FACTORS INFLUENCE KNOWLEDGE SHARING AMONG

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY OF STUDENTS IN

HANOI, VIETNAM
1
DONG DO THI, 2TRINH LE NGOC, 3HA PHAM THI, 4HA VU THI THU

1234
Faculty of Business Management, National Economics University

Email: 1dongdt@neu.edu.vn, 211175015@st.neu.edu.vn, 311171336@st.neu.edu.vn, 411171368@st.neu.edu.vn

Contact: 1+84 989334496

Abstract: This paper examines factors influencing knowledge sharing among undergraduate students in Hanoi,
Vietnam. A quantitative survey is conducted with the sample size of 563 observations. Results of the study
revealed that there are evidences to the relationship between factors including enjoy in helping others, perceived
benefits, knowledge self-efficacy, faculty’s support, fairness, creativity, and technology and knowledge sharing
among students in Hanoi, Vietnam. Based on analysis of the data, implications are given to higher education
institutions and students in order to stimulate the knowledge sharing process.

Index terms: factors influence knowledge sharing, knowledge, knowledge management, knowledge sharing,
students.

I. INTRODUCTION Regarding to learning environment, critical step in

Knowledge is one of important driving factors of the
development process of a country, especially those in
transformation process. Owing and applying
knowledge is the key for sustainable development.
Knowledge is driving factors for development of an
individual, an organization, and an economy
(Liebowitz & Chen, 2001; Nassuora, 2011). In
addition to its importance, the appearance of Industry
4.0 makes knowledge even more important than ever.
Consequently, knowledge- based economy become a
development pattern for countries.
Knowledge can be classified by several ways. Of
which, the distinction between explicit and tacit
knowledge has been paid attention of several
researchers. Considering the importance of
knowledge, (Prusak (1996) became conscious of the
fact that organizations realize the only thing that gives
them a competitive advantage is how they use what
they know and how fast they can create something
new. If a person know something and he or she does
not share it with others or apply it to working in order
to create an added value, the known thing will sooner
or later disappear without any value. It means
organizations realized knowledge is power (Ling,
2011) and recognized the importance of knowledge
sharing. A number of studies have paid attention to
finding determinants of knowledge sharing behavior
(Chang & Chuang, 2011; Goh & Sandhu, 2013; Hau,
Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2012; Staples & Webster, 2008,
Nguyen et al., 2019).
knowledge acquisition is knowledge sharing.
Knowledge sharing is critical element for intellectual
discourses (Ghadirian et al., 2014). Recognizing
factors that impact knowledge sharing in learning
communities is critical. However, limited attentions
have been paid to knowledge sharing behavior among
students, especially among those in Hanoi where
students constitutes approximately to 40% of total
students in Vietnam.
The objectives of this study is to examine factors
influencing knowledge sharing among undergraduates
students in Hanoi, Vietnam. First, the paper reviews
literature of knowledge, knowledge management and
knowledge sharing. It then focus on knowledge
sharing among students in higher educations. A
questionnaire survey is conducted so as to finding the
factors influencing knowledge sharing among
students. The paper ends with some implications for
higher education institutions and students in order to
strengthen knowledge sharing process among
students.
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Knowledge is a critical organizational resource that
provides a sustainable competitive advantage in a
competitive and dynamic economy (Foss & Pedersen,
2002; Grant, 1996; Spender & Grant, 1996).
Knowledge can be defined from several perspectives.
Knowledge is information that has been organized and
analyzed to make it understandable and applicable to
problem solving or decision making (Turban, 1992).
Knowledge is derived from information and data so as
to support the processes of problem solving, decision

