IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v7y2016i4d10.1007_s13132-015-0257-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Factors Determining the Efficiency of Knowledge Sharing Process in the Lithuanian National Defence System

Author

Listed:
  • Jurgita Raudeliūnienė

    (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University)

  • Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė

    (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University)

  • Kęstutis Vileikis

    (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University)

Abstract

Knowledge is becoming the source of exclusivity and a feature of uniqueness. Each organisation attempts to share relevant information at the right time and through the most convenient means to meet the needs of its clients and employees. When modernising the Lithuanian National Defence System, the need for qualified personnel able to share specific knowledge has been identified. In this sense, this paper aims to analyse the factors that influence sharing process in the Lithuanian National Defence System most, enhancing its efficiency. In order to determine and assess these factors, expert evaluation and multiple criteria assessment methods have been applied. The results show that scientists interpret factors influencing the efficiency of knowledge sharing process differently. The primary list of factors influencing the efficiency of knowledge sharing process was carried out of more than 60 factors, which were divided into three groups: individual, organisational and technological factors. In summary, individual and organisational factors are more significant to the efficiency of process compared to technological factors. Significant factors in the group of individual factors were benefits of the knowledge sharing perceived by employees, their practical experience and communication skills. Significant factors in the group of organisational factors influencing the process of efficiency were mechanisms of the employees’ assessment, personnel fluctuation and its dynamic and influence on the process of knowledge sharing. Significant factors in the group of technical factors were adaptation of information technologies and possibilities of knowledge sharing process, visit to the database and accessibility of information technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jurgita Raudeliūnienė & Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė & Kęstutis Vileikis, 2016. "Evaluation of Factors Determining the Efficiency of Knowledge Sharing Process in the Lithuanian National Defence System," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(4), pages 842-857, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:7:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s13132-015-0257-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-015-0257-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-015-0257-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-015-0257-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    2. R Krishnaveni & R Sujatha, 2012. "Communities of Practice: An Influencing Factor for Effective Knowledge Transfer in Organizations," The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, IUP Publications, vol. 0(1), pages 26-40, January.
    3. W.A. Taylor & G.H. Wright, 2004. "Organizational Readiness for Successful Knowledge Sharing: Challenges for Public Sector Managers," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 17(2), pages 22-37, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Broto Bhardwaj, 2019. "Role of Knowledge Management in Enhancing the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Through Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Intent in High-tech Firms," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(4), pages 1831-1859, December.
    2. Dian Prihadyanti & Karlina Sari & Dudi Hidayat & Nur Laili & Budi Triyono & Chichi Shintia Laksani, 2022. "The Changing Nature of Expatriation: The Emerging Role of Knowledge Transfer Readiness," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(2), pages 1496-1541, June.
    3. Yoav Gal & Adiv Gal, 2019. "Knowledge Bias: Neo-feudalism and Other Reasons to Avoid Sharing Knowledge by Knowledge Workers," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(2), pages 826-848, June.
    4. Yaoyao Guo & Dongphil Chun & Feng Yin & Yaying Zhou, 2023. "Exploring Motivations and Trust Mechanisms in Knowledge Sharing: The Moderating Role of Social Alienation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-22, November.
    5. Mounir Kehal & Zuopeng (Justin) Zhang, 2020. "Knowledge Management Via AUTomated Organizational CARTography (AUTOCART)," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(1), pages 239-255, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dirk Basten & Thilo Haamann, 2018. "Approaches for Organizational Learning: A Literature Review," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(3), pages 21582440187, August.
    2. Usman Madugu* & Halimah Abdul Manaf, 2018. "Influences on Knowledge Sharing in the Academes: Implications for Individual Performance," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 305-311:6.
    3. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    4. Olunifesi Adekunle Suraj, 2016. "Managing Telecommunications for Development: An Analysis of Intellectual Capital in Nigerian Telecommunication Industry," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 1-30, March.
    5. Soufiane Mezzourh & Walid A Nakara, 2009. "Governance and innovation : A Knowledge-based approach [La gouvernance de l'innovation : une approche par la connaissance]," Post-Print halshs-01955966, HAL.
    6. M. Max Evans & Ilja Frissen & Anthony K. P. Wensley, 2018. "Organisational Information and Knowledge Sharing: Uncovering Mediating Effects of Perceived Trustworthiness Using the PROCESS Approach," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-29, March.
    7. Chris Kimble & José Braga Vasconcelos & Álvaro Rocha, 2016. "Competence management in knowledge intensive organizations using consensual knowledge and ontologies," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1119-1130, December.
    8. Maurizio Zollo, 1998. "Strategies or Routines ? Knowledge Codification, Path-Dependence and the Evolution of Post-Acquisition Integration Practices in the U.S. Banking Industry," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-10, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    9. Duniesky Feitó Madrigal & Alejandro Mungaray Lagarda & Michelle Texis Flores, 2016. "Factors associated with learning management in Mexican micro-entrepreneurs," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 32(141), pages 381-386, December.
    10. David Vallat, 2015. "Une alternative au dualisme État-Marché : l’économie collaborative, questions pratiques et épistémologiques," Working Papers halshs-01249308, HAL.
    11. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    12. Christoph P. Kiefer & Pablo Del Río González & Javier Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2019. "Drivers and barriers of eco‐innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quantitative perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 155-172, January.
    13. Ahammad, Mohammad Faisal & Tarba, Shlomo Yedidia & Liu, Yipeng & Glaister, Keith W., 2016. "Knowledge transfer and cross-border acquisition performance: The impact of cultural distance and employee retention," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 66-75.
    14. Arkadiusz Kijek & Tomasz Kijek, 2019. "Knowledge Spillovers: An Evidence from The European Regions," JOItmC, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-15, September.
    15. Liuan Wang & Lu (Lucy) Yan & Tongxin Zhou & Xitong Guo & Gregory R. Heim, 2020. "Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 537-555, June.
    16. Anders Melander & Tomas Mullern & David Anderssson & Fredrik Elgh & Malin Löfving, 2022. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap in Collaborative Research—in Dialogues We Trust," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 655-677, October.
    17. Schilling, Melissa A. & Green, Elad, 2011. "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1321-1331.
    18. Carmelina Bevilacqua & Yapeng Ou & Pasquale Pizzimenti & Guglielmo Minervino, 2019. "New Public Institutional Forms and Social Innovation in Urban Governance: Insights from the “Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics” (MONUM) in Boston," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Shahid Qureshi & Sarfraz Mian, 2021. "Transfer of entrepreneurship education best practices from business schools to engineering and technology institutions: evidence from Pakistan," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 366-392, April.
    20. Giovana Escrivão & Marcelo Seido Nagano, 2016. "Linking Knowledge Creation and Environmental Education," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 1-23, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:7:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s13132-015-0257-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.