Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Josune Sáenz, Nekane Aramburu and Carlos E. Blanco
and knowledge repositories) whereas, in o<strong>the</strong>r cases, personal interaction between individuals is <strong>the</strong>
key (communities <strong>of</strong> practice, coaching, mentoring and employee functional rotation, to name but a
few). The mechanisms mentioned above are consciously used to facilitate knowledge sharing.
However, this does not mean that all knowledge is shared through <strong>the</strong>m. Knowledge exchange can
take place naturally, as a part <strong>of</strong> daily management processes.
With this idea in mind, <strong>the</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> this paper is to analyze <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> each type <strong>of</strong> knowledge
sharing mechanism (ICT-based, personal interaction-based and embedded in management
processes) on innovation capability.
Actually, innovation lies at <strong>the</strong> core <strong>of</strong> what is known as “dynamic capabilities”. This refers to <strong>the</strong>
particular capacity business enterprises possess to shape, reshape, configure and reconfigure assets
so as to respond to changing technologies and markets and escape <strong>the</strong> zero-pr<strong>of</strong>it condition (i.e. a
situation that occurs when <strong>the</strong>re are no points <strong>of</strong> differentiation amongst firms with respect to
technology, markets, information or skills, and which involves companies only making just enough to
cover <strong>the</strong>ir cost <strong>of</strong> capital) (Teece and Augier, 2009). In particular, innovation allows <strong>the</strong> resource
base <strong>of</strong> an organization to be shaped or reshaped by <strong>the</strong> addition <strong>of</strong> new knowledge embedded in
new products, services, processes, technologies or business models.
According to Teece (2007, 2009), <strong>the</strong> “dynamic capability” concept encompasses three first-level (i.e.
more simple) capacities. The first one is <strong>the</strong> capacity to sense and shape opportunities and threats.
This can be related to <strong>the</strong> ideation stage <strong>of</strong> innovation processes (i.e. <strong>the</strong> generation <strong>of</strong> new ideas).
The second one is <strong>the</strong> capacity to seize opportunities. This refers to <strong>the</strong> selection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new ideas to
be addressed and to <strong>the</strong>ir subsequent development and fulfilment (i.e. implementation <strong>of</strong> new ideas or
innovation project management). The last one is <strong>the</strong> capacity to maintain competitiveness through
enhancing, combining, protecting, and where necessary, reconfiguring <strong>the</strong> business enterprise’s
tangible and intangible assets. This refers to <strong>the</strong> company’s capacity to reinvent/transform itself and
not die because <strong>of</strong> unfavourable path dependencies generated by past success. In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> this
paper, <strong>the</strong> focus will be on <strong>the</strong> first two first-level capacities – that is, on ideation and on innovation
project management.
Once this distinction has been drawn, research questions could be summarized as follows:
Do innovation first-level capacities (ideation and innovation project management) need to be
reinforced by means <strong>of</strong> different knowledge sharing mechanisms?
Is <strong>the</strong>re any mechanism more effective than o<strong>the</strong>rs in order to reinforce <strong>the</strong> generation <strong>of</strong> new
ideas and subsequent implementation?
What is <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> each innovation first-level capacity in enhancing company performance? Are
both dimensions (ideation and innovation project management) equally relevant?
Finally, is <strong>the</strong>re any difference between countries depending on <strong>the</strong>ir degree <strong>of</strong> economic and
technological development (Spain, first world country, compared to Colombia, second world
country)?
2. Conceptual framework and research hypo<strong>the</strong>ses
Knowledge sharing has been studied in <strong>the</strong> literature by several authors (Hansen, 1999; Tsai, 2002)
and under different terminologies. Along <strong>the</strong>se lines, some authors refer to knowledge sharing as
knowledge transfer (Mowery et al. 1996; Wijk et al. 2008), or as knowledge flows (Gupta and
Govindarajan, 2000; Schulz, 2001). It implies “<strong>the</strong> process through which organizational actors –
teams, units, or organizations – exchange, receive and are influenced by <strong>the</strong> experience and
knowledge <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs” (Wijk et al., 2008, p.832).
As previously mentioned, <strong>the</strong>re are serveral initiatives that companies could implement in order to
facilitate <strong>the</strong> exchange <strong>of</strong> knowledge. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m are ICT-based (Dalkir, 2005; Davenport, 2007),
whereas in o<strong>the</strong>r cases, face-to-face interaction is <strong>the</strong> key (i.e. people-focused knowledge
management; Wiig, 2004). However, although specific initiatives for knowledge transfer could be very
helpful in order to enhance knowledge creation and subsequent innovation, knowledge sharing should
not be understood as something to be apart from day-to-day business management. On <strong>the</strong> contrary,
knowledge sharing should pervade everyday work and be embedded in <strong>the</strong> firm’s basic management
processes (strategy formulation, organization and control).
864