1
making, learning and teaching (Beckman, 1997).
Davenport & Prusak (1998) believed most people have
an intuitive sense that knowledge is broader, deeper,
and richer than data or information. According to the
two authors, knowledge is a fluid mix of framed
experience, values, contextual information, and expert
insight that provides a framework for evaluating and
incorporating new experiences and information.
Knowledge derives from information as information
derives from data. Knowledge is a completed approach
to create new procedure and information.
There are several definitions of knowledge
management. Knowledge management can be defined
as the process of adapting existing knowledge in order
to solve current business challenges and create new
solutions by studying patterns in existing knowledge
(McAdam, 2000). Knowledge Management can be
considered activities and process geared towards
creation and utilization of knowledge in an
organization (Rosenthal-Sabroux & Grundstein,
2008). Holsapple (2005) believed knowledge
management is not just about processes, but is greatly
hinged on human activities. It is based on human
activities, processes, social interactions, experiences
and cognitive interpretation of information.
Knowledge management may simply be defined as
doing what is needed to get the most out of knowledge
resource. Knowledge management is viewed as an
increasingly important discipline that promotes the
creation, sharing, and leveraging of the corporation’s
knowledge (Becerra- Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2010).
Davenport and Prusak (1998) believed that knowledge
management is the process of collecting, creating,
storing and using knowledge. It is systematic approach
to identify, manage and share the information assets
including database, documents, policies, procedures
and professional knowledge, which (Sunasee và
Sewry, 2002). Knowledge management process can be
broken down into several processes including
knowledge creation, knowledge storing, knowledge
sharing, and knowledge applying. Among them,
knowledge sharing plays an important roles as the
process let knowledge spread out for individuals,
groups or organizations to acquire and using it.
Knowledge sharing is defined as the process of
exchanging knowledge like skills, experience, and
understanding among researchers, policymakers, and
service providers (Tsui, 2006). It is a set of behaviors
that involve the exchange of information or assistance
to other (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). In knowledge
sharing process, there are knowledge senders and
receivers. The centre of knowledge sharing, thus,
consists of two coincide processes of knowledge
transferring and knowledge collecting. Regarding to
learning environment, Oosterlinck (2004) found that
knowledge sharing assists students to receive
additional feedback and improves their further
research initiatives.
There are number of knowledge sharing tools. The
popular ones include story telling, search engines,
online community, forum, interview, video discussion,
observation, focus group, social network, etc. (Do,
2014). The effectiveness of a knowledge sharing
activities in organization has the potential of
improving customer services, bringing new product to
market and reducing cost of business operations (Saufi
and Tasmin, 2010). Knowledge sharing can raise the
sustainable competitiveness of an organization
(Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Foss and Pedersen,
2000). Regarding to learning environment, knowledge
sharing enable far more effective learning and the
facilitation of learning (Arsenijević et al., 2011). The
process of knowledge sharing is not only a term of
participation and learning interaction of students, but
can also be viewed as a learning strategy that can help
students to collaborate with teachers and other students
in acquiring new knowledge and solve the problem
(Dwiyanti, 2017).
III. RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS
Knowledge sharing
As said previously, in knowledge sharing process,
there are two knowledge flows including knowledge
transferring and receiving or collecting (Van den
Hooff and de Ridder, 2004) and thus, knowledge and
senders and receivers exist. Knowledge transfer means
to convey and to diffuse knowledge among different
organizations or within one organization. Regular
meetings, training, and personal contact are ways to
convey knowledge (Thomas, 2009). Given the fact
that, the two processes take place at the same time, the
knowledge sharing process is illustrated by the two
variables namely knowledge transferring (KT) and
