Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage 1954 Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing among Undergraduate Students in a Public University in Malaysia Athirah Omar, Faculty of Information Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia, atie_iera87@yahoo.com Khairul Mizan Taib, Faculty of Information Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia, khairulmizan@salam.uitm.edu.my Siti Munira Yasin, Population Health and Preventive Medicine, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia, smunira@salam.uitm.edu.my Dang Merduwati Hashim, Faculty of Information Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia, dang@salam.uitm.edu.my Saiful Farik Mat Yatin, Faculty of Information Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia, farik@salam.uitm.edu.my Abstract Knowledge sharing is an important component of knowledge management practice that could lead to improvement in organization performance. Thus, knowledge sharing should be instilled during college years, prior to joining the workforce. However, there is limited understanding on the knowledge sharing behavior among tertiary level students. This research attempts to investigate the factors affecting knowledge sharing among undergraduate students in a public university in Malaysia. A questionnaire pertaining to knowledge sharing behavior, personal attitudes and technological factors was administered to 313 students. All respondents scored above average in both personal and technological factors. Knowledge sharing was found to be significantly related to all components under study i.e. self efficacy, trust, technological availability, and perceived usefulness of technology. Personal attitudes and technological factors may act as determinants of knowledge sharing among university students in University of Technology Mara (UiTM), Shah Alam, Malaysia. Keywords: higher learning institutions, knowledge sharing behavior, students, Malaysia Introduction Rapid advancement in information technology has revolutionized the business organizations by introducing new methods of learning and sharing knowledge. Knowledge has become an important asset for business organizations in creating and sustaining competitive advantage. It is also widely recognized to be a critical component for any individual or organization to succeed in an increasingly demanding competitive environment (Alavi & Leidner, 1999; Hooff, Elving, Meeuwsen, & Dumoulin, 2003; SyedIhksan & Rowland, 2004; Yang, 2007). Knowledge sharing can be regarded as one of the key enablers in knowledge management practice. Knowledge sharing is the dissemination of information from an individual who shared his or her acquired knowledge to other members of an organization (Ryu, 2003). In this respect, knowledge sharing can be visualized as a transferrable object from the mind of individual who possess it to those who required it. By employing such process, the employees within an organization can systematically organize, share and exchange their knowledge and opinions among themselves. Furthermore, it becomes an essential tool to enhance communication and relationship with 1955 Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage other employees outside their organization. In addition, increase in knowledge sharing has been shown to have a good impact on organization performance (Hooff, et al., 2003). Besides business organization, knowledge sharing is also a natural process occurring in any academic institutions. It has played a vital role in the transfer of essential knowledge among lecturers and students in the lecture theatres, workshops and tutorials. In addition to attaining new knowledge, it may also assist students in gaining deeper understanding of certain topics which were difficult for them to understand from their colleagues. Thus, it was found that knowledge sharing had benefited participants both in terms of learning outcomes and cognitive performance (Rafaeli & Ravid, 2003). Unfortunately, students do not share such knowledge under all circumstances. In many situations, students tend to withhold information and reluctant to share them among their peers. This unwillingness was found stronger when knowledge itself is considered as a possession (Senge, 1997). While knowledge sharing has been gaining increasing attention in the organizational context (Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003; B. M. Han & V.S. Anantatmula, 2007; Reige, 2005), very few literature focused on students (Sivaporn, 2009), who perceived to be the future backbone of those organizations. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to examine personal attitudes and technological factors that may affect knowledge sharing behavior among students in higher learning institutions. The next section discusses the relevant literatures in relation to knowledge sharing. This literature section is subsequently followed by the theoretical framework employed, study hypotheses, methodology, analysis of results and conclusions. Literature Review Knowledge Sharing Knowledge sharing has been defined in various ways by researchers. It was characterized that knowledge sharing is the “behavior of an individual diffusing his or her obtained knowledge and information to other colleagues within an organization” (Ryu, Ho & Han, 2003). It is also defined by (Usoro, Sharratt, Tsui, & Shekhar (2007) as a process of communication between two or more individuals involving in the procurement and requisition of knowledge. Similarly, knowledge sharing can in turn be portrayed as a voluntary and social process which can transfer, absorb and reuse existing knowledge (Harder, 2008). In addition, it was cited that “knowledge sharing primarily involves the mutual exchange of knowledge among individuals, which covers both the receiver and the sender (Hooff, et al., 2003). Knowledge Sharing in Higher Learning Institutions Higher learning institution is no different to any other organizations. It operates in a dynamic environment, thus requires prompt response in a rapidly changing environment to survive (Biloslavo & Prevodnic, 2010). Knowledge in these institutions is divided into two forms; scholarly and operational. Scholarly knowledge can be expressed through teaching, research documentation, conferences and publications. On the other hand, operational knowledge is obtained via employees who provided services and support functions (Geng, Townley, Huang, & Zhang, 2005). Channels for knowledge sharing are important, as it plays a role in improving knowledge sharing behavior. These channels include face-to-face meeting, online chat (i.e. ICQ, MSN Messenger, etc), social networking (Facebook, Twitter, etc), email, telephone, and online message board. Other channels include conference call, video conferencing and virtual collaboration (net meeting), discussion forum and community workspace. Moreover, knowledge sharing can occur in different study-related situations in academic institutions. Yuen & Majid (2007) classified this into four (4) circumstances; during 1) tutorials/ labs 2) individual assignments; 3) intra group discussions and; 4) intergroup discussions assignment within a group. Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage 1956 Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Most studies conducted in colleges and organizations found that personal attitudes and technological factors act as determinants that has shown to affect knowledge sharing behavior (Cheng, Ho, & Lau, 2009; Ismail & Yusof, 2010; Ju, Sun, Chao, & Wu, 2009; Lin, Hung, & Chen, 2009; Ling, San, & Hock, 2009; Sivaporn, 2009). Personal attitude reflects an individual’s like or dislike towards something and their way of thinking. On the other hand, technological factor is being referred to as a tool to ensure greater collaboration between individuals. Another study found that factors such as student’s ability to share and the degree of competitiveness among the classmates as additional factors that would influence knowledge sharing (Sivaporn, 2009). In addition, it was also cited that knowledge sharing could be inhibited by poor relationship among the peers (Yuen & Majid, 2007). Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses This study investigated whether factors such as personal attitudes and technological factors is related to knowledge sharing behavior. Figure 1 depicts our study framework: Self-efficacy (SE) Jashapara and Tai (2006) defined self-efficacy as beliefs in one’s capabilities in order to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce its given attainments. On the other hand, Constant et al. (1996) stated that people with high level of expertise, skills and capabilities are more likely to provide more benefits on computer networks (Constant, Sproull, & Kiesler, 1996). Furthermore, Bock and Kim (2002) agreed to the statement where self-efficacy can motivate employees to contribute their knowledge to others. From their findings, it was revealed that individual’s judgment of his contribution to organization performance has positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior. Ba (2001) suggested that self-efficacy will ensure members of virtual communities are connected by a common interest (Sulin, Stallaert, & Whinston, 2001). In addition, in another research, self-efficacy is known as one of the most important determinants of individual performance (Heslin & Klehe, 2006). In the context of knowledge sharing, self-efficacy has also been shown to form positive attitude (Yuen & Majid, 2007). From the above literatures, the first hypothesis was formulated as: Hypothesis 1: Self-efficacy is significantly related to knowledge sharing behavior 1957 Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage Trust (T) Ching-Lin (2003) cited that trust will influence attitude towards knowledge sharing. Lin, Hung and Chen (2009) also found that trust could influence the ability of an individual to perform knowledge sharing (Lin, et al., 2009). Similarly, trust will be a key element of success in an on-line environment (Corritore, Kracher, & Wiedenbeck, 2003). For example, online virtual communities commonly rely on the technology to communicate with other members. In these circumstances, the element of trust is very important to enable the virtual communities to discuss and exchange knowledge. Chowdhury (2005) also demonstrated that the presence of trust will facilitate complex knowledge sharing. Therefore, the second hypothesis developed for this study was: Hypothesis 2: Trust is significantly related to knowledge sharing behavior Technology Availability (TA) Technology availability is referring to a situation where the technology could