1. MNGT 350
Management Dissertation
James Pipe – 0104655
06/05/2005
What are the factors that affect
knowledge transfer about resources
among assignment managers in a
medium sized management
consultancy?

3. i
i. Abstract
The effective formation of teams for client projects is a major source of competitive
advantage for a professional services firm such as a management consultancy and this
process relies on the ability of the assignment manager to select the appropriate team
of people. The effectiveness of the processes for transferring knowledge about
available resources therefore represents a major factor to contributing to the firm’s
competitive advantage.
A review of the academic literature on the subject suggests an almost inexhaustible
list of contributing factors to the effectiveness of knowledge transfer, but some
common themes emerge. These include the importance of social networks, and the
role of organisational culture in promoting environments of learning. They also cite
the facilitating role of formal coordinating mechanisms and the merits of the use of
ICT is an issue of debate.
In this study we use data collected from eight in depth interviews with senior
consultants who are responsible for staffing client projects in order to evaluate the
applicability of the relevant theory which is reviewed in the first section. As a result,
we find much support for various theoretical perspectives such as the prevalence of
social networks and the inability of electronic systems to convey rich, contextual
knowledge. We are then able to offer some recommendations for how the
organisation could improve the effectiveness of knowledge sharing and offer some
areas for further study.

4. ii
Contents
i. Abstract........................................................................................................................i
Contents .........................................................................................................................ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures.............................................................................................................. iii
1. Introduction................................................................................................................1
1.1 About the participating organisation....................................................................2
2. Academic Literature Review .....................................................................................4
2.1 The importance of knowledge, knowledge sharing and knowledge as a
competitive advantage. ..............................................................................................4
2.1.1 The resource-based view of the firm ............................................................5
2.1.2 Epistemologies of knowledge.......................................................................6
2.2 Cultural context and influence...........................................................................12
2.3 Knowledge and technology................................................................................13
2.4 Coordination mechanisms of knowledge...........................................................14
2.4.1 Dualistic Systems (Bahrami, 1992) ............................................................15
2.4.2 Network organisations ................................................................................16
2.4.3 Organisational routines ...............................................................................17
2.5 Social networks..................................................................................................18
2.5.1 Social Identity .............................................................................................19
2.5.2 Strong and weak ties ...................................................................................20
2.5.3 Communities of practice.............................................................................23
2.6 Summary............................................................................................................25
3. Methodology and data analysis................................................................................26
3.1 Research design .................................................................................................26
3.1.1 The philosophy of research design: Positivism vs. Social Constructionism
..............................................................................................................................27
3.1.2 Research Style.............................................................................................28
3.1.3 Grounded theory .........................................................................................30
3.1.4 Methods.......................................................................................................32
3.2 Data collection ...................................................................................................33
3.3 Data analysis ......................................................................................................34
3.3.1 Grounded theory process ............................................................................35
3.3.2 Coding.........................................................................................................36
3.4 Limitations.........................................................................................................38
4. Findings and Discussion. .........................................................................................39
4.1 What are the methods and influencing factors of how effective team
development knowledge is shared? .........................................................................39
4.2 What role does the culture of the organisation play in promoting and enabling
knowledge sharing? .................................................................................................40
4.3 How does the use of IT affect knowledge sharing in the organisation? ............42
4.4 What are the coordinating mechanisms for knowledge sharing in the
organisation?............................................................................................................43
4.5 What are the structure and content of social networks in the organisation and
how do they affect knowledge sharing?...................................................................46
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................49
6. Development............................................................................................................52

5. iii
Appendix 1: Interview notes.......................................................................................... I
Respondent A............................................................................................................. I
Respondent B...........................................................................................................IV
Respondent C...........................................................................................................VI
Respondent D...........................................................................................................IX
Respondent E ............................................................................................................X
Respondent F ...........................................................................................................XI
Respondent G........................................................................................................XIII
Respondent H........................................................................................................XIV
Appendix 2: Index of categories and codes ...............................................................XV
Appendix 3: Coded data.......................................................................................... XVII
Respondent A...................................................................................................... XVII
Respondent B........................................................................................................XIX
Respondent C.........................................................................................................XX
Respondent D...................................................................................................... XXII
Respondent E .....................................................................................................XXIII
Respondent F .....................................................................................................XXIV
Respondent G.....................................................................................................XXVI
Respondent H................................................................................................... XXVII
References:.....................................................................................................................a
List of Tables
Table 1: Knowledge under the practice-based perspective (adapted from Hislop,
2005:28-34)....................................................................................................................7
Table 2: Objectivist and practice-based epistemologies of knowledge (Hislop,
2005:27).........................................................................................................................8
Table 3: Stages of knowledge sharing (summarised from Nonaka, 1994) ..................10
Table 4: Character and articulated advantages of N-V organizational structures
(Hislop, 2005:181).......................................................................................................16
Table 5: Factors affecting knowledge-sharing/searching attitudes in virtual work
groups (adapted from Ardichvili et al, 2003 in Hislop, 2005:187). ............................17
Table 6: Search and transfer effects associated with four combinations of knowledge
complexity and tie strength (Hansen, 1999:89)...........................................................21
List of Figures
Figure 1: The changing nature of work (Pinchot and Pinchot, 1993:46).....................4
Figure 2: Spiral of organizational knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994) ......................9
Figure 3: Classification of network forms of organizing (Cravens et al, 1996 in
Hislop, 2005:182). .......................................................................................................17
Figure 4: How communities of practice underpin knowledge processes (Hislop,
2005:65).......................................................................................................................24
Figure 5: Matrix of research designs (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:57).......................29

6. 1
1. Introduction
Knowledge sharing becomes important when networking brings together individuals
from different departments, with different skill sets and different methods of working,
to work on a common goal – i.e. a client project. As an organisation with multiple
personnel and multi-disciplinary knowledge coming together, it is necessary for
Consultancy A (see section 1.1 below) to continuously combine and connect different
skills and leverage the experience held by individuals of previous jobs towards adding
value to the current project. This requires the assignment manager to apply a specific
kind of knowledge; that of the resources, i.e. people, within the organisation to the
specific job. Since it is not possible however for assignment managers to know every
individual in the organisation, or every conceivable combination of people, an
important area of interest for the organisation is how these assignment managers learn
of people who would be suitable for a particular project, and how this knowledge is
shared within the organisation so that others can benefit from it.
Knowledge transfer is an important topic for research, because knowledge may be
spread throughout the organisation and not be available where it can be put to best
use. Enabling this knowledge to be made available therefore will improve
organisational effectiveness and performance. Informal networks are often
emphasised as facilitating knowledge transfer, but it is worth also considering how
formal networks can contribute to knowledge transfer.
An important theme in the study of knowledge transfer is the taxonomy of tacit and
explicit knowledge, based on the pioneering work of Polanyi (1967), who postulated
that individuals know more than they can explain or articulate as some knowledge is
held more intuitively (Polanyi, 1967). This tacit knowledge is hard to communicate,
deeply rooted in action, involvement and commitment within a specific context
(Polanyi, 1967; Nonaka, 1994). The knowledge base of an organisation therefore, is
not just constructed of formal, explicit knowledge, but also informal, tacit knowledge,
which is often taken for granted (Garvey and Williams, 2002).

7. 2
Such inter-group or ‘inter-community’ knowledge sharing may be required for
example where staff from different organisational departments have to work together
(Hansen, 1999). Difficulties result however from a lack of shared understanding and
assumptions (Brown and Duguid, 2001) and from a lack of inter-personal trust
between the two groups.
Kogut and Zander (1992) distinguish between information and know-how.
Information is knowing what something means and can be transmitted without loss of
meaning; know-how is “the accumulated practical skill or expertise that allows one to
do something smoothly and efficiently” (Kogut and Zander, 1992:386). This
categorisation of knowledge is applicable to organisations whereby “know-how is a
description of what defines current practices inside a firm. […] The knowledge
displayed in an organisational chart, as in any blueprint, is limited to providing
information on personnel and formal authority. The know-how is the understanding of
how to organize a firm along these formal (and informal) lines” (Kogut and Zander,
1992:387).
This study therefore will begin by looking at the theoretical foundations of knowledge
transfer and the mechanisms and influencing factors that contribute to or hinder its
effective movement around organisations. The theory is then considered in light of
some primary qualitative research data collected as part of the study from the
participating organisation. Following the discussion of the survey results in light of
the academic literature on the subject, an attempt is then made in conclusion to
suggest some recommendations for how the organisation could improve the
effectiveness of its internal knowledge sharing processes.
1.1 About the participating organisation
Consultancy A is a medium sized London based management consultancy, which
operates out of approximately 20 offices around the world, employing roughly 4,000
people. Like most consultancies, it is organised around a practice structure based on
industry or skill expertise, from which staff are drawn to form project teams. This has

8. 3
the advantage of providing a measure of the demand for specific skills or expertise in
the market and acts as an indicator both internally and externally for the existence of
capabilities within the firm, however it also creates the problem that individuals from
different practices are continuously brought together that may have no previous
experience of working together. It is the assignment manager’s responsibility to create
such teams and they attempt to add value by selecting teams that they believe are not
only qualified in terms of skills required, but also compatible to work together and it
is this knowledge that we are interested in learning about.
For the purposes of confidentiality, the organisation will be referred to in this study as
simply Consultancy A and no respondents’ names are revealed. Some in-house
terminology has also been altered to prevent identification without altering the
meaning of the data.

