An investigation of knowledge management practices within

Abstract

Knowledge Management is gaining immense popularity in recent years. While a

significant amount of research covers knowledge and Knowledge Management no

specific research has been carried out on how knowledge should be managed within

the Campus Incubation sector in Ireland. The current research aims to fill this

research gap by exploring the Knowledge Management practices taking place within

the ArcLabs Research and Innovation Centre at Waterford Institute of Technology.

This study is important because the capability of organisations likes ArcLabs to create

knowledge, to innovate and to exploit new knowledge on a local and global scale is

vital to Ireland’s future and to making the transition towards delivering ‘the smart

economy’. It is hoped that the research will have implications for, and inform the

future optimum transfer of tacit knowledge within this organisation and for other

Campus Incubation Centres.

A qualitative approach was employed and semi-structured interviews were conducted

with nine stakeholders from the centre. These interviews formed the basis to research

how tacit and explicit knowledge is currently being transferred within the centre and

how the ArcLabs management team are guiding the generation and transfer of

knowledge. Among the challenges identified are that there are many barriers

associated with the transfer of tacit knowledge.

Motivation was identified as a training priority for entrepreneurs. There is support to

host a formal event such as a poster session as a mechanism to bring all the entities

within the centre together to facilitate knowledge sharing. Going forward it is

necessary to implement a portal, which enables enterprises to identify appropriate

research expertise within the college. All in all, knowledge sharing is taking place

within ArcLabs but it mainly happens on an informal basis.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.0 Introduction

This chapter provides the reader with a background to and a justification for this

research study. It illustrates the overall aim of the research and outlines the research

objectives and question. It also portrays the research methodology incorporated by

the researcher in investigating current Knowledge Management (KM) practices at

Waterford Institute of Technology’s (WIT’s) ArcLabs Research and Innovation

Centre, which is a campus incubator within the Irish Higher Education sector. In

addition, it provides an overview of the dissertation structure and subsequently

Appendix A provides the researcher’s reflection on the dissertation journey.

1.1 Rationale for the Study

KM is vital for the creation of a sustainable, indigenous economy and can

significantly affect economic growth, innovation, job creation, prosperity and national

competitiveness (Pan and Scarborough, 1999; de Sousa, 2006; Mohamed et al., 2009

p. 271). There is a huge commitment by the Irish Government to deliver ‘The Smart

Economy’ through their major substantial investment set out in the National

Development Plan (NDP) 2007-2013 and the Strategy for Science, Technology &

Innovation (SSTI) 2006-2013, to make the transition to a knowledge-economy

(Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment’s Science, Technology and

Innovation, 2009). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) (2008), Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are required to

transform their activities if they are to play their full part in stimulating economic

growth and competitiveness in the modern knowledge economy. Moreover,

according to Forfás (2009), knowledge transfer and commercialisation is a core

element of the Higher Education (HE) sector. Therefore, institutions must adopt a

culture that supports knowledge transfer and commercialisation and they subsequently

must be embedded within these organisations.


The SSTI launched in 2006, which represents one of the key pillars of the NDP,

strives towards the following vision: “Ireland in 2013 will be internationally

renowned for the excellence of its research and at the forefront in generating and

using new knowledge for economic and social progress, within an innovation driven

culture” (Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment, 2006). This topic is of

the interest to the researcher because there is a lack of comprehensive research

regarding the management of knowledge with these institutions. Subsequently, the

researcher is interested in the area of KM and has recently been appointed as Project

Co-ordinator for the SLNIW project. Furthermore, the researcher is interested in

carrying out this study because greater emphasis needs to be put on mechanisms that

support knowledge transfer within institutions like the ArcLabs Research and

Innovation Centre.

1.2 Research Aim and Objectives

The primary research aim is to investigate KM practices within the ArcLabs Research

and Innovation Centre at WIT (see Appendix B for research context of ArcLabs

Centre). In order to achieve this, a number of research objectives were devised as the

focus of the study:

How does explicit knowledge get transferred within the ArcLabs

Research and Innovation Centre at WIT?

How does tacit knowledge get transferred within the ArcLabs Research

and Innovation Centre at WIT?

How are the centre’s management team facilitating and enhancing

knowledge generation and sharing within the centre?

1.3 Research Methodology and Limitations

The primary research methodology used in this study is of a qualitative nature. The

research used exploratory research as a method to gather a greater knowledge,

understanding and insight into new phenomena (Churchill, 1999).


Of the two data collection methods the phenomenological method was deemed more

appropriate than the positivist approach. The researcher felt that a qualitative

approach would provide more meaningful data as opposed to a quantitative approach.

The researcher undertook nine semi-structured interviews with representatives from

each entity within ArcLabs and with the Head of Research to provide an overarching

perspective. The justification for this research methodology will be explained in

chapter 4. The limitations of the study have also been listed and explanations

provided as to how the researcher sought to overcome these difficulties. The

weaknesses associated with qualitative research have been provided as well as the

time constraints to complete the research. An explanation is provided as to how the

researcher sought to minimise these limitations to ensure research validity.

1.4 Chapter Outline

Chapter 2 and 3 comprise of the literature review. Chapter 2 presents a thorough

account of the most recent research on KM, the different types of knowledge and the

issues associated with tacit knowledge transfer. Chapter 3 presents the literature

relating to Science Parks and Business Incubators in terms of their evolution and the

role of these organisations within the context of knowledge creation.

Chapter 4 details the methodology chapter and the research approach. A rationale

for the choice of approach is presented. The methods used to collect the data are

examined and their relevance discussed. Reliability and validity concerns are

addressed while ethical issues are also considered along with presentation of the data

analysis methods that were applied to the findings.

Chapter 5 presents the research findings. They are presented in relation to the main

issues addressed in the research:

The Transfer of Explicit Knowledge

The Transfer of Tacit Knowledge

Facilitating Knowledge Generation and Sharing within the Centre


Chapter 6 discusses the research findings in relation to the major issues and how this

compares and contrasts with extant literature.

Chapter 7 explains the conclusions drawn and makes recommendations for the key

stakeholders. Suggestions for further research are also presented.

Chapter 2 & 3 Literature Review

Chapter 2 & 3 - Literature Review


Chapter 2 - Literature Review, Part 1

Knowledge Management

2.0 Introduction

This chapter defines knowledge and Knowledge Management (KM) and provides an

overview of KM in relation to the two types of knowledge which are tacit and explicit

knowledge. This research explores how tacit or embedded knowledge is converted to

explicit knowledge and the main issues associated with the Knowledge Transfer

Process (KTP). Chapter 2 examines the key challenges associated with tacit

knowledge management and identifies the barriers and success factors regarding tacit

knowledge transfer. It recognises the importance of formal and informal networks as

mechanisms to enhancing knowledge sharing. The chapter concludes with a summary

of the salient points of this chapter, which give rise to the need for the current

research and development of the research question and objectives.

2.1 Defining Knowledge and Knowledge Management

Presently, we live in a knowledge economy where the ability to capture and transfer

knowledge effectively is considered the most influential force in the shaping and

functioning of organisations. According to Davenport and Prusak (2000 p. 5)

knowledge can be defined as a:

fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and

expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and

incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is

applied in the minds of knowers. In organisations it often becomes

embedded not only in documents and repositories but also in

organisational routines, processes, practices and norms.

Numerous studies offer convergent evidence that knowledge is well renowned as an

essential antecedent for innovation, the key to economic growth and a competitive

advantage (Lloyd 1996; Marshall et al., 1996; Darroch and McNaughton, 2002;

Radzeviciene, 2008).


In support of this, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA,

1999 and the OECD, 1996) assert that the approach in which knowledge is generated,

disseminated, harnessed and managed will be the differentiating factor amongst the

strongest economies. The researcher asserts that the idea of KM has experienced

immense popularity and is being embedded in strategic processes of governments,

organisations and educational institutions worldwide. The literature provides various

definitions of KM but Scarbrough et al., (1999) describes it as an ongoing process

towards generating, capturing, acquiring, sharing and using knowledge to foster

learning and improve performance within the organisation. The following research

will concentrate on the role of Information Technology (IT) in KM as it is most

appropriate for this research for the reason that information technology is good at

transforming and distributing knowledge.

Davenport (1998 p.5) stated that “effective management of knowledge requires hybrid

solutions of people and technology” and subsequently human beings are the

recommended medium in fully understanding knowledge, correctly interpreting and

combining it with other types of knowledge. One of the critical success factors for

implementing KM is IT as its capacity has changed from just being an archive of

information to connecting humans to information and connecting humans to each

other (Wong, 2005). Furthermore, IT can facilitate easy and fast retrieval of

information and support sharing of knowledge amongst members of the organisation.

However, Wong and Aspinwall (2003) maintain that IT is only a tool and not a

definitive answer to KM. Consequently, when implementing a KM system it is

important to consider factors such as simplicity of the technology, user-friendliness,

meet users’ requirements and most importantly have relevant information (Wong,

2005). Senge (1990) stated that the failure of many IT based Knowledge

Management System (KMS) have promoted researchers to focus on the ‘softer

approach’ to KM whereby individuals are encouraged to learn from one another

through direct communication and face-to-face interaction. At present, this softer

approach remains fuzzy and is the focus of much research at present.


Subsequently, KM is bounded by confusion and limited understanding of its purpose

and it has restricted organisations from applying purposeful KM practices (Raub and

Von Wittick, 2004). In order to begin to understand KM it is necessary to understand

the different types of knowledge.

2.1.1 Types of Knowledge

Essentially, there are two types of knowledge, explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge

is codified and easily transferable (Clarke and Rollo, 2001; Tamer Cavusgil et al.,

2003). It can be easily written down and learned (Nonaka, 1994). Explicit

knowledge can be stored in manuals, paperwork and information systems, whereas

tacit knowledge is mainly stored in individuals’ heads (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000).

According to Choo (2000), explicit knowledge can be captured in products, code,

databases and prototypes copyrights, trademarks and patents (Meso and Smith, 2000).

In contrast to explicit knowledge, humans are the main repositories of tacit

knowledge.

Tacit knowledge is acquired by users through experience, inner thought, talent and

know-how (Scott, 2000). Hence, it cannot be taught in the same way as explicit

knowledge (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000) and is difficult to interpret and transfer (Tamer

Cavusgil et al., 2003). Equally, Polanyi (1962) describes tacit knowledge as “non-

verbalisble, intuitive and unarticulated…” making it difficult to communicate.

Nonaka (1994) concurs in describing tacit knowledge as being extremely personal and

difficult to recognise, therefore, making it difficult to communicate. Polanyi (1962)

deems that tacit knowledge is “highly individual and achievable and can only be

transferred through personal experience.” In order for organisations to facilitate the

transfer of knowledge, it is necessary to understand the difficulties associated with the

knowledge transfer process (KTP) and how these issues can be overcome.

2.1.2 Knowledge Transfer Process (KTP)

There are two parties involved in the KTP: the knowledge contributor and the

knowledge user (Jasimuddin, 2007). According to Joshi et al., (2005) situational and

relational factors are necessary for the knowledge transfer process.


Moreover, the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge is crucial in

strengthening an organisation’s knowledge network and maintains that the use of

“convincing narratives” are the best way to accomplish the conversion (Herschel et

al., 2001). These authors’ emphasise the importance for the parties involved to give

each other rich descriptions and then recall the knowledge discussed between them, in

order to achieve tacit knowledge transfer efficiency. Converting tacit to explicit

knowledge is difficult because knowledge is “sticky” and does not travel very far

(Polanyi, 1962). This conversion can be time consuming because tacit knowledge is

difficult to express, understand, interpret and transfer from one party to another

(Tamer Cavusgil et al., 2003). The complexity of expressing tacit knowledge makes

it difficult to disseminate. According to Szulanski (2003) cited by Seidler-de Alwis

and Hartmann (2008), outlines three problems associated with the stickiness of tacit

knowledge, namely: (1) the ambiguous nature of tacit knowledge, (2) the lack of the

receivers’ ability to absorb the tacit knowledge, and (3) the difficulties in the

relationships between the receiver and sender. For the purpose of this research, it is

important to comprehend how tacit knowledge can be managed through identifying

the barriers associated with this type of knowledge and outlining the success factors

required to facilitate its transfer.

2.2 Tacit Knowledge Management

In recent times, there has been substantial interest in the management of tacit

knowledge but the area is still relatively unknown and not fully understood in

comparison to the studies on explicit knowledge. Leseure and Brookes (2004 p. 106)

outline how the existence of a “knowledge experts” can be beneficial in the creation

and dissemination of tacit knowledge within the organisation. However, these authors

outline that these gatekeepers can generate challenges in relation to KM as it can lead

to “knowledge laziness” on behalf of the rest of the organisation as they see no reason

to acquire such knowledge with the existence of a knowledge expert on site.

