key: cord-1033506-2r8vqdn0
authors: Blagov, Evgeny Yu.; Anand, Amitabh
title: The onlinezation influence on knowledge sharing for corporate innovation during the CoViD crisis
date: 2022-02-01
journal: Knowledge and Process Management
DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1705
sha: 64160f51cf418789e3d6c019256a8fc72e2c57d4
doc_id: 1033506
cord_uid: 2r8vqdn0

The article describes the study of the influence of shock onlinezation caused by the CoViD‐19 quarantine on the knowledge management performance and effectiveness in organizations. The methodology of the study is based on a set of multiple linear regression equations linking together the onlinezation, knowledge management parameters, problem‐solving and financial performance. The results of the study allow developing a set of practical recommendations regarding the development of knowledge management systems in organizations under the onlinezation context, with a special accent to solving technical and/or marketing uncertainty‐related problems with architectural or modular innovations.

Declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020, Coronavirus (CoViD-19) crisis led to an increase in economic uncertainty where it created an unprecedented effect on organizations' survival. On the other hand, most organizations have shifted toward a new normal of online work, work from home, or virtual workplace. However, organizational stability relies on knowledge management practices and how efficiently and effectively managing their knowledge bases can provide them to work their way out of crisis (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Wang, 2009 ). This implies that knowledge management (KM) routines, such as knowledge identification, acquisition, sharing and transferring, creating, storing and so on are essential and access to knowledge routines may be an effective strategy to sustain critical resources (Meyer & Sugiyama, 2007) .

As knowledge is recognized as a crucial asset for every organization in today's knowledge-intensive, sharing economy (Anand et al., 2019) , the knowledge-based view of the firm considers knowledge to be the root of a company's strategic advantage (Grant, 1996a (1; 2); Cerchione et al., 2020) . Among various knowledge management routines, knowledge sharing, albeit one of the most significant ones for the firm success (Wang & Noe, 2010) is one of the most affected by forced onlinezation (Lee et al., 2020) , as knowledge sharing is by definition happening in communication between different people (Grant, 1996b (2); Husted & Michailova, 2002; Van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004 ) and thus containing a various degree of knowledge content distortion in various communication modes and situations due to, for example, different distribution of explicit and tacit knowledge (Gubbins & Dooley, 2021) .

Thus, given the CoViD-19 situation, which has forced the organizations to work more through virtual ways than face to face, it is still unknown how the effectiveness of knowledge sharing is being changed, how can knowledge sharing be facilitated during the crisis and how effective it can be when the normal knowledge sharing routine becomes completely online. In light of these shortfalls, the research actuality is based on the worldwide transfer of work activities (particularly in management and R&D) in various companies from offline to online since the beginning of the CoViD-19 pandemic. It is obvious that this shift exerts significant influence on the knowledge management practices (especially the knowledge sharing ones due to their communication basis) in the companies having undergone this shift; thus, our study is aiming to figure out the main traits of this influence, both from process (i.e., how did the knowledge management processes change?) and effectiveness (i.e., how did the knowledge management processes effectiveness change?) viewpoints.

More precisely, the study is addressing the parameters of:

1. Knowledge sharing speed, fullness and adequacy of shared knowledge (with the respondent asked questions addressing her as both knowledge holder and requester).

2. Knowledge sharing barriers of technological and organizational types.

3. Resulting company effectiveness in shared knowledge application and new knowledge creation (assessed through the constructs of technological and marketing innovations; architectural and modular innovations; profit, sales and market share growth).

The paper is oriented on assessment of CoViD-induced onlinezation on knowledge sharing; when speaking about any kind of knowledge sharing assessment, complex nature of this phenomenon must be taken into account, both considering knowledge sharing as a part of the knowledge management and overall organizational activities supersystems, and as a phenomenon consisting of several subsystems and/or various dimensions.

The first dimension of knowledge sharing that should be taken into account when assessing it is its interpersonal nature: for knowledge sharing at least two sides is required, that is, a knowledge holder and a knowledge requester (Grant, 1996b (2); Husted & Michailova, 2002; Van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004; Riege, 2005; Olaniran, 2017) .

