Psychometric analysis of the scale of barriers to sharing knowledge in the Kaizen of a company

Bolduan, Rafael; Silva, Denise Abatti Kasper; Borba, Marcelo Leandro de

doi:10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e4523

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Gest. Prod. 31 • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e4523 copy

Psychometric analysis of the scale of barriers to sharing knowledge in the Kaizen of a company

Análise psicométrica da escala de barreiras ao compartilhamento de conhecimento no Kaizen de uma empresa

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The Kaizen continuous improvement principle encourages employees to use their knowledge to create better solutions. This knowledge, referred to as tacit, is strategically shared through socialization and made explicit through externalization. One department of a multinational metallurgical industry in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil, has historically had a Kaizen involvement rate of less than 50%. This study set out to identify and analyze the barriers to knowledge sharing, considering the socialization-externalization interface, and how they relate to the company's current Kaizen participation rate. To this end, a literature review was conducted, followed by a documentary analysis of the company and the application of a questionnaire that served as a scale for exploratory factor analysis and validation of the model for the objectives set. The factor analysis confirmed the lack of application of meritocratic means, Ba context, and management involvement, and retained three organizational and three individual factors of barriers to knowledge sharing. It was found that the current rate of employee involvement in Kaizen contrasts with the effects of the socialization-externalization interface and the barriers to knowledge sharing. The method structured in this study has the potential to be applied in other companies and can be improved.

Keywords:
Knowledge management; Knowledge sharing; Tacit knowledge; Continuous improvement; Exploratory factor analysis

Barrier	What it is based on
Organizacional	1. Organizational culture;
	2. Organizational values;
	3. Resistance to change from top management and employees;
	4. Level of power in the organization;
	5. Dominant professional standards;
	6. Political aspects of the organization;
	7. Economic aspects of the organization;
	8. Vision of the organization;
	9. Geographical aspects of the organization;
	10. Lack of knowledge of the organization;
	11. Lack of specific knowledge management projects;
	12. Technological tools;
	13. Codification of knowledge;
	14. Information flows in the organization;
	15. Costs;
	16. Integration of KM strategy and sharing initiatives into company objectives and strategies is lacking or unclear;
	17. Shortage of formal and informal spaces for sharing, reflecting and generating (new) knowledge;
	18. Lack of transparent rewards and recognition systems that would motivate people to share more of their knowledge;
	19. Lack of adequate infrastructure to support sharing practices;
	20. Communication and knowledge flows are restricted in certain directions;
	21. The hierarchical structure of the organization inhibits or slows down most sharing practices;
	22. The company's approach is lacking or unclear;
	23. Lack of leadership and management direction in terms of clearly communicating the benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices.
Individual	1. Lack of trust in the organization;
	2. Personal accommodation;
	3. Problems related to the individual's self-image;
	4. Personal motivation;
	5. Lack of trust in peers;
	6. Lack of communication skills;
	7. Cognitive processes;
	8. Culture;
	9. Perception;
	10. Language;
	11. Distance;
	12. Values,
	13. Continuous advancement of existing technological tools;
	14. Codification of knowledge;
	15. General lack of time to share knowledge;
	16. Fear that sharing could reduce or compromise job security;
	17. Lack of time for contact and interaction between sources and recipients of knowledge;
	18. Appropriating intellectual property for fear of not receiving fair recognition and accreditation from managers and colleagues;
	19. Lack of a social network.

