"`html
In the modern business world, knowledge sharing is the key to success or failure. Companies that enable their employees to systematically share information, skills and expertise build a decisive competitive advantage[1]. The exchange of knowledge between teams and departments promotes innovation, accelerates problem solving and significantly improves decision-making processes[2]. This raises a key question for decision-makers: How do I make knowledge sharing in my organisation sustainable and effective? The answer lies in a structured approach that takes both people and systems into account.
Why knowledge sharing is essential for organisations
Sharing knowledge is not a luxury, but a necessity[3]. Every employee unconsciously carries knowledge with them that can be valuable to others. However, this knowledge often remains hidden if there are no systematic structures in place. For example, an IT company loses critical expertise if an experienced developer leaves the company without having documented their tacit knowledge. This is where the first challenge arises: how is knowledge preserved and passed on?
Organisations are therefore increasingly investing in platforms and methods for knowledge sharing[4]. For example, a financial services provider could introduce workshops where compliance experts share their knowledge with young employees. A production company uses intranet solutions to communicate best practices across departments. A consulting firm documents solution approaches in a centralised knowledge database. These examples show: Knowledge sharing only works with intentional design.
Without targeted knowledge sharing, information silos and redundant work arise. Decision-makers often report that teams are reinventing the wheel. Departments work past each other. Innovations do not emerge because perspectives remain isolated. Knowledge sharing provides a remedy here by overcoming boundaries and connecting people[5].
Explicit and tacit knowledge: The two sides of knowledge sharing
To organise knowledge sharing properly, decision-makers need to understand what types of knowledge there are[1]. Explicit knowledge is documented and easy to share. It includes guidelines, manuals, databases and reports. Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, is personal, experience-based and difficult to formalise. It resides in people's minds and includes skills, insights and intuition.
A banking sector example illustrates this: A risk manager has years of experience in assessing credit default risks. His explicit knowledge is contained in guidelines and documents. However, his implicit knowledge - the gut feeling, the ability to recognise hidden risks - is in his head. When exchanging knowledge with young colleagues, he has to share both dimensions.
A second example from the field of software development shows this just as clearly. The architecture documentation of a system is explicit knowledge. The decision criteria, why certain design patterns were chosen, why alternatives were rejected - that is implicit knowledge. Effective knowledge exchange combines both forms through pairing, mentoring and structured learning.
The role of culture in successful knowledge exchange
Technology alone does not make for successful knowledge sharing[2]. Corporate culture is crucial. Organisations that embed knowledge sharing as a value see significantly better results[3]. This means that managers need to exemplify and reward knowledge sharing, not penalise it.
For example, a pharmaceutical company could create incentives that encourage employees to share their knowledge. These could be bonus systems that recognise mentoring or internal certificates for knowledge trainers. An insurance group could establish monthly knowledge sharing events where experts present their experiences and answer questions. A logistics company could include knowledge sharing as a success criterion in employee evaluations.
The opposite is often the case in organisations with a silo mentality. Mistrust prevails there. People hoard their knowledge because they are afraid of losing importance. The exchange of knowledge stagnates and collective learning does not take place. Decision-makers who want to bring about change here need to create a new culture. This does not happen overnight, but through consistent, repeated signals.
Methods and tools for systematic knowledge exchange
The exchange of knowledge can take place in many ways[7]. Presentations and workshops enable personal exchange. Video calls connect teams spatially. E-learning platforms make knowledge scalable. Intranet systems centralise information. Each method has its strengths and is suitable for different contexts.
Personalised knowledge exchange in direct dialogue
Personalised knowledge exchange takes place face-to-face or in direct conversations[8]. An industrial company could establish mentoring programmes in which experienced employees accompany newcomers. A craft business uses the daily work for knowledge exchange when the master craftsman shows the apprentice what is important. A consulting firm organises regular workshops in which project managers share their experiences.
BEST PRACTICE with a customer (name hidden due to NDA contract): A medium-sized company introduced monthly knowledge exchange circles. Employees from different departments came together and presented solutions to current challenges. The knowledge exchange was structured: 15 minutes presentation, 15 minutes discussion. After three months, the company reported faster problem solving and fewer redundancies. The personal exchange, which created new working relationships, was particularly valuable.
