Building Knowledge Sharing through Learning Organization

in Creative Industry

Taufiqur Rachman

, Rina Anindita

, Hasyim

and Rojuaniah

Industrial Engineering Department, Universitas Esa Unggul, Jakarta

Keywords: Knowledge Management, KnowledgeSharing, Learning Organization People Level, Learning Organization

Structural Level,and Organizational Commitment.

Abstract: The aim of this research is to find the most appropriate model of theoretical Learning Organization and

Implementation as well as the application of organizational behavior in people and structural level to

develop the knowledge through integrated Learning Organization model as the foundation to build the

knowledge of some organizations which run their business in fashion creative industry in WestJava. In order

to meet such a goal in the first year, we prepare an integrated learning organization which be adopted by

creative fashion industries in Bandung along with its knowledge model. Whereas in the second year we will

combine our latest model with the previous model applied in the creative fashion industry and observe how

such Learning Organization and Knowledge Management may improve the working commitmen tof human

resources in such industry.We use human resources working in fashion creative industry in Bandung, West

Java, as the sample used in our research. Fashion creative industry’s business agents represent all levelsand

departments of the fashion industry. Watkins and Marsick questionnaire model as the instrument to

measurethe Integrated Learning Organization and Hoff and Ridder model to assess the level of knowledge

sharing and maintenance in an organization.The findings of this research reveals that in the event that each

member of an organization in individual-level continuously performs life-long learning, communicates with

his/her colleague, and provides feedback to each other as well as active learning in the level of group may

bring positive and significant impact to the attitudes of top management which deal with organizational

learnings well as donating and collecting organizational culture.

1 INTRODUCTION

Recent theories which develop nowadays,

especially the ones regarding knowledge transfer,

cover varied situations and industrial backgrounds

and every industry must face its unique challenge in

Learning Organization and maintaining its business

challenges, especially the ones dealing

withtacitknowledgeas the ones adopted inthe

creativeindustry. Creative industry has triggered the

establishment of new knowledge which is

commonly known as ‘creative knowledge’, one of

the sub-domains of tacit knowledge. Such sub-

domain has grown into a new challenge for business

agents which challenge those business agents to

maintain their knowledge and the efforts performed

by those agents to tackle such challenge will be

reflected in knowledge sharing activities conducted

by such agents.

One examples of tacit challenges regarding

knowledge transfer is the ‘stickiness of

knowledge’characteristic, which means knowledge

cannot easily be transferred amongst different

groups which bedevelopment to the same field,

especially in the industries which apply individuals’

creativity and of which individuals be Learning

Organization to ‘creative individual’ category

(Yanget al., 2004; Anindita and Seda, 2018).

The next level is the ‘absorptive capacity’nature,

where knowledge transfer has a certain boundary,

i.e. regarding the amount of knowledge that can be

absorbed, especially any knowledge regarding

fashion industry, where each organization or

corporation tend to expand Learning Organization

varied the form of creativity from other corporations

with varied ways. Thus, whenever dealing with such

creative industry, corporations tend to limit the

knowledge absorption from others corporations.

Rachman, T., Anindita, R., Hasyim, . and Rojuaniah, .

Building Knowledge Sharing through Learning Organization in Creative Industry.

DOI: 10.5220/0009949126072615

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 2607-2615

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

2607

Moreover, the last challenge dealing with

knowledge management comes when an

organization cannot maintain its knowledge

correctly, it will be worse if such organization takes

form as a Learning Organization of which members

can learn and adapt in a precise way so knowledge

may grow and be shared within it. Speaking in this

way, the key tothe organizational success of a

Learning Organizationlies to a specific condition

when the learning process is there, and knowledge is

deemed as its core element (Senge, 1990; Anindita

and Seda, 2018, Argyris and Schön, 1978).

The explanation on how knowledge management

is applied and practised in the fashion industry may

lead the research in the field of knowledge

management in a new direction. The idea to narrow

down the focus of this research to fashion industry

will make this research more focused and well-

directed.