Subsequently, if the knowledge expert retires and if their knowledge is not captured

before their departure; this can lead to severe consequences from an organisational

perspective (Leseure and Brookes, 2004 p. 106).


It is inevitable that tacit knowledge is essential to key organisational tasks such as

creating new knowledge, new product development, and enhancing business

procedures, which are foremost for innovation. Therefore, every organisation that

strives to be successful must establish an environment, which enables every person

within the organisation to verbalise their tacit knowledge (Seidler-de Alwis and

Hartmann, 2008 p. 135). Subsequently, it is important to make the majority of the

organisation’s knowledge explicit and to make the organisation secure from staff

leaving with their know-how and knowledge (Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, 2008

p. 141). For the purpose of this research it is important to consider the barriers

associated with tacit knowledge in terms of identifying how they can be reduced or

alleviated.

2.2.1 Barriers Associated with Tacit Knowledge Transfer

The literature highlights that many organisations face difficulties concerning the

successful diffusion of tacit knowledge. As previously mentioned by Seidler-de

Alwis and Hartmann (2008), the ambiguous nature of tacit knowledge can make it

difficult to transfer. Therefore, the likelihood of absorptive capacity occurring is

unlikely due to the recipient being unable to cope with such ambiguity and subsequent

failure is inevitable (Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, 2008 p. 141). Another barrier

that can be problematic is the relationship between the sender and the recipient

(Lehner and Lehmann, 2004). The culture of the organisation can strongly influence

the knowledge sharing activities within the organisation (Davenport, 1998). The

organisational structure can hinder the sharing of tacit knowledge due to

implementing inappropriate authorities (Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, 2008 p.

141). Furthermore, these authors claim that uncertain goals and incentives can hinder

tacit knowledge transfer. Physical office layout can prove to be a barrier because they

can obstruct and interrupt communication patterns between staff (von Krogh and

Köhne, 1998; Lehner and Lehmann, 2004; Hall and Sapsed, 2005).


Yih-Tong Sun and Scott, (2005 p. 76) categorises knowledge sharing barriers into

three main domains; individual, organisational and technological. At individual level

barriers are often related to poor communication skills, a lack of social networks,

cultural differences, differences in position status and a lack of time and trust between

parties. At organisational level, the barriers are linked to a deficiency in resources

and infrastructure, the ease of access of formal and informal meeting places and the

physical environment. At technological level, barriers are concurrent to reluctance to

use an application, impractical expectations of IT systems and complications in

developing, combining and changing IT systems (Riege, 2005). For the purpose of

this research, the next section identifies how the aforementioned barriers can be

overcome in order to facilitate the successful transfer of tacit knowledge.

2.2.2 Factors for Successful Tacit Knowledge Transfer

Moreover, tacit knowledge transfer will largely depend upon management to act as

‘role models’ and it is vital that organisations concentrate on human issues in order

for the successful transfer of tacit knowledge. Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, (2008

p. 141) maintains that organisations need to focus on issues such as hopes and

rewards, commitment, which is subsequently an amalgamation of intrinsic and

extrinsic value for tacit knowledge to be transferred. These authors also state that

staff must be provided with the opportunity, the time and space to transfer and share

tacit knowledge through verbal communication. However, von Krogh and Köhne

(1998) outline that a high-quality relationship between the sender and the recipient is

a prerequisite for formal and informal communication. In addition, Cavusgil et al.,

(2003) maintains that mutual trust, frequent and close interactions and an open

relationship between the sender and the recipient will lead to tacit knowledge transfer

but must be supported by the organisational structure (Lehner and Lehmann, 2004).

Furthermore, Cook and Cook, (2004) claim that these factors should be supported

through culture, HR policies and performance measurements. However, Hall and

Sapsed (2005) propose a tie between the system for rewards and the organisational

position and structure.


Zack (1999) claims that tacit knowledge is best transferred through conversation,

story telling and sharing experiences. In support of this, Scott (2000) maintains that

tacit knowledge transfer is best achieved through sharing experiences that are based

on trust. The next section outlines the importance of informal and formal networks as

a mechanism to facilitating the sharing of knowledge notably tacit knowledge.

2.3 The Emergence of Informal and Formal Networks to Facilitate Knowledge Transfer

A knowledge network can be defined as the bringing together of a group of people

with know-how and collective interests in a certain knowledge domain (Sharma et al.,

2008 p. 160). These authors also state that the success of a knowledge society is not

only dependent on the diffusion of knowledge through formal networks and links but

also on such informal networks and relationships. Subsequently, these networks can

act as a “localised knowledge sharing” and “co-creation channels” (Cheng et al.,

2004). Nirmala and Vemuri (2009) maintain that informal knowledge sharing

networks are gaining immense popularity within the context of KM. These authors

believe that the vast cohort of knowledge transfer doesn’t happen through formal

structures it is more associated with people engaging on an informal basis and

developing interpersonal relationships based on this interaction. Essentially, learning

networks contain rich sources of tacit knowledge, which can be found in employee

skills, behaviour and embedded knowledge. However, a critical success factor to tacit

knowledge transfer is through establishing a networking mechanism, which allows

participants to share their knowledge and experiences (Harris, 2009). This approach

can provide effective solutions to university learning networks in order to develop and

successfully manage their sources of embedded knowledge (Chen et al., 2006).

Furthermore, Senge (1990) outlines that the most thriving organisations are the ones

that are competent in fostering widespread organisational learning, constantly striving

to improve themselves and responding to goals and internal and external needs.

Subsequently, knowledge transfer processes, which primarily focus on the

‘extraction’ of tacit knowledge through codification and sharing within organisational

teams and networks outside the organisation can, prove significant for valuable

learning and the advancement of new competencies (Harris, 2009).


Furthermore, this author outlines that it is more profitable to share knowledge through

organisational teams and networks, because individuals are not ‘permanent assets’

and with a view to enhancing organisational effectiveness. The formation of

networks and partnerships with other organisations encourages learning and along

with organisational and cost efficiencies (Wagner 2003). Given the difficulties in

transferring tacit knowledge, direct face-to-face social interaction, hands on learning

through communication, observation and experience are found to be the best ways to

diffuse tacit knowledge between these parties (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). Furthermore,

this author believes that in order to transfer tacit knowledge effectively, the parties

involved need to concentrate on the tacitness of the knowledge and find a way to

convert it to explicit.

In contrast, Foos et al., (2006) maintain that the key to informal and formal tacit

knowledge transfer is the willingness of individuals to share what they know. Hughes

et al., (2009) argues that effective knowledge networks can foster knowledge sharing

but can be solely reliant upon the nature of the community of practice. Most

importantly, the dynamics of the knowledge network and the extent of proximity

between parties can have huge repercussions for the effectiveness of the network and

the organisation’s performance (Hughes et al., 2009). Therefore, it is imperative that

research and innovation centres develop strong relationships based on mutual trust

and understanding between these networks while also maintaining close proximity

with them.

2.4 Key Gaps Identified in the Literature in Chapter 2

This section identifies the key gaps in the literature in relation to KM, which justifies

the need for the current research.

KM is bounded by confusion and limited understanding of its purpose and it

has restricted organisations from applying purposeful KM practices (Raub and

Von Wittick, 2004).

Davenport & Prusak (1998) argue that most organisations do not make a

conscious attempt to promote ‘knowledge-oriented activities’ amongst their

members.


The failure of many IT based (KMS) have promoted researchers to focus on

the ‘softer approach’ to KM whereby individuals are encouraged to learn from

one another through direct communication and face-to-face interaction (Senge,

1990). However, this softer approach remains fuzzy and is the focus of much

research at present.

The OECD (1996) state that government policy makers are striving to create

environments that promote innovation and learning so hence the importance of

organisations like the ArcLabs Research & Innovation Centre in facilitating

such activity.

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter explored and defined knowledge and KM and provided an overview of

KM in terms of the different types of knowledge and the role of tacit and explicit

knowledge in the knowledge transfer process. The research identified the fact that

KM is bounded by confusion and limited reality of its purpose. Moreover, this

research outlined that tacit knowledge is “sticky” and can generate many difficulties

for organisations in terms of trying to successfully transfer such knowledge. The

barriers associated with tacit knowledge transfer can exist on an individual,

organisational and technological level. Notably, the key barriers identified are the

ambiguous nature of tacit knowledge, the culture of the organisation and a difficult

relationship between the parties involved. Furthermore, this research recognised the

key factors necessary for successful tacit knowledge transfer are the importance of a

high quality trust relationship between the sender and the receiver, staff rewards and

most importantly that staff must be provided with the time and space to facilitate

knowledge sharing and generate new knowledge.


Chapter 3 - Literature Review, Part 2

Campus Incubators as Knowledge Organisations

3.0 Introduction

This chapter describes the current literature regarding Business Incubators (BIs) and

Science Parks (SPs) and outlines the evolution of the business incubator and the role

of these organisations within the context of knowledge creation and economic

development. It determines the mastering of knowledge creation within Science

Parks (SPs) and Business Incubators (BIs) and highlights the rationale for KM within

these organisations. In addition, it identifies the major theoretical conceptions

regarding knowledge and knowledge creation within these organisations.

Subsequently, the role of knowledge within these centres is discussed and examines

the benefits and limitations of these organisations in terms of providing a focal point

for knowledge creation and dissemination. Furthermore, this chapter outlines the role,

which management can play in promoting knowledge sharing activity within

organisations and addressees the approaches, which can be used in terms of

facilitating knowledge sharing within these organisations. The chapter concludes

with a summary of the salient points of this chapter, which give rise to the need for

the current research and development of the research question and objectives.

3.1 Definition of Science Park and Business Incubator

An emerging consensus in the literature is that there are many definitions of Science

Parks (SPs) and Business Incubators (BIs) (Quintas et al., 1992; EC, 2002; Aernoudt,

2004 and Bergek and Norrman, 2008). According to Hansson (2007 p. 349) the

European Commission sees a science park as a “business incubator”:

…a place where newly created firms are concentrated in a limited space.

Its aim is to improve the chance of growth and rate of survival of these

firms by providing them with a modular building with common facilities

(telefax, computing facilities, etc.) as well as with managerial support

and back-up services. The main emphasis is on local development and

job creation. The technology orientation is often marginal (European

Union, 1990).


In contrast, Aernoudt (2004) suggests that it is important to consider the

differentiation between SPs and BIs, notably, because SPs are more focused on the

development of regions and supporting new technology-based firms to form and

flourish, whereas BIs are more closely associated with promotion of entrepreneurship.

However, Ratinho and Henriques (2009), state that previous literature regarding the

role of SPs and BIs share commonality in terms of regional development,

employment and wealth creation and a focus on technology. Aernoudt (2004)

maintains that the physical premise is the key defining characteristic.

However, according to the OECD, (1997) as cited by Ratinho and Henriques (2009),

SPs and BIs are merely more than just providing a space, they are more concerned

with business development processes and the effective combination of services.

Nevertheless, services such as virtual support (Barrow, 2001), professional services

(Chan and Lau, 2005), training (Aerts et al., 2007), coaching (Bergek and Norrman,

2008), seed and venture capital assistance (McAdam and McAdam, 2008) and are all

essential for incubated firms. Furthermore, previous empirical research frequently

bundles SPs and BIs together as business support initiatives (Chan and Lau, 2005;

Sofouli and Vonortas, 2007). However, more often than not, BIs can act as tenant-

feeders to SPs, supporting new start-ups through a major period in their lifecycle

(Ratinho and Henriques, 2009).


Lalkaka (2003) summed up the evolution of the incubators as being three generational

(Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Evolution of the Business Incubator Concept

CSES (2002)

Commencing in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the first generation of business

incubators offered reasonably priced space and shared facilities to carefully selected

entrepreneurial groups. Incubators were, therefore, used as an alternative for

established parent firms, providing a nurturing environment to generate new

enterprise development (Fenton, 2005). By the 1990’s, a second generation of

incubators emerged based on the appreciation for the need to complement incubation

space with support services e.g. counselling/mentoring, skills improvement, access to

professional support and access to seed capital and training, which may also have

been offered to businesses, which were not clients of the incubator itself (Fenton,

2005).