Efficiency and effectiveness of sharing knowledge between the requester and holder can be assessed by several criteria, most of which can be generally divided into knowledge sharing speed and quality (Blagov et al., 2018 (Blagov et al., , 2020 Ismail & Yusof, 2010; Rumanti et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018) . While knowledge sharing speed, that is, the speed of the requested knowledge transfer from the knowledge holder to the requester, is a considerably clear and homogeneous category, knowledge sharing quality is much more complicated and can be divided into several subcategories. A considerable amount of structures of such subcategories has been suggested in the literature (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Rumanti et al., 2018; Witherspoon et al., 2013) ; one of the possible high-level classifications of knowledge quality criteria divides these into, for example, knowledge sharing fullness (i.e., does the knowledge holder transfer all the volume of the requested knowledge item) and adequacy (i.e., does the knowledge holder react to the knowledge sharing request by transferring exactly that knowledge item that is being requested) (Blagov et al., 2020; Doronin et al., 2020; Gavrilova et al., 2012; Younis & Adel, 2020) .

These criteria, however, are describing the efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge management as such, without a relationship with the efficiency and effectiveness of the organizational activities; but knowledge sharing is not a "Ding an sich": it is happening in an organization to reach its goals and solve its problems.

Considering the integration of knowledge sharing parameters into the organizational goal and problems, two main levels of knowledge sharing results (and, thus, two stages of knowledge sharing effectiveness assessment following the assessment of knowledge sharing parameters as such) can be figured out.

The "final," "strategic" level is that of the organization's overall planned results, for example, financial results (sales, market share, costs minimization, profit, etc.) for a commercial company (Afriyie et al., 2018; Iske & Boersma, 2005) .

To reach these results, however, the organization must solve operational and tactical level problems, which are usually topics of everyday knowledge sharing activities (Oztemel & Arslankaya, 2012) . So, the "middle" stage of knowledge sharing effectiveness assessment (if we consider the knowledge sharing speed and quality the "initial" stage, and the organization's financial results as a "final" stage) is the organization's (or individual, or of a subdivision within an organization) success in solving such problems.

Several other classifications are of interest for the aims of current research.

If looking at this problems-for-solving from the perspective of uncertainties involved in these, the problems could be divided, for example, into technical (dealing with the uncertainty created by inanimate objects) and "human" (dealing with the uncertainty created by human interactions) (Aslam et al., 2018; de Almeida et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2020) .

Problem-solving methods can be, in their turn, classified by approach to working with system elements. Every organizational or technical system can be, indeed, described as consisting from elements and linkages between elements (or, vice versa, as architecture and elements filling this architecture), not to say consisting of subsystems and itself being a part of a supersystem (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 2001; Henderson & Clark, 1990; Wang et al., 2018) . Thus, problem-solving methods can be classified into mostly oriented on changes in architecture or changes in constituent elements (in terms of [Henderson & Clark, 1990 ]-on architectural or modular innovations respectively) (Fiorineschi & Rotini, 2019; Han, 2017; Liu et al., 2020) .

The variables of the current research are based on these classifications; according to the described logic of three stages of knowledge sharing assessment (knowledge sharing parameters, problem-solving and financial results as a metric of organizational effectiveness), three variable blocks are developed.

Below we describe these variable blocks in the respective order.

The knowledge-sharing variables are constructed on the basis of the following inputs.

Firstly, as our goal is an inquiry into the CoViD-induced onlinezation influence on knowledge sharing, the variables should be describing changes in knowledge sharing parameters since the beginning of the CoViD pandemic.

Secondly, as knowledge sharing is by definition a process requiring no less than two participants-a knowledge holder and a knowledge requester-and as each person in her professional activity can play both roles, the variables should consider the change in knowledge sharing parameters as perceived by the knowledge holder and requester.

Thirdly, change of what knowledge sharing parameters should be included in the variables of this block?

