ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Sources of knowledge acquisition and patterns of knowledge-sharing

behaviors—An empirical study of Taiwanese high-tech firms
Min-Shi Liu, Nien-Chi Liu
Institute of Human Resource Management, National Central University, No. 300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan Country 32001, Taiwan

Abstract

The new knowledge acquisition and sharing stage represents the start of the organization’s overall knowledge creation process. It is
especially important for contributing to the critical foundation of organizational knowledge creation. This study explores the relationship
between employees’ knowledge acquisition sources and the patterns of knowledge-sharing behaviors. We use structural equation
modeling to test a sample of R&D professionals from high-tech companies in Taiwan. Data analysis suggests that most employees prefer
to acquire knowledge from, and share knowledge with, their team members. This implies that greater familiarity between team members
and strengthened cooperative relationships foster productivity. Furthermore, employees should be encouraged to participate in
professional communities in order to acquire new knowledge. Knowledge acquired via these channels will facilitate the sharing of R&D
knowledge within the organization.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Knowledge innovation; Knowledge acquisition; Knowledge sharing; Structural equation modeling; Taiwan high-tech companies

1. Introduction
From a firm’s knowledge-based view, the uniqueness of
knowledge plays an important role in maintaining a
company’s competitive advantage (Grant, 1996). Never-
theless, the essential dilemma within the firm is how to
manage knowledge in a way that creates a competitive
advantage (Barney, 1991). A company wishing to establish
and maintain the knowledge needed for a competitive
advantage must create and acquire new knowledge,
transmit knowledge to appropriate parts of the company,
interpret that knowledge and integrate it with existing
knowledge, and use knowledge to achieve better perfor-
mance (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Therefore, managing
knowledge effectively is an immense challenge for firms.
In recent years, more theories also have been applied to
knowledge management issues. For example, from com-
plexity theory, to understand how the information flows is
the first step of understanding a complex system. The
approach to complexity-based knowledge management
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 222157010.
E-mail address: kayliu0102@yahoo.com.tw (M.-S. Liu).
suggests that there may exist ‘‘the edge of chaos,’’ which
is the place between excessive disorder and excessive order,
in the knowledge creation process. The knowledge will be
created under highly constrained and formal contexts, as
well as under high uncertain and random ways (Koivuaho
& Laihonen, 2006). Knowledge management in an evolu-
tionary perspective proposes that the knowledge creation
in an organization may start from a simple reaction to
information into higher levels of structural and functional
complexity (Laszlo & Laszlo, 2002). Network theory then
suggests that the formality of network structure may result
in different types of knowledge diffusion within an
organization (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). It seems that every
perspective has its own developmental path to explore
knowledge management issues, but still presents similar
trends. They seem to suggest that knowledge creation is a
dynamic and evolving process, in which kinds of patterns
still emerge, and it is extremely imperative to explore what
kinds of knowledge flows are created.
Nonaka & Konno (1998) have argued that the knowl-
edge creation process is a continuous process through
which one transcends the boundary between self and other,
as knowledge is created through the interactions between