Previously, researches on creative knowledge are

written in the form of articles which discuss how

knowledge management is maintained in the

clothing industry, such researches include how

knowledge management shall be used to improve the

performance of the fashion industry, how knowledge

Learning Organization shall be developed in the

fashion industry, and how any knowledge regarding

fashion shall be transferred. More in-depth

researches regarding the role ofcreative knowledge

and how such knowledge shall be transferred to the

fashionindustry have not been widely performed.

Today, the theories on knowledge sharing have

widely accommodated varied situations, and

industrial background, including creative industry in

this regards, and the researches on knowledge

sharing have managed to provide an adequate

explanation to answer any question regarding the

challenges that may be faced in advanced technical

tacit knowledge. However, those studies cannot

describe the ways to disseminate such knowledge,

what criteria are used to include specific industry

into a creative category, and what kind of challenges

may be evolved and tackled by creative industry

whenever they must deal with knowledge sharing.

The knowledge about the creative industry is

unique. The first perspective regarding this issue

deals withthe stickiness of knowledge; this

perspective expresses that specific knowledge

established within the scope of a specific industry

cannot be easily distributed and transferred. Any

knowledge regarding creative industry will be

deemed as ‘sticky’ since creative people with a

complicated way of thinking – who depend on

feeling and hunches in to make any decision - and

creative environment can only be found in such

industry.

The second perspective dealing with such

industry shall be linked with learning, Learning

Organization (Senge, 1990). A creative industry

consists of creative individuals who perform their

‘learning’ in a creative environment where change

takes place only in a glimpse of an eye and adopts

different way of learning from its non-creative, more

conventional counterpart. More to that, Van Den

Hooff and Van Weenen (2004) identify that creative

fashion industry shall be classified into two

dimensions: donating and collecting.

The researchers base their research on

Knowledge Sharing and Learning Organization

theories which adopt an assumption that

characteristics and challenges in fashion industry

shall be deemed different from its non-creative

counter part, where some creative individuals,

outputs (products) can easily be found in such

creative organization, of which knowledge

management approach is implemented differently

from its non-creative counterpart.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge Sharing is a part of Knowledge

Management (KM) which was popularized by

Drucker (1988).According to Howell (2012), it shall

be defined as interpreting organizational goals into

some actions. By doing this, an organization must

transform some information into a series of

actions,and every member of such organization shall

be aware whether they can share such information or

not, which party will depend on their information,

and what kind of information is needed by the party.

Those issues are the basis of the integration

ofKnowledge Sharingas a part of Knowledge

Management.

Wah et al.(2010) define Knowledge Sharing as

“Voluntary Interaction” between the members of the

organization, including information sharing about

applicable norms, laws and regulations, and

knowledge.

Van Den Hooff and Van Weenen (2004) in

Govindaraju (2008) defines knowledge sharing as a

process where individuals perform an exchange for

the knowledge they have (tacit knowledge and

Explicit knowledge). This definition implies that

each Knowledge Sharing attitude consists of

Bringing (donating knowledge) and Getting

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

2608

(collecting knowledge) activities. Donating is an

action conducted by communicating one’s

intellectuality to another whereas collecting shall be

defined as an action conducted by consulting one’s

intellectuality with others’.

Frequently employeesadopt certain assumption

thatKnowledge Sharingcan be a threat which may

reduce their status, skills and profit. Such an

assumption makes knowledge sharing become very

Learning Organization as stated by Morris (2001),

Willem and Scarbrough (2006) in Yen (2011). In

addition to that, according to Yen (2011), one factor

that may raise the level of knowledge sharing in an

organization deals with organizational culture.

Previous research also stated that some factors like

information system facilities, well-organized

organizational structure and remuneration system

would determine and raise the level of sharing

knowledge.

Christensen, based on Howell (2012) mentions in

his paper that knowledge sharing is a process

conducted to Learning Organization, identify one’s

available knowledge, simplify the access to

knowledge in order to transfer and apply such

knowledge to complete the specific job in better,

faster, and more efficient manners. In addition to

that, there are some types of knowledge sharing,

namely professional knowledge, coordinating

knowledge, andobject-based knowledge.