Using the classification developed in Blagov et al. (2018 Blagov et al. ( , 2020 ), it has been decided that such parameters should be knowledge sharing speed, fullness and adequacy.

Thus, the list of knowledge sharing variables is: 1) Change in knowledge sharing speed as perceived by the knowledge holder (for the sake of text brevity and readers' convenience further referred to as KS 1 Þ.

2) Change in the fullness of shared knowledge as perceived by the knowledge holder (respectively, KS 2 ). 

The variables of this block have been constructed on the basis of the following principles.

Firstly, analogously to the previous variable block, these variables are describing changes in the problem-solving parameters since the beginning of the CoViD pandemic.

The first variable is the most "general," representing the creation of new products or services since the beginning of the research period. (Lu et al., 2006; Rohman et al., 2020) . c) Of innovation types divided into architectural (considering changes in an architecture of a system) and modular (considering changes in the constituent elements of a system).

Thus, the list of variables in this block is the following: 1) Creation of new products or services (further referred to as PS 1 Þ.

2) The company solving technical problems it had not solved before (respectively, PS 2 Þ.

3) The department solving technical problems it had not solved before (PS 3 Þ.

4) An individual (respondent) solving technical problems she had not solved before (PS 4 Þ.

The company solving marketing problems it had not solved before (PS 5 Þ.

6) The department solving marketing problems it had not solved before (PS 6 ).

7) The individual solving marketing problems she had not solved before (PS 7 Þ.

8) The company solving problems it had not solved before by introducing a new element into a system (PS 8 Þ.

9) The department solving problems it had not solved before by introducing a new element into a system (PS 9 ).

10) The individual solving problems she had not solved before by introducing a new element into a system (PS 10 ).

11) The company solving problems it had not solved before by rearranging elements of a system (PS 11 ).

12) The department solving problems it had not solved before by rearranging elements of a system (PS 12 ).

13) The individual solving problems she had not solved before by rearranging elements of a system (PS 13 ).

Analogously to the variables of the previous blocks, variables of this block represent the change in financial results variables since the beginning of the CoViD-19 pandemic.

The first variable of this block is continuing the idea of the first variable of the problem-solving block in being a "general" one; as Variable 1 of the problem-solving block is representing the creation of new products or services, the financial results block Variable 1 is representing the success in the commercialization of the new products or services.

The following variables of this block are more specifically representing the financial results themselves. Following such articles on CoViD influence on business as, (e.g., Shafi et al., 2020; Warsame, 2020) , it has been decided to use several measures of financial results, namely, changes in profits, sales, and market share.

For looking at the picture of the financial results not only from a static but also from a dynamic perspective (Goh, 2020; Kunieda & Takashima, 2020) , variables of changes in profit, sales and market share growth have been also added.

Thus, the list of the financial results block variables is the following:

1) Successful commercialization of new products or services on the market (further referred to as FR 1 Þ.

2) Change in profits (respectively, FR 2 ).

3) Change in profit growth (FR 3 Þ.

6) Change in market share (FR 6 ). 7) Change in market share growth (FR 7 ).

In addition to the above-described three knowledge-sharing assessment variable blocks, it is logical also to add variables reflecting the processes of onlinezation induced by the CoViD-19 pandemic, as truly a shock for lots of organizations, although lots of them had been transferring their operations from offline into online before, but much more gradually (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2020; Kinnunen & Georgescu, 2020; Warsame, 2020) .

The first three of these block variables, according to the division of knowledge sharing processes between the organizational, subdivisional and individual levels, are representing onlinezation on the respective levels:

1) Company's transfer from offline to online work (further referred to as Onl 1 Þ:

2) Department's transfer from offline to online work (respectively, Onl 2 ).

3) Individual's transfer from offline to online work (Onl 3 ).

Finally, two more variables of the block represent the difference in onlinezation of core and/or supplementary activities of the company or subdivision (without individual level here, as the individual job duties can be rather narrow and thus hardly dividable into the core or supplementary ones), that is interesting to compare because supplementary activities onlinezation is surely a much wider phenomenon, but-at least for the industries and/or companies that had not been Our department has solved several problems it had not solved before by introducing a new element in some system PS 10 I have solved several problems I have not solved before by introducing a new element in some system

Our company has solved several problems it had not solved before by rearranging elements of some system PS 12 Our department has solved several problems it had not solved before by rearranging elements of some system PS 13 I have solved several problems I have not solved before by rearranging elements of some system 4 FR 1 Our company has successfully commercialized new products or services on the market FR 2 Our company has increased its profits FR 3 Our company has increased its profit growth FR 4 Our company has increased its sales FR 5 Our company has increased its sales growth FR 6 Our company has increased its market share FR 7 Our company has increased its market share growth functioning online earlier-much less radical business model and technology change (Nhamo et al., 2020; Seetharaman, 2020) .

Thus, two more variables are added to the block:

4) The company or department transferring core activities from offline into online (Onl 4 ).

The company or department transferring supplementary activities from offline into online (Onl 5 ).

For assessing the above-described variables, a questionnaire has been 2) Onlinezation (as it influences knowledge sharing parameters, that are in turn influencing the "subsequent" variables according to the user knowledge sharing assessment stages model).

3) Knowledge-sharing parameters.

4) Problem-solving.

The variables in each block except for the demographic are translated into questions with a single-type beginning: "Since the beginning of the CoViD-19 pandemic…" The questions are using the Likert type scale with 10 answer variants from "fully disagree" to "fully agree";

for quantitative assessment the answers have been coded as numerical variables from 1 to 10, respectively. (Note that the formulations of the variables themselves have neutral wording based on the word "change," while the questions in the questionnaire have positive intonation wording, for example, "I get more adequate knowledge" in a question uncovering the variable or "company has increased its profit growth" in a KS6 question uncovering the variable. Such formulation seems more informative than a FR3 neutral word "change," not showing its direction: answers with a numeric value from 6 to 10 represent a change in the increase direction (at least in the respondent's subjective perception), while answers with a numeric value from 1 to 5, respectively, represent the change in the decrease direction). 

The questionnaire was distributed using the SurveyMonkey online The tables are listed in the order following the logical order of models. Table 11 depicts the results of assessing Model 12, Table 12 depicts the results of assessing Model 23, and finally, 

In this section, we discuss the multiple linear regression equation assessments results in the order of the models.

The most prominent result in this model is the constant, which is The supplementary activities, in their turn, are more onlinezationfriendly in every company or industry, even if its core business technologies and business model do not obligatory imply it. The importance of supplementary activities onlinezation is truly demonstrated by these results, with a notable exception of significant coefficient lack for KS 4 ; an explanation for this lack could be that the perceived speed of knowledge sharing is tending to be more dependent on personal relationships of a respondent with colleagues rather than the organizational variables (Blagov et al., 2018; Szulanski, 1996) .

Influence of change in knowledge sharing parameters since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes in problem-solving in the researched companies is considerably vague, with three independent variables not exerting significant influence and one exerting it on only one dependent variable. It is interesting, however, that the three independent variables with no significant influence are the ones related to the perceived respondent's self-effectiveness in knowledge sharing; this lack of influence can be attributed to the abovementioned bias of the respondents' increased self-esteem, while the respondents' assessment of changes in the colleagues' knowledge sharing quality being more adequate.

Most of its influence is positive, which is rather logical (Han, 2017; Scaringella, 2016) . A more specific explanation to this result could be that onlinezation stress on the subdivisional level leads to (both deliberate and indeliberate) attempts to increase knowledge sharing speed, with quality suffering from that (possibly in subdivisions having problems with knowledge sharing before onlinezation, with its advent trying to "overcompensate" the changes by increasing KS speed as a parameter that is easier to change in comparison with shared knowledge fullness and adequacy (Younis & Adel, 2020) ).