0268-4012/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.01.005
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
424 M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432
or among individuals, groups, and in the organization
(Popadiuk & Choo, 2006). Looking through the whole
knowledge creation process, the stages of knowledge
acquisition and sharing actually initiate the organization’s
overall knowledge creation process. Thus, the significance
of individual knowledge acquisition and sharing behaviors
needs to be emphasized, since it will contribute to the
critical foundation of organizational knowledge creation
(Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). However, in discussing
the knowledge creation process, existing research seldom
has integrated both sources of knowledge acquisition and
knowledge-sharing behaviors. Thus, there is a need for
research that explores an integrated model in which
acquiring knowledge from different sources will result
in variations of the patterns of knowledge-sharing
behaviors.
In order to integrate and extend these existing views, we
developed a theoretical frame and undertook an empirical
study to explore the relationship between the sources of
knowledge acquisition and patterns of knowledge-sharing
behaviors. The structure of the current article is as follows.
In the second section, we review the related literature on
the sources of knowledge acquisition and patterns of
knowledge-sharing behaviors, and present an integrated
model as well as the hypothesized relationships of
these variables. The third section presents the research
methodology, and the fourth section includes a report
of the findings. The last section presents a discussion of the
findings and limitations of our study, as well as suggestions
for further research.
2. Sources of knowledge acquisition
Employees may obtain knowledge through a variety of
learning activities within an organization, such as training,
formal education, experimentation, imitation, and self-
directed learning (Reio & Wiswell, 2000). Through
continuous learning, employees can renew their basis for
future organizational learning when knowledge sharing is
generated among employees (Tsoukas & Vladimirou,
2001).
Knowledge generally is classified into two categories
(Nonaka & Takeushi, 1995): explicit and tacit knowledge.
Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that is codified as
signs and symbols, or to formulated information that is
conveyed by formal systems. Books, manuals, and codes of
practice are popular forms of explicit knowledge. On the
other hand, it is more difficult to share implicit or tacit
knowledge only through codified signs and symbols. Since
tacit knowledge is very personal and should be constructed
socially, the interaction between knowledge transmitters
and receivers, which allows for observations and real-time
discussions, becomes critical for transmitting tacit knowl-
edge efficiently. Thus, it is apparent that individuals may
rely on different learning channels to obtain explicit and
tacit knowledge.
Though organizations usually use a variety of mechan-
isms (i.e., formal documents, training programs, group
meetings) to promote workplace learning, employees may
not accumulate their knowledge merely through inside
sources. One of the most important ways for an organiza-
tion to gain a competitive advantage is by obtaining
information from external environments efficiently.
Traditionally, the boundary spanners play a central
role in introducing new knowledge into organizations
(Burn, 2004). In today’s competitive landscape, it is
impossible to rely merely on limited boundary spanners
to absorb knowledge. The traditional methods may not
produce effective results, and the new changes encourage
most employees to acquire work knowledge from outside
environments in order to ensure continued competitiveness
and survival (Grant, 1996). For some individuals knowl-
edge from both internal and external sources may be fresh,
but for the organization as a whole the external sources
usually offer more novel knowledge than internal sources.
Some valuable information or know-how, which usually is
tacit, is still conveyed through intensive interactions among
people from different organizations (Bontis, Crossan, &
Hulland, 2002).
Based on the previous theoretical discussion, knowledge
sources of individual workplace learning may be classified
into two dimensions: knowledge storage formats and
knowledge storage locations. However, there are few
empirical studies to verify the previous theoretical argu-
ments. Rulke, Zaheer, and Anderson (2000) found three
types of knowledge sources to exist for store managers in
food industries: internal relational, internal non-relational,
and external channels. The previous theoretical argument is
not supported fully by their findings. However, this does
not mean that external relational channels are not
important, or that the distinction between external
relational and external non-relational channels is insignif-
icant. For example, researchers have pointed out that the
exchange of ideas in professional communities in high-tech
industries is very important for organizations to keep their
technology future-oriented (Assimakopoulos & Yan,
2006). Thus, we still need more empirical studies on
knowledge sources in order to develop a more generalized
typology.
3. Sources of knowledge acquisition and the patterns of
knowledge-sharing behaviors
Once new knowledge has been acquired, it must be
transferred to other parts of the organization where it is
needed or can generate benefit. Incoming knowledge will
have very little effect on the organization without this
stage. As a consequence, transferring knowledge across
time and space is an extremely important part of knowl-
edge accumulation within an organization. Here, knowl-
edge sharing refers to the transfer of knowledge acquired
by an individual to other persons. We can distinguish the
patterns of knowledge-sharing behaviors in large-group
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432
and small-group settings. Knowledge sharing in a
large-group setting refers to the transmission of useful
knowledge to a large number of people via the company’s
internal and external education, training, and publications.
Knowledge sharing in a small-group setting refers to the
private sharing of useful knowledge with coworkers
belonging to the same group. Regardless of whether
knowledge is shared in a large or small-group setting, the
knowledge-sharing process always will include the trans-
mission and reception of individual knowledge (Bock &
Kim, 2002), which is the most troublesome part of the
knowledge management process.
There are two reasons why knowledge sharing is the
most difficult part of the knowledge management process.
First is the inherently ‘‘sticky’’ nature of knowledge.
Knowledge is embedded in individuals’ brains (Szulanski,
2000), and its stickiness tends to make transfer between
individuals slow, costly, and uncertain (Kogut & Zander,
1992). Second is that the knowledge-sharing process
includes the externalization of knowledge by the knowl-
edge transmitter and internalization of knowledge by the
receiver. In the process of externalizing and internalizing
knowledge, individuals obtain knowledge needed for their
work not only from sources inside the organization, but
also from outside the organization. As a result, the failure
to effectively link knowledge sharing with knowledge
acquisition channels will increase knowledge search and
transmission costs and reduce knowledge-sharing effi-
ciency.
3.1. Internal sources of knowledge acquisition and the
patterns of knowledge-sharing behaviors
Effectively linking knowledge acquisition channels and
sharing patterns can lower sharing search costs and
enhance sharing efficiency. We will first discuss the
relationship between an organization’s internal knowledge
sources and knowledge sharing. The transfer of codified
knowledge within an organization is relatively easy, and
the transfer of codified knowledge can be done readily
between large and small groups (Hansen, 1999; Tsai, 2002).
Thus, according to past research, internal codified sources
increase individual knowledge-sharing behaviors in large-
and small-group settings. Therefore, we have developed the
following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1. Internal codified sources have a positive
influence on knowledge sharing in a small group setting.
Hypothesis 2. Internal codified sources have a positive
influence on knowledge sharing in a large group setting.
It is difficult, nonetheless, to transfer non-codified
knowledge. When the knowledge to be shared is non-
codified, the best results may be obtained by conducting
knowledge sharing in small group settings. Transmitters
