Journal of Knowledge Management

Emerald Article: Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical research and development Anne-Mette Lilleoere, Ebba Holme Hansen

Article information:
To cite this document: Anne-Mette Lilleoere, Ebba Holme Hansen, (2011),"Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical research and development", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 1 pp. 53 - 70 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111108693 Downloaded on: 20-09-2012 References: This document contains references to 63 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 1785 times since 2011. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Charles Inskip, Andy MacFarlane, Pauline Rafferty, (2010),"Organising music for movies", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 62 Iss: 4 pp. 489 - 501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531011074726 Hui Chen, Miguel Baptista Nunes, Lihong Zhou, Guo Chao Peng, (2011),"Expanding the concept of requirements traceability: The role of electronic records management in gathering evidence of crucial communications and negotiations", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63 Iss: 2 pp. 168 - 187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135646 James DeLisle, Terry Grissom, (2011),"Valuation procedure and cycles: an emphasis on down markets", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 384 - 427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150312

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by INSTITUTO TECNOLOGICO Y DE ESTUDIOS SUPERIO MONTERREY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical research and development

Anne-Mette Lilleoere and Ebba Holme Hansen

Abstract Purpose Because selling innovative products is crucial to its livelihood, the pharmaceutical industry has a fundamental need to share knowledge to stimulate the process of knowledge creation. This study seeks to explore knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical R&D. Design/methodology/approach A case study was carried out in a pharmaceutical company in Denmark. R&D professionals were asked to identify organizational enablers and barriers to knowledge sharing. Their accounts were processed as text during workshops. Data were condensed thematically. The analysis was combined with the conceptualization of tacit and explicit knowledge as proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi. Findings The research shows that R&D professionals have different views and practices regarding engaging in knowledge sharing. This reveals that knowledge sharing is multi-faceted and that one standard for R&D professionals does not exist. The enablers identied recognized the use of tacit knowledge. The existence of enablers and barriers with oppositional inuence on knowledge-sharing practices is evident. Furthermore, synergy is identied in the knowledge-sharing enablers provided that the settings fostering personal closeness to colleagues are stimulated. Physical proximity to colleagues therefore has obvious inuence on knowledge-sharing practices. Research limitations/implications This study was based on a single case study. The extent to which the ndings can be generalized to other industries is unknown. Practical implications The ndings have implications for R&D managers who must be aware of these professional diversities in order to enhance knowledge-sharing practices. Attention should also be given to the synergies hidden in knowledge-sharing enablers. Originality/value Focused implementation of enablers will increase knowledge-sharing practices and minimize barriers. Keywords Knowledge management, Pharmaceuticals industry, Research and development, Case studies, Quality, Research Paper type Case study

Anne-Mette Lilleoere is based at Novo Nordisk A/S Research & Development, Gentofte, Denmark. Ebba Holme Hansen is based in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Section for Social Pharmacy at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

1. Introduction
The pharmaceutical industry has been known for its creation of innovative products (Horrobin, 2001). However, the industrys innovative pipeline has dried out over the last decade. The pharmaceutical industry has unique characteristics such as a highly regulatory environment, long development cycles, and a high level of risks and costs in the R&D process. Time from discovery to marketing of a new drug requires on average 8-10 years (Ganguli, 2003). A main focus in the pharmaceutical industry is therefore to reduce time-to-market. In order to stay competitive, companies have focused on other initiatives such as maximizing the potential of existing product portfolios and practicing incremental innovation (Tranter, 2000) with focus on life cycle management and technical solutions particularly reducing time-to-market. This focus has meant that other aspects of this innovative shortage have been overlooked or at least not fully discussed taken into account. One of these aspects is the potential of individuals and their actions and interactions within the R&D organization. The pharmaceutical industry has unique characteristics such as a

The authors would like to thank the employees at Novo Nordisk R&D, Denmark for participating in this study, as well as Novo Nordisk R&D for funding this PhD project. The authors are grateful for the support of Ejvind Jensen, Director, Novo Nordisk R&D, during the initiation of this PhD project and throughout the process. Received: 16 March 2010 Accepted: 12 July 2010

DOI 10.1108/13673271111108693

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011, pp. 53-70, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 53

highly regulatory environment, long development cycles, and a high level of risks and costs in the R&D process. Time from discovery to marketing of a new drug requires on average 8-10 years (Ganguli, 2003). One area where organizations may be able to increase their innovative performance is knowledge sharing created through interactions among individuals. The value of knowledge sharing is also related to the fact that organizational knowledge is a unique asset difcult to imitate (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Sapienza and Lombardino, 2006). Knowledge sharing is therefore believed to enhance the creation of knowledge, potentially enabling new innovative products to be developed at greater speed. However, knowledge sharing does not come about easily. Knowledge sharing is strongly dependent on the setting, various personal beliefs, and the actions and practices among the individuals involved. In this perspective, the understanding and acknowledgement of individual diversities in knowledge sharing is fundamental to catalyzing the process within R&D organizations. Therefore uncovering the knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers of different professional groups and learning how they apply to pharmaceutical R&D is important to innovative performance.

2. Aim
This article explores the knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical R&D as experienced by different professional groups, i.e. scientists and laboratory technicians. The research is based on a qualitative, single case study (Yin, 2003) conducted at Novo Nordisk R&D, Denmark. The focus of the empirical analysis is on the project level, because this level provides the primary context for the performance of knowledge creation modes in the organization. In addition, the lack of prior empirical research into the diversity of knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers of different professionals groups in R&D makes ndings relevant to R&D managers in the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore this research contributes to the present knowledge gap. The ndings are suggested to be highly relevant as knowledge sharing in organizations can contribute reducing time-to-market in pharmaceutical R&D hereby creating competitive advantage.

3. Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing can be conceptualized in various ways ranging from the exploration of new knowledge through renewed combinations of existing knowledge to the exploitation of existing knowledge (Szulanski, 1996; Uzzi and Lancaster, 2003). Knowledge sharing can also be seen as a process of knowledge exchange. It has been argued that the motivation for these different exchanges is related to the expectation of receiving something in return (Fiske, 1991). Grant (1996) also argues that knowledge sharing is about ensuring that existing knowledge is distributed within or across organizational boundaries. A key task for R&D organizations is to ensure that knowledge is captured and shared for the continuous knowledge creation processes (Berends et al., 2006). Different approaches dealing with knowledge sharing exist such as the SECI model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The SECI model deals with two knowledge dimensions; tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, respectively. Knowledge that can be shared easily is referred to as explicit knowledge, while knowledge that is difcult to share is referred to as tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Tacit knowledge is thus inherently difcult to share across organizational units such as departments, functions and groups due to its stickiness. Tacit knowledge is hard to communicate because it is socially embedded and based on personal experiences (Von Hippel, 1994; Nonaka, 1994; Szulanski, 1996; Osterloch and Frey, 2000). Knowledge sharing can positively inuence organizational performance through sharing both tacit and explicit knowledge, which emerges into a knowledge creation spiral as proposed by Nonaka and co-worker (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). According to these authors, knowledge is dynamically created through the interaction between individuals, ultimately through the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. This

PAGE 54 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

conceptualization is often referred to as SECI, an acronym specifying four knowledge creation modes: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The elements in the SECI model address core aspects of knowledge. However, the model has not previously been applied in published, empirical studies conducted in pharmaceutical R&D. Different aspects of knowledge is also essential in pharmaceutical R&D, and hence the SECI model has been a central element for the analysis of this present study. Chou discussed the link between knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (Chou, 2005). He argues that three kinds of issues may have an impact on knowledge creation: the individuals ability to absorb and share knowledge, organizational learning mechanisms, and the ability to store and retrieve knowledge. Absorptive capability refers to the individuals ability to utilize available knowledge (Grifth et al., 2003; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Published empirical studies dealing with the exploration of knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical R&D are scare. The enablers of organizational creativity in pharmaceutical R&D were explored earlier in an empirical study by Sundgren et al. (2005). This study suggested that information sharing and intrinsic motivation were important enablers for organizational creativity. Another empirical study explored the role of knowledge sharing measured as the number of patents in pharmaceutical R&D (Cardinal and Hateld, 2000). This study showed that industries with more than one R&D laboratory created more patents than others. Furthermore, R&D laboratories close to headquarters, i.e. within 100 miles, did not stimulate patent activity but did enhance new drug productivity. These ndings provided evidence that corporate interference in rms was harmful to basic research as represented by patents. In another empirical study, Styhre et al. (2008) demonstrated the positive impact of utilizing a knowledge-sharing facilitator in meetings between clinical research teams in pharmaceutical R&D. By paying careful attention to participants, the facilitator was able to help them create a joint sense of condence and purpose. Brachos et al. (2007) also studied different factors relevant for transferring knowledge between units (in the pharmaceutical industry among others). Brachos and co-workers found that contextual factors such as trust, motivation, management support and learning were crucial for fostering knowledge transfer. In addition, an empirical study conducted by Schulze and Hoegl (2006) showed the importance of the socialization mode to the concept phase of new product development in several industries, including mechanical equipment, electrical products, medical devices, automotive, and information technologies. Empirical studies conducted in the pharmaceutical industry have found that sharing of tacit knowledge is important for knowledge creation (Cardinal and Hateld, 2000; Kneller, 2003; Nerkar, 2003; Thompson and Heron, 2006; Chang et al., 2007). 3.1 Knowledge-sharing enablers The creation of a knowledge-sharing culture is thought to be one of the most important knowledge-sharing enablers (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Thus, one key challenge may be to facilitate effective knowledge sharing in the organization by ensuring adsorptive capacity and a culture that supports knowledge sharing (Nielsen, 2006). In an R&D environment, Dewett (2007) demonstrated empirically that employee creativity is related to self-efcacy and interest in ones work. Incentives can also facilitate an individuals willingness to participate in knowledge sharing (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Chang et al., 2007). Knowledge sharing has a strong social dimension in which knowledge work may best be practiced in informal settings that assimilate social exchanges (Alvesson, 2004). Corti and Lo Storto (2000) highlight that common coffee and lunch breaks are settings that enable knowledge sharing due to the fostering of personal closeness. Physical proximity was stimulated through job-rotations in pharmaceutical marketing enabling knowledge sharing

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 55

and hence knowledge creation (Leenders and Wierenga, 2002). In an empirical study, Cardinal and Hateld (2000) found that human networks were one of the key vehicles for sharing knowledge and that trust among individuals was related to informal networks. Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) emphasized the role of social ties as channels for knowledge sharing. Social ties have also been found valuable; empirical ndings by Levin and Cross (2004) demonstrated that individuals are ve times more likely to contact other individuals than to use technical systems. Von Krogh et al. (2000) proposed relationships exhibiting a high degree of care for the other, i.e. mutual trust, active empathy, access to help, leniency in judgment, and courage as enablers of knowledge sharing. In another study, Styhre et al. (2002) suggested that care was the underlying key factor behind knowledge-creation in team-based organizations involving tacit knowledge. An employee feels motivated to share knowledge once he or she has a good relationship with another person (Deci and Flaste, 1995), or social relations have proven to be helpful (Von Krogh et al., 2000). In addition, an empirical study suggests that social dilemmas are also embedded in knowledge-sharing practices, because organizational knowledge is more likely to be shared with a person who is highly likeable rather than with someone who is highly competent (Casciaro and Lobo, 2005). Furthermore, common identity often facilitates knowledge sharing as individuals within one group understand each other better than people from outside the group, i.e. people are embedded in the same practice, speak the same technical language and have a similar identity (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Borgatti and Cross, 2003; (Currie and Kerrin, 2003).