The KS 5 and KS 6 variables exert a positive influence, but on different dependent variables; the influence of KS 5 is more significant for sharing marketing problems, while the influence of KS 6 -for technical problems. An explanation to it could be that KS6 marketing problems are ceteris paribus fraught with more uncertainty than the technical ones due to human beings as problem analysis objects are having its own goalsetting unlike the technical systems (Aslam et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020) . Due to that, for solving marketing problems fullness of involved knowledge is of critical importance, while for solving technical ones a more critical parameter is exact knowledge adequacy, oriented not on wider searching area, but on deeper analy- Interesting enough is that the positive influence on the financial indicators is exerted by the subdivisional and individual-level success in solving technical problems, while company-level success in solving marketing problems exerts a negative one on the increase of sales.

The technical problems success result is rather logical and expected, while the considerably counterintuitive marketing one can be compared to a suggestion regarding successful market commercialization of new products or services not supported by sales growth due to its relation to an overall economic downturn and faster decline of the competitors than the focal company, thus leading to increase in potential market share but with lower purchasing power (a suggestion considerably close to the evidence of the CoViD19 pandemic on companies' success and general economic environment demonstrated in, for example, (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2020; Shim et al., 2021; Warsame, 2020) ).

"Creation of new products or services," in its turn-the PS 1 variable-does exert a significant influence on the market share increase. This is rather logical, although this market share increase is not significantly related to any profit growth (as in the CoViD-related economic downfall period the market share of a particular company can increase due to its competitors' share decrease, not necessarily meaning the increase of the customer purchasing power: the increased number of customers in such case can even be accompanied with profit decrease due to the customers' decreased willingness to pay the initial price, forcing the company to lower the prices (Nor et al., 2020) ).

An interesting result in this equations block is the insignificance of most independent variables related to modular (PS 8 -PS 10 ) or architectural (PS 11 -PS 13 ) innovations, except for the PS 10 variable (that has a negative influence on the profit and sales as well as their growth). This does also support the suggestion that the respondent companies' effectiveness is related to the fall of the competitors', and not to knowledge sharing improvement as such. The perceived success of an individual respondent in innovation activities (PS 10 variable) with its negative influence can also be a sign of the overall economic downturn exerting a stronger effect on the specific companies' results than the specific employees' creative and innovative effort disregard of their talent.

The educed results, although being based on the analysis of a rather small sample, have several implications both for practitioners and future researchers.

are that of the greater influence of supplementary activities onlinezation than the primary ones on knowledge sharing effectiveness, and greater influence of knowledge sharing quality than speed on problem-solving parameters.

Indeed, core activities in various industries can be more or less "onlinezable," while supplementary activities could be onlinezed more easily; in the context of fast and dramatic changes in work and social environment, supplementary activities (including, among all, knowledge management systems) should be oriented on minimizing distracting factors, allowing employees better concentrating on their primary activities (Chaurasia et al., 2020; Kang & Hwang, 2019) .

Practical recommendations to knowledge management systems development in the onlinezation (especially involuntary and unexpected) context could specifically stress the necessity of these systems' orientation on knowledge sharing quality-in terms of both fullness and adequacy to request-than on knowledge sharing speed (Dorasamy et al., 2013; Germain, 2010; Rao & McNaughton, 2019) .

Speed-related key performance indicators (KPI), if these are important for the organization, can be reached by technical means, for example, optimization of the knowledge sharing ecosystem supporting IT infrastructure architecture; increasing knowledge sharing quality, in its turn, should be rather reached by organizational means, for example, by developing precise systems of motivation to knowledge sharing, remuneration for that and protecting the knowledge holders' intellectual property and organizational security (Blagov et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2018) . 

The limitations to the current study results validity and reliability could be divided into two categories.

Firstly, some limitations are caused by the sample characteristics, considerably small sample size most prominently. Further research directions that could serve to overcome such limitations could be called "extensive" directions, considering increasing the sample size and, probably, more profoundly organizing its structure without changing the research model and design.

Secondly, some limitations and further research development ideas are caused by the research model and design itself, thus requiring changes in these; such research development directions could be called, in their turn, "intensive" ones.