Knowledge sharing is inevitably needed by some

higher education institutions to increase the number

of researches, community service, and publications

where lecturers or any well-experienced education

staffs can perform knowledge sharing by

transferring any knowledge related to research and

community service.

2.2 Learning Organization

Learning Organizationhas been a Learning

Organization into some perspectives; such a premise

has been summarized from Yang et al. (2004), Ji

etal. (2009), Weldy and Gillis (2010).There are four

perspectives of Learning Organization, namely:

 System Thinking, Senge (1990) defined learning

organization as an organization which has not

only the ability to adapt with its surroundings but

also the ability to Learning Organization, i.e. the

ability to create some future alternatives. Senge

(1990) developed five principles, i.e. team

learning, which involves group learning

activities; shared vision, the ability to Learning

Organization further visions; Mental models, the

ability to observe how closely an industry works;

Personal mastery, the ability to continuously

perform self-development, increase the energy,

and be objective towards the organization; and

system thinking, the ability to see the correlation

between specific function with another.Those

five essential principles are needed for the

establishment of a learning organization.

 Learning Perspective. Pedler, Burgoyne and

Pedler et al. (1988), defines a learning

organizationas an organization which

continuously facilitates learning to all of its

members in order to achieve organizational

goals. There areseven dimensions of learning

perspective, namely: A learning approach to

strategy, private exchange, reward flexibility,

enabling structures, boundary worker as an

environmental scanner, intercompany learning,

learning climate and self-development for

everyone. The components of Learning

Perspective as defined by Pedler et al.(1988) will

bring a whole aspect to all levels of the

organization. However, similar to the dimension

formulated by Senge, those seven instruments

are merely used to implementa learning

organization, instead of to observe the same.

 Strategic Perspective. Garvin (1993) defines a

learning organization as the ability of an

organization to create, transfer and modify

knowledge through its new insight. Perceived

froma strategic perspective, Goh (1998) added

that learning organization has five dimensions:

Clarity and support for mission and vision,

shared leadership and involvement, a culture that

encourages experimentation, the ability to

transfer knowledge across organizational

boundaries and teamwork and cooperations.

Based on the strategic perspective, the

managerial ability is needed by an organization

which intends to transform into a learning

organization. Nevertheless, dealing with such a

strategic perspective, there are some elements

left un-included, i.e. individuals and continuous

learning process. The researcher assumes that

those five dimensions of a learning organization

are not parallel because some components of

which merely reflect organization culture

(experimentation, teamwork and cooperation)

whereas others only reflect organizational ability

(transfer of knowledge).

 Integrative Perspective. Marsick and Watkins

define learning organizationas a principle which

has three key components, namely: (1)system

level, continuous learning, (2)create and manage

knowledge outcomes, (3)lead to improvements in

Building Knowledge Sharing through Learning Organization in Creative Industry

2609

the organization’s performance. Prinsis Marsick

and Watkins integrated two crucial components,

people and structure, which shall be deemed as

interactive components of organizational change

and development. Furthermore, Marsick and

Watkins develop seven dimensions ofthe

learning organization, namely: Continous

Learning which represents the effort taken by an

organization to establish continuous learning and

similar opportunity for all members to learn.

Second dimension deals within the Learning

Organization, which reflects the effort taken by

an organization to build inquiry, feedback, and

experiment cultures. The third dimension is team

learning which reflects the spirit and ability to

co-operate and build effective teamwork. The

fourth dimension is empowerment which

displays specific organizational process to build

some joint-visions and get the feedback from all

members of the organization to bridge old

visions with the new ones. The fifth dimension,

embedded system, indicates the effort to develop

a system which covers all kinds and processes of

learning. The sixth dimension, system

connection, reflects the global thinking and

action which connects the internal environment

of the organization with its external environment.

Last but not least, the seventh dimension deals

with strategic leadership, which reflects the

leaders who can think strategically and use

learning to facilitate changes and transform into

a new organization with new goals.

Combining those four perspectives, Ortenbald

(2002) formulates some concepts about learning

organization. First, Learning perspective, which

focuses on the knowledge adopted by all levels of

the organization. Second, learning at work

perspective perceives learning organization as an

organization where each conducts learning at his/her

workplace. Third, learning climate perspective

perceives an organization as a place that facilitates

its members to learn continuously. Fourth learning

structure perspective perceives learning as a unified

system with a flexible nature.