9. 4
2. Academic Literature Review
2.1 The importance of knowledge, knowledge sharing and
knowledge as a competitive advantage.
“Corporate success in today’s economy comes from being able to acquire, codify, and
transfer knowledge more effectively and with greater speed than the competition”
(Myers, 1996:1).
Knowledge, and more importantly, the effective sharing or transfer of knowledge
from one part of the organisation to another is more and more being seen as the most
important means of competitive advantage for a firm (Miller, 1998; Cross et al, 2001;
Szulanski and Jensen, 2004). This is largely due to the changing nature of work,
which is summarised by Pinchot and Pinchot (1993) in the figure below:
Figure 1: The changing nature of work (Pinchot and Pinchot, 1993:46).
In large organisations, many people may be working on the same or similar
problem(s), which leads to duplication of work or failure to leverage existing
knowledge (Miller, 1998). People are the ‘containers’ of everything that the
organisation knows (Miller, 1998) and individual knowledge of circumstances
particular to a time and place is an important body of knowledge such that “practically
every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique
information of which beneficial use might be made only […] with his active co-
operation” (Hayek, 1945:9). Consequently, firms must be organised so as to bring
everyone’s knowledge and abilities to bear on constantly changing goals such as
client projects (Pinchot and Pinchot, 1993; Cross et al, 2001). The realisation of a
competitive advantage is argued to come from the effective sharing of knowledge as
knowledge is seen to be a key strategic resource or corporate asset (Huseman and
Goodman, 1999).
Unskilled work
Meaningless repetitive tasks
Individual work
Functional-based work
Single-skilled
Power of bosses
Coordination from above
Knowledge work
Innovation and caring
Teamwork
Project-based work
Multi-skilled
Power of customers
Coordination among peers

10. 5
2.1.1 The resource-based view of the firm
“If you are committed to continuity and change, then you need to focus on resources”
(Prahalad, 1997:64 in Garvey and Williams, 2002).
The resource-based view of the firm states that a firm can be defined as a bundle of
resources (Rumelt, 1984 and Amit and Shoemaker, 1993 in Ambrosini, 2003). These
resources are what enable a firm to gain/maintain a competitive advantage (Teece et
al, 1997; Ambrosini, 2003).
The primary aim of resource based strategic analysis is to determine what the firm can
do better than the competition in different contexts (McEvily, 2000) and
organisational knowledge is often seen as a key source of added value to the firm and
its strategic capabilities (Grant, 1996; Clark, 2000). An emphasis on tacit and explicit
knowledge creation (Spender and Grant, 1996) gives further weight to the importance
of the ‘inside-out’ view (Johnson and Scholes, 2002) of strategic management. It is
about maximising the use of all resources within the organisation and extending this
to the concept of knowledge, “human capital – competencies – are a key component
of value in a knowledge-based company” (Skyrme in Garvey and Williamson, 2002).
Some resources are ‘sticky’ (Von Hippel, 1994; Szulanski, 1996), which makes them
less transferable, and tacit, which creates ambiguity (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990),
making them difficult to imitate (Teece et al, 1997; Ambrosini, 2003). The
organisation may be unaware of the resources and activities required to achieve its
competitive advantage (McEvily et al, 2000; Ambrosini, 2003). Tacit knowledge is
practical – more appropriately referred to as ‘capability’ than ‘resource’ (Ambrosini,
2003). This is similar to the concept of ‘know-how’ (Nonaka, 1991 in Ambrosini,
2003; Kogut and Zander, 1992).
Knowledge capital involves building on bases of both explicit and tacit knowledge
within the organisation and combining them into a single framework – what Clark
(2000) refers to as explacit knowledge. The traditional resource-based view of the
firm cannot adequately account for the role of ‘knowledge in action’ because they
place too much emphasis on planned sequences without reference to specific context

11. 6
(Clark, 2000). This ‘causal ambiguity (Szulanski, 1996) creates a barrier to
knowledge transfer within the firm as well as protecting the firm from imitation by
competitors (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990; Szulanski and Jensen, 2004).
2.1.2 Epistemologies of knowledge
The study of knowledge and all things related to knowledge must begin with a
definition of what knowledge is, which leads us to two epistemological views; the
objectivist perspective and the practice-based perspective (Hislop, 2005).
Objectivist perspective
A common distinction about knowledge is that between data, information and
knowledge, whereby data are the raw facts, information is an organised assembly of
these facts and knowledge is the basis for understanding and interpreting this
information and turning it into action (Hislop, 2005).
Knowledge is seen as an entity which people/groups can possess, hence the objectivist
perspective is also referred to as the ‘epistemology of possession’ (Brown and Cook,
1999). Furthermore, knowledge is seen to be objective and explicit, thus free of
contextual dependence and this explicit aspect of knowledge takes primacy over tacit
knowledge. This view is reflected in the work of researchers such as Nonaka (1994)
and Nonaka et al (1995) who see knowledge as an item that individuals can possess,
and Szulanski (1996) who takes a commodity based view of knowledge.
There is an assumed distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge and individual
and group knowledge and that they are distinct kinds of knowledge, rather than
representing polarised version of the same type of knowledge. The tacit-explicit
dimension and individual-group dimension can thus be combined to form four distinct
types of knowledge (see Brown and Cook, 1999).
Knowledge as an object has implications for the management and transfer of
knowledge; explicit knowledge transfer in particular is seen as a straightforward
process of ‘send and receive’ and this ease of conveyance is a fundamental property
of such knowledge (Grant, 1996). Tacit knowledge is recognised as more problematic

12. 7
because it first has to be accessed and converted to an explicit form (Nonaka, 1994),
but whilst the medium of communication may be different, there is still an implicit
element of the ‘conduit model’ (Hislop, 2005) of knowledge transfer.
Practice-based perspective
Knowledge is embedded in social practice and cannot be separated from its context.
This perspective therefore is also known as the ‘epistemology of practice’ (Brown and
Cook, 1999). The practice-based view of knowledge can be viewed in terms of seven
factors (Hislop, 2005), which are summarised in the table below:
1. Knowledge is embedded in practice
Knowledge is not a discrete object, but linked to activity. In this sense it is sometimes conceptualised as
knowing (Blackler, 1995).
2. Tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable
There is often a misinterpretation of Polanyi’s work who saw less of a distinction between tacit and
explicit knowledge than he is credited with (Brown and Duguid, 2001). In fact, tacit and explicit
knowledge represent two aspects or extremes of the same knowledge and in this respect are
inseparable (Hislop, 2005). Clark (2000) referred to this single framework of knowledge as ‘explacit’
knowledge.
3. Knowledge is embodied in people
All knowledge or knowing is personal; this is related to knowledge as originating through practice and
to all knowledge having a tacit dimension – which is subjective to the person (Hislop, 2005). Therefore,
some part of the knowledge will always remain in the head of the person that created it and cannot
ever be converted fully to explicit knowledge to be communicated (Hayek, 1945).
4. Knowledge is socially constructed
5. Knowledge is culturally embedded
All knowledge is subjective and open to interpretation because it is socially constructed and linked to
the values of the creator. Another observer from a different cultural background may therefore
interpret the knowledge differently based on their own value system and beliefs. The scope for
interpretation is limited however by the “socially negotiated nature of language” (Hislop, 2005:32).
6. Knowledge is multi-dimensional
Since knowledge is neither tacit nor explicit, but contains elements of both, it follows that it is multi-
dimensional; “Knowledge is multi-faceted and complex” (Blackler, 1995:1032). Other attempts to
dimension knowledge are equally dismissed for oversimplifying the true complexity of knowledge
(Hislop, 2005).
7. Knowledge is contestable
Since knowledge is subjective, socially constructed and culturally embedded, it is therefore open to
interpretation and dispute. Different groups may attempt to legitimise their own conception or
interpretation of the knowledge in question, which can lead to power struggles and political activity
within organisations.
Table 1: Knowledge under the practice-based perspective (adapted from Hislop,
2005:28-34).
This perspective leads to a conceptualisation of knowledge in organisations as
fragmented and dispersed among the many members of the organisation. Knowledge
bases may occur in specialised areas and these are often referred to as ‘communities’,
and some knowledge may be shared more widely, constituting ‘common knowledge’

13. 8
(Kogut and Zander, 1992). Organisations in this sense then can be thought of as
‘community-of-communities’ (Brown and Duguid, 1991:53).
Under the practice-based perspective, knowledge sharing is not a straightforward
process, because there is no independent ‘unit’ of knowledge that can be transferred.
Knowledge is too much a part of the person and place from which it comes from.
Instead, knowledge sharing involves “two people actively inferring and constructing
meaning” (Hislop, 2005:37).
A summary of the main differences between the Objectivist and Practice-based
perspectives is given in the table below:
Objectivist epistemology Practice-based epistemology
Knowledge derived from an intellectual process
Knowledge is embedded in practice
Knowing/doing inseparable
Knowledge is a disembodied entity/object
Knowledge is embodied in people
Knowledge is socially constructed
Knowledge is objective ‘facts’
Knowledge is culturally embedded
Knowledge is contestable
Knowledge is socially constructed
Explicit knowledge (objective) privileged over
tacit knowledge (subjective)
Tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable and
mutually constituted
Distinct knowledge categories Knowledge is multidimensional
Table 2: Objectivist and practice-based epistemologies of knowledge (Hislop,
2005:27)
Elements of knowledge sharing
An important area of interest is in understanding the ways in which knowledge is
transferred. Knowledge resides in people, but can be imitated, copied or transferred
through communication (Zander and Kogul, 1995). Imitation is difficult however,
because “there is a fundamental difference between having information and
understanding it” (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990:94). This is due to a lack of
transparency about the factors involved in implementing this knowledge and how they
interact.