In 1998, a new and third generation business incubator emerged in parallel to the

second generation incubator with the intention of mobilising Information and

Communications Technologies (ICT) and providing a platform for the convergence of

support, towards creating growth potential internet related ventures. A fundamental

feature of Lalkaka’s (2003) theory of business incubator evolution is that the

provision of incubation space is only the first step in the overall incubation process.

Furthermore, Rice and Matthews (1995) believed that it is the management of

incubators and the provision of support services to support client companies in the

development of their business, which provides greater value to clients. Over the past

few years, the perception of the business incubator has evolved from the provision of

basic workspace to the recent emergence of a sector-specific incubator, which focuses

on ICT and offers a broad range of support services to client entrepreneurs. However,

it is necessary to consider the characteristics associated with SPs and BIs and the

factors, which lead to the success of these organisations.

3.1.1 Characteristics of Science Parks (SPs) and Business Incubators (BIs)

According to Chen and Choi (2004 p.76), a fundamental characteristic of a Science

Park is that it should embody the incorporation of technical innovation and industrial

manufacturing. Ratinho and Henriques (2009) outline two main factors, which lead to

the success of Science Parks and Business Innovators; they are university links and

the suitability of management. SPs should strive to establish close ties with local

industries and thus enable the conversion of R&D into cost-effective and valuable

products (Chen and Choi, 2004 p. 77). Remarkably, the majority of studies relating to

science parks and business incubators quite often focus on older economic indicators

such as yearly growth, rate of employment, productivity and the amount of new start-

ups but rarely considering the emerging significance of knowledge in the new

economy (Hansson, 2007). Essentially, knowledge based organisations like ArcLabs

can act as an effective method to create and transform knowledge into efficient

products and services.


However, knowledge needs to be exploited in these types of organisations to a much

greater extent (Bozbura 2007 and Chan & Chao, 2008) and therefore warrants the

need for this research study. The Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES)

(2002) highlighted the difference in typology of incubators according to the level of

technology of the incubating company, the level of management support required and

the entry and exit criteria of incubators (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: Typology of Business Incubators

(CSES, 2002)

As stated by the CSES above, the types of business incubators are polarised between

an Industrial Estate with little support services or management support for tenant

companies, no criteria regarding technology content and undefined entry criteria and a

Technology Centre with high level of management support, and operate a clearly

defined entry criteria.

ArcLabs Research &

Innovation Centre


Up-and-coming companies are attracted to campus incubators because of the

reputation of being associated with a highly regarded Higher Education Institution.

Subsequently, this enables the start-ups to gain access to the Institute’s staff

knowledge, resources, and research and project management proficiency in the

occurrence of skill or expertise shortfalls existing in new companies (Granovetter,

1973, Burt, 1992, Kumar and Kumar, 1997 and Adler & Kwon, 2002). Essentially,

campus incubators provide a podium for promising campus entrepreneurs to initiate

and develop their business.

Such enterprises can surface from the commercialisation of University or Higher

Education Institute research and/or spin-in entrepreneurs (Fenton, 2005). Particularly,

campus incubators aim to promote campus enterprise by developing Third Level

“spin offs” through the successful transfer and commercialisation of R&D within an

encouraging and inspiring environment (Rice and Matthews, 1995 and O’Reilly,

2003). The Helsinki Seminar on “Best Practices in Incubator Infrastructure and

Innovation Support” (1998) identified that the effective technology transfer from

Universities and Research Institutes to commercial applications can be attained

through campus incubators. In order to fully understand knowledge it is necessary to

consider the key theorists regarding knowledge and knowledge creation.

3.2 Theoretical Perspectives regarding SPs as Knowledge Organisations

Firstly, it is essential to start off by discussing the major conceptions in organisational

theory simultaneous to knowledge and the creation of knowledge. However, it is

worth noting the distinction amid the models that examine the process of knowledge

creation as a chain of actions occurring mostly within the organisation and the models

that are primarily based on the individual as the main creator of knowledge (Hansson,

2007). Essentially, the ba concept devised by Nonaka et al., (2000) is the most

renowned, widely-accepted and well-used concept of internal knowledge creation in

organisational theory.

The Japanesese word ba refers not only to a physical space, but a specific

time and space – “it is a concept that unifies physical space such as an

office space, virtual space such as email and mental space such as shared

ideals (Nonaka et al., 2000).


Alternatively, other key concepts in organisational theory demand a more shared

technique when it comes to knowledge and knowledge creation involving individuals,

teams or organisations. These core conceptions comprise of “sticky and leaky

knowledge” (Polanyi, 1962), “absorptive capacity” (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990),

“communities of practice” (Wenger, 2000) and “structural holes” (Burt, 2002). In

essence, these perspectives encapsulate the importance of the interpersonal element of

knowledge creation within organisations. For many years, the creation of new

knowledge within organisations did not focus on the concepts such as creativity and

learning whereas it was more about finding solutions to technical problems (Hansson,

2007). In relation to previous research on knowledge organisations and the various

assessments of science parks, Table 3.1 indicates the main distinctions among

knowledge organisations and science parks. It is apparent from Table 3.1 that the

main disparity amongst the two organisations is related to innovation and knowledge

creation.

Table 3.1: Evaluation of Science Parks as Knowledge Organisations

According to Hansson (2007 p. 362) a significant element of the disparity is that the

“knowledge organisation is a child of the knowledge economy or society and the

science park is just as much a child of the late industrial society and its spotlight on

linearity and material products and not on intangible knowledge.”

Hansson, F. (2007)

Characterisation of the

Knowledge Organisation (ba)

Characterisation of Science

Parks

Basic unit of operation

Knowledge creation (tacit,

explicit)

Innovations, products,

entrepreneurs

Principles of organisation Networking, communities of

practice, knowledge spiral,

complexity

Local or regional economy, firm

building, start-ups, entrepreneurs,

Measures of success Transfer of knowledge,

intellectual capital, learning

processes,

Profits, returns,

commercialisation

Management functions Self-managing, knowledge

management

Support management, location

management, consultancy


3.3 Mastering Knowledge Creation in Science Parks and Incubators

This section identifies how knowledge creation should be handled within these

organisations and provides key examples of Science Parks, which have mastered the

knowledge creation process. According to Brown (2009), science parks are not

predominantly about creative people working together, they are more about close

integration between government, universities and industries in order to facilitate

knowledge creation and dissemination. Phan et al., (2005) contradicts this statement

and states that in the case of the three must prestigious science parks namely Silicon

Valley, Cambridge Science Park and Hsinchu Science Park that access to key talent

was the most important factor for developing new products and technologies for

international markets. Remarkably, the case of the Hsinchu Science Park based

between Hsinchu City and Hsinchu Country is the most outstanding state-directed

infrastructure project in Taiwan. Their extraordinary success is an amalgamation of

processes such as local knowledge centres, transnational knowledge transfer between

entrepreneurs in the USA and Taiwan and the transfer of knowledge into productive

activities (Chen and Choi, 2004 p.78).

The case of Hsinchu demonstrates that public policy can play a major part in the

creation of knowledge-based cities by constructing a location that can be a magnet

and draw in knowledge workers (Chen and Choi, 2004 p. 79). However, according to

these authors, in order for knowledge workers to generate capital, a system is required

to convert tacit knowledge into productive processes in addition to a system which

creates knowledge is also necessary. These authors also affirm that numerous science

parks have failed because they have not mastered the knowledge conversion process

whereas, others have succeeded in converting knowledge into productive activities

they are unsuccessful at generating new knowledge. Subsequently, Chen et al.,

(2006) maintains that further research is required to develop frameworks, which can

conceptualise the knowledge transfer process between university networks and help

the parties involved to fully understand the transfer process. The next section

identifies the rationale for KM within Science Parks and Business Incubators.


3.4 The Rationale for Knowledge Management within Science Parks and Campus Incubators

Science Parks are critical for the development of regions, job creation and the

generation of new companies. Brown (2009 p. 38) outlines how universities and

governments are turning to research parks due to their capacity to invigorate local

economies. Predominantly, Science Parks can enhance the wealth of its region by

implementing a culture of innovation and competitiveness amongst its associated

businesses and “knowledge-based institutions” (Hansson, 2007 p. 354). In addition,

Science Parks can play a crucial role in stimulating and managing technology and

knowledge spill-over’s between universities, R&D institutions, companies and

markets. The purpose of this study is to build on Sadiq and Daud’s (2009 p. 126)

statement by closing the gap on the lack of comprehensive research regarding how to

manage the knowledge transfer process within these organisations. Subsequently,

McCarthy (2009) recommends in the An Bord Snip Nua report (2009) that Ireland

must shift towards a ‘smart innovation-based economy’. Therefore the ability to

exploit existing knowledge and explore new knowledge is critical for the success of

many organisations.

3.5 The Role of Management on Knowledge Management Activity within Campus Incubators

According to Nonaka, (1994) and Mason and Pauleen, (2003), managers can act as

facilitators by engaging employees to transfer what they know into an understandable

format for other employees. However, managers must convey to their employees that

knowledge is not restricted to a certain type of people. In support of this, Chan and

Chao (2008) highlighted that conducting regular discussions can promote creativity

and divergent thinking from different employees. Mårtensson (2000 p. 211) claims

that support from top management is critical for knowledge sharing within

organisations. Subsequently, top management must promote processes that foster

cross-boundary learning and sharing, these can include the formation of knowledge

networks, in addition to defining and developing the skills of learning from other

people (Mayo, 1998).


In effect, organisations that have achieved the most success in KM are those that have

appointed a senior-level executive to assume the responsibility of full-time chief

knowledge officer (Gopal and Gagnon, 1995). It is imperative that management

cultivate an environment, which promotes the creation of tacit knowledge and ensure

this environment enables organisational members to feel safe when sharing their

knowledge (Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, 2008). Consequently, management must

ensure the appropriate procedures are in place to overcome knowledge loss in the case

of staff leaving the organisation and taking their valuable knowledge with them.

3.6 Key Gaps Identified in the Literature in Chapter 3

This section identifies the key gaps in the literature in chapter 3 regarding Science

Parks and Business Incubators, which justifies the need for the current research.

The purpose of this study is to explore the statement by Sadiq and Daud’s (2009 p.

126) and to further close the gap on the lack of comprehensive research regarding

knowledge sharing within this sector.

No literature currently exists on managing knowledge within the campus

incubator sector in Ireland.

A significant number of research on science parks and incubators have focused on

conventional economic indicators such as annual growth, profitability, rate of

employment, number of new start-ups, whilst rarely observing the rising

magnitude of knowledge in the new economy (Hansson, 2007 p. 350).

Numerous science parks have failed because they have not mastered the

knowledge conversion process whereas, others have succeeded in converting

knowledge into productive activities they are unsuccessful at generating new

knowledge (Chen and Choi, 2004 p. 79).

Knowledge needs to be exploited in these types of organisations to a much greater

extent (Bozbura 2007; Chan & Chao, 2008).

Chen et al., (2006) outlines that further research is required to develop

frameworks, which can conceptualise the KTP between university networks and

help the parties involved to fully understand the process.


McCarthy (2009) recommended in the An Bord Snip Nua report that Ireland must

become a smarter economy so the capacity to exploit and explore new knowledge

is critical for many organisations going forward.

3.7 Conclusion

This chapter investigated and defined campus incubators and reviewed the role of

these incubators in terms of knowledge transfer. This research described campus

incubators, their role in supporting knowledge generation and sharing and examined

the benefits and limitations of campus incubators. This chapter described the

characteristics of business incubators, chronicled their evolution and encapsulated the

theories of KM in the context of business incubators. It is evident from the literature

that management must cultivate an environment, which promotes knowledge

generation and sharing within the organisation and that members feel safe when it

comes to sharing their knowledge. Based on the research gaps, this informs the

research agenda of this thesis and informs the research question and research

objectives. The absence of any specific literature on KM within Campus Incubators

has prompted the researcher to undertake a study on the KM practices within the

ArcLabs Centre. The research context explored in chapter 2 and 3 is the basis for the

remaining chapters.

Chapter 4 Research Methodology

Chapter 4 - Research Methodology


Chapter 4 – Research Methodology

4.0 Introduction

Chapter 4 describes the research philosophy and design, primary objectives of this

research as represented by the research question. This chapter will guide the reader in

terms of the research method adopted by the researcher and the rationale behind why

this particular method was implemented over alternative methods. The researcher

will set out the steps involved in designing the research programme, choosing the

research approach and research methodology. Finally, the researcher vindicates using

such a research approach while also detailing the limitations of the research

programme. This chapter discusses the interview process and how the data will be

presented and analysed. The researcher also considers issues pertaining to reliability

and validity of the interview data whilst also allowing for ethical considerations.

