EVALUATING BARRIERS TO KNOWLEDGE SHARING AFFECTING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAM PERFORMANCE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manufacturing and service organisations have repeatedly stressed the importance of knowledge management and sharing as an integral part of their growth and business strategy. Unfortunately, knowledge sharing (KS) barriers or factors can have a negative influence on a new product development (NPD) project team performance can make it difficult for the organisation to achieve sustained superior performance. The purpose of this research is to identify and explore a set of important KS barriers that might negatively affect the performance of a NPD project team. Specifically, this research focussed on identifying and evaluating the barriers to development and to offer guidelines to decision makers to improve KS to foster effective processes. This research can be utilised by decision-makers to design and develop effective processes and mitigation strategies to ensure effective KS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it