3.2 Barriers to knowledge sharing The opposite of a knowledge-sharing enabler often also exists as a barrier. Some of these barriers are: no knowledge of where knowledge is available, no knowledge about the existence of valuable knowledge (ODell and Grayson, 1998; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000), not having access to knowledge (Hansen et al., 1999), the epistemological differences between tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Szulanski, 2003), the assumption that knowledge equals power (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002), and large physical and social distance between individuals (McLaughlin et al., 2008). Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) had described how a certain belief, such as not having valuable information that was relevant to others, was an obstacle to engaging in knowledge-sharing practices. Szulanski (1996) found that knowledge sharing is inhibited by three major factors: 1. lack of absorptive capacity of the recipient; 2. casual ambiguity concerning the knowledge itself; and 3. an arduous relationship between the sender and the receiver (the latter point has also been made by Albrams et al. (2003)). Szulanski also found that motivational factors played only a minor role in connection with transferability of knowledge. These ndings indicate that successful knowledge sharing requires more than just transferring knowledge. In addition, knowing that knowledge exists is not enough to initiate knowledge sharing, as it presupposes a relationship among those involved (Szulanski, 1996). Napier and Ferris (1993) describe how physical distance between colleagues makes it more difcult for them to share dimensions of tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is socially embedded and increasing its potential would require settings that simulate physical proximity (Cardinal and Hateld, 2000). This present study will uncover knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers among different professional groups working in pharmaceutical R&D. Insights into knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers is a foundation for the application of a successful knowledge management approach in an organization (Birkenshaw, 2001).

PAGE 56 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

4. Methods and data

4.1 Settings The present study was designed as a single case study exploring enablers and barriers to knowledge sharing among professionals working with pharmaceutical development at Novo Nordisk R&D, Denmark (Yin, 2003). Novo Nordisk is a health care company and a world leader in diabetes care. The company has the broadest diabetes product portfolio in the pharmaceutical industry, including the most advanced products in the area of insulin delivery systems. Novo Nordisk has a leading position in areas such as haemostasis management, growth hormone therapy and hormone replacement therapy. In addition, Novo Nordisk has created a drug pipeline for chronic inammatory and autoimmune disorders. With headquarters in Denmark, Novo Nordisk employs approximately 26,000 full-time employees in 80 countries, and markets its products in 179 countries. More than 4,600 people work in R&D (Novo Nordisk A/S, 2009). 4.2 Participants The participants were staff from the two departments responsible for developing new drug products. The key focus of the two departments is to develop the drug product and the drug product manufacturing process for further up-scaling in production facilities. These responsibilities are allocated throughout the development phases, i.e. preclinical, phases 1, 2, and 3. The manager empowers the development activities through the team leaders on to the scientists and again to the laboratory technicians. The two departments are located at different sites approximately 5 km apart. The population consisted of professional staff in the two departments, i.e. managers, team leaders, principal scientist, scientists, and laboratory technicians. The laboratory technicians employed in Department Y were not invited to participate in the workshop. Managers, team leaders, principal scientists, and scientists are referred to as scientists in the following. The group of scientists has an educational background corresponding to a Master of Science or PhD, whereas the group of laboratory technicians in general has a three-year long education. In total 60 participants were invited and 47 participated in the study. The participants are presented in Table I. 4.3 Data collection The rst author carried out the data collection. The participants were invited to workshops during normal working hours through Microsoft Outlook. Separate workshops were held for the scientists and the laboratory technicians. The agenda item was called knowledge sharing. Workshops lasted approximately one hour. During the workshops documentary accounts were processed as text. At the workshop participants produced data as text that were documented anonymously on post-its (Hodson, 1999). The text was produced anonymously in hard-copy as a response to well-dened questions from the rst author. Participants were asked to identify two organizational knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers, respectively. The enablers and the barriers identied were to be related to their everyday work life. Lack of time was not allowed for inclusion as a barrier to knowledge Table I Participant information
Professional group Managers Team leaders Principal scientists and research scientists Laboratory technicians Department X Invited Participated 1 3 18 Not applicable 1 3 11 Not applicable Department Y Invited Participated 1 2 17 18 1 2 14 15 Department X & Y Number of participants 2 5 25 15 47

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 57

sharing (Hendriks, 1999). Additionally, at the workshop, knowledge sharing was explicitly dened according to Grant (1996):
Individuals or groups in an organization that share and combine existing knowledge differently with the purpose of creating new knowledge.

Participation was voluntary and condentiality with regard to all responses was assured. The participants were told that the data were being collected as part of a research study on organizational knowledge creation. The documentary accounts were documented anonymously on post-its, which were collected later. Following data production on post-its the documentary accounts were collected by the rst author. Data were collected in 2008.