14. 9
Organisational Learning is a process for detecting and correcting errors within an
organisation (Argyris and Schön, 1978). There are two kinds of organisational
learning; single-loop or lower level learning, and double-loop or higher level learning.
Single loop learning is a gradual process of improvement of routines, which occurs
within the existing context of the organisation, i.e. norms of doing things and policies
do not change. Double loop learning is a more rapid process and involves challenging
and changing these underlying norms (Argyris and Schön, 1978).
At the individual level, learning occurs through education, experience and
experimentation. Organisational learning is a process through which the knowledge
held by individuals is amplified, internalised and externalised as part of an
organisation’s knowledge base (Nonaka, 1994): Nonaka’s concept of a spiral of
knowledge creation.
Figure 2: Spiral of organizational knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994)
Knowledge moves upward in an organisation from the individual to the group level
and on to the organisation level. The knowledge creating process begins and revolves
around the tacit knowledge held by individuals, but benefiting from this knowledge
requires “dynamic interactions between four modes of knowledge conversion
(Nonaka, 1994:200).

15. 10
Socialisation
The first stage whereby tacit knowledge is shared among individuals based on experiential processes
Combination
The second stage brings together all the explicit knowledge held by individuals as a result of the
experiential processes in stage one.
Externalisation
At the third stage, tacit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge
Internalisation
In the fourth stage, this explicit knowledge is turned back into tacit knowledge as individuals take on
the new knowledge and test it out through hands-on implementation and experimentation.
Table 3: Stages of knowledge sharing (summarised from Nonaka, 1994)
There is the view that knowledge cannot be managed (Von Krogh et al, 2000), but
that knowledge sharing can be supported through contextual and organisational
variables that support the flow of knowledge. Three such contextual variables that
have been identified as having an important impact are the task environment,
organisational structure and organisational cultural norms (Gupta and Govindarajan,
1991). Research has been carried out into the effect of knowledge in one area of an
organisation on experiences of another (Darr et al, 1995; Argote and Ingram, 2000). It
was found that knowledge is contained within knowledge repositories and sub-
networks of these repositories, and transferred either by moving these repositories or
networks, or modifying them through training and communication (Argote and
Ingram, 2000).
An important influence on how effectively knowledge will be shared is linked to the
difficulty of sharing the knowledge in question, and a large factor of this is whether
the knowledge to be shared is tacit or articulate (Winter, 1987 in Birkinshaw et al,
2002). Even the sharing of articulated knowledge can be difficult however, due to
causal ambiguity and the receiver’s lack of ‘absorptive capacity’ (Szulanksi, 1996).
The implication of this is that individuals within an organisation may possess
knowledge that could be beneficial to other members within the organisation, but
which they do not benefit from, because transferring the knowledge has so far proven
too difficult (Szulanski, 2000). Adaptation increases both normative and cognitive
legitimacy (Szulanski and Jensen, 2004). Similarity of the context or routine affects
the motivation to accept new knowledge (normative legitimacy) and the ability to
understand and apply it (cognitive legitimacy), thus adaptation of knowledge to fit a

16. 11
new context or routine will make it more easily transferable (Szulanski and Jensen,
2004).
Knowledge sharing among individuals at the group level is often associated with trust
in the relationship between the sender and receiver (Miller, 1998; Williams, 2001,
Hislop, 2005) and motivation to share (Osterloh and Frey, 2000), both affected by the
organisational culture (Hislop, 2005).
The way knowledge is shared impacts its effectiveness. The method of knowledge
sharing is determined by the factors discussed, i.e. explicit transmission, the use of a
learning process, trust and motivation. Knowledge must be organised and structured
so that it is easy to use otherwise busy people will ignore it. Understanding the
appropriate medium of transfer is important – some knowledge requires face to face
contact (Miller, 1998).
The cost of transferring knowledge depends on factors such as the nature of the
knowledge, the organisational environment, and technology. Knowledge exists across
a continuum from ‘general’ to ‘specific’, with the cost of transfer increasing as
knowledge moves from general to specific (Jensen and Meckling, 1995). This transfer
of knowledge has to be worthwhile in that it must be understood by the recipient well
enough to act upon it, thus effective knowledge transfer involves more than just
communicating the knowledge (Jensen and Meckling, 1995). Furthermore, this
transfer is not instantaneous, as it takes time for new knowledge to be absorbed or
internalised (Nonaka, 1994; Jensesn and Meckling, 1995). An important question for
organisations therefore is not whether knowledge can be transferred, but at what cost
this can be achieved and whether this is worthwhile.
The following sections will look at theory around the cultural aspect of knowledge
sharing, the use of ICT to facilitate knowledge sharing, and coordinating mechanisms
in terms of organisational processes and structures related to knowledge sharing.
Research question 1: What are the methods and influencing factors of
sharing effective team development knowledge?

17. 12
2.2 Cultural context and influence
Environments for learning are “cultural and psychological contexts which provide a
climate for motivation to learn” (Garvey and Williamson, 2002:125). Often the
problem with organisational learning does not lie in the structures in place to facilitate
learning, but in the attitudes and expectations, or organisational culture and how this
leads people to view learning (Garvey and Williamson, 2002). Culture therefore, is a
‘fundamental ingredient’ to the success of knowledge transfer. The organisational
culture must support, encourage and reward knowledge sharing for it to be successful
and effective and for employees to accept knowledge sharing initiatives/technologies
(Miller, 1998).
The context in which a group operates affects the group’s performance (Williams,
2001) and this cultural context has been studied in terms of the characteristics of the
organisational culture (Sackmann, 1992). The culture of an organisation has the
power to influence the extent to which groups and individuals within groups will
cooperate in the formation of groups (Sackmann, 1992).
The fact that knowledge is based on the context in which it is embedded (Birkinshaw
et al, 2002) means that culture must be looked at in terms of the organisational
structures of the firm (Birkinshaw et al, 2002) and the personal relationships and
social identities which have developed (Birkinshaw et al, 2002). These two issues will
be looked at individually in sections to come.
Research question 2: What role does the culture of the organisation play
in promoting and enabling knowledge sharing?

18. 13
2.3 Knowledge and technology
“While technology can generate data and, to some extent, information, knowledge
requires human intervention to make comparisons, draw out implications and
relationships between bits of information, and discuss the information with others”
(Miller, 1998:11-12).
Developments in information and communications technology (ICT) have encouraged
firms to experiment with new ways of sharing knowledge, but have met with limited
success (McDermott, 1999; Dixon, 2000). Whilst it is being used to share codified
knowledge (Cross et al, 2001), the ability to codify and share tacit knowledge has not
been realised (Hislop, 2005). This is due to the fact that knowledge sharing is more
dependent on social networks than on ICT (McDermott, 1999). ICT does have the
capacity to enable knowledge transfer (Roberts, 2000; Dixon, 2000), but has little
ability to affect how tacit knowledge is shared within an organisation. “The transfer of
know-how requires a process of show-how. Face-to-face demonstration and the social
interaction involved enable the sharing of skills and the establishment of mutual
understanding and trust” (Roberts, 2000:440). ICT can be used to facilitate this social
interaction, though it is much more likely to be successful in situations where physical
interaction already exists, than where no previous interaction, and hence trust exists
(Wathne et al, 1996). Blackler (1995) also found that technology could be used to
spread embedded knowledge (Collins, 1993) and encultured knowledge (Collins,
1993) via groupware, communication systems and integrated enterprise systems
(Blackler, 1995). Contractor and Monge (2002) however, found that contrary to
reducing the need for personal contact, the use of a common database served to
increase it and was used as a means to identify suitable individuals to contact, hence
ICT’s ability to facilitate tacit knowledge sharing.
Research question 3: How does the use of ICT affect knowledge sharing
in the organisation?

19. 14
2.4 Coordination mechanisms of knowledge
“Successful organisations are the ones structured to learn new ways of doing things
and to be creative in the way they solve problems and develop business” (Garvey and
Williams, 2002:19).
The study of knowledge productivity requires consideration of the question of how far
this knowledge productivity can be managed and whether knowledge in itself can be
managed (Miller, 1998). This is especially relevant given the changing nature of work
(Pinchot and Pinchot, 1993), and the fact that “the capacity to develop and apply
knowledge rests mainly with the knowledge worker” (Kessels, 2002:49). This takes
knowledge ‘management’ out of the direct control of managers (if it was ever in it)
and into the hands of the knowledge workers themselves (Kessels, 2002), thus
knowledge management as a concept could be replaced by that of knowledge
development (Von Krogh et al, 2000). Knowledge ‘management’ instead could be
achieved by control and steering via formal mechanisms of the organisation to create
environments of learning (Kessels, 2002).
Knowledge sharing within a multi-unit organisation requires both formal and informal
structures to facilitate the transfer process (Hackman, 1987 in Rulke and
Galaskiewicz, 2000; Podolny and Page, 1998; Tsai, 2002). These mechanisms may
differ depending on the level(s) within/between which knowledge is to be shared
(Kogut and Zander, 1992). Specialisation from the division of labour increases the
costs of coordination and communication for firms, such that procedural rules are
required to enable the coordination and communication of knowledge (Kogut and
Zander, 1996). Firms will be particularly successful when they are able to coordinate
knowledge produced in different ‘communities of practice’ (Brown and Duguid,
2001).
Decentralised structures help to facilitate the transfer of knowledge between small
groups of specialised or context specific knowledge (Rulke and Galaskiewicz, 2000).
A network theory-based perspective would see organisations as having the advantage
of being able to mobilise social capital embedded within human relations.

