Building The Knowledge Society On The Internet - Sharing and Exchanging Knowledge in Networked Environments (Premier Reference Source) - IGI GL PDF

Building the Knowledge
Society on the Internet:

Sharing and Exchanging
Knowledge in Networked
Environments
Ettore Bolisani
University of Padua, Italy
InformatIon scIence reference

Hershey • New York
Acquisitions Editor: Kristin Klinger
Development Editor: Kristin Roth
Senior Managing Editor: Jennifer Neidig
Managing Editor: Jamie Snavely
Assistant Managing Editor: Carole Coulson
Copy Editor: Angela Thor
Typesetter: Chris Hrobak
Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff
Printed at: Yurchak Printing Inc.
Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
and in the United Kingdom by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
3 Henrietta Street
Covent Garden
London WC2E 8LU
Tel: 44 20 7240 0856
Fax: 44 20 7379 0609
Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com
Copyright © 2008 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does
not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Building the knowledge society on the Internet : sharing and exchanging knowledge in networked environments / Ettore Bolisani, editor.
p. cm.
Summary: "In today's networked societies, a key factor of the social and economic success is the capability to exchange, transfer, and
share knowledge. This book provides research on the topic providing a foundation of an emerging and multidisciplinary field"--Provided by
publisher.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-59904-816-1 (hbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-59904-818-5 (ebook)
1. Knowledge management. 2. Computer networks. 3. Information networks. I. Bolisani, Ettore, 1963-
HD30.2.B853 2008
303.48'33--dc22
2008017470
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book set is original material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of
the publisher.
If a library purchased a print copy of this publication, please go to http://www.igi-global.com/agreement for information on activating
the library's complimentary electronic access to this publication.
List of Reviewers
Chandra S. Amaravadi Deogratias Harorimana

Western Illinois University, USA Southampton Solent University, UK
Derek Asoh Donald Hislop

Southern Illinois University, USA Loughborough University, UK
Antonio Badia Tracy A. Hurley

University of Louisville, USA Texas A&M University-Kingsville, USA
Marco Bettoni Barbara Igel

Swiss Distance University of Applied Sciences, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
Switzerland
Ashok Jashapara
Patrice Braun Royal Holloway University of London, UK
University of Ballarat, Australia
Krzysztof Juszczyszyn
Ricardo Chalmeta Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland
University Jaume I of Castellón, Spain
Andrew Kok
Satyadhyan Chickerur University of Johannesburg, South Africa
M.S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology, India
Josephine C. Lang
Alton Chua Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Sandra Moffett
Chris Crawford University of Ulster, UK
Fort Hays State University, USA
Theresia Olsson Neve
Massimo Gastaldon Skanska Sweden AB, Sweden
Craig Parker
Mohand-Said Hacid Deakin University, Australia
University Lyon I, France
Jon Pemberton
Matthew Hall Northumbria University, UK
Aston University, UK
Murali Raman Molly Wasko
Multimedia University, Malaysia Florida State University, USA
Violina Ratcheva Andrew Wenn

University of Sheffield, UK Victoria University, Australia
Ulrich Remus Gunilla Widén-Wulff

University of Canterbury, New Zealand Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Jennifer D. E. Thomas Hans Weigand

Pace University, New York, USA Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Mariana Van Der Walt Barbara Zannol

Stellenbosch University, South Africa University of Padua, Italy
Geoffrey Walker
Northumbria University, UK
Table of Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. xiv

Preface ............................................................................................................................................... xvii
Acknowledgment .............................................................................................................................. xxii
Section I
Models
Chapter I
Knowledge Sharing: Interactive Processes Between Organizational
Knowledge-Sharing Initiative and Individuals’ Sharing Practice .......................................................... 1
Shuhua Liu, University of Washington, USA
Chapter II
The Centrality of Team Leaders in Knowledge-Sharing Activities:
Their Dual Role as Knowledge Processors ........................................................................................... 24
Evangelia Siachou, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
Anthony Ioannidis, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
Chapter III
Knowledge Sharing in Virtual and Networked Organisations in Different
Organisational and National Cultures .................................................................................................. 45
Kerstin Siakas, Alexander Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Greece
Elli Georgiadou, University of Middlesex, UK
Chapter IV
Towards an Implicit and Collaborative Evolution of Terminological Ontologies ............................... 65
Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, University of Leipzig, Germany
Chapter V
Computer-Mediated Knowledge Sharing ............................................................................................ 89
Kimiz Dalkir, McGill University, Canada
Chapter VI
Understanding Knowledge Transfer on the Net: Useful Lessons from the
Knowledge Economy ......................................................................................................................... 110
Ettore Bolisani, University of Padua, Italy
Chapter VII
Knowledge-Sharing Motivation in Virtual Communities .................................................................. 129
Jengchung V. Chen, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan
J. Michael Tarn, Western Michigan University, USA
Muhammad A. Razi, Western Michigan University, USA
Section II
Applications
Chapter VIII
Opportunities and Obstacles to Narrow the Digital Divide: Sharing Scientific
Knowledge on the Internet .................................................................................................................. 146
Margarita Echeverri, University of Maryland, USA & Tulane University, USA
Eileen G. Abels, Drexel University, USA
Chapter IX
Knowledge Exchange in Electronic Networks of Practice: An Examination of
Knowledge Types and Knowledge Flows .......................................................................................... 172
Molly McLure Wasko, Florida State University, USA
Samer Faraj, McGill Unversity, Canada
Chapter X
Knowledge Sharing Through Interactive Social Technologies:
Development of Social Structures in Internet-Based Systems over Time ......................................... 195
Isa Jahnke, Dortmund University of Technology, Germany
Chapter XI
Information Technology in Times of Crisis: Considering Knowledge Management for
Disaster Management ......................................................................................................................... 219
Kalpana Shankar, Indiana University, USA
David J. Wild, Indiana University, USA
Jaesoon An, Indiana University, USA
Sam Shoulders, Indiana University, USA
Sheetal Narayanan, Indiana University, USA
Chapter XII
Managing Knowledge-Based Complexities Through Combined Uses of
Internet Technologies ......................................................................................................................... 241
Cécile Godé-Sanchez, Research Center of the French Air Force, France
Pierre Barbaroux, Research Center of the French Air Force, France
Chapter XIII
Leading Firms as Knowledge Gatekeepers in a Networked Environment ........................................ 260
Deogratias Harorimana, Southampton Solent University, UK
Chapter XIV
The Role of Knowledge Mediators in Virtual Environments ............................................................. 282
Enrico Scarso, University of Padua, Italy
Chapter XV
Knowledge Management in Virtual Enterprises: Supporting Frameworks and
Enabling Web Technologies ............................................................................................................... 302
Stavros T. Ponis, National Technical University Athens, Greece
George Vagenas, National Technical University Athens, Greece
Ilias P. Tatsiopoulos, National Technical University Athens, Greece
Chapter XVI
Sharing and Protecting Knowledge: New Considerations for Digital Environments ........................ 325
G. Scott Erickson, Ithaca College, USA
Helen N. Rothberg, Marist College, USA
Chapter XVII
Identifying Knowledge Values and Knowledge Sharing Through Linguistic Methods:
Application to Company Web Pages ................................................................................................. 340
June Tolsby, Ostfold University College, Norway
Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 358
About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 396
Index ................................................................................................................................................ 403

Detailed Table of Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. xiv

Preface ............................................................................................................................................... xvii
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................... xxi
Section I
Models
Chapter I
Knowledge Sharing: Interactive Processes Between Organizational
Knowledge-Sharing Initiative and Individuals’ Sharing Practice .......................................................... 1
Shuhua Liu, University of Washington, USA
Based on a review of established theories in sociology, management science, and organisational behav-
iour, the chapter explores the interactions between organizational context and individuals’ sense-making
processes. Elements of a new model, which explains how the organisational settings influence the way
individuals share knowledge, are developed. Essential implications for knowledge management and
ICT design are also discussed.
Chapter II
The Centrality of Team Leaders in Knowledge-Sharing Activities:
Their Dual Role as Knowledge Processors ........................................................................................... 24
Evangelia Siachou, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
Anthony Ioannidis, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
The chapter analyses the role of team leaders as sources and recipients of net-based knowledge. The
particular case of action teams that deal with unpredictable situations and need to make instant use of
accurate knowledge is mainly considered. Reflections are made on leaders’ active role in knowledge
sharing considering the multifaceted nature of knowledge exchange, the time boundaries, and the costs
of knowledge search and sharing. The analysis also provides insights into the complex relationship
between the way organisations are structured and the effective processes of knowledge transfer among
their members.
Chapter III
Knowledge Sharing in Virtual and Networked Organisations in Different
Organisational and National Cultures .................................................................................................. 45
Kerstin Siakas, Alexander Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Greece
Elli Georgiadou, University of Middlesex, UK
The chapter discusses the issue of knowledge sharing in culturally diverse networked organisations and
virtual teams. By examining the different cultural values and perceptions related to knowledge exchange,
the human and cultural dynamics that influence the success of knowledge sharing are discussed. The study
analyses the potential conflicts in culturally diverse team members and the crucial issue of trust building.
It also provides indications for fruitful knowledge sharing in global networked environments.
Chapter IV
Towards an Implicit and Collaborative Evolution of Terminological Ontologies ............................... 65
Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, University of Leipzig, Germany
The problem of capturing the tacit components of knowledge in a way that can be handled automatically
is a challenging issue for both Knowledge Management researchers and computer programmers. This
chapter analyses the use of terminological ontologies for representing personal knowledge. It is argued
that each individual needs a personal knowledge model to represent her/his knowledge. Subsequently, the
chapter presents a method for implicitly and collaboratively evolving such personal knowledge models,
with the purpose to improve the efficacy of knowledge transfer over the Internet.
Chapter V
Computer-Mediated Knowledge Sharing ............................................................................................ 89
Kimiz Dalkir, McGill University, Canada
Internet-based knowledge-sharing channels differ in their effectiveness when used for exchanging knowl-
edge. It is therefore necessary to define key knowledge and channel attributes in order to understand how
knowledge can be effectively shared using computers. This chapter examines the computer-mediated
knowledge-sharing mechanisms, and proposes a typology based on media richness and social presence
characteristics that can serve as a preliminary conceptual basis to select the most appropriate Internet-
based channel for the specific purpose.
Chapter VI
Understanding Knowledge Transfer on the Net: Useful Lessons from the
Knowledge Economy ......................................................................................................................... 110
Ettore Bolisani, University of Padua, Italy
To systematise the conceptual backgrounds of Knowledge Management as a branch of management,

a more direct connection with the models and approaches of the economic disciplines is necessary.
The chapter examines the contribution that the current studies of the emerging field of the Knowledge
Economy can give to the clearer understanding of Knowledge Management and, particularly, of the
processes of knowledge transfer. The open research questions that may result from such an “econom-
ics-based” approach to Knowledge Management are also analysed.
Chapter VII
Knowledge-Sharing Motivation in Virtual Communities .................................................................. 129
Jengchung V. Chen, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan
J. Michael Tarn, Western Michigan University, USA
Muhammad A. Razi, Western Michigan University, USA
This chapter explores the motivation of virtual community members to share knowledge, and the underly-
ing factors of such sharing behaviors. A conceptual model illustrating the relationship between transac-
tion cost, expectancy value, and knowledge-sharing behaviour is illustrated. The notions of knowledge
transaction and knowledge market are also further examined, since knowledge sharing can be seen as a
form of knowledge transaction, and a knowledge market provides an essential platform for this.
Section II
Applications
Chapter VIII
Opportunities and Obstacles to Narrow the Digital Divide: Sharing Scientific
Knowledge on the Internet .................................................................................................................. 146
Margarita Echeverri, University of Maryland, USA & Tulane University, USA
Eileen G. Abels, Drexel University, USA
The access to scientific knowledge is considered essential to foster research and development, improve
quality of education, and advance professional practices. Although the Web was conceived to encour-
age knowledge sharing, restrictions still reduce access to knowledge, especially to those in developing
countries. This chapter presents a conceptual framework of the knowledge transfer cycle and examines
key factors affecting the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Current challenges facing the open-ac-
cess initiative of making scientific knowledge free and available worldwide are also discussed.
Chapter IX
Knowledge Exchange in Electronic Networks of Practice: An Examination of
Knowledge Types and Knowledge Flows .......................................................................................... 172
Molly McLure Wasko, Florida State University, USA
Samer Faraj, McGill Unversity, Canada
This study examines knowledge exchange in a worldwide, extra-organizational, Usenet-based elec-

tronic network, where participation is voluntary, globally distributed, and where participants generally
do not have personal or organizational ties. The purpose was to investigate two questions: first, what
type of knowledge is being transferred in these networks, and second, how is knowledge transferred
across participants. To address these questions, messages posted to “comp.lang.C++” were observed
for a period of 7 weeks. The study illuminates how people use computer-mediated communication to
support knowledge transfer, the types of knowledge transferred, as well as how knowledge flows in this
kind of networks.
Chapter X
Knowledge Sharing Through Interactive Social Technologies:
Development of Social Structures in Internet-Based Systems over Time ......................................... 195
Isa Jahnke, Dortmund University of Technology, Germany
This chapter explores the emergence of social structures in Internet-based systems over time. Based on
results of an empirical investigation of an Internet-based knowledge sharing system, the study shows the
change of roles, expectations, and activities in online communities. Finally, the author sketches some
essential criteria for developing online communities, which are extended part of organizations (e.g., com-
panies and institutions), are characterized by a large size, and supplement the formal organization.
Chapter XI
Information Technology in Times of Crisis: Considering Knowledge Management for
Disaster Management ......................................................................................................................... 219
Kalpana Shankar, Indiana University, USA
David J. Wild, Indiana University, USA
Jaesoon An, Indiana University, USA
Sam Shoulders, Indiana University, USA
Sheetal Narayanan, Indiana University, USA
The aim of this chapter is to provide an introduction to technologies, practices, and open problems for
knowledge management in disaster and crisis situations. New technologies and Knowledge Manage-
ment practices, particularly with the Internet and Web 2.0, are creating opportunities for individuals,
responders, and trainers to share knowledge. However, the use of networked technologies diffuses with
very little cohesion among researchers and practitioners. It is argued that although the Internet is already
in extensive use in disaster management, its integration with Knowledge Management practices will
only be effected if top-down and bottoms-up approaches to information gathering, organisation, and
dissemination are implemented.
Chapter XII
Managing Knowledge-Based Complexities Through Combined Uses of
Internet Technologies ......................................................................................................................... 241
Cécile Godé-Sanchez, Research Center of the French Air Force, France
Pierre Barbaroux, Research Center of the French Air Force, France
This chapter introduces a theoretical framework to study how Internet technologies enable organizations
to handle various forms of communication and decision-making complexities. It investigates how specific
use-based combinations of Internet technologies emerge within operational contexts. Illustrations are
drawn from the U.S. military uses of Tactical Internet during recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The conditions for which combined uses generate additional value for organizations are discussed, and
the essential role of final users in exploiting the benefits of Internet applications are illustrated.
Chapter XIII
Leading Firms as Knowledge Gatekeepers in a Networked Environment ........................................ 260
Deogratias Harorimana, Southampton Solent University, UK
This chapter examines the role of knowledge gatekeepers as channels by which knowledge is created
and transferred among distinct firms. The obstacles that inhibit knowledge transfer are first examined,
and it is argued that leading firms can create a shared sociocultural context that enables the codivision
of tacit meanings and the codification of knowledge. Leading firms can thus act as knowledge gatekeep-
ers through the creation of shared (virtual) platforms. This role can be played by large multinationals,
connecting several clients and suppliers, but even by focal firms in industrial districts.
Chapter XIV
The Role of Knowledge Mediators in Virtual Environments ............................................................. 282
Enrico Scarso, University of Padua, Italy
The chapter discusses the role of online knowledge mediators in knowledge exchanges between a source
and a receiver. Their task is to assist and facilitate the transfer process when performed through Internet-
based technologies. In the rapidly evolving world of Internet, many types of virtual knowledge mediators
come out with different features and functions, but little effort has been devoted to examine their practices.
The study also develops an analytical framework to classify the role of knowledge mediators based on
two complementary conceptual views of knowledge transfer: the cognitive and the economic view.
Chapter XV
Knowledge Management in Virtual Enterprises: Supporting Frameworks and
Enabling Web Technologies ............................................................................................................... 302
Stavros T. Ponis, National Technical University Athens, Greece
George Vagenas, National Technical University Athens, Greece
Ilias P. Tatsiopoulos, National Technical University Athens, Greece
The new global business environment requires loose and flexible business schemes shaped in the form
of Virtual Enterprises, but this transformation would never have been successful without the support of
Information Technologies, and particularly the Web. Building upon the current state of the art, this chapter
discusses the issue of Knowledge Management support for Virtual Enterprises, and aims to identify the
major knowledge requirements in such organisations, in an effort to provide a roadmap towards a holistic
framework to understand and handle the huge and complex knowledge needs of Virtual Enterprises at
the interorganizational level.
Chapter XVI
Sharing and Protecting Knowledge: New Considerations for Digital Environments ........................ 325
G. Scott Erickson, Ithaca College, USA
Helen N. Rothberg, Marist College, USA
The Internet offers new opportunities to use knowledge assets, defines new types of knowledge assets,
and readily spreads knowledge beyond the borders of the organization. This potential is tempered, how-
ever, by new threats to the security of proprietary knowledge. The Internet also makes knowledge assets
more vulnerable to competitive intelligence efforts. The chapter proposes a model that integrates three
dimensions of knowledge (tacitness, complexity, appropriability), and relates these with its vulnerability
in a KM Internet-based environment. This discussion provides interesting insights into the issue, and
new proposals for practice and research.
Chapter XVII
Identifying Knowledge Values and Knowledge Sharing Through Linguistic Methods:
Application to Company Web Pages ................................................................................................. 340
June Tolsby, Ostfold University College, Norway
This chapter integrates three linguistic methods to analyse a company’s Web site, namely a) elements
from a community of practice theory (CoP), b) concepts from the communication theory, such as mo-
dality and transitivity, and c) elements from discourse analysis. The investigation demonstrates how the
use of a Web site can promote a work attitude that can be considered as an endorsement of a particular
organizational behaviour. The Web pages display the organizational identity, which will be a magnet
for some parties and deject others. Thus, a Web site represents a window to the world that needs to be
handled with care, since it can be interpreted as a projection of the company’s identity.
Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 358
About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 396
Index ................................................................................................................................................ 403

