Space meets knowledge The impact of workplace design On knowledge sharing ?

AbstractAn testing of the role the tangible practice role plays in creating opportunities and barriers that influence experience worry has become a matter of hearty debate. Design of good oeuvres for acquaintance sh atomic bet 18 is considered a major dispute for any organization. This subject field allows an insight into the impact of the design and exercise of the physical serve on knowledge sacramental manduction. Evidence presented in this accept substantiates the stance that the physical presence of an employee has the potential to impact execution of instrument and knowledge way. This mind provide be of use to look intoers seeking to further examine the line of business of knowledge management.Introduction knowledge management, described as the intentional management of information has become increasingly weighty to governances (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995 Alavi, 1997 Garvin, 1997 Wiig, 1997 Davenport and Prusak, 1998 Ruggles, 1998 Hansen, 1999 Zack, 1 999a). In large secernate this has been fuelled by the exponential growth of the knowledge economy and the increasing soma of knowledge fiddleers who stir become as requisite for many an(prenominal) firms combat and survival (Tallman and Chacar 2010). For many emerging presidential terms suit to face get across is essential in the dissemination of knowledge deep down that infrastructure (Ibid). The b format of infixed knowledge management is a dynamic member that must be im memorandarial(prenominal)tained in sound out to produce results.Literature ReviewKnowledge is defined as a dynamic human or neighborly process that allows a justification of personal belief as regards the fair play (Nonaka 2011). aboriginal fundamental interaction between deal, employees and consumers is one of the primary methods of communicating innovative and inspirational progress. Modern studies in the field of knowledge management have begun to call forth focus from the richness o f the physical excogitateplace to those engaged in knowledge work (Becker 2004). The recognition of inherent value in the employee base adds incentive to capitalise on the low cost innovative opportunities that knowledge sh be-out creates (Tallman et al 2010). With diminutive insight established by the direct allude of the employees, the means of confabulation becomes a critical concern (Dakir 2012). International companies argon recognizing this same value of face to face fundamental fundamental interaction as the kind interaction between management theatrical roles, public assistances production and schooling levels world-wide (Noorderhaven and Harzing 2009).In their banter of mixer capital, Cohen and Prusak (2001) emphasise the magnificence of the physical workplace for the exchanging of knowledge, specifically the dispersal of ideas amongst individuals in a situation where they could not assume that opposites k impudently what they were required to know. Becker ( 2004) hypothesises that the choices an geological formation makes just ab come out of the closet how property is al fit(p) and designed directly and indirectly shapes the infrastructure of knowledge networks the dense and richly veined complaisant systems that stand by people call for faster and engage more than deeply in the work of the organisation. This corresponds with the Dakir (2012) inclination that technology is no substitute for live interaction among the members of the organization. Davenport et al (2002) undertook a study among 41 firms that were implementing initiatives to advance the action of gritty-end knowledge workers who were regarded as critical to the companys aims. They focused upon determining the elements that affected the knowledge work mathematical process. Surprisingly, the issue that was close to oft dealt with by these firms involved the physical workplace the other common ones were information technology and management (Davenport 2005, p. 166).Davenport (2005) emphasises that the recognition of the richness of knowledge work has grown in juvenile days, further that our grounds of the physical conditions in which knowledge substructure flourish has failed to keep pace. The cellular inclusion of emerging parley technology has been argued to provide a better fortune for employee interaction (Rhoads 2010). This same element of improved long distance communication is credited with diminishing the treasured spontaneously inspiration that many firms affirm on during day to day operations (Denstadli, Gripsrud, Hjortahol and Julsrud 2013). According to Davenport et al (2002) workplace design should be seen as a key determinant of knowledge-worker performance, while we largely remain in the dark active how to align post to the demands of knowledge work. Davenport (2005) emphasises the point that there is a good deal say just about the topic, but not frequently known about it (p. 165). n primaeval of the decis ions concerning the climate in which work takes