Knowledge Management and its Transfer in Diverse Voluntary Groups

This paper used current business theory to underpin an original research methodology modified by the authors, to expose knowledge, its acquisition, management and transfer, in voluntary not-for-profit groups operating with widely differing technical purposes. The aim was to show how the methodology identified common processes underlying knowledge management, and how it was acquired, managed and transferred, in disparate organisations. The methodology first used Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA henceforth) techniques. It was used to structure and analyse the responses after full transcription, then complemented by other analysis techniques. Transcripts were made from new interviews with disparate individuals from groups in Poland were compared with earlier published results. The underpinning acquisition process is addressed in depth. IPA was used to structure and analyse the responses after full transcription. The research question is: Are there common factors about motivational and knowledge transfer processes, in disparate groups? To identify these factors, meaning units were identified and noted, and analysis of these created emergent themes, which were then addressed using other, literature derived tools. The authors also propose to use this process for new avenues of research. Finding a methodology and answering this research question has proved a challenge, and this paper describes a methodological solution. The full research technique is presented, from participant selection to outcome analysis. The results demonstrated that similar processes of organisational learning and active knowledge management occurred in all the groups. Knowledge was transferred in and out of the organisations. Expertise from earlier experiences was applied by the groups, and transferred, becoming explicit. Existing managerial skills and methods were applied in new organisational contexts. Many similarities were found, despite clear differences in technical purpose and types of organisations. Utilisation of this technique made outcomes clearly visible. Thus, this process, although very time consuming and inevitably subjective, has allowed the authors to research extensively people's motivations, priorities and beliefs. The outcome was a strong, defensible and auditable understanding of why people got involved in the organisations, their motivation and its consequences. Their knowledge acquisition, transfer and utilisation were clearly identifiable, as was their organisational learning and subsequent usage of it.