xiv
Foreword
The book, edited by Ettore Bolisani, has the special merit to explore the sense of what is going on in the
interplay between information technology and knowledge management. The contributions focus on the
role played by the Internet in knowledge development and exploitation. The answer is not trivial, as the
question involves a deep reconsideration of many different issues, which are usually taken for granted:
epistemological issues about the nature of knowledge, engineering issues about functionalities and
reliability of technologies, and management issues about proper rules and methods to gain advantages
from available technologies.
Surprisingly, after about two decades of debate on the role of knowledge and learning within and
between organizations, only few things appear to be widely accepted by the community of scientists and
practitioners. First, that knowledge is the principal asset of any organization. Second, that the incessant
development of ICT technologies continuously reframes the issue of knowledge exploration and exploi-
tation. Several couples of concepts have problematic relationships: objective vs. subjective knowledge,
tacit vs. explicit knowledge, declarative vs. procedural knowledge, engineering view vs. sociological
view of knowledge, knowledge vs. knowing, and last but not least, knowledge vs. information.
An evident cue that a research community is undergoing a cultural revolution is that taken-for-granted
concepts and habits become more and more enigmatic. This is the case with knowledge. Creating and
diffusing knowledge is becoming a relevant business, with global and local players. Companies produc-
ing ICTs provide organizations with different solutions, which have significant impact on organizational
processes. Diversity is the major feature of an emerging market, as it was for the car market in the first
decades of 1900’s. Of the 2500 motor vehicles counted for 1899, 1681 were steam propelled, 1575
electric and 936 gasoline. In 1920, a single vehicle dominated the US market—Ford’s Model T. The
process of exploration, selection, and convergence toward a dominant design is a typical trend of any
new market.
It is not easy to forecast when convergence to dominant design will happen. Many trade-offs con-
tribute to delay the convergence process:
• Trade-off between organizational and local KM levels. Organizational complexity is not only related
to company size and articulated external relationships, but also to the complexity KM different
levels: individual, group, business units, functions, departments, the whole company. At each level
KM issues present different and contrasting needs;
• Trade-off between standardization and diversity. Knowledge and learning are aimed to fostering
internal diversity, which is one of the major sources of competitive advantage. Any technological
standardization in knowledge management and learning process, while improving efficiency, is a
menace to the company’s ability to promote diversity;
• Trade-off between technological innovation pace and organizational exploitation of technology
potentialities. The fast-pace and unpredictable directions of ICTs innovations move away from any
xv
attempt to converge and redefine the range of possible KM solutions. Between the 1978 double
loop model by Argyris and Shon and today’s collective intelligence model there is an amazing
flow of radical ICTs innovations, which dramatically reframed the problem setting in KM. This
flow doesn’t seem to decrease. Thus, it is likely that the range of possible solutions will widen in
the near future.
We are expected to face a high-grade of uncertainty in KM until a dominant design will emerge.
Nevertheless, reading this book will help the reader to define main topics that will shape the research
agenda of following years. In particular, I would like to focus on three major issues.
Knowledge codification. The simplest approach to knowing is the classical scheme of knowledge
transfer. A knowledge object is passed by a knowledge source to a receiver, who makes some use of it.
But this is a very naïve view. A more sophisticated view distinguishes among three concepts organized
into a hierarchy: data, information and knowledge. Data are collections of raw measures of some event.
Information comes as an elementary structure built on data, and knowledge is a more complex structure
built on information, in order to link what is coming from the experience to existing knowledge and plans.
At a first glance, this seems a very useful conceptualization. By using those three concepts we can easily
recognize the number “8” as data, the message “It is eight o’clock” as information, and “I’m late to the
meeting” as the knowledge extracted from the message. But, what can we can say about the sentence
“It was now the hour that turns back the desire of those who sail the seas and melts their heart” (from
“The Divine Comedy” by Dante Alighieri, the Carlyle-Wikstreed Translation)? Eventually, I can extract
from the Dante’s verses, more or less, the same information about the daytime, and then decide if I’m
late at the meeting. But in Dante’s sentence there is much more. I can make many possible connections
with my future plans and my past experience. And, as knowing is foremost the act of connecting, I can
develop more knowledge from Dante verses than from the sentence “It is eight o’clock”. This richness
of the message is built in its form, and we cannot mechanically separate the message content from its
form. The codification/decodification process is very complex. The cognitive, emotional, and situational
context plays a major role both in the codification of raw data and experiences and in the decodification
process. On the contrary, ICTs, as any technology, tend to support processes which are context-free. As
this goal is impossible to attain, ICT engineers choose another strategy—they define a given context
of codification and decodification and derive a list of requisites for the design of effective information
and communication formats. It is easy to preview that the research agenda in next years will give more
attention to the efficiency and effectiveness of information formats in given organizational contexts.
Many theoretical issues are involved in this research area, such as relationships between tacit and explicit
knowledge, information and knowledge, and much more.
The sense-making frame. A key point of knowledge management is that a knowledge asset is useful
inasmuch that it is continuously redefined by individual and collective learning. If the organization is not
able to actively reconstruct its knowledge assets, knowledge disappears. Thus, any organization based
on knowledge assets must be a learning organization, able to produce knowledge from knowledge. We
know that the learning activity is a linking activity that makes connections between different pieces of
information and a sense-making activity that constructs meaning for linked items. ICTs play a major
role in supporting the connecting activity, while their role in supporting the sense-making is extremely
poor. Probably we need a better understanding of time dimensions involved in developing new knowl-
edge by cognitive actors (individuals and groups). The cognitive actor, while considering new pieces of
information, constructs hypotheses, conjectures, inferences, images within three temporal coordinates.
The first coordinate is the actual flow of messages coming from context. The second coordinate is that
of intentions, desires, goals, plans, and the imagined future being sought. The third coordinate is that of
xvi
the past experiences and previous knowledge. These three temporal coordinates define the structure of
sense-making. Up to now, the research agenda on ICTs has been mainly focused on spatial dimensions
of knowledge management and the efficiency of spatially dispersed knowledge resources and com-
munities. Nevertheless, previous years have found researchers devoting more attention to time issues
involved in knowledge management, and to the impact of ICTs on duration and rhythms of individual
and group tasks. In the future, it is expected that the research on how IT can support sense-making will
receive more attention.
Learning society. The most important claim of researchers and practitioners in the field of KM is that
information is widely dispersed in society. Individuals have pieces of information from which others can
benefit, but groups often fail to access to the information that the individuals have. In this respect, ICT
is expected to produce a dramatic impact in helping people to elicit, transfer and aggregate relevant and
dispersed information. The prerequisite is that individuals, groups and institutions are able to create a
digital world, where most of knowledge circulating in the human society is encoded in digital artifacts.
This digital layer of packaged information is inherently chaotic, as it is built bottom-up without a gen-
eral design. Moreover, each day new information, new databases, and links modify this world. Thus, it
is hard to have stable patterns in this chaotic world. Consequently, patterns could emerge only through
the continuous work of knowledge mediators, learning agents of sorts, which patrol the chaotic digital
world and construct coherent patterns of links between knowledge committers and knowledge suppliers
(Google is an example of such a mediator). A knowledge mediator is one of the players that are neces-
sary to build an effective socio-digital learning society. The task of mediators is to construct a coherent
pattern of relationships between knowledge committers and knowledge suppliers. It is easy to forecast
that huge research efforts in next years will be dedicated to design and build mediation technologies
for the socio-digital learning society. The integration of several mediation technologies, such as wikis,
blogs and other collaborative platforms is already bringing about effective exploitation of the collective
intelligence of large mass of knowledgeable users. More sophisticated tools, capable to enable easy ac-
cess to huge bodies of knowledge, are expected to come.
This book, carefully edited by Ettore Bolisani, will provide a wide audience of readers with a general
view on research questions and recent advancements on the impact of Internet on knowledge manage-
ment.
Giuseppe Zollo,
University of Naples “Federico II”
September, 2007
xvii
Preface
Knowledge management for the Knowledge society
Even in the scientific context, sometimes the words can become buzzwords, after they are used for some
time. This is the case of ”Knowledge Society”. An impressive number of studies in many disciplines
deals with, mentions, or has something to do with this term (more than 17.000 documents that include
this keyword can be retrieved with a simple look-up in “Google Scholar”). Indeed, the knowledge is
increasingly recognised as the pivotal element of our activity, our economy, and, thus, our society. Today,
much of the work of scientists and practitioners, in several fields, is centred on how this “asset” can be
produced, handled, exchanged, stored, and more generally used to generate value for individuals and
organisations.
But what does “knowledge society” exactly mean, and how will the term be interpreted in this book?
Here, it is not a matter of definitions (which we will happily leave to philosophers and luminaries) but,
rather, of more basic questions: what is exactly the difference between “knowledge society” and just
“society”? Does this mean that we witness some sort of change, the birth of something that did not ex-
ist before? Does it mean that only today we are aware that something (the “knowledge”) can assume
unprecedented forms, or is finding fresh ways to be processed, which justifies our new (or renewed)
attention?
It would be easy to say that the key of this change has to be found in the impressive advancements
of ICT and Internet technologies. Indeed, it appears even obvious to associate the development of the
knowledge society with the progress and widespread use of ICT applications. Unfortunately, this is not
an answer but, rather, raises additional questions. The revolutionary potential of these technologies has
been fully recognised only decades after their invention. Computers were invented about 70 years ago,
an almost biblical time, considering the speed of our current lives. The Internet was ideated in the 1950s,
and its technical feasibility was demonstrated a few years later.
The experts of innovation studies would probably say that this is common because the processes through
which an invention becomes and innovation, spreads and finally, impacts the world significantly, depend
on complicated dynamics, and are affected by the interactions of several factors, which takes a much
longer time than often predicted. All this is true, but still does not explain the nature of today’s change.
Why just a few years ago we used to talk of “information society” and “information paradigm,” and now
we have turned to the “knowledge society”? What is the difference? What did it change, and how? And
does this mean that, in the next future, we must expect to deal with “another kind of society”?
Actually, this is not a book of history, and we do not need to find the explanations of how we ar-
rived somewhere, and why. Nor we are interested in making forecasts. Rather, focusing on the research
on knowledge management, this book lives in the present, and intends the knowledge society not as a
paradigm or a model that already exists and just needs to be explained, but something that we are trying
xviii
to build, both conceptually and practically. It is the view of this book: a sort of constructivist perspective
on the emerging knowledge society and, in this, of the role, knowledge management (KM).
KM, intended as the set of deliberate, coordinated, and systematic methods for the management of
knowledge in organisations by means of appropriate organisational practices and ICT tools, is increas-
ingly popular, but its development is relatively recent. It can be said that managing knowledge has
always been one of the major concerns of humanity, but the origins of KM as a branch of management
can be traced back to the early 1990s (Prusak, 2001), although KM scholars often cite antecedent works
of eminent scholars (e.g., Drucker, 1967; Machlup, 1962; Polanyi, 1967). It is not the purpose here to
go further into the definitions or history of KM (the reader can, however, find many references in the
various chapters). What is clear is that the idea of KM is strictly intertwined with the idea of building
the knowledge society, as it represents one of its concrete bricks.
If the building of a knowledge society relies on the development of KM, here we have both good
and bad news. The good news is that there is an impressive effort of practice, research, and education
in KM rises the expectation of a bright future for this field. The investments in KM programmes by
companies are increasing, and regard not only the major multinationals but also smaller companies, in
many industries and countries. Courses and even entire “universities” are devoted to KM. KM-related
jobs are increasingly offered by companies, and there are professionals and consultants whose services
specialise in KM. As regards the scientific research, there is a huge and increasing number of studies,
books, and specialised conferences.
The bad news refers to a some persistent weaknesses of KM, seen as a scientific discipline. A first
problem comes from the extreme heterogeneity of approaches, conceptual references, and application
fields that can be found. KM initiatives are proposed in totally different environments: in business and in
non-profit organisations; in multinationals and smaller companies; in very heterogeneous areas ranging
from R&D to operations management, from healthcare management to ICT design. This witnesses the
transversal interest in the issue, but at the same time, arises the question of consistency of approaches and
methods. Although, sometimes, common viewpoints or approaches are proposed, even the conceptual
backgrounds of researchers and practitioners are often heterogeneous. More generally, it is even dif-
ficult to draw the boundaries between KM and all the related areas (Information Systems and Computer
Science, Sociology, Business Management, Economics, etc.).
Should we resign ourselves to develop distinct KM approaches for the different situations, or are
there some “shared fundamentals” that we can try to build up? This is, indeed, what distinguishes a
well-established discipline from just “a set of practices.” As KM researchers, we need to proceed with
the setting of these fundamentals. This work has been started by the KM community in recent years
(see recent collections such as Holsapple, 2003; Schwartz, 2006), but it still requires efforts of analysis,
systematisation, and formalisation. In relation to this, the book deals with this question by focusing
particularly on a specific topic: the processes of knowledge exchanges in networks that, in the current
context of research and practice of KM, appear to be particularly important.
Knowledge exchanges in networKed environments
The problem of managing knowledge is, essentially, a problem of knowledge exchange. To be managed,
the knowledge needs to be retrieved from some source, processed, and then distributed to other users
(Garavelli, Gorgoglione, & Scozzi, 2002).
Thus, knowledge exchanges are the essential ingredients of KM. Although the topic of knowledge
exchange seems well focalised, a rapid glance at the KM literature is enough to highlight that there are
xix
several problematic aspects that make this topic a challenging terrain for both the research and the prac-
tice. An essential problem results from the extreme variety of situations to which the issue of knowledge
exchange can be related. It can be said that a myriad of knowledge exchanges continuously occurs in
disparate contexts, even when they are not explicitly identified and recognised. An interpersonal com-
munication is an exchange of knowledge, but also economic transactions between two trading firms can
be seen as (or involve) a knowledge exchange. Even two computers exchanging messages are, somewhat,
part of a kind of knowledge exchange. What’s more, one can speak of knowledge exchange even when
there is someone that communicates a message to a broad audience: a TV programme is a process of
knowledge exchange, as is the publication of a book or a Web site.
Thus, there is a problem of definition. There is no clear consensus here, and distinct terms (such as
knowledge sharing, transfer, exchange) are used (Boyd, Ragsdell, & Oppenheim, 2007; King, 2006),
also with different shades of meaning (in this preface, we will just speak of knowledge exchanges, but
we will more generally mean all the terms previously indicated).
In addition, the exchange of knowledge is a process that involves various elements (i.e., the knowledge
objects exchanged, the sources and receivers, the carrier or medium, the mechanisms used, etc.). Thus,
a researcher can decide to centre the analysis on one specific element, or to include different variables
or factors, or to focus on the intertwined relationships among all these.
Due to these complications, the characterising aspect, the implications, and the practical questions of
knowledge exchange are many. Here, we will explicit focus on the perspectives adopted by researchers
whose main field is that of KM. The contributors to this book were asked to explain their viewpoints,
research methods and interpretative models, and to debate the findings of their studies, with the pur-
pose to clarify the state of our knowledge about this issue and discuss the prospective fields of study.
In particular, they were invited to provide insights into some open questions that we will briefly recall
in the following pages.
Processes
How do people and organisations exchange knowledge? An effort or modelisation of the mechanisms and
rules that are employed is essential. Also, the nature of the “object” of exchange has to be specified. The
classic distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is fundamental, but needs further explanation.
Another open question is the difference between interpersonal and interorganisational exchange.
Knowledge exchanges between organisations are, or involve, knowledge exchanges among individuals.
The relationships among these two kinds of exchange need a conceptualisation that has not been achieved
yet, and the literature often focuses on specific aspects or specific practical cases.
The human-machine knowledge exchange is a related issue. Technologies are the fundamental support
of KM practices. The way knowledge embedded in an individual can be “extracted,” codified, stored in a
device, and then retrieved and delivered to other individuals for reuse, is one important field to explore.
Also, the connection between the findings of technical research with the problems of interpersonal or
interorganisational relationships still requires a conceptualisation.
Value
The motivation of exchanging knowledge with others, or in other terms, the value that the players as-
cribe to this activity, is another hot issue for KM, and a central theme of this book as well. The current
practice shows that KM initiatives that do not account for the motivations of participants in knowledge
exchanges are likely to fail (Brydon & Vining, 2006). There is, thus, the need to explain the factors that
xx
can facilitate and hinder the personal participation in a process of knowledge exchange. Motivation
can be seen from different viewpoints, and based on various conceptual references. It can be related
to distinct but intertwined concepts, such as the personal utility (i.e., knowledge is exchanged to solve
a problem or accomplish a task), the economic value (knowledge is exchanged as a sort of good), or
the social motivation (individuals exchange knowledge because they belong to a particular context). A
systematisation of all these aspects is thus necessary. Again, the difference between personal or organi-
sational value should be clarified.
Networks
Although knowledge exchange can be simply depicted as involving one source and one receiver, this
process does not occur in a vacuum but, instead, in a complex configuration of relationships that involve
several players. The structure and nature of the networks of interpersonal or interorganisational links,
and the distinct roles performed by the various players, are thus an essential focus of analysis. The web
of social relationships is one element that attracts the interest of researchers. Hot issues in the KM litera-
ture are, for example, the cultural distance between players and the trustworthy climate that facilitates
the sharing of knowledge. Here, various models and references are often drawn from a multiplicity of
disciplines and fields. An effort of systematisation is required.
The technological infrastructure of the network is another essential issue. There is a rich and signifi-
cant literature on knowledge management systems and, more generally, on the use of ICT applications
for supporting knowledge exchange between individuals and/or organisations. However, technology is
not the panacea for any problem of knowledge exchange. The multidimensional and elusive nature of
the notion of knowledge often challenges the efforts of ICT researchers and designers. The potential,
but also the limitations of technology and the future prospects, and the way these are related to the other
elements previously mentioned, are another area that still deserves an in-depth analysis.
aims of the booK and audience
As mentioned, the aims of the book are to illustrate, compare, and discuss models, perspectives, and
approaches that can be helpful to understand the state-of-the-art of the current studies of the topic of
knowledge exchange in networked environments seen from different viewpoints, and to depict the pos-
sible trajectories of the future developments both in the research and in the practice.
The collected chapters provide a rich panorama of the prospects of research on the topic, formulated
by scholars working in independent areas. The reader will thus be given a good view of the variety of
viewpoints and approaches and, at the same time, indications of the “shared elements” (language, terms,
conceptual references) that can be intended as the foundations of an emerging and fascinating field of
study.
In this sense, and in coherence with the constructivist view of the knowledge society, this book project
should be intended more as a “laboratory of ideas” rather than an “encyclopedia.” The comparison of
contrasting viewpoints and the “remote debate” among scholars working on distinct but related fields,
provides essential food for thought to the reader, and helps to build a “common interface” enabling
the communication between different disciplines and areas. The assumption (and the hope) is that this
“cross-fertilisation” can help to overcome the limitations of the single viewpoint, and that the system-
atic comparison and discussion of different but converging approaches can set the grounds for a shared
language and an agreed conceptual framework, can favour the exchange of findings and ideas and builds
the foundations of the future research.
xxi
Clearly, any multidisciplinary project is risky, since it involves different disciplines and academic
traditions that can be distant (and, sometimes, idiosyncratic). However, the nature itself of the problem
makes the effort valuable. In addition, the possible drawbacks have been minimised by organising the
process of collection and revision of chapters in an appropriate way. Contributors were asked to submit
chapters on specific topics, but aiming at explaining concepts, theories, approaches, and perspectives
underpinning their current research (rather than illustrating the “last empirical findings”). Secondly, a
double-stage reviewing process of chapters has been conducted, to ficilitate the understanding by read-
ers specialising in other disciplines. Each chapter has been reviewed by both referees specialising in
the same area of the author, who assessed the scientific quality of the chapter in that specific field, and
referees specialising in a completely different field, who assessed the “readability” of the chapter and
provided suggestions to simplify the language, clarify concepts, make bridges towards other disciplines,
and so forth.
The principal audience of this book will consist of scholars and researchers in KM. The book is, in
fact, firstly designed to provide “food for thought” for the future research. However, practitioners might
find new ideas for a dynamic sector such as knowledge-based or Internet-based services. Graduate and
postgraduate students might also find useful references for their work.
The sources of value can be various. As mentioned, the book can help to understand the broad picture
of the state-of-the-art of the current research on the topic, and depict the possible trajectories of the future
developments. Secondly, it can enable the building of a common set of concepts, terms, references, and
approaches in disciplinary areas that are sometimes too distant. Another element of significance is the
huge amount of references that is collected here. The contributors were asked to attach a special “ad-
ditional reading” section that, added to the references directly quoted in their chapters, thus constitutes
a comprehensive collection of the current literature on the topic of knowledge exchange, and a unique
source of reference to the reader.
structure of the booK and contributions
Once the chapters were collected, the book was organised in two parts. The first section is entitled
“Models,” and gathers the contributions that focus on the conceptual modelisation of the context where
knowledge exchanges occur, or deal with general key factors affecting these processes. Compared with
the second section of the book, these first chapters have fewer links with specific application problems,
although their analysis can provide elements that can be of use both to formulate research hypotheses
or to inspire practical implementations of KM. These first chapters can be further classified in relation
to their conceptual backgrounds and the main focus of analysis, or better, to their distinct viewpoints
of the topic.
A first viewpoint refers to a human-oriented approach to KM, and highlights the social and personal
issues affecting the exchange of knowledge. In her “Knowledge Sharing: Interactive Process Between
Organizational Knowledge Sharing Initiative and Individuals’ Sharing Practice,” Shuhua Liu reflects
on the relationships occurring between individuals’ practices and organisational settings in knowledge
exchange. As mentioned before, KM programmes have the aim to facilitate the exploitation of knowledge
by organisation, but since organisations are made of individuals, the complex relationships between these
different entities need a clarification. In particular, based on a review of established theories in sociol-
ogy, management science, and organisational behaviour, the author attempts to develop elements of a
new model that explains how the organisational settings influence the way individuals share knowledge.
Knowledge is not something that can be “detached” from the individual, but rather it is built through
xxii
a sense-making process occurring in a context of social interactions, and subjected to the institutional
and organisational arrangements that regulate or influence these interactions. This view has interesting
implications for KM. In particular, for a successful knowledge management initiative, both the formal
and informal organisational factors that influence the individuals’ behaviours and their knowledge-shar-
ing practices need to be clearly identified. Also, this analysis sheds a new light on the role of ICTs in
knowledge exchange that should be designed in relation to the social processes and the organisational
activities.
The next chapter, “The Centrality of Team Leaders in Knowledge-Sharing Activities: Their Dual
Role as Knowledge Processors” by Evangelia Siachou and Anthony Ioannidis, also investigates the
relationships between individuals and organisations in knowledge exchange. The authors analyse the
crucial role of team leaders as knowledge processors in favour of the other team members. In particular,
they focus on action teams that deal with unpredictable situations and thus, need to obtain and make
instant use of accurate knowledge, although their analysis might be applied to other virtual structures.
The authors argue that team members cannot have access to critical knowledge directly, for lack of
time or other constraints. Thus, the team leaders, being knowledge processors, act both as recipients of
knowledge transferred from outside the team (from Internet repositories, external colleagues, or other
sources) and as sources of knowledge for their team members. The capability to seek, filter, and deliver
knowledge contents in the right way represents an essential skill. Well beyond the particular context
considered here, the analysis of the role of leaders proposed by the authors provides useful insights into
the complex relationship between the way organisational units are structured, and the effective processes
of knowledge transfer that occur among their members.
The theme of the social context is also treated by Kerstin Siakas and Elli Georgiadou in their “Knowl-
edge Sharing in Virtual and Networked Organisations in Different Organisational and National Cultures.”
The authors, however, have a wider focus, and discuss the factors that affect knowledge sharing pro-
cesses in culturally diverse networked organisations. Indeed, considering that the most important KM
programmes are implemented by large and dispersed multinationals, this issue becomes of particular
interest. There is often the assumption that ICT applications, providing standard communication plat-
forms, can “magically” solve all the problems of knowledge exchange in virtual organisations between
physically remote members. As the authors argue effectively, this view neglects the issue of the cultural
distance that can hinder the effective transfers of knowledge. Indeed, this is an emerging issue for the
management of multicultural companies (see, for instance, the related studies of the so-called “diversity
management”), but is relatively new in the field of KM, and often treated without the necessary theo-
retical background. Based on authoritative studies of the notion of culture, the contribution examines
the impact of different cultural values and perception on knowledge sharing and, consequently, on the
effectiveness of KM programmes.
The following two chapters treat much more directly the issue of technology for KM. Axel-Cyrille
Ngonga Ngomo, in his “Towards an Implicit and Collaborative Evolution of Terminological Ontologies,”
opens a window to one of the more advanced fields of computer science applied to KM: the develop-
ment and use of ontologies. This contribution has also the merit to provide a good example of technical
literature in KM that has reached a considerable degree of formalisation. The problem of capturing
the tacit components of knowledge in a way that can be handled and delivered automatically, can be
seen as a particular process of knowledge exchange that challenges both KM researchers and computer
programmers. The use of ontologies, which can be roughly defined as representations of knowledge
in a form that can be interpreted by machines (and other persons), raises several issues that have not
been resolved completely. Here, the author stresses some problematic questions: first, the connection
between the representations of an individual’s knowledge (i.e., personal ontologies) and a representation
xxiii
of knowledge that should be valid for a group of individuals (global knowledge); second, the problem of
how ontologies can evolve along with time as the result of individual and organisational learning; and
third, how personal ontologies can evolve autonomously by interacting with other personal ontologies.
Although the chapter contains a high level of formalisation, even a non-specialist reader can have a good
idea of the current problems that this field raises.
The chapter by Kimiz Dalkir, “Computer-Mediated Knowledge Sharing,” offers a view of technol-
ogy that leaves apart the idea of ICT applications as the panacea of any problem of KM. Instead, she
highlights that not all Internet-based knowledge-sharing systems are created equal: they differ in their
effectiveness when used for exchanging knowledge. Communication channels support different levels of
social interaction and this has an impact on knowledge sharing. It is necessary to define key knowledge
and channel attributes in order to understand how knowledge can be effectively shared using comput-
ers. Dalkir’s chapter examines the computer-mediated knowledge sharing mechanisms, and proposes
a typology based on media richness and social presence characteristics that can serve as a preliminary
conceptual basis to select the most appropriate channel. Also, as the author notes, computer-mediated
communication should not be thought of as a single communication channel, but rather a family of different
technological applications. The proposed framework of knowledge and channel characteristics provides
an alternative to the “one size fits all” approach to knowledge sharing on the Internet. Individuals wish-
ing to communicate and collaborate using channel-mediated connections will be in a position to adopt
a more systematic and deliberate approach to matching each type of knowledge with the best channel.
As the computer-mediated communication technology evolves, and usage continues to intensify and
diversify, being able to assess the best vehicle for knowledge sharing will provide a valuable means of
ensuring both efficiency and effectiveness of the knowledge sharing. To this purpose, the modelisation
proposed by Dalkir represents a valuable conceptual tool.
The last two chapters of the first section treat the issue of how knowledge exchange is perceived and
valued by individuals and organisations, and the implications of this, especially in networked environ-
ments. Here, the KM literature still suffers a lack of formal modelisation for which a more direct relation
with the economic models can be of use.
My chapter, “Understanding Knowledge Transfer on the Net: Useful Lessons from the Knowlewdge
Economy,” discusses the contribution to the development of KM that can come from an “economic read-
ing” of KM practices and, particularly, from the recent studies in the so-called “knowledge economy.”
Indeed, KM is making its way among the other more established branches of business management,
and a more direct link with the models and approaches of the economic disciplines would be useful
to systematise the conceptual backgrounds and to improve the formal modelling. However, KM and
Economics have often been distant areas, although recently, the attention to the economic models by
KM researchers has increased and, on the other hand, eminent economists show interest in the study of
knowledge as an explicit object of analysis. From these converging efforts, useful elements for the con-
ceptual systematisation of KM can arise, and can give theoretical robustness to both the practice and the
research. The chapter especially focuses on the process of knowledge transfer that can be seen as a sort
of “market” between a source and receiver. This kind of modelisation provides novel interpretations of
the value and motivation that individuals and organisations can have when exchanging knowledge with
others. Additional issues (such as the cost and benefit of knowledge codification, and the mechanisms
that can favour or hinder knowledge markets) are also analysed.
Similarly to the previous chapter, in their “Knowledge-Sharing Motivation in Virtual Communities,”
Jengchung V. Chen, J. Michael Tarn, and Muhammad A. Razi treat the issue of motivation in exchanging
knowledge and in particular, they explore the motivation of members to exchange knowledge in virtual
communities. They analyse the underlying factors of such sharing behaviours and, like the previous
xxiv
chapter, they found their analysis on elements drawn from economic theories. The authors present a novel
conceptual model that illustrates the integrated relationship between transaction cost, expectancy value,
and knowledge sharing in a context of virtual communities. The notion of knowledge market is also ex-
amined, since knowledge sharing is a form of knowledge transaction, and the concept of market provides
an essential reference for understanding knowledge transactions and, thus, knowledge exchanges.
The second section of the book is entitled “Applications.” Here, however, the reader will not nec-
essarily find detailed descriptions of methods, techniques, or tools (this was not the aim of the book).
Rather, these chapters are placed here because they focus more directly on particular issues of knowledge
exchange in specific contexts, which represents a good linkage between the formulation of general models
and the practical problems of their use. As the reader can notice, the chapters offer a good panorama
of the extreme variety of issues and situations. However, as done in the first section, they are classified
based on the similarity of applications or approaches. In particular, the first chapters are more focused
on “non-profit networks” or, in other words, on open environments, where the exchange of knowledge
appears a question of sharing rather than trading. The last chapters are, instead, more focused on busi-
ness contexts.
Margarita Echeverri and Eileen G. Abels, in “Opportunities and Obstacles to Narrow the Digital
Divide: Sharing Scientific Knowledge on the Internet,” consider a problem that has become particularly
important with the upsurge of the Internet: the digital divide. This chapter is a good demonstration of
how the typical issues treated in the KM literature regard several heterogeneous fields. In particular, the
authors reflect on the possibility to freely exchange scientific knowledge, (that is, one that, by its very
nature, tends to be considered “public,” being the essential ingredient of education and development).
Here, the Internet has provided a new channel for disseminating scientific materials, for instance, in the
form of electronic journals: the access through the Internet is currently the fastest and least expensive
way to access this kind of knowledge. However, although the Web itself was conceived to encourage
knowledge sharing, several limitations can restrict the freedom of access, especially to those users that,
for various reasons, do not possess specific resources. In the literature of KM, there is little theoretical
and empirical work that addresses knowledge transfer through the use of open electronic networks. The
authors propose a conceptual framework of the knowledge transfer cycle, and examine the key factors
affecting the dissemination of scientific knowledge on the Web. Also, they discuss the results of a vast
survey that shows how having access to the Internet is not a guarantee of successful transfer of public
scientific knowledge. In relation to this, the current challenges facing the open-access initiative, of mak-
ing scientific information free and available worldwide, are also discussed.
The chapter “Knowledge Exchange in Electronic Networks of Practice: An Examination of Knowledge
Types and Knowledge Flows,” by Molly McLure Wasko and Samer Faraj, analyses an open environ-
ment for knowledge sharing, but is more delimited in focus and in boundaries, compared to the previous
chapter. The study examines knowledge exchange in a global, interorganisational electronic network
of practice based on the Usenet. Similarly to the previous chapter, this kind of network is based on a
voluntary and globally distributed participation of members that do not have personal or organisational
ties. This can thus be defined as an open community, although, as the reader can see, the members share
a common interest in a particular topic, and the willingness to use a special infrastructure to transfer
knowledge. The scientific literature (and the press as well) often emphasises the importance of these
networks in supporting open knowledge exchanges, but there are few attempts to investigate in detail
why and how these processes occur. The purpose of this study is twofold: on the one hand, the authors
investigate what type of knowledge is being transferred in these networks, and second, how knowledge
is transferred across individuals. The chapter analyses and classifies the contents exchanged in the mes-
sages (for this, the study also provides a good example of method applied to this kind of KM research),
xxv
and illuminates how people use computer-mediated communication to support knowledge transfer,
the types of knowledge transferred, the different roles of participants in the structure, as well as how
knowledge flows in this network. The reader can find a number of stimulating results. For instance, the
heterogeneity of individuals participating with varying motivations is an important element that raises
the intensity of knowledge transfers and encourages knowledge flows. Additionally, these networks can
succeed only if participants are intrinsically motivated to keep abreast of new ideas and innovations and
to help others with their problems. Without individuals seeking answers and interested in building social
ties with others, there would not be an audience for others interested in sharing their knowledge. Here,
one can say that the electronic network reflects the characteristic of any other social group.
Isa Jahnke, in her “Knowledge Sharing Through Interactive Social Technologies: Development of
Social Structures in Internet-Based Systems over Time,” also analyses the exchange of “public” knowl-
edge contents, but in a restricted environment represented by a campus university connection. The author
illustrates the history and results of a vast campus project aimed to build a “common interface” for the
exchange of “educational contents” among a network of students, tutors, and teachers. Indeed, as she
argues, the developments towards the idea of a “Web 2.0” is based on new interactive Web-based tools,
for example wikis and discussion boards, which enable the exchange of user-generated contents. The
effect of existing social structures and roles in such a network, and the evolving nature of these, are
analysed in her empirical research. In line with other contributions presented in this book, this research
offers a good practical demonstration that the dynamics of social structures in online communities influ-
ence the effective processes of knowledge exchange. It is also important to notice that the way people
communicate (i.e., face to face or online) does make a difference. The line of thought that “all people are
the same” when they communicate online must be rejected, and unexpected behaviours may arise. The
study demonstrates the change of roles, expectations, and activities in online communities. An interest-
ing result for the reader is the conclusion about the complex relationships between intentional design
efforts by the creators of the online communities, and the unpredicted emergence of social structures
in Internet-based systems over time. This analysis has also a practical utility, since the author is able to
sketch some essential criteria for designing online communities.
The next chapter, “Information Technology in Times of Crisis: Considering Knowledge Management
for Disaster Management,” by Kalpana Shankar, David J. Wild, Jaesoon An, Sam Shoulders, and Sheetal
Narayanan, treats the issue of knowledge sharing in emergency situations, and has various reasons of
interest. First, it analyses a context for knowledge sharing that has some similarities with the previous
environments (e.g., non-profit context, and exchange of public knowledge in wide heterogeneous net-
works), but that has some peculiarities (e.g., the time of knowledge exchanges) that allow the reader to
make useful comparisons. Also, this issue has been, so far, little studied in the KM literature. Indeed,
crisis and disaster management requires the sharing of complex information among numerous entities
and individuals. After examining the problematic issues of this context and the current practices and
ICT applications typically used, the authors especially illustrate and discuss the potential and limitations
of new technologies, such as the Internet and Web 2.0 applications, combined with new KM practices.
They show how the use of networked technologies like the Internet is still in its infancy, and with very
little cohesion. They argue that although the Internet is already in extensive use in disaster management,
knowledge management will only be affected if top-down and bottoms-up approaches to information
gathering, organisation, and dissemination are implemented. The aim of this chapter is to provide an
introduction to some of the many technologies, practices and open problems for knowledge sharing in di-
saster situations, outline some persistent challenges, and suggest venues for exploration and practice.
The following chapter, “Managing Knowledge-Based Complexities Through Combined use of In-
ternet Technologies” by Cécile Godé-Sanchez and Pierre Barbaroux, can also be seen, in connection to
xxvi
the previous chapters. This study introduces a theoretical framework to examine how Internet technolo-
gies provide organisations with additional capabilities to handle various forms of knowledge exchange
and decision-making complexities. The authors refer their investigation to the specific field of tactical
military operations that, due to the criticality and complexity of decision making, represent an excel-
lent area for the experimentation and use of new technologies and practices. Also, the military contexts
offer relevant illustrations of organisations that use Internet within complex decision environments for
which short-term responsiveness and tactical adaptability are critical. The findings of the study can be
well extended to other organisational contexts, ranging from emergency management to critical business
environments. In particular, the authors investigate how specific combinations of Internet technologies
can enable knowledge sharing processes to generate valuable supports for decisions. But they also argue
that, although critical decision-making environments are generally designed following a top-down hi-
erarchical structuring, the effective use of interactive technologies for knowledge sharing relates to the
evolving social practices that fold together the planned and the unexpected, the tacit and the codified,
into a complex combination of uses. Thus, an effective managerial solution for the implementation and
use of these technologies requires the involvement of users in a bottom-up approach.
The last chapters deal more specifically with the business applications of knowledge exchange.
Especially, they all focus on the emerging issue of interfirm cognitive relationships, which is a still an
under-explored area of KM research. Deogratias Harorimana¸ in “Leading Firms as Knowledge Gate-
keepers in a Networked Environment,” examines how distant relationships can be a source of novel
ideas and insights, which are useful for innovation processes. Firms can develop global channels and
create platforms not only to exchange products or services, but also to benefit from outside knowledge
inputs. The business success can be derived from the ability to identify and access external knowledge
sources located far away, and to convert this knowledge into an explicit format that can be transferred and
reused. However, all this is not easy, even with the use of advanced ICT applications. Here, the analysis
of KM and KT processes becomes essential. In this tradition, the author analyses the critical activities of
knowledge conversion that have to take place to make the interfirm knowledge exchange possible. The
effectiveness of these processes is affected not only by the nature of the knowledge exchanged, but also
by the social and cultural environment where these processes occur. To favour these, there is increasing
attention on the role player by some firms in a network of connecting organisations. These firms are called
“knowledge gatekeepers” since their role is to create a shared social and technological platform that can
enable knowledge transfers among networking firms by means of the sharing of tacit meanings or the
codification of knowledge. The notion of knowledge gatekeeper proposed here, whic extends concepts
already developed in the organisational literature (from knowledge brokers to knowledge mediators),
also sheds light into new interpretations of the role that is generally ascribed to leading, and builds a
bridge toward the economic analysis of the transformations of industrial systems.
Enrico Scarso in “The Role of Knowledge Mediators in Virtual Environments” examines the func-
tions of online knowledge mediators as well, but seen as independent businesses whose mission is ex-
plicitly targeted at facilitating the knowledge exchange among business partners. Such firms, of which
the author provides examples, specialise in performing activities that are related to KM and KT. After
illustrating the different models that are adopted in the literature to describe the nature and functioning
of interorganisational knowledge transfer, the author raises the important issue that the role of knowledge
mediators should be interpreted as a combination of strictly cognitive (or KM) functions with those
typically performed by the classic economic mediators in business. He also suggests a two-dimensional
framework based on these two complementary views that can provide interesting elements for the re-
search and practice in the field.
xxvii
The chapter by Stavros T. Ponis, George Vagenas, and Ilias P. Tatsiopoulos, “Knowledge Manage-
ment in Virtual Enterprises: Supporting Frameworks and Enabling Web Technologies,” deals the issue
of interfirm cognitive relationships as well, but focuses on the particular context of virtual enterprises.
This organisational structure, which emerges as a shift from traditional hierarchical organisations to more
loose and flexible business relationships, strongly relies on the exchange of knowledge among partners
supported by an intense use of ICTs. However, the practical implementation and management of virtual
enterprises still needs research and practical development. In this sense, as the authors argue, although
these organisational forms are strongly based on the management of interfirm knowledge exchanges, the
literature on KM has so far showed little interest in this area. After characterising the peculiar problems
of knowledge exchange in these complex contexts, the authors propose a good illustration of the current
state-of-the-art of the most advanced ICT applications for networked infrastructures in virtual enterprises,
from multiagents systems to Web services. They argue that the most critical issue that these technologies
have to deal with is the high heterogeneity (seen at different levels) that characterises virtual enterprises.
Finally, the authors attempt to combine the various elements discussed in the chapter with the purpose
to illustrate a possible comprehensive framework for KM in virtual enterprises.
Scott Erickson and Helen Rothberg, in “Sharing and Protecting Knowledge: New Considerations for
Digital Environments,” propose a completely different perspective of interfirm knowledge exchanges.
Indeed, as KM practice increasingly moves to the Internet, it is worth highlighting not only the new op-
portunities that are offered, but also the threats to the security of proprietary knowledge. The Internet,
as a matter of fact, also makes knowledge assets more vulnerable to competitive intelligence efforts
made by competitors. The authors analyse various aspects and elements of this problem, and illustrate
possible threats that can come from the spread of KM practices in organisations that, by their nature,
are designed to make knowledge more explicit and to facilitate their circulation and, at the same time,
make such knowledge more difficult to protect. However, as they argue, both the potential and the vul-
nerability of knowledge on the Internet varies according to the nature of knowledge assets, and there is
the need to examine all these factors in combination. The authors propose a model that integrates three
dimension of knowledge (tacitness, complexity, appropriability), and relates these with its vulnerability
in a KM Internet-based environment. This discussion provides interesting insights into the issue, and
new proposals for further research. For instance, an interesting direction of study is exploring the bal-
ance and tension between how far to share knowledge and how far to protect it. The attempts to find
appropriate models to answer this question can provide fresh lessons.
The last chapter, “Identifying Knowledge Values and Knowledge Sharing Through Linguistic Methods:
Application to Company Web Pages,” by June Tolsby, proposes an original viewpoint of the knowledge
transfer process. The author analyses the way a company “communicates” knowledge about its organi-
sational identity and values to the external environment by means of its Web pages. Indeed, with the
increasing use of the Web as a communication tool, this becomes a sort of “open window” towards the
inside of an organisation. It might thus be interesting to find useful methods of analysis that enable a
better understanding of the contents that a company is (intentionally or not) communicating. Here, the
author proposes a novel combination of approaches developed in the KM field (such as the building
of identity in a community of practice) with elements of communication theories (i.e., the concepts of
modality and transitivity in a text, and the discourse analysis). For an empirical test, she proposes the
application of her method to the analysis of a company’s Web site, illustrating how this approach can
be of use to identify the firm’s identity and the values that the organisation communicates. This experi-
mental use of methods and approaches developed in completely different areas from KM interesting
prospects of application.
xxviii
conclusion
Seeking a Shared Conceptual Space for Research and Practice
The contributions collected here provide a good sample of the variety of viewpoints, approaches, mod-
els, elements of analysis, and application fields that the KM-related literature proposes on the issue of
knowledge exchange. The authors, specialising in different fields, offer a very stimulating picture of
research prospects, and provide novel ideas and food for thought to the reader.
As mentioned before, the extreme heterogeneity of the KM literature can be an element of richness,
but can also lead to idiosyncratic approaches, which can make the research and the practice difficult.
As said, one purpose of the book was to investigate, by means of a collection of various contributions,
about one essential question: is the KM field going towards a unification of some shared “foundational”
elements that can make this discipline more robust at a scientific level? Or at least, can we persepctives,
vocabulary that facilitates the sharing of models and perspective, and boosts the field? Or coversely, is
the research evolving in direction to a fragmentation of viewpoints, approaches, and models?
With regard to these questions, and with particular reference to the processes of knowledge exchange
that was the main object of the book, the contributions gathered represent an excellent survey of “hot
issues,” that are summarised in the points illustrated.
a. Definition of Knowledge
The notion of knowledge is, to some extent, difficult to capture. A fundamental acquisition of the KM
literature is the distinction of knowledge from data and information. this distinction represents the
foundations of the notion of knowledge that is widely used in KM research, and in many of the chapters
of this book as well. But problems may emerge when this distinction is applied to the specific context
of analysis. For instance, in some cases, the adopted notion of knowledge is not very far from the cur-
rent idea of information, while in others, there is more emphasis on the difference. Also, sometimes the
researchers focus on the “material” manifestations of knowledge (e.g., its representation) that can be
somewhat modelled and handled, in others they underline its “intrinsically” intangible essence.
b. Knowledge Exchanges in Networks
The reader can note that there is no shared definition nor single use of some basic terms. As regards, for
instance, knowledge exchange, knowledge sharing, and knowledge transfer, these terms are sometimes
used as synonyms or, in others cases, different definitions of the same word are adopted. The same hap-
pens to notions such as electronic networks, virtual communities, online communities, and communi-
ties of practice. As in the case of of knowledge, it can be said that the various authors tend to adopt the
definitions that better fit their particular viewpoint, or that are drawn from the reference literature they
use. This is clearly very appropriate for the specific purpose of each piece of research, and, indeed, is
probably necessary to facilitate the readability of the single work. But it also represents an element of
divergence, and a limitation for a more effective communication in the KM scientific community.
c. Attributes of Knowledge
There are also elements that can now be considered shared across the entire KM scientific community.
One of these is the well-known distinction between tacit and explicit forms of knowledge. Today, this
xxix
classification can be considered a basic entry of a KM dictionary. As the reader can see, this element
crosses the various approaches of analysis and application fields proposed by the various authors, trans-
versally. Unfortunately, the definitions of tacit and explicit knowledge are somewhat elusive, which
explains why there is less uniformity when we pass the application of this classification to the different
situations of knowledge exchange that are considered by the various authors.
d. Application Fields and Research Methods
As mentioned, the heterogeneity of the application fields is an element of richness, but raises essential
questions about the possibility to adopt common backgrounds and research methods. For instance,
what is the fundamental unit of analysis? Is knowledge exchange a process involving individuals or
organisations? If we need to treat both cases (which we probably cannot avoid doing), can we model this
phenomenon in a single and uniform way? In addition, what does it mean when an individual exchanges
knowledge with a system? What is really exchanged in these processes? What is the role played by the
“context”where knowledge exchange occurs? How can we delineate the boundaries between the context
and the players involved?
Indeed, the variability of situations often demands different approaches both to modelisation and
to empirical research, and to the practice as well. In this sense, the contributions presented here offer a
good example of that. As the reader can see, all the chapters deal with all the above-mentioned questions
in some way, but the solutions they propose are not always compatible to one another. The scholars are
increasingly aware that there is need to combine and integrate various viewpoints and methods in a com-
mon viewpoint, but this still requires an effort of systematisation and convergence. Even the references
quoted by the contributors reflect this multifaceted challenge. On the one hand, there is a substantial
part of references that is shared by the various chapters. but there are also specific backgrounds that
correspond to the working discipline of the researcher or are related to the particular application.
e. Quantitative or Qualitative Models?
This is a crucial question in many disciplines, and has often represented a reason of contrast between
the natural sciences (mostly based on mathematical models) and human or social sciences (that often
deal with more elusive and ambiguous objects), with other fields in the middle (such as economics). In
the case of KM, which indeed is a multidisciplinary field, this debate appears still at the beginning, and
the scholars are more involved in defining the fundamental concepts or analysing the practical implica-
tions of KM solutions. As other areas of management, the mathematical modelisation is often relegated
to the “hard” technological approaches, while the studies that treat the “soft” issues (i.e., social and
relational aspects of knowledge exchange) are much based on qualitative models. An integration of
quantitative and qualitative modelisation approaches would be desirable and useful (on this point, see
also the following).
open issues and future research directions
Based on what was previously said, and on other ideas that emerge from the chapters, it is now possible
to mention some promising areas for research. A first point for a future agenda is the general issue of
modelisation. As mentioned before, the analysis of knowledge exchange becomes central in any study of
KM. There is, thus, the need to build some basic models of these processes, in other words, a schematic
xxx
view consisting of a few variables or elements. Once these fundamental models are defined, it will be
possible to build the particularisation and the adaptations to the specific object of research or practice.
As some of the chapters also show, there is an increasing effort of basic formalisation by researchers. In
the various chapters, the reader will find an important source of ideas and references.
Another issue that deserves further analysis is the codification of knowledge within knowledge ex-
changes. Indeed, as the chapters collected here also show, two contrasting viewpoints have, for a long
time, predominated and are frequently considered separately: one that sees knowledge exchange as a
process that involves just coded knowledge, and the other that focuses on whether and how it is pos-
sible to exchange tacit knowledge. These are two faces of the same coin: any practical implementation
of KM requires that both the aspects are considered together. An effort of integration of the mentioned
perspectives would be of use: the recent literature (as the present contribution show clearly) stresses
the concerns about how these two views can be combined with one another. For instance, an in-depth
analysis of the benefits and problems of codification in to specific knowledge exchange processes would
be of significance.
A similar dichotomy of approaches can be found with regard to technology. On the one hand, tech-
nologies are often treated as a world apart, an ideal and comfortable environment where knowledge can
be treated as a detached and explicit object that has just to be carried from one place to another. This
sometimes neglects the intangible and elusive nature of knowledge, and imposes simplifications that
can be too drastic. On the other hand, those that privilege a social approach to KM often neglect that,
without technologies, KM would simply not exist the way we know it.The richness of formality of the
models implemented by technology experts can provide useful lessons for social approaches. A further
point for a research agenda is how these two contrasting areas can be connected. Again, the chapters
presented here shows a rich variety of positions and viewpoints on which to reflect.
Finally, another important point of a future research agenda is the connection with the models de-
veloped in the economic disciplines. An area of notable importance for KM is the analysis of costs and
benefits of knowledge exchanges and, more generally, the issue of value. As our chapters clearly show,
there are several ways to see the value of knowledge. The economic disciplines that place the notion
of value at the centre of their research can provide useful lessons here, but the connection with the KM
field still requires further study.
references
Boyd, J., Ragsdell, G., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Knowledge transfer mechanisms: A case study from
manufacturing. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference on Knowldege Management, Barce-
lona.
Brydon M., & Vining A. R. (2006). Understanding the failure of internal knowledge markets: A frame-
work for diagnosis and improvement. Information & Management, 43, 964–974.
Drucker P. (1967). The effective executive. New York: HarperCollins.
Drucker P. (1969). The age of discontinuity; Guidelines to our changing society. New York: Harper &
Row.
Garavelli, A. C., Gorgoglione, M., & Scozzi, B. (2002). Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge
technologies. Technovation, 22, 269-279.
Holsapple, C. W. (Ed.) (2003). Handbook of knowledge management. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
xxxi
King, W. R. (2006). Knowledge transfer. In D. G. Schwatz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge manage-