20. 15
Organisations provide an environment for human social interaction, thus encouraging
cooperation and allowing the exchange of ideas (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Bouty,
2000). Informal networks in particular are shown to be a very effective mechanism for
the transfer of knowledge within organisations (Brown and Duguid, 2001; Grant,
1996; Kogut and Zander, 1996; Podolny and Page, 1998).
Learning is a social activity and it happens within a social context through interaction
(Garvey and Williams, 2002. Environments can therefore be productive or
unproductive to learning (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Kogut and
Zander describe that at the individual level knowledge transfer is coordinated by the
development of a unique dialogue which enables members to learn who knows what
and to coordinate their activities. Horizontal knowledge sharing is achieved by
‘boundary spanners’ and vertical sharing by ‘higher-order organising principle’
(Kogut and Zander, 1992). ‘Core conditions’ of an effective learning environment
include (Rogers, 1961:281 in Garvey and Williamson, 2002):
• Self-organisation and genuine flexibility
• Creativity and open dialogue
• Individual responsibility, control and authority
• Security, empathy
• Extensive and open information exchange
• A climate of trust based on mutual respect and genuineness
• Unconditional positive regard for other people
• An ability to communicate all these to the others
2.4.1 Dualistic Systems (Bahrami, 1992)
Many firms in highly competitive and constantly changing markets have
organisational structures that are at the same time structured and ‘highly chaotic’. The
formal structure provides a foundation for the firm and a mechanism for grouping
skills and activities and assigning reporting relationships and accountability. This
underlying structure provides a measure of stability and only undergoes
transformations periodically; usually of a major kind. The flexibility comes from the
adoption of temporary project teams and multi-functional groups whose focus is on

21. 16
critical assignments, which allows the firm to respond to changing market needs
without disrupting the operations of the business (Bahrami, 1992).
2.4.2 Network organisations
The competitive and unpredictable nature of the market requires firms to be “both
continually innovative and highly adaptive” (Hislop, 2005:179-180).
The distinction between network and virtual organisations is that while in network
organisations the collaboration of groups comes from across the organisation, virtual
organisations involve “dispersed, ICT-mediated working” (Hislop, 2005:180). The
characteristics of network/virtual (N-V) organisations are given in the table below:
Characteristics Advantages (compared to hierarchical
structures
• Multidirectional knowledge sharing – horizontally
between functions, organizations and business
units as well as vertically in hierarchy
• Flexible and adaptable – structures easy to modify
• Dispersed working – work colleagues not
collocated
• Dispersed knowledge – knowledge required to
carry out work task geographically dispersed
• Technology-mediated working – ICT’s are an
important means of communication and
coordination
• Flat hierarchies – few layers of management
• Decentralized – ‘heterarchy’, non-hierarchical
• Blurred boundaries – the boundaries between
functions, business units, and organizations
involved in networks become blurred.
• More effective for horizontal,
cross-functional, inter-
organizational knowledge
sharing
• More innovative – through
better linking and integrating
dispersed organizational
knowledge
• Better knowledge searching –
through knowledge developed
from cross-functional and inter-
business interactions
• More flexible and thus better
suited to contemporary
dynamics and competitive
business environment.
Table 4: Character and articulated advantages of N-V organizational structures
(Hislop, 2005:181).
There are however different types of network organisations, depending on the type of
interaction and the volatility of the environment (Cravens et al, 1996 in Hislop, 2005).
Research question 4: What are the coordinating mechanisms for
knowledge sharing in the organisation?

22. 17
Figure 3: Classification of network forms of organizing (Cravens et al, 1996 in
Hislop, 2005:182).
Network organisations can present problems for the sharing of knowledge if that
knowledge is highly tacit or situation specific. The collaborating parties may not share
enough common knowledge or shared identity to enable effective dissemination of
knowledge to take place (Hislop, 2005).
Knowledge-sharing Knowledge-searching
Factors creating a
willingness to participate
in knowledge processes.
• Knowledge regarded as
a ‘public good’
belonging to network,
not individual.
• Commitment to
organization and/or
network
• Personal benefits in
terms of status/reward
• Helps integrate people into a
new organization
• Provides a medium through
which people can interact
with others who it would
otherwise be difficult to
communicate with.
• Have received useful advice
from specific individuals
previously
• Network regarded as useful
for keeping ‘up to date’.
Factors inhibiting
people’s motivation to
participate in knowledge
processes.
• Fear that contribution
may be wrong
• Feeling amongst newer
staff of not having
adequate experience to
be able to contribute
• Contributing is a time
consuming process.
• People with established face-
to-face communities may
prefer to use them rather than
virtual networks.
• Questions felt to require
specific knowledge, and not
relevant beyond narrow
context.
Table 5: Factors affecting knowledge-sharing/searching attitudes in virtual work
groups (adapted from Ardichvili et al, 2003 in Hislop, 2005:187).
2.4.3 Organisational routines
Routines are sequences of behaviour based on lessons learned from previous
experience of a process, which allow that process, or one very similar, to be carried
out multiple times without having to relearn the process each time (Levitt and March,
Virtual network Flexible network
Hollow networkValue-added network
Low
environmental
volatility
Network relationships
collaborative
Network relationships
transactional
High
environmental
volatility

23. 18
1988; see also Grant, 1996 and Johnson and Scholes, 2002). Routines are able to
“support complex patterns of interactions between individuals in the absence of rules,
directives, or even significant verbal communication” (Grant, 1996). They can be
judged along two variables: rigidity (i.e. how much can social actors influence the
routine) and complexity (Stinchcombe, 1990). Based on these two variables, the
required knowledge and skill of an individual to carry out a task can be assessed
(Stinchcombe, 1990). Tacit routines are a source of organisational competitive
advantage (Gersick and Hackman, 1990 in McEvily et al, 2000; Szulanski, 2004),
particularly when they are independent of individuals (Ambrosini, 2003).
The ‘importation’ of routines occurs when groups follow routines developed by other
groups. This will occur if the situation for which the routine is designed is similar to
that which the new group is facing – in terms of how the members themselves define
it (Szulanski, 2004). When faced with new situations, individuals tend to draw on
previous similar experiences to guide their actions. Individuals who share a common
organisational culture can be expected to have had similar experiences and similar
perceptions of these experiences, thus knowledge between them – even tacit
knowledge embedded in routines – can be more easily shared than in the absence of a
common culture (Ambrosini, 2003; Szulanski, 2004). Failing this, the knowledge or
routine may have to be adapted to ‘fit’ the local environment, thereby increasing the
recipient’s desire and ability to accept the new method (Szulanski, 2004).
2.5 Social networks
“Learning is a social activity. It takes place through interaction with other people.
Learning is either helped or hindered by the framework of social relationships within
which it occurs. Learning is simultaneously a social and cultural activity made
possible through the ability of human beings to communicate with one another
through a common language” (Garvey and Williamson, 2002:4).
Tacit knowledge only becomes valuable if it can be made explicit, which occurs
through social interaction. Learning is a ‘situated activity’ and the speed and
willingness with which people learn is related to the circumstances in which they
work (Garvey and Williamson, 2002). Tacit knowledge requires more than just the

24. 19
conveying of information, which is why it is not particularly receptive to transmission
through electronic medium. The knowledge needs to be grounded and transferred into
other areas, which requires communication through dialogue and face-to-face or at
least person-to-person interaction (Garvey and Williamson, 2002). In this way, the
tacit knowledge that has been made explicit is internalised by the receiver and made
tacit again, which is where the true competitive value lies (Nonaka, 1994; Boisot,
1995 in Garvey and Williamson, 2002).
Knowledge productivity in organisations depends on developing learning
environments “that will stimulate people to develop, exchange and communicate their
knowledge” (Tillema, 2002:161). The achievement of this is related to the social
aspect of knowledge sharing (Scarbrough, 1996); therefore an active environment for
knowledge transfer would encourage collaborative practices to facilitate the making
explicit of tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Tillema, 2002).
2.5.1 Social Identity
Knowledge needs understanding in terms of social relations and is selectively
available to groups on the basis of social identities. This is reflected in the importance
of the “production and reproduction of social relations” (Scarbrough and Burrell,
1996:179). Social identity is a subjective but social phenomenon based on an
individual’s definitions of fellow member of their own group, but also others in
equivalent groups (Tajfel, 1982 in Child and Rodrigues, 1996). Social identities are
“consequential for the quality of learning that takes place and hence for realising the
full potential value of the knowledge being transferred” (Child and Rodrigues,
1996:47)
Informal network ties are the primary basis for social identity and are most strongly
facilitated by small cohesive groups (Podolny and Baron, 1997). These strong ties are,
however, largely credited with conveying redundant, group-specific knowledge;
instead it is an individual’s weak ties that are seen to provide access to new
information by bridging gaps between groups (Podolny and Baron, 1997). The more