2.3 Organizational Commitment

Bui and Baruch (2010), states that organization

commitment should reach the level where

employees stand for organizational behalf and retain

their memberships in such organization. In other

words, highorganization commitment shall be

defined as very close alignment to a specific

organization.

In accordance with Basic Concepts of

Organization Commitment which are formulated by

Greenberg and baron (1993) and a theory

fromMowday, Porter and Dubin (1974) as cited by

Yen (2011) the following attitudes reflect the

position of individuals in an establishment: assume

that he/ she is identical with and involved in such an

organization and does not have any intention to

leave such organization.

Organization commitment shall be directed into

the level where employees are psychologically

linked to their workplace, whereas the object of such

commitment is organization, individuals and ideas,

practices and employmentor can be defined as the

work attitude of which level display how big

commitment that can be contributed by an employee

towards his/her organization, such attitude or

alignment between employees and their organization

may be developed by adding some components like

strong belief towards organizational goals and

values, use all means and efforts to achieve

organizational goals and has strong faith to be

engaged with the organization. Three more

components are added to organizational

commitment, namely: an affective component which

refers to employees’ emotional condition,

sustainability component which refers to the funds

earned during employees’ affiliation with the

organization and normative component which refers

to employees’ obligation to the organization.

Some previous studies show that organization

commitment has been the focus of studies and

observation conducted in these recent years because

organization commitment may trigger a higher level

of team loyalty and boost the performance of an

organization. By knowing employees’ organization

commitment, an organization will be able to find a

way to retain its employees and boost their

performance, which becomes determining factors in

organizationaldevelopment.

2.4 Previous Studies

The research conducted to fashion industry

regarding Knowledge Sharing reveals that top

management, Structure level management in this

regards, has been proven to be able to give a specific

contribution to knowledge sharing culture (Connelly

and Kelloway, 2003; Lin, 2007; Mc Neil, 2004). It is

not only Top Management alone who will trigger

knowledge sharing culture. Individual efforts may

also improve individual’s capability to perform

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

2610

knowledge sharing to each other (Lin, 2007). It is

also vital that the fashion industry link knowledge

sharing culture with individuals’ characteristics, as

evidenced by some previous studies disclosing that

particular background may affect knowledge sharing

attitude (Wasko and Faraj, 2005).

Besides the above-mention study, some previous

researches regarding learning Organization and

Knowledge Sharing theories have managed to reveal

the following:

 Senge, (1990, 1993, 1997, 2001);s research it

was revealed thatthe Learning Organization

could be perceived as a System Thinking, Senge

(1990) defined learning organizations as an

organization which not only has an ability to

adapt but also an ability to develop, i.e. the

ability to formulate some alternatives for the

future.

 In his subsequent research, Pedler et al. (1988),

defined learning organization as a Learning

Perspective, an organization which ceaselessly

facilitates learning to all of its members in order

to reach its organizational goals. There are

seven dimensions which shall be integrated

within it, namely: a learning approach to

strategy, private exchange, reward flexibility,

enabling structures, boundary worker as an

environmental scanner, intercompany learning,

learning climate, and self-development for

everyone.

 Thus, such definition evolves intoStrategic

Perspective. Garvin (1993) defines a learning

organization as the capability of an organization

to establish and transfer specific knowledge and

modify it bythe new knowledge it gains. It was

added by Goh (1998) that observed from its

strategic perspective; learning organization has

five dimensions: clarity and support for mission

and vision; shared leadership and involvement;

a culture that encourages experimentation; the

ability to transfer knowledge across

organizational boundaries; and teamwork and

cooperations.

Last but not least, learning organization, based

on the findings of his research, shall be perceived as

an Integrative Perspective. Marsickand Watkins

define learning organization into a principle which

accommodates three important concepts, namely: (1)

system level, continuous learning, (2) create and

manage knowledge outcomes, (3) lead to

improvements in the organization’s performance.