ment. Hershey (PA): Idea Group.
Machlup F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton: Pri-
ceton Univercity Press.
Polanyi M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Prusak, L. (2001). Where did knowledge management come from? IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 1002-
1007.
Schwartz, D. (Ed.). (2006). Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
xxxii
Acknowledgment
Coming to the end of a hard but exciting project, one becomes aware of the many people without whose
support this job could not have been satisfactorily completed. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help
of all those that, with various roles, have been involved in this project.
First, my gratitude is due to all the authors that accepted to contribute to this book with their pre-
cious works. Many thanks for the patience and care with which they followed the various steps, and the
comprehension with which they responded to my (sometimes insisting) requests as book editor.
Thanks go to all those that generously donated their time to referee the manuscripts submitted for
potential inclusion, offering insights, positive critiques, and suggestions. Their names appear in the list
included in this book. The efforts of these people contributed to the quality of this volume (although, of
course, I bear the entire responsibility for the final acceptance of the chapters), and I also learnt much
from their acute analysis.
My special thanks also to the publishing team at IGI Global, for the enthusiasm with which they
accepted and supported this project throughout the whole process, from inception of the initial idea to
final publication. I would especially like to mention Mehdi Khosrow-Pour (Senior Academics Editor),
Jan Travers (Managing Director), Michelle Potter, (Acquisitions/Development Editor), and Nicole Dean
(Assistant Marketing Manager).
And I am extremely grateful to Kristin Roth, Managing Development Editor, and Deborah Yahnke,
Assistant Development Editor, who provided invaluable support, encouragement, and assistance during
the long months it took to give birth to this book.
Let me finally dedicate this work to my family, without whom this work would have made little
sense to me. To my wife Paola, for the sweetness of her love, and for the patience and constant sup-
port, especially in the final rushing moments of this project. And to my beloved daughters Federica and
Margherita, “pezzi di cuore” (“pieces of hearts”) as some Italians would say: maybe one day they will
read the book (or at least the acknowledgements!) and will understand why their father spent a lot of
time sitting in front of a computer.
Ettore Bolisani
Universiy of Padua, Italy
September 2007
Section I
Models