5. Analysis
During analysis researcher triangulation was employed. The documentary accounts were listed and ordered in groups, themes were labelled and thereafter concepts appeared. To increase validity concept building was carried out independently by the researchers. The qualitative data were analyzed using meaning condensation: the meanings of the documentary accounts were structured around thematic concepts following identication of relations between concepts (Kvale, 1996), (Christensen et al., 2008). A description of the essence of the documentary accounts was drawn up and given a heading, thus being considered a concept before the nal concepts were proposed (Christensen et al., 2008). Phenomenology was selected as the tradition of inquiry for analyzing the data (Kvale, 1996). Analysis within a phenomenological framework attempts to describe the content and structure of the participants consciousness in order to grasp the qualitative diversity of their experiences and their essential meanings in relation to the phenomenon (Kvale, 1996). The two researchers carried out building of thematic concepts on their own. Figure 1 illustrates the procedure for data production, collection, and analysis. Thematic concepts were combined with the conceptualization of tacit and explicit knowledge as proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). The concepts that emerged through condensation represent common characteristics of the documentary accounts within each concept. Initially several of the documentary accounts were shown to represent one or more concepts; condensation was limited to one concept per documentary account, however. As a result, some of the concepts may represent a broader perspective than that actually expressed. Furthermore, when similar concepts emerged in both professional groups, they were given the same notation. The validity of the research process was assessed by applying the seven stages as proposed by Kvale (1996): 1. theme; 2. design; Figure 1 Procedure for data production, collection and analysis. KS: knowledge sharing

PAGE 58 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

3. interview (adapted for this study); 4. transcription; 5. analysis; 6. validation; and 7. reporting.

6. Results
In the following, the dominant knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers identied for the two professional groups are highlighted before the ndings are integrated and contrasted. Four dominating concepts of knowledge sharing enablers and barriers were identied for each of these professional groupings. The group other covered data where no similarities to other documentary accounts could be proposed. In Figures 2 and 3 the results are listed in order of dominance with the most prevalent concept presented rst, illustrated as different sizes of circle. The concept other combined single documentary accounts where similarities to other documentary accounts could not be proposed. The documentary accounts are presented in Tables II-V. Five documentary accounts are presented in each concept where possible. 6.1 Knowledge-sharing enablers scientists and laboratory technicians As illustrated in Figure 2, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers among the group of scientists were: social relations and network, physical proximity to colleagues, no stupid question culture, and meetings and informal spaces. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table II. For instance, the concept Figure 2 Concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers scientists and laboratory technicians working in pharmaceutical R&D. KS: knowledge sharing

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 59

Figure 3 Concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers scientists and laboratoryr technicians working in pharmaceutical R&D. KS: knowledge sharing

social relations and network is exemplied by the following: To know each other. Easier to share/give knowledge to someone you know. As illustrated in Figure 2, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers among the group of laboratory technicians were: work involvement and interest, things that make the job easier, the satisfaction of helping colleagues, and being listened to and taken seriously. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table III. For instance, the concept work involvement and interest is exemplied by the following: When I see something interesting, exciting or new in my task I become involved and want to share my knowledge.

6.2 Knowledge-sharing barriers scientists and laboratory technicians As illustrated in Figure 3, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers among the group of scientists were: no physical proximity to colleagues, no one can use the knowledge/fear of being considered foolish, knowledge as power, and do not know who knows. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table IV. For instance, the concept no physical proximity to colleagues is exemplied by the following: Silo thinking due to physical barriers, e.g. dislocation isolation. As illustrated in Figure 3, the most dominant concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers among the group of laboratory technicians were: lack of appreciation and attention, no one can use the knowledge/fear of being considered foolish, do not know who knows, and knowledge as power. Documentary accounts supporting each of these concepts are shown in Table V. For instance, the concept lack of appreciation and attention is exemplied by the following: If I know people around me do not need my knowledge or I know they do not care about what I have found.

PAGE 60 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

Table II Knowledge-sharing enablers for the group of scientists

Concept Social relations and network Documentary accounts Good work collaborations/good personal chemistry/personal relations Contact with other people for other purposes opportunities to talk about something interesting Seminar outside Novo Nordisk site on relevant specic and non-specic subjects where there are plenty of breaks Social arrangements allow easier contact in future Knowing each other. Easier to share/pass on knowledge to someone you know Sharing ofce space with more than two people enforced social contact provides opportunities for sharing experience makes it more informal to come and ask questions Physical proximity, e.g. shared ofce Sitting close together, i.e. along same corridor Having a work space/desk close to each other Proximity to co-workers and project group members Openness a work environment that stimulates your intentions When there is no such thing as stupid questions Open atmosphere in the department where it is allowed to ask questions That it is OK to ask questions to have a knowledge-sharing culture That it is legitimate in the present situation/culture to ask stupid questions/provide input, even if you dont know whether it is relevant Unplanned meetings, shared facilities/coffee rooms Informal culture for personal interaction Coffee rooms and other informal meeting space Short face-to-face meetings (or that people sit close together knowledge will be shared) Meetings between one or more persons

