contributes to a better

understanding of the usage of information technology for tacit knowledge transfer and its adaptability by

university academics. The results of this study may stimulate future research by addressing sample size

limitation and replication in a different organisational setting.

1 INTRODUCTION

Tacit knowledge is an essential resource for

organisations. Tacit knowledge transfer can be

facilitated through the use of information technology

(Pant et al., 2018). In the current digital environment,

it is difficult to separate knowledge transfer from

technology. Information technology (IT) can be used

to capture, store and share knowledge, also making

knowledge access easier for users (O'Leary, 1998).

IT plays a vital role in supporting knowledge transfer.

The use of IT for tacit knowledge transfer

processes has shown to improve work-related tacit

knowledge flows among employees (Sarkiûnaitë &

Krikðèiûnienë, 2005) and can also be effectively used

for tacit knowledge transfer in geographically

dispersed teams (Jones, 2016). Technology that can

help in tacit knowledge transfer includes groupware,

social media, skills directory, intranets, blogs, wikis,

discussion forums and electronic rooms.

Organisational knowledge is embedded in its tools,

technology and processes, and people play an

important role in the success of its knowledge transfer

efforts (Argote & Ingram, 2000).

It is relatively easier to transfer tangible explicit

knowledge into databases, but the transfer of

intangible tacit knowledge is difficult (Brown &

Duguid, 2000). However, knowledge transfer

ultimately depends on the knowledge transferrer and

their traits (Albino, Garavelli & Gorgoglione, 2004),

especially for the transfer of tacit knowledge. It is

acknowledged that the key to success in knowledge

management lies in individual and organisational

factors (Margilaj & Bello, 2015; Saini, Arif &

Kulonda, 2018), and in technology that facilitates the

creation/acquisition, packaging/embodiment,

transfer, sharing and use of knowledge. However, it

is vital to understand how knowledge workers engage

in tacit knowledge transfer. To understand the

individualistic or human factors, it is important to

investigate the perceptions of knowledge workers.

The question that emerges from this background

information is if technology is provided to knowledge

workers, will they necessarily use it? This requires an

investigation of users, who possess tacit knowledge

and use IT for tacit knowledge transfer. Most prior

studies have highlighted the importance of IT for the

transfer of explicit knowledge only (Pant et al., 2018).

There is an apparent scarcity of literature that looks at

technology usage perspective for the transfer of tacit

Chugh, R.

Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Information Technology Usage in Universities.

DOI: 10.5220/0008355603490355

In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), pages 349-355

ISBN: 978-989-758-382-7

349

knowledge, particularly in universities. This paper

explores the perceptions of university academic staff

with regards to IT usage, specifically relating to the

transfer of tacit knowledge. It also looks at issues

pertaining to academics’ adaptability to IT.

This paper is organised as follows. First, in the

literature review section, prior research is

contextualised. This is followed by the research

method section, which provides a rationale for the

experimental design. The fourth section reports and

discusses the findings. Conclusion and direction for

future work are presented in the final section.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Information communication technology encompasses

digital technology, communication tools, and/or

networks for accessing, managing, integrating,

evaluating and creating information and it can be

viewed as an amalgamation of IT and

telecommunications (ICT Literacy Panel, 2002). In

line with this definition of information

communication technology, knowledge management

tools can support knowledge creation, storage and

retrieval, transfer and application (Alavi & Leidner,

2001).

While the transfer of explicit knowledge is

relatively easier over tacit knowledge (Smith, 2001),

it is typical to expect that IT will contribute to the

transfer of both explicit and tacit knowledge. The use

of IT can assist in easily sharing information, making

information exchange faster by increasing the speed

of communication, reducing physical distances,

enabling the minimisation of misinterpretation and

avoid divergence (Albino et al., 2004). It is expected

that IT can endow these key benefits on tacit

knowledge transfer, especially when technology is

used to facilitate the knowledge transfer, in the form

of web portals, video-conferencing tools, expertise

finder directories, blogs, newsletters, discussion

groups, email and group decision support systems.

Contrary to expectations, technology is an important

enabler of tacit knowledge sharing and can assist in

capturing, sharing and applying tacit knowledge

(Chugh, 2017).