Chapter I
Knowledge Sharing:
Interactive Processes Between
Organizational Knowledge-Sharing
Initiative and Individuals’ Sharing Practice
Shuhua Liu
University of Washington, USA
abstract
Knowledge is one of the most important competitive resources a business can have. However, the failure
of knowledge management initiatives in the last decade, especially the failure of knowledge management
(sharing) systems, directly points out the inadequacy of current approaches to knowledge sharing.This
chapter, expanding on the current view of knowledge and knowledge management, offers an alternative
approach to knowledge sharing. It is argued that to understand employee knowledge-sharing behavior,
we have to understand the interactions between organizational context and individuals’ sense-mak-
ing processes before achieving success. Studies in knowledge sharing are reviewed before the missing
organizational factors are pointed out. Established theories in sociology, management science, and
organizational behavior are introduced where the influences of both formal and informal organizational
factors on employee knowledge sharing are elaborated. Theoretical and practical implications of current
study on knowledge-sharing research are discussed in the end.
introduction maintain this advantage for long-term develop-

ment and survival, an organization must rely
Knowledge is one of the most important com- on its employees, the real creators, and users,
petitive resources a business can have. This has to effectively share knowledge and thereby
been repetitively emphasized in the literature of enhance the collective innovative capability of
knowledge management, strategic management, the organization (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans,
and organization science (Argote & Ingram, 2003; Bechky, 2003; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002;
2000; Davenport & Prusak, 1997; Ipe, 2003;). Kelloway & Barling, 2000). However, the fail-
A constant finding is that in order to effectively ure of knowledge-management initiatives in the
Copyright © 2008, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Knowledge Sharing
last decade, especially the failure of knowledge institutional factors that influence organizational
management (sharing) systems (Storey & Barnett, knowledge sharing; both theoretical and practi-
2000), not only directly points out the inadequacy cal implications are offered in the fifth section; a
of knowledge sharing via information technology, brief summary of the contribution of this chapter
but brings the current epistemological approach to current studies of knowledge sharing is offered
toward knowledge sharing into question (Bechky, in the conclusion.
2003; Cook & Brown, 1999; Hislop, 2002;). It is
suggested in this chapter that there is one unre-
solved question fundamental to the discussions on what is Knowledge sharing?
knowledge transfer, knowledge-based companies,
and knowledge sharing: Is knowledge the objective What is meant by knowledge sharing in this
truth, a static entity that has a constant meaning or chapter? As mentioned, different understandings
a dynamic creation of humans in constant social of the origin of knowledge and its dimensionality
interaction? Different answers to this question make a unanimous definition of knowledge shar-
lead to varying views of knowledge sharing in ing almost impossible. Early system designers and
current research and varying success of sharing researchers defined knowledge as an objective
inside the organization, involving different roles truth and thus, knowledge sharing as simply the
that information technology can play. physical transferring of knowledge via informa-
Taking a process view, this chapter argues tion systems or communication channels (books,
that knowledge sharing is an integral part of documents, etc.) from knowledge owners to re-
individuals’ work behavior and is constantly ceivers (Scarbough et. al., 1999; Storey & Barnett,
guided by individuals’ behavior rules (DiMaggio, 2000). This definition has been widely criticized
1997; Swidler, 1986). These behavioral rules are for its ignoring of subjective knowledge (Fernie,
constantly being revised during an individual’s Green, Weller, & Newcombe, 2003). The view
social interactions with organizational contexts. of knowledge as something subjectively held by
At the same time, social reality is also being individuals in their minds currently holds a higher
constructed by individuals’ social interactions popularity in a handful of recent publications from
guided by their selective sense making (Weick, knowledge-sharing researchers (Cook & Brown,
1995) and internalization of certain behavioral 1999). Thus, it is not surprising to see some re-
rules (Burger & Luckman, 1966). Thus, the it- searchers maintain the distinction between the
erative interactions between social context and tacit dimension and the explicit dimension, and
individual actions must be captured in the study deem the conversion between these two dimen-
of knowledge sharing. sions a core part of knowledge sharing (Nonaka
Informed by theories from sociology, organi- & Takeuchi, 1995).
zational sciences, and knowledge management, Looking closely at the latter definition, we
the chapter is structured as follows: can find an underlying epistemological approach,
where knowledge is perceived as something that
First, the definitions of knowledge sharing held has a constant meaning and can be carried over
in this chapter will be described; second, current in the conversion or externalization process (Hen-
approaches on knowledge sharing are detailed and driks, 1999; Herschel, Nemati, & Steiger, 2001;
examined for missing concepts that could be bor- Roberts, 2000). Before advancing my argument
rowed from other disciplines, such as organization against this way of defining knowledge sharing,
sciences and sociology; following that, the fourth the example of riding a bicycle, from Polanyi
section discusses important organizational and (1969), can usefully be reexamined to illustrate that

Knowledge Sharing
knowledge is actually generated and immersed to know how to ride…the novice has to spend a
in the process of knowing and thus, can only be certain amount time on a bicycle. (p. 384)”
shared via the social process where it is gener-
ated. Pure conversion/externalization between As we can see from these arguments, when
dimensions, without taking account of knowing one is committed to a knowledge-sharing activ-
contexts and individuals’ sensemaking process, ity, in order to get the full knowledge of riding a
may not be sufficient for knowledge to be fully bicycle, there has to be a sensemaking process for
shared (Lave & Wenger, 1991). individuals to use both dimensions of knowledge
In Polanyi’s example of riding a bicycle, even (Weick, 1995). Thus, this chapter, informed by
though it is hard for people to clearly articulate both social constructionist approach and social
what exactly a person needs to do to ride a bicycle, cognition research (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002), de-
they can still ride the bicycle with ease. Polanyi fines knowledge sharing as “the process where
defined the inarticulable part of knowledge that individuals exchange their (tacit or explicit)
people use to ride a bicycle as the “tacit dimension knowledge and jointly create new knowledge in
of knowledge” (Polanyi, 1966), while the clear a knowing process within a social context that
articulation of how to ride a bicycle is perceived is also constructed out of these activities.” This
as the explicit dimension of knowledge (Nonaka definition not only emphasizes the importance of
& Takeuchi, 1995). social interaction in creating common understand-
Based on this point of view, tacit knowledge ings among knowledge-sharing partners, but also
and explicit knowledge are two distinct forms of points to individuals’ sensemaking process, where
knowledge, and neither is a variant of the other one’s personal interpretation of the shared under-
(Cook & Brown, 1999). Each works in a way that standing is created. This personal interpretation
the other cannot achieve and one complements (the personal version of that shared understanding)
the other, so it is not possible to produce one by is potentially what individuals use reflectively in
purely making it out of another. Cook and Brown’s their later sharing process, which feeds into the
(1999) elaboration compellingly demonstrates the next cycle of organizational knowledge-sharing
importance of committing to social process in practices. The knowing process may occur in a
knowledge sharing: classroom setting, in a work setting, and in daily
life. The exact knowing activities people commit
“To be able to ride a bicycle, one needs to have to, and the knowledge they exchange, generate,
the (tacit) knowledge of how to stay upright. This and internalize, largely depends on the context for
is knowledge one possesses, it is not the activity that sharing. Within the organizational context,
of riding itself. Possessing this tacit knowledge knowledge sharing is shaped by constant interac-
makes it possible to keep upright, which is some- tion with specific institutional environments and
thing that the explicit knowledge of which way to organizational contexts. Individual employees
turn cannot do. We can’t put a novice on a bicycle regularly refine their knowledge-sharing rules and
saying. ‘ok, take off- and if you start to fall like working practices to decide what exact knowledge
so, turn this way’ and expect the person to be they want to share, who to share with, and through
able to ride successfully. The novice would have what channels (Morrison, 2002; Weick, 1995).
the explicit knowledge but not the necessary tacit Collectively, the individuals’ knowledge-sharing
knowledge. Whatever epistemic work that explicit practices have the potential to influence or even
bit of knowledge can make possible, it cannot change the knowledge-sharing environment in the
do all of the work that is necessary for someone organization (Feldman & Pentland, 2003).

Knowledge Sharing
current approaches to approach 1: objective

Knowledge sharing (Ks) Knowledge and physical
transfer via systems
Due to the varying definitions of knowledge, at
least three approaches are evident in the current According to this approach, Knowledge is de-
studies of knowledge sharing. The first approach fined as “justified belief” (Moser & Nat, 1987;
perceives knowledge sharing as the act of transfer- Winograd & Flores, 1986). Thus, its perception
ring objective knowledge through communication of knowledge sharing is largely influenced by
channels (Nonaka, 1994; Shannon & Weaver, the communication model created by Shannon
1949); the second believes knowledge is composed and Weaver (1949), where knowledge sharing
of both tacit and explicit dimensions, where the is the act of transferring the objective knowl-
tacit dimension can be readily converted into the edge via any communication channels from the
explicit dimension without changing or losing owners to the receivers. Figure 1 represents the
meaning inherent in that tacit bit. Thus, knowledge knowledge-sharing process defined according to
sharing is perceived as the conversion/externaliza- this view point. The proponents of this approach
tion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, argue that the only mediator that can influence
and activities involved in that conversion process the quality of sharing is the quality of commu-
(Berends, 2005; Fernie et. al., 2003; Herschel nication channels that users use to communicate
et al., 2001); the final group defines knowledge knowledge or “communication noise” (Shannon
sharing as a social process involving individuals & Weaver, 1949).
who interact and create a shared meaning (Cook In focusing on means of reducing communica-
& Brown, 1999; Hislop, 2002; Hooff & Ridder, tion noise, the dominant view in this approach is
2004; Ipe, 2003; Kelloway & Barling, 2000). The the promotion of high quality tools, knowledge
following is the review of important studies and depositories (Pipek, Hinrichs, & Wulf, 2002),
central concepts celebrated in each approach, or expertise-sharing systems (Linton, 2003) for
followed by discussion of the alternative view knowledge sharing in the organization (Ackerman,
offered by this chapter, expanding upon the cur- 1994). In her famous study of expertise-sharing
rent approaches. system named “Answer Garden,” Ackerman
(1994) maintains that organizational memories
can be stored in the system and may be accessed
Figure 1. Objective knowledge sharing
Objective
Knowledge
Communicated via
Knowledge Communication Knowledge
Owners Channels (Or Seekers
knowledge stored in
systems)

Knowledge Sharing
Figure 2. Knowledge conversion (sharing) process
Tacit Explicit
Knowledge Conversion Process
(Tools) Knowledge
by anybody in the organization if authorized by approach 2: the distinction

experts. Things that are stored in the system are between the tacit dimension
perceived as knowledge that is objectively certified and the explicit dimension:
by the experts in the organization. In other words, individuals’ importance
knowledge in the system is already justified as emphasized
truth for further use.
According to this approach, the most promi- The definitive work of Nonaka and Takeuchi
nent ICT tool for facilitating knowledge sharing (1995) recognizes the importance of individual
is an intranet (Hendriks, 1999). Some author employees in the process of knowledge creation
even equates promoting knowledge sharing and sharing. Their work argues that organizations
with the challenges and pitfalls associated with cannot create knowledge without individuals, and
the introduction and deployment of an intranet unless individual knowledge is shared with other
(Marshall, 1997). individuals and groups, the knowledge is likely
The advantage of tools, like Answer Garden, to have limited impact on organizational effec-
for knowledge sharing is that it is available any tiveness. An organization’s ability to effectively
time, and that knowledge so stored is perceived leverage its knowledge then is highly contingent
as more reliable. The knowledge expert has the on the individuals who actually create, share, and
option of directing (repetitive) questioners to- use the knowledge.
wards systematic answers readily available in the According to this approach, knowing only
system, while still being able to focus on more occurs in an individuals’ mind; thus, the focus
interesting and complicated questions. However, of this approach is on the externalization of
these tools cannot take into account any special tacit knowledge held by individuals into explicit
working contexts of stored information (Hislop, knowledge that can be shared with other members
2002). Thus, it manages what mostly can be called in the organization. Many conversion protocols
knowledge-related information; neither can indi- (Herschel et. al., 2001) and knowledge taxonomies
viduals change arbitrary content available in the (Zhao & Reisman, 1992) have been created in
system. These disadvantages greatly constrain order to facilitate the externalization/conversion
employees’ active contribution to the collective processes. Figure 2 represents the knowledge
knowledge retained in the organization. conversion process defined according to this
approach.