may need to spend more time externalizing tacit knowledge
when knowledge sharing takes place in small-group
425
settings. When the relative benefits of knowledge sharing
in large- and small-group settings are compared, the strong
ties that characterize small-group settings favor the sharing
of non-codified knowledge (Granovetter, 1982), because
small-group settings typically provide knowledge transmit-
ters and receivers with opportunities for two-way interac-
tion. Members of small groups usually have opportunities
to try out knowledge, make mistakes, and seek explanation
and feedback from receivers. The opportunities for two-
way interaction provided by small-group settings facilitate
the absorption of non-codified knowledge, because the
receiver may not acquire complete knowledge during the
first instance of interaction, and may need several
opportunities for full absorption.
Furthermore, even if the transmitter does not actively
aid in knowledge transfer or participate in two-way
interactions, the mutual understanding between the two
parties eases the difficulty of transferring non-codified
knowledge. When knowledge sharing takes place in a
small-group setting, the two actors tend to establish special
relationships and friendships as they work to resolve
problems connected with the transfer of non-codified
knowledge. For instance, Uzzi’s research has shown that
the close personal ties that emerge in small-group settings
play an important role in facilitating the communication of
non-codified knowledge (Uzzi, 1997). According to the
past research, internal non-codified sources increase
individual knowledge-sharing behaviors in small-group
settings, which leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3. Internal non-codified sources have a positive
influence on knowledge sharing in a small group setting.
In contrast, knowledge sharing in a large group setting
tends to lack the interaction needed to transfer non-
codified knowledge. Interaction between the transmitter
and receiver may be infrequent. The receiver must interpret
and revise non-codified knowledge, and often cannot
obtain a follow-up explanation. It may be impossible to
communicate directly with the transmitter, and the receiver
may not be able to get an immediate solution from the
transmitter when problems or questions arise. Even if the
transmitter can provide assistance, the fact that there is no
means of communicating tacit knowledge between the two
parties makes it difficult to achieve good knowledge
transfer results. It takes a considerable amount of time to
resolve these impediments, and knowledge sharing may
become a burden, possibly hindering project implementa-
tion (Hansen, 1999). According to past research, internal
non-codified sources decrease individual knowledge-shar-
ing behaviors in large-group settings, which leads to the
following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4. Internal non-codified sources have a nega-
tive influence on knowledge sharing in a large group
setting.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
426 M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432
3.2. External sources of knowledge acquisition and the
patterns of knowledge-sharing behaviors
An organization’s external channels may be an impor-
tant means of knowledge acquisition. External sources of
codified and non-codified knowledge often provide valu-
able information and facilitate knowledge innovation
(Assimakopoulos & Yan, 2006). Although knowledge from
outside the organization may be more abstract and difficult
to acquire, it also may be of greater value. This external
knowledge can inspire fresh thinking among employees and
provide a context for internal knowledge benchmarking.
The union of internal knowledge and useful external non-
codified knowledge can generate unique insights and
promote knowledge innovation. External knowledge ac-
quisition channels include individuals’ acquisition of public
information via the Internet or specialized books, as well as
acquisition of new external knowledge through personal
networks and professional associations (Brown & Duguid,
2001). In addition, the organization can acquire external
knowledge through external training, recruiting of other
companies’ employees, alliances (Grant, 1996), and so on.
External codified knowledge constitutes public informa-
tion, and the transfer of this knowledge may have the same
effects in large-and small-group settings (Hansen, 1999).
Past research has shown that the external codified sources
of knowledge may affect the patterns of knowledge-sharing
behaviors (knowledge sharing in small and large group
settings). We therefore propose the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 5. External codified sources have a positive
influence on knowledge sharing in a small-group setting.
Hypothesis 6. External codified sources have a positive
influence on knowledge sharing in a large-group setting.
Non-codified knowledge, which tends to be abstract,
difficult to acquire, and beneficial to innovation, can be
transferred via personal networks or professional commu-
nities (Brown & Duguid, 2001). In contrast to homogenous
knowledge acquired from internal non-codified sources,
knowledge acquired from external non-codified sources
tends to be heterogeneous and varied, and often serves to
promote knowledge innovation. As a consequence, when
employees cannot obtain needed information from within
the company, they may seek support from outside the
organization’s boundaries. Small-group settings are char-
acterized by strong ties (Granovetter, 1982), so the sharing
of knowledge acquired from external non-codified sources
in small-group settings (whose members may have close
relationships and be in frequent contact with one other)
may better facilitate the acquisition of varied heteroge-
neous knowledge in such settings. Therefore, we propose
the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 7. External non-codified sources have a posi-
tive influence on knowledge sharing in a small-group
setting.
Furthermore, when organizational knowledge is a public
good (Wasko & Faraj, 2000), the use of knowledge from
others to improve one’s own work performance will not
lessen the value of that knowledge to others. When this
knowledge is shared among employees, boundary spanners
are willing to share knowledge acquired from external
channels with the organization’s employees. Past research
has clearly shown that there is a cause-and-effect relation-
ship between non-codified external sources of knowledge
acquisition and knowledge sharing in a large-group setting
(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005). We therefore propose the
following hypothesis and the model is displayed in Fig. 1.
Hypothesis 8. External non-codified sources have a posi-
tive influence on knowledge sharing in a large-group
setting.
4. Research methods
4.1. Sampling and respondents
R&D professionals are widely acknowledged as knowl-
edge workers. Their work is characterized by complex
system design, knowledge related to the rapid update of
technology, and strong competition for sustaining innova-
tion (Assimakopoulos & Yan, 2006). In addition, the
knowledge acquisition and sharing patterns among R&D
professionals are quite different from those of traditional
workers (Assimakopoulos & Yan, 2006; Berends, Bij,
Debackere, & Weggeman, 2006; Cabrera, Collins, &
Salgado, 2006; Hsu, 2006). Since the R&D process is
extremely complex and an employee possesses expertise
only in a specific area, knowledge will not be exposed to
other individuals until knowledge owners make the objects
available. Therefore, it is valuable to investigate how R&D
professionals acquire and share knowledge among mem-
bers. Since knowledge acquisition and sharing behaviors
are so critical for R&D professionals, the current sample
consists of R&D employees employed in nine high-tech
companies in Taiwan. The companies studied are engaged
in applied research within the computer systems and other
industries that are pivotal for high-tech industries. These
nine companies were chosen in order to control for the
differences in firm size. Generally, companies with success-
ful experience in managing knowledge management activ-
ities have a large operating scale, and the average total
operating revenue of the nine companies is more than
US$3 billion (Table 1).
4.2. Measures
4.2.1. Independent variables
We used nine items based on the theoretical literature to
assess possible sources of knowledge acquisition in high-
tech industries. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert
scale regarding the importance of each source in searching
for solutions to work-related problems. The nine items
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432 427