place have been created without consideration for performance factors. This fact continues to diminish opportunities for in- stomach knowledge sharing and put inive dissemination of newsworthiness (Denstadli et al 2013).Becker (2004) points out that the cultivation of knowledge networks underpins the continuing debate about right design, and the relative virtue of forthright versus closed space. Duffy (2000) confirms these views when he admits that archaeozoic twenty-first-century architects originally know as little about how workplaces shapes business performance as early nineteenth-century physicians knew how diseases were transmitted before the science of epidemiology was established (p. 371). This makes all(prenominal) emerging decision regarding effective knowledge sharing critical to the development of any organisation.Deprez and Tissen (2009) illustrate the strength of the knowledge sharing process utilize Googles asce nd one company that is safey awargon of its spatial capabilities. The spatial arrangements at Googles offices canful serve as a useful example of how design can have a port on improving the give-and-take of knowledge in ways that likewise add value to the company. The Zurich Google engineering office is the companys newest and largest question and development facility besides Mountain View, California. In this facility, Deprez and Tissen (2009) report Google has created workspaces where people literally slide into space (i.e. the restaurant). Its really true Google Is antithetic. Its in the design its in the air and in the life meter of the place. Its al close to organizing without management. A workplace becomes a workspace, mobilizing the bodied Google minds and link them to their fellow Zooglers inside the Zurich office and to access all the international/external knowledge to be captured by the All Mighty Google organisation (2009, p. 37).What works for one organisati on may not work for round other and this appears to be the case in particular when it comes to Google (Deprez et al 2009). Yet, some blue-chip lessons in how the workplace can be used to good effect can be gained from Googles operations. For this precise reason, research was carried out at Google Zurich to provide both theoretical and managerial insights into the impact of the design and use of the physical workplace on knowledge sharing (Ibid).Studies comparing the performance of virtual and co-located aggroups engraft that virtual teams tend to be more job oriented and telephone switch over less social information than co located ones (Walther & Burgoon 1992 Chidambaram 1996). The researchers suggest this would slow the development of relationships and strong comparative links have been shown to enhance creativity and motivation. Other studies conclude that opposite team contacts atomic number 18 usually more effective and satisfying than virtual ones, but stock-stil l virtual teams can be as effective if given adapted cartridge holder to develop strong group relationships (Chidambaram 1996). This research implies the impressiveness of facilitating social interaction in the workplace, and between team members (virtual and co-located) when the team is initially forming. humming (2010) proposes that repeated encounters, even without chat, help to promote the awareness of co-workers and to foster office relationships. McGrath (1990) recommends that in the absence of the ability to have an initial face-to-face conflux other avenues for building strong relationships are advised to ensure the tat and effectiveness of the teams interaction. So although interaction alone is not a sufficient condition for successful collaboration, it does indirectly support collaboration. Nova (2005) points out that physical proximity allow the use of non verbal communication including different paralinguistic and non-verbal signs, precise timing of cues, coordin ation of turn-taking or the repair of misunderstandings. Psychologists note that deictic references are used in face-to-face brushs on a regular basis, which refers to pointing, looking, pitiful or gesturing to indicate a nearby object mentioned in conversation (Ibid).Newlands et al (2002) analysed interactions of two groups performing a joint task in either face-to-face or a video conference system. They found that deictic hand gesture occurred five times more prevalently in the face-to-face condition the virtual interaction. More recent research has found that extroverts gesticulate for longer and more frequently in meetings than introverts (Jonnson 2006). Barbour and Koneya (1976) excellently claimed that 55 per cent of communication is non-verbal communication, 38 per cent is finished by tone of voice, and plainly 7 per cent is related to the words and content. all the way non-verbal communication is a key component of interaction and virtual interaction systems need to replicate this basic need, especially in the early stages of team forming or when the team consists of a high proportion of extroverts. The physical