collecting (KC).
Enjoyment in helping others (V1.Enjoyment)
According to self- deterministic theory, internal
motivation of an individual is from inside and is not
relative to outside factors (Deci and Ryan, 2008).
Individual’s inner motivation stimulates knowledge
sharing with others (Osteroh & Frey, 2000).
Individuals have motivation of sharing knowledge as
they enjoy in helping others (Wasko& Faraj, 2000).
Considering these views, it was hypothesized that:
H1a: Enjoyment in helping others have a positive
relationship with knowledge transferring;
H1b: Enjoyment in helping others have a positive
relationship with knowledge collecting;
Perceived benefits (V2.Benefits)
Gutman (1982) believed that the perceived customer
value of an offering is the combination of both the
benefits that a customer seeks, expects or experiences
and the unexpected consequences that come with the
benefits. The perceived value, thus, is benefit that a
person receives when carrying out an activity.
Researchers believed that perceived benefits influence
knowledge sharing behavior. It is one of important
factors for a person in making a decision of sharing
knowledge as he or she expect to receive benefit from
others who share something with him or her in the
future. Expecting that the knowledge receiver will help
or will not harm the knowledge donator is the
motivation of knowledge donation. (Moghavvemi et
al., 2018). When the knowledge sharing behavior is
stimulated from both knowledge donator and receiver,
people who expect reciprocal benefit tend to
strengthen sharing behavior and feel more confident in
working place (Moghavvemi et al., 2018). Thus, the
second hypothesis is that:
H2a: Perceived benefit has a positive relationship with
knowledge transferring;
H2b: Perceived benefit has a positive relationship with
knowledge collecting;
Knowledge self- efficacy (V3.S-efficacy)
Knowledge self- efficacy is ability to apply knowledge
in solving problems in working place (Asllani, 2003).
Bandura (1997) suggested that efficacy influence
behavior so people can strengthen efficacy in order to
sharing knowledge if their cooperation with other is
built up. The third hypothesis is states as following.
Together with the two above factors, knowledge self-
efficacy depends on individual.
H3a: Knowledge self- efficacy have a positive
relationship with knowledge transferring;
H3b: Knowledge self- efficacy have a positive
relationship with knowledge collecting;
Faculty’s support (V4.FSupport)
In learning environment, discussion brings knowledge
sharing. The way instructors conduct classes may also
influence how the students behave in terms of
knowledge sharing behavior (Chen et al., 2007).
Therefore, the following hypotheses were proposed:
H4a: Faculty’s support have a positive relationship
with knowledge transferring;
H4b: Faculty’s support have a positive relationship
with knowledge collecting;
responsibility, share with others (Kim and Lee, 2006)
and thus, knowledge sharing is strengthened. In
addition, creativity can also encourage new ideas,
enhance learning. Individuals, in such way, tend to
invigorate knowledge sharing. Thus, the following
hypotheses were proposed:
H5a: Fairness has a positive relationship with
knowledge transferring;
H5b: Fairness has a positive relationship with
knowledge collecting;
H6a: Creativity have a positive relationship with
knowledge transferring;
H6b: Creativity have a positive relationship with
knowledge collecting;
Technology (V7.Technology)
Connectivity is the ability for members of a social
system to contact each other directly (Van den Hooff,
Elving, Meeuwsen, & Dumoulin, 2003). Technology
which build up connectivity among people can act as
stimulating factor for knowledge sharing in learning
environment. The impact of availability and usability
of technology on knowledge sharing is affirmed by
Han and Anantatmula (2007). We have hypothesis as
follows:
H7a: Technology have a positive relationship with
knowledge transferring;
H7b: Technology have a positive relationship with
knowledge collecting;
III. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
There were 615 samples that were selected for data
analysis among students in Hanoi. From them, 58 of
the 615 samples were excluded because of the
incomplete and unsatisfied responses. Accordingly,
563 samples were selected for the final data analysis.
SPSS 20 is used for analysis.
IV. FINDINGS
Characteristics of the sample
Demographic characteristics of overall participants is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of respondents
Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)