Organizational Barriers		Individual Barriers
Underlying construct	Questionnaire item	Underlying construct	Questionnaire item
Scarcity	Q1	Personal motivation	Q21
space/moment/ hierarchical structure	Q2		Q22
	Q3		Q23
	Q4		Q24
Information flow	Q5	Lack of communication skills	Q25
	Q6		Q26
	Q7		Q27
	Q8		Q28
Culture	Q9	Identification of benefits	Q29
	Q10		Q30
	Q11		Q31
	Q12		Q32
Reward	Q13	Gaps in knowledge	Q33
	Q14		Q34
	Q15		Q35
	Q16		Q36
Recognition	Q17	Loss of power	Q37
	Q18		Q38
	Q19		Q39
	Q20		Q40

Variable	n	%	Variable	n	%
Age group (years)	n	%	Schooling	n	%
Up to 20	31	14.62	Incomplete Elementary	3	1.42
21 – 30	90	42.45	Complete Elementary	6	2.83
31 – 40	63	29.72	Incomplete High school	21	9.91
41 – 50	23	10.85	Complete High school	111	52.36
Above 50	5	2.36	Incomplete Technician	15	7.08
Time in business (years)			Complete Technician	23	10.85
Up to 1	71	33.49	Undergrade incomplete	26	12.26
2 – 5	68	32.08	Undergrade Complete	7	3.3
5 – 10	25	11.79
Above 10	48	22.64

PA - Organizational Barriers (OB)				PA- Individual Barriers(IB)
Component or Factor	Adjusted eigenvalue	Unadjusted eigenvalue	Estimated bias	Component or Factor	Adjusted eigenvalue	Unadjusted eigenvalue	Estimated bias
1	5.132	5.684	0.552	1	5.488	5.992	0.504
2	2.270	2.748	0.478	2	1.248	1.714	0.466
3	1.628	1.978	0.350	3	1.032	1.441	0.409
4	^* * Criterion: retain > 1. 1.020	1.336	0.315	4	*1.057	1.361	0.304
5	0.851	1.107	0.255	5	0.818	1.103	0.285
6	0.745	0.969	0.224	6	0.777	0.986	0.210
7	0.567	0.755	0.189	7	0.718	0.865	0.147
8	0.622	0.747	0.124	8	0.740	0.825	0.085
9	0.566	0.642	0.076	9	0.742	0.794	0.052
10	0.635	0.616	-0.019	10	0.681	0.685	0.005
11	0.635	0.578	-0.056	11	0.644	0.619	-0.025
12	0.648	0.512	-0.137	12	0.613	0.540	-0.074
13	0.600	0.452	-0.148	13	0.615	0.503	-0.111
14	0.569	0.412	-0.157	14	0.674	0.464	-0.210
15	0.591	0.365	-0.227	15	0.680	0.446	-0.233
16	0.607	0.310	-0.297	16	0.664	0.419	-0.245
17	0.595	0.274	-0.322	17	0.745	0.387	-0.358
18	0.590	0.239	-0.351	18	0.682	0.319	-0.364
19	0.602	0.202	-0.400	19	0.670	0.276	-0.394
20	0.526	0.075	-0.451	20	0.713	0.261	-0.451