Physical proximity to colleagues

No stupid question culture

Meetings and informal spaces

6.3 Relations between concepts and groups After integrating and relating the ndings, it was possible to illustrate the associations relations between the concepts and groups as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 shows that concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers were not the same for the groups of scientists and laboratory technicians, although the concepts in both professional groups had mutual characteristics. We could see interdependency between the concepts related to settings fostering personal closeness, in which synergistic inuence on knowledge-sharing practices was evident, was seen for the scientists. However, we could not see any similar interdependency between the concepts identied for laboratory technicians could not be seen. Identical concepts of knowledge-sharing barriers (Figures 2 and 3): no one can use the knowledge/fear of being considered foolish, knowledge as power, and do not know who knows emerged from both professional groups. Contrasting concepts with inverse inuence on knowledge-sharing practices were identied for the group of scientists. Oppositional inuence on knowledge-sharing practices was observed between the concepts social relations and network versus do not know who knows and no stupid question culture versus no one can use the knowledge/fear of being considered foolish. Contrasting concepts for the group of laboratory technicians were not found. One obvious concept of knowledge-sharing barriers among scientists mirrored a concept of knowledge-sharing enablers, i.e. close versus no physical proximity to colleagues (Figures 2

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 61

Table III Knowledge-sharing enablers for the group of laboratory technicians

Concept Work involvement and interest Documentary accounts When I see something interesting, exciting or new in my task, I become involved and want to share my knowledge It is very educational to share knowledge, for me as well as the person I am helping. Increased motivation and involvement Involvement/interest from colleagues makes me want to share knowledge Desire to share information wanting to share knowledge with others I need to see the larger meaning in my tasks and to know that what I do will be used by others/ to support our common goals. That makes me feel involved and I share my knowledge and experiences Would like to help Like to teach others To please others with such little effort, e.g. helping to solve an Excel problem. It is good to see their relief after you remove the barrier Dependency if I know that others are dependent on my knowledge before they can continue with their work If I see that a colleague could do things differently or in an easier way, e.g. in the laboratory or in Excel. Then I share my knowledge When it gives others an AHA experience When I have handled a task faster/easier than usual A clever trick to make work easier Utilizing all resources makes daily work easier The more people who know how my equipment works, the more people who can help out when I am ill or on holiday It is possible to delegate when more people have similar knowledge, i.e. more people can handle the same task Good communication that someone listens to what I have to say If you come to a person who is open and willing to answer questions

The satisfaction of helping colleagues

Things that make the job easier

Being listened to and taken seriously

and 3). It was not possible to nd a similar pattern of mirroring concepts among the group of laboratory technicians (Figures 2 and 3).

7. Discussion
7.1 Main ndings This is the rst study to investigate knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers in pharmaceutical R&D. The main ndings of this study were: important knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers were present in the organization and they have become explicit. Scientists and laboratory technicians had different views and practices for engaging in knowledge-sharing, which revealed that enabling knowledge sharing is multi-facetted and that one standard for R&D professionals does not exist. The enablers identied recognized the use of tacit knowledge and hence this study has demonstrated that knowledge sharing takes place during socialization where individuals interact. This nding suggests that individuals in pharmaceutical R&D are an important asset with regard to knowledge sharing and hence new knowledge creation in the organization potentially reducing time-to-market. The majority of the barriers for engaging in knowledge sharing were similar for the two groups. The existence of enablers and barriers with oppositional inuence on knowledge-sharing practices was evident. Synergy could be identied in the knowledge-sharing enablers for the scientists, provided that the settings fostering

PAGE 62 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

Table IV Knowledge-sharing barriers for the group of scientists

Concept No physical proximity to colleagues Documentary accounts No physical proximity, e.g. placed at different sites Geographic distances between ofces Great physical distance between people that are to share knowledge Silo thinking due to physical barriers, e.g. dislocation isolation Great physical distance Too proud. Do not want to show your ignorance Culture where foolish questions are not accepted A work environment where employees are insecure about expressing themselves an insecure work environment Thinking that others already have the knowledge/cannot use your knowledge Does anyone need my knowledge? Maybe others already know? No knowledge of where knowledge is located Wanting to keep your expertise to yourself Opposition to sharing knowledge risk of not feeling special anymore Purposely withholding knowledge in order to take the credit Arrogance/snobbery to make an explanation complicated and unintelligible in order to be special I know better/people who know it all Do not know the person who has the knowledge Closed door do not know the organization who is doing what? Too little knowledge about others tasks and goals If people do not know or meet each other do not know that the others know something Specic groups (project groups or teams) not knowing that useful knowledge exists

No one can use my knowledge/fear of being considered foolish

Knowledge as power

Do not know who knows

Table V Knowledge-sharing barriers for the group of laboratory technicians

Concept Lack of appreciation and attention Documentary accounts If there is no openness to questions refusal If I know people around me do not need my knowledge or I know they do not care about what I have discovered If people do not use my knowledge If I forget to send an e-mail containing knowledge Inattention to the value of knowledge sharing The more people have studied, the more intelligent they are I probably dont have anything to contribute If other people take up too much space with all their knowledge then I cannot be heard Scared of saying something wrong will look a fool I feel that I do not have all the facts and that prevents me from sharing knowledge My experience is not that important or useful to share with others If you do not share all the information if you hold something back A know-it-all attitude Knowledge is power You have to have some knowledge to know what to ask or know what others might need. Otherwise no knowledge is shared Finding the right target group Hearing about the problem when its too late

No one can use my knowledge/fear of being considered foolish

Knowledge as power

Do not know who knows

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 63

Figure 4 Overview of knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers and their contrasts KS: knowledge sharing

KS enablers Scientists

KS barriers Scientists

Social relations and network

No physical proximity to colleagues No one can use my knowledge/fear of being foolish Knowledge as power Contrasting concepts with oppositional influence on KS