Information technology, systems, policies and

procedures, and organisational culture are factors that

potentially affect knowledge transfer. A study by

Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004) found that IT and

systems and processes do not solely contribute to

project success until there is an organisational culture

for knowledge transfer. A Bahraini study of public

and private sector organisations found that there is a

positive relationship between IT and knowledge

sharing (Ismail Al-Alawi, Yousif Al-Marzooqi &

Fraidoon Mohammed, 2007).

A study found that organisations used a variety of

systems, such as database applications, CRM

systems, ERP systems, CAD tools, intranets and

business portals, to support knowledge-intensive

activities but there was no explicit focus on assessing

the use of technology for tacit knowledge transfer

(Nevo & Chan, 2007). It called for studying

knowledge management technologies that support

tacit knowledge.

Tacit knowledge, in the minds of employees, is

vital for the success of an organisation (Nonaka &

Takeuchi, 1995) and it can be captured, stored and

transferred using technology (Al-Qdah & Salim,

2013). However, there is an argument around the use

of traditional technologies for tacit knowledge

transfer but contemporary technologies such as social

networks, blogs and wikis have found support for the

sharing of tacit knowledge (Panahi, Watson &

Partridge, 2016).

Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use

are important influencing factors that users consider

for the usage of any technology (Davis, 1989). On the

other hand, adaptability implies the modification of

behaviour in response to environmental and system

changes and changing requirements (Patten et al.,

2005). People are important elements for the use (and

success) of technology. Understanding their belief

about IT usage can provide better insights. As newer

technology is introduced, the ability to adapt to

technological changes becomes crucial (Keillor,

Pettijohn & d'Amico, 2001).

3 RESEARCH METHOD

Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) have defined the

mixed methods approach as ‘research in which the

investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the

findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative

and quantitative approaches or methods in a single

study or program of inquiry’ (pg. 4). In almost every

applied social research project, there is value in

consciously combining both qualitative and

quantitative methods in what is referred to as a mixed

methods approach (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007).

When addressing exploratory questions, mixed

methods research is considered better than a single

approach (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Adopting a

mixed method approach would allow mixing and

matching components that would offer the best

chance of answering the questions raised by this

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

350

paper. Furthermore, Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2004)

stated that ‘in many cases the goal of mixing is not to

search for corroboration but rather to expand on our

understanding’ (pg.19). Hence, a mixed methods

research approach was adopted.

The study was administered in two phases. The

first phase involved the administration of a custom-

designed online questionnaire to academics in four

Australian public universities. The questionnaire

comprised of close-ended Likert scale format

questions, which used a 6-point scale. The second

phase involved in-depth structured 30 to 40-minute

face-to-face interviews with academics. The first

phase gathered quantitative data, whereas the second

phase gathered qualitative data. One hundred forty-

one respondents responded to the online

questionnaire that was emailed to the universities’

academic mailing list. Eight interviews were

conducted, comprising of two academics (a lecturer

or senior lecturer and an associate professor or

professor) from each university.

The questions analysed in this paper have been

drawn from a larger study previously carried out by

the author, but the novelty lies in the focus of

assessing usage of technology for tacit knowledge

transfer, something which was not reported earlier

nor was this set of data used before. Presenting all the

findings of the large study was not possible without

breaking it down into meaningful portions to draw

relevant inferences.

Considering the nature of the data required and the

research questions, the survey amongst many other

aspects explored the technology dimension. In doing

so, it specifically focussed on exploring the use of

information and communication technologies and

academics’ adaptability to IT for tacit knowledge

transfer. The interview questions were designed to

assess whether there were any technologies in the

universities that aid tacit knowledge transfer and

identify academics’ adaptation to IT implemented by

the universities.

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis examines the use of technology for tacit

knowledge sharing, training on new technologies,

adaptation to IT, accessibility to documentation and

application software. Descriptive statistics of these

questions are outlined in table 1.

