Information and Knowledge Management using ArcGIS ModelBuilder

Magdeline Mashilo and Tiko Iyamu
managers and other employees acted within the University defined processes and procedures,
factors such as culture and trust among individual levels influenced and impacted on how knowledge
was shared in the institution.
Unfortunately, performance contracts or any other techniques were not in place to monitor, manage
and ensure that employees subscribed to the university’s strategy to share knowledge and
information. The structure allowed managers including the employees to use their discretion (as they
saw it fit) in certain areas. Even though there were rules and regulation in the University environment,
this did not guarantee a positive outcome.
Individual actions resulting from diverse cultural backgrounds sometime derailed activities and
processes in the environment. The employees could not be forced to perform their tasks or behave in
a prescriptive way. In many cases, knowledge sharing depended on the agenda of individual
managers, who might coerce employees into certain modes of behaviour. Employees took advantage
and exploited the environment. Some employees who were privileged shared and communicated
information with colleagues of their choice, when information was supposed to be made available to
the entire unit or department.
The university environment played important role in terms of knowledge acquisition and sharing. The
university had employees with different racial, cultural and educational backgrounds, situated in
different divisions and departments who needed to use a combination of ways to acquire knowledge.
Given the university’s structure and environment, diversity in areas of specialization was supposed to
be a necessary condition for knowledge acquisition.
Knowledge is an investment when shared among employees within the context, content and value
structure of the university. Knowledge content, in context, and relevance saves the university both
time and money through increased efficiency and efficacy, which will improve productivity, as well as
increasing students and research output. Access to research results allows lecturers and students to
benefit from the experiences of others and avoids costly duplication of efforts. While the benefits are
substantial, knowledge sharing is difficult and challenging to sustain due to distractive and derailing
factors such as personal interest rather than the good of the university.
7. Conclusion
Some of the findings were prima facie evidences that led to the study, but there was no empirical
evidence to them. This is one of the strengths of the study. Thus, the study has contributed to the
body of knowledge.
Knowledge sharing is critical to transformation in South African higher institutions. The study will
contribute to the development of and transformation in South African higher institutions from the
perspective of knowledge sharing and management.
References
Bagraim, J. 2007. Motivating the South African workforce. In: WERNER, A. (Ed.). Organisational behaviour : a
contemporary South African perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik: pp. 69-98.
Bakker, A. B. and Schaufeli, W. B. 2008. Positive organisational behaviour: engaged employees in flourishing
organizations. Journal of organizational behaviour(29): pp. 147-154.
Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R. 2001. Organizational knowledge management: a contingency
perspective. Journal of management information systems, 18(1): pp. 23-55.
Betts, S. C. 2003. Contingency theory: science or technology? Journal of business and economics research,
1(8): pp. 123-130.
Blanton, J. E., Watson, H. J. and Moody, J. 1992. Toward a better understanding of information technology
organization: A comparative case study MIS quarterly, 16(4): pp. 531-555.
Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed.
London: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. and LINCOLN, Y. S. 2008. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. 3rd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. London: SAGE.
Donaldson, L., Scott, W. R., Martin, J. and Weick, K. E. 2004. Challenging the foundations of organization
theory. Work, employment and society, 18(3): pp. 607–620.
Dubé, L. and Paré, G. 2003. Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and
recommendations. MIS quarterly, 27(4): pp. 597-635.
348