co-location of teams besides facilitates collaboration (Ibid). A seminal piece of research carried out by Allen (1977) show that the probability of two people communicating in an organisation is inversely proportional to the distance separating them, and it is close to zero after 30 metres of physical separation. Furthermore, proximity helps maintain task and group awareness, because when co-located it is easier to gather and modify information about the task performed by team members (Dakir 2012).A recent quite a little of workers at exceedingly cooperative companies found that about collaborative takingss are short (with 34% lasting fewer than 15 minutes) and the mass take place at the desk (Green 2012). It is likely that these impromptu interactions relate to sharing information (perhaps on the PC) or answering queries rather than lengthy pictorial word and development of joint ideas. fundamental interactions at desks may facilitate mum knowledge sharing by overhearing relevant conversations between team members, but such interactions can also be considered a distraction if not relevant (Denstadli et al 2013).Methodology there are two hold methodological approaches quantitative and qualitative (Cres healthful 2005). The quantitative method involves identifying variables in a research question which are then utilized in order to collate numerical entropy (Ibid). The qualitative research is open to recitation allowing personal answers to be incorporated into the study (Cres easily 2005). The researcher considered both options in order to complete the necessary goals.Types of selective informationThere are two forms of info primary, or newly generated data, or secondary, previous data generated within existing studies (Creswell 2005). This study required the acquisition of primary data creating th e need for relevant instruments. A scan with 5 open-ended questions has been created and subsequently conducted with centred on 548 employees work at Google Zurich. This was done in order to explore the perceptions of Google employees with regard to the purlieu in which they work with a focus on factors that affect knowledge sharing in the work environment.Methods of Data CollectionThe qualitative data analysis sedulous a electrical capacity epitome technique to reveal participant perceptions of their work environment. The survey questions were designed to explore employee perceptions regarding the future(a) dimensions1) Activities that allow for increase exchange of knowledge2) Advantages of stag interaction with colleagues3) Individuals or groups dependent on the patronize interaction with co-workers orgroup members4) Factors that facilitate interaction within the workplace5) Factors that inhibit interaction with others in the workplace.Survey participants responded to five open-ended questions and rated their answers using a five-point Likert ordered series where 5 was most burning(prenominal). Using a field of study epitome approach (Creswell 2005 Leedy and Ormrod 2005 Neuendorf 2002), the interview responses were analysed. Content Analysis is a qualitative data reduction method that generates categories from key words and phrases in the interview schoolbook it is an consequence-based process in which data gathered through an exploratory approach is systematically analysed to produce predictive or inferential intent (Creswell 2005). Content Analysis was used to identify minds or common concepts in participants perceptions regarding the culturally and environmentally distinctive factors that affect interaction in the workplace (Neuendorf, 2002). This process permitted the investigator to quantify and analyse data so that inferences could be drawn.The Content Analysis of survey interview text edition was categorically coded to reflect di fferent levels of analysis, including key components, words, sentences, or themes (Neuendorf 2002). These themes or key components were then examined using relational analysis to determine whether there were any relationships between the responses of the subjects. The analysis was conducted with Nvivo8 software package which enables sorting, categorising, and frequency counts of incessant constituents (relevant responses). Content Analysis was used to critically esteem the survey responses of the study participants, providing in-depth information regarding the factors related to workplace interaction.Sample respondent CharacteristicsThe invited population consisted of 675 individuals and a total of 548 individuals participated in the survey resulting in a response rate of 81 per cent. Of these 548 completed surveys, 35 responses were discarded because the respondents only partially completed the survey. The final sample consisted of 513 respondents. The key characteristics of th ese respondents are summarized in bow 4-1.Table 4-1 Sample Respondent Characteristics FactorDescription absolute frequency EducationHigh SchoolBachelor Degree credentials DegreeMaster DegreePhD DegreeOther15118192311219 Tenure 2 years2-5 years 