As shown in table 1, 61% of the surveyed

academics believe their universities make effective

use of various means of IT for developing better

communication between staff, students and

management with a mean response of 3.56. The

response is negatively skewed at skewness statistics

(-.554), showing most of the responses were on the

side of agreement. A previous study that found that

over three-quarters of the respondents showed

consensus that their workplace provided different

information technologies to share knowledge, thus

also demonstrating an awareness of the importance of

knowledge sharing (Ismail Al-Alawi et al., 2007). It

appears staff need to be made aware of the nexus

between communicative and tacit knowledge sharing

tools. Intranet, email service, bulletin boards, and

electronic forums are different technologies that

facilitate inter and intraorganisational knowledge

sharing (Song, 2002), and these are communication

tools too.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of perceptions of technology

usage relating to the transfer of tacit knowledge.

Overall, 56% of the participants felt that training

and education are provided to help in the use of new

information technologies that universities introduce.

This is an area that requires consideration. Training

can assist in creating an awareness of knowledge

sharing mechanisms (Chugh, 2012). Adaptability to

new systems and processes can be seen as a global

trait in both personal and changing environments

(Keillor et al., 2001). Around three-quarters of the

academics are quick to adapt to information

technologies implemented by their university. The

mean response to this statement is 3.88 with a

skewness value of -.562 showing that a lot of

responses are towards an agreement with the

statement. Moreover, the functionality and features of

technology affect the success of knowledge transfer

efforts (Argote & Ingram, 2000).

Q1. My university makes effective use of

information technology (e.g. e-mail,

groupware, Internet, Intranet, learning

management systems and videoconferencing)

for developing better communication between

staff, students and management.

141 3.5674 0.09459 1.12316 -0.554 61

Q2. My university provides training and

education on the use of new information

technologies that they introduce to make us

more adept at their usage.

140 3.4143 0.0967 1.14418 -0.459 56

Q3. I quickly adapt to information

technologies implemented by the university.

141 3.8865 0.07539 0.89516 -0.562 73

Q4. My university documents policies and

procedures and makes it available through the

staff Intranet.

139 4.1295 0.06445 0.75981 -1.127 86.5

Q5. I feel that electronic transmission leads to

an overload of information and encourages

frequent changes in policies.

141 3.1915 0.10601 1.25877 0.111 37.6

Q6. It is easy to access the documents that I

need within my university's databases i.e.

information is well organised.

141 2.9362 0.10275 1.22014 -0.044 37.6

Q7. The policies and procedures on the staff

Intranet at my university get rapidly and

continually updated.

141 3.5816 0.09767 1.15978 0.203 47.5

Q8. My university provides ready access to

application software (e.g. chatting, discussion

groups, bulletin boards) and hardware to help

me in sharing my personal experiences.

140 3.25 0.1059 1.25305 0.204 36.2

Valid N (list wise) 133

Agreement

Statement

Mean

Statistic

Std.

Error

Skewness

Statistic

S.D.

Statistic

Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Information Technology Usage in Universities

351

At 86.5%, there is a high level of agreement with

universities’ tendency to document policies and

procedures and then make them available through the

staff Intranet with a mean response of 4.12. Table 1

shows that the average response is negatively skewed

and skewness coefficient being significant at -1.127,

demonstrating that most of the respondents have

indicated a high level of agreement to this statement.

Only 37.6% of participants feel that electronic

transmission leads to an overload of information and

encourages frequent changes in policies possibly due

to the ease with which changes can be implemented

electronically. The mean response of this statement is

3.19, which can be interpreted as overall

disagreement with the statement. This may also imply

that administrative goals are shifting. This contrasts

with Tang et al., (2008) who outlined that IT for

knowledge and information management can lead to

information overload.

37.6% of respondents agree that it is easy to

access the documents they need within the

university’s databases, i.e. information is well-

organised. The mean response to this perspective is

2.93, showing overall disagreement with the

statement. Access to the documents that academics

need within their university’s databases is not very

easy. In comparison, the situation is better regarding

the rapid and continuous upgrading of policies and

procedures on the staff Intranet in universities.

However, only 47.5 % of the respondents agree with

this viewpoint with a mean response of 3.58.

Furthermore, only 36.2% respondents agree that their

university provides ready access to application

software (e.g. chatting, discussion groups, bulletin

boards) and hardware to help them in sharing their

personal experiences with a mean response of 3.25.

Hence, a mix of technological and social methods are

required for successful knowledge transfer

(Lundberg, Lidelöw & Engström, 2017).