Fairness and creativity (V5.Fairness and Gender

V6.Creativity) Female 259 46.0
Environment is believed to engage with organizational Male 304 54.0
culture. It derives from shared awareness of Major
individuals whereas organizational culture deals with Social science 272 48.3
beliefs, values and experiences of them (Schein, 1985). Engineering 198 35.2
Organizational environment can stimulates knowledge
sharing as it build up members’ belief and cooperation Other 94 16.5
which acts as critical condition for knowledge sharing. By year
Among dimensions of organizational environment, 1st year 129 22.9
fairness and creativity are typical. If fairness exists, it 2nd year 118 21.0
may encourage people to work, accomplish their 3rd year 123 21.8
 4th year 99 17.6 value of R square for the dependent variable,
5th and above 94 16.7 knowledge transferring, was 0.316. Besides, the R2 for
knowledge receiving, was 0.82. The R2 value
Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test indicated that the model explained a sizeable amount
Cronbach’s Alpha was used to assess the internal of variance for knowledge sharing.
consistency of each variable. The value of Cronbach’s Table 5. R square
Alpha ranged from 0.763 to 0.873, which exceeded the Knowledge Knowledge
Nunnally’s criterion of 0.7. Results of internal transferring receiving
consistency is shown in Table 2. R square .316 .307
Table 2. Analysis of Internal Consistency
Variables No. of Cronbach’s The results are similar to those obtained from research
items Alpha conducted Musfikar (2017). According to the survey,
V1.Enjoyment 4 .845 knowledge self- efficacy has substantial impact on
V2.Benefits 3 .853 knowledge sharing. In addition, Nguyen and
V3.S-efficacy 4 .786 colleagues (2019) concluded that individual factors,
V4.FSupport 4 .840 namely enjoyment in helping others, knowledge self-
V5.Fairness 4 .802 efficacy and environment factor such as management
V6.Creativity 3 .873 support significantly influence knowledge donation
V7.Technology 7 .858 and collection processes (Nguyen, et al., 2019).
Knowledge transfer 4 .763
Knowledge receiving 4 .809 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Hypotheses Testing
This article has investigated the factors influence
The detailed hypotheses testing results are presented
knowledge sharing among undergraduate students in
in Table 3 and Table 4. Among the 14 hypotheses, 12
Hanoi, Vietnam. The evidences are not sufficient to
were supported. Results of regression analysis showed
reject the hypothesis that individual factors including
that there is evidence of the existence of positive
enjoyment in helping others, perceived benefits and
relationships between independent variables including
knowledge self- efficacy and environment factors
enjoyment in helping others, perceived benefits,
namely faculty support and fairness have positive
knowledge self-efficacy, faculty support and fairness
relationship with knowledge transferring and
with knowledge sharing. For the remaining
receiving. The evidences are sufficient to reject the
independents variables comprising creativity and
hypotheses that there are positive relationships
technology, hypotheses of the relationships between
between fairness and technology and knowledge
them with knowledge transferring are supported
transferring. However, there are insufficient evidences
whereas the relationships with knowledge receiving
to reject the hypotheses that fairness and technology
are rejected.
have positive relationships with knowledge receiving.
Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis on
The study has several limitations. The sample size is
knowledge transferring
Variables Beta t Sig. H Supported
limited to 563 respondents from 531,229 students in
Hanoi (Vietnam General Statistic Office, 2019).
V1.Enjoyment .407 11.602 .000 H1a Yes Future work could include a larger sample to increase
V2.Benefits .204 5.818 .000 H2a Yes the representativeness of the sample. Demographic
V3.S-efficacy .121 3.457 .001 H3a Yes factors should also be taken into account in order to
V4.FSupport .240 6.833 .000 H4a Yes
identify if there is any relationship between them and
V5.Fairness .183 5.219 .000 H5a Yes
V6.Creativity .040 1.132 .258 H6a No knowledge sharing. Future work should also include
V7.Technology .031 .884 .377 H7a No number of additional factors such as trust, fear, reward
and recognition system and knowledge sharing.
Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis on Despite of these limitations, the research has
knowledge receiving potentially important implications for the knowledge
Variables Beta t Sig. H Supported
sharing in learning environment.