used to assess sources were based on the discussion of Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine
knowledge sources by Bird (1994), Sacks (1994), and Rulke the validity and reliability of the research instrument.
et al.(2000), including discussions of ‘‘internal codified Validity was addressed in two ways. First, operationaliza-
sources,’’ ‘‘internal non-codified sources,’’ ‘‘external codi- tion of the constructs drew upon an extensive literature
fied sources,’’ and ‘‘external non-codified sources.’’ review, and questionnaires were discussed with superiors in
The internal codified sources include internal formal actual organizations. Both processes were intended to
training and formal training from technology transfer. The enhance content validity. Second, the results of the CFA
internal non-codified sources include sources such as super- illustrated that six variables displayed convergent validity,
visors and colleagues, as well as formal meetings. External since the analysis yielded six factors with factor loading
codified sources refer to information from professional displaying the expected patterns. Table 2 shows the
journals, books, and Internet sources. Employees in high- correlations among the six factors of the CFA model.
tech industries also could acquire task knowledge through The diagonal of the matrix presents the internal-consis-
external non-codified sources, such as exchanging ideas with tency coefficients of the reliability of the unity-weighted
personal friends and professionals in other firms. sums of the item scores, and the a-coefficients vary between
0.62 and 0.87. The Cronbach a coefficients of the six
4.2.2. Dependent variables variables of this study all exceeded the 0.60 threshold
The patterns of knowledge-sharing behaviors were the recommended by Malhotra and Birks (2003), with the
major dependent variables of interest in this study. Rated reliability and internal consistency of the variables con-
by a 5-point Likert scale, two patterns of knowledge- firmed.
sharing behaviors were measured. First, knowledge sharing
in a large-group setting refers to the transmission of useful 5. Results
knowledge to a large number of people via internal and
external education, training, and publications. Three items 5.1. The measurement model
were used to measure this construct. The second, measured
by three questions, was knowledge sharing in a small-group We tested the factor structure of our survey measures
setting, which was defined as the private sharing of useful using CFA. The CFA model was developed with the
knowledge with coworkers belonging to the same group. purpose of testing whether the hypothesized latent
The measures of these two variables were adapted from the variables could be identified empirically, as well as for
theoretical literature (Senge, 1990). examining the validity and reliability of the measures.
First, according to the successive testing and modification
of different models on the same data, different variable sets
Table 1 were combined into the final model. The final CFA model
Respondent demographic information had a w2 value of 173.79, df ¼ 75 (p ¼ 0.00). The RMSEA
index for this model was 0.061, with a 90 percent
Variable Frequency Percentage (%)
confidence interval from 0.049 to 0.072, indicating
Gender acceptable fit of the model to the data. Other indices of
Male 318 85.7 fit also showed acceptable fit (GFI ¼ 0.94, AGFI ¼ 0.90,
Female 53 14.3 CFI ¼ 0.97, NFI ¼ 0.95, NNFI ¼ 0.96). Standardized
Age factor loadings along with the descriptive item data are
Under 30 148 39.9 shown in Table 3.
30–39 194 52.3 Two items measured the internal codified sources factor.
40–49 28 7.5
The items with loadings of 0.67 were ‘‘internal formal
Over 50 1 0.3
training’’ and ‘‘formal training from technology transfer.’’
Education The internal non-codified sources factor was related to three
High school or less 1 0.3
items. Higher loadings (0.75) were observed for two items:
Some college 27 7.3
Bachelor’s degree 117 31.5 ‘‘asking colleagues’’ and ‘‘internal meeting.’’ The lower
Graduate degree 218 58.8 loading (0.63) was ‘‘asking supervisors.’’ The external
Ph.D. degree 8 2.1 codified sources factor was related to two items. The highest
Tenure in present jobs loading (0.71) was observed for the ‘‘professional books’’
Under 1 105 28.3 item. The lower loading item (0.69) was ‘‘Internet.’’ Two
1–2.9 143 38.5 items measured the external non-codified sources factor,
3–4.9 77 20.8 ‘‘personal networks’’ and ‘‘professional communities,’’ and
5–9.9 33 8.95
had loadings of 0.73 and 0.74, respectively.
Over 10 13 3.5
Three items measured the knowledge sharing in a large
Manager group setting factor, and all items had substantial loadings
Yes 86 23.2
(0.70–0.92) on the factor. The highest loading (0.9) was
No 285 76.8
observed for the item ‘‘sharing with people in training
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
428 M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432