5 years15333129 duration Building Use 1 year1 year2 years 2 years1401022710 Time Desk Use 3 months3-6 months7-12 months 12 months14315912685 Age 20 years21-30 years31-40 years41-50 years 50 years0216255357 GenderMaleFemale42885 MobiltyZurich OfficeOther Google OfficeHome Office travelingOther88.9%3.9%3.9%2.7%0.5% Position designSales and MarketingGandAOther428121459 NationalityGermanySwitzerland fall in StatesFrancePolandUnited KingdomRomaniaHungaryNetherlandsSwedenSpainAustraliaRussian Federation 10 respondents73623533282724231716141312136Survey FindingsIn order to provide an audit trail of participant responses to the thematic categories that emerged from the data analysis, discussion of the findings precedes the tables of data, within a f ramework consisting of the five survey questions. An overall summary is provided at the conclusion of the discussion of findings. During the analysis of data, common invariant constituents (relevant responses) were categorically coded and associated frequencies were documented. Frequency data included overall frequency of occurrence as well as frequencies based on rating level (5 = most important to 1 = least important). Invariant constituents with a frequency of less than 10 were not included in the tables. Study conclusions were developed through an examination of the high frequency and highly rated invariant constituents in conjunction with the revealed thematic categories. header 1 Main Activities that Allow Exchange of KnowledgeTable 4-2 provides high frequency invariant constituents (relevant responses) by survey participants demonstrating themes within the data for Question 1. Thematically, the analysis revealed the following primary perceptions of participants in terms of ma in activities that allow knowledge exchange (a) meetings of all types (b) whiteboard area discussions (c) video conferencing (d) email, and (e) code reviews. These elements demonstrated a high frequency of importance ratings, and a moderate character of respondents rated these elements as most important (rating 5). Other themes revealed through the analysis included the importance of pen and reading documentation, Instant Messaging (IM) text chat, Internet Relay jabber (IRC), and extracurricular/social activities. All other invariant constituents with a frequency of greater than 10 are shown in Table 4-2.Table 4-2 Data Analysis Results for Question 1 Main Activities Allowing for Exchange of Knowledge Invariant ConstituentOverall number (Frequency)By Rating5= more or less important n=51354321 Informal discussion/face to face mtgs/stand ups35114977603332 Formal planned meetings/conference dwell mtgs2184061563823 Email207747432216 Lunches/Dinners64910151812 Whiteboard area discussi ons/brainstorming5822131094 Video Conferencing (VC)5841620144 Code Reviews515162046 Writing/Reading Documentation476813164 IM/Text blabber/IRC4610161073 Extracurricular Activities (e.g., pool, socializing, Friday office drinks, etc.)4522151016 Writing/Reading docs specifically wiki paginates/sites34210697 Chat (unspecified in person vs. text)3387873 Techtalks2745675 Training/presentations23133106 Mailing lists21102522 Shared docs/doc collaboration1703554 Read/ create verbally design docs specifically1202505 Telephone/phone conversations1203243Question 2 Main Advantages of Frequent fundamental interaction with ColleaguesTable 4-3 provides high frequency invariant constituents (relevant responses) by survey participants demonstrating themes within the data for Question 2. Thematically, the analysis revealed the following elements representing the primary perceptions of participants in terms of the main advantages to frequent interaction with colleagues (a) knowledge and information exchange and transfer (b) staying current on projects and processes (c) social interaction (d) learning from others (e) faster problem colonization (f) efficient collaboration and (g) continuous and early feedback. The following themes received a high frequency of importance ratings and a large fate of most important and important ratings (rating 5 and 4, respectively) included knowledge sharing, staying in equalize and up to date, learning from others, faster resolution/problem solving, better collaboration, and feedback. Although acculturation was revealed to be a strong overall theme, it also demonstrated pass up importance ratings. Other themes revealed through the analysis are provided in Table 4-3.Table 4-3 Data Analysis Results for Question 2 Main Advantages of Frequent Interaction Invariant ConstituentOverall number (Frequency)By Rating5= close to important n=51354321 Knowledge sharing/exchange of information/Knowledge transfer149753919124 Staying in be/up to date/ mor e info on projects and processes11358281782 Socializing/social interaction7451035186 Learning/learning from others/learning new things/increased knowledge base7217281485 say problems/needs faster resolution and quicker problem solving7025241146 Better/more efficient collaboration67428953 Feedback/continuous