V1.Enjoyment .263 7.451 .000 H1b Yes
V2.Benefits .226 6.392 .000 H2b Yes Since there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim
V3.S-efficacy .285 8.054 .000 H3b Yes that there are positive relationships between
V4.FSupport .169 4.784 .000 H4b Yes enjoyment in helping others, perceived benefits, and
V5.Fairness .163 4.608 .000 H5b Yes
V6.Creativity .209 5.904 .000 H6b Yes knowledge self- efficacy and knowledge sharing, in
V7.Technology .083 2.351 .019 H7b Yes order to strengthen knowledge sharing, knowledge
sharing behavior should be loved and recognized.
The variance explained (R2) by the paths was Positive attitude of students toward knowledge sharing
examined and the results are presented in Table 5. The behavior will make knowledge donators feel happy
and continue to disseminate knowledge. Learning
should also be paid attention to so that students have
knowledge self- efficacy. Self- confidence in learning
environment will enhance knowledge sharing. Support
from faculties should be strengthened. Fairness and
creativity of the learning environment should be
ensured. Technological support should be reinforced
to enhance knowledge sharing.
REFERENCES
[1] Arsenijević, J.; Pražić, J.; and Andevski, M.
Knowledge sharing and information systems in
education, Proceedings of EDULEARN11 Conference,
4-6 July 2011, Barcelona, Spain, pp 6031-6040.
[2] Asllani, Arben & Luthans, Fred. “What
knowledge managers really do: An empirical and
comparative analysis”, J. Knowledge Management.
7. 53-66. 10.1108/13673270310485622, 2003.
[3] Becerra- Fernandez, Irma & Sabherwal, Jajiv.
Knowledge management: Systems and processes, M.
E. Sharpe Inc. Armonk, New York, The United States
of America, 2010.
[4] Benjamin Schneider, Mark G. Ehrhart, and
William H. Macey, “Organizational Climate and
Culture”, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64:361–88, 2013.
[5] Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S., “Social capital and
individual motivations on knowledge sharing:
Participant involvement as a moderator”, Information
& management, 48(1), 9-18, 2011.
[6] Chen, J., Koch, P., Chung, M., & Lee, C.,
“Exploring contributory factors in student-to-student
knowledge sharing: A Singaporean perspective”.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA
93rd Annual Convention, Nov 14, 2007, TBA,
Chicago, IL.
[7] Connelly, C.E. & Kelloway, E. K., “Predictors of
employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing
cultures”, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 24, 294-301, 2003.
[8] Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. Working
knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know, Havard Business Press, 1998.
[9] Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M., “Self-determination
theory: A macro theory of human motivation,
development, and health”, Canadian
psychology, 49(3), 182, 2008.
[10] Do, T. D. (2014), “Use of knowledge sharing
tools in small and medium enterprises in Hanoi,
Vietnam”, Proceedings of 2nd ISCLOSE, 2014, Jakarta,
Indonesia, pp 423- 430.
[11] Dwiyanti, W., “The Stage’s of Sharing
Knowledge among Students in Learning Environment:
A Review of Literature”, International Journal of
Education and Research Vol. 5 No. 8 August 2017, pp
81- 92.
[12] Eisenberger, R.; Stinglhamber, F; Becker, T. E.;
Karagonlar, G.; Neves, P.; Gonzalez-Morales, M. G.
(2010), “Leader–Member Exchange and Affective
Organizational Commitment: The Contribution of
Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 95, No. 6, pp 1085–1103,
2010.
[13] Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. “Transferring
knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary
knowledge and organizational context”, Journal of
International Management, 8(1), 49−67, 2002.
[14] Ghadirian, Hajar; Ayub, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd;
Silong, Abu Daud; Bakar, Kamariah Binti Abu; Zadeh,
Ali Mohammad Hossein, “Knowledge Sharing
Behavior among Students in Learning Environments:
A Review of Literature”, Asian Social Science; Vol.
10, No. 4; pp 38-45, 2014.
[15] Goh, S. K., & Sandhu, M. S., “Affiliation,
Reciprocal Relationships and Peer Pressure in
Knowledge Sharing in Public Universities in
Malaysia”, Asian Social Science, 9(7), 290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n7p290, 2013.
[16] Grant, R. M., “Toward a knowledge-based theory
of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, 17,
109−122, 1996.
[17] Gutman, J., “A means-end chain model based on
consumer categorization processes”, Journal of
Marketing 46(2), 60-72, 1982.
[18] Han, B. M., & Anantatmula, V. S., “Knowledge
sharing in large IT organizations: A case study.