Considering the sample characteristics, we agree with the limitation of sample size and characteristics both as 52 respondents are just a bit above the threshold allowing multiple regression equations usage. Thus, further research can consider checking the suggestions on a wider sample. Moreover, as in the sample of 52 respondents it is hard to use the demographic statistics as control variables due to the low statistical significance of such analysis and its outcomes, in the wider sample the demographic statistics could be used as controls whatever exact quantitative methods-multiple regression or structural equations-would be used, allowing getting deeper insights into the onlinezation influence on knowledge sharing in various industries, age groups, and so on.

Regarding the limitations related to the research design, a significant limitation is that all the measures included in the assessed models are based on the respondents' subjective assessments and thus can be influenced by various subjective perception biases.

For instance, a bias that has been suggested several times to influence the regression model results is the respondents' over- Among the possible primary drivers of such bias, respondents' proficiency in knowledge management terminology had been suggested, as the questionnaire-in both used languages-contains a fairly significant number of such terms. To overcome this bias, we suggest that a questionnaire version could be designed with simpler formulations, that can both allow increasing the effective response rate and widen the respondents' sample by adding there not only knowledge workers proficient in knowledge management terminology but also other employees whose perception of the researched influences and interdependencies would not be that distracted by this or related bias.

A more systemic approach to overcoming the subjectivity of the assessment may include complementing the used measures by objective ones. Such measures could be added to all the blocks (onlinezation, knowledge sharing quality, problem-solving-and, surely, financial results) and make the picture more voluminous. Particularly interesting could be discrepancies between the objective and subjective measures within each block and between them, which can shed more light on the abovementioned self-assessment biases as well as the respondents' deliberate attempts to demonstrate picture distracted from reality.

Considering the quantitative analysis methodology, the regression analysis that was used for "unidirectional" assessment of the relationship between the blocks could be complemented by structural equation modeling that can unite all the four blocks into one model with onlinezation block as independent variables, financial results block as dependent ones, and knowledge sharing and problem-solving ones as mediating blocks (and, continuing the "extensive development"

suggestions-with demographic variables as control ones in case of sample extension). Although promoting knowledge sharing is considered to be more challenging, despite many processes and facilities for employees, future scholars should explore how these KS effects may increase or decrease the effectiveness of both individuals and organization, since the organizations are now moving toward online spaces after the CoViD catastrophe, for both economical and convenience reasons such as managing well-being, reduce the time for commute and increasing employee efficiency.

Furthermore, the implication of knowledge sharing in onlinezation context may be extended in the future by studying different relational elements such as the supervisor subordinate dyad, leader-follower dyad, co-worker/team member dyads, and so on. This may offer new results in comparison to our studies as knowledge sharing is mostly influenced and effective during interpersonal interaction .

Another interesting and potentially fruitful research development direction can consider including into the variable list changes in such long-duration knowledge management phenomena as, for example, organizational absorptive capacity or common language environment, that are unlikely to have undergone a significant change in a half-year period between the beginning of the CoViD-19 pandemic and the empirical research described in the article; however, as these organizational phenomena are closely and tightly interrelated with knowledge sharing (Ali et al., 2018; Curado et al., 2017; Dee & Leisyte, 2017; Fate et al., 2019) , there is no doubt that their inclusion into the suggested or related research models for further research of longitudinal effects of the pandemic on knowledge sharing can give deeper insights into these effects' mechanisms.

Finally, in addition to quantitative methods, future research may also benefit from qualitative exploratory ones, which could help deeper establish the causality of the relations discussed in this paper.

In the current paper, the COVID-induced onlinezation influence on knowledge sharing processes in companies has been assessed, with particular focus on the levels of knowledge sharing quality, problems solving, and organizations' financial results. 