Table 2
Correlations among the factors of the measurement model

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Internal codified sources (0.62)

2. Internal non-codified sources 0.65 (0.75)
3. External codified sources 0.69 0.44 (0.66)
4. External non-codified sources 0.58 0.58 0.58 (0.70)
5. Knowledge sharing in a large-group setting 0.49 0.27 0.52 0.55 (0.87)
6. Knowledge sharing in a small-group setting 0.39 0.46 0.31 0.39 0.21 (0.85)

N ¼ 371. Values in parentheses are Cronbach’s.

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings for the items

Item Item no. Mean SD Standard factor loading

Internal codified sources

Internal formal training IC1 3.26 0.85 0.67
Formal training from technology transfer IC2 3.30 0.88 0.67
Internal non-codified sources
Asking supervisors INC1 3.47 0.92 0.63
Asking colleagues INC2 3.83 0.69 0.75
Internal meeting INC3 3.72 0.78 0.75
External codified sources
Professional books EC1 3.62 0.78 0.71
Internet EC2 3.18 0.99 0.69
External non-codified sources
Personal networks ENC1 3.33 0.90 0.73
Professional communities ENC2 3.27 0.96 0.74

Knowledge sharing in a large-group setting

Sharing with people in training outside the firm LG1 1.84 1.03 0.92
Publishing in professional journals LG2 1.65 0.96 0.85
Sharing with people in training inside the firm LG3 2.43 1.12 0.70
Knowledge sharing in a small-group setting
Private sharing in small groups SG1 3.76 0.69 0.87
Sharing in the meeting SG2 3.68 0.80 0.77
Coaching my subordinate SG3 3.75 0.77 0.78

outside the firm’’. Another loading (0.85) was observed for
the item ‘‘publishing in professional journals’’ item. The
lower loading item (0.70) was ‘‘sharing with people in
training inside the firm.’’ Three items measured the
knowledge sharing in a small-group setting factor, and three
items had substantial loadings (0.77–0.87): ‘‘private sharing
in small groups,’’ ‘‘sharing in the meetings,’’ and ‘‘coaching
my subordinate.’’
5.2. The structural model
In the next step, path models were fitted to test the
proposed model. The hypotheses do not specify explicitly
the relations among all of the factors, and some unexpected
relations were found, so a sequence of models was fitted.
Selection criteria for the final model were (1) fit to data and
(2) interpretability of the estimated relations.
The path model had a w2 test-statistic of 194.66, df ¼ 77
(p ¼ 0.00). The RMSEA index was 0.065 for this model,
with a 90 percent confidence interval between 0.054 and
0.077, indicating an acceptable fit of the model to the data.
Other indices of fit also showed the fit to be acceptable
(GFI ¼ 0.93, AGFI ¼ 0.90, CFI ¼ 0.97, NFI ¼ 0.95,
NNFI ¼ 0.96), so we cannot reject the hypothesis that
the path model correctly reproduced the correlations
among the latent variables. The model is displayed in
Fig. 2.
The pattern of direct effects revealed by the path model
seems to provide somewhat mixed evidence for the study’s
hypotheses. According to Hypotheses 1 and 2, we expected
positive effects of internal codified sources on knowledge
sharing in small- and large-group settings. However,
according to the path model, there was no effect of the
internal codified sources factor on any other latent
variable. Internal codified sources had a 0.39 correlation
with knowledge sharing in a small group setting and a 0.49
correlation with knowledge sharing in a large group setting
in the CFA correlation matrix. Had the other factors not
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432 429

Internal codified
sources H1
Knowledge sharing in
H2 a small group setting
Internal H3
non-codified
sources
H4
H5 Knowledge sharing in a
External codified large group setting
sources H6

H7

External H8
non-codified
sources

Fig. 1. Hypothesized integrated Model.

Internal codified
sources 0.07
Knowledge sharing in
0.21 a small group setting

Internal 0.33
non-codified
sources
-0.22

0.04 Knowledge sharing in a

External codified large group setting
sources 0.18

0.13

External 0.41
non-codified
sources

Fig. 2. Path model for relations Among the latent variables. Note: Path coefficients are standardized partial regression coefficients Estimated by maximum
likelihood. Ellipses represent latent variables. Unidirectional arrows Express direct effects. T-values above 1.96 (po0.05) are shown in bold. n ¼ 371.