25. 20
weak ties an individual has therefore, the more valuable their network is likely to be
as a source of new knowledge (Podolny and Baron, 1997).
Note that social group identity is a distinct field of research different from strategic
group identity (Peteraf and Shanley, 1997), which relates to a shared identity by a
group of firms within an industry. Whilst social group identity may occur at an inter-
organisational as well as an intra-organisational level, it relates to how individuals
relate to the shared identity, not the firm as a whole.
2.5.2 Strong and weak ties
“Personal networks are your direct lines of communication with the various parts of
the organisation. Building your intelligence network means initiating, cultivating, and
maintaining these contacts” (Barker, 1994:211).
An important distinction in social network theory is made between strong and weak
ties. Strong ties bind cliques of individuals together and convey ‘in-group’
knowledge, whereas weak ties bridge cliques so can be a source of new knowledge
(Granovetter, 1983). Strong ties lead to redundancy of knowledge because of high
degrees of overlapping knowledge. This is due to the fact that strong ties represent
people with whom an individual shares a lot in common with, including most likely
shared experiences and knowledge; therefore there is little new knowledge that can be
gained from close social contacts (Granovetter, 1983, Hansen, 1999). It is argued that
innovative or new knowledge is most likely to be gained through weak ties in an
individual’s social network (Granovetter, 1983).
Hansen (1999) makes the distinction between searching for (looking and identifying)
and sharing of (transferring and incorporating) knowledge. While weak ties may
cause problems for the transfer of complex knowledge, they can provide important
search benefits in social networks. Weak ties reduce the likelihood of redundant
knowledge and act as bridges to other organisational units, social networks and hence
knowledge (Granovetter, 1983, Hansen, 1999). A large network of colleagues

26. 21
therefore can be a source of much value for the potential knowledge sharing
opportunities.
Knowledge that is highly codified – i.e. explicit, is easily communicated and can be
transferred via weak ties that may identify it (Hansen, 19999). Non-codified
knowledge and knowledge that is complex hence difficult to codify – i.e. tacit
knowledge, is far less easily transferred and requires close, frequent contact between
units to facilitate the transfer (Szulanski, 1996). The dilemma is that this contact may
not exist in the relationship if the identification of the knowledge occurred via the
weak ties in an individual’s social network (Hansen, 1999).
Hansen (1999) provides a matrix to demonstrate the relationship between the type of
knowledge and strength of tie and their corresponding value in the search/transfer
process:
Tie strength
Knowledge Strong Weak
Non-codified, dependent
Low search benefits, moderate
transfer problems
Search benefits, severe transfer
problems
Codified, independent
Low search benefits, Few
transfer problems
Search benefits, few transfer
problems
Table 6: Search and transfer effects associated with four combinations of knowledge
complexity and tie strength (Hansen, 1999:89).
Understanding the effectiveness of knowledge networks requires consideration of the
relatedness of the knowledge being shared, and the extent of inter-unit relations to
facilitate the knowledge search process (Hansen, 2002). Knowledge flows between
inter-unit boundaries most easily and effectively if there exist already established
relationships (Hansen, 2002; Szulanski, 1996), but these relationships require a high
degree of maintenance. The benefits of such relationships therefore are greatest if the
knowledge being shared is highly complex or non-codified. Relationships – both
direct and indirect – also have the potential to pass on opportunities and information
about where knowledge may be obtained; in this sense, they act as intermediaries or
‘boundary spanners’ (Cross et al, 2001) between two disconnected sources (Hansen,
2002). The greater the number of intermediaries however, the greater the potential for
distortion of the knowledge being passed on, hence individuals may not be able to
rely on only one indirect source as verification may be necessary. The greater the
degree of complexity of the knowledge, the greater the potential distortion, hence the

27. 22
value of indirect (or weak) relations decreases as the number of intermediaries
increases, and/or the complexity of the knowledge increases (Hansen, 2002). The cost
of maintaining direct or strong relations with someone may therefore be justified if it
allows a more effective transfer of knowledge to take place.
Factors in forming ties
The reduction of uncertainty is a dominant theme in organisational relationships
(Hinds et al, 2000). This is achieved in building confidence or trust (Cross et al, 2001;
Williams, 2001) in the relationship, which may be achieved in a number of ways.
Three mechanisms are particularly influential in network creation (Contractor and
Monge, 2002): Transactive memory – who the individual thinks is knowledgeable, or
knowing who knows what (Cross et al, 2001); social exchange – where the individual
feels they can offer something in exchange; and proximity – where the resource is
close to them, and the individual is able to gain access to the resource (Cross et al,
2001). Hinds et al (2002) offers another perspective, that of homophily and
reputation. Homophily refers to the tendency for individuals with a lot in common to
form relationships and to value each other’s opinions more highly than those of
dissimilar people (Lincoln and Miller, 1979 in Hinds et al, 2002 see also Cross et al,
2001; Contractor and Monge, 2002). Reputation is also important because future
interactions with an individual are often based on prior experience with them such
that positive experiences generate a greater number of future collaborations than do
negative ones. Furthermore, social networks or ‘the grapevine’ are an important
mechanism for affirming one’s reputation (Hinds et al, 2002). Finally, Co-
evolutionary theory suggests that networks will be created on the belief that they will
provide a basis for individual enhancement through increased performance and access
to scarce resources (Contractor and Monge, 2002).
Research question 5: What are the structure and content of social
networks in the organisation and how do they affect knowledge sharing?

28. 23
2.5.3 Communities of practice
Communities of Practice are informal, knowledge-based groups of people who have
some work-related activity in common (Wenger et al, 2002; Hislop, 2005). The
informality of these communities stems from the fact that they emerge from the social
interactions that are a necessary part of the work activities that people undertake
(Hislop, 2005) and hence are not formalised into a matrix structure within the
organisation (Wenger et al, 2002). Communities of practice concept based on two
assumptions, the first being that tasks require the use of knowledge which is
embedded in the situational context of carrying out the task (Hislop, 2005). The
second is that organisational activity is collective in nature and requires the
coordination of tasks carried out by groups of people rather than on an individual
basis (McDermott, 1999). Thus, there is a collective aspect to knowledge; a degree of
‘common knowledge’ (Kogut and Zander, 1992). As well as this shared knowledge
that communities of practice develop, they are also characterised by a sense of shared
identity and overlapping shared values about the way work should be carried out
(Wenger et al, 2002; Hislop, 2005).
Communities of practice by their informal nature are not static, but constantly
changing as members join and leave and as circumstances change, forcing members
to update their knowledge (Hislop, 2005). It follows also that individuals could be
members of more than one community of practice, thus aiding to the flow of
knowledge and the potential for intra-group knowledge sharing (Wenger et al, 2002).
The knowledge base of organisations therefore can be conceptualised as a
‘community-of-communities’ (Brown and Duguid, 1991). As with knowledge within
an individual community, the knowledge between communities will tend to overlap in
places so that a degree of common knowledge for the organisation as a whole is
developed (Kogut and Zander, 1992).
Communities of practice facilitate this process of learning and knowledge sharing in
two ways: Firstly, the sense of shared identity and overlapping values allows an easier
transmission of the more tacit or ‘sticky’ (Szulanski, 1996) knowledge by making it
easier to understand the ‘taken-for-granted assumptions’ (Hislop, 2005) which

29. 24
underlie this knowledge. Secondly, membership of the community is likely to result in
trusting relationships, which foster an environment for knowledge sharing much more
effectively. This is represented in the figure below.
Figure 4: How communities of practice underpin knowledge processes (Hislop,
2005:65)
One of the main disadvantages of communities of practice to knowledge processes
within an organisation are that the same shared sense of identity and common values
that facilitate sharing within the community may result in an exclusion of ideas from
‘outside’ the community (Wenger et al, 2002; Hislop, 2005). Communities of practice
can become cliques; personal relationships may make people reluctant to critique each
other and membership may become restricted, both of which can stifle innovation and
learning (Wenger et al, 2002).
Communities of practice can be a way of managing knowledge as a strategic asset,
but should not be launched for their own sake, rather as a way to build the
organisation’s overall capacity to learn. Whilst they do not form part of the formal
structure of the organisation, there is a degree of formality to the structure and
regularity about communities of practice, which distinguishes them from personal
social networks (Wenger et al, 2002).
Common
knowledge
Overlapping
values
Shared
identity
Allows understanding
of values and
assumptions which
underpin knowledge
Creates social
conditions conducive
to knowledge-sharing
Effective knowledge processes
• Sharing
• Creation
• Utilization

30. 25
2.6 Summary
Knowledge is a multi-faceted concept (Winter, 1987 in Birkinshaw et al, 2002),
which is not easily articulated and communicated, yet it has the potential to create
added value for an organisation, thereby giving them a competitive advantage (Miller,
1998; Cross et al, 2001). A range of factors have been attributed to the transfer of
knowledge within an organisation, including organisational culture (Williams, 2001;
Garvey and Williamson, 2002), technology (McDermott, 1999; Roberts, 2000),
coordinating mechanisms (Kogut and Zander, 1992, 1996) and social networks
(Granovetter, 1983; Hansen, 1999, 2002). It is generally accepted however, that no
single factor can be considered independently and that it is the dynamic interplay of
them all that needs to be understood in order to achieve effective knowledge sharing
(Garvey and Williams, 2002). “The managerial role is therefore to encourage and
facilitate the type of communication and social interaction processes that will allow
effective perspective making and taking to occur” (Hislop, 2005:38).
The following sections attempt to uncover the relative importance of all of the issues
discussed so far. Section 3 describes the methodological approach to some qualitative
research carried out within Consultancy A to find out about its knowledge sharing
practices. This is then followed by an analysis and discussion of the results, and
recommendations for how knowledge transfer could be improved. This research and
analysis will be guided by the research questions identified in this section, which are
repeated below:
1. What are the methods and influencing factors of sharing effective team
development knowledge?
2. What role does the culture of the organisation play in promoting and enabling
knowledge sharing?
3. How does the use of IT affect knowledge sharing in the organisation?
4. What are the coordinating mechanisms for knowledge sharing in the
organisation?
5. What are the structure and content of social networks in the organisation and
how do they affect knowledge sharing?

31. 26
3. Methodology and data analysis
The research for this dissertation is based on in-depth interviews and a grounded
theory approach (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002; Locke, 2001; Priest et al, 2002; Seale,
1999), with the aim of generating findings through the comparative analysis of
interviewee responses. This section outlines the key methodological issues and the
data analysis carried out. The research design is presented in four stages; first there is
a brief overview of appropriate philosophies of research design, which is focussed on
the differences between positivism and social constructivism. Next, consideration is
given to the type of research style adopted (integrative ethnography), before moving
on to a discussion of the methodology (grounded theory) and methods used (in-depth
interviewing). Following this, the process of data analysis is described and finally
limitations of the study are discussed.
3.1 Research design
Quantitative research designs are particularly useful for examining the relationships
between inputs and outputs in organisational work. They do not, however, tell us why
a particular action leads to a corresponding outcome, or why it may or may not be
successful. This is due to a lack of ‘inside’ or ‘local’ knowledge (Brown and Dugoid,
2000 in Miller, G et al, 2004). Qualitative organisational research “focuses on the
details of workers’ shared organisational knowledge and their everyday actions and
interactions” (Miller, G et al, 2004:327). It can be used to describe and explain the
social conditions under which work is done and has the ability to tap into local and
unofficial knowledge not found in any documents or manuals, which is passed on by
‘stories’ and social interaction.
Qualitative research is a flexible, iterative process; researchers can respond to
unanticipated opportunities (or problems) that arise. The emphasis is on discovery and
there need be no assumption of advanced knowledge of what will be important when
approaching an area of interest. Preliminary analysis of data further guides future data
collection. This echoes Glaser and Strauss’ (1967 in Miller, G, 2004) proposal for

32. 27
grounded theory – that qualitative data can be used to develop grounded applications
of qualitative knowledge.
3.1.1 The philosophy of research design: Positivism vs. Social
Constructionism
Under the positivist philosophy, the social world exists externally and should be
measured through objective methods, rather than inferred subjectively. It is based on
an ontological assumption that reality is external and objective; and an
epistemological assumption that knowledge is only significant if based on
observations of this external reality. The implications of this for research methods are
for example, that the observer must be independent of what is being observed, and
that concepts should be ‘operationalised’ to enable facts to be measured quantitatively
(Easterby-Smith et al, 2002).
Social Constructionism was developed as a paradigm in reaction to positivism. In the
SC philosophy, reality is not objective and exterior, but is socially constructed and
given meaning by people. It focuses on the ways people make sense of the world,
especially through sharing their experiences. Rather than doing this through objective
measurement, Social Constructionism is an interpretive method (Habermas, 1970).
The task of the researcher is to appreciate the different ‘constructions’ and meanings
that people place upon their experiences. “One should therefore try to explain why
people have different experiences, rather than search for external causes and
fundamental laws to explain their behaviour” (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:30). The
methods of Social Constructionism are in direct contrast with the features of positivist
research.
The main assumptions of this study are the following:
1. Project teams are formed out of a combination of various social actions
2. By analysing the meaning of these social actions, it will be possible to
understand the social process that shape project teams
3. Knowledge sharing within the organisation needs to be interpreted within the
context of the culture and structure of the organisation.

33. 28
3.1.2 Research Style
Once an epistemological stance to the research project has been taken, the researcher
is faced with the decision of how to go about actually collecting the data (Dodier and
Baszanger, 2004; Easterby-Smith et al, 2002). The style adopted will reflect such
choices as whether to collect overtly or covertly and whether to become involved with
the research subjects, or remain detached. Easterby-Smith et al (2002) describe three
research styles that are compatible with a social constructivist philosophy.
Co-operative inquiry
People have the ability to be ‘self-directing’ and to choose how they will act and give
meaning to their own experiences. “Co-operative inquiry not only focuses on the
experiences and explanations of the individuals concerned, it also involved them in
deciding in the first place what questions and issues are worth researching” (Easterby-
Smith et al, 2002).
In-depth studies
In-depth studies are based on direct observation and personal contacts, generally
through interviews in a single organisation, but from a number of individuals, over a
period of time. The study may include live observations and retrospective accounts of
what happened and the unit of analysis is either the individual or specific events.
Grounded theory
Theory is developed through comparison and observation, with ‘precisely articulated
methods and presuppositions’ (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:46). Glaser’s (1978; 1992
in Easterby-Smith et al, 2002) belief is that research should proceed with no
presuppositions to allow ideas to ‘emerge’. Strauss (1987 in Easterby-Smith et al,
2002) however, advocates familiarisation with prior research and the use of a
structured process to make sense of the data. The advantage of a hypothesis testing
approach is initial clarity about what is being investigated, but it cannot provide the
same depth of new insights and flexibility as the traditional grounded approach
(Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:46).

34. 29
Figure 5 below is a graphical representation of some of the research designs available
to researchers based on the positivist-social constructivist and the detached-involved
dimensions.
Figure 5: Matrix of research designs (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:57)
“Although there is a clear dichotomy between the positivist and social constructionist
world views, […] the practice of research involves a lot of compromise between these
pure positions” (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:57).
The approach taken for this research reflects all three of the styles described above; it
utilised co-operative inquiry by allowing interviewees to talk freely and propose their
own questions around the topic which was loosely defined for them, thus helping to
uncover the true richness of the issue. The study was in-depth in that the researcher
was able to observe the formation of a number of project teams directly and knew the
participant personally before research commenced. Having been a member of the
organisation for some time prior to commencing research, the researcher was also
able to combine retrospective accounts with live observations. None however
describes fully the relationship that was had with the research subjects, which can be
seen as ethnographic.
Survey
research
Quasi-experimental
design
Case method
(Yin)
Ethnography
Experimental
design
Action research
Grounded theory
Case method
(Stake)
Co-operative
inquiry
OntologyResearchstyle
Detached

35. 30
A study becomes ethnographic when the fieldworker connects the facts observed with
the specific features of the ‘backdrop’ against which these facts occur. Not all ‘in situ’
studies are field studies; empirical studies which are “resolutely grounded in a specific
context” (Dodier and Baszanger, 2004:12) can be considered ethnographic.
Ethnographic study is furthermore “embedded in a field that is limited in time and
space” (Ricoeur, 1984-88 in Dodier and Baszanger, 2004).
Integrative ethnography proposes a ‘monographic totalisation’. The fieldworker
shares the views of ‘natives’ through subjective experience by “infiltrating the
expressional universe of the other” (Clifford, 1983: 100 in Dodier and Baszanger,
2004). In other words, the researcher becomes a fully integrated member of the
organisation in order to study it from the inside and from the perspective of a ‘native’
member. It is important to strike a balance between entering and becoming part of the
group in order to gain access and an empathetic understanding, whilst also
maintaining an appropriate distance in order to objectively analyse the situation.
The researcher was first and foremost a member of the organisation at the time the
research was carried out and leveraged this position in order to gain access to the data
sought. This position allowed many of the barriers to collecting data for management
research, such as access to the organisation and personnel and issues of trust to be
overcome. Furthermore, as a member of the organisation, the researcher was able to
reflect on the issues raised by the interviewees from the same perspective as they saw
them.
3.1.3 Grounded theory
Grounded theory originated as an alternative to the positivist paradigm, in which data
is collected to verify a theoretical position. Instead, grounded theory emphasises the
“inductive generation of theory from data” (Seale, 1999:91). It has its conceptual
orientation in symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969 in Priest et al, 2002).
“Symbolic interactionism holds that human beings are acting rather than just
responding beings and that human action is purposeful and based on the meanings
that the individual has for them” (Nusbaum and Chenitz, 1990 in Priest et al, 2002).

36. 31
The implication of this ontological basis is that traditional research methods may not
be able to capture the appropriate data, as this is required to be collected in the
‘natural context’ via means such as interviews and observation. The grounded theory
approach provides a means to do this through an inductive process of examination
(Rennie et al 1988 in Priest et al, 1999). Theoretical statements become convincing
because they are understood/explained in terms of recognisable life experiences
(Seale, 1999).
According to Charmaz (1983 in Easterby-Smith et al, 2002), the emphasis of
grounded theory on the process of discovery and theory development results in certain
characteristics of grounded theorising, these being (Charmaz, 1983:110-111 in
Easterby-Smith et al, 2002):
• Data collection and analysis proceed simultaneously;
• Processes and products of research are shaped by the data and not by
preconceived frameworks;
• Does not follow the traditional ‘check and refine’ approach to categories that
emerge;
• Making sense of social life is itself a process, thus grounded theory is not
aiming for an ultimate and final interpretation.
“Grounded theory’s distinctive features, as initially presented, are its commitment to
research and ‘discovery’ through direct contact with the social world studied coupled
with a rejection of priori theorising” (Locke, 2001:34).
This does not mean that researchers should dispose of prior hypothesising and
familiarisation with existing theory (Strauss, 1987 in Easterby-Smith, 2002). The goal
of grounded theory is to enable researchers to generate theory rather than simply
describing the ‘social worlds’ being studied. In this sense it is distinguished from its
traditional Symbolic Interactionist origins (Locke, 2001).