4.1 Research Philosophy and Design

Holden and Lynch (2004) highlight the significance of adopting a research philosophy

whilst carrying out a research study. Essentially, research philosophy refers to the

development of knowledge and the nature of that knowledge (Saunders et al., 2007 p.

101). Moreover, they claim that including a philosophical opinion as part of the

research study is critical as it can steer the researcher in adopting the most suitable

research methods. Positivism and phenomenology are the key philosophical concepts

used in scholarly research. Hussey and Hussey (1997) states that the positivist

approach involves the completion of comprehensive research primarily based on

hypothesis testing. Furthermore, these authors maintain that the phenomenological

viewpoint underpins qualitative research whereas quantitative research is linked to

positivism (Figure 4.1).


Consequently, the researcher believes the phenomenological approach was the most

relevant because the point of interest is to understand and elucidate, rather than

measure knowledge within the KM process.

Figure 4.1: Alternative Philosophical Paradigm Names

Hussey and Hussey (1997) and adapted by *Holden and Lynch (2004)

The researcher undertook analysis of both research approaches to ensure that the

qualitative approach was congruent with the research objectives and research

question. Research methodology is the study of methods and deals with the

philosophical assumptions underlying the research process (Bryman and Bell, 2007).

Furthermore, a method is a specific technique used for data collection under those

philosophical assumptions.

Objectivist Subjectivist

Quantitative Qualitative

Positivist Phenomenological

Scientific Humanistic

Experimentalist Interpretivist

Traditionalist

Functionalist*


According to Easterby-Smith and Thorpe (1991), the following are the strengths and

weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative methods of research (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Differences between Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods

The real difference between quantitative and qualitative methods is that qualitative

research gathers evidence by means other than counting and normally, textual

information constitutes the core of the data, whether it is the transcriptions of

interview records, field observations or official organisational documents. The

information required from the research was primarily qualitative in nature as the

researcher wanted to study current KM practices within the ArcLabs Research and

Innovation Centre and deduce if Hansson’s (2007) concept regarding “Science Parks

as Knowledge Organisations” was applicable to ArcLabs.

Strengths of Quantitative Research

Methods Strengths of Qualitative Research

Methods

Provide wide coverage of the range of

situations;

Can be fast and economical;

May be of considerable relevance to

policy decisions.

Ability to look at how change

processes over time;

Ability to understand meanings;

To adjust to new issues and ideas

as they emerge;

Contributes to the evolution of

theories;

Provides a way of gathering data

which is seen as natural rather than

artificial.

Weaknesses of Quantitative Research

Methods

Weaknesses of Qualitative

Research Methods

Tend to be inflexible and artificial;

Are not very effective in understanding

processes or the significance that people

attach to actions;

Not very helpful in generating theories;

They focus on what is, which makes it

hard for the policy maker to infer what

changes and actions should take place in

the future.

Data collection takes a great deal

of time and resources;

Can be difficult to analyse and

interpret data;

Considered to be untidy as it is

hard to control their pace, progress

and end points;

Policy makers are given low

creditability.


Research Design

Domegan and Fleming (1999) maintain that the research design provides a structure for

the methodology of the study as it refers to the research objectives that need to be

fulfilled and thus enables one to achieve those objectives. Bryman and Bell (2007)

carefully differentiate between the research design and the research method.

Essentially, these authors explain that a research design influences the implementation

of a research method. The researcher deemed it worthwhile to carry out exploratory

research, which is preliminary research undertaken before more extensive research is

conducted. The universal objective of exploratory research is to gain insights and ideas

(Churchill, 1999) and it is a useful method of finding out what is happening, to look for

new insights, to ask questions and to consider phenomena in a new light and therefore

the foundation for successful research. This study is exploratory in nature as the

rationale is to achieve a better understanding of KM and Knowledge Transfer within

Campus Incubation Centres and add to the lack of literature, which exists on this topic.

4.2 Research Objectives and Question

Cresswell (1998) claimed that over the past two decades, research approaches have

proliferated to a point at which researchers have many choices. The researcher

believed that before choosing a methodology, it was vital to establish the research

objectives and associated question in order to determine the choice of research

methodology. The overall aim of this research is to develop a best practice

framework to facilitate Knowledge Transfer within ArcLabs and which could be

subsequently used by these types of organisations in Ireland or overseas. The

ArcLabs facility provides a rich environment to study the area of practices regarding

KM and Knowledge Transfer due to the various different entities, which make up the

ArcLabs environment. Details of the entities within ArcLabs are outlined in

(Appendix B).


Table 4.2 Research Objectives and Research Question

The research objectives and question inherent in this study are listed in Table 4.2.

Research Objective 1 How does explicit knowledge get transferred within the

ArcLabs Research and Innovation Centre at WIT?

Research Objective 2 How does tacit knowledge get transferred within the ArcLabs

Research and Innovation Centre at WIT?

Research Objective 3 How are the centre’s management team facilitating and

enhancing knowledge generation and sharing within the centre?

Research Question To investigate current practices regarding KM and Knowledge

Transfer within WIT’s ArcLabs Campus Incubation Centre?

The research objectives are derived from a review of extant literature in this field. In

addition, the researcher proposes to answer the aforementioned research objectives

and identify if ArcLabs can improve its processes relating to KM and Knowledge

Transfer for its entire community.


4.3 Synopsis of Primary Research

The researcher conducted interviews with stakeholders from each of the different

entities within ArcLabs (Figure 4.2) in order to elucidate opinions from different

perspectives and their experiences of the KM process.

Figure 4.2: Synopsis of Primary Research

In the next section, the researcher discusses interviews and the justification as to why

the researcher deemed interviews the most appropriate method to gather the data.

Primary Research

Interview 1

ArcLabs Manager

Interview 5 - ArcLabs Tenant

Interview 6 - ArcLabs Tenant

Interview 2

Manager of the Centre for Entrepreneurship

and Regional Development (CEDRE)

Interview 3

Director of SEEPP

Interview 7 - SEEPP Participant

Interview 8 - SEEPP Participant

Interview 4

Head of Research and Innovation WIT

Interview 9

TSSG staff

member

Research Method

Qualitative

Research Design

Semi-Structured Interviews with ArcLabs Management team, SEEPP participants,

ArcLab clients and a TSSG staff member.


4.4 Research Methods - Interviews

According to Kvale (1996), “the qualitative research interview attempts to understand

the world from the subjects’ point of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples’

experiences, to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations.” This author

states that a qualitative interview is a construction site of knowledge and subsequently

an interview is literally “an interchange of views between two persons” discussing a

topic of common interest. Robson (2002) summarises the various different types of

interviews as structured, unstructured and semi-structured. Structured interviews are

whereby the researcher has a clearly specified set of research questions that need to be

answered (Bryman and Bell, 2007). This type of interview can often lack flexibility

as the questions are worded to obtain a simple and unelaborated answer.

In contrast, unstructured interviewing is seen as an intimate discussion (Robson,

2002). A semi-structured interview is where the researcher has a list of specific

questions on a theme to be covered, which is often referred to as an interview guide

but the interviewee has a great deal of flexibility in how to reply (Lofland and

Lofland, 1995). These authors also state that questions, which are not included in the

guide, may be asked as the interviewer picks up on remarks made by the interviewee.

Contrary to structured interviews, semi and unstructured interviews are more

associated with generating rich, descriptive and comprehensive data (Becker and

Bryman, 2004).

4.4.1 Justification of Research Method

The researcher decided to carry out semi-structured interviews with the respondents in

order to gain an in-depth understanding of how the management of ArcLabs are

approaching the task of KM within the centre. Essentially, because the researcher

would be dealing with sensitive information, the researcher decided that the most

suitable way to access this information would be through face-to-face interviews. The

researcher is an employee of WIT so the ability to conduct face-to-face interviews

with the appropriate people was made easier.


Furthermore, the researcher opted for interviews over questionnaires and other

qualitative methodologies because of their flexibility. Whereas, the researcher is

forced to accept responses from questionnaires at face value, whereas interview

responses may be developed and clarified (Bell, 1991). Saunders et al., (2007)

maintain that personal contact with respondents means they are more enticed to

partake in interviews in contrast to filling out questionnaires or surveys. Moreover,

Bryman and Bell (2007) outline that face-to-face interviews are more favourable to

add richness and depth to a study and hence the reason why the researcher choose this

approach. The researcher opted to carry out the interviews on an individual basis as

the researcher believed that this would uncover more depth as opposed to group

interviews.

4.4.2 Designing the Interview Schedule

The researcher designed its interview schedule based on Bryman & Bell (2007) ‘rules

for designing questions’. Subsequently, the researcher based the questions around the

findings in the literature review to ensure that each of the research objectives was

addressed.

4.4.3 Sampling Frame and Selection Criteria

Within ArcLabs, the perspectives from key stakeholders representing each entity were

obtained and an interview was conducted with the Head of Research & Innovation to

provide an overall perspective in terms of the research investigation. Essentially,

undertaking interviews can be a difficult task (Kvale, 1996). Thus, the researcher

adhered to Berg’s, (1995) approach to interviewing such as having an introduction,

including the relevant questions and to ensure that you incorporate the emerging

themes and closing the interview in an proper way. The interviews consisted

predominantly of open-ended questions designed to extract the views of the

respondent and not to focus on the views of the interviewer.


The face-to-face interview structure was informal, involving the use of a semi-

structured agenda. Interviewees were encouraged to discuss and expand on topics.

Furthermore, the researcher used triangulation in order to remove bias. Triangulation

involves “comparing two or more views of the same thing so that data from different

sources can be used to corrobate, elaborate or illumine the research in question”

(Open University, 2001). In order to achieve rich, deep data, all interviews were

carried out in the interviewees own environment (Bryman & Bell, 2007). While

conducting the interviews, the researcher had the opportunity to complete an

extensive tour of the campus incubator facility. This allowed the researcher to make

observations and to follow up with further questioning if the need arose.

4.4.4 The Interview Process

There are several issues, which may encroach on the interviewee throughout the

interview (David and Sutton, 2004). Furthermore, these authors highlight the

repercussions that occur from using a Dictaphone to the scheduled timing of the

interview. However, in order to balance these issues, whilst also counteracting

interviewer bias, they outline that interviewees must be put at ease during the process.

Consequently, the researcher adopted David and Sutton (2004) guidelines whilst

carrying out the interviews (Appendix C).

After a conversation with the ArcLabs manager, he agreed to contact the tenants on

site and the SEEPP manager agreed to contact the SEEPP participants inviting them

to participate in the research study once they received the draft letter (Appendix D and

E). The other interviewees were approached in advance by the researcher through

email who explained the purpose of the interview and invited them to participate

(Appendix F). In addition, mutually acceptable dates were arranged between all

parties. The researcher conducted an in-depth face-to-face interview, lasting

approximately one hour with each interviewee. The majority of interviews took place

at the ArcLabs Centre between the 21st May 2010 and the 9

th of June 2010. The

following protocol was agreed with the respondents in advance of the interview

namely the use of a Dictaphone to record the interview, using the template of semi

structured interview guide (Appendix G and H).


4.4.5 Data Analysis and Presentation

In relation to the semi-structured interviews, all transcripts and interview records were

typed, analysed manually and then imported into N-Vivo. N-Vivo is a qualitative

data analysis tool and helps researchers to organise, classify, sort and arrange large

pieces of text (Silverman, 2010). The researcher then reviewed the transcribed data

and narrowed it down into major themes and categories (Appendix I for Qualitative

Data Analysis Model). The emerging themes were converted to nodes in order to help

the researcher further analyse the data (Appendix J for Tree Node Summary Report).


4.5 Limitations of the Research Study

Hair et al., (2000) note that limitations that place restrictions on research should be

reported. A number of limitations were identified as follows:

Table 4.3 Research Limitations

The researcher attempted to minimise the effects of these limitations and the nature of

semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to probe and ask more searching

questions, which yielded honest answers from the respondents. The interview

questions were also piloted and modified to help the interviewer hone interviewing

skills and to test the relevance of the questions. This research represents a snap shot

of the ArcLabs Campus Incubation Centre and is considered as a first step in the study

of KM within Campus Incubators.

Qualitative

Research

Qualitative research has been criticised for the lack of

generalisation, validity and reliability (Hair et al., 2000).

Interviews The quantity of interviews was limited by time constraints on the

SEEPP participants and tenants.

Bias Whilst all the managers were most co-operative, they tended to

portray their organisation in a positive light and deflected any

harsh enquiry from the researcher. The researcher is also an

employee of WIT so would have prior knowledge and

experience.