Physical proximity to colleagues

Interdependency with synergistic influence on KS

No stupid question culture

Meetings and informal spaces

Do not know who knows

KS enablers Laboratory technicians

KS barriers Laboratory technicians

Contrasting concepts with oppositional influence on KS

Work involvement and interests

Lack of attention and appreciation Identical concepts No one can use my knowledge/fear of being foolish Do not know who knows Mirrored concepts

Things that make the job easier

The satisfaction of helping colleagues

Being listened to and taken seriously

Knowledge as power

personal closeness to colleagues were stimulated. The impact of physical proximity to colleagues on knowledge-sharing practices was therefore noteworthy. 7.2 Enablers to knowledge sharing The enablers identied recognized the use of tacit knowledge. Although similar or related concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers can be found in the literature, the perspectives of scientists and laboratory technicians in pharmaceutical development have not been explored specically in qualitative research (Cardinal and Hateld, 2000; Leenders and Wierenga, 2002; Thompson and Heron, 2006; Kneller, 2003; Nerkar, 2003; (Chang et al., 2007). In one empirical study, Sundgren et al. (2005) have identied that information sharing plays an important role in creativity in pharmaceutical R&D. The questionnaire used in that study did not uncover the enablers of information sharing, however. In the SECI model, the socialization mode refers to sharing tacit knowledge requiring some kind of connection between the persons involved. For the scientists in the present study, the most dominant concept of knowledge-sharing enablers was related to social relations and network. These ndings indicate that knowledge-sharing practices in R&D primarily take place through human interactions. Sharing of tacit knowledge as a key component in

PAGE 64 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

knowledge creation processes has also been conrmed in pharmaceutical R&D (Nerkar, 2003; Kneller, 2003), and in biotech (Sapsalis et al., 2006). In an empirical study carried out in various non-pharmaceutical industries, McDermott and ODell (2001) found that a network for sharing knowledge builds on existing networks people use in their daily work. Another empirical study, this one conducted by Schulze and Hoegl (2006), reported similar ndings. Their study showed that the socialization mode was crucial in the concept phase of new product development in different industries (automobile and medical devices). Here knowledge sharing can be interpreted as the seed of new knowledge creation. The knowledge-sharing enablers in this study demonstrate interdependencies with synergistic inuence on knowledge sharing. These links are valuable as it may take very little effort to signicantly increase the impact on knowledge-sharing practices, e.g. common open space to increase personal closeness, which then reinforces the frequency of informal meetings and the exchange of tacit knowledge. These ndings are to some extent consistent with those in the empirical literature. Here the importance of meetings and informal spaces in relation to knowledge-sharing practices were proposed as important settings for fostering a certain level of personal closeness to help overcome distance. Once again this nding stimulates the dimension of sharing tacit knowledge (Corti and Lo Storto, 2000; Napier and Ferris, 1993; Schulze and Hoegl, 2006). Open-space ofces in pharmaceutical R&D have demonstrated to enable sharing of tacit knowledge (Boutellier et al., 2008). Interdependencies with synergistic inuence between the identied knowledge-sharing enablers for the group of laboratory technicians were not found. In addition, the concepts that emerged were different from those of the scientists. The divergence in knowledge-sharing enablers between the two professional groups indicates different goals, job responsibilities, personal views, and practices for participating in knowledge-sharing activities. This supposition is supported by the nding of mutual characteristics of knowledge-sharing enablers within each professional group. The characteristics of knowledge-sharing enablers for the laboratory technicians were related to soft values and to a work smarter not harder mind-set. For scientists, enabler characteristics were more closely related to work settings. Different views on knowledge-sharing practices and their characteristics have not previously been studied in a qualitative study in pharmaceutical R&D. The dominant concept of knowledge-sharing enablers identied for the laboratory technicians was related to work involvement and job interest. Although in an empirical study Dewett (2007) found self-efcacy and work interest to be fundamental to creativity, the study did not deal with knowledge sharing. The R&D employees in Dewetts study included both scientists and technical staff. The present study suggests additionally that knowledge-sharing practices are enhanced if the activity makes the job easier and helps colleagues. These ndings indicate that knowledge-sharing practices also have a strong collegial focus. In pharmaceutical R&D softer values such as employee commitment and care have earlier been suggested as knowledge-sharing enablers (Thompson and Heron, 2006; Styhre et al., 2002). In other industrial elds such as consulting employee commitment has also been identied as a knowledge-sharing enabler (Van den Hoof and de Leeuw van Weenen, 2004). 7.3 Barriers to knowledge sharing In the pharmaceutical industry where development cycles are long, knowledge-sharing barriers are suggested to be an obstacle to the creation of new knowledge. The majority of the identied barriers to knowledge sharing were similar in the two professional groups. Although on the whole similar views of barriers to knowledge sharing have not been described earlier, the individual concepts can be related to recent literature. Bartol and Srivastava (2002) and ODell and Grayson (1998), respectively, described the power of knowledge and knowledge about who knows. Concern about who can use ones knowledge and the fear of being considered foolish has previously been proposed as barriers. A mistrustful atmosphere has been proposed as a barrier (Von Krogh et al., 2000) as well as