37. 32
The grounded theory style of research is particularly well suited to social processes,
which are at the centre of process oriented theories that look at the dynamics of
human action in organisations and of activities over time (Locke, 2001). Process is
defined as “a sequence of individual and collective events, actions and activities,
unfolding over time in context” (Pettigrew, 1977:338 in Locke, 2001). Identification
of ‘generic social processes’ could lead to theories that capture action unfolding; e.g.
the ‘becoming’ process and the ‘deciding’ process. These can be seen as Basic Social
Processes or BSP’s (Glaser, 1978 in Locke, 2001).
3.1.4 Methods
“Acceptance of a particular epistemology usually leads the researcher to adopt
methods that are characteristic of that position” (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:33).
As an endeavour in social constructionist management research, qualitative
interviewing has been undertaken in order to uncover not only the issues involved, but
the meanings these hold for the respondents in order to place them in context (Miller,
G, 2004; Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). The research has also relied on direct
observations, retrospective accounts (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002) and the researcher’s
own experiences as a member of the organisation.
Interviews can provide access to the meanings people attribute to their experiences
and social worlds (Miller, J, 2004). “Interactionist research starts from a belief that
people create and maintain meaningful worlds. [This does not assume] the existence
of a single encompassing obdurate reality” (Charmaz, 1995: 62 in Miller, J, 2004).
The strength of qualitative interviewing is its capacity to “access self-reflexivity
among interview subjects” (Miller, J, 2004:130). This increases the likelihood of
finding the ‘collective story’ (Richardson, 1990 in Miller, J, 2004), including the
views of those marginalised by the cultural story based on the dominant group, view
or stereotype.

38. 33
3.2 Data collection
The data for this study was collected in June 2004, though the researcher’s time in the
organisation from which personal experiences can be drawn on extends almost a year
prior to this date. The formal research consisted of open-ended, one-on-one interviews
with seven senior consultants (across three levels of seniority) from four different
departments. Each respondent was at a sufficient level of seniority to be responsible
for managing project teams and had more importantly done so previously. A further
interview was also conducted with the head of a proposal development team, which
was an innovative approach that one department had taken to the development of
proposals, in order to gain some insights into the ability to access knowledge ‘owned’
by project managers. The researcher was also privy to observing the process of
proposal writing, team selection and project management directly whilst working for
the organisation and have been able to review company literature and documentation
relevant to this study
Permission to utilise all of the data collected in this study and to comment on the
internal workings of the organisation have been granted on the condition of
anonymity and confidentiality, which has been granted to the individual interviewees
as well as the organisation itself, which is why the name of the organisation does not
appear anywhere in this document.
Generalising from qualitative data can be difficult, and whilst attempts have been
made to be comprehensive in interviewing individuals from a range of ranks and
departments, it is recognised that the sample is still small. The researcher is confident
however that this will not affect the validity of the findings for the organisation in
question, since the interviews were conducted in-depth so should be strong in
‘naturalism’.
With regards to applicability to other organisations, transferability can be achieved if
full details of the context of events observed are given (Lincoln and Guba, 1985 in
Seale, 1999). Ideally, details are needed about the ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’ context;

39. 34
otherwise external validity is weakened and generalisation from one place to another
or from earlier to later may not be possible. This is not possible due to the
confidentiality assurance that has been given, however, since this study has been
undertaken specifically in the context of the one organisation, generalisation is not
important as there is no concern for applying findings elsewhere (Seale, 1999).
3.3 Data analysis
Analysis of qualitative data “requires both a clear explanation of how the analysis was
done and conclusions reached, and a demonstration of how the raw data was
transformed into meaningful conclusions” (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:117). The
issues associated with data analysis are related to the differences between positivism
and social constructionism. The SC perspective sees little distinction between data
collection and analysis and interpretation. Under the positivist approach however,
there is a clear distinction. From this, there are two distinct ways of analysing
qualitative data: Content Analysis (positivist) and Grounded Analysis (Easterby-
Smith et al, 2002). As stated already, The researcher has followed a Social
Constructionist approach to the research for this dissertation; hence the process of
data analysis described below is that of grounded theory, or grounded analysis.
With qualitative data, the structure for analysis has to be derived form the data. This
involves systematically analysing it to tease out themes, patterns and categories.
Glaser and Strauss (1967) were interested in the development of theory and how this
could be achieved by closely linking theory to the data from which it was generated
using a method of ‘constant comparative analysis’ (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002:122).
“Research should be used to generate grounded theory, which ‘fits’ and ‘works’
because it is derived from the concepts and categories used by social actors
themselves to interpret and organise their worlds” (Jones, 1987:25 in Easterby-Smith
et al, 2002:122).
Quantitative methods of research involve attempts to classify the data in order to
define relationships and meanings from it about how respondents view and come to

40. 35
terms with the world (Basit, 2003; Hogg, 2004). The analysis of qualitative data
consists of at least three stages; data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing
and verification (Miles and Huberman, 1994), though other definitions exist, see for
example Spiggle (1994). “During data analysis, the research task is to bring a
theoretical scheme to bear on the data or to develop a theoretical scheme that
conceptually accounts for the data” (Wallendorf and Brucks, 1993: 350 in Hogg,
2004). Analysis and interpretation of data is carried out “in order to generate
conclusions, insights, meanings, patterns, themes, connections, conceptual
frameworks and theories” (Hogg, 2004).
3.3.1 Grounded theory process
Analysis and collection of data is achieved by a process of ‘constant comparative
method’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967 in Priest et al, 2002). This is an iterative process
involving simultaneous collection and analysis of data, the aim being to generate
theory that is ‘grounded’ in the ‘natural context in which the inquiry takes place’
(Strauss and Corbin, 1994 in Priest et al, 2002).
As an analytical approach, grounded theory utilises coding to organise, analyse and
interpret the data, of which there are three sets; open coding, axial coding and
selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Open coding is the initial and most basic
stage of coding, whereby the data is decompiled, categorised and compared, and the
researcher attempts to interrogate the data in order to uncover new insights and
discoveries. This stage is essentially the constant comparison method as originally
pioneered by Glaser and Strauss (1967 in Priest et al, 2002). The aim of categorising
the data, or concepts from the data, is important in that these categories “have
conceptual power because they can pull together other groups of concepts or sub-
categories” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998 in Priest et al, 2002).
Axial coding is the process that allows this power of categories to be achieved and is a
way to describe how connections between categories and sub-categories can be
achieved. Patterns in the data will begin to emerge, allowing the researcher to begin to
hypothesise about the nature of relationships between phenomena. Finally, selective

41. 36
coding consists of singling out a few key categories to which all the other categories
can link into, allowing a conceptual framework to be developed. (Priest et al, 2002)
A core idea of grounded theorising is a method of constant comparison, which has
four stages (Seale, 1999):
• Incidents in data are coded into categories. Different incidents in the same
code can be compared so that the common properties of the category can be
identified
• Categories and their properties are integrated based on apparent relationships
• ‘Theoretical saturation’ occurs when no new properties of categories and no
new interactions can be found
• The theory is written up.
3.3.2 Coding
Coding involves condensing the bulk of the data into analyzable units by creating
categories; it forms a part of the process of analysis; not the analysis itself. The
analytical procedure of coding establishes links of various sorts. Codes link different
segments or instances in the data. These are brought together as categories having
some common property, “coding thus links all those data fragments to a particular
idea or concept (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996:27). These concepts are then related to
one another and the analysis lies in thinking about these linkages.
There are two distinct methods for defining categories (Miles and Huberman, 1994);
an inductive approach allows categories to emerge from the data as it is collected and
analysed, for example Glasser and Strauss’ (1967) Grounded approach. The
alternative is a deductive approach, which involves creating a provisional list of
categories based on the researcher’s conceptual framework from their own familiarity
with the topic under study (Basit, 2003). For the purposes of this study, the labels and
categories were allowed to emerge from the data itself as in the Grounded Theory
approach. From the data collected, six main categories were identified as important to
the transfer of knowledge within Consultancy A:

42. 37
1. The business model (BM)
2. Sources of information (SI)
3. Social networks (SN)
4. Organisational structure (OS)
5. Culture (C)
6. Influencing factors (IF)
The creation of categories however, reflects our intended area of analysis (Dey, 1993,
in Basit, 2003), therefore when deciding upon categories, “we have to take some
account of how this category will ‘fit’ into this wider analytic context” (Basit, 2003).
In order to do this therefore, each category that ‘emerged’ from the data was assigned
to at least one of the research questions that were set from the literature review
(referred to as ‘Section’ in the tables). In so doing, the data can be made sense of in
light of the theory and also reflect on the theory in light of the data. The full list of
categories and labels identified is given in the appendices1
, along with the interview
notes2
and coded data from these notes3
, however a sample is provided below just for
reference:
No. Data Label(s) Category Section
5 Practice objectives will generally be centred on delivering a
high standard of work and adding value to the client
cd BM 1
In this example, ‘cd’ stands for client delivery, and ‘BM’ relates to the Business
Model. The data therefore, represents the importance of client delivery as determined
by the business model. This in turn reflects question one derived from the literature
review.
1
See appendix two
2
See appendix one
3
See appendix three

