Building a Culture of Knowledge Sharing

In the international cooperation sector, knowledge management is embedded within an organisation’s culture and systems in diverse ways, often influenced by factors such as organisational size and structure. The priority given to knowledge transfer efforts can vary significantly and is frequently compromised during high-pressure situations. However, many energy-intensive yet ineffective knowledge management practices continue, driven more by habit than by strategic intent. Additionally, the rise of artificial intelligence tools is poised to disrupt established knowledge management processes, reshaping how information is stored, retrieved, and shared.

What does knowledge management look like in organisations active in international cooperation? Is it a department, a specific function, an objective in the log frame? The anchorage of knowledge management efforts differs widely and is, among other factors, dependent on the size of the organisation. It is also a question of organisational culture and DNA (cf. card organisational structure).  

Knowledge management is a strategic topic. It should be taken into account within the organisation’s vision (what knowledge is important to us?), strategy (how are we going to acquire, sustain and use this knowledge?), processes (who shares what knowledge? how do I start a new project? what do we try to transmit to new colleagues?) and culture (where do I look for information, how available are my peers if I need support, are informal discussions permitted? etc.). 

Our study showed vast differences among the ten participating organisations. Some have a very « natural », organic, informal relationship to knowledge management. These are typically smaller organisations, where good relationships between colleagues and a rich learning culture can effectively facilitate knowledge flow. In other organisations, knowledge management is a department in itself, with performance indicators related to implemented measures, a dedicated budget, etc. Dedicated functions may focus on developing and implementing formal strategies, platforms and instruments to foster knowledge transfer and management. 

In general, even if there is a dedicated position or team, the responsibility for an environment, culture, processes and methods to give rise to collective wisdom is spread across various roles in organisations. While leadership sets the tone and importance of knowledge management, providing the necessary resources and support, all employees contribute by creating, sharing, processing and utilising knowledge. This collective effort, building on formally coordinated processes as well as informal, even unconscious sharing, is required for collective wisdom to emerge.

Whether knowledge management is highly formalised and anchored in the organisational chart and strategy, or rather diffuse and embedded in the culture, certain conditions are essential for knowledge transfer to work (cf. card daily interactions). 

• Creating a common understanding of organisational goals and processes is essential for ensuring that institutional knowledge is cohesive and effective. Without this shared context, knowledge can become fragmented, particularly in decentralised organisations spread across multiple countries. As one participant in our study noted, maintaining a unified organisational identity in such contexts can be challenging. 
• Establishing effective communication channels is key to facilitating knowledge sharing. This includes formal channels, such as meetings and training sessions, as well as informal channels, like casual conversations. Communication channels should be thoughtfully conceptualised to accommodate different types of knowledge, without overwhelming individuals with excessive information. 
• Promoting a culture that values continuous learning and innovation is crucial for fostering knowledge sharing. To encourage people to learn and share, they must also have the capacity to do so. As one participant pointed out, when people are pressed for time, they tend to focus on immediate tasks, neglecting opportunities to learn and share knowledge beyond their own responsibilities. 

Fostering a culture that encourages employees to actively share their knowledge and expertise can be challenging. Organisational, cultural or social dynamics, may create barriers to open knowledge sharing. Factors such as fear of losing power, status, or job security, a lack of trust among colleagues, and resistance to change can discourage individuals from sharing freely. Overcoming these obstacles requires a supportive environment that prioritises trust, collaboration, and the understanding that shared knowledge benefits both the individual and the organisation as a whole. 

Even in organisations where the issue is given importance and visibility, there is a risk to deprioritise it in times of more urgent matters, which also happens with other « soft » topics (such as employee well-being, organisational culture, and leadership), those being more difficult to grasp, document and measure than « hard » ones (finances, operational efficiency, compliance metrics…).  

Developing effective ways to track the impact of knowledge and knowledge management initiatives is a challenging task. It is difficult to clearly track – let alone predict – the dynamics and effects of managing knowledge. Yet, without a clear understanding of its impact, it becomes challenging to justify investments in knowledge management and demonstrate its tangible value to the organisation (cf. card resources). 

Knowledge management should not be viewed as a cost, but rather as an investment that enables the organisation to achieve its goals more effectively and efficiently. For example, improving the onboarding process for new employees enhances their productivity and integration into the team. Other examples include optimising decision-making processes through better access to critical information or facilitating smoother project handovers, which can reduce delays and errors. 