Time The researcher was restricted to time and if more time was

available, they would have conducted interviews with additional

tenants, SEEPP participants, TSSG staff and the Technology

Transfer Manager.


4.6 Ethical Considerations

Mason (2002) identifies that using qualitative interviews as a method of data

generation raises a number of general ethical issues. Good research practice was

compiled in relation to the planning, conducting and reporting of this research.

Permission by the Manager of ArcLabs to conduct this study and in particular to

interview tenants and SEEPP participants was formally sought and received.

Informed consent was received from all participants in the research, who were

informed about the purpose of the research and how the findings would be used.

Anonymity of the responses was guaranteed to all of those who completed the

interviews and permission was obtained from individuals who were interviewed to

use quotations, which would not be directly attributed to them. Records of the in-

depth interviews were stored in a confidential manner and will only be held for the

duration of this research investigation and will then be carefully destroyed.

4.7 Reliability and Validity of Interview Data

Many authors have discussed the validity of semi-structured interviews (Saunders et

al., 2007; Kvale, 1996). Moreover, Mason (2002) outlines that undertaking semi-

structured interviews is a valid and valuable method of attaining substantial data

relating to the topic. Subsequently, Silverman (2010) outlined that the computer

package N-Vivo can contribute to the validity of the study as it allows the researcher

to identify the number of times an opinion is stated. One of the advantages of using

data analysis software allows the researcher to be more creative in their study.

Morison and Moir (1998) agree that using software can increase efficiency of the

clerical tasks related to data handling, which in turn enables the researcher to reflect

and to develop new theory in an intuitive and creative manner.


In order to ensure the validity of the interview data collected, the researcher carried

out the following:

An interview schedule was documented so that all respondents were

interviewed on the same topics.

A cross section of the ArcLabs affiliates and tenants were chosen to provide a

more reliable understanding of the different KM practices within each

network.

The researcher conducted the first interview with the ArcLabs manager in

order to test the interview format. This exercise was deemed very worthwhile

because it allowed the researcher to test if the research questions were

relevant, clear, concise or repetitive and to determine if they would yield

worthwhile data.

A number of questions thought to be repetitive were re-crafted.

Questions deemed irrelevant were discarded.

The overall sequencing of questions were revised.

All data was captured in a consistent manner in a template format.

Every effort was made to ensure the validity and reliability of the information and

therefore all semi-structured interviews were conducted in a standardised manner.

4.8 Conclusion

This chapter outlined the research philosophy and design, research objectives and

research question. It examined the available research methodologies and vindicated

the qualitative approach as the most fitting research methodology based on the

research objectives and question posed. This chapter has summarised the rationale for

using semi-structured interviews as a data collection technique. The limitations of

this technique have been considered. Finally, the issues of validity and reliability

have been adhered to whilst also allowing for ethical considerations. Chapters 5 and

6 outline in detail the results of the interviews and interpret and discuss the relevance

of these results.

Chapter 5 Research Findings

Chapter 5 - Research Findings


Chapter 5 – Research Findings

5.0 Introduction

Chapter 5 presents the findings of the primary research associated with this study.

The research findings will be displayed by investigating current practices regarding

KM and Knowledge Transfer within the ArcLabs Centre with distinct reference to the

following research objectives:

The Transfer of Explicit Knowledge

The Transfer of Tacit Knowledge

Facilitation and Enhancement of Knowledge Generation and Sharing

Each of the three sections will be divided into headings with relevance to the themes

that emerged from the inductive analysis of the data.

Profile of Respondents

A profile of the interviewees is provided in Table 5.1. Each interviewee was chosen

to ensure that each entity from ArcLabs was represented and the researcher felt they

could make a valuable contribution to the study. A reference key is given to each of

the interviewees in order to ensure confidentiality as some of the interviewees wished

to remain anonymous.

Table 5.1 Profile of the ArcLabs Respondents

For example management are described by their title, SEEPP Participants as

Participant X and Y, the ArcLab Tenants as Tenant X and Y.

Name Position Text Reference Dr. Willie Donnelly Head of Research & Innovation at WIT Head of Research Mr. Tom Corcoran Manager of ArcLabs ArcLabs Manager Dr. Bill O’Gorman Director of Research, Centre for Enterprise

Development and Regional Economy

(CEDRE)

Director of

CEDRE

Mr. Eugene Crehan CEDRE Programmes Manager SEEPP Manager Interviewee A TSSG Staff Member TSSG Respondent Interviewee B SEEPP Participant Participant X Interviewee C SEEPP Participant Participant Y Interviewee D ArcLabs Tenant Tenant X Interviewee E ArcLabs Tenant Tenant Y


The TSSG staff member is referred to as TSSG respondent. During the interview

process, the researcher discovered how ArcLabs is structured in terms of who the

different stakeholders are reporting to in terms of management as outlined in Figure

5.1. The researcher believed this had a bearing on the study in terms of understanding

KM practices within the organisation.

Figure 5.1 Organisational Structure of ArcLabs Research and Innovation

Centre

5.1 The Transfer of Explicit Knowledge within ArcLabs

Section 5.1 will address research objective 1 and will address the different

mechanisms in terms of how explicit knowledge is captured, exchanged and

transferred within ArcLabs.

5.1.1 The Capturing of Explicit Knowledge within ArcLabs

The majority of the interviewees were unfamiliar with the term explicit knowledge so

the researcher explained that it was technical or academic data transcribed into

manuals, patents, copyright, reports, products and so forth.

Head of Research & Innovation

ArcLabs Manager

ArcLab Tenants

School of Business, Department of Management &

Organisation

Centre for Enterpreneurship

Director of Research, Cedre

and Policy Makers

Director of SEEPP and SEEPP

Participants

School of Science, Department of

Computing, Maths and Physics

TSSG Management of Research Division

& Commercialisation

Division

TSSG Staff


As a result of the primary research, Table 5.2 identifies the different ways in terms of

how explicit knowledge is captured within the centre.

Table 5.2 Capturing Explicit Knowledge within ArcLabs

According to the Head of Research, copyright is the main area of where explicit

knowledge is captured within the centre. In the case of the research projects like the

European Framework Programme, knowledge is captured either in deliverables,

which are scientific manuals of the system that the project is developing or through

prototypes, which is software code essentially. The Centre for Entrepreneurship

wouldn’t use software code as they are more focused on enterprise policy and

developing entrepreneurial regions through the likes of the SLNIW project.

Primarily, the tenants and SEEPP participants wouldn’t be working on research

projects or writing publications as their focus is about getting their business off the

ground, whereas the research division of TSSG and CEDRE would be actively

engaged in research and writing publications.

In the case of the SEEPP participants, their knowledge is captured through reports

resembling a Business Plan, a Market Analysis report, a Budget Analysis Report and

so forth in order for them to obtain the Postgraduate Diploma in Entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, TSSG and CEDRE would have to write progress reports on research

projects for the funding agencies. The Head of Research states “to summarise, the

four ways of capturing knowledge is through documents such as published papers or

manuals to prototypes to products”. In the case of CEDRE, they would be providing

an advice service to entrepreneurs and micro-enterprises in the region as opposed to

developing a product.

Stakeholder Research

Projects &

Publications

Manuals or

Reports Software

Code Copyright Prototypes Products

or

Services Tenants X

SEEPP

Participants X

CEDRE

Respondents X

TSSG Staff


The commercialisation division of TSSG, the SEEPP participants and tenants would

be developing products or services that they would wish to market or sell.

5.1.2 The Importance of Information Technology for KM

Table 5.3 identifies how IT is supporting KM practices for each of the different

stakeholders and facilitating knowledge exchange.

Table 5.3 Exchanging Knowledge through IT within ArcLabs

The researcher discovered that all entities have their own individual websites and are

operating independently. This year is the first time for the SEEPP class to use the

intranet Ning.com, to facilitate knowledge exchange between the SEEPP manager and

participants. Both participants indicated that they were not using Ning to share

information as they preferred personal contact. Alternatively, TSSG are using an

intranet to share information about research projects but maintained that some of the

information is out of date regarding the status of research projects. The SEEPP

participants indicated that they are using Moodle to download their course notes but

feel they need a more comprehensive training session on using Moodle and the library

resources. Equally, everybody was of the opinion that email is not the best method of

communication but is the fastest and simplest way of transferring knowledge.

Stakeholder Website Intranet Email Repository Google

Docs Moodle Portal

ArcLabs

Manager and

Tenants

X X X X

SEEPP

manager and

Participants

X X X

TSSG

Management

and Staff

X X X

CEDRE

Respondents X X X X


Notably, the ArcLabs tenants or SEEPP participants don’t have any repository in

comparison to TSSG and CEDRE but the tenants are using Google Docs to share

information between the company team members. The TSSG respondent indicated

that they are using a repository called Perforce, which is useful to capture “different

types of project artefacts, project proposals, project descriptions, work packages,

reports that are generated from projects”. The researcher questioned the TSSG

respondent and the Head of Research regarding the usefulness of Perforce and the

Head of Research indicated that:

It is a quite good repository once you know what you are looking for

and if I was going for a general search on a good methodology for

some distributed system, I wouldn’t know where to start so it is not

that type of repository it is a document repository as opposed to a

KMS.

TSSG also have a repository for code, which is being generated both for the

prototypes and pre-products stage, this is a major resource for reuse and for consistent

design and development of prototypes and products. There isn’t a ‘one stop shop’

portal in place for the SEEPP participants and tenants to exchange knowledge. The

ArcLabs manager stated that:

I have often wondered would it make any sense for ArcLabs to have

its own portal for start-ups with all this information. My sense is that

start-up companies are pretty clever in terms of knowing where

funding is, research is and it’s not rocket science to find it now.

All of the interviewees were of the opinion that information can become redundant so

quickly and trying to maintain it and keep it up to date is proving to be quite

challenging. Participant Y indicated that “I think simplicity is a big thing when it

comes to IT and overcomplicating things can be a pitfall”. Interestingly, there is no

KMS in place in WIT due to the cost implications but the Head of Research indicated

that this is something that they now have to consider because the level of research

activity is growing and there will need to be some structure in place to manage this

knowledge.


5.1.3 The Importance of Formal Events to Facilitate Knowledge Exchange

Table 5.4 identifies the different events that are supporting the transfer of knowledge

and knowledge exchange for each of the different stakeholders within ArcLabs.

Table 5.4 Different Types of Events Supporting Knowledge Exchange

All participants in this study see the merit of having formal events to exchange

knowledge. Formal events seem to be how connections are made and how people get

to share knowledge. Tenant X indicated that the Ideagen event sponsored by

Enterprise Ireland provided them with the opportunity to present their company and

after the event; they were approached by two people regarding specific projects,

which is hugely positive. Equally, Participant X stated that the Ideagen event

provided the opportunity to generate ideas and provided an insight into what other

people were doing. The SEEPP manager commented that “during this event, there

were only fifteen minutes of networking and brainstorming and over two and a half

hours of talking, which proved highly frustrating”. The ArcLabs manager indicated

that the Open Coffee Network organised for tenants ran out of steam and he stated:

I know all networks run out of steam eventually, there is no question

about that and any network is difficult to maintain over a long period

but it seems to me that the more formulised you make it, the less

successful it is.

Interestingly, neither of the tenants interviewed attended the Open Coffee morning

sessions due to time constraints. The Head of Research indicated that “formal events

are not good environments for sharing information, getting to know people or getting

to know what they need”.

Stakeholder Educational

Workshops Internal

Business

Events

External

Business

Events

Conferences Research

Forums

Tenants X

SEEPP

Participants

TSSG Staff X

CEDRE

Respondents X


However, the Head of Research highlighted that:

The WIT Research Day, which was held in May, was very successful

as it created an environment where people would learn what other

people are doing outside of their discipline and it was the first step to

providing an environment where you have multidisciplinary research

activity taking place.

With regards to TSSG “the majority of knowledge transfer would be facilitated

through events like the TSSG day, which is held once or twice a year and it is an

opportunity for each of the groups to present their work. The Director of CEDRE

outlined that:

Formal events are necessary and we should be doing them more often

but at one stage we were running events where there was a very short

time frame between them and what we noticed was the amount of

knowledge coming from them was beginning to become repetitive.

Now, we try to have a greater distance between the events in order to

keep the information fresh and alive.

Interestingly, all respondents were of the consensus that formal events are not the best

means of transferring tacit knowledge but are necessary to allow informal knowledge

sharing to occur and facilitate the flow of tacit knowledge.