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 65

beliefs such as not having valuable information relevant to others (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002). Physical distance to colleagues was identied as a noteworthy barrier as well as being mirrored as a knowledge-sharing enabler, obviously depending on proximity. Similar ndings have been found in the software industry (McLaughlin et al., 2008). These ndings of this present emphasize that physical proximity to colleagues has an obvious impact on knowledge-sharing practices for the group of scientists. This supports the SECI model conrming that knowledge sharing takes place during socialization as point of departure for knowledge creation. The ndings are further supported by the physical location of R&D departments at different sites. Leenders and Wierenga (2002) have previously described the importance of physical proximity to colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry and in biotech (Zeller, 2001; Poti, 2001). Napier and Ferris (1993) have also conrmed these ndings in a non-pharmaceutical setting. Similar concepts for the group of laboratory technicians were not found. It is clear from this study that the knowledge-sharing barriers identied for the group of scientists have an oppositional impact on some of the knowledge-sharing enablers identied. For instance, if someone does not know who knows, perhaps he or she does not have the proper network. Or if someone has a fear of being seen as foolish, that would reinforce the knowledge-sharing enabler of a culture where no stupid questions exist. These reinforcements are suggested to inhibit the socialization processes. The opposing impact on knowledge-sharing practices that has been identied within the concepts of knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers underscores the importance of these concepts for the group of scientists. These ndings are in agreement with a study from the steel industry demonstrating that lack of knowledge about where knowledge was available was a knowledge-sharing barrier (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). It is suggested that appreciation is facilitated by informal networks, because they stimulate appreciation of individuals. However, in this study the laboratory technicians did not explicitly correlate appreciation from colleagues with informal networks. 7.4 Knowledge sharing in relation to the SECI model The proposed enabling concepts were primarily related to aspects of tacit knowledge, i.e. the socialization mode of the SECI model. Nonetheless, the ndings of this study show there is more to the SECI model than tacit and explicit knowledge. The SECI model does not account for the actions of individuals such as their strategies, practices, and goals. Although a relationship between individuals is a precondition for knowledge-sharing practices (Szulanski, 1996; Hansen et al., 1999), this precondition is not part of the SECI model. With regard to knowledge sharing in relation to SECI model, the model lacks the views and values of the individuals for engaging in knowledge-sharing practices. Other authors have pointed out similar shortcomings of the SECI model (Gourlay and Nurse, 2005). Gourlay and Nurse (2005) argue that the theory cannot explain how the mind produces ideas or fails to do so. In addition, Von Krogh et al. (2000) suggest that a high degree of caring among colleagues is particularly important in the sense of sharing tacit knowledge, but neither dimension is reected in the SECI model.

8. Conclusions and implications

The results of the present study are based on a single case study and have relevant managerial implications. This study adds to the understanding of knowledge sharing between different professional groups working in pharmaceutical R&D. The ndings have implications for both theory and practice. Over the course of the research process, it became evident that tacit organizational knowledge had become explicit. Important knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers were present in the organization. This study showed that R&D professionals have experienced different views and practices for engaging in knowledge-sharing, which reveals that enabling knowledge sharing is multi-faceted and that one standard for R&D professionals

PAGE 66 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

does not exist. The identied knowledge-sharing enablers recognized the use of tacit knowledge. Synergism was identied for the enablers and the existence of barriers with oppositional inuence on these enablers was clear. Implementing the synergistic enablers therefore helps increase the knowledge-sharing practices and minimize the identied barriers. Physical proximity to colleagues was an important factor for the identied knowledge-sharing enablers. The results of this research have practical relevance. First, managers should be aware of the diversity of the professionals, such as their different views and practices regarding knowledge-sharing enablers and barriers. The awareness and acknowledgement of these diversities can positively inuence knowledge sharing in R&D and hence the new knowledge creation processes. Second, managers should focus on the value of the synergism of knowledge-sharing enablers and the oppositional inuence of the barriers that cause knowledge-sharing practices to fail. Third, due to the social embedding of tacit knowledge, managers should consider the location of their R&D employees. All these issues contribute to the time a company spends on the development cycle. Focusing on knowledge-sharing activities in pharmaceutical R&D may potentially reduce time to market. The SECI model was found to have some limitations as the model does not include the actions of employees and their inter-unit relationships. However, the SECI model inspired the data analysis and was utilized for the conceptualization of tacit and explicit knowledge. There are limitations to how far empirical ndings can be generalized. Further research should be conducted to investigate how knowledge-sharing practices are related to knowledge creation processes during the development of new drug products. Moreover, studies should be carried out in other settings. A multiple case study in pharmaceutical R&D could contribute to wider generalization of the ndings.

References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S-W. (2002), Social capital: prospects for a new concept, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40. Albrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E. and Levin, D.Z. (2003), Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17, pp. 64-77. Alvesson, M. (2004), Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems, Journal of Leadership and Organisation Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76. Berends, H., Van der Bij, H., Debackere, K. and Weggeman, M. (2006), Knowledge sharing mechanisms in industrial research, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 85-95. Birkenshaw, J. (2001), Why is knowledge management so difcult?, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 11-18. Borgatti, S. and Cross, R. (2003), A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 432-45. Boutellier, R., Ullman, F., Schreiber, J. and Naef, R. (2008), Impact of ofce layout on communication in a science-driven business, R&D Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 372-91. Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Sonderquist, K.E. and Prastacos, G. (2007), Knowledge effectiveness, social context and innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 31-44. Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F. (2002), Knowledge sharing dilemmas, Organization Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 687-710. Cardinal, L.B. and Hateld, D.E. (2000), Internal knowledge generation: the research laboratory and innovative productivity in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 17, pp. 247-71. Casciaro, T. and Lobo, M.S. (2005), Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social network, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 6, pp. 1-9.