been included in the model, this would have been the
estimate of the total effect. However, in the presence of
internal non-codified sources, external codified sources,
and external non-codified sources, with which the internal
codified sources factor was correlated, no effect could be
seen. Further research is needed to clarify the relations
among the internal codified sources, internal non-codified
sources, external codified sources, and external non-
codified sources.
According to Hypotheses 3 and 4, we expected a positive
effect of internal non-codified sources on knowledge
sharing in a small-group setting and a negative effect of
internal non-codified sources on knowledge sharing in a
large-group setting. The results of the path model support
Hypotheses 3 and 4: There was a positive direct effect on
knowledge sharing in a small-group setting (0.34; po0.01)
and there was a negative direct effect on knowledge sharing
in a large-group setting (0.22; po0.05). According to
Hypotheses 5 and 6, we expected positive effects of external
codified sources on knowledge sharing in small- and large-
group settings. However, according to the path model,
there was no effect from the external codified sources factor
on any other latent variable. According to Hypotheses 7
and 8, we expected positive effects of external non-codified
sources on knowledge sharing in small- and large-group
settings, but we observed only a direct effect of 0.41
(po.001) on knowledge sharing in a large-group setting
(H8), and there was no effect from the external non-
codified sources factor on knowledge sharing in a small-
group setting (H7).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
430 M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432
6. Discussion and implications
6.1. Discussion
The analysis above explains how different knowledge
acquisition sources can influence the patterns of knowl-
edge-sharing behaviors. Employees use several channels to
acquire and search for knowledge within the organization.
First, within the organization, employee knowledge acqui-
sition and sharing activities involve large amounts of tacit
knowledge. Employees receive instructions from their
managers, privately ask their colleagues questions, and
receive information at internal meetings. Employees are
able to obtain needed and useful knowledge, most of which
constitutes tacit knowledge, through these internal non-
codified channels. When employees acquire knowledge in
these ways, they typically only are willing to share the
knowledge privately in small groups. However, when
employees acquire valuable knowledge, most of which
constitutes tacit knowledge, from outside the organization
via personal networks or professional communities, they
often are more willing to share the information openly
within the organization or with other employees (who may
not be members of the employee’s team or department).
Our research results show that neither internal nor
external codified sources are very significant sources of
knowledge for individuals. This may be due to the
circumstances of R&D professionals, whose knowledge
acquisition and sharing behaviors differ from those of
conventional workers (Assimakopoulos & Yan, 2006;
Berends et al., 2006; Cabrera et al., 2006; Hsu, 2006).
R&D professionals are heavy users of tacit knowledge, and
their knowledge-sharing behavior includes the acquisition
and sharing of large amounts of tacit knowledge. In
addition, the role of the R&D professional includes
innovation, so the knowledge needed by these individuals
is not obtained readily from the organization’s formal
documents. The knowledge needed for innovation emerges
from combinations of tacit knowledge from different places
within the organization. The knowledge acquisition and
sharing behavior of R&D professionals consequently
involves mainly non-codified knowledge, which explains
why neither internal nor external codified sources are
significant sources of knowledge.
In accordance with our findings, when employees
encounter difficult technical or R&D problems, they first
will seek assistance and answers from their team members.
As a consequence, the acquisition of knowledge through
communication channels among team members will facil-
itate the private sharing of knowledge within the team. In
addition, employees seldom rely on internal formal training
from technology transfer or other internal sources of
codified knowledge to obtain the knowledge they need. It is
worth noting that researchers have found a negative
relationship between internal non-codified sources and
knowledge sharing in large-group settings. Our research
results are consistent with the inferences made in past
studies. Knowledge sharing in a small-group setting within
the organization provides knowledge transmitters and
receivers with opportunities for two-way interaction,
facilitating the sharing of non-codified knowledge. In
contrast, knowledge sharing in a large-group setting lacks
the level of interaction needed for the transfer of non-
codified knowledge. In this situation, the transmitter
cannot resolve the issue easily or quickly when the receiver
has some question or problem, which tends to make
knowledge sharing problematic. The acquisition of knowl-
edge from internal non-codified sources consequently
favors knowledge sharing in small-group settings, but does
not favor knowledge sharing in large-group settings.
When an organization cannot internally provide the
information needed to resolve a problem, employees may
turn to external sources to acquire knowledge. Our findings
suggest that personal networks and professional commu-
nities are important sources of knowledge for employees.
In contrast, professional books and online public informa-
tion are not commonly used as sources of knowledge.
External personal networks are important channels for the
transfer of innovation knowledge (Assimakopoulos & Yan,
2006). Apart from providing friendship and support,
personal networks also facilitate the ongoing sharing of
information among individuals. In contrast to the two-way
relationships characterizing personal networks, profes-
sional communities provide assistance via multiple channel
relationships.
Employees may tend to use professional communities for
two reasons. First, professional communities can provide a
wide range of support. Large and diversified networks
typically provide a higher level of support than small and
homogeneous groups. It is not easy for most employees to
maintain a large number of direct relationships with other
personnel, and it is also almost impossible to find out who
in the interpersonal network possesses knowledge and
experience connected with one’s job. In contrast to sources
within the organization, professional communities bring
together large numbers of professional personnel in the
same area of specialization. The varied and important
backgrounds of these groups’ participants make the groups
useful sources of technical knowledge and forums for
continued discussion. The second reason is that the groups
promote efficient communication and high-quality discus-
sion. Employees tend to use telephone or e-mail to seek
immediate help and interaction through their external
personal networks. These employees typically make one-to-
one calls to their friends in what usually is a trial and error
process, making the process quite time-consuming. Pro-
blems can be disseminated to hundreds or even thousands
of professional personnel at the same time via professional
communities, and responses can be obtained in a very short
time. Respondents may use a variety of formats to
communicate with others, such as asking questions,
discussions, trials of potential solutions, and the recom-
mendation of persons who may possess relevant knowledge
and experience or who may be interested. Thus, the quality
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432
of discussion is superior to that in personal networks, in
which friends may lack experience or interest. All of the
participants in professional group discussions can accu-
mulate tacit knowledge not found in books.
This study has addressed that individuals’ knowledge
acquisition sources consist chiefly of internal and external
non-codified sources, and these sources affect knowledge
sharing in both small- and large-group settings. Three
major conclusions are summarized. First, what our findings
have sought to put forth is the view that the attributes of
knowledge will influence individuals’ knowledge-sharing