Prinsis and Marsick and Watkins integrate two

critical elements: people and structure, which shall

be perceived as interactive components of change

and organizational development.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

This research applies specific approach

conducted by digging further information from the

employees of fashion creative industry in Bandung,

East Jawa, regarding the most appropriate way to

integrate Learning Organization by adopting both

People level and Structural Level perspectives, and

find out the best practice to implement knowledge

management, perceived from knowledge sharing

activities implemented in such industry.

This research applies primary data,and primary

data collection is performed by using a survey

method. Research data are gained from subjects who

express their idea, opinion, feeling, and share their

expression and perspective towards the

implementation of integrated Learning Organization

and knowledge sharing maintenance in their

workplace, in the creative fashion industry in

Bandung, West Jawa.

The amount of research sample shall be

estimatedby using Minimum Likelihood (ML), and

regarding this research, the researchers take

150respondents. The appropriate amount of sample

ranges between 100-200 items. The unit analysis for

this study is individuals who work in fashion

creative industry in Bandung, whereas the

respondents of this research are the employees of the

creative fashion industry in Bandung. Those

respondents are observed to assess the level of

Learning Organization and Knowledge Management

in their workplace.

Primary data are collected for this research.

Primary data are collected using a structured list of

question. Those data are collected by distributing

questionnaires and interview technique and adopting

a survey technique .The source of data is opinions

and perspectives shared by employees and owners of

some fashion industries in Bandung.

4 RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Respondents Profile

From 150 respondents who answer research

questionnaires, observed from their job description

chart, 12.3% of whom work as store managers, 30%

of whom belong to marketing division, 40% work as

Building Knowledge Sharing through Learning Organization in Creative Industry

2611

designers, 20% workas purchasing dan warehouse

staffs, and the remaining of whom work for packing

and packaging division. Perceived from their

educational background, 60% of the subjects

employed in the fashion industry are diploma

graduates, most individuals who hold store manager

and marketing manager have undergraduate (S1)

background or about 20% out of total respondents.

Perceived from the duration of their employment, it

has been revealed that 40% of the subjects work in

the period of fewer than three years, 50% of whom

are employed for 3 – 5 years and only 10% of whom

have been employed for more than five years.

4.2 Validity and Reliability Tests

Validity Test is conducted by using First-Order

Confirmatory Analysis. Regarding Learning

Organization in People Level, three indicators, i.e.

Continuous Learning, Dialogue and Inquiry, and

Team Learning display the loading factor of more

than 0.4 and those three indicators may establish a

construct the Learning Organization in People Level.

For Learning Organization in Structural Level, three

indicators,i.e. Embedded System, Empowerment,

and Leadership are the indicators which establish

such construct, with a relatively high value of

loading factor. Whereas system connection only

reaches the loading factor of 0.298 and is notable to

establish learning organization in structural level,

and those indicators are excluded from this research.

Validity Test to measure Employees’ commitment

reveals that only two indicators that can establish its

construct, i.e. Willingness to exert effort and Degree

of Goal dan Value. Whereas Maintain Membership

is not proven to be able to build a construct for

Employee

Commitment by reaching loading factor less than

0.4 points. Two indicators of Knowledge Sharing

which cannot build a construct are donating and

collecting, both indicators, however, can reach a

quite high value of loading factor, i.e. 0.7 and 0.8.

Besides validity, those data can display

composite reliability indices for all indicators valued

more than 0.7 points,and the value of all Average

Variance Extracted which are calculated for every

indicator valued more than 0.5.

Normality test reveals that all indicators are

normally distributed, and aggregately all data are

normally distributed with a Critical ratio of

skewness of>2.58or 4.044 points. Furthermore, such

data are not affected by outliers because

Mahalonobis Distance does not display any data

amounted less than 0.001.

4.3 Descriptive Analysis

This descriptive analysis has been made by

usinga 1 – 10 scale, the mean value for each variable

be measured and each respondent included in the

classification, of which findings reveal as shown in

Table 1.