The nexus between innovation types and marketing performance of SMEs in an emerging economy: The mediating role of knowledge sharing

Impact of knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity on project performance: The moderating role of social processes

COVID-19 and business failures: The paradoxes of experience, scale, and scope for theory and practice

Why should I share knowledge with others? A review-based framework on events leading to knowledge hiding

Does humility facilitate knowledge sharing? Investigating the role of humble knowledge inquiry and response

Exploring the sources and role of knowledge sharing to overcome the challenges of organizational change implementation

Employees' trust and their knowledge sharing and integration: The mediating roles of organizational identification and organization-based self-esteem

The influence of knowledge sharing barriers on the performance of administrative subdivision of Russian universities

Work experience influence on the knowledge sharing barriers perceived significance by higher educational institutions administrative employees. Knowledge and Process Management

Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization studies

Back to the future of knowledge management systems off the beaten paths. Management Decision

Open innovation for sustainability through creating shared value-role of knowledge management system, openness and organizational structure

Individual factors affecting attitude toward knowledge sharing: An empirical study on a higher education institution. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, ahead-of-print

Enterprise search and discovery capability: The factors and generative mechanisms for user satisfaction

Teams' innovation: Getting there through knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity

Intrinsic motivation for knowledge sharing-Competitive intelligence process in a telecom company

Knowledge sharing and organizational change in higher education. The Learning Organization

Knowledge management systems in support of disasters management: A two decade review

Reconsidering concept of knowledge sharing: Search for quality dimensions

Defining what is learned: Challenges in continuous learning and improvement

A novel view on knowledge sharing in the agri-food sector

Linking design problems and modular solutions

Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms

New ergonomic metrics for educational ontology design and evaluation

The role of HRD in crisis situations: Lessons learned from hurricane Katrina

Analysis of static and dynamic efficiency for sustainable growth of edu-tech companies

Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration

Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm

Delineating the tacit knowledge-seeking phase of knowledge sharing: The influence of relational social capital components

Exploitation of architectural knowledge and innovation

Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms

Diagnosing and fighting knowledgesharing hostility

Connected brains: Question and answer systems for knowledge sharing: Concepts, implementation and return on investment

The impact of individual factors on knowledge sharing quality

An investigation into the performance of an ambidextrously balanced innovator and its relatedness to open innovation

Disruptive pandemic as a driver towards digital coaching in OECD countries

Dynamic resource allocation between exploration and exploitation

Enhancing employees' knowledge sharing through diversity-oriented leadership and strategic internal communication during the COVID-19 outbreak

Resource-constrained innovation method for sustainability: Application of morphological analysis and TRIZ inventive principles

Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review

The concept of knowledge in KM: A dimensional model

Motivation and knowledge sharing: A meta-analysis of main and moderating effects

Global tourism value chains, sustainable development goals and COVID-19

The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation

Corporate sustainable growth rate: The potential impact of COVID-19 on Malaysian companies

Barriers to tacit knowledge sharing in geographically dispersed project teams in oil and gas projects

Enterprise knowledge management model: A knowledge tower

Marketingspecific intellectual capital: Conceptualization, scale development and empirical illustration

A knowledge broker for collaboration and sharing for SIDS: The case of comprehensive disaster management in the Caribbean

Investigating the role of environmental concern and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology on working from home technologies adoption during COVID-19. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues

Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider

Individual and organizational factors' effect on knowledge sharing behavior

A systematic literature review on knowledge sharing for innovation: Empirical study approach

Knowledge, knowledge dynamics, and innovation: Exploration of the internationalization of a multinational corporation

Business models shifts: Impact of Covid-19

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises operating in Pakistan

Antecedents of purchase intention at Starbucks in the context of Covid-19 pandemic

Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm

Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing

An integrated open approach to capturing systematic knowledge for manufacturing process innovation based on collective intelligence

Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research

Knowledge management adoption in times of crisis

The impacts of COVID 19 on small and

Antecedents of organizational knowledge sharing: A meta-analysis and critique

Process optimization of the university-industry-research collaborative innovation from the perspective of knowledge management

Artificial intelligence strategy, creativity-oriented HRM and knowledge-sharing quality: Empirical analysis of individual and organisational performance of AI-powered businesses

Linking Core self-evaluation to creativity: The roles of knowledge sharing and work meaningfulness