5.2 The Transfer of Tacit Knowledge within ArcLabs

Section 5.2 will address research objective 2 in terms of how tacit knowledge is

transferred within ArcLabs. Like explicit knowledge, the majority of the interviewees

were unfamiliar with the term tacit knowledge so the researcher explained that it was

peoples embedded knowledge, their inner know-how, it can be difficult to transfer and

it is often acquired through experience. Management identified that transferring tacit

knowledge is something that you cannot manage very well as you cannot stage and

make happen as it is really the people themselves that make it happen.


Table 5.5 indicates how management believe tacit knowledge should be managed

within ArcLabs. Management are of the consensus that creating an environment of

openness and honesty is necessary for tacit knowledge transfer efficiency.

Management believe they need to create an environment of knowledge awareness and

for networking to happen but it is up to organisational members to pursue these

opportunities. Two members of management indicated that introducing members to

the environment and notifying people of who is carrying out what within the building

would be useful. Interestingly, all management believe that informal networking and

unofficial activity are the best mechanisms in terms of transferring tacit knowledge.

Table 5.5 Tacit Knowledge Management

In order to manage tacit knowledge effectively it is important to discuss the barriers

associated with tacit knowledge transfer.

Stakeholder Head of

Research &

Innovation

ArcLabs

Manager SEEPP

manager Director of

CEDRE

Culture of

Openness &

Honesty

Creating

Knowledge

Awareness

Creating User

Independence

Instilling a vested

interest in people

Informal

Networking

Unofficial

Activity

Introduction to

other people in

the building


5.2.1 Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer

The researcher devised a chart based on the frequency of variables listed in Figure 5.2

occurring in N-Vivo through using the count function. Figure 5.2 represents the key

barriers to tacit knowledge transfer within the centre.

Figure 5.2: Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer within ArcLabs

In conjunction with Figure 5.2, Table 5.6 provides a summary of the barriers


Time, 19.65

Trust, 14.17

Individual Personality, 8.94

Motivation, 9.64

Documenting Ideas, 11.28

Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer in ArcLabs

Time

Trust

Individual Personality

Motivation

Documenting Ideas


Table 5.6 Summary of Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer within

ArcLabs

This table provides an overview of the key barriers associated with tacit knowledge

transfer within ArcLabs.

The importance of informal networking and experiential learning are discussed in the

next sections as mechanisms to overcome the aforementioned barriers associated with

tacit knowledge transfer.

Barrier Associated Issues

Time All of the respondents indicated that time was the biggest barrier

regarding tacit knowledge transfer.

The SEEPP participants, tenants and TSSG commercial division are

focused on getting their product or service to market whereas the

TSSG research division and CEDRE are more focused on meeting

research project deadlines. Their hectic schedule provides inadequate

time to share knowledge with other members.

The SEEPP manager indicated that time is a major constraint because

the curriculum is top heavy; there isn’t time to be distracted by other

engagements not strictly related to the curriculum.

Trust Trust is the second most influential factor in the transfer of tacit

knowledge.

The ArcLabs manager indicated that start-up companies are guarded

about their own business ideas but even when it is not even justified.

The TSSG respondent identified that there are “trust issues and

competitiveness issues between TSSG staff and the tenants because

they would be competing for similar type funding.

Documenting

Ideas This is proving to be a major barrier for start-up companies as they

cannot articulate what their business model is as the majority of them

are not even sure what a business model is.

A lot of academics are not good at documenting their ideas and the

progress they have made because it hinders their creativity.

Certain people are not good at documenting their knowledge through

email.

Motivation

Each of the separate entities seem to be more focused on their own

goals more so than managing knowledge or having the motivation to

share knowledge with other entities. Tenant X indicated that in the

case of their start-up, they are finding it difficult to motivate TSSG

staff to transfer their knowledge to people who want to spin-out of

TSSG.

Individual

Personality The Head of Research indicated that if the people who have

knowledge within your organisation happen to be the quietest people

and the most introverted people it is very hard to capture it and

secondly once you have that knowledge how do you guarantee that it

can get to the people that need it.


5.2.2 The Importance of Informal Networking and Unofficial Activity

The researcher asked the interviewees their opinions in terms of the most useful

mechanism in terms of transferring tacit knowledge.

The ArcLabs manager indicated that:

Within ArcLabs knowledge sharing can be informal but I also try to

help make some of those connections if I know that somebody has a

resource or an expertise in a certain area, I try to make those

connections between people but by and large they do that independent

of themselves.

Moreover, the ArcLabs manager indicated that:

The best way we can encourage knowledge sharing is to encourage

better easier and more informal networking because it really is the two

guys that have never met before over a cup of coffee talking about

what they do gives rise to opportunities. That seems to be far and

away the single most important way of sharing knowledge.

Equally, the management outlined that there is a culture that has built up over the last

five years to enable that to happen. The ArcLabs manager indicated that:

It is the kind of environment for example if you were to have a

networking event in here, with the intent of bringing people together,

it probably wouldn’t work as well as the more informal stuff that

tends to happen when people have a vested interest in making it

happen.

The ArcLabs manager and SEEPP manager stated the importance of having both

formal and ongoing informal sessions with the ArcLabs tenants and participants in

order to assess their progress. The ArcLabs manager mentioned about the Bizcamp

event taking place in ArcLabs, which is a gathering of entrepreneurs and the ArcLabs

manager outlined that:

This type of mechanism seems to work very well here and I think

culturally it seems to suit us very well as it involved a lot of

networking on the day and it is all very informal as there are no

headline speakers it is just people talking about what they do and what

they know.


Tenant Y indicated that “informal networking has been very important to me here”

and there have been times that they have been having coffee and bumped into

somebody in the corridor and got pushed in a different direction and found that has

been very helpful. Furthermore, Tenant Y was experiencing a problem with his web

hosting company in the UK and was able to speak to another tenant who works for

Betapond to come in on a conference call and solve the problem. Equally, Tenant X

stated that the best mechanism for sharing tacit knowledge is “I suppose informally

and that is something, which is very powerful in ArcLabs”. This kind of knowledge

transfer between different people in ArcLabs is mutually beneficial over time and that

does happen effectively. Tenant X maintains that the best way to transfer tacit

knowledge is to:

..create the environment where people know each other, this is very

important so maybe just a bit more information about what different

people in ArcLabs do so when a new company comes in they are

introduced to the ecosystem and they become part of the ecosystem

more effectively.

Interestingly, all the respondents indicated that the canteen is a very good centre for

people to meet and share knowledge.

5.2.3 The Importance of Experiential Learning

All of the respondents outlined the importance of experiential learning in terms of

sharing experiences and problems with people who have encountered similar or

previous experiences. The Director of CEDRE stated that:

For people to sit, talk and share ideas and stories is a far better way to

make things happen than to formally sit down and try and engineer

something and usually when you try and organise or engineer

something, people are coming from different angles and they are

looking for something specific and it is not always the same thing.

The SEEPP manager stated that the delivery of the SEEPP workshops is enhanced

through sharing tacit knowledge and “it is enhanced through the sharing of relevant

industry experience”.


The SEEPP manager indicated this year was the first time to bring in somebody

whose business had failed and for them to share their experiences with the class. He

believed that by having an entrepreneur that has failed and has the scars to prove it

“makes the whole thing a lot more credible and students learn more from these types

of people and their mistakes”. Overall, Participant X responded that they gained the

most from listening to other people in the group and their experiences with their

businesses and although there is a lot of information that comes from the lectures

about various different topics they feel they have covered all the theories before. “It

goes without saying that it is all brilliant information but the information that you get

from people on the course and the more interaction that you have with those people,

the more tacit knowledge you gain”. Both SEEPP participants suggested that there

was insufficient time allocated to allow participants to discuss their own businesses or

past experiences with the other participants.

5.3 The Facilitation of Knowledge Generation and Sharing within the Centre

Section 5.3 will address research objective 3 and identify how the management

facilitate and enhance knowledge generation and sharing within and outside the

centre.

5.3.1 Creating the Environment for Knowledge Exchange

The researcher gathered opinions on what the respondents thought of the current

organisational environment in terms of facilitating knowledge exchange. Tenant Y

indicated that if their companies were housed in an industrial estate that didn’t have

this kind of energy and activity that “I don’t think we would be doing as well today as

we are”. An emerging consensus from SEEPP participants and tenants was that

management were easily available and you didn’t have to spend time waiting for

meetings. The Director of CEDRE indicated that the most important thing that

management have got to do here is to “create the environment so that they can share

knowledge and there is no one looking over their shoulders”, it happens and that you

create the environment for that to happen.


The researcher put the question to management about staff mobility and about

management walking out the door with all their tacit knowledge and what measures

are in place to deal with this scenario. The Director of CEDRE responded that

management are trying to create an environment where people will come together and

that they will know what to do when they come together and they will know how to

share that knowledge. He said that if he disappeared in the morning he would bring a

lot of tacit knowledge with him but where if “I help to create the environment where

people have taken as much tacit knowledge from me as they possibly can, then it will

live on and that somebody else will have that knowledge and somebody else will

develop that knowledge”.

Moreover, all management were of the consensus that it is all about creating the

environment where people are open and honest with each other that they do share and

that they share openly and it will grow from that. In terms of the current

organisational structure and knowledge sharing, all of the respondents said they

preferred the more closed plan structure that is currently in place as opposed to the

more open plan structure that was originally in place. Equally, the SEEPP

participants and the tenants indicated the importance of privacy and knowing that

their idea is protected was as important as having an environment that facilitates

knowledge sharing.

5.3.2 Setting Ground Rules for Knowledge Sharing

The SEEPP manager indicated that management are setting ground rules such as

when you are within this building that you must be willing to engage in the sharing of

knowledge. He also stated:

You can’t walk in off the road here and decide you want to rent a

space here and just close your door. If you are renting space as a

tenant in this building you have to agree to the notion of interacting

with others.


The Head of Research stated that knowledge sharing is facilitated by the culture and

the culture of TSSG is the sharing of knowledge, the culture is open, the culture is that

people only benefit from being open, in other words, the culture is not that

information is power or that people who have information are powerful.

The culture is that the people who are respected are the people who

share ideas and knowledge and that sharing goes beyond people in

TSSG it means that is also shared with other companies who are in

ArcLabs.

Notably, it is important for management to set grounds rules such as ensuring the

entire community buys into the notion of interacting with their colleagues and other

organisational members. Subsequently, management must act as role models and

promote the fact that the sharing of knowledge is seen to be a positive for all parties

concerned.

5.3.3 Making and Breaking Connections

The SEEPP participants and tenants indicated that the most important aspect about

being part of the ArcLabs environment is the connections that they have made

through management. Tenant Y indicated that through management, they have

developed a synergy with Food NPD “but it wouldn’t happen if we were not here”.

Tenant X indicated that if he has a specific problem and I need a solution, the

ArcLabs Manager would get an innovation voucher to sort it out and direct you to an

appropriate research expert. The Head of Research mentioned about the company

Muzu TV, which is a company within ArcLabs that started externally and experienced

some issues designing their platform, engaged with TSSG, developed an innovation

partnership together and TSSG developed a solution for them through their know-how

and built the future development team that went into Muzu who are ex-employees of

TSSG. The Head of Research indicated that “so you can see the environment and the

way knowledge is transferred, it is highly dependent on people”. Essentially, the

management of all entities have a key role to play in terms of establishing connections

for their peers whether it is related to funding or identifying an appropriate research or

business expert.


5.4 Conclusion

Chapter 5 analysed the findings according to the accepted method of qualitative data

analysis. The researcher carried out a combination of data analysis and data reduction

techniques along with coding and categorising (Appendix J). In doing so, it has

focused on the themes discussed in the literature review and the questions posed in the

primary research interviews. This chapter explored the current practices regarding KM

and Knowledge Exchange within the context of explicit and tacit knowledge and how

the management team within the centre are supporting and guiding the transfer of

knowledge. In chapter 6, the researcher will discuss the implications of these findings

in alignment with the literature review. In chapter 7, the researcher will make

recommendations in terms of how ArcLabs can improve its processes of KM and

Knowledge Transfer for its entire research and innovation community.

Chapter 6 Discussion

Chapter 6 - Discussion


Chapter 6 - Discussion

6.0 Introduction

To reiterate, the first chapter of the literature review defined knowledge and KM and

provided an overview of KM in relation to the two types of knowledge, which are

tacit and explicit knowledge. It also addressed how tacit knowledge could be

converted to explicit knowledge. Moreover, it addressed the key issues associated

with managing tacit knowledge and outlined the success factors and barriers succinct

to tacit knowledge transfer.

