Hanson and Haas: Different knowledge, different benefits

So it’s been a month, but I finally finished reading this article.

The cite: Haas, Martin and Hansen, Morten. “Different knowledge, different benefits: toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations.” Strategic Management Journal. 28.11 (2007): 1133-1153.

The punchline

• Different kinds of knowledge have different impacts on knowledge worker productivity:
  • Electronic documents, generally providing codified knowledge, help save time but don’t improve work quality
    
  • Personal advice, generally providing tacit knowledge, help improve quality but don’t necessarily save time due to the time associated with getting and capturing it
• Cost of acquiring and processing knowledge means that more knowledge sharing isn’t always better

 

Implications for my thesis

• What types of knowledge is generated by user research, tacit or codified?
• What processes are used to share knowledge about user research from researchers to strategic decision-makers?

More after the jump.

Framework of evaluation

n Barriers to knowledge transfer (3) :

o Knowledge tacitness

o Limited absorptive capability by receivers

o Lack of trust between providers and receivers

n Knowledge sharing evaluated based on process and quality:

o Two processes for knowledge transfer/sharing evaluated(6):

§ Person to person. Can include email, telephone, etc. Good for tacit knowledge.

§ Electronic documents.

o Quality defined as: “rigor, soundness, and insight of the knowledge irrespective of the task at hand” (7)

n Impact of knowledge transfer measured along three axes (8)

o Time saved by using knowledge (important for service oriented businesses)

o Quality of work output. Def: “extent to which the output of a [knowledge] task meets or exceeds the expectations of those who receive or use it”

o Signal of competence: Make other people think you are competent

 

Hypotheses

n H1: “Electronic document quality reduces the amount of time a focal team spends on a task, while document rework increases it.” (12)

o Personal advice is potentially useful but takes time to process and requires investment in relationships, etc., making its time effectiveness questionable

o Hypothesis confirmed by data

 

n H2: “Advisors’ experience improves a focal team’s work quality, while their lack of effort decreases it.” (14)

o Personal advice from relevant sources is generally good only if the source is experienced, but takes time to process. The quality also depends on the source’s willingness to help you.

o Because it takes time to process, there is a cost associated with the benefit, and more doesn’t always equal better

o Hypothesis confirmed by data

n Electronic documents are likely to only impact time saved, while personal advice should only impact work quality. (!5)

o In the framework of a sales proposal, electronic documents are likely to provide background info and data which saves time, but only indirectly impacts quality.

o Hypothesis confirmed by data

n H3: “Advisors’ experience improves the signaling of competencies, while their lack of effort decreases it.” (17)

o It’s possible that too much effort by advisors will also make the team seem incompetent

§ This part not confirmed by data

o Electronic document usage unlikely to effect signally, as it is not visible to clients

o Hypothesis confirmed by data other than aforementioned part

 

Data and methods

n Studied ad hoc sales teams at a large management consulting company

o 30 interviews

o Surveyed team leaders of 259 recent bids