be accessible for communication and knowledge exchange. Technology is crucial for the purpose of connectivity since it enables long distance collaboration. Riege stated that technology can act as facilitator to promote and support knowledge sharing by making knowledge sharing easier and more effective (Reige, 2005). The availability and usability of the technology have influences on knowledge sharing activity (Han & Anantatmula, 2007). For example, it was stated that the presence of incentive system promotes higher level of motivation among the employees to share their knowledge (Fathi, Eze, & Goh, 2011). Information and communication technology (ICT) has many functions. Tsui (2005) revealed that by having ICT facilities, it can do more than just storing and retrieving data. It may function as a source of information and tools for communication. A study also showed that by improving access to those technologies, it may easily enhance knowledge sharing among workers (Han & Anantatmula, 2007). Thus, the following hypothesis would be: Hypothesis 3: Technology availability is significantly related to knowledge sharing behavior Perceived Usefulness of Technology (PU) Perceived usefulness of technology is also another factor being studied. According to Davis (1989) in technology acceptance model (TAM), perceived usefulness is defined as “the degree of belief a person has in using a particular system that could enhance his/her job performance”. In addition, perceived usefulness affect a person’s attitude which may assist in determining behavioral intentions and hence, would indirectly lead to the actual technology usage (Davis, 1989). Thus, it can be hypothesized that the usefulness of technology is to be considered an important factor in promoting knowledge sharing. Moreover, it was agreed that ICT together with its ability to spread and distribute knowledge within an organization may improve better understanding of a complex organizational environment(Chowdhury, 2005). We postulate that this concept may also take place in academic institutions. Hence, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 4: Perceived usefulness of technology is significantly related to knowledge sharing behavior Methods This is a cross sectional study among college students in Puncak Perdana campus in University Technology Mara (UiTM), Shah Alam. It was conducted for a period of three months, between the months of January to March 2011. Sampling frame consisted of 1684 students from four undergraduate programmes, namely BSc. Library and Information Management, BSc. Information Systems Management, BSc Records Managements and BSc, Resource Centre Management. Simple random Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage 1958 sampling was employed to ensure representativeness of the student population, which resulted in a final sample of 313. Measures A survey questionnaire was administered consisting of four sections; demographic information (Part A), knowledge sharing behavior (Part B), personal attitudes (Part C) and technological factors (Part D). Items were phrased according to a 5-point Likert scales (ranging from 1 for Strongly Disagree to 5 for Strongly Agree). The questionnaires were adapted from previous studies (Cheng, et al., 2009; Yuen & Majid, 2007). Back to back translation was performed from English to Bahasa Malaysia by two language experts. In order to ensure its consistency and the language appropriateness, both pre-testing and pilot testing were performed, and the questionnaire was validated by Cronbach’s alpha. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 16.0. P value of 0.05 was taken as the level of statistical significance. Main statistical analysis performed was Pearson’s Correlation Test. It was performed to test the relationship between Knowledge Sharing Behaviour (KB) and the four independent variables: Self efficacy (SE), Trust (T), Technology Availability (TA) and Perceived Usefulness of Technology (PU). Results were displayed by frequency, percentages, mean, standard deviation and variance. Results A reliability test was performed for each variable of this study. The result of this test is presented in Table 1. Cronbanch’s alpha was acceptable according to international standards, ranging from 0.70 to 0.8 Profiles of Respondents Table 2 depicts the profiles of respondents. The majority were female students (82.7%) from various semesters. Most students were in semester 4, with the least number in Semester 3. In terms of program of study, the majority of the respondents were pursuing BSc. Library and Information Management (40.6%), followed by BSc. Information Systems Management (26.5%) and BSc. Resource Centre Management (22.7%). 