43. 38
3.4 Limitations
Weaknesses of the grounded theory approach are not unique to it, but can be
heightened when applied to a corporate setting and/or when research subjects are in
positions of power. In particular, there can be difficulties in establishing a workable
data gathering role and moving across units within the organisation (Bulmer, 1988 in
Locke, 2001). Politics and ethical issues may become an issue, especially when
conducting research on managers (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe, 1991 in Locke,
2001). Finally, there may be issues of access, for example if data gathering involves
participant observation. There are also logistical problems; most notably how to
coordinate the process of simultaneous data gathering and analysis. This point may be
linked to issues of access if it is necessary to keep entering and leaving the
organisations (Locke, 2001). Consequently, researchers aiming for a grounded
approach often have to settle for an approach that utilises many of the analytical
procedures of grounded theory, but without developing any particularly substantive
theory (Priest et al, 2002).
Interviews too have their limitations, though the researcher has overcome some of
them; in particular, the interviewee’s subjective view (Miller and Glassner, 2004),
which as a member of the organisation the researcher was able to relate to and a
reluctance of respondents to respond to the interviewer (Miller and Glassner, 2004),
which the researcher did not suffer from having already established a relationship
with participants through working with them.
With regards to this specific study, it would have been beneficial to survey a larger
sample, though it is felt that sufficient repetition in answers was beginning to be seen
to have confidence in the results. Also, multiple coders would ideally have been used
for data verification, but academic constraints did not allow for this.

44. 39
4. Findings and Discussion.
The discussion which follows has been presented to answer the research questions
posed from the literature review. In this section, the first person has been used to
reflect the researcher’s personal involvement with the organisation.
4.1 What are the methods and influencing factors of how
effective team development knowledge is shared?
“the completion and quality of the job is of primary importance” (Respondent A)
“success on jobs and getting onto jobs requires you to network” (Respondent D)
“trust and knowledge take preference over who on paper appears best” (Respondent
E)
Overwhelmingly, the respondent data suggest that social networks are the primary
source for information about possible resources for teams. It is through this means
that most assignment managers will learn (and disseminate) their knowledge about
how to put together teams for different kinds of projects. The second most important
route for knowledge sharing was with the resource coordinator, which often will
occur as part of one’s network, but also represents a formal mechanism for
coordinating the knowledge sharing process. Finally, formal information systems are
the least used means for accumulating knowledge about resources within the
organisation.
The data also suggest a number of contextual factors that influence knowledge
sharing, related to the motivation of the assignment manager to seek it. These include
such things as size of job (Respondent F), strength and quality of own network, and
risk of successfully completing the job with/without external input (Respondent B).
The term ‘trade-off’ occurred frequently within the interviews conducted to indicate a

45. 40
number of scenarios related to knowledge sharing. For example, there is the trade off
between the ‘preferred team’ and those that are actually available to start the project
(Respondent D). Also, there is the trade off between the ideal team based on required
skills and experience, and the actual team which may have to include fewer people
covering more areas of expertise for practical reasons such as manageability and due
to the social need to have a compatible team in place (Respondent F); i.e. one which is
comfortable/experienced with working together.
The specific knowledge being sought, i.e. about suitability of individuals for client
projects, is inherently difficult to transfer because it is so dependent on contextual
factors. Aside from the difficulty in describing the environmental conditions of
previous projects completed by an individual (Szulanski, 2004), there is also a
personal element related to how well the personalities of prospective team-mates will
match. For this reason, assignment managers will always look to their own networks
of contacts first because these are the individuals which they know most about and
therefore can be most confident about their suitability (Respondent G).
Recommendations will be accepted according to how well they know (and trust) the
individual making the recommendation (Respondent C), as this reflects how similar
their understanding of the social factors at stake is likely to be.
4.2 What role does the culture of the organisation play in
promoting and enabling knowledge sharing?
“Employees are conditioned into networking” (Respondent D)
“The culture is one of enlightened tit-for-tat in that it is assumed that you don’t hold
back and other will do the same and the realisation that it is more important to
deliver the job to the best possible standards” (Respondent D)
“There is a sub-organisational structure consisting of teams of people who are
familiar with working with one another” (Respondent F)

46. 41
“There is a culture/mentality and an expectation for people to be self-starters”
(Respondent G)
From the interview data, it seems that the culture of Consultancy A has a very big role
to play in the knowledge sharing process. For one thing, there is an expectancy that
individuals will network and share information (Respondent D), and this is reflected
in the formal structures of the organisation (Respondent C) such as recruitment,
appraisal systems, and promotion considerations. A number of respondents made
reference to recruiting the right kind of people, and networking being assumed to be
an “innate, not learned ability” (Respondent G). Furthermore, appraisals will often
consider one’s success at networking and the use of peer review acts to encourage
people to get to know one another and cooperate. Plus, one of the criteria for
consideration for promotion to partner involves recommendations from a specific
number of people from outside one’s own practice. These formal systems help to
underline the cultural importance of networking which the survey respondents cited
and which I observed directly during my time with the organisation and supports the
view of the academic literature that a culture of learning must be in place to support
the structures in place to facilitate knowledge transfer (Garvey and Williamson,
2002).
More specifically to do with disseminating assignment manager’s knowledge about
company resources (in the form of people), the reliance on social networks is
evidence of a prevalence of a culture of ‘knowing who knows what’, or ‘Know-who’
(Lundvall and Johnson, 1994 in Roberts et al, 2000), and the predominant emphasis
on networking within the organisation leads to these social networks being the
primary mechanism for sharing resource knowledge. Within Consultancy A therefore,
we can see that the culture of the organisation is as Sackman (1992) suggested,
directly influencing the extent of cooperation between individuals.
The culture of the organisation also affects peoples’ attitudes to learning and
knowledge sharing (Miller, 1998), and again I can see evidence of this within
Consultancy A. The continual emphasis on creating value and dominant theme of
social networks throughout the organisation leads people to see sharing and learning
from each other as a normal, every day part of the job. Thus, when a consultant is

47. 42
asked for advice on staffing a job, a whole range of factors are informing them to
volunteer knowledge. This is an important aspect of the culture of Consultancy A,
because it is fundamental to overcoming a negative incentive of the business model to
hoard such knowledge for practice gain. The business model alone has the potential to
encourage practices to focus on achieving only their own performance targets, which
would have a detrimental affect on the organisation’s ability to deliver a whole job to
the required standard. The culture of collaboration and tit-for-tat relationships
(Respondent H) overcomes this by emphasising the benefits of reciprocal
relationships; i.e. creating win-win situations. Context specific or ‘situated
knowledge’ (Sole and Edmondson, 2002 in Hislop, 2005), such as who is good at
certain tasks and how to get access to certain information, is not a very big issue for
the organisation, because they still have the overriding organisational culture and
characteristics of consulting and the consulting industry to provide a basis for
collaboration. It is recognised by some of the respondents however as being more
significant for people located outside of the London office and similarly, if working
on a project abroad in some instances it is impossible to achieve anything without
collaborating with a member of the regional office in that country to gain access to the
location specific knowledge and communities of practice required. In general
however, the dual emphasis on getting the job done to the highest possible standards
and reciprocity in network relationships guards against such activity.
4.3 How does the use of IT affect knowledge sharing in the
organisation?
“more communication is required to keep everyone aware of the existence of the skills
available (and what these skills are useful for)” (Respondent B)
“The systems in place for staffing a project team are not strong enough to support the
task of putting together a team on their own” (Respondent C)
“I would like to see more emphasis on formal networks, methods and procedures”
(Respondent H)

48. 43
Whilst Consultancy A does have a knowledge management/sharing system, it is not
heavily relied upon. Resource searches are possible on the company intranet, but this
is not a favoured method according to the individuals surveyed, because it fails to
provide the ‘richness’ of information required to determine if an individual will
actually perform well on a project. In keeping with findings of Contractor and Monge
(2002), the use of resource searches does not remove the need for personal contact,
partly because in the case of Consultancy A, a search will typically return too many
‘matches’. From my experiences at Consultancy A however, I would certainly agree
that ICT can be used to facilitate the social interaction that leads to knowledge sharing
(Roberts, 2000; Dixon, 2000). For example, with email and instant messenger
services, it is now very easy to stay in touch with someone that you may not be
geographically close to. The question however, is what steps need to be taken next to
actually achieve the transfer of knowledge, where that knowledge is tacit in nature,
since this is often shown to require some physical interaction (Contractor and Monge,
2002).
4.4 What are the coordinating mechanisms for knowledge
sharing in the organisation?
“Recommendations and personal networks are the preferred method” (Respondent C)
“The team that is put together if usually the ‘best fit’” (Respondent D)
“It is too difficult to scope a job down to the level of detail of exactly how many hours
ideally each different potential person would work” (Respondent F)
“How you find staff depends on the size of the job” (Respondent G)
“Farming out successful partners to other practices helps to avoid reliance on one
practice and kick-start other practices” (Respondent G)