Impact of Team Demography on Knowledge Sharing in Software Project Teams

Abstract

An organization, in order to be capable of creating new knowledge and to utilize existing knowledge, knowledge sharing across the organization and between individuals is essential. A recent study examined the impact of organizational, group and individual characteristics on the sharing of knowledge among individuals within software project teams. This paper extends that work to examine the impact of team demography on knowledge sharing within teams. It is well established in the literature that individual behavior in groups is influenced, among other things, by the team demography. This paper examines the impact of team demography on knowledge sharing within software project teams. The findings suggest that individuals who perceive themselves in a minority based on gender, marital status, and type of education are less likely to participate in knowledge sharing. Also, long organizational tenure has a negative impact on knowledge sharing. I. INTRODUCTION In recent times, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of organizations that have explicit strategies and programs to manage the knowledge they create and possess. There has also been a spurt in efforts to understand the process of knowledge creation, assimilation and dissemination in organizations. Despite the attention to knowledge management, there have been very few empirical studies attempting to understand knowledge management in organizations. This paper presents the results of an attempt to address this gap. Traditionally, the literature has focused on knowledge as something to be possessed or as a 'stock of expertise'. While in actual practice it is often difficult to isolate the role of existing knowledge on performance, there seems to be a relationship between stock of knowledge and performance that is similar to the relationship between assets and income (Starbuck, 1992). It can be asserted that the more knowledge an organization or team possesses, the better will be its performance. More recently, however, there has been a focus on the act of knowing rather than the possession of knowledge. Knowledge is not seen as something static but a dynamic entity that actively supports the acquisition of more knowledge and keeps the asset value of an organization's knowledge current (Cook & Brown, 1999). Inherent in this approach is the assumption that knowledge that is not used is depleted, and knowledge that is used increases in value because knowledge creation is a social activity involving constant interaction between existing knowledge and the context in which it is applied. This study has a focus on the knowing process, and particularly on knowledge sharing among members of a team. Software project teams provide an interesting context to study knowledge sharing within teams. Software development is an intensely cognitive activity, which produces an intangible output that has been described as a codified form of pure knowledge (Hoch et al, 2000). Software projects teams are formed because the nature of the activity is such that it is beyond the ability of an individual to perform all the necessary tasks required (Carmel, 1993; Curtis et al, 1988; Waltz et al, 1993). Team performances are significantly better if team members are able to draw on the knowledge of other members of the team (Raymond, 1999). As a result, team members spend a considerable amount of their project time interacting with others in the team (DeMarco & Lister, 1999). As suggested above, one of the advantages of having a software project team is the ability to draw on a larger and more diverse knowledge base. However, the existence of knowledge with members of the team does not ensure that it is utilized (Pfeffer &Sutton, 1999). In order for the stock of knowledge available to have an impact on actual work, knowledge sharing among team members is essential. Sharing of knowledge goes beyond simple two-way communication, particularly in the case of tacit knowledge. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 79 citations exist upstream.