1959 Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables Table 3 presents a descriptive profile of the research variables. As shown, the mean score of knowledge sharing behavior is above 4 and this indicated that students were actively sharing their knowledge among themselves. All mean scores of the four variables were above the mid-value of 3, hence suggesting that all four factors were average to high among the respondents. Among the four, technology availability scored the highest in mean value, implying that this was the most influential factor among respondents. In contrast, trust scored the lowest of all. Relationship among Research Variables Table 4 depicts the outcome results of knowledge sharing behavior in relation to personal attitudes and technological factors. As shown, the value of Pearson for all the independent variables varied from r=0.332 to r=0.579. The highest correlation value was noted between self-efficacy and knowledge sharing Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage 1960 behavior, whereas the lowest correlation value was between trust and knowledge sharing behavior. Therefore, in general, we can conclude that the variables used in this study have a significantly positive strong to medium correlation. Discussion Baseline Results The objective of this study was to identify factors that may influence knowledge sharing among university students. Four different variables were tested (Self efficacy, trust, technological availability, and perceived usefulness of technology) against Knowledge Sharing Behaviour. Overall, we found that knowledge sharing is actively taking place in this academic institution. This is evidenced by scoring above average in all factors under study. We suggest that the reasons behind this could be related to the increasing number of group assignments and group work discussions taking place in university settings. This may enable the students to familiarize themselves with the concept of knowledge sharing. Personal attitude is termed as an individual’s belief in their intention to perform a behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Personal attitude which consisted of both self efficacy and trust was shown to have more than average mean values in our results. As mentioned in the earlier chapter, self-efficacy is referred as beliefs in one’s potential to manage and perform the courses of action required to produce given attainments (Jashapara & Tai, 2006). It was reported in the present study, that the majority of students believed that knowledge sharing will benefit them, throughout the learning process. Our finding was supported by Lin, et al., (2009) who revealed that a person who performs knowledge sharing is someone that has a good capability of achieving their personal objectives and is likely to express their willingness in sharing knowledge. Our finding on trust was very much similar to those of self-efficacy. Trust was noted to be high due to the fact that probably most students had known each other for at least a year. This is because the majority was in the second semester onwards. We hypothesized that time factor may act as a role in building trust in any relationships. Nevertheless, based on our results in the questionnaire, it was interesting to note that the majority of respondents were not willing to share their personal matters. Hence, we can presume that trust in knowledge sharing, is not similar to personal trust among family members or close friends, but more of those related to the trust in knowledge transfer. As for an example, a student who has been working together in a group discussion trusted their friends of the same group, as compared to those of other group members. This trust also builds on and strengthens by time. 1961 Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage There are two aspects of technological factors under study i.e. technology availability and perceived usefulness of such technology. From the findings, technology availability can be referred as the accessibility of technology in sharing knowledge. As expected, the findings revealed that technology availability had the highest mean, when compared to the others. This is because, in a higher learning institution, the availability of knowledge based resources becomes an essential part of learning. It could come in the form of formal (online databases and e-books) or informal resources (email, blog, facebook). Other than that, it enabled students to effectively share knowledge among each other; it allows students to exchange ideas among their distant colleagues from other universities. Perceived usefulness of technology is another aspect of technological factors. It was termed as the degree to which one perceived that by utilizing certain system, it would enhance his or her job performance (Davis, 1989). Our results showed that most of the respondents had agreed that they will utilize the technology available to share knowledge. The majority assumed that technology had played a vital role in communication and in exchanging knowledge among close and distant friends. They also find that it is a very useful mean of obtaining new knowledge. The Relationship between Personal Attitudes and Technological Factors towards Knowledge Sharing Behavior The present study found that self efficacy has the highest significant correlation to knowledge sharing behaviour, in consistent with previous studies in organizational context. Therefore, it is proven that self efficacy is as important in academic institutions. The study suggest that students with high self efficacy have higher confidence in sharing their knowledge and may probably value their knowledge greater than those who do not. Students who has low self efficacy, tend to withhold knowledge in fear of being perceived by their peers as a lack of intelligence. On the other hand, other study had stated that one of the reasons that students do not share knowledge could also be attributed to the competition to