behaviors. It seems that we start the work on depicting ‘the
edge of chaos’ of knowledge creation process in a firm.
Second, external knowledge sources provide a wider range
of knowledge than internal sources, and a broader range of
knowledge facilitates innovation and R&D work. Due to
their need for abundant innovation-related knowledge,
professional R&D personnel, in particular, benefit from the
clash of different ideas and points of view. Our findings
explain that these personnel acquire useful knowledge
solely from highly homogenous internal sources. Third, the
findings of this study indicate that employees who acquire
knowledge from external sources are relatively willing to
share it openly within the organization, and there also will
be a relatively large number of receivers. As far as the
organization is concerned, the sharing of external non-
codified knowledge in a large-group setting offers more
benefit than the sharing of internal non-codified knowledge
in a small-group setting.
6.2. Implications
If we take seriously the notion that firm concentrates on
the innovation and creation, the important management
issues become how managers can promote knowledge-
sharing behaviors effectively upon considering the main
knowledge sources of the firm. When R&D knowledge is
generated and shared via everyday activities, R&D
managers must work hard to promote informal daily
discussion, which is more beneficial than directly over-
seeing the knowledge acquisition and sharing process. We
found that most employees prefer to acquire knowledge
from, and share knowledge with, their team members. This
implies that R&D managers should promote greater
familiarity among team members and strengthen coopera-
tive relationships fostering productivity. Furthermore,
employees should be encouraged to participate in profes-
sional communities in order to acquire new knowledge.
Knowledge acquired via these channels will facilitate the
sharing of R&D knowledge.
7. Limitations
This research was subjected to the following limitations.
First, the sample used in this study consisted of large
enterprises (with annual operating revenues in excess of
US$3 billion). Future research may consider using data
431
from SMEs. Second, this study employed a self-assessment
of knowledge-sharing frequency. Finally, the subjective
assessment of knowledge-sharing behavior may not express
real knowledge-sharing performance objectively. Future
research should employ subjective and objective assessment
standards. This research, for example, may evaluate self-
assessment scores and R&D patent results simultaneously.
Acknowledgment
Data using in the early version of this paper were
founded by the National Science Council, Taiwan (project
no.: NSC 90-2416-H-008-021).
References
Assimakopoulos, D., & Yan, J. (2006). Source of knowledge acquisition
for Chinese software engineers. R&D Management, 31(1), 97–105.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Berends, H., Bij, H., Debackere, K., & Weggeman, M. (2006). Knowledge
sharing mechanism in industrial research. R&D Management, 31(1),
85–95.
Bird, A. (1994). Careers as repositories of knowledge: A new perspective
on boundaryless careers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4),
325–344.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An
exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information
Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 14–21.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral
intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the role of
extrinsic motivators, social–psychological force, and organizational
climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–112.
Bontis, N., Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organiza-
tional learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of
Management Studies, 39(4), 437–469.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Structure and spontaneity: Knowledge
and organization. In I. Nonaka, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Managing
industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer and utilisation. London: Sage
Publication.
Burn, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideals. American Journal of
Sociology, 110(2), 349–400.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing
through people management practices. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–735.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of
individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245–264.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-
performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 345–367.
Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory
revisited. In P. Marsden, & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network
analysis (pp. 105–130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically competitive environ-
ments: Organization capability as knowledge integration. Organization
Science, 7, 375–387.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties
in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 88–111.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
432 M.-S. Liu, N.-C. Liu / International Journal of Information Management 28 (2008) 423–432
Hsu, I. C. (2006). Enhancing employee tendencies to share knowledge—
Case studies of nine companies in Taiwan. International Journal of
Information Management, 26, 326–338.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative
capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3,
383–397.
Koivuaho, M., & Laihonen, H. (2006). A complexity theory approach to
knowledge management—towards a better understanding of commu-
nication and knowledge flows in software development. The Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management Volume, 4(1), 49–58.
Laszlo, K. C., & Laszlo, A. (2002). Evolving knowledge for development:
The role of knowledge management in a changed world. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 6(4), 400–412.
Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2003). Marketing research: An applied
approach. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ‘ba’: Building a
foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review,
40(3), 40–54.
Popadiuk, S., & Choo, C. W. (2006). Innovation and knowledge creation:
How are these concepts related? International Journal of Information
Management, 26, 302–312.
Reio, T. G., & Wiswell, A. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship
among adult curiosity, workplace learning, and job performance.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 5–30.
Rulke, D. L., Zaheer, S., & Anderson, M. H. (2000). Sources of managers’
knowledge of organizational capabilities. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 82, 134–149.
Sacks, M. (1994). On-the-job learning in the software industry: Corporate
culture and the acquisition of knowledge. Westport, Conn.: Quorum
Books.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic
analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 82, 9–27.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘‘coopetition’’ within a multiunit
organization: Coordination, competition and intraorganizational
knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?
Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973–993.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The
paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: Why people
participate and help others in electronic communities of practice.
Joumal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(1), 155–173.
Min-Shi Liu is a doctoral candidate in the Institute of Human Resource
Management at National Central University, Taiwan. She received her MS
degree in Labor Research from National Chengchi University. Her current
research interests include knowledge management, organizational learning,
and the impacts of knowledge flow on organizations and individuals.
Nien-Chi Liu is an associate professor and director of the Institute of
Human Resource Management at National Central University, Taiwan.
Her research interests include high-performance work practices, human
resource management in knowledge intensive firms, and employee
ownership. Her articles have been accepted for publication in Management
and Organization Review, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
The Nordic Journal of Political Economy, and other refereed journals and
conference proceedings.