feedback/early feedback661729893 New and better ideas/flow of ideas/creativity/ brainstorming6525151474 Teamwork/being part of a team/teambuilding5110121892 Get work done/efficiency/speed462613241 Fun4421115115 Better understanding of what others are doing and how/workloads4415171002 Everyone on same page/shared vision/focus on goals of team32109652 Better personal contact and prospering interaction27561123 Avoid misunderstanding/work duplication27810441 Helping others/getting help (when stuck)26391031 Good/happy atmosphere/work environment2412858 Networking2219624 Motivate each other/inspiration2151582 Other/new perspectives/viewpoints18210312 Improving quality of work/perfor mance1615910 Work synchronization1628141 Productivity1231431 conditioned latest news/innovations1203216 Better communication1011521Question 3 Individuals or Groups that are mutualist on Frequent InteractionTable 4-4 provides high frequency invariant constituents (relevant responses) given by survey participants demonstrating themes within the data for Question 3. Thematically, the analysis revealed the following elements representing the primary perceptions of participants in terms of individuals or groups that are dependent on frequent interaction of the participant (a) my team/project teammates/ fellows and (b) managers. The first theme demonstrated a high frequency of importance ratings with a moderate percentage of most important and important ratings (rating 5 and 4, respectively). Although the theme of managers was revealed to be a comparatively strong overall theme, it also demonstrated lower importance ratings. Other themes revealed through the analysis are shown in Table 4-4.Table 4-4 Data Analysis Results for Question 3 Individual/groups dependent on frequent interaction of participant Invariant ConstituentOverall number (Frequency)By Rating5=Most important n=51354321 My team/project teammates/peers12887191435 Managers/PMs484241163 Users/customers/clients357121042 All reports/related teams34717442 Engineering teams (various)28188200 Recruiting team/staffing1753630 Geo Teams1576200 Operations teams1423522 All of them1191010 HQ1133122 Other engineers using my project/peer developers of my tool1015310Question 4 Factors Facilitating blowzy InteractionTable 4-5 provides high frequency invariant constituents (relevant responses) by survey participants demonstrating themes within the data for Question 4. Thematically, the analysis revealed the following elements representing the primary perceptions of participants about factors that facilitate easy interaction (a) common, proximal, and open workspace areas (b) common functional areas (c) sufficient and on hand(predicate) meeting facilities (d) excellent communication tools and (e) video conference facilities. The theme of open and common workspace areas/shared office space demonstrated a high frequency of importance ratings with a very large percentage of most important ratings (rating 5). Other revealed themes, particularly the second listed theme, demonstrated relatively high overall frequency, but these themes did not demonstrate the strength of importance that the first theme did. Other themes and invariant constituents revealed through the analysis are shown in Table 4-5.Table 4-5 Data Analysis Results for Question 4 Factors Facilitating Easy Interaction Invariant ConstituentOverall number (Frequency)By Rating5=Most important n=51354321 Open and Common workspace areas/shared office space/desk locations/ academic session together175103342594 Common shared Areas (e.g., Kitchen, play/game board, lounges, library, etc.)173406642178 Enough facilities for meetings/availability of meeting and conference areas90192730122 Great communication tools (email, VC, chats, dist. Lists, online docs, wireless, VPN, mobile)80113014187 Video Conference meeting rooms/facilities78192518124 Onsite lunch/dinner/common dining area ( unacquainted(p) forage and eating together)5071511134 Whiteboard areas for informal meetings431018771 Corporate culture/open culture/ open communication culture431811932 Email421113954 Casual and social environment/open atmosphere36195921 People easy going, friendly, smart, knowledgeable, willing to help35149336 Social Events2836577 Company calendar/planned ops for meeting/ schedule meetings1937621 Geographic co-location/same time zone1374200 Travel/trips to other offices1212135 Chat (non-specific text or in person)1124302 IM/internet chat1051112 MOMA/social networking/wiki pages/company docs1010342Question 5 Factors Inhibiting Interaction with OthersTable 4-6 provides high frequency invariant constituents (relevant responses) by survey participan ts demonstrating themes within the data for Question 5. Thematically, the analysis revealed a single strong element and some(prenominal) elements with less relevance as inhibiting factors. The physical geographic differences specifically the time zone differences were noted by a majority of participants as the most important element that inhibited interaction with