Table 1: The Result of Descriptive Recapitulationfor All

Variables

Variable

Scoreof

Total

Average

Description

Learning

Organization in

People Level

4.44

Almost

construct an

learning

organization

Learning

Organization in

Structural Level

4.91

Almost

construct an

learning

organization

Organizational

Commitment

4.18

High

Knowledge Sharing

5.37

Frequent

From descriptive analysis performed by finding

out the average total of all indicators for all

variables, it has been revealed that the respondents

or employees of creative fashion industry adopt

common perception that in individual level, they

have transformed themselves into a Learning

Organization, where continuous learning process,

dialogue, and feedback exchange have been

performed, not with standing the fact that they have

not been able to form a robust team learning.

Observing Learning Organization in Structural level,

similar result has been revealed: such creative

fashion industry begins to transform into a learning

organization, of which employees think that they

have been involved in the industry, such system is

accessible by all members of such organization, and

they are connected to specific community which

supports their job eventhough the leadership is not

too good.

Different from the low value obtained from

Learning Organization perspective or assessment,

fashion industry business agents think that they are

individuals who havea high commitment to the

organization where they work, both normatively and

affectively. Last but not least, perceived from their

perspectives towards Knowledge Sharing Culture,

those agents perceive that they have adopted the

good organizational culture, observed from

collecting knowledge or donating knowledge

perspective. They perceive that tacit knowledge in

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

2612

the fashion industry can be transformed into explicit

knowledge.

4.4 Structural Equation Modeling

After adopting some improvement models, the

researchers can formulate the FITmodel by doing

this research, where the testing against Goodness of

Fit from research Model can be observed from some

indicators. Chi-Square Statistical Value of 61.626

shall be considered as low witha p-valueof 0.078 (>

0.05);this may serve as strong evidence that this

model is quite fit. CFI Fit Index reveals the amount

of 0.894 which can still be tolerated (not greater than

0.9) and RSEA value of 0.0187 also reveals that this

model is quite fit.

Exogenous Variable or both employees

commitment and Learning Organization in People

Level displays significant impact towards Learning

Organization in Structure Level - even though the

impact of both variables towards Learning

Organization in Structure Level is not very

significant, which may be observed from the R

value of 0.437 or margin error of 0.563.

The impact of Knowledge Sharing reveals that

Learning Organization and Employees Commitment

Variables directly affect knowledge sharing culture

between the fashion industry’s business agents, but

the similar result has not been displayed by the

Learning Organization in Structure Level. The

contribution of Learning Organization in People

level and employees

Commitment towards knowledge sharing culture

is displayed by a significant amount of R

value,

0.668 or tiny margin error of 0.332. This figure

displays that Learning Organization in Structure

Level neither affects knowledge sharing culture nor

has a role as an intervening variable for Learning

Organization in People Level and Employees

Commitment towards knowledge sharing culture.

What makes this fashion industry’s research

model unique is the fact that Learning Organization

in People Level directly implements Knowledge

Sharing without affecting Learning Organization in

Structure Level variable, but the correlation between

learning organization in people Level towards

Learning Organization in structure Level is

substantial. Other uniqueness of this model lies in

the fact that the Indicators of learning organizationin

people level directly affect the indicators of learning

organization in Structure Level. Continuous

Learning affects Embedded System, Inquiry &

Dialogue and Team Learning. Both variables affect

Embedded system and Leadership. In other words,

measurable fashion industry with an integrated

system will be affected by the way individuals

within such organization perform continuous

learning, dialogue, and share feedback, and how a

group of individuals (a team) perform collaborative

learning whereas a leader will always guide the

organization he/she led towards Learning

Organization, and this will be determined by group

learning activities and dialogue as well

ascommunication in the level of individuals within

the organization.

Figure 1 shown the research model which has

been developed from the result of data processing.

Figure 1: The Findings of the ResearchModel

4.5 Two-ways ANOVA

Two-ways ANOVA is performed to identify

whether variables in this research are affected by

specific respondent’s profile, background, and

characteristics. The analysis of Learning

Organization in People level reveals that

respondent’s perspective adopted to this variable

will not be affected by educational background,

work duration and the position he/she holds in the

organization.Thus, their answer may display similar

tendency with their perspective about Learning

Organization in people level.Dealing with the

perspective of Learning Organization in Structure

Level, employees’ perspectives will be classified

based on the level of educational background, where

the significant value of F test is 0.023 (< 0.05). This

also means that the educational level will affect

varied perspectives about Learning Organization in

Structure Levelor the higher educational level an

employee may have, the more positive perspective

he/she may adopt towards Learning Organization in

Structure Level in fashion Industry.