Figure 1: Can technology help in tacit knowledge transfer.

As shown in figure 1, 42% of respondents feel that

technology can assist in the transfer of tacit

knowledge. However, this presents a lack of overall

confidence. This is in contrast to Sarkiûnaitë &

Krikðèiûnienë (2005), who posited that the usage of

information technologies causes significant work-

related tacit knowledge flows. This may perhaps also

reflect a preference for face-to-face contact where

tacit knowledge transfer can take place more

effectively. Despite advances in technology,

preference for face-to-face contact for tacit

knowledge sharing was outlined by Panahi et al.,

(2016).

Figure 2: Academics willingness to use technology for

sharing tacit knowledge.

Figure 2 indicates that 34% of the academics are

willing to use technology to share their knowledge,

skills and ideas with others. Universities are

implementing different technologies to enhance tacit

knowledge transfer (such as video conferencing,

online meetings, online chat rooms, discussion

forums, intranet, portals) but 49% of the participants

feel that with technology they ‘may be’ in a position

to share their knowledge, skills and ideas. This

uncertainty is of concern and requires further

investigation of the causes. Other participants are

either not sure or probably do not believe in improved

knowledge sharing with enhanced technology.

However, IT is an important enabler of knowledge

sharing efforts (Mitchell, 2003). Subramaniam and

Venkatraman (2001) found that effective transferral

and sharing of tacit knowledge involved face-to-face

interaction, often complemented and enhanced with

the use of IT. The use of IT to convert tacit to explicit

will be a positive way of moving forward in

knowledge management efforts.

Majority of the interviewees were not aware of

any specific IT used by their universities to aid tacit

knowledge transfer. This was also highlighted in

response to question eight of the survey. The

interviewees even commented about the lack of any

such technology in their workplace. Some verbatim

excerpts from the interviews have been reproduced

below to illustrate these facts:

42%

31%

16%

Yes Cannot know Probably not

No Do not know

34%

49%

Definitely Probably Probably not

No Do not know

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

352

‘I don’t see any systems or technology actually

specifically for knowledge management.’

‘There isn’t any technology or computerised systems

at this place that can assist tacit knowledge transfer.’

‘Technology used in the university-None come to

mind.’

‘Only in the extent of the expertise guide. The

expertise guide simply tells people which people have

this knowledge.’

‘No, there are no technologies or systems in this

University that aid in knowledge transfer.’

‘Technology should be used, yes. That’s right. We

are living in the IT world. Why don’t we capture this

potential? I am not aware of any IT usage not that I’m

aware of.’

Lack of IT has been identified as a barrier to the

successful sharing and transfer of knowledge (Asrar-

ul-Haq & Anwar, 2016). Since information

technologies can be used to improve tacit knowledge

transfer, it was imperative to assess how academics

adapted to any IT implemented by their university.

Universities are implementing different technologies

to enhance learning and teaching activities although,

there is a lack of technology in the area of tacit

knowledge transfer. An interviewee commented that

‘there’s a lot of technology floating around and I

think that’s happening in all universities’.

In the arena of adaptability to IT, academics are

not laggards that also resonated in response to

question three of the survey. However, putting a

different perspective on adapting to technology, an

interviewee remarked that ‘informally is the way I’m

thinking of it.’ This interviewee also highlighted that

‘I find it very slow and time-consuming and I’ve

talked to people at other universities about it, too, and

they’ve said the same thing.’ On the other hand, an

interviewee felt that he was ‘a quick learner, but a

lonely learner.’ The lonely learner adage was used

because this interviewee was able to access IT

support through phone only and hence felt that

geographical distance was a limitation. Not forgetting

the human element, adaptability, user-friendliness

and easy access were some desired capabilities users

expected from a knowledge management system

(Nevo & Chan, 2007).

Although 56% of respondents agreed that training

is provided for new IT, it is an area that can benefit

from increased training. Lack of training of

academics in IT was a problem that came out in the

interviews. One interviewee exemplified that ‘I did

figure it out by trial and error, trial and error. But I

wouldn’t claim that I’m on top of things, but I can get

by with the changes in technology.’ Another

interviewee echoed similar thoughts on the adoption

of IT by saying that ‘I'm certainly not the first out

there, I can tell you. I'm the third, probably – the

third or fourth – and I need to find out its social

benefit before I leap into it.’ Lack of individual staff

capacity to use the available IT was identified as a

barrier to tacit knowledge sharing (Olaniran, 2017).