Variable		Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Sing.	Comun.
Meritocracy Organizational Barrier (Financial/non-financial reward)
Q14	I collaborated with ideas for improvement, but received no recognition in the form of a reward such as a "salary increase".	*0.952*	0.018	0.054	0.089	0.912
Q15	I collaborated with ideas for improvement, but received no recognition in the form of a reward such as a "promotion".	*0.942*	-0.017	-0.001	0.128	0.872
Q13	I collaborated with ideas for improvement, but received no recognition in the form of a "profit-sharing bonus".	*0.878*	0.003	0.058	0.237	0.763
Q17	I wasn't given the opportunity to present my improvement work at a recognition seminar.	*0.731*	-0.056	0.001	0.501	0.499
Q18	I wasn't given the opportunity to present my improvement work to my section colleagues in a formal meeting.	*0.693*	0.015	-0.105	0.480	0.520
Q16	In my work environment, I believe there is a lack of fair criteria for rewarding suggested improvements.	*0.545*	0.180	-0.060	0.560	0.440
Organizational Culture Barrier
Q9	I stopped suggesting improvements to my work because I wasn't listened to by my coworkers or the company's management.	0.011	*0.912*	0.159	0.224	0.777
Q10	I've stopped suggesting improvements to my work because of resistance from colleagues or even from the company's management.	0.039	*0.874*	0.072	0.237	0.763
Q11	I've stopped suggesting improvements in my work because I've experienced the term "there's no point in suggesting improvements at work because things won't move forward."	-0.044	*0.760*	-0.120	0.382	0.618
Q12	I've stopped suggesting improvements to my work because I lack the support to put improvement ideas into practice.	0.012	*0.720*	-0.139	0.391	0.609
Organizational Barrier of Scarcity of space/momentum/leader support
Q1	There is little or no space (such as a meeting room) for employees to raise individual suggestions for improving their work.	0.024	0.093	*0.769*	0.446	0.555
Q2	There is little or no coordination of a problem survey so that improvements can be suggested.	0.089	0.032	*0.723*	0.495	0.505
Q3	In the section meeting, there is little or no time for me to make suggestions for improving my work environment.	-0.044	0.020	*0.706*	0.502	0.498
Q4	There is little or no mutual collaboration between employees and managers when it comes to potential improvements at work.o.	-0.009	-0.122	*0.521*	0.672	0.328
(α) Alfa de Cronbach (0.844)		0.876	0.848	0.747
(ω) Omega de McDonald (0.956)		0.919	0.896	0.778
	Explained variance	0.570	0.232	0.148
	Total explained variance	0.570	0.802	0.950

Variable		Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Sing.	Comun.
Individual barrier Lack of communication skills
Q27	I've stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because I've had experiences where my colleagues or boss didn't understand my suggestion.	0.897	-0.043	0.011	0.222	0.779
Q28	I've stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because my colleagues or boss had different interpretations of what I was proposing.	0.804	0.116	-0.102	0.325	0.675
Q26	I stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because I didn't succeed in convincing my coworkers with my suggestion.	0.626	-0.066	0.224	0.480	0.521
Individual Barrier of Loss of Power
Q37	I've already stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because I preferred to keep "my method" of working a secret.	-0.162	0.712	0.257	0.405	0.595
Q40	I've stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because I believe that "knowledge is power" and so I've used my experience to stand out.	0.094	0.653	-0.178	0.580	0.421
Q38	I've stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because I preferred to suggest them at more appropriate times, when I could be sure of receiving recognition or reward.	0.031	0.619	0.003	0.597	0.404
Q39	I've already stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because I was afraid that such an improvement might jeopardize my job or my activity	0.245	0.577	0.119	0.386	0.614
Individual barrier of identifying benefits
Q29	I've stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because I don't know all the details of the operation.	-0.054	0.122	0.741	0.406	0.594
Q30	I've stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because I'm not fully aware of the benefits that a suggestion can generate for the company and its employees.	0.070	0.000	0.696	0.468	0.532
Q31	I've stopped contributing ideas for improving my work because sometimes they're ideas that I believe are too simple and have no potential.	0.046	0.023	0.506	0.712	0.288
(α) Alfa de Cronbach (0.776)		0.787	0.679	0.671
(ω) Omega de McDonald (0.911)		0.841	0.769	0.704
	Explained variance	0.322	0.161	0.133
	Total explained variance	0.322	0.483	0.616

Universidade Federal de São Carlos Departamento de Engenharia de Produção , Caixa Postal 676 , 13.565-905 São Carlos SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3351 8471 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: gp@dep.ufscar.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Source:Riege (2005)Riege, A. (2005). Three‐dozen knowledge‐sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35. http://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602746.
http://doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602746... , Pepulim et al. (2017)Pepulim, M. E. H., Fialho, F. A. P., & Varvákis, G. (2017). Barreiras culturais à efetivação da Gestão do Conhecimento nas organizações públicas: relato de pesquisa. Informação & Sociedade, 27(3), 219-240. http://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2017v27n3.33114.
http://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.1809-4783.2... , formatted and adapted by authors.