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

Aino Kianto, Tatiana Andreeva and Xing Shi
To bridge <strong>the</strong>se gaps in <strong>the</strong> literature, our study examines and compares <strong>the</strong> current state <strong>of</strong> KM in
three very different countries: Finland, China and Russia. We propose that <strong>the</strong>se three countries are
especially informative and interesting for this kind <strong>of</strong> a comparison because <strong>of</strong> several noteworthy
differences between <strong>the</strong> national characteristics impacting attitudes and behaviours concerning KM.
Finland has been heralded as one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forerunners in building a sustainable knowledge-based
economy and knowledge society, and has recently been ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> first or at least in <strong>the</strong> top three <strong>of</strong>
international competitiveness and educational comparisons. China and Russia are <strong>the</strong> biggest and
growing emerging economies and both have recently put innovation to <strong>the</strong> forefront <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir national
development strategy. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> KM practices become very relevant as <strong>the</strong>y have a potential to
support such strategy.
The paper is organized as follows. First, we summarize <strong>the</strong> existing literature on KM in 3 countries <strong>of</strong>
our focus. We <strong>the</strong>n explain our research methods and present <strong>the</strong> results concerning Finnish,
Chinese and Russian companies’ KM awareness, spending on KM, KM practices and perceived
benefits <strong>of</strong> KM. We conclude by discussing <strong>the</strong> nature and relevance <strong>of</strong> our findings.
2. KM in China, Finland and Russia: what we know so far
2.1 China
China is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fastest developing countries, and has become <strong>the</strong> second largest economy in <strong>the</strong>
world (NBS, 2011), however, sustaining this growth is presenting China with quite a challenge (Fulin,
2000). Some experts highlight that in order to do so, China needs to manage efficiently <strong>the</strong> shift
towards knowledge economy (Dahlman and Aubert, 2001). Chinese businesses are well-known for
<strong>the</strong>ir capabilities for imitation or replication, however, to compete in a long run <strong>the</strong>y will need to
develop knowledge creation capabilities as well. Consequently, Chinese policymakers have been
implementing a number <strong>of</strong> measures in different sectors aimed at shaping knowledge economy and
helping to transform China from a technology market taker to a market maker (Wilson et al., 2005). In
this context, evidently, KM has become very relevant for Chinese companies.
The term “KM” was formally introduced into China in 1997 (Song, 2003). However, Peng et al (2007)
suggested that KM practice in Chinese companies was still at a very early stage before 2005. After
2005, discussions about how to implement KM in <strong>the</strong> Chinese context and critical issues <strong>of</strong> KM in
Chinese culture began to draw KM researchers’ attention (Yeh et al, 2006; Chang and Lee, 2007; Lin,
2010). Guanxi, collective thinking and Confucianism are discussed as important cultural factors that
shape KM in China. Guanxi is crucial for building trust and <strong>the</strong>refore is claimed to enhance knowledge
sharing and knowledge acquisition (Hutchings and Weir 2006; Michailova and Hutchings, 2006).
Collective thinking is proposed to influence positively <strong>the</strong> willingness <strong>of</strong> Chinese people to share
knowledge, especially when <strong>the</strong>re is a conflict between self and collective interests.. Similarly,
Confucian dynamism, with its focus on harmony, is claimed to influence positively knowledge sharing
behaviors (Zhang et al, 2006).
To summarize, Chinese cultural specifics seem to provide highly supportive context for knowledge
management implementation. However, most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussed above papers are conceptual, and
limited empirical studies are based on few cases. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> current literature lacks
comprehensive and realistic picture <strong>of</strong> what is actually done in terms <strong>of</strong> KM in Chinese organizations.
2.2 Finland
The small country that cannot boast <strong>of</strong> enormous natural resources, Finland in 1990s chose to focus
on knowledge and innovation. In 1998, <strong>the</strong> Finnish government developed <strong>the</strong> national action plan to
develop towards <strong>the</strong> knowledge society (Suurla et al., 2002). After that KM started to play an
important role both in government and in business organizations (Dahlman et al, 2001; Jussilainen,
2001; Suurla et al., 2002; Salojarvi et al, 2005). Finnish government pioneered in implementing
knowledge management programs in its own organizations (Maija, 2001; Suurla et al., 2002;
Markkula, 2006) and a clear knowledge strategy from Finnish government pushed <strong>the</strong> KM
implementation in Finnish business organizations. Finnish mass media has demonstrated a high level
<strong>of</strong> interest in knowledge management and thus also helped to promote <strong>the</strong> discipline (Lelic, 2002). All
<strong>the</strong>se efforts seem to pay <strong>of</strong>f, as Finland nowadays is considered as one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most innovative and
competitive economies in <strong>the</strong> world (Dahlman et al., 2007; Schienstock, 2004).
515