However, an interviewee who was more confident in

the use of technology commented that ‘I can’t

consider myself a digital native but, certainly, I feel

comfortable with any IT systems.’ Action-oriented

user training can contribute to improved technology

implementation (Sokol, 1994).

As evident from the interviewees’ comments,

there is currently a dearth of systems in universities

that support tacit knowledge transfer however in

anticipation that such technology will be made

available in the future, academics have to adapt to it

rapidly. In summary, it is important to highlight that

IT for knowledge transfer is here to stay and

academics will have to use it in the near future (if they

have not already begun). There will be a learning

curve for every new technology. This interviewee’s

comment helps to conclude this section- ‘We have to

do it - no choice. Being a slow learner, medium

learner, quick learner depends on your operational

use of that technology.’

5 CONCLUSIONS

Transfer of tacit knowledge is vital for all

organisations, especially universities who create and

utilise knowledge for its diverse activities. Tacit

knowledge, in the form of skills and experience, is

embedded in university academics. Information

technology plays an important role in the facilitation

of knowledge transfer, particularly that of tacit

knowledge. Hence, this mixed-method study

explored the perceptions of university academic staff

with regards to IT usage.

Although this was an exploratory study, insights

from this study provide important contributions to

understanding staff perceptions about IT usage,

specifically relating to the transfer of tacit knowledge

and academics’ issues in adapting to IT. The findings

of this study have implications for researchers,

practitioners and managers alike.

The findings generally indicate a positive

predisposition towards IT usage, but a greater focus

on introducing specific technologies that assist tacit

knowledge transfer is required. A lack of tacit

knowledge transfer technologies in universities was

evident in the responses. Furthermore, to facilitate the

transfer of tacit knowledge, training on the use of new

Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Information Technology Usage in Universities

353

information technologies is needed. There appears to

be a lack of confidence in the role of technologies for

the transfer of tacit knowledge. Electronic

transmission of information does not lead to an

overload of information. The nexus between

communicative and tacit knowledge sharing tools

needs to be clarified. Academics are generally quick

to adapt to information technologies implemented by

their university. However, the uncertainty exhibited

by academic staff in their willingness to use

technology for sharing tacit knowledge requires

further exploration.

Like any study, this one is also not free of

limitations. Firstly, the qualitative sample was not

sufficiently large. Secondly, the sample consisted

only of academics from four Australian universities.

The explorative nature of the study can also be

viewed as a limitation. Hence, generalisability should

be avoided. Further studies can overcome these

limitations, replicate this study in a dissimilar

organisational setting and explore the different IT that

academics use in the knowledge management

lifecycle.

REFERENCES

Al-Qdah, M. S., & Salim, J. (2013). A conceptual

framework for managing tacit knowledge through ICT

perspective. Procedia Technology, 11, 1188-1194.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge

management and knowledge management systems:

Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS

Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

Albino, V., Garavelli, A., & Gorgoglione, M. (2004).

Organization and technology in knowledge transfer.

Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(6), 584-

600.

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A

basis for competitive advantage in firms.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 82(1), 150-169.

Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016). A systematic review

of knowledge management and knowledge sharing:

Trends, issues, and challenges. Cogent Business &

Management, 3(1), 1-17.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing act: How to

capture knowledge without killing it. Harvard Business

Review, 78(3), 73-80.

Chugh, R. (2012). Knowledge sharing with enhanced

learning and development opportunities. Paper

presented at the IEEE International Conference on

Information Retrieval & Knowledge Management, 100-

104, 13-15 March, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Chugh, R. (2017). Barriers and Enablers of Tacit

Knowledge Transfer in Australian Higher Education

Institutions. International Journal of Education and

Learning Systems, 2, 272-276.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease

of use, and user acceptance of information technology.

MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

ICT Literacy Panel. (2002). Digital transformation: A

framework for ICT literacy. Retrieved from Princeton,

NJ.: http://oei.org.ar/ibertic/evaluacion/sites/default

/files/biblioteca/32_digitaltransformation.pdf

Ismail Al-Alawi, A., Yousif Al-Marzooqi, N., & Fraidoon

Mohammed, Y. (2007). Organizational culture and

knowledge sharing: critical success factors. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22-42.

Jones, N. B. (2016). Knowledge transfer and knowledge

creation in virtual teams. In Strategic management and

leadership for systems development in virtual spaces

(pp. 110-122). Hershey: IGI Global.

Karlsen, J. T., & Gottschalk, P. (2004). Factors affecting

knowledge transfer in IT projects. Engineering

Management Journal, 16(1), 3-11.

Keillor, B. D., Pettijohn, C. E., & d'Amico, M. (2001). The

relationship between attitudes toward technology,

adaptability, and customer orientation among

professional salespeople. Journal of Applied Business

Research, 17(4), 31-40.

Lundberg, M., Lidelöw, H., & Engström, S. (2017).

Methods used in the everyday practice of construction

projects for knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer.

Paper presented at the 5th International Workshop

When Social Science Meets Lean and BIM, 26-27

January 2017, Aalborg, Denmark.

Margilaj, E., & Bello, K. (2015). Critical success factors of

knowledge management in Albania business

organizations. European Journal of Research and

Reflection in Management Sciences, 3(2), 15-24.

Mitchell, H. J. (2003). Technology and knowledge

management: Is technology just an enabler or does it

also add value? In Knowledge management: Current

issues and challenges (pp. 66-78): IGI Global.

Nevo, D., & Chan, Y. E. (2007). A Delphi study of

knowledge management systems: Scope and

requirements. Information & Management, 44(6), 583-

597.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating

company: How Japanese companies create the

dynamics of innovation: Oxford university press.

O'Leary, D. E. (1998). Knowledge-management systems:

Converting and connecting. IEEE Intelligent Systems

and Their Applications, 13(3), 30-33.

Olaniran, O. J. (2017). Barriers to tacit knowledge sharing

in geographically dispersed project teams in oil and gas

projects. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 41-57.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the

interpretation of significant findings: The role of mixed

methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9(4), 770-

792.

Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2016).

Conceptualising social media support for tacit

knowledge sharing: physicians’ perspectives and

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

354

experiences. Journal of Knowledge Management,

20(2), 344-363.

Pant, A., Shrestha, A., Kong, E., & Ally, M. (2018). A

systematic literature mapping to investigate the role of

IT in knowledge stock and transfer. Paper presented at

the Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on

Information Systems (PACIS 2018).

Patten, K., Whitworth, B., Fjermestad, J., & Mahindra, E.

(2005). Leading IT flexibility: anticipation, agility and

adaptability. Paper presented at the AMCIS 2005

Proceedings.

Saini, M., Arif, M., & Kulonda, D. J. (2018). Critical factors

for transferring and sharing tacit knowledge within lean

and agile construction processes. Construction

Innovation, 18(1), 64-89.

Sarkiûnaitë, I., & Krikðèiûnienë, D. (2005). Impacts of

information technologies to tacit knowledge sharing:

Empirical approach. Informacijos Mokslai, 35, 69-79.

Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit

knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 5(4), 311-321.

Sokol, M. B. (1994). Adaptation to difficult designs:

Facilitating use of new technology. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 8(3), 277-296.

Song, S. (2002). An internet knowledge sharing system.

Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(3), 25-

30.

Subramaniam, M., & Venkatraman, N. (2001).

Determinants of transnational new product

development capability: Testing the influence of

transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge.

Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 359-378.

Tang, L. C., Zhao, Y., Austin, S. A., Darlington, M., &

Culley, S. (2008). Overload of information or lack of

high value information: Lessons learnt from

construction. Paper presented at the 9th European

Conference on Knowledge Management and

Evaluation, Southampton, UK.

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of

mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,

1(1), 3-7.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed

methods research: Integrating quantitative and

qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral

sciences: Sage Publishing.

Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2007). The research methods

knowledge base 3rd Ed: Mason. OH: Thompson

Publishing Group.

Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Information Technology Usage in Universities

355