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 67

Chang, T.J., Yeh, S.P. and Yeh, I-J. (2007), The effects of joint reward system in new product development, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3-4, pp. 276-97. Chou, S-W. (2005), Knowledge creation: absorptive capacity, organizational mechanisms, and knowledge storage/retrieval capacities, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 453-65. Christensen, U., Schmidt, L. and Dyhr, L. (2008), The qualitative research interview, in Vallgaarda, S. and Kock, L. (Eds), Research Methods in Public Health, Gyldendal Akademisk, Copenhagen. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52. Corti, E. and Lo Storto, C. (2000), Knowledge creation in small manufacturing rms during product innovation: an empirical analysis of cause-effect relationships among its determinants, Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1 No. 13, pp. 245-63. Currie, G. and Kerrin, M. (2003), Human resource management and knowledge management: enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company, International Journal of Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1027-45. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge. How Organizations Manage What they Know, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA. Deci, E.L. and Flaste, R. (1995), Why We Do What We Do: The Dynamics of Personal Autonomy, Putnam & Sons, New York, NY. Dewett, T. (2007), Linking intrinsic motivation, risk taking, and employee creativity in an R&D environment, R&D Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 197-208. Fiske, A.P. (1991), Structures of Social Life, The Free Press, New York, NY. Ganguli, P. (2003), Global pharmaceutical industry: intellectual wealth and asset protection, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 284-313. Gourlay, S. and Nurse, A. (2005), Flaws in the engine of knowledge creation, in Buono, A. and Poulfelt, F. (Eds), Challenges and Issues in Knowledge Management, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, pp. 293-315. Grant, R.M. (1996), Towards a knowledge-based theory of the rm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-22. Grifth, T.L., Sawyer, J.E. and Neale, M.A. (2003), Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 265-87. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), Knowledge managements social dimension: lessons from Nucor Steel, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42, pp. 71-80. Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), What is your strategy for managing knowledge?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16. Hendriks, P. (1999), Why share knowledge? The inuence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100. Hodson, R. (1999), Analyzing Documentary Accounts, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Horrobin, D.F. (2001), Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 93, pp. 341-5. Kneller, R. (2003), Autarkic drug discovery in Japanese pharmaceutical companies: insights into national differences in industrial innovation, Research Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 1805-27. Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Leenders, M.A.A.M. and Wierenga, B. (2002), The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 19, pp. 305-17. Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1477-90.

PAGE 68 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011

McDermott, R. and ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85. McLaughlin, S., Paton, R.A. and Macbeth, D.K. (2008), Barrier impact on organizational learning within complex organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107-23. Napier, B.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1993), Distance in organizations, Human Resource Management View, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 321-57. Nerkar, A. (2003), Old is gold? The value of temporal exploitation in the creation of new knowledge, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 211-29. Nielsen, A.P. (2006), Understanding dynamic capabilities through knowledge management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 59-71. Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organizational Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Novo Nordisk A/S (2009), Novo Nordisk Annual Report 2008, Financial, Social, and Environmental Performance, Bording A/S, Denmark. ODell, C. and Grayson, J. (1998), If only we knew what we know: identication and transfer of internal best practice, California Management Review, Vol. 40, pp. 154-74. Osterloch, M. and Frey, B. (2000), Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms, Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 538-50. Poti, B. (2001), Appropriation, tacit knowledge and hybrid social regimes in biotechnology in Europe, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 22 Nos 7-8, pp. 741-61. Sapienza, A.M. and Lombardino, J.G. (2006), Recognizing, appreciating and capturing the tacit knowledge of R&D scientists, Drug Development Research, Vol. 57, pp. 51-7. Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. and Navon, R. (2006), Academic versus industry patenting: an in-depth analysis of what determines patent value, Research Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 1631-45. Schulze, A. and Hoegl, M. (2006), Knowledge creation in new product development projects, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 210-36. Styhre, A., Roth, J. and Ingelgard, A. (2002), Care of the other: knowledge-creation through care in professional teams, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 503-20. Styhre, A., Ollila, S., Roth, J., Williamson, D. and Berg, L. (2008), Heedful interrelating, knowledge sharing, and new drug development, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 127-40. Sundgren, M., Dimenas, E., Gustafsson, J-E. and Selart, M. (2005), Drivers of organizational creativity: a path model of creative climate in pharmaceutical R&D, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 359-74. Szulanski, G. (1996), Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of the best practice within the rm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 27-43. Szulanski, G. (2003), Sticky Knowledge Barriers to Knowing in the Firm, Sage Publications, London. Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2006), Relational quality and innovative performance in R&D based science and technology rms, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 28-47. Tranter, D. (2000), Evolving to reect the modern industrial life-science environment, Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 399-400. Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrarm networks, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-76. Uzzi, B. and Lancaster, R. (2003), Rational embeddedness learning: the case of bank loan managers and their clients, Management Science, Vol. 49, pp. 383-99. Van den Hoof, B. and de Leeuw van Weenen, F. (2004), Committed to share: commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 13-24.

VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 69

Von Hippel, E. (1994), Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation, Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 590-607. Von Krogh, G., Kazou, I. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Zeller, C. (2001), Clustering biotech: a recipe for success? Spatial patterns of growth of biotechnology in Munich, Rhineland and Hamburg, Small Business Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 123-41.

About the authors

Anne-Mette Lilleoere was a PhD student (January 2007-January 2010) at The Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Anne-Mette Lilleoere is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: amli@novonordisk.com Ebba Holme Hansen is Professor at the Section for Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen since 1992 and the driving force behind the development of social pharmacy as an academic discipline. Professor Holme Hansen is an expert in both qualitative and quantitative research methods and has authored 15 books and more than 200 scientic articles, chapters in books and reports.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 70 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 1 2011