Knowledge Sharing
Citing speech act theory, Berends (2005) de- Ironically, although Polanyi (1966, 1969) is
fines the exact moves (Description, Suggestions, often quoted as being the first to make the dis-
Evaluation, Questions, Actions) that members in tinction between tacit knowledge and explicit
the organization need to take in order to externalize knowledge, recent interpretations of his work
knowledge they hold privately. He argues that by by Pritchard (2000) reveal that Polanyi (1969)
providing an adequate representation of reality, himself ultimately seems to reject the notion
these moves can secure the tacit knowledge held of explicit knowledge and therefore, the idea of
by knowledge owners for the knowledge seekers externalization process:
in the organization.
Herschel et al. (2001) go further to test the "The ideal of a strictly explicit knowledge is
effectiveness of knowledge exchange protocols indeed self contradictory. Deprived of tacit co-ef-
by evaluating the conversion precision of tacit ficients, all spoken words, all formulae, all maps
knowledge in presentations and movies. Record- and graphs are strictly meaningless. (Polanyi,
ing narratives participants later recall from watch- 1969, p. 195)”
ing movies and presentations after being trained
with exchange protocol, Herschel and colleagues Thus, according to Polanyi (1966), once devoid
claim that if we can structure tacit knowledge into of its tacit counterpart and related social contexts,
certain formats (protocols), the effort to share explicit knowledge could be meaningless. Our
its structured replacement (explicit knowledge) question here becomes: How can tacit knowledge
should be the focus of knowledge sharing. be shared if not via the externalization process?
Zhao and Reisman’s (1992) review of taxono-
mies used by different disciplines to facilitate
technology transfer is another example of this approach 3: socially
externalization initiative. They argue that since generated Knowledge and
researchers in each discipline seem to be able shared understanding
to understand the technology transferred, the created in social
tacit knowledge needed to use the technology interactions
has already been transferred to the recipients
via an externalization artifact, in this case, the Another theme that starts to emerge from the
taxonomy. literature seems able to help answer this ques-
Figure 3. Knowledge sharing defined in social interactions

Social Context
Tacit
Dimension Knowing
Process New Knowledge
(Shared
(Human Understanding
Information Generated)
Explicit Interaction)
Dimension

Knowledge Sharing
tion. This approach perceives knowledge as gest that a supportive communication climate
being embedded in social interactions involving is characterized by open exchange of informa-
knowledge owners, seekers, and sharers. It can tion, accessibility of coworkers, confirming and
also be embedded in an organization’s rules, cooperative interactions, and an overall culture
routines, cultures, structures, and technology of sharing knowledge. The results of their study
use (McGrath & Argote, 2001; Walsh & Ungson, demonstrate that a constructive communication
1991). For organizational members, knowledge climate can positively influence individuals’
and knowing lie in the use of knowledge as a tool knowledge donating, knowledge collecting, and
of knowing within situated interaction between affective commitment to the organization.
the actors and the social and physical world Situated curriculum, a specific form of social
(Gherardi, Nicolini, & Odella, 1998). order that instructs the socialization of novices
Cook and Brown (1999) contribute greatly by within the context of ongoing work activities, for
arguing for the importance of a knowing process example, situated learning in organization is ex-
for generation of new knowledge out of tacit and amined by Gherardi et al. (1998). Arguing that no
explicit knowledge. They argue that the central skills can be considered in isolation, they suggest
theme in knowledge sharing should be on the that learning in the workplace is to be understood
knowing process, where individual and group, both as a cognitive and as a social activity. For
tacit and explicit knowledge are connected. When them, on-the-job learning is an ongoing social
knowledge is used as a tool in interaction with activity aimed at discovering what is to be done,
the world, it also gives shape and discipline to when and how to do it according to specific rou-
knowing. It is the reciprocal interplay between tines, what specific artifacts to use, how to give a
knowledge and knowing that bridges the gap reasonable account of why it is done, and of what
between tacit knowledge held by knowledge sort of person one must become in order to be a
owners and (tacit or explicit) knowledge acquired competent member of that community.
by recipients. This interplay of knowledge and When studying knowledge-sharing behavior
knowing is demonstrated in Figure 3, where among engineers, technicians, and assemblers on
knowledge-sharing process is presented accord- a production floor, Bechky (2003) proposes that
ing to this approach. the difficulties of knowledge sharing among these
While arguing for the intrinsic nature of change communities actually lies in differences in their
in organizations, Tsoukas and Chia (2002) suggest language, the locus of their practices, and their
that individual members gain their insights and conceptualization of the product. She suggests
tacit knowledge about the organization through that when sharing problems arise, if members of
interactions in the socialization process. They these communities provide solutions that invoke
suggest that although organizational routines differences in work contexts and create a com-
are used by management as a way to structure mon ground among sharers, they can transform
individuals’ behavior, they are also constructed understandings of all members, and generate a
in this process by individuals’ operationalization newer and richer understanding of the product
of routines. and the problems they face.
Hooff and de Ridder (2004) deliberate on the The Toyota case studied by Dyer and Nobeoka
importance of the communication climate of (2000) also echoes the importance of creating a
an organization under which individuals com- shared understanding among suppliers towards
municate. Communication climate is defined as collective benefits of the whole network. They
“the atmosphere in an organization regarding argue that social networks initiated by Toyota,
accepted communication behavior.” They sug- and activities inherent in the network, facilitate

Knowledge Sharing
the creation of a shared understanding of common tional environment and organizational context,
norms among suppliers. they have never been able to detail the exact pro-
The study of Hansen (2002) on production cesses individuals go through in order to achieve
innovation teams also suggest that a common their social goals and task goals, neither did they
understanding of knowledge needs to be created offer a systematic way in identifying crucial
before it is transferred between knowledge sources organizational factors motivating active human
and knowledge seekers. One important point made information interaction, the core of knowledge
by Hansen is that knowledge access available to sharing. For answers to these questions, we must
individual members in social network directly turn to established theories in sociology, orga-
determines what can be shared in the knowing nization behavior, and management science for
process (Hansen, 2002). additional support and investigation tools.
We must acknowledge that definition of knowl-
edge sharing presented here is slightly different
what is missing from current from views currently popular in the knowledge-
research in Ks? sharing area. It emphasizes the importance of
individual members’ constant sense making, and
While current research informs on the study of their interpretation process of shared understand-
knowledge sharing as a process to a great extent ing for later knowledge sharing. That is, while
(Baldwin & Rice, 1997; Leckie, Pettigrew, & socially constructed reality sets the boundary
Sylvain, 1996; Sonnenwald & Pierce, 2000), the for human behavior, individuals’ sense making
eye is drawn to the gap where an important point and interpretation determines what exact acts
is missing: If individuals need to go through a they will perform. The collective practice (and
knowing process to share knowledge and create its variations) of that shared understanding serves
shared understanding, what organizational factors as the basis for further knowledge-sharing pro-
are the most important factors in determining their cesses. Thus, organizational factors influencing
exact knowledge-sharing practices? employees’ sense-making under constraints of
Although current knowledge-sharing research social reality are actually fundamental to un-
repeatedly claims the importance of the institu-
Figure 4. An iterative knowledge-sharing process embedded in social interactions

Organizational
Context
Tacit
Dimension New
Generative Personal
Knowledge
Knowing Sense
(Shared under-
Process Making
standing)
Explicit
Dimension
Reflective knowing
process

Knowledge Sharing
derstanding of employees’ knowledge-sharing Meanwhile, by making sense of (agreeing or

practices (Weick, 1995). disagreeing) the shared rules and typifications
Elaborated by Figure 4, the importance of this that identify categories of social actors and their
perception of knowledge sharing will be fully appropriate activities or relationships (Burns &
displayed in the later discussion of organizational Flam, 1987; Weick, 1995), individuals dynami-
factors and their interaction with individuals’ cally define and revise their role
sharing behavior in daily work. behavior scripts (Barley & Tolbert, 1997), tool-
kit (Swidler, 1986), frame of reference (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2002), or behavior schema (DiMaggio,
bring in the organizational 1997). By interacting with other social actors, an
context individual attains his/her personal power while
performing his/her role defined according to
Supported by established theories investigating shared norms (Hamilton & Biggart, 1985). These
individual actions and institutional environment social interactions emerge over time, become
(Barley, 1986; Barley & Tolbert, 1997), we first relatively stable, and take an institutionalized,
look at the relationships among the institutional although informal quality (Brass & Burkhardt,
environment, organization factors, and individual 1993).
actions, where social contexts and individuals’ Thus, due to the nature of knowledge as valu-
sensemaking are related. Following is a detailed able resources (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Cabrera
but still incomplete list of organizational factors & Cabrera, 2002; Ciborra & Andreu, 2001; Hall,
that heavily influence knowledge sharing. 2001), individuals’ interactions with information
is inevitably influenced by the interplay between
individuals’ attempts to achieve more personal
institutional rules, power in role making, and the organizations’
organization and individual efforts to structure individual actions by role
action defining (Salancik & Preffer, 1977). This leads
to the different functions played by formal and
As argued by many researchers (Barley & Tol- informal organizational factors on human infor-
bert,1997; Van Maanen, 1973; Weick, 1995), hu- mation interactions.
man actions are constituted by ,and a constituent
part of, underlying institutional rules and social
organization, its explicit representation (precise formal organizational
or not). Therefore, social organization is actually factors influencing Ks
patterned human action, interaction behavior,
and cognitions that are suspended in a web of formal organizational routines and
values, norms, rules, beliefs, and taken-for- structure
granted assumptions, that are at least partially of
individuals’ own making (Barley, 1986). These Traditionally, managerial and organizational
cultural elements define the way that each role choice is perceived as emanating from routinized
in the social web is, and how it should be played behavior (Cyert & March, 1963; Nelson & Winter,
out. Therefore, social organization sets bounds 1982). Organizations adopt elaborate structures
on rationality by restricting opportunities and and communication channels in order to cope with
alternatives we perceive in our social roles and the complexity of their environments (Deutsch,
thereby, increases the probability of certain types 1952). Moreover, such structures embody the
of behavior (Simon, 1979).

Knowledge Sharing
organization’s predictions about the problems 1979). This common understanding may be the
it will need to solve and members’ behavior it same as the previous routines so that some patterns
wants to manipulate (Berger, 1979). Routines of behavior can be maintained throughout the
thus originated are defined as patterns that the development of the organization. Major revisions
organization might use in order to deal with prob- may also be made so that the outdated patterns
lems and afford the stability that the organization can be dropped. With the dynamic development
needs to further develop (Feldman & Pentland, of the organization, this shared behavioral norm
2003; Pentland, 1995). Thus, routines set the underlies change and individuals’ readjustment
boundaries and formal processes for individuals’ according to the new norms. In this way, organiza-
role performing in organizations. tional routines become a process of organizational
In their evolutionary work, Nelson and Winter learning executed by individuals. The effect of
(1982) point out the added importance of routines a functional and flexible organizational routine
as organizational memory. They suggest that on human information interaction is thus, clearly
“the routinisation of activity in an organization demonstrated.
constitutes the most important form of storage of
the organization’s specific operational knowledge formal reward system and
(p. 99)” in the sense that they represent successful motivational factors
solutions to particular problems (Dosi, Winter, &
Teece, 1992). What sets organizational routines as Knowledge work is a discretionary human be-
a different type of repository from other so-called havior (Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Thus, the
knowledge warehouses, databases, and documents intensive involvement of individuals in human
is its dynamic nature in storing tacit knowledge information (knowledge) interactions is a require-
(Feldman & Pentland, 2003). In other words, ment for successful knowledge sharing (Cabrera
routines capture the “individually- held-knowl- & Cabrera, 2002).
edge-applied in the firm” at its joints, particularly One method that organizations may use to
in its application. The powerful role played by motivate individuals towards desirable sharing/
organizational routines can be clearly observed transferring behavior is through formal reward
when looking at how organizational knowledge is systems, where both monetary rewards and social
stored, applied, decayed, and changed in routin- rewards are granted on the basis of evaluations of
ized business practices (Becker, 2004). individuals’ sharing efforts in daily work (Argote
In addition, the duality of routines points to et. al., 2003). Although many studies demonstrate
the importance of individual behavior on organi- that the influence of a formal reward system is
zational operation when official routines are dys- only somewhat effective in promoting knowledge
functional (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). Routines sharing (Hooff & Ridder, 2004; Meyer & Allen,
always involve people doing things, reflecting on 1997), the absence of formal rewards for knowl-
what they are doing, and changing their behavior edge sharing or information transfer can send a
as a result of reflections on routines. With the ac- negative message, thus, demotivating individuals
cumulating changes in daily practice by individu- from committing to such interactions (Herzberg,
als, routines-in-practice (Feldman & Pentland, 1964). Therefore, studies suggest that the evalu-
2003) actually change the way organizations are ation of knowledge-sharing efforts and active
operating. By executing daily business routines, interaction of individuals should be included in
individuals share their understanding with col- the current performance evaluation system so
leagues and form common understandings among that it can gain legitimacy among organization
themselves about the “behavioral norms” (Weick, members (Tyler, 1997)
0
Knowledge Sharing
Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) describe another sharing include: The tacitness of knowledge shared
interesting type of reward system. In attempting among partners; the degree of common language
to deal with the inefficiency of traditional formal that exists between the parties involved in shar-
reward mechanisms, they argue that instead of ing; the trust that exists between relevant parties
rewarding individuals for certain behavior, orga- (Pan & Scarbrough, 1999; Roberts, 2000;). He
nizations should focus on increasing the value of concludes that the best scenario for the success of
collective gain, combining a knowledge exchange knowledge sharing through ICT is when all these
program with a gain-sharing or profit sharing plan barriers have been effectively removed.
(Lawler, 2000) in which every individual receives Different from Hooff and Ridder (2004), who
a bonus based on the success of the knowledge- argue that information technology has no direct
sharing program. This motivating mechanism is impact on knowledge sharing, Hendriks (1999)
clearly different from rewarding individuals with claims that by removing space and time difference,
selective incentives (Davenport & Prusak, 1997). providing access to information, improving the
Since an individual is not rewarded directly for process and locating knowledge carriers/seekers
contributing to the shared databases, the motiva- in the organizations, information and communi-
tion to contribute and get involved comes from the cation technology can affect the motivation for
fact that employees receive a reward if knowledge- knowledge sharing both directly (as a hygiene
sharing program is successful (Cabrera & Cabrera, factor) and indirectly (by influencing the motiva-
2002). Thus, an individuals’ commitment to the tion factors).
group, as well as motivations to be involved in
sharing activities, is both heightened for the long
term (Wiener, 1982). informal organizational
factors influencing Ks
formal communication channel and
information technology informal Knowledge (information)
sharing networks and Knowledge
As with formal reward systems, the information access
technology and communication channels pro-
vided by the organization are hygiene motivating Recent studies of workplace practices indicate
factors (Herzberg, 1964) for knowledge sharing that the ways people actually work usually dif-
(Hendriks, 1999; Hislop, 2002; Hooff & Ridder, fer fundamentally from the ways organizations
2004; Roberts, 2000). In other word, although would describe that work in manuals, training
the availability of these communication channels programs, organizational charts, and job descrip-
does not motivate employees, the lack of organi- tions (Nelson & Winter, 1982). Hence, the em-
zational communication facilitated by informa- bedded nature of knowledge in its social context
tion technology can demotivate individuals from mandates a look into the important role served
participating in related activities. by informal structure, the relationships, attitudes,
In questioning the role that information tech- and behaviors that are not fully specified in the
nology and systems can play in knowledge shar- formal scheme (Searing, 1991).
ing, Hislop (2002) discusses how certain factors Informal organizations are important, since it
can affect the dynamics of knowledge sharing would be impossible for organizations to operate
and the role of information systems. The barriers (Selznick, 1943), or carry out knowledge-sharing
he proposes for effective information and com- initiatives without them. While formal organiza-
munication technology (ICT) use in knowledge tional structures set the boundaries of informal

Knowledge Sharing
structure, the latter, and its originated norms newcomers’ learning of organizational knowl-
and values, are the main driving force of human edge, task mastery, and role clarity.
behavior (Cobb, 1980). The informal structure
bound to knowledge sharing is the informal organizational climate and informal
knowledge-sharing networks in organizations norms
(Wenger, 2000).
Most empirical studies have found that an The influence of organizational climate (culture)
employee’s centrality in an intraorganizational on employee behavior and motivation has been a
network is related to the power individuals can popular topic (Denison, 1996; O’Reilly & Chat-
enjoy in the organization (Krackhardt, 1990; man, 1996). Defined by Tagiuri and Litwin (1968)
Marsden, 1983; Tushman & Romanelli, 1983). as “the relatively enduring quality of the total [or-
Based on this argument, Brass and Burkhardt ganizational] environment that (a) is experienced
(1993) argued that people in central network by the occupants, (b) influences their behavior and
positions might have greater access to, and po- (c) can be described in terms of the values of a
tential control over, relevant resources such as particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of
information and knowledge. Therefore, positions the environment,” nine climate dimensions are
in a knowledge-sharing network will have a di- generally used to describe the organizational
rect impact on individuals’ capability to access environment perceived by individual members:
certain knowledge (Fidel & Green, 2004) and structure, responsibility, reward, risk, warmth,
share it thereafter. support, standard, conflict, and identity (Litwin
In his empirical study of 120 new product & Stringer, 1968). Originating from climate,
development projects, Hansen (2002) suggests three types of organizational factors closely
that building different ties with different strengths related to knowledge sharing are: Shared norms
in the organizational knowledge-sharing network of individual members regarding knowledge
under different contexts can contribute signifi- sharing (Related to structure and responsibility)
cantly to the project teams’ success in securing (Biggart & Hamilton, 1984; Cremer, 2002; Tyler,
useful knowledge for new product design. While 1997;); Trust and reciprocity (related to reward and
the presence of a strong tie is essential for tacit risk) (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Ostrom, 2003); and
knowledge transfer across units and new knowl- competition and promotional aspiration (related
edge generation, a weak-tie network is more likely to warmth and organizational support) (Hooff &
to be associated with non-redundant contacts and Ridder, 2003; Wiener, 1982).
information resources. Thus, for a project team to As mentioned before, organizational norms
fully explore the benefits of knowledge sharing underlying informal structure are the main con-
via informal social networks, it needs to carefully structing factor of individual behavior (Cremer,
decide what kind or combination of networks 2002). Scores of studies have confirmed the
with different tie strengths to maintain between likelihood of conformity within small groups
knowledge seekers and knowledge owners. to their norms (Stein, 1982) and compliance to
The benefits of different types of social net- norms that persons attribute to others (Fishbein
works were also investigated by Morrison (2002) & Ajzen, 1975). Thus internalized norms shared
in her study on the influence of informal social by all members could bring positive knowledge-
networks on newcomers’ knowledge acquisition sharing behavior while instrumental norms could
and sharing. Her results also suggest that different prevent group members from effectively sharing
types of social networks (Informational network; (O’Reilly, 1978; Read, 1962).
friendship network) offer different benefits for the

Knowledge Sharing
Zucker (1977) discusses the importance of The importance of perceived trustworthiness

shared norms in facilitating active human informa- in organizational knowledge sharing is also con-
tion interaction in organizations within and across firmed by Andrews and Delahaye (2000). They
generations. She argues that by institutionalizing argue that trust plays a central role in deciding
the same knowledge-sharing norms and values how knowledge is shared among organization
across units and across generations, organizations members. Their study demonstrates that in the
can maintain uniformity of cultural understand- absence of trust, formal knowledge-sharing
ing about knowledge sharing and information practices are insufficient to encourage individu-
behavior, and thus maintain the tradition of als to share knowledge with others in the same
knowledge-sharing related behavior. community. Especially in a competitive working
These results have been confirmed by O’Reilly environment, members’ decisions on whether to
and Chatman (1996) in their study of shared norms share knowledge are largely determined by the
as a social control system in organizations. From a presence or absence of trust between the sharers
psychological perspective, they demonstrate how (Read, 1962; Roberts, 2000).
a shared normative order can influence members’ Reciprocity, defined as “acts that individuals
focus of attention, shape interpretations of events, take to help others and share information with-
and guide attitudes and behavior. Thus, a strong out negotiation of terms and without knowledge
organizational climate, where knowledge sharing of whether or when the other will reciprocate”
is highly valued, could lead to better outcomes (Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000), is an-
for sharing. other informal motivator for knowledge sharing
When the situation strength (Mischel, 1977) that does not require the presence of a positive
of the organizational climate is not strong, that is knowledge-sharing climate (Ipe, 2003).
to say, when norms in the organizational climate Empirical evidence on the relationship between
are insufficiently strong to provide guidance and reciprocity and knowledge sharing indicates that
incentives for individuals to behave in a particular receiving knowledge from others stimulates a re-
way or construe particular events in a similar way ciprocal flow of knowledge in the direction of the
(Mischel, 1977, p. 347), trust between members sender both horizontally and vertically (Schulz,
becomes the leading determinant factor for indi- 2001). Support for the relationship between reci-
viduals to decide whether to actively participate procity and knowledge sharing is also found by
in knowledge sharing (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Hall (2001) and Dyer and Nobeoka (2000). Similar
In writing about knowledge communities to trust, a negative aspect of reciprocity is the
(“groups or organizations whose primary purpose fear of exploitation, which has been found to be
is the development and promulgation of collec- a serious threat to knowledge sharing between
tive knowledge”), Kramer (1999) refers to trust individuals (Empson, 2001). Fear of exploitation
as being a critical factor that influences the way can cause extreme anxiety in the knowledge-shar-
knowledge is shared within these communities. ing community, particularly when individuals
According to Kramer, barriers to trust arise perceive that they are being asked to give away
from perceptions that others are not contributing valuable knowledge without knowing what benefit
equally to the community or that others might they will receive in return (Ipe, 2003).
exploit their own cooperative efforts. From this When compared to other factors with a positive
knowledge sharing, dilemmas emerge in the com- influence on knowledge sharing outside a positive
munity where individuals are reluctant to share communication climate (Hooff & Ridder, 2004),
knowledge cooperatively and attempt to exploit the presence of competition and promotion aspira-
sharing efforts made by others in the same com- tion revels itself as a potentially serious barrier to
munity (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002).

Knowledge Sharing
cooperative knowledge sharing and intraorgani- is such a process whereby an individual acquires
zational communication (Read, 1962). both social and task-related knowledge and the
In three field studies conducted in three major skills necessary to assume an organizational role
industrial organizations in the US, Read (1962) (Blankenship, 1980). As suggested by Shibutani
confirms that the stronger the mobility aspirations (1962), the perspective individuals gain through
of subordinates, the more likely they are to com- the socialization process provides an ordered
municate with supervisors in a way that maxi- view of the work life that will run ahead of and
mizes positive and minimizes negative aspects. guide experiences, order and shape personal re-
Thus, they would be likely to withhold, restrict, or lationships in the work setting, and provide the
distort information about the problems that they ground rules under which everyday conduct will
experience in their daily work. Only the positive be managed. This perception might or might not
and harmonious relationships among organiza- fit with management’s expectations, but it will
tional members, particularly those who differ in determine the individuals’ behavior (Weick, 1995)
formal authority, can mediate this tendency to in knowledge sharing.
withhold negative information. At the same time, individuals can change the
Using two lab experiments and one field study, backbone of organizational survival: the current
O’Reilly (1978) investigates the influence of organizational value and norm structure (Wiener,
competition among peers on their lateral informa- 1982). By socializing personal values and norms
tion transfer. The results show that competition via watercooler chat or hallway encounters (Dav-
among peers can easily result in the distortion of ernport & Prusak, 1997), individuals can share
information transmitted. This study also confirms their knowledge and opinions with colleagues
that the mobility aspiration of subordinates can (Blankenship, 1980). It is also in this socializa-
distort negative information and the free flow of tion process that new knowledge is generated and
accurate information among peers. shared. Thus Van Maanen and Schein (1979) con-
clude that because of the ubiquity and persistence
opportunities for effective of socialization processes, management must
socialization pay close attention to the design of socialization
tactics that direct individuals’ behavior towards
The last but not the least critical organizational desirable directions.
factor we will discuss in human information inter- By putting these organizational factors into
actions is the opportunity for effective socializa- the knowledge-sharing process model offered
tion. While the informal organization and norms earlier by this chapter, we can get a model of
offer the possibility of knowledge generation and organizational knowledge sharing. Of course,
information communication necessity (Ipe, 2003), there may be more organizational factors that need
the socialization process is where these informa- to be taken into account when studying specific
tion and knowledge are communicated efficiently organizational knowledge-sharing phenomenon.
among organizational members and carried over However, organizational factors presented here
through generations (Zucker, 1977). enjoy a more salient role in shaping knowledge
According to Van Maanen and Schein (1979), sharing. Systematic categorization of formal
what people learn about their work roles and or- and informal organizational factors also offers a
ganizational environment is often a direct result more flexible analyzing tool in accommodating
of how they learn it. Organizational socialization additional organizational factors.

Knowledge Sharing
implications When talking about the importance of learn-

ing and social assimilation for newcomers, Saks
theoretical implications on Ks and Ashforth (1997) mention the importance of
acquiring and integrating a wide range of new
When organizational contexts are combined with information. They point out that in order for
the iterative process view of knowledge sharing, newcomers to pursue long-term development in
two major theoretical implications emerge to af- the organization, they must master at least four
fect future studies of knowledge sharing: types of knowledge: (a) Organizational knowledge
(knowing about the larger organizational context);
1. The detailed presentation of formal and in- (b) Task mastery (knowing how to perform the
formal organizational structures, motivating job); (c) Role clarity (knowing the responsibili-
factors, and communication channels used ties and constraints associated with one’s posi-
in the knowing process offers a systematic tion); and (d) Social assimilation (establishment
model for investigating knowledge sharing of successful and satisfying work relationships)
in an organizational context. Although the (Morrision, 2002).
importance of institutional environment, or- While these four categories are all part of either
ganizational factors and informal organiza- the tacit dimension of knowledge or its explicit
tion have been stressed in previous research, counterpart, they provide a more powerful analytic
this chapter is among the first attempts to tool for integrating the organizational context of
systematically detail organizational fac- human-knowledge-related behavior.
tors that influence human information
behavior and knowledge-sharing activity,
where Organizational initiatives (formal practical implications
and informal)--- Communication channels
(formal and informal)--- and Motivating Knowledge management system
factors (formal and informal) for individu- design
als’ commitment are related in investigating
individuals’ sharing behavior. While formal With the introduction of this new approach
organizational structure and reward systems towards knowledge sharing, the role played by
aim to motivate employees into participating modern information technology in knowledge
in active human information interaction, it management in organizations is brought to our
will not occur until a knowledge-sharing- attention again.
friendly organizational climate is present On one hand, the dimensionality of knowledge
among organizational members. Neither will points to the central role of human motivation in
it occur if the organization lacks an informal the success of knowledge sharing; on the other,
socialization process (with or without the as part of the daily business practice (social con-
presence of formal tools). Thus, the presence text), individuals employ information systems to
of these six types of organizational factors is store information (information accumulation),
imperative for active knowledge sharing. exchange work-knowledge-related information (
2. The complex nature of organizational Pipek et al., 2003) and locate experts (Ackerman,
knowledge also requires the creation of a 1994). Thus, when designing and implementing
more complex categorization of knowledge, a knowledge management system, designers,
where organizational context and knowledge system implementers, and managers have to pay
shared under that context can be related. attention to the following issues:

Knowledge Sharing
1. With the generation of various types of maintain the quality of information that is
knowledge repositories, knowledge data- shared and constantly updated. How to de-
bases, and knowledge archives in orga- sign and install a system that can iteratively
nizations, managers need to make a clear incorporate knowledge-related information
distinction between information that can contributed by individual employees while
be stored in the system and knowledge that still maintaining the quality criteria for daily
is accumulated in individuals’ mind. Thus, business practice is a constant challenge
the central focus of design should be on that an organization faces when initiating
motivating human knowledge sharing and knowledge management in organizations.
information interaction instead of trying
to use the technology to transfer and share the balance between organizations
knowledge directly. learning and exploitation
2. When designing an information system,
designers, and system analysts should make In addition to emphasizing the central role played
sure that the operation of the system reflects by motivating systems, this chapter argues that
how employees actually conduct their daily a learning environment where knowledge shar-
business. In other words, the system oping is highly valued can greatly improve both
eration should be reflecting daily business individuals’ learning efficiency (Szulanski, 1996)
processes. Thus, less discrepancy will be and the organizations’ collective benefits. Thus,
generated during installation, acceptance, it suggests that the focus for management of
and use of the new system. The buy-in of knowledge workers should actually be switched
experienced workers and experts play a from “knowledge” back to “workers.” In other
central role in this regard. words, fundamentally, the knowledge-sharing
3. To ease the cognitive load of employees problem is closely related to the existence of
in using information stored in the system friendly organizational learning environment
for daily work, designers, and managers and individualized motivating mechanisms. Once
should pay attention to the tradeoff between management can solve these problems, the bar-
information sufficiency and specificity. In riers to individuals’ knowledge sharing can be
other words, while ensuring that employees expected to fall down easily.
can find sufficient information, managers,
and designers also have to make sure that
information stored in the system can be conclusion
easily tailored towards the requirements of
a specific knowledge-intensive task. Borrowing a process view from human informa-
4. The tradeoff between system flexibility and tion behavior research, this chapter expands on
information accessibility is something that the current view of a socially constructed reality
has been discussed for a long time in IS lit- of knowledge and its sharing in the organiza-
erature. On one hand, managers, system de- tional context. An iterative view where the close
signers, and implementers want employees relationship among individuals’ sensemaking of
to contribute what they know to the system organizational rules, organizational members’
and organizational memory, so that valuable collective knowledge-sharing practice, and or-
knowledge can be accumulated for the ben- ganizational initiatives embedded in a knowing
efit of sustainability. On the other hand, the process is emphasized. Thus, an alternative ap-
system designers and management have to proach to knowledge sharing is created, and can

Knowledge Sharing
be defined as “The process where individuals • How does each factor exert its influence
exchange their (tacit or explicit) knowledge and on individuals’ information/knowledge
jointly created new knowledge in a knowing pro- behavior? Do they function by exerting their
cess under certain social contexts that are also influence directly on individuals’ knowing
constructed out of these activities.” behavior or do they need to first go through
In conclusion, this chapter suggests that individuals’ sensemaking process?
knowledge sharing in organizations is a complex • How do these organizational factors interact
process that is value laden and driven by power in influencing human information interac-
equations within the organization. Knowledge tion?
in organizations is dynamic in nature, and is • Do informal factors have stronger influence
dependent on social relationships between indi- on human information behavior than formal
viduals for its creation, sharing, and use. Thus, organizational factors? How?
to launch a successful knowledge management
initiative, both researchers and practitioners need
to clearly identify formal and informal organiza- references
tional factors that have a significant influence on
individual knowledge-sharing practices, which Ackerman, M. S. (1994). Augmenting the or-
holds the key to a successful knowledge-sharing ganizational memory: A field study of Answer
initiative. Different from what is maintained by Garden. In R. Furuta & C. Neuwirth (Eds.),
some research, this chapter emphasizes that we Proceedings of CSCW’94 (pp. 243–252). Chapel
cannot afford to ignore the role that can be played Hill, NC: ACM.
by information technology with its widespread
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influ-
use in the organizational setting. Thus, while it
ences on knowledge processes. In Organizational
is important for management to recognize the
learning: The psychosocial filter. Journal of Man-
facilitating role played by information technology,
agement Studies, 37(6), 797-810.
they also need to clearly define the role of IT in
knowledge sharing. A clear role definition of IT Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge trans-
will surely help management face the challenge fer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.
of characteristics of knowledge, generated, trans- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
ferred, and shared in embedded social processes Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
underlying organizational activities. .
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003).
Managing knowledge in organizations: An
integrative framework and review of emerging
future research directions
themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582.
While this new way of defining knowledge shar- Baldwin, N. S., & Rice, R. E. (1997). Informa-
ing offers us a new and comprehensive lens in tion-seeking behavior of securities analysts: In-
studying knowledge sharing, it is very important dividual and institutional influences, information
in the future research to empirically study this sources and channels and outcomes. Journal of
process in real work practices, where interactions the American Society for Information Science,
between individuals’ sensemaking and organiza- 48(8), 674-693.
tional factors influence knowledge sharing can be
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion
empirically understood. Specific attention must
for structuring: Evidence from observations of
be paid to the following questions:

Knowledge Sharing
CT scanners and the social order of radiology Ciborra, C. U., & Andreu, R. (2001). Sharing
departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, knowledge across boundaries. Journal of Infor-
31, 78-108. mation Technology, 16(2), 73-81.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institution Cobb, A. T. (1980) Informal influence in the
and structuration: Studying the links between formal organization: Perceived sources of power
action and institution. Organization Studies, among work unit peers. Academy of Management
18(1), 93-117. Journal, 23, 155-161.
Bechky, B. (2003). Sharing meaning across oc- Cook, S. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging
cupational communities: The transformation of epistemologies: The generative dance between
understanding on a production floor. Organization organizational knowledge and organizational
science. 14(3), 312-330 knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.
Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: Cremer, D. D. (2002). Respect and cooperation
A review of the literature. Industrial Corporate in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling
Change, 13(4), 643-677. included. Personality and Social Psychology,
28(10), 1335-1341.
Berends, H. (2005). Explore knowledge shar-
ing: Moves, problem solving and justification. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behav-
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, ioral theory of the firm. Englewood cliffs, NJ:
3, 97-105. Prentice-Hall.
Berger, C. J. (1979). Organizational structure, at- Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1997). Work-
titude and behavior. Research in Organizational ing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Behavior, 1, 169-208. School Press.
Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. (1984). The power Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference
of obedience. Administrative Science Quarterly, between organizational culture and organizational
29, 540-549. climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of
paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review,
Blankenship, R. L. (1980). Colleagues in orga-
21, 619-654.
nization. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger
Publishing Company. Deutsch, A. (1952). The mentally ill in America
(2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. (1993). Potential
Press.
power and power use: An investigation of structure
and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. An-
36(3), 441-460. nual Review of Sociology, 23, 263-287.
Burger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social Dirks, T. K., & Ferrin, D. (2001). The role of trust
construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Double- in organizational settings. Organization Science,
day & Company. 12(4), 450-467.
Burns, T., & Flam, H. (1987). The shaping of Dosi, G., Winter, S. G., & Teece, D. J. (1992).
social organization. London: Sage. Towards a theory of corporate coherence. In G.
Dosi, R. Giannetti, & P. A. Toninelli (Eds.), Tech-
Cabrera, A. & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-
nology and enterprise in a historical perspective.
sharing dilemma. Organization Studies, 23(5),
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press
687-710.

Knowledge Sharing
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and tiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3).
managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing 232-248.
network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The
Journal, 21, 345-367
influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
Empson, L. (2001). Fear of exploitation and fear sharing. Knowledge and Process Management,
of contamination: Impediments to knowledge 6(2), 91-100.
transfer in mergers between professional service
Herschel, R. T., Nemati, H., & Steiger, D. (2001).
firms. Human Relations, 54(7), 839-862
Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion: Knowl-
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Recon- edge exchange protocols. Journal of Knowledge
ceptualizing organizational routines as a source Management, 5(1), 107-116.
of flexibility and change. Administrative Science
Herzberg, F. (1964). The Motivation-Hygiene
Quarterly, 48(1), 94-113.
Concept and the problems of manpower. Person-
Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. T., & New- nel Administration, 27, 3-7.
combe, R. (2003). Knowledge-sharing context
Hislop, D. (2002). Mission impossible? Commu-
confusion and controversy. International Journal
nicating and sharing knowledge via information
of Project Management, 21, 177-187
technology. Journal of Information Technology,
Fidel, R., & Green, M. (2004). The many faces 17, 165-177.
of accessibility: Engineers’ perception of infor-
Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge
mation sources. Information Processing and
sharing in context: The influence of organizational
Management, 40, 563-581.
commitment. Communication climate and CMC
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge
interaction and behavior: An introduction to Management, 8(6), 117-130.
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organiza-
Wesley.
tions: A conceptual framework. Human Resource
Gherardi, S., Nicolini D., & Odella, F. (1998). Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
Towards a social understanding of how people
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge
learn in the organization. Management learning,
work as organizational behavior. International
29(3), 273-297.
Journal of Management Review, 2(3), 287-304.
Hall, H. (2001). Social exchange for knowledge
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political
exchange. Paper presented at Managing knowl-
landscape: Structure, cognition and power in
edge: Conversations and critiques, University
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
of Leicester Management Center, 10-11 April
35, 342-369.
2001.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in or-
Hamilton, G., & Biggart, N. W. (1985). Why
ganizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
people obey: Theoretical observations of power
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,
and obedience in complex organizations. Socio-
569-598
logical Perspectives, 28(1), 3-28.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning.
Hansen, T. M. (2002). Knowledge networks:
Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge:
Explaining effective knowledge sharing in mul-
University of Cambridge Press.

Knowledge Sharing
Lawler, E. E. III (2000). Rewarding excellence. socialization. Academy of Management Journal,

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 45(6), 1149-1160.
Leckie, G. J., Pettigrew, K. E., & Sylvain, C., Moser, P. K., & Nat, A. V. (1987). Human knowl-
(1996). Modeling the information seeking of edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
professionals: A general model derived from
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolu-
research on engineers, health care professionals,
tionary theory of economic change. Cambridge,
and lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161–193.
MA: Harvard University Press.
Linton, (2003). OWL: A system for the automated
Nonanka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of orga-
sharing of expertise. In M. Ackerman., V. Pipek,
nizational knowledge creation. Organization
& V. Wulf (Eds.), Sharing expertise. Cambridge
Science, 5(1), 14-37.
MA: MIT-Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge
Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. (1968). Motivation and
creating company: How Japanese companies cre-
organizational climate. Boston: HUP
ate the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford
Marsden, P. V. (1983). Restricted access in net- University Press
works and models of power. American Journal
O’Reilly, C. (1978). The intentional distortion of
of Sociology, 88(4), 686-717
information in organizational communication: A
Marshall, L. (1997). Facilitating knowledge laboratory and field investigation. Human Rela-
management and knowledge sharing: New options, 31,173-193.
portunities for information processionals. Online,
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture
21(5), 92-98.
as social control: Corporations, cults and com-
McGrath, J. E., & Argote, L. (2001). Group pro- mitment. Research in Organizational Behavior,
cesses in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg 18, 157-200.
& R. S. Tindale (Eds), Blackwell handbook of
Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a behavioral theory
social psychology, vol. 3 (pp. 603–627). Group
linking trust, reciprocity and reputation. In E.
Processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell,.
Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciproc-
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in ity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental
the workplace: Theory, research, and application. research (pp. 19-79). New York: Sage.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pan, S. L., & Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person management in practice: An exploratory case
and situation. In D. Maggusson, & N. S. Endler study. Technology Analysis & Strategic Manage-
(Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current ment, 11(3), 359 - 374.
issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale,
Pentland, B. T. (1995). Grammatical models of
NJ: Earlbaum.
organizational processes. Organization Science,
Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). 6(5), 541-556.
Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental
Pipek, V., Hinrichs, J., & Wulf, V. (2002). Sharing
test of a classical proposition. American Journal
expertise: Challenges for technical support. In M.
of Sociology, 105, 1396-1426.
Ackerman, V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds), Beyond
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relation- knowledge management: Sharing expertise,
ships: The role of social network ties during Cambridge MA: MIT-Press.
0
Knowledge Sharing
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New Selznick, P. (1943). An approach to a theory of
York: Doubleday & Company Inc. bureaucracy. American Sociological Review, 8,
47-54.
Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The math-
ematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL:
Pritchard, C. (2000). Know, learn and share!
University of Illinois Press.
The knowledge phenomena and the construction
of a consumptive-communicative body. In C. Shibutani, T. (1962). Reference groups and social
Pritchard, R. Hull, M. Chumer, & H. Willmott control. In Human Behavior and Social Processes
(Eds.), Managing knowledge: Critical investiga- (pp. 128-147). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
tions of work and learning. London: MacMillan
Simon, H. A. (1979). Models of thought. New
Press.
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal
industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15(1),
and external frames of reference for academic
3-15
self-concept. Educational Psychologist, 37(4),
Roberts, J. (2000). From know how to show how: 233-244.
Questioning the role of information and com-
Sonnenwald, D. H., & Pierce, L. (2000). Informa-
munication technology in knowledge transfer.
tion behavior in dynamic group work contexts:
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Interwoven situational awareness, dense social
12(4), 429-443.
networks and contested collaboration in com-
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organi- mand and control. Information Processing and
zational socialization: Making sense of the past Management, 36(3), 461-479.
and pre sent as a prologue for the future. Journal
Stein, R. T. (1982). High status group members
of Vocation al Behavior, 51, 234-279.
as exemplars: A summary of field research on the
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer J. (1977). Who gets relationship of status to congruence conformity.
power and how they hold on to it: A strategic Small Group Behavior, 13, 3-21.
contingency model of power. Organizational
Storey, J., & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge man-
Dynamics, 5, 3-21.
agement initiatives: Learning from failure. Jour-
Scarbough, H., Swan, J., & Preston, J. (1999). nal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 145-156.
Knowledge management: A literature review.
Swidler A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols
London: Institute of Personnel and Develop-
and strategies. American sociological Review,
ment.
51, 273-286
Schulz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal sticki-
newness: Organizational learning and knowl-
ness: Impedients to the transfer of best practice.
edge flows. Academy of Management Journal,
Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27-43.
44, 661-681.
Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. (1968). Organizational
Searing, D. D. (1991). Roles, rules and rationality
climate. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard
in the new institutionalism. The American Politi-
Graduate School of Business
cal Science Review, 85(4), 1239-1260.