VINE”, The Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, 37(4), 421-439, 2007.
[19] Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. G., “The
effects of individual motivations and social capital on
employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing
intentions”, International Journal of Information
Management, 33(2), 356-366, 2012.
[20] Holsapple, C. W. “The inseparability of modern
knowledge management and computer-based
technology”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 42-
52, 2005.
[21] Kim, S., and Lee, H., “The impact of
organizational context and information technology
on employee knowledge-sharing
capabilities”, Public Administration Review, 66(3),
370-385, 2007.
[22] Liebowitz, J., & Yan, C., “Knowledge sharing
proficiencies: the key to knowledge management”, In
Handbook on Knowledge Management, 1, pp. 409-
424, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004.
[23] Ling, C.T.N., “Culture and trust in fostering
knowledge-sharing”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(4), pp.328–339, 2011.
[24] Luthans, F. “Positive organizational behavior:
developing and managing psychological strengths”,
Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-75,
2003.
[25] McAdam, R., Knowledge management as a
catalyst for innovation within organizations: a
qualitative study, Wiley Periodicals Inc., 233, 2000.
[26] Moghavvemi, Sedigheh & Sharabati, Manal & organizational commitment, communication climate
Sulaiman, Ainin & Klobas, Jane, “Effect of Trust and and CMC usage on knowledge sharing”, Journal of
Perceived Reciprocal Benefit on Students’ Knowledge Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-30, 2004.
Sharing via Facebook and Academic Performance”, [42] Vietnam General Statistic Office, 2018 Statistical
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. Year Book, Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi,
16, pp. 35-46, 2018. Vietnam, 2019.
[27] Musfikar, R., The best factors for influence [43] Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S., “Why should I
knowledge sharing among teachers through website share? Examining social capital and knowledge
technology, Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Informasi, contribution in electronic networks of practice”, MIS
Volume 1, No. 2, pp. 101-110, 2017. quarterly, 35-57, 2005.
[28] Nassuora, A. B., “Knowledge sharing in
institutions of higher learning”, American Academic &
Scholarly Research Journal, 1(1), 29-34, 2011.
[29] Nguyen, T., Nguyen, K., Do, T & Nguyen, T.,
“Knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior:
The case of Vietnam”, Uncertain Supply Chain
Management, 7(4), 619-634, 2019.
[30] Oosterlinck, A., “Knowledge management in
post-secondary education: universities”, OECD
working paper, available at:
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/21/2074921.pd, 2004.
[31] Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S., “Motivation,
knowledge transfer, and organizational forms”,
Management Review, 42(5)5, 71-80, 2000.
[32] Prusak, L., “The Knowledge Advantage”,
Planning Review, 24(2), pp.6–8, 1996.
[33] Staples, D. S., & Webster, J., “Exploring the
effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness
on knowledge sharing in teams”, Information Systems
Journal, 18(6), 617-640, 2008.
[34] Spender, J. -C., & Grant, R. M., “Knowledge and
the firm: Overview”, Strategic Management Journal,
17, 5−9, 1996.
[35] Rosenthal-Sabroux, C., & Grundstein, M., “A
global vision of information management”,
Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008, Modlseeus, Paris,
(pp. 55-66). Paris.
[36] Sunassee, N. N., and Sewry, D. A., “A theoretical
framework for knowledge management
implementation”, Proceedings of the 2002 annual
research conference of the South African institute of
computer scientists and information technologists on
Enablement through technology, 235-245, 2002.
[37] Saufi, M. and Tasmin, R., “Knowledge sharing
practice in organization”, Proceedings of International
Conference on Ethics and Professionalism 2010
(ICEP 2010), pp. 797-803, 2010.
[38] Thomas, T., “The process of knowledge transfer”,
Master thesis, Baltic Business School, Sweden, 2009.
[39] Tsui, L., A handbook on knowledge sharing:
Strategies and recommendations for researchers,
policymakers, and service providers. Retrieved from
http://www.cup.ualberta.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2011/
06/Knowledge_Sharing_Handbook.p, 2006.
[40] Turban, E., Expert systems and applied artificial
intelligence, New York: Macmillan, 1992.
[41] Van Den Hooff, B. & De Ridder, J.A.,
“Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of