The result of ANOVA testing towards

employees’ commitment, assessment towards

employees’ commitment to the organization where

the workersare not affected by the level of

education, duration of work, and the position within

an organization. Thus, the trend will be as follows:

Building Knowledge Sharing through Learning Organization in Creative Industry

2613

employees’ commitment to their organization will

be the same, not withstanding their educational

background, working duration, and the position they

hold within an organization. Dealing with

knowledge sharing variables, the level of knowledge

sharing perspective in the fashion industry will not

be partially discriminated by educational

background, working position, and working

duration. However, what makes these findings

unique is the fact that knowledge sharing

differentiates the interaction between position and

working duration that reveals F testing significance

value of 0.029 (< 0.05). This findings reveals that

the higher one’s position within an organization and

the higher level education he/she may have, the

more donating he/she will be, and conversely, the

lower one’s position within within an organization

and the Lower level education he/she may have, the

more collecting he/she will be.

5 CONCLUSION

5.1 Learning Organization in People

Level towards Knowledge Sharing

Culture

The findings of this research reveal that each

member of the organization shall perform

continuous learning in the level of the individual,

maintain communication with his/her colleagues,

and provide feedback towards the output contributed

by their colleagues, and the member of his/her team,

an individual, shall actively learn. Such attitudes

may bring positive and significant impacts towards

the attitude of top management dealing with

organizational learning as well as donating and

collecting knowledge sharing cultures. The findings

of the current study support previous findings

formulated by Connelly and Kelloway (2003); Lin

(2007) and Mc Neil (2004). Current findings

indicate that the agents of the fashion industry are

primarily the individuals who love to learn and

improve their confidence about the knowledge they

have and share such knowledge with others.

5.2 Learning Organization in Structure

Level towards Knowledge Sharing

culture

Different from previous findings formulated by

Mc Neil (2004) and Lin (2007) the role of top

management does not have any impact on

knowledge sharing when the role of management is

measured by using Learning Organization

dimensions and indicators. A system integrated into

an organization where the access to knowledge is

provided by top management will not bring any

impact towards knowledge sharing culture adopted

by the creative industry. This indicates that

knowledge tends to be shared in groups and involve

various interactions, instead of the access provided

by top management. Leadership, specific situation

where top management shares their visions and

missions and play their role as mentors and

facilitators will not bring any impact towards

knowledge sharing culture, due to the fact that

fashion industry is a distinguished industry with

unique characteristics, where most of its human

resources comprises of designers who have

“distinguished and unique” knowledge which cannot

be understood by top management. The knowledge

owned by those designers will be shared with the

members of their group without the assistance from

top management as their facilitators.

5.3 Organizational Commitment

towards Knowledge Sharing

Culture

Organizational commitment shows the degree to

which employees in the fashion industry will

provide the maximum effort for their organization

and the extent to which employees feel that the

mission's vision of purpose and the value of the

organization is equal to the value it has. These two

dimensions of organizational commitment from the

results of the study have had a positive and

significant impact on even a significant contribution

to the culture of knowledge sharing in the fashion

industry.

Considering that individual factors, i.e. construct,

which shapes the variables ofLearning organization

in people level, have a significant impact on the

knowledge regarding fashion industry; top

management or fashion industry owners must play

the role as the motivator for each to perform

continuous learning, set certain ambience where

dialogue and feedback resulting from employees’

cooperation can be conducted within their

organization, and try to create learning groups for

the industry.The designers must conduct those

efforts because an appropriate and well-integrated

system will not bring any significant impact on

knowledge sharing without the presence of learning

activities on an individual level.