Knowledge Sharing
Tsoukas, C. & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational additional reading

becoming: Rethinking organizational change.
Organization Science, 13(5), 567-582. Bosworth, S. L., & Kreps, G. A. (1986). Struc-
ture as process: Organization and role. American
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1983). Uncer-
Sociological Review, 51(5), 699-716.
tainty, social location and influence in decision
making: A sociometric analysis. Management Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational
Science, 29(1), 12-23. learning and communities of practice: Toward a
unified view of working, learning and innovation.
Tyler, R. T. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy:
Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
A relational perspective on voluntary deference
to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker produc-
Review, 1(4), 323-345. tivity: The biggest challenge. California Manage-
ment review, 41, 79-94.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward
a theory of organizational socialization. Research Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines
in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264. as a source of continuous change. Organization
Science, 11(6), 611-629
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organiza-
tional memory. Academy of Management Review, Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynami-
16, 57–91. cally-competitive environments: Organizational
capability as knowledge integration. Organization
Weick, K. E. (1979) The social psychology of
Science, 7(4), 375-387.
organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer prob-
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organiza-
lem: The role of weak tie in sharing knowledge
tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
across organization subunits. Administrative
Inc.
Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1998). Pro-
and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2),
cedural justice, strategic decision making and
225-246
the knowledge economy. Strategic Management
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: Journal, 19, 323-338.
A normative view. Academy of Management
Lam, (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational
Review, 7(3), 418-428.
learning and societal institutions: An integrated
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understand- framework. Organization Studies, 2(3), 487-
ing computers and cognition. Reading, MA: 513.
Addison-Wesley.
Lawler, E. E. III, Hall, D. T., & Oldham, G. R.
Zhao, L., & Reisman, A. (1992). Toward metare- (1974). Organizational climate: Relationship to
search on technology transfer. IEEE Transactions organizational structure, process and perfor-
on Engineering Management, 39(1), 13-21. mance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 11, 139-155.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionaliza-
tion in cultural persistence. American Sociological Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The
Review, 42, 726-743. myopia of learning. Strategic Management Jour-

Knowledge Sharing
nal, 14 (Special Issue: Organizations, decision tion systems: The role of meta-abilities. Journal
making), 95-112. of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 128-139.
Manning, P. (1980). Talking and becoming: A Silverman, D. (1971). The theory of organizations.
view of organizational socialization. In R.L. New York: Basic Books.
Blankenship (Ed.), Colleagues in Organization.
Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge-
Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing
intensive firms. Journal of Management Study,
Company.
29(7), 13–738.
McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming
Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed
structural barrier to sharing knowledge. Journal
knowledge system: A constructionist approach.
of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(Special Issue:
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in Knowledge and the firm), 11-25.
the workplace: Theory, research, and application.
Tyler, R.T. (1999). Why people cooperate with
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
organizations: An identity-based perspective.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organiza- Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 201-
tional knowledge creation. Organization Science, 246.
5(1), 14-37.
Van Maanen, J. (1973). Observations on the
Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organi- making of policemen. Human Organizations,
zational routines as grammars of action. Admin- 32, 407-418.
istrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484-510.
Weick, K. E. (1993). Collapse of sensemaking in
Selamat, M. H., & Jyoti, C. (2004). The diffusion organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster. Admin-
of tacit knowledge and its implications on informa- istrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.

Chapter II
The Centrality of Team Leaders
in Knowledge-Sharing
Activities:
Their Dual Role as Knowledge Processors
Evangelia Siachou
Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
Anthony Ioannidis
Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece
abstract
This chapter focuses on the extraction of accurate knowledge embedded in various Internet repositories,
liable to frequent updates of content, and the effective sharing within organizational teams; an area that
has not been extensively researched. We will address this issue by exploring the central and dual role of
team leaders in their capacity as knowledge processors, functioning both as “sources” and “recipients”
of net-based knowledge. The case of action teams that have to deal with unpredictable situations and
thus, need to obtain and make instant use of accurate knowledge, is also considered. Further suggestions
are made regarding team leaders’ active participation in particular knowledge-sharing channels, the
multifaceted nature of the knowledge exchange, the essentiality of time boundaries, as well as knowledge-
search and knowledge-sharing costs. Besides making concrete suggestions, and far from exhausting the
various issues in the literature of knowledge sharing, this study offers a potentially new scope for the
team leader’s role in the knowledge society on the Internet.
introduction majority of employees working, within various

organizations, who are in great need of obtaining
Seeking information through Web sites has and using new knowledge to productively carry
become one of the principal activities for the out their daily work-related tasks (Voorbij, 1999).
The Centrality of Team Leaders in Knowledge-Sharing Activities
The extensive implication of the World Wide Web Furthermore, in order for such a transfer of
concerns, among other issues, the easy utilization, knowledge to be effective and enable action teams
convenience of downloaded material, retrieval to make valuable use of the new knowledge ac-
speed, and numerous tools available to users quired from outside the team, the whole process
that facilitate their navigation through the Web. should take place within strict time constraints,
Accordingly, both individuals and teams, within in a coordinated sequence of actions (Davenport
or among organizations, have vast amounts of in- & Glaser, 2002). It should also be noted that the
formation at their disposal (ranging from general quality of the incoming knowledge, together with
to very specific) accessed through the knowledge the immediate transfer to the team members,
embedded in various Internet repositories, which determines the effectiveness of the sharing of
is increasing at an unprecedented rate. The Internet knowledge accessed through various Web pages.
provides storage devices of valuable knowledge Consequently, there is a great need for a team
whose effective utilization assists each individual leader to play the dual role of knowledge proces-
and/or work team within an organization in suc- sor, behaving both as a knowledge “recipient”
cessfully completing assigned tasks. However, and as a “source” in the analysis, acceptance/
decisions concerning the extraction and use of rejection, assimilation, sharing, and effective
the appropriate knowledge embedded in various utilization of incoming knowledge from Internet
Web sites are still difficult to make, especially repositories.
since this body of knowledge is enormous and Taking into account the complexity of
comes from a multitude of sources. Moreover, knowledge-sharing activities (Argote, McEvily,
knowledge obtained through the Internet is liable & Reegans, 2003; Darr, Argote, & Epple, 1995;
to frequent updates of content and thus, reusing Epple, Argote, & Devadas, 1991), it is expected
it unquestioningly is not always recommended that knowledge processors support and promote
in similar situations in the future. Such issues the sharing of knowledge within action teams,
may not allow the members of organizational exhibiting a number of characteristics that could
work teams to promptly and effectively utilize affect the efficiency of the exchange of net-based
net-based knowledge. knowledge. Building on Szulanski’s (1996) pro-
More specifically, looking into the case of posed characteristics of “sources” and “recipients”
action teams, which operate as “knowledge of knowledge in his prior work, team leaders,
communities” within an organization and which when playing the dual role of knowledge proces-
are comprised of members with special skills sors, need to recognize the value of incoming
who have to deal with unpredictable situations, knowledge, make the necessary modifications
such limitations may impair their performance in order for the newly obtained knowledge to be
outcomes. That is to say, in order for members implemented successfully where necessary, or,
of action teams to effectively overcome difficult similarly, to institutionalize the utilization of the
situations, they increasingly need to obtain, and incoming knowledge. The implication here is that
instantly use, accurate and specific knowledge, the characteristics that knowledge processors have
which they do not always possess, at a faster to manifest, in their roles as knowledge sources
rate (Edmondson, 2003). If this is the case, the or knowledge recipients, affect the value of the
new, incoming knowledge derived from Internet transfer and the use of the incoming knowledge
repositories (large, accessible and valuable infor- within the team and thus, could be barriers or
mation storage devices) may enable action teams enablers when a knowledge exchange occurs.
to complete their tasks successfully. In addition, team leaders can share knowledge
obtained from outside the team in two ways:

through “personal formal” or “personal informal” comprehensive overview of different perspectives

communication channels. The former is taken to of organizational knowledge sharing, evaluating
mean scheduled communication activities while subject-related studies by various well-known
the latter refers to similar, though unscheduled, researchers in this field. This review contributes
communication activities (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; to the exemplification of the multifaceted nature
Nelson & Cooprider, 1996). Furthermore, the of the sharing of knowledge within organiza-
level of the team leader’s active or non-active tions. The subsequent section comprehensively
participation in the aforementioned communica- addresses the fundamental role of knowledge
tion channels, where knowledge-sharing activities processors in knowledge-sharing activities by
occur, affects the performance outcomes of the using the case of action teams (which operate as
action teams. In particular, it is considered that knowledge communities) as the content of this
the team leader’s active participation in com- analysis. A different perspective of knowledge
munication channels (formal or informal) will sharing is provided by discussing significant
enable the members of the team to make valuable issues, concepts, and ideas related to the com-
use of the incoming knowledge acquired from plexity of knowledge-exchange activities. Then,
outside the team (i.e., accessed from Internet an insight into the value of knowledge exchange
repositories), thus, allowing them to complete in the performance outcomes of knowledge com-
their tasks successfully, yielding beneficial per- munities is also given. The final section compares
formance outcomes. and contrasts the fundamental role of the human
factor in the knowledge transfer process and
presents the general conclusions of this work.
the significance of this Scope is left for further study to provide a more
study extensive assessment of the potential ability of
knowledge processors to cope with the demands
The significance of knowledge processors ex- of the exchange of knowledge derived from the
amined in this chapter lies in it constituting a Internet, while parallel suggestions for future
conceptual study aiming to approach issues research are made.
concerning the valuable sharing of knowledge
embedded in Internet repositories. These issues
can be seen from the viewpoint of the wider field literature review
of Knowledge Management, focusing particular
attention on the case of action teams. It can be said The sharing of knowledge can be generally
that the relationships that the proposed framework described as a knowledge management activity
recognizes do provide some support for sugges- that takes place within organizations when one
tions concerning the role of the team leaders in the party gains access to new knowledge through
effective knowledge-sharing channels, as they are personal experience and the experiences of an-
part of internal core organizational activities. At other party. These two parties, in turn, exchange
the same time, scope is left for further empirical considerations, elaborations, and modifications
study to provide a more accurate assessment of to the original knowledge, that broaden and add
the potential effect of team leaders’ dual role in considerable value to the ongoing growth of
coping with the demands of the profitable exploi- knowledge (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Hansen,
tation of Internet-based knowledge. Mors, & Lovas, 2005). Knowledge sharing can
In this chapter, we review the management occur on various levels: among individuals,
literature on knowledge sharing, and provide a within teams, or among teams in an organization

(Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Argote & Ingram, 2000; vs. personal (i.e., knowledge held by a firm’s (tal-
Rulke, Zaheer, & Anderson, 2000). On each of ented) employees in the form of expertise) (Haas
these levels, there is a relationship of knowledge & Hansen, 2005; Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney,
exchange, between a source (or sources) and a 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1994, 1995; Zander &
recipient (or recipients), that depends on the char- Kogut, 1995), or rooted in various organizational
acteristics of everyone involved; that is to say, on sources vs. gained from sources outside the or-
the willingness or unwillingness of the source to ganization (Dushnitsky & Lenox, 2005; Inkpen
share knowledge, and/or the recipient’s absorp- & Dinur, 1998; Simonin, 1999). Knowledge can
tive capacity or lack of this capacity (Jarvenpaa also signify the specification (know-how, crafts,
& Staples, 2001; Szulanski, 1996). skills applied in a specific context) or provide
Scholars in the field of knowledge manage- access to unique information about a product,
ment have approached knowledge sharing, from service, or practice, that is, the knowledge in
different viewpoints, by drawing a distinction products, processes, and practices, including
between the knowledge shared within (Allen, organizational routines, offered by organizations
1977; Dahlin, Weingart, & Hinds, 2005; Hack- (Cummings, 2004; Hansen, 1999). Organizational
man, 1990; Katz, 1982; Nelson & Cooprider, knowledge to be shared can also vary in terms of
1996) and outside (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; its contribution (know-why), relatedness (know-
Brown & Utterback, 1985; Cummings, 2004; with), context conditional (know-when) (Zack,
Hackman, 1987) organizational subunits. In 1998, as cited in Alavi & Leidner, 2001), and/or
particular, a distinction has been made between the usefulness of its implementation in areas of
the intraorganizational (Brown & Duguid, 1991; the organization where it is needed, yielding
Szulanski, 1996) and interorganizational sharing beneficial outcome.
of knowledge (Hardy, Philips, & Lawrence, 2003). Researchers have also approached the shar-
On the intraorganizational level, the sharing of ing of knowledge by analyzing informal and/or
knowledge occurs among different individuals formal relations among individuals, and within
or groups within an organization comprising a teams or among teams in an organization (An-
network, whilst on the interorganizational level, cona & Caldwell, 1992; Gupta & Govindarajan,
knowledge is shared among the same subunits 2000; Levin & Cross, 2004). The members of an
of the organization (e.g., group, department, or organization (either individually or on a teamwork
division) (Tsai, 2001). However, it is evident that level) are connected to each other through devel-
in both of the aforementioned cases, the sharing oping both formal (e.g., scheduled face-to-face
of knowledge embedded in various organizational and/or departmental meetings, speak-up groups,
sources is positively linked with organizational conferences relevant to the tasks undertaken) and
effectiveness (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Argote et informal (e.g., unscheduled face-to-face and/or
al., 2003) and superior performance outcome. departmental meetings, coffee-break conversa-
Moreover, other subject-related studies have tions) communication channels. Such (com-
focused on the nature of knowledge to be shared munication) channels are also dependent on the
that can be tacit (i.e., knowledge originating from hierarchical structure dominant in the organiza-
beliefs, experience and view points, and hardly tion that they are employed (Lu, Leung, & Koch,
codified) vs. explicit (i.e., knowledge expressed, 2006). Furthermore, such formal and/or informal
impressed, and communicated in symbolic form structures and systems could effectively promote
and easily codified) (Polanyi, 1966), codified the sharing of knowledge within an organiza-
(i.e., knowledge embedded in a firm’s electronic tion (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Darr et al., 1995;
systems format in the form of written documents) Rulke et al., 2000). The relevant literature has

isolated several mechanisms that could facilitate concepts within the formulation of multinational
the sharing of knowledge, given the appropriate corporations include the types of embedded
conditions: personnel movement, ongoing train- knowledge to be shared (organization specific,
ing, the development of formal and/or informal industry specific, know-how, partnering, and
communication channels, patents, replications of resource-integration knowledge), the collabora-
routines, interactions with suppliers and custom- tive experience, the size of the firm, and the life
ers, as well as different forms of organizational span of various kinds of corporations (e.g., stra-
corporations (e.g., mergers or acquisitions, and tegic alliances, joint ventures, corporate venture
alliances such as international joint ventures, capitals, mergers and acquisitions) (Simonin,
investments in corporate venture capitals, etc.) 1999). In other words, organizations are viewed
(Argote & Ingram, 2000; Dushnitsky & Lenox, as repositories of knowledge and, what is more,
2005; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Inkpen & they are also in possession of a range of different
Dinur, 1998; Simonin, 1999). types of organizational knowledge and carriers
Additionally, other scholars (Nelson & to share it. Additionally, the ability of these or-
Cooprider, 1996) have used an organizational ganizations to share their knowledge across the
behavior perspective to propose factors that corporations they have created is also examined
could affect the transfer of knowledge among (Inkpen & Dinur, 1998).
functional groups in an organization. They have The notion of organizational knowledge-shar-
found, specifically, that mutual trust and influence ing, residing in the several different theoretical
increase the levels of shared knowledge between perspectives discussed, offers a broad view of
the functional groups, leading to further benefi- the organizational context in which the sharing
cial organizational performance outcomes. In the of knowledge takes place. Namely, the presence
same vein, the role of weak ties in distributing of an appropriate organizational context within
knowledge across organizational subunits in a an organization to support the sharing of knowl-
multiunit organization is discussed by Hansen edge is almost a prerequisite for such a process
(1999), who found that the effective exchange of to occur. In other words, organizations have to
complex knowledge requires strong ties among first create the appropriate organizational culture
the parties involved in a knowledge-exchange that respects knowledge sharing and second, to
activity. The same author expanded his previous establish a suitable knowledge infrastructure (i.e.,
work, which addressed similar issues, by develop- the appropriate communication channels) that en-
ing a multiple network viewpoint and explaining hances and facilitates the exchange of knowledge
the outcome of knowledge sharing that occurs in among or within its constituent functional parties.
different subsets of social networks (Hansen et Thus, the aspects of an organizational context can
al., 2005). Using this perspective, other authors be summarized into the organizational culture,
have focused on the specific roles (e.g., problem- structure, knowledge management systems, and
solving or decision-making actors) that various the relationships developed among the members
parties can undertake during their participation of an organization, either individually or on a
in a knowledge-sharing process (Choo, 1996; teamwork level (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Lu et
Nohria & Ghoshal, 1997; Schulz, 2003). al., 2006; Rulke et al., 2000).
The sharing of knowledge has further been Although it is very difficult to pinpoint the
conceptualized within multinational corpora- proper organizational context to support the shar-
tions as a function of several elements (e.g., the ing of organizational knowledge, it is believed that
motivational tendency of the source to share its formal and informal structures and systems (i.e.,
knowledge with others). Additional examined formal and informal communication channels),

sources and coordination of expertise, familiarity members of non-action teams that often deal with
with knowledge-oriented technologies, and the routine work tasks do not feel such time pressure.
behavior-framing characteristics of knowledge In case they have to assimilate knowledge from
sharing could effectively promote the knowledge outside their team, they have time at their disposal
exchange within an organization. In the present to search for, scan, analyze, and elaborate the
work, the focus is on following specific aspects of majority of the accessed Internet repositories in
the organizational context. Firstly, the organiza- order to extract and apply the most appropriate
tional context impels employees, either individu- knowledge (where it is/as it is) required. Thus, they
ally or within their work teams, to share the specific manifest an increased participation in net-based
knowledge required in order to complete their knowledge-searching activities, in comparison
tasks effectively (appropriate organizational cul- with the members of action teams. Members of
ture). Secondly, the structure of the organization non-action teams are also grouped together to
in which they are employed facilitates the imple- complete specific tasks, and are in great need of
mentation of knowledge-sharing mechanisms, and team leader’s supervision, who often takes on the
also supports certain employees’ actions aimed dual role of the knowledge processor. Owing to
at sharing specific knowledge extracted mainly the fact that the routine work tasks can normally
from Internet repositories (appropriate structure). be performed without the assimilation of new
Thirdly, team leaders function as knowledge knowledge, the development and the establish-
processors, and their actions may increase the ment of a knowledge-sharing culture depends
effectiveness of knowledge sharing (appropriate mainly on the team leader’s active participation
team leadership). in such activities. As opposed to routine tasks,
the nature of the tasks that have been undertaken
by the members of action teams presupposes a
theoretical foundations greater sense of knowledge-sharing culture and
close collaboration.
The teams to be analyzed in this framework are From this perspective, action teams are also
defined as action teams, owing to the unpredictable considered “knowledge communities.” Accord-
situations that their members frequently face. In ing to the organizational school’s point of view,
other words, the tasks undertaken by the members knowledge communities consist of people, with
of such teams cannot be characterized as well- common interests, experiences, and problems,
defined and static tasks. In contrast, action teams that have been formally created in order to carry
have to complete complicated tasks that are often out a specific task (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Earl,
inadequately supported by the task design, the 2001; Ferran-Urdaneta, 1999; Lindkvist, 2005;
composition of their team, and the organizational Shanei, Sena, & Stebbins, 2000). The members
activity. These tasks can sometimes only be per- of knowledge communities are bound by formal
formed through additional access to specific and relationships, and they have to share their specific
accurate knowledge derived from Internet reposi- knowledge and expertise in order to complete their
tories. What needs to be stressed in this situation tasks successfully. The key features of knowledge
is that this knowledge must be extracted and used communities, defined for the purposes of this
within specific time constraints in a coordinated work, are that they are supported by technology
sequence of actions (Edmondson, 2003; Kanter, and, by the same token, operate in a behavioral
1982; Masrick, 1994; Senge, 1990). framework that supports the knowledge sharing
This is the main difference between action and exchange among their members, who interact
and non-action teams. More specifically, the with each other frequently on a routine basis. It