The second chapter of the literature review described the current literature relating to

Business Incubators and Science Parks regarding their evolution and the importance

of these organisations within the context of knowledge creation and economic

development. Furthermore, this chapter outlined the rationale for KM within Science

Parks and Business Incubators and the importance of management to guiding the

transfer and generation of knowledge within these organisations. In order to

formulate a consistent discussion, the researcher uses the research objectives as

headings. Beneath each objective, the researcher discusses the similarities and

contradictions between the findings and the extant literature.

6.1 Discussion of the Transfer of Explicit Knowledge within ArcLabs


mechanisms in terms of how explicit knowledge is captured, exchanged and

transferred within ArcLabs and how this compares with extant literature.

6.1.1 The Capturing of Explicit Knowledge within ArcLabs

The literature review suggests that explicit knowledge is stored in paperwork,

manuals and information systems (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000).


Choo (2000) claims that explicit knowledge can be captured in products, code,

databases and prototypes whilst Meso and Smith (2000) maintains that explicit

knowledge can be captured in copyrights, trademarks and patents. This study concurs

with Choo (2000) and Meso and Smith (2000) as their opinions closely reflect the

situation within ArcLabs as explicit knowledge is primarily captured through

copyright. To summarise, the four ways of capturing knowledge within the centre is

mainly through documents such as published papers or manuals to prototypes to

products (Table 5.2 in chapter 5). This study aligns with Haldin-Herrgard (2002) as

all of the entities within ArcLabs would capture explicit knowledge in the form of

paperwork and information systems such as websites, intranets, repositories and

databases.

6.1.2 The Importance of Information Technology for KM

According to Davenport (1998), IT is a good mechanism for transforming and

distributing knowledge. This study found that IT is good at distributing knowledge

but furthermore they believe that email appears to be the fastest and most effective

way of transferring knowledge. Wong (2005) indicates that IT can facilitate easy and

fast retrieval of information and support the sharing of knowledge between its

members. The research highlighted that the ArcLabs tenants are using Google Docs

to share company information within the team, which is proving very useful in terms

of keeping everybody up to date. Primary research resonates with Wong (2005) and

indicates that information systems are a good mechanism for capturing information

and reusing knowledge. However, this finding contradicts Wong (2005) as they feel

information systems can prove difficult to use and lack user-friendliness if you are not

familiar with using them. Subsequently, a key finding of this study was that using

websites and intranets to provide information proved useful, but they felt that

information became redundant very quickly.


Interestingly, this study indicates that there is no Knowledge Management System

(KMS) currently in place but as the level of research is increasing, the need for such a

system is becoming increasingly necessary to manage knowledge within the institute.

Further research maybe carried out to validate this perspective. Subsequently, this

study strongly aligns with the work of Wong and Aspinwall, (2003) in the sense that

IT is only a tool and not a definitive answer to KM.

6.1.3 The Importance of Formal Events to Facilitate Knowledge Exchange

Sharma et al., (2008) maintain that bringing a group of people with collective

interests together proved beneficial in terms of sharing knowledge. This study

concurs with this statement as formal events can prove useful in terms of making

connections and developing new business opportunities. A key contribution of this

study is that having an event like the WIT Research Day is a good mechanism for

people to learn what other people are doing outside of their discipline and is a step

towards facilitating multidisciplinary research activity.

Nevertheless, this study contradicts the work of Sharma et al., (2008) as primary

research suggests that having formalised events like the Open Coffee Network for the

tenants to share knowledge ran out of steam. Management were of the consensus that

the more formulised you make something the less successful it is. Moreover,

management believed that formal events were not a good mechanism for sharing

knowledge as they are not good environments for getting to know people or getting to

know what they need. Primary research was of the agreement that formal events are

important but a key contribution of this study indicates that formal events are

necessary to allow the more informal knowledge sharing to occur. The work of

Harris (2009) is advanced in this study as the greater the distance between formal

events subsequently alleviates repetitiveness and thus keeps the information fresh and

alive.


6.2 Discussion of the Transfer of Tacit Knowledge within ArcLabs


mechanisms in terms of how tacit knowledge is captured, exchanged and transferred

within ArcLabs and how this compares with extant literature. The literature suggests

that tacit knowledge is difficult to communicate and transfer from one party to

another (Polanyi, 1962 and Tamer Cavusgil et al., 2003). This study closely reflects

these authors but outline the importance of informal networking and experiential

learning to facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge. Subsequently, Yih-Tong and

Scott (2005) outline that there are many barriers associated with tacit knowledge

transfer and this study concurs that it is important to identify the barriers in order to

facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge.

6.2.1 Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer

Literature suggests that there are many barriers within organisations’ regarding the

transfer of tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1962 and Yih-Tong Sun and Scott, 2005).

Herschel et al., (2001) and Tamer Cavusgil et al., (2003) stated that it can take a lot of

time for tacit knowledge to be converted to explicit knowledge because it is difficult

to communicate, interpret and transfer between parties. All respondents collectively

agreed that a lack of time was the main barrier in terms of tacit knowledge transfer

(Figure 5.2, chapter 5).

Furthermore, the work of Yih-Tong Sun and Scott (2005) resonates with the findings

in stating that trust was an influential factor in terms of people sharing information.

This research highlights that participants were less willing to share information in the

early stages of coming to the centre but were more inclined to do so once they had

built up a trust relationship. Moreover, a contribution of this study is that early start-

ups who are not concerned with guarding their information are often the businesses,

which turn out to be the most successful as opposed to the businesses that guard their

idea to themselves. Subsequently, the research indicates that competitiveness was a

key attribute in people not sharing information due to competition for similar funding.


Contrary to the studies of Tamer Cavusgil et al., (2003) and Yih-Tong Sun and Scott

(2005), research indicates that documenting your ideas was a barrier to tacit

knowledge transfer. The research found that academics are not going at documenting

their ideas and progress they have made as it hinders creativity. Furthermore, new

start-ups find it difficult to articulate their business model or provide a product

roadmap as they are unsure what they mean. A key finding of this study was that

certain people are not good at transferring their knowledge through email and

therefore people need to be shown effective ways of communicating their message

since the majority of communication is done through email nowadays.

Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, (2008) maintains that it is vital that organisations

concentrate on the human factors such as commitment and hopes and rewards. The

findings of this study concur with the notion of commitment but contrary to the

studies of Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, (2008), this study outlines that motivation

should be considered as a human-related factor. Notably, one of the ArcLab tenants

indicated that they are finding it difficult to motivate TSSG staff to share their tacit

knowledge and expertise to assist companies that want to spin out or spin in their

business within ArcLabs. Furthermore, this study suggests that motivation is a key

factor for entrepreneurs nowadays in terms of helping them to codify their tacit

knowledge and transfer it into a valuable product or service. This is becoming

increasingly difficult due to the current economic climate where funding is limited.

A key contribution of this study is that different personality traits can act as a barrier

to tacit knowledge transfer. This research suggests that if the people who have the

knowledge are the quietest and most introverted people, it can be challenging to

capture their knowledge and subsequently pass in on to the people who need it. Thus,

it maybe concluded that fully integrating these members into the team and ensuring

some other members of the team are able to capture and extract this individual’s

embedded knowledge and put it to use for the benefit of the team and for the

organisation. The next sections outline the importance of informal networking and

sharing experiences as mechanisms to overcome some of the aforementioned barriers



6.2.2 The Importance of Informal Networking and Unofficial Activity

Nirmala and Vemuri (2009) maintain that informal knowledge sharing networks are

gaining immense popularity within the context of KM. Furthermore, these authors

believe that the majority of knowledge transfer doesn’t happen through formal

structures it is more about people engaging informally and developing interpersonal

relationships based on this face-to-face contact. This study strongly corresponds with

the work of Nirmala and Vemuri (2009) regarding the importance of knowledge

sharing on an informal basis but a key contribution of this study is that informal

knowledge sharing and unofficial activity are the best mechanisms in terms of

transferring tacit knowledge. The contemporary work of Sharma et al., (2008) and

Nirmala and Vemuri (2009) has been advanced in this study as primary research

recognises that tacit knowledge transfer is not something that you can manage very

well and it is not something that you can stage and make happen, it is really the

people themselves that make it happen because they have the vested interest in

making it happen.

6.2.3 The Importance of Experiential Learning

Throughout the literature it was pointed out that tacit knowledge is difficult to transfer

and is highly dependent upon providing individuals with the opportunity to share their

experiences. Literature suggests that it cannot be taught in the same way as explicit

knowledge (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). Furthermore, Zack, (1999) and Harris (2009)

recommend that a critical success factor to tacit knowledge transfer is through

establishing a networking mechanism, which enables participants to share their

knowledge and experiences. Harris (2009) believes that this approach works best for

university learning networks as a mechanism to manage their embedded knowledge.

This finding reasserts the contemporary thinking of Harris (2009) and extends to say

that bringing in industry experts such as entrepreneurs where their business has failed

and they have bounced back. This type of knowledge sharing is proving invaluable

for newly formed start-up companies as they are provided with an opportunity to

share real life experiences.


6.3 Discussion of the Facilitation of Knowledge Generation and Sharing within the Centre

Section 6.3 will address research objective 3 and identify how the management

facilitate and enhance knowledge generation and sharing within and outside the centre

and how this compares with extant literature.

6.3.1 Creating the Environment for Knowledge Exchange

Rice and Matthews (1995) and Lalkaka (2003) shared the idea that it is the

management of incubators and the provision of support services to client companies,

which provides greater value to clients. Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, (2008)

maintain it is imperative that management cultivate an environment, which promotes

the creation of tacit knowledge and ensure this environment enables organisational

members to feel safe when sharing their knowledge. The contemporary thinking of

Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann (2008) resonates with the findings of this study.

These authors also suggest the importance making the majority of an organisation’s

knowledge explicit and to make the organisation safe when staff leave with their

personal knowledge. This finding extends the work of these authors, who indicated

that management must create the environment where people will come together and

know what to do when they come together and where people will need to absorb as

much tacit knowledge from management as they possibly can. Then if a member of

management leaves it will live on as somebody else will have gained that knowledge.

The literature outlines that the physical layout of offices can act as a barrier as they

obstruct and interrupt communication patterns between employees (von Krogh and

Köhne, 1998; Lehner and Lehmann, 2004; Hall and Sapsed, 2005). Notably, the work

of these authors is advanced in this study, as all of the respondents indicated that they

preferred the more closed plan structure as opposed to the more open plan structure

that was originally in place. Moreover, a key finding of this study is the importance

of privacy and knowing that their idea is protected was as important as having an

environment that facilitates knowledge sharing.

6.3.2 Setting Ground Rules for Knowledge Sharing


According to Cavusgil et al., (2003), the use and transfer of tacit knowledge will

largely depend upon management to act as role models and offer rewards to staff for

the successful transfer of such knowledge. This study concurs with this statement in

stating that management must act as role models in terms promoting knowledge

sharing. On the contrary, the management were not in favour of offering rewards to

organisational members as they didn’t see the purpose of giving rewards because of

the context within, which this environment operates as campus incubators are not like

any organisation and this could lead to a situation where knowledge is power.

The work of Cavusgil et al., (2003) is advanced in this study to include the

importance of management to have regular discussions with their peers in order to

identify their progress. A key finding of this study is that management setting ground

rules such as advising start-ups that if they want to rent a space in ArcLabs that they

must agree to the notion of interacting with others and sharing their knowledge.

Subsequently, a key contribution of this study is that knowledge sharing is facilitated

by having a culture whereby people are open and honest with one another and the

culture is not that information is power or that people who have information are

powerful. The culture is that the people who are respected are the people who share

ideas and knowledge and that sharing goes beyond their own entity.

6.3.3 Making and Breaking Connections

Throughout the literature it was pointed out that incubators provide start-ups with an

environment for networking, resource sharing and knowledge generation. However,

according to Albert and Gaynor, (2003); Lockett and Wright, (2005); Nouira et al.,

(2005), university incubators usually carry out three major objectives: encouragement

of entrepreneurship, technology transfer and commercialisation of cutting edge

research. This research closely reflects the work of these authors and extends it into

the importance of management using their own networks to identify appropriate

expertise for start-up companies and pointing them in the right direction by helping

them to make new breakthroughs for their business.

Unlike prior researchers, Aernoudt (2004) and Ratinho and Henriques (2009), this

study found that the way knowledge is transferred is highly dependent on people and


their willingness to share knowledge. The next section proposes a conceptual

framework developed by the researcher to facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge.