However, this does not mean all knowledge management efforts are automatically justified or useful. Ensuring these initiatives align with the organisation's broader objectives and are designed to provide real value is essential. 

As one study respondent said: « There is not much investment in good knowledge management, which leads to unreflected actions and habits. » It's a paradox: As we don’t have time to think about why and how we do things, we just keep doing them without knowing if it's worth it.  

There are indeed many misconceptions and misbeliefs surrounding knowledge management. Here is a non-exhaustive, slightly sarcastic, review of some of the most common ones (cf. card Misconceptions): 

• Documented knowledge will definitely be used at some point: It will be searched for, easily found, and—of course—perfectly useful at exactly the right time. 
• Minute-taking for every single meeting is absolutely essential for retrieving crucial information, because everyone loves wading through endless pages of notes. 
• The written (discursive) form of knowledge is the only one that truly matters – after all, if it’s not written down, it probably isn’t important. 
• What worked in the past will surely work in the future – because the world never changes and the context is always the same. 
• Knowledge transfer happens simply through talking or reading – no need for real-life experience, observation, or interaction. 

Some of these statements probably sound ridiculous, yet these misconceptions, even when we know they aren't (entirely) true, still shape our actions. 

Reflecting on our knowledge-related habits becomes even more crucial as many tasks that were time-consuming can now be completed much more quickly with the help of AI-powered tools.  

The rise of artificial intelligence, particularly with tools using large language models such as ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot, is disrupting traditional attitudes towards keeping, retrieving, acquiring, and sharing knowledge. These advancements are changing how we approach knowledge management, impacting how much effort we invest in storing past knowledge or seeking the right person with the expertise to solve a problem (cf. card Artificial Intelligence). 

One study participant expressed concern that younger generations may become too reliant on technology and tools, losing the instinct to seek guidance from peers and more experienced colleagues. This reflects a potential risk: while AI can make knowledge more accessible, it may also reduce the emphasis on human interaction and mentorship, both of which are critical for transferring tacit knowledge.  

At the same time, AI offers tremendous benefits by improving the « match » between knowledge supply and demand – meaning, it can help identify the right information precisely when needed. By integrating AI into knowledge management systems, organisations can harness these capabilities to optimise access to both explicit and tacit knowledge. 

The issue is not simply whether we should fear or embrace the rapid developments in AI – a question that spans societal and philosophical discussions. However, AI must be a priority discussion point at the organisational level. The critical questions are: How can we effectively use the possibilities AI offers while mitigating potential risks? Which jobs and activities can be supported by AI, and which tasks may become redundant? 

AI has the potential to revolutionise knowledge management, but organisations must approach its implementation thoughtfully. By leveraging AI to complement human expertise, rather than replace it, we can strike a balance where both technology and human interaction work together to enhance knowledge sharing, innovation, and organisational success. 

Here are some quotes that sparked interesting discussions during our study:   

About organisational culture: 

• « Internal culture and breaking down silos are linked – feeling connected as a team is key. »  
• « The way a meeting is run can be an aid or a hindrance to knowledge transfer; if only the boss talks, it is a missed opportunity. »  
• « Technology can drive cultural shifts, as seen with the introduction of MS Teams, which encourages transparent communication. »  
• « If we had unlimited resources, we’d invest much more in internal and external training. Well-trained employees add value, even if they leave the organisation. »  
• « It’s a mistake to assume that simply working together leads to effective knowledge transfer – active effort is needed. »  

About mindset: 

• « Managers must lead by example in fostering knowledge exchange. »  
• « Hiring people who lack openness or curiosity is a mistake – knowledge transfer requires a willingness to share and learn from others. »  

About workload: 

• « Transferring knowledge takes time, and when workloads increase, knowledge management is often the first thing to be abandoned. »  
• « There’s financial pressure to reduce central services, which increases workload and hampers knowledge management efforts. »  
• « It's naive to think shared documents will be read. Everyone is overwhelmed with information, and what we share often gets lost in the noise. »  

About technology: 

• « AI is a game-changer for retrieving specific information from vast internal data sources, reducing the resources needed to access documented knowledge. »  
• « With modern tools, archiving and searching for information are independent processes, but this creates a risk of information overload. »  
• « The process of creating knowledge is just as important as the knowledge itself. Tools like ChatGPT can quickly generate content, but might eliminate a crucial step in learning. »