outperform each other (Yuen & Majid, 2007). Furthermore, trust was also found to be correlated with knowledge sharing behaviour. Our result supported the hypothesis that students’ trust in their colleague will enhance their ability in sharing knowledge. From the findings it is assumed that, most students have been used to studying in groups for at least a year, as the majority were in their second semester onwards. This therefore, may enhance their willingness to share knowledge. However, trust has the least correlation to knowledge sharing behaviour compared to the other factors in this study. In relation to technological factors, results revealed that it is significantly correlated to knowledge sharing. The majority of the respondents claimed that they can access information whenever needed. We suggest that advancement in ICT has allowed a more efficient means of knowledge transfer. This is due to the fact that technology enabled people from faraway distance to communicate and share knowledge with a minimal price. As for example, email, blog, facebook is increasingly being used as one of the major forms of communication and dissemination of information. This occurs not only in schools, at home, public and private organizations, but is also increasingly being seen among the top government officials. Moreover, people are more inclined to seek information and knowledge from the internet via information repository system and subscribed online databases, rather than the conventional printed resources and physical books. Lastly, in terms of technological factors, the results have also shown that technology usefulness has a moderate correlation with knowledge sharing behavior. Students perceived that technology was used in all aspects of their daily lives. As in all higher learning institutions, it is being practiced worldwide nowadays that, students no longer are confined to the library to strengthen their understanding in what was being taught in lectures and in completing their assignments. They prefer to seek information from the internet, as it can readily be available anywhere. Therefore, it is to no surprise if the conventional Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage 1962 printed resources, e.g. books, journals, will soon be replaced by full electronic version, as to obtain those information requires extra time and effort from the students. Recommendations for Future Research We would like to make a few recommendations based on the results to improve knowledge sharing among students. Firstly, students should be willing to share their knowledge with other colleagues as a mean of attaining greater understanding on certain subject as well as assisting them in learning more effectively and efficiently. Besides that, academic institutions should play a role in encouraging students to build cordial relationship among their peers. This will serve as a medium to establish trust among each other in sharing information. Moreover, we propose that teaching staff should encourage students to develop a two ways communication in class, where students are allowed to discuss and share their opinions openly. By practicing this, students may develop their personal confidence in sharing knowledge. As from the technology perspective, it is suggested that the existing technology should be improved in order to assist students in achieving their specific goals. Limitation of Study There are several limitations of this study. Firstly, this study was only focused on undergraduate students from one faculty in UiTM. Therefore, it may not be generalised to other faculties within the University. Secondly, we did not relate the students’ knowledge sharing to academic performance, which may be of interest to be looked into in future studies. Moreover, by utilizing a single method, i.e. quantitative, we may not be able to assess and understand student’s intention of knowledge sharing in depth, as most behavioral studies consisted of mixed method approach. Lastly, it is the nature of a cross sectional survey study which limits our analysis. It would be of much benefit if we can perform a prospective study in assessing the changes in students’ knowledge sharing behavior as they progress in the subsequent years of their studies. Conclusion As a conclusion, technology and personal attitude play a vital role in increasing student’s willingness and ability to share knowledge. Positive attitude towards knowledge sharing will be useful for their future employing organizations, and thus should be instilled prior to entering the workforce. Given the advantages of knowledge sharing, it is thus desirable that academic institutions should consider changing their approaches in teaching. They are advised to put extra emphasis on encouraging collaborative teaching and learning. Furthermore, top management of universities should also keep up to date with the evolving information technology and make it more accessible to students. References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. NJ: Prentice Hall. Inc. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits. Communications of Association of Information Systems, 1(7), 1-37. Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge-sharing Communities of Practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64-77. Ba, S. (2001). Establishing Online Trust Through a Community Responsibility System. Decision Support Systems, 31 (4), 323-336 1963 Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage Biloslavo, R. & Prevodnic, M. (2010). Impact of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management in Higher Education D. Harorimana (Ed.) Cultural Implications of Knowledge Sharing, Management, and Transfer: Identifying Competitive Advantage (pp. 152-179). 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. Cheng, M. Y., Ho, J. S. Y., & Lau, P. M. (2009). Knowledge Sharing in Academic Institutions: a Study of Multimedia University Malaysia. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 313324. Ching-Lin, T. (2003). A Dynamic View of Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Collaborative Virtual Team, in Program for Promoting University Academic Excellence Annual Prospectus Report for Year 2003 An Integrated Study on Knowledge Economy and Electronic Commerce: National Sun Yatsen University & National Central University. Guangzhou. Chowdhury, S. (2005). The Role of Affect and Cognition-Based Trust in Complex Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(3), 310-326. Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135. Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-Line Trust: Concepts, Evolving Themes, a Model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 58(6), 737-758. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339. Fathi, N. M., Eze, U. C., & Goh, G. G. G. (2011). Key Determinants of Knowledge Sharing In an Electronics Manufacturing Firm in Malaysia. Library Review, 60(1), 53-67. Geng, Q., Townley, C., Huang, K., & Zhang, J. (2005). Comparative Knowldege Management: A Pilot Study of Chinese and American Universities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1031-1044. Han, B. M., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2007). Knowledge Sharing in Large IT Organizations: A case Study. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 37(4), 421-439. Harder, M. (2008). How Do Rewards and Management Styles Influence the Motivation to Share Knowledge? SMG Working Paper No. 6/2008. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.dk/content/download/77749/1040461/file/SMGWP2008_6.pdf Heslin, P. A., & Klehe, U. C. (2006). Self-Efficacy. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (pp. 705-708): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hooff, V. D., Elving, W., Meeuwsen, M., & Dumoulin, C. (2003). Knowledge sharing in knowledge communities. Communities and Technologies, 119-141. Ismail, M. B., & Yusof, Z. M. (2010). The Impact of Individual Factors on Knowledge Sharing Quality. IBIMA Publishing: Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, 1-12. Innovation and Knowledge Management: A Global Competitive Advantage 1964 Jashapara, A., & Tai, W. C. (2006). Understanding the Complexity of Human Characteristics on ELearning Systems: An Integrated Study of Dynamic Individual Differences on User Perceptions of Ease of Use. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4, 227-239. Ju, T. L., Sun, S. Y., Chao, P. J., & Wu, C. Y. (2009). Knowledge Sharing Behavior in E-Communities: From the Perspective of Transaction Cost Theory. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 53, 150-155. Lin, M. J., Hung, S. W., & Chen, C. (2009). Fostering the Determinants of Knowledge Sharing In Professional Virtual Communities. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 929-939. Ling, T. N., San, L. Y., & Hock, N. T. (2009). Trust: Facilitator of Knowledge Sharing Culture. Paper presented at the Communications of the IBIMA. Rafaeli, S., & Ravid, G. (2003). Information Sharing As Enabler for the Virtual Team: An Experimental Approach to Assessing the Role of Electronic Mail in Disintermediation. Information Systems Journal, 13(3), 18-35. Reige, A. (2005). Three-Dozen Knowledge-Sharing Barriers Managers Must Consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35. Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). (2003). Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Physicians in Hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113-122. Senge, P. (1997). Sharing knowledge. Executive excellence, 14(11), 17-19. Sivaporn, W. (2009). Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Among University Students. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th. International Conference on Computers in Education, Hong Koong. Sulin, B., J. Stallaert, & A. B. Whinston. (2001). Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design: The Case for Incentive Alignment’. Information Systems Research 12(3), 225-239. Syed-Ihksan, & Rowland, F. (2004). Benchmarking Knowledge Management in a Public Organization in Malaysia. Benchmarking, Bradford, 11(3), 238-266. Tsui, E. (2005). The Role of IT in KM: Where Are We Now and where are We Heading? Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 3-6. Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an Antecedent to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5, 199-212. Yang, J. (2007). The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Organizational Learning and Effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 83-90. Yuen, T. J., & Majid, M. S. (2007). Knowledge Sharing Patterns of Undergraduate Students of Singapore. Library Review, 56(6), 485-494.