Search results

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to present the empirical findings from a case study in knowledge sharing with the aim of understanding knowledge sharing in a strategic context through a socio‐technical approach. Design/methodology/approach – Knowledge sharing facilitators and barriers were examined in a UK owned multinational engineering organisation. A total of 20 semi‐structured interviews were conducted and analysed using a combination of matrix and template analysis. Findings – The paper highlights leadership, organisational, and individual factors that are perceived to impact knowledge sharing. Furthermore, three sub‐factors: trust, individual motivation and geographical location, are discussed as double‐edged factors, i.e. their impact on knowledge sharing is complex in that they may act as both barriers and enablers. Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of this study is that it is conducted in a single organisational context. A second case study is currently being analysed to explore knowledge sharing in a different context within the same organisation. Practical implications – A balanced approach to knowledge management practices is emphasised where both technical and social aspects are taken into account. Originality/value – This paper provides important contributions. First, it emphasises the impact of strategic change on knowledge sharing as one aspect of the organisational knowledge management. Second, it frames knowledge sharing within a socio‐technical approach. Third, it provides us with empirical evidence through our use of case study in an organisational setting.

The overall aim of this research is to increase understanding of consumers' barriers in relation to convenience food. While the motivation for consuming convenience food has been investigated frequently, few studies have investigated the barriers.

Three focus group studies, exploring consumers' ready‐to‐heat (RTH) meal dilemmas, were conducted in Norway.

The frequency of barriers and four narratives are presented, and the results indicate that consumers face bottom‐up dilemmas related to barriers like sensory perception, health, economy, and managing relationships; and/or top‐down value dilemmas related to traditions, quality of life and environmental barriers when considering convenience food consumption.

This research contributes to the current body of literature, which mainly focuses on drivers of convenience demand, by elaborating on barriers and dilemmas for convenience choice.

The findings imply how marketers should communicate with the convenience market. Marketing managers need to understand which barriers to break or what dilemmas to discuss when communicating with the RTH market.

By structuring focus group interviews according to the individual respondents (“who said what”) and by presenting the data as narratives, the paper shows a new way to analyze focus group interviews.

What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domain‐specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways; producing special classifications and thesauri; research on indexing and retrieving specialities; empirical user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies; epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication; and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed.