Talk:Knowledge sharing

message: I have just added this page. Please help expanding this fascinating topic. Cyr S. (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has potential, but it could do with some greater diversity in the references as well as expansion of the topic, keeping a NPOV, and avoiding adverts or propoganda. Anyone willing to give it a first attempt? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I reject the proposed delation under the argument that the references seem over-general. Keep in mind that the article is still a stub within the business project. Although the treatment of the issues around knowledge sharing is relatively new in the literature, numerous articles and book have talked about it. It has been recognized as one of the biggest challenge in knowledge management. See Cabrera & Cabrera (2002)Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas, Bock et al. (2005) Behavioral Intention formation in Knowledge Sharing, Bock & Kim(2002) Breaking the myths of rewards:a exploratory study of attitudes about Knowledge Sharing, Bartol & Srivastava (2002) Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems, Constant, Kiesler, and Sproull (1994) What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing, and many more inportant publications. I am currently preparing on the side an expension plan for the article. Cyr S. (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are odds that the page gets so high rating because people assume a general meaning whereas this established term is occupied by some specific meaning (read by hassle below). I do not know which names do you propose but it is sad that business people do privatize everything, including simple meaningful words. The popular words are especially interesting. --Javalenok (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Deletion Discussion

message: Knowledge mobilization is basically about sharing, only in a more bombastic way. It adds nothing to the principles. Questions? Comments? Suggestions? -- Kku (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur -----Snowded TALK 12:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from Knowledge mobilization 

message: This have been no contributions on this for some time and we three people in favour and one who has just said 'disagree'.  So if there are no objections I will close this and redirect -----Snowded TALK 10:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing?

message: Aside: this is the first time I've contributed to a talk page in some time... so please let me know any Wikipedia and Wikipedian norms I have inadvertently contravened.
I have had several in-person discussions with the authors of a number of sources in the existing article, and from these conversations, there appears to be a fundamental part of the context for Knowledge Mobilization missing from the article at present. This context provides a clear basis for separating out Knowledge Mobilization from the more general knowledge sharing.  
In brief: In the natural sciences there are well-established and sophisticated institutions, funders and processes to take knowledge generated and move it from the lab into use - from research to market.  This is referred to as "Technology Transfer".  Most governments and most research institutions have capabilities to ensure the effective, efficient and profitable transfer of new knowledge from labs, through innovation and invention, to commercial products in the market.
However, as I understand it, until the concepts of Knowledge Mobilization was conceived, there was no clearly labelled analogous process for knowledge generated from the Social Sciences. 
To give some handy labels, I usually say that innovations driven from new knowledge from natural science research is 'what' innovation, whereas innovations driven from new knowledge from the social sciences is 'how' innovation.  
This gap in the capabilities to move new social science and humanities knowledge from research to practices is significant.  Why?  It is well understood (can provide citations) that there is far more scope for management innovation than technology innovation.  Fundamentally this is because the former is only limited by human culture and creativity, where-as the latter is subject to the 'hard' limits of physics, chemistry, biology and ecoology.
Plus, in practice, many / most 'what' innovations don't succeed in the market without corresponding 'how' innovations.  Consider how with many new products (what innovations) until new business models are created (how innovations) there isn't a commercially viable opportunity (again can provide citations). 
 
Consider a business school professor ho has conducted research whose results (the new knowledge) suggest a way for a manager to do something far more efficiently and effectively than was previously possible. Note this is not based on the application of technology, but some way of thinking or interacting with others.   Until the concept of Knowledge Mobilization, there hasn't even been a label to describe the steps required to bring new organizational knowledge to market as a 'management innovation'.  Hence it has been impossible any institutional or government support this process, nor indeed has there been a label for the processor to use to ask for help.    My personal observation is that the vast majority of management innovations have been brought to market through serendipitous occurrence. 
Examples:
(1) Consider the unlikely journey of the Total Quality Management innovations, many originated by Dr. Edwards Demming, from Japan back to the USA and hence globally.  Although governments did get involved at points on this journey there was certainly no institutional structure for Dr. Demming to leverage then or now.   
(2) Consider, more recently, Dr. Alex Osterwalder and his research that suggested a better way to design and test business models.    There was no institutional nor government support to bring this new knowledge to market.  The investment and risk were all born by Dr. Osterwalder.  And yet the efficiency and effectiveness benefits of the management innovation created based on his research has been significant for both entrepreneurs and established business leaders world-wide (and hence to enterprises and economies).   The management innovation created by Dr. Osterwalder is the Business Model Canvas - a visual tool for co-designing and testing business models. (can provide citations).  
So for all these reasons, while the current article could be improved to make the contrast to Technology Transfer clear, this article is describing something different from 'knowledge sharing'.  It is describing the nascent institutions, funders and processes to bring social science research to market.
The article does introduce the current state of these institutions, although I think this could be improved.  For example, the Canadian Federal Government funder of social science and humanities research (SSHRC), now requires that grant applications include a section called 'knowledge mobilization' to start to describe how the results of the research will be made useful - i.e. how will the tax-payer who is the ultimate funder of the research, benefit.
Aside: this is the first time I've contributed to a talk page in some time... so please let me know any Wikipedia and Wikipedian norms I have inadvertently contravened.
--Aupward (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary

message: -- Dear colleagues. I wish to suggest a major change in the content of this page. I am part of the KMGN- A foundation that unites Knowledge Management practitioners from 12 countries. One of our objectives is to help the public understand better what knowledge management is and how it can help them in life. One of the initiatives involved is to refine knowledge management related terms, so they are not addressed to experts rather to the public- written in a practical way, so that people 1) understand 2) know how to take it further to implementation. Each term is written by one member, audited and commented by another, then presented to a typical user (not a KMer) observing if indeed it is understood and gives him/her practical added value.
One of the main terms in this discipline is knowledge sharing. So, yes, there is a knowledge flow, and there is tacit and explicit knowledge, but these are probably, as we learned less important when we adrees the public (and WIKIPEDIA is for them- not for us the experts). We suggested some changes that can be viewed through the history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_sharing&diff=964039168&oldid=964026845). Please respond- so we can proceed serving this important objective Morialevy (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to get material pubished, wikipedia is not a place for original research or synthesis.  Sorry for three links but they contain key policies that you need to be familiar with -----Snowded TALK 10:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

text: You need to read up on policies on original research; the process you describe fails that test.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a text book or a 'how to do it' manual for a practice community. -----Snowded TALK 04:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Well you haven't read the guidence on signing comments or evidently the policy on not commenting on commentors but addressing the issues raised.  Your process is your process it cannot form a part of wikipedia policy -----Snowded TALK 10:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for change