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

2614

Not only learning activities in individual level

and knowledge sharing that must be encouraged to

the fashion industry by the designers; top

management must also identify whether their

organizational visions, missions, goals, and values

have been equally shared to their members or the

human resources of the industry. Without the

presence of such shared values, knowledge sharing

will not take place. The intention to work hard and

provide assistance and best contribution to our

organization shall be developed because such

intention may trigger the development of creative

fashion industry, within Bandung, West Jawa area in

this regards.

Thus, the following studies should further

explore what variables that may be linked to

individual behaviour and attitude and their impacts

towards knowledge sharing culture.

REFERENCES

Anindita, and Seda.(2018). How Employee Engagement

Mediates the Influence of Individual Factors towards

Organizational Commitments. Problems and

Perspectives in Management, 16(1).

Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational

learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bui, H., and Baruch, Y. (2010). Creating learning

organizations: a systems perspective. The Learning

Organization, 17(3): 208-227.

Connelly, C. E., and Kelloway, E. (2003). Predictors of

employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing

cultures. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 24(5): 294-301.

Drucker, P. F. (1988). The Coming of The New

Organization. Harvard Business Review. Available at:

http://secure.tutorsglobe.com/Atten_files/1286_ENG.p

df.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning

organization.Harvard Business Review, 71(4): 78–91.

Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The

strategic building blocks. S.A.M. Advanced

Management Journal, 63(2): 15–20.

Govindaraju, R. (2008). Hubunganantara Knowledge

Sharing Capability, Absortive Capacity

danMekanismeFormal:StudikasusIndustriTeknoLearni

ngOrganizationgiInformasidanKomunikasi di

Indonesia. Jurnal Teknik Industri ITB, 10(2).

Howell, D. (2012). A relational Studi of the Knowledge

Sharing Behavior and Organizational Commitment of

Engineers. The University of Alabama in Hunstville.

Ji, Baek-Kyoo, Chermack. (2009).The Dimensions of

Learning Organization Questionnaire: a Validation

Study in a Korean Context.Human resources

Development Quarterly, 20(1): 43-65.

Lin, Hsiu_Fen. (2007). Knowledge Sharing and Firm

Capability: an Empirical Study. International Journal

of Manpower, 28(3).

Mc Neil.(2004). Exploring the supervisor’s Role as a

facilitator of knowledge sharing in team.Management

Decision, 16(1).

Morris, T. (2001). Asserting Property Rights: Knowledge

Codification in the Professional Service Firm.Human

Relations, 54: 819–838.

Ortenbald, A. (2002). A typology of the ideas of

learningorganization. Management Learning, 33(2):

213-230.

Pedler, M., Boydell, T., and Burgoyne, J. (1988). Learning

Company Project Report. Manpower Services

Commission. England: Sheffield.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth Disciplines: The Art and

Practice of the Learning Organization, New York:

Doubleday.

Van Den Hooff and Van Weenen. 2004. Berbagi

Pengetahuan in context: the influence of

organizational commitment, communication climate

and use of knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 8(6).

Wah, Chay Yue et al. (2010). Theorizing, measuring and

Predicting knowledge Sharing Behavior in

Organization. A Social Capital Approach.

Wasko and Faraj. (2005). Why should I Share?

Examining Knowledge Contribution in Electronic

networks in practices.MIS Quarterly, 29(1).

Weldy, T., and Gillis, W. (2010).The Learning

Organization: Variations at different Organizational

Levels. The Learning Organization, 17(5):455-472.

Willem, A., and Scarbrough, H. (2006). Social Capital and

Political Bias in Knowledge Sharing: An Exploratory

Study. Human Relations, 59: 1343–1370.

Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., and Marsick, V. J. (2004).The

Construct of the Learning Organizations: Dimensions,

Measurement, and validation. Human Resources

Development Quarterly, 15(1): 31-55.

Yen, Poh Ng.(2011).Learning Organization Dimensions

on Knowledge Sharing: A study of Faculty Members

in the Private Universities in Malaysia.International

Conference on Business and Information, July 7 2008.

Seoul, South Korea: Academy of Taiwan Information

Systems Research.

Building Knowledge Sharing through Learning Organization in Creative Industry

2615