Codified knowledge exchange through digital systems
Codified knowledge exchange takes place via digital platforms and databases[8]. A telecommunications company could introduce a social intranet where employees document and comment on findings. An insurance company uses a knowledge database in which solutions to common problems are recorded. A technology company operates an internal wiki that is constantly updated.
The advantages are clear: scalability, time flexibility and availability. A new employee can familiarise themselves with the system without delay. An employee in another branch can access the knowledge at any time. The knowledge remains in the organisation, even if people leave it. The disadvantage: Implicit knowledge often cannot be fully documented. Supplementary methods are required.
Knowledge sharing in practice: hurdles and solutions
Despite good intentions, knowledge sharing often fails due to practical obstacles[2]. Outdated systems make sharing cumbersome. Compartmentalised departments do not work together. Lack of time prevents people from taking the time to share knowledge. A lack of incentives means that nobody takes action.
An energy company was faced with the challenge that technical teams and commercial teams were working in complete isolation. The exchange of knowledge came to a standstill, which led to poorer decisions. Solution: Cross-functional projects in which both teams worked together. The exchange of knowledge did not happen by itself, but was enforced - with great success.
A retail group suffered from the fact that best practices did not migrate from one shop to another. Each shop invented new solutions instead of learning from others. Solution: A monthly video call format in which shop managers showed their successful measures. The exchange of knowledge became routine and innovations spread quickly.
Promoting trust and psychological safety
One of the biggest barriers to knowledge sharing is a lack of trust[4]. People only share their knowledge when they feel safe. A management consultancy recognised this when employees were reluctant to share mistakes or challenges. The culture was too competitive. Knowledge sharing suffered as a result. Solution: Managers modelled openness by sharing their own mistakes. The tone changed. Knowledge sharing accelerated significantly.
Utilising knowledge exchange as a competitive advantage
Organisations that master knowledge sharing create sustainable advantages[1]. They make better decisions because information is widely available. They innovate faster because ideas are cross-fertilised. They lose less knowledge when employees leave. They retain employees more strongly because they experience themselves as valuable.
A technology company invested in comprehensive knowledge sharing. The results: 30 per cent faster product development, 25 per cent less redundant work, higher employee satisfaction. A healthcare group established structured knowledge sharing between clinics. Knowledge sharing led to better patient outcomes and efficiency gains. A financial company used knowledge sharing to minimise risk. Lessons learnt were systematically disseminated.
The path to successful knowledge sharing: concrete steps for decision-makers
A structured approach is recommended for decision-makers who want to introduce knowledge sharing in their organisation. Start by analysing the status quo. Where is knowledge sharing already taking place and where is it not? What hurdles exist? Then define clear objectives. What should be achieved through better knowledge sharing?
The next step is to select suitable methods and tools[7]. This should be tailored to the reality of your organisation. A creative organisation benefits differently from knowledge sharing than a production company. Then create the culture and incentives. Knowledge sharing must be rewarded, not penalised. Finally, implement gradually, measure success and adjust.
transruptions-Coaching accompanies decision-makers precisely on this path. The focus is on organising projects around knowledge exchange. We support you in finding the right balance between structure and flexibility, between technology and culture, between rapid success and sustainable change.
Frequent topics that decision-makers come to us with
Organisations often report similar challenges when it comes to sharing knowledge. Firstly, there are decision-makers whose company is growing and who fear losing knowledge. Sharing knowledge becomes a question of survival. Others struggle with the fact that knowledge sharing is technically possible but does not take place because the culture does not fit. Still others have realised that knowledge sharing slows down their innovation because silos prevent innovative exchange.
There are also questions about the right format. Should there be face-to-face or virtual events? How often should knowledge exchange take place? Who should take part? How do you measure the success of knowledge sharing? We answer these questions in dialogue with our customers and support them in the practical implementation.
My analysis
Knowledge sharing is not optional, but strategically necessary[5]. Organisations that have recognised this and systematically shape knowledge exchange build up lasting competitive advantages. They avoid the fate of constantly reinventing the wheel. They benefit from the collective intelligence of their employees. They keep knowledge within the organisation, even when people leave.
Deutsch 
English (UK)