others. Study participants sensed their overscheduled and finical work lives, randomness levels in their workspaces, and shared work environments to be modify inhibitory factors with regard to interaction with others. These elements also demonstrated high frequencies of importance ratings with a moderate percentage of most important ratings (rating 5). Other themes revealed through the analysis are shown in Table 4-6.Table 4-6 Data Analysis Results for Question 5 Factors Inhibiting Interaction with Others Invariant ConstituentOverall number (Frequency)By Rating5=Most important n=51354321 Physical Geographic distance / timezone differences16411536931 Very industrious/Overscheduled people/ overbooked calendars/ too many meetings4517161020 Crowded/noisy environment/ noise in shared space33196440 Defective VCs/ VC suboptimal/ VC equipment not working2597720 No meeting rooms available2286620 Too few VC rooms in some locations / lack of available VC rooms1949501 Open Space no privacy, interruptions/ disruptions1958321 Information overload/ too much email1562610 Large office building/building size and layout/ too many people, difficult to find people15114000 Team split between multiple sites or large distance between team members in same bldg1545420 admit more whiteboards/lack of informal areas with whiteboards1135210 Language barrier lack of redress English/not knowing colloquial lang. or nuances1151311 Lack of time/deadlines1152121 Different working hours within same time zone1053200Discussionboth the literature and the survey have illuminated interesting facets of the work environment and the ne ed for personal communication. The analysis of the 513 participants responses to five open-ended questions from the employee perception survey revealed patterns of facilitating and inhibiting factors in their work environment. Nonaka (2011) clearly illustrates this point with the argument that the communal environment promotes a standard of communication not found in the expert alternatives. Further, the shift away from the organization to the person orientation provides a fundamental benefit to every employee (Becker 2004). With a rising recognition of individual value, the organisation is building employee trust. Participants in this study preferred frequent, informal opportunities for the exchange of knowledge. The hazard for growth was centred on the capacity to exchange concepts in a free and easy manner (Nonaka 2011). The evidence presented in this study demonstrates that these opportunities were more valued by team members with high knowledge exchange needs. This is line wi th the increased depth of knowledge and ability to meet technical needs through employee communication (Tallman et al 2010). A combination of professional advice can benefit the entire production and development process. In this study, transactions among participants were often brief, and were perceived to require limited space often just stand-up space with noise-regulating options not found in open-office environments. Dakir (2012) demonstrates the environment has the potential to add to or detract from employee communication, making this factor a critical consideration. Spontaneous and expedient knowledge-sharing transactions were valued, and technology provided a plan for this type of knowledge exchange to occur. This evidence from the survey corresponds with the literature illustrating that increased communication and sharing in the workplace enhances the entire operation, as well as providing new and refreshed opportunities and innovations (Tallman et al 2010).The researc h at Google provides further support for the view of some leading companies who strongly believe that having workers in the same place is decisive to their success (Noorderhaven et al 2009). Yahoos CEO Marissa Mayer communicated via a memo to employees that June 2013, any existing work-from-home arrangements will no longer apply. Initial studies theorized that the work at home system would provide a better platform for workers, even on a local level (Dakir 2012). Many points of the memo cited in this Yahoo example, parallel the literature presented in this study. Her memo give tongue to (Moyer 2013) To become the absolute ruff place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side. This is clearly in line with the Coehen and Prusak (2001) assertion that the physical workplace is a critical element of the dynamic business. That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices. Some of the best decisions and insights co me from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings. This element of the her reasoning is nearly identical to the argument presented by Dakir (2012), that a successful company do so, in part, by promoting communication and teamwork in the office, the technical alternatives are not enough.Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo, and that starts with physically being together.Being a Yahoo isnt just about your day-to-day job, it is about the interactions and experiences that are only possible in our offices (Moyer 2013). This section is directly in line with emerging studies citing the vital nature of the interaction and face to face employee contact (Heerwagen et al. 2004).This study has clearly demonstrated that Mayer is not alone in her thinking Steve Jobs operated in a similar musical mode as well (Davenport et al 2002). Despite being a habitant of the digital world, or maybe because he knew al l too well its isolating potential, Jobs was a strong believer in face-to-face meetings. Theres a temptation in our networked age to think that ideas can be developed by email and iChat, he said. Thats crazy. creativeness comes from spontaneous meetings, from random discussions. You run into someone, you ask what theyre doing, you say Wow, and soon youre cooking up all sorts of ideas (Isaacson, 2011, p. 431). This assertion by Jobs nearly resembles the argument presented in the Rhoads (2010) study that found a clear correlational statistics between the communication capacity and opportunity for successful innovation and progress. future(a) this philosophy led Jobs to have the Pixar building designed to promote encounters and unwilled collaborations.Mayers former colleague at Google agrees (Ibid). Speaking at an event in Sydney February 2013, Google CFO Patrick Pichette said that teleworking is not encouraged at Google. This reflects the consensus that is emerging that time in the office is not only rich but necessary to sustained competition in the industry (Denstadli et al 2013). Pichette believes that working from home could isolate employees from other staff.Companies like Apple, Yahoo and Google are holding on to (or have started embracing) the belief that having workers in the same place is crucial to their success (Dakir 2012). This appears to be based on the view that physical proximity can lead to casual exchanges, which in turn can lead to breakthroughs for products. Heerwagen et al (2004) illustrates that it is evident that knowledge work is a highly cognitive and social activity. Non-verbal communication is complex and involves many unconscious mechanisms e.g. gesture, body language, posture, facial expression, eye contact, pheromones, proxemics, chronemics, haptics, and paralanguage (Denstadli et al 2013). So, although virtual interaction can be valuable it is not a replacement for face-to-face interaction, particularly for initial meetings of individuals or teams. Furthermore, the increase in remote working has indicated that face-to-face interaction is important for motivation, team-building, mentoring, a sense of belonging and loyalty, arguably more so than in place-centred workgroups (Deprez and Tissen 2009).ConclusionThe role of knowledge management in the workplace has become an increasingly valuable segment of a companys resources. This study examined the practice of working remotely versus employee interaction in the work place providing many illuminating developments. Despite the early optimism that emerging technology was going to provide the end all to employee work habits have proven less than fully realized. The evidence in this study has continuously illustrated an environment that requires the innovative, face to face interaction in order to maintain a competitive edge in the industry. Further, the very environment that promotes this free exchange of ideals is not adequately substituted by technology. In short, the evidence provided in this study has clearly demonstrated the advantage that the in house employee has over the remote worker.The impromptu encounters between employees are very often the elements needed for progress. What is clear is that in order for a business to capitalize on their full range of available resources virtually requires, face to face personal interaction in order to fully realize the firms full potential. In the end, it will be the combination of leadership, teamwork and innovation that provides business with the best environment, not necessarily how much technology is available.ReferencesDalkir, K. 2005. Knowledge management in theory and practice. Amsterdam Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann.Denstadli, J., Gripsrud, M., Hjorthol, R. and Julsrud, T. 2013. Videoconferencing and business air travel Do new technologies produce new interaction patterns?. Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, 29 pp. 113.Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 2011. The wise leader. Harvard Business Review, 89 (5), pp. 5867.Noorderhaven, N. and Harzing, A. 2009. Knowledge-sharing and social interaction within MNEs.Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (5), pp. 719741.Rhoads, M. 2010. face-to-face and Computer-Mediated Communication What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?. Journal of Planning Literature, 25 (2), pp. 111122.Tallman, S. and Chacar, A. 2011. Knowledge Accumulation and dispersal in MNEs A Practice-Based Framework. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (2), pp. 278304.