6.4 Conceptual Framework and Research Question

The literature review indicates that situational and relational factors are necessary for

the knowledge transfer process (Joshi et al., 2005). However, this author failed to

take some of the aspects (Figure 6.1) into context. Building on Joshi et al., (2005)

findings, the researcher devised a conceptual framework including additional key

factors, which will aid the knowledge transfer process. Subsequently, the research

question and objectives are the basis for this conceptual model as seen in Figure 6.1.

The researcher decided to focus on how Campus Incubators can improve how they

efficiently manage tacit knowledge because it is the embedded knowledge that most

organisations struggle with as opposed to explicit knowledge whereby the majority of

organisations are fully capable of managing this type of knowledge.

Figure 6.1: Conceptual Framework – Enabling the Efficient Transfer of Tacit

Knowledge within Campus Incubators

Situational Factors

Face to Face interaction

Story telling and Sharing

Experiences

Formal and Informal

Knowledge Sharing

Time Efficient

Transfer of

Tacit

Knowledge

Close

Interpersonal

Relationships

Relational Factors

Communication

Trust & Intimacy

Co-operation

Commitment

Motivation


Situational Factors required to develop Close Interpersonal Relationships

One of the situational factors mentioned by many researchers and practitioners is

having face-to-face interaction to help facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge

(Senge, 1990 and Cavusgil et al., 2003). Moreover, Zack (1999) and Scott (2000)

claim that tacit knowledge is best transferred through conversation, story telling and

sharing experiences. Sharma et al., (2008) and Harris (2009) maintain that a critical

success factor to tacit knowledge transfer is through establishing a networking

mechanism either formal or informal but allows participants to share their knowledge

and experiences. Furthermore, Nonaka et al., (2000) and Seidler-de Alwis and

Hartmann, (2008) maintain that participants must be given the time and space to share

knowledge.

Relational Factors required to develop Close Interpersonal Relationships

Haldin-Herrgard (2000) maintains that regular communication between parties gives

them time to understand each others’ needs and requirements. Cavusgil et al., (2003)

outline that mutual trust, frequent and close interactions and an open relationship

between the sender and the recipient will lead to tacit knowledge transfer. However,

the researcher believes that once this climate of trust has been established both parties

must co-operate with management, be committed and motivated to the notion of

interacting with others and sharing their knowledge in order for a close interpersonal

relationship to develop. These situational and relational factors enable participants to

develop a close interpersonal relationship and subsequently facilitate the transfer of

tacit knowledge.

Close Interpersonal Relationships and Tacit Knowledge Transfer Efficiency

Tamer Cavusgil et al., (2003) previously stated that close interpersonal relationships

are necessary for the transfer of tacit knowledge. Therefore, if a strong relationship

exists between the sender and the receiver, they are more likely to exchange detailed

information and knowledge with each other, which is an important process in the

development of a new business or a research project.


Close interpersonal relationships between the sender and recipient will encourage in-

depth communication and face-to-face interaction between these parties. Hence,

Tamer Cavusgil et al., (2003) and Holden et al., (nd) state that the stronger the

relationship, the greater the transfer of tacit knowledge between the parties involved.

Foos et al., (2006) established that the earlier a relationship is created between the two

parties, the more successful the transfer of tacit knowledge between the parties.

Therefore, building early relationships are vital for the success of any project (Foos et

al., 2006).

6.5 Conclusion

Chapter 6 discussed the primary findings and compared them to the findings of the

literature review. When the knowledge transfer mechanisms were discussed, a large

degree of consistency was noted. A number of factors were noted in the literature

review to have key impact on the transfer of tacit knowledge as identified in the

conceptual framework (Figure 6.1), but the literature review failed to identify the

importance of having formal events to allow the informal networking to happen, co-

operation and motivation in terms of the willingness of the parties involved to share

knowledge. This model integrates the findings of the literature review and the new

findings, which were identified by primary research. This innovative framework will

make a new advancement to KM and subsequently provide a guide to Campus

Incubators in understanding the factors, which lead to the successful transfer of tacit

knowledge. Chapter 7 presents the conclusions of the dissertation and proposes a

number of recommendations for the key stakeholders associated with the centre.


Chapter 7 - Conclusions


Chapter 7 – Conclusions

7.0 Introduction

This chapter revisits the research objectives and literature review conclusions. It

provides a number of conclusions to the research and subsequently a number of

recommendations for practitioners of the ArcLabs Research and Innovation Centre.

The primary research findings and their importance are considered and subsequently

the researcher will highlight some of the limitations of this study and make

recommendations for future research.

7.1 Research Aim and Objectives

The intention of this study was to investigate KM practices within the ArcLabs

Research and Innovation Centre at WIT. The need for this research was to close the

gap on the lack of comprehensive research regarding KM and Knowledge Transfer

within the Campus Incubation sector. In particular, this study sought to address the

following research objectives:

The Transfer of Explicit Knowledge within ArcLabs

The Transfer of Tacit Knowledge within ArcLabs

Facilitation and Enhancement of Knowledge Generation and Sharing within

the Centre

The next section summarises the key conclusions from the literature review.


7.2 Literature Review Conclusions

This section outlines the key conclusions arising from the literature review as follows:

Table 7.1 Literature Review Conclusions

7.3 Summary of Primary Research Findings

In the next section, a summary of the key findings from the primary research will be

examined.

Key Conclusions

KM is bounded by confusion and limited reality of its purpose.

Tacit knowledge is “sticky” and can generate difficulties for organisations in terms of

trying to transfer this knowledge.

Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer

Time

Lack of a Trust Relationship between the sender and receiver

Culture of the Organisation

Physical layout of offices.

Success Factors to Tacit Knowledge Transfer

Time and Space must be provided to participants to share knowledge and

generate new knowledge

Strong Communication patterns

Trust relationship needs to be established between the parties involved

Management must cultivate the environment, which promotes knowledge

generation and sharing and members need to feel safe when it comes to sharing

knowledge.

No literature exists regarding how to conceptualise the knowledge transfer process

between university networks.

None of the literature focused on how knowledge should be managed within the

Campus Incubation sector in Ireland.

Ireland must now shift to a smart innovative economy where the ability to transfer

knowledge into new products and services will be essential in making economic

recovery



Table 7.2 Summary of Primary Research Findings

This table identifies the primary research findings based on the three research objectives.

7.4 Contribution of the Research

Summary of Primary Research Findings

The Transfer of Explicit

Knowledge Explicit Knowledge is captured through copyright,

publications, reports, manuals to prototypes to products.

IT is sharing and transforming knowledge through

websites, intranets, repositories such as Perforce,

Google Docs, Email and Moodle. IT is proving useful

but information redundancy is a major problem in terms

of keeping information up to date especially with

websites.

Presently, there is no common interface such as portal

to enable enterprises to identify research expertise and

innovatory practices taking place within the college.

There is no KMS in place at present to manage

knowledge due to cost implications.

Formal events allow connections to be made and to

allow the more informal knowledge sharing to occur

and thus facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge.

Having events like the WIT Research Day are excellent

mechanisms to facilitate multidisciplinary research

activity.

The Transfer of Tacit

Knowledge Informal knowledge sharing and sharing experiences

appear to be the best mechanisms in terms of sharing

tacit knowledge.

Facilitation of

Knowledge Generation

and Sharing within the

centre

Creating an open environment where people are open

and honest with one another is the best mechanism to

transfer tacit knowledge.

Management need to create the environment where

people know each other.

Management must set ground rules for start-up

companies indicating that if they want to be come part

of the ArcLabs environment, they have to agree to the

notion of interacting with others and sharing their

knowledge.


A key contribution of this study is that the researcher developed a conceptual

framework, which identified the relational and situational factors necessary to create a

close interpersonal relationship and thus facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge.

This framework advances the studies relating to the transfer of tacit knowledge and

enables practitioners to fully understand how tacit knowledge can be transferred

efficiently. This area of research is under researched and the researcher believes this

study will advance the study of Knowledge Management within the Campus

Incubation Sector.

7.5 Recommendations for Key Stakeholders within the ArcLabs Centre

The researcher has identified recommendations for each of the key stakeholders

within the ArcLabs Research and Innovation Centre.

7.5.1 ArcLabs Management Team

A portal should be implemented, which allows enterprises to identify research

expertise within WIT. This portal should have a search facility, which enables

the user to type in key words and direct them to the relevant research expert.

The onus is on the research groups to put up a snap shot of what they do and

ensure that they maintain and constantly update their key research interests.

A formal event needs to be organised within the centre, which enables all

entities of the centre to come together and share their knowledge. This could

be in the form of a poster session, enabling all parties to identify who is doing

what within the centre. This session could be an opportunity to bring in

venture capital bodies as a lack of funding is a key problem for start-up

companies at present.

A WIT Industry Day needs to be organised for businesses to come together

and share knowledge. This could be industry or sector specific. In this current

climate this could be an occasion to identify new shared opportunities.

Businesses could share strategic bottlenecks with academic staff and assist

academics to re-focus their research or carry out new research.


A Knowledge Management System needs to be implemented by the

Technology Transfer office to capture details regarding Intellectual Property

(IP) such as copyrights, patents and know-how due to the increasing amount

of knowledge.

7.5.2 Academics and Policy Makers

It is vital that academics involve industry in the early-stages of their research

as it will inform the researcher of the challenges that are currently out there.

Academics will need to go out into the industrial environment more often to

enable a trust relationship to be developed between both parties.

7.5.3 Entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurs must develop a product roadmap to enable them to visualise

their idea. The poster session could be opportunity for these entrepreneurs to

showcase their work.

Entrepreneurs must be willing to interact and share their business ideas rather

than safe guarding it to themselves.

7.5.4 TSSG Staff

TSSG staff should also engage in the poster session to showcase their work

and use it as an opportunity to meet all the other entities within the ArcLabs

environment and with the possibility of identifying new opportunities.

TSSG staff must be more willing to share their knowledge with entrepreneurs

or start-up companies that want to spin out of TSSG.

7.5.5 Educationalists

As part of the SEEPP programme, it is important that real-life cases are

brought in to share their experiences with the participants. For example, a real

life case where somebody has hit a problem with IP and the university is

challenging their patent. This person could share their experiences in terms of

how they dealt with this type of problem.

It is important that the Director of SEEPP considers the emerging importance

of motivation as this is becoming a big issue for entrepreneurs today. The


delivery of motivational workshops possibly aligned with goal setting should

be considered.

Also, workshops on New Product Design and Development should be

implemented to enable entrepreneurs to develop product roadmaps and hence

provide a quicker route to market.

7.6 Limitations of this Research

This investigation was carried out in one research and innovation centre. It may be

argued that this research would be nonspecific to all Irish Campus Incubation Centres.

If more time was available, the researcher would liked to have conducted interviews

with the Technology Transfer Manager, additional SEEPP participants, ArcLabs

Tenants and additional TSSG staff. The researcher would have liked to complete a

comparative study to include another Campus Incubation Centre. The researcher is an

employee of WIT where the study took place and efforts were made to eliminate bias

and these issues were addressed in chapter 3, however total elimination of influence

and bias may not be possible.

7.7 Recommendations for Further Research

This has been a small-scale study and the findings are specific to one research and

innovation centre. Further research could be undertaken go gain a broader

understanding of this topic.

A comparative case-study could be carried out to compare the findings in

ArcLabs with those in other Campus Incubation Centres within the IoT sector.

Alternatively, a comparative study could be carried out to compare the

findings in an Irish university incubation centre or an overseas equivalent.

Once the KMS system is implemented, examine in detail the improvements

made for the entire research and innovation community within the college.

Repeat the study in five years to examine the success of implementing a portal

as mechanism to connect enterprises with research expertise.


Knowledge Management solutions for research and innovation centres within

Ireland could be examined in greater depth as there is a lack of comprehensive

research at present.


7.8 Reflexivity of the Researcher

During the research process, the researcher kept a reflective log (Appendix A) in

order to map the journey. The researcher believed that their belief, self-discipline and

drive were imperative to reaching the summit of the mountain.

7.9 Conclusion

The research highlighted a lack of comprehensive research pertaining to KM and

Knowledge Transfer practices within the Campus Incubation sector. The research

fulfilled this gap by developing a conceptual model identifying the factors necessary

to facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge. Despite, the limitations to this research,

the objectives of the research have been achieved and hence it is aspired that the

research gap has been reduced. In order to advance the field, the researcher believes

that further research could be carried out in terms of KM solutions for research and

innovation centres as there is a lack of comprehensive research in this area at present.

Finally, it is hoped that the recommendations made will be given significant

consideration.

Documents

An investigation of knowledge management practices within