is important to distinguish these communities possess, (and is thus “highly personal”), is hard
from the so-called communities-of-practice, to codify in documentation and, therefore, hard
which consist of knowledge possessors bound by to communicate, since it consists of both physi-
informal relationships that share similar roles and cal skills and a cognitive framework, which are
a common context (Lesser & Prusak, 1999). It is difficult to find within particular repositories.
also important to mention here that well-known Consequently, tacit knowledge is difficult to share
companies, like Xerox, Shell, and BP, make ex- electronically.
tensive use of knowledge communities by bring- In the context of this approach to action teams
ing together experts who possess large amounts within the structure of knowledge communities,
of unique knowledge in order to achieve high the team leader’s participation in knowledge-
levels of productivity by completing demanding sharing activities inside that team may affect the
tasks and dealing with unpredictable situations value of the organizational net-based knowledge.
(Earl, 2001). Team leaders are considered to be knowledge
Another dominant issue in question is the processors, playing a fundamental role in filter-
knowledge embedded in different Internet reposi- ing through enormous volumes of data found in
tories (the total of various Web sites that include numerous Internet sites, in order to pinpoint the
subject specific archives). This knowledge is most relevant knowledge at that point in time. In
subject related to action teams’ assigned tasks, this way, they can reshape and transform such data
and can greatly increase their productivity. From into accessible information, which is then used by
an information-technology perspective, explicit the members of the action teams to successfully
knowledge (whose latent value is revealed through complete their tasks. Therefore, it is expected of
its communication) (Grant, 1996, as cited in His- team leaders to set up the conditions required to
lop, 2002) can be codified and shared electroni- obviate the inherent difficulties in the process of
cally; hence, it supports the information exchange sharing knowledge. This process is, by nature, a
through the Internet infrastructure (Swan et al., complex series of actions that afford maximum
1999, as cited in Hislop, 2002). In contrast, tacit benefit when many different components are
knowledge that, according to Nonaka and Takeu- heeded simultaneously (Davenport & Prusak,
chi (1994), represents the knowledge that people 1998; Rulke et al., 2000).
Figure 1.
0
Figure 1 depicts the sharing of net-based plausible explanation could be the tendency within
knowledge within action teams. Team leaders, some organizations to unquestioningly accept
in their role of knowledge processors, share the the unidimensional nature of intraorganizational
net-based knowledge that has already been ob- knowledge sharing, combined with the failure to
tained from Internet repositories and, after the subject incoming information to sufficiently rigor-
necessary elaborations made, this knowledge ous analysis (Becker, 2001). In addition, the nature
has been allocated for immediate implementation of employment relations often does not ensure
(as discussed in detail later on in this chapter). efficient knowledge exchange (Scarbrough, 1999),
In turn, the knowledge processor shares the spe- owing to lack of familiarity among employees in
cific knowledge required with the members of an organization, lack of direct relationships due
the action team using either formal or informal to status and/or cultural differences, physical
communication channels. Finally, the members distance or, even the unwillingness on the part
of action teams implant the incoming knowledge, of the knowledge owners to distribute it to dif-
making valuable use of it in order to perform their ferent parties in an organization (Okhuysen &
assigned tasks successfully. Eisenhardt, 2002, see also Bechky, 1999; Hansen,
1999, 2002; Szulanski, 1996). Closely related to
these knowledge-sharing obstacles is the trend
the centrality of Knowledge followed by many organizations to employ exten-
processors in Knowledge- sive and highly advanced information technology
sharing activities (Knowledge Management Systems) that supports
the process of knowledge sharing (Voelpel, Dous,
Although the ability to share and assimilate In- & Davenport, 2005). Information technology
ternet-derived knowledge within organizations alone, however, is not always adequate enough
often promises organizational success (as it has to distribute accurate and specific knowledge to
been found to improve organizational perfor- the parties of the organizations where it is needed
mance), effective knowledge sharing remains and can be used effectively (Cross & Baird, 2000;
a problem for many organizations (Argote & McDermott, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, Swan,
Ingram, 2000; Becker, 2001; Cabrera & Cabrera, & Hislop, 1999; Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan,
2002; Hansen, 1999, 2002; Szulanski, 1996). A 2000).
Figure 2.
the centrality of Knowledge processors
in Knowledge sharing activities
valuable use
personal informal of the
communication incoming
channels Knowledge
o
u
Knowledge
sharing t
Knowledge communication action
c
processor channels teams
o
m
e
personal informal
Knowledge
obtaining
communication
channels incoming
Knowledge
implantation
Knowledge
allocating

These elements sum up the complexity of team may have on the value of the organizational
knowledge-sharing activities by also indicating knowledge that can be found on the Internet. It is
that their effectiveness is the outcome of dif- generally expected of team leaders to set up the
ferent organizational elements. This discussion conditions required to forestall the inherent diffi-
focuses on the fundamental role of team leaders culties involved in the knowledge exchange within
in a knowledge-exchange procedure, by playing an action team in an organization (Davenport &
the dual role of knowledge processors, that is, by Prusak, 1998; Rulke et al., 2000). However, some
functioning both as the “source” and the “recipi- leaders’ actions may impair the effectiveness of
ent” of knowledge derived from the Internet. The knowledge sharing, as such leaders lack the ability
nature of the explicit knowledge found in vari- to motivate team members to accept and assimilate
ous Web sites creates the need for a processor to knowledge from outside the team or are unable to
extract the vast amount of information, and then exploit, or indeed efficiently search for available
isolate and allocate the exact knowledge that will knowledge outside the organization.
allow the team to effectively deal with unpredict- In the present discussion, team leaders’ active
able situations. The processor must subsequently participation in knowledge sharing is examined
make the appropriate judgments that will, in turn, in terms of their participation either in formal or
help him/her make the right decisions concern- informal communication channels. Specifically,
ing which knowledge must be distributed among personal formal communication channels refer
the members of the action team. These decisions to scheduled communication activities. Personal
are probably the most important, given the time informal communication channels, on the other
constraints that usually accompany assigned tasks hand, refer to similar unscheduled communica-
(Hult, Ketchen, Jr. & Slater, 2004; Vandenbosch tion activities. Furthermore, formal or informal
& Huff, 1997). communication tools refer to scheduled or un-
The dual role of knowledge processors is scheduled e-mail exchanges and phone calls,
depicted in Figure 2. The arrows indicate the respectively (Eppler & Sukowski, 2000; Huysman
activities that team leaders have to adequately & Wit, 2004).
perform in their dual role as knowledge proces- The implication here is that the level of team
sors. Specifically, knowledge processors have, leaders’ participation in communication activities
first, to look for the specific knowledge required positively affects the knowledge-sharing pro-
by accessing various Internet repositories. As cedure within their teams. When team leaders
“recipients” of net-based knowledge, team lead- collect knowledge from outside the team through
ers have to obtain the subject-related knowledge participating extensively either in formal or in-
assigned to action team tasks. As “sources” of formal communication activities, they enable the
knowledge, team leaders have to scan and allocate members of action teams to obtain, within time
the appropriate amounts of knowledge needed for constraints, the specific new knowledge required
the instant/immediate implantation by the mem- to successfully deal with unpredictable situa-
bers of the action team. In turn, team leaders have tions, which are a common part of action teams’
to participate extensively in knowledge-sharing daily work. Thus, team leaders take on the role
activities in order to transfer the knowledge to their of processor, as earlier described. Team leaders
team. The effectiveness of the knowledge-shar- are also viewed by the action team as “sources”
ing activities is associated with the performance of the necessary knowledge in order to increase
outcome of action teams. their performance outcome. As a result, effective
In other words, the issue being analyzed is knowledge-sharing procedures contribute so that
the effect that the team leader’s participation in the members of action teams are aptly informed
knowledge-sharing activities within the action on the rapid and ongoing changes occurring in

their work environment and affecting their daily ity of a team leader (playing the dual role of the
performance. Also, as the level of team leaders’ knowledge processor) in this process can keep
participation in knowledge exchange increases, the consultants away from the time-consuming
the uncertainty that the members of action teams information gathering, scanning, and analyzing.
may feel about the immediate gathering and al- Thus, they have more time at their disposal to
location of the required knowledge from outside provide superior customer service on time, also
the team decreases. being of major significance for the organization’s
Another basic element closely related to the performance (outcome) as well.
high levels of team leaders’ participation in either Knowledge-sharing activities, even when
formal or informal communication activities is coordinated, are, by nature, time consuming,
the frequency with which communication occurs. and likely to impair the expected performance
Prior research (Allen, 1977; Ancona & Caldwell, outcomes, when the conditions appropriate for
1992; Nilakanta & Scamell, 1990; Uzzi & Gil- obviating the inherent difficulty of knowledge
lespie, 2002) supports that well-constructed com- transfer are not established (Haas & Hansen,
munication channels together with adequately 2005). In the case of the action teams mentioned
frequent communication are good predictors of previously, transfer costs could be determinative
effective knowledge-exchange activities. In other factors in the team’s performance outcomes.
words, it is suggested that teams that demonstrate Members of action teams that have to deal with
a high frequency of communication are positively unprecedented situations, and have to complete
affected by the value of the incoming knowledge their tasks within time limits, are more likely to
extracted from the Internet, thus, achieving a be affected by search and transfer costs. More
higher performance rate as opposed to those teams specifically, search and transfer costs include the
whose members rarely communicate. considerable amount of time spent searching in
An additional benefit of team leaders’ active order to identify the appropriate new knowledge
participation in the knowledge-sharing process required, as well as the effort to effectively dis-
is that team members do not have to be involved tribute this knowledge within the action teams.
in knowledge-search activities. That is to say, Through a coordinated sequence of procedures
the members of action teams do not devote time (Davenport & Glaser, 2002; Hansen, 1999), the
to searching the Internet repositories, and can action teams that are in greater need of obtaining
thus concentrate fully on their tasks. What needs and using accurate and specific knowledge instan-
to be stressed here is that when team members taneously are affected by knowledge-searching
have to discuss and evaluate information from and knowledge-sharing activities only when they
the Internet, in order to complete their tasks pro- last for a short time; time-consuming activities
ductively, they often fail to perform at capacity. of that kind may impair the action teams’ per-
Indeed, there is also the likelihood of action-team formance, since the members of the teams will
members avoiding to deal with a situation that not be able to meet the estimated task completion
requires them to assimilate knowledge from time (i.e., to overcome the unpredictable situations
outside the team. on schedule).
We can look, for instance, at the case of consult- A number of organizations that promote knowl-
ing teams that need to obtain knowledge related edge-management activities often emphasize the
to their projects, in an ongoing, updated format, great need to motivate employees to exploit several
by downloading archives from various Internet online sources of information in order to obtain
repositories. The consultants have, in turn, to the necessary knowledge for their tasks to be com-
work with such knowledge in order to offer the pleted successfully (Haas & Hansen, 2005). The
appropriate advice to their clients. The central- rationale behind these incentive practices is that

they may increase the willingness of employees tors, such as the recipient’s lack of absorptive
to learn how to assimilate new knowledge, while capacity and/or retentive capacity, concluding that
simultaneously increasing the stock of already specific characterizations of the source or recipi-
existing organizational knowledge (Gupta & Go- ent of knowledge could be barriers or enablers in
vindarajan, 2000). However, the establishment of a knowledge exchange.
incentive practices, which may come to dominate Taking into account these distinct characteris-
organizations and urge team members to search, tics, it is further assumed that the leaders of action
discuss, and evaluate all knowledge derived from teams, when playing the role of the “recipients” of
the Internet, does not yield the desired task per- knowledge obtained through a range of net-based
formance outcomes; rather, it increases the risk sources, have to exhibit high levels of absorptive
of a poor organizational outcome. In addition, capacity, meaning that they should be able to ap-
the nature of the tasks that action teams have to preciate the latent value of knowledge, making
perform is a significant factor that determines the any necessary modifications so that the incoming
role of a team leader in the exchange of organiza- knowledge can be implemented effectively where
tional knowledge within the team. Action teams necessary (Szulanski, 1996, see also Cohen &
comprised of members with special skills, who Levinthal, 1990; Dushnitsky & Lenox, 2005).
have to deal with unpredictable situations, are Additionally, the recipients of knowledge have to
in greater need of obtaining and using accurate be capable of detecting the dysfunctions that the
and specific knowledge from outside the team assimilation of incoming knowledge may cause
within time constraints, in a coordinated sequence within the action teams, and to promote the valu-
of actions (Edmondson, 2003). Consequently, able utilization of the new knowledge acquired
increased pressure on action teams to obtain from net-based storage devices. Furthermore,
and use knowledge from the Internet decreases from the point of view of “sources” of knowledge,
the chances of their members completing tasks team leaders have to manifest high levels of reten-
on time, and obtaining and using the appropri- tive capacity, meaning that they have to be able
ate knowledge in order to perform these tasks to institutionalize the utilization of that incom-
successfully. This implies that the absence of ing knowledge. Moreover, as “sources” of new
appropriate active participation of team leaders knowledge, the team leaders also have to develop
in the sharing of knowledge prevents the desired the appropriate competences (e.g., technical skills)
team’s, and thus the organization’s, performance so as to update the stock of knowledge that they
outcomes from being achieved. possess on an ongoing basis. This also requires
Hence, it is expected of team leaders, func- thorough familiarity with the changes occurring
tioning both as the “source” and the “recipient” in the work environment; a comprehensive aware-
in knowledge exchange, to support and promote ness concerning the increasing and frequently
the desired culture for effective knowledge shar- changing demands on the part of the team.
ing among the members of the action teams they
lead. In so doing, knowledge processors have to
manifest a number of characteristics [notably an Knowledge processors vs.
absorptive and/or retentive capacity, (Szulanski, technologies
1996)], which could be conceptualized as con-
straint variables (in their absence) or enabling Trends in organizations currently view organi-
variables (when they exist) in knowledge-sharing zational knowledge as invaluable information
activities. More specifically, Szulanksi (1996) that can be used practically, and whose effective
tested motivational and knowledge-related fac- utilization is often assessed by measuring task

performance outcomes (Haas & Hansen, 2005). their dual role as recipients of knowledge derived
Although organizations are increasingly making from the Internet, and as sources of net-based
efforts to control the amounts of ever-increas- knowledge, knowledge processors enhance the
ing knowledge, and to acquire and distribute it practical value of the information found in In-
among the organizational action teams that need ternet repositories.
new knowledge from outside their team bound- The significance of the dual role of knowledge
aries, knowledge processing still does not easily processors stresses the human role in knowledge-
meet the demanding objectives of those teams. sharing activities, which cannot be effectively
Therefore, new models and frameworks should replaced with technologies. In particular, the team
be developed. leader of an action team is responsible for a spec-
In the case of the action teams discussed previ- trum of specific actions: (i) decisions concerning
ously, most of the knowledge needed in order for the extraction and use of the accurate knowledge
the members of these teams to perform their day- embedded in various Web sites, (ii) tracking the
to-day activities productively can be found online. frequent updates of knowledge content provided
Not only does the knowledge in question have to on the Internet, and (iii) the provision of the ap-
be extracted, but its value and accuracy also have propriate knowledge to members of the action
to be legitimated at the same time. Team leaders, teams on time. Arguably, some organizations
who play the dual role of knowledge processors make extensive use of knowledge technologies,
by participating in net-based knowledge-sharing namely repositories of structured knowledge; ex-
activities, obviate their inherent difficulties and plicit knowledge often in document form in order
therefore, achieve better performance for the to search and retrieve the knowledge appropriate
team and for the organization as a whole. The for each work application. Some examples of
proposed framework defines new roles for team these are various specific software programs like
leaders who have to enrich and transform their Lotus Notes, processes for managing project docu-
roles from that of mediators, who merely handle ments like Intranet Webs, databases like Online
awareness and manage stocks of organizational Thesaurus, and yellow page type systems like
knowledge, into facilitators, who conceive and Expert Locator, and Knowledge-Based Systems.
develop mechanisms in order to isolate the ap- The last are also known as Expert Systems like
propriate net-based knowledge and communicate Knowledge Domains, Constraint-Based Systems,
it effectively to their teams. and Case-Based Reasoning. It is also considered
The role of the knowledge processor, as dis- that technologies of this kind facilitate the sharing
cussed in detail earlier in this chapter, determines of organizational knowledge. In practice, “tech-
the primary responsibility of team leaders to knowledgy’’1 facilitates the knowledge-sharing
manage the vast amounts of information from a services; however, its effectiveness is dependent
multitude of net-based sources and then share it on the human factor who properly uses these
effectively among the members of action teams. technologies.
The key factor here is that the knowledge distribu- Another tech-case is “ontologies,” which oper-
tion is valuable to action teams by enhancing their ates as libraries of reusable knowledge compo-
performance if knowledge, in its most updated nents (Easterby-Smith, Snell, & Gherardi, 1998).
and appropriate version, is instantly used when It is commonly believed that knowledge libraries
it is needed (Davenport & Glaser, 2002). Thus, of this kind enable the sharing of organizational
the focus of knowledge-sharing initiatives has to knowledge by giving everyone the opportunity to
be more on the person responsible for collecting gain access to these online repositories to extract
and managing the knowledge to be processed. In the knowledge needed. Nevertheless, the dual

role of team leaders examined in this chapter is positories do not allow for the instant utilization
not limited to the effective exchange and com- of this knowledge by the members of action teams.
munication of knowledge. It decreases the time Moreover, what needs to be pointed out here is
for searching and accumulating the appropriate the difference between net-based knowledge and
knowledge required that is crucial for action organizational knowledge, such as documents
teams that increasingly need to quickly obtain or texts (i.e., knowledge in its codified type), or
and instantly use accurate knowledge for their knowledge possessed by employees in an organi-
daily work tasks. Another considerable point is zation (i.e., knowledge in its personal type). The
that the software of “ontologies” that contains former consists of previously unexploited infor-
reusable knowledge is quite difficult to update mation extracted from various Web sites, whilst
regularly, thus, the chances of missing relevant the latter is found to be the stock of knowledge
up-to-date information increase. that organizations have gained through dealing
Consequently, the knowledge technologies with a variety of problematic situations earlier on
applied extensively by many organizations aim- (Olivera, 2000). Thus, net-based knowledge can-
ing at effective knowledge-sharing activities not be put into valuable use for an organization
facilitate the exchange and the communication if it is not implemented within the right context.
of net-knowledge along with the contribution of For this to take place, knowledge processors have
the human factor. The specific range of actions to make the right judgments.
performed by team leaders cannot be replaced by It is suggested that knowledge processors play
knowledge technologies. The significance of tech- a central role in the effectiveness of knowledge
nology is that “smart” sources of general knowl- processing within their teams. Nonetheless, many
edge are created and are accessible to everyone organizational factors, such as the appropriate
involved in specific work tasks. Nevertheless, the organizational and technological infrastructure
addition of more specific knowledge applicable to (e.g., information services), corporate vision, and
specific work cases cannot be offered to members mission statements that support a culture promot-
of teams, and especially to action teams, within ing knowledge sharing (Javidan, Stahl, Brodbeck,
strict time constraints, where meeting the deadline & Wilderom, 2005; Voelpel et al., 2005) may also
is crucial for their performance. determine the value of the net-based knowledge
exchange. The focus of this analysis has been
on the level of team leaders’ active participation
conclusion in knowledge-sharing activities regardless of
the quality and the quantity of the knowledge
We have found that the most important condi- derived from the Internet. Indeed, high levels of
tion for the analysis of knowledge sharing is the team leaders’ active participation reflect the ef-
focus on the complexity and multifaceted nature fectiveness of knowledge-sharing activities and
of this activity and thus, on how knowledge can thus, lead to a better performance for the team
be shared effectively. This chapter has focused and for the organization as a whole. Moreover,
on knowledge derived from the Internet, and has the characteristics that team leaders manifest in
highlighted the dual role of the team leader as a playing the dual role of knowledge processors are
“source” of the knowledge required for action found to function as enablers (if they exist) when
teams to complete assigned tasks successfully, as a knowledge exchange occurs within the action
well as a “recipient” of knowledge obtained from teams of an organization.
outside the team. In particular, the characteristics The current focus is not only on the quantity
of knowledge embedded in various Internet re- and the quality of knowledge that can be found

on the Internet, but also on the factors that a number of characteristics such as absorptive
prevent employees from using such knowledge or retentive capacity, as mentioned in the main
resources ineffectively. Internet repositories do part of the chapter. What is proposed here is that
provide knowledge of significant importance, these characteristics should be interpreted as
the implementation of which is often necessary constraint variables in the absence of knowledge
for action teams to overcome the unpredictable processors, or enabling variables where they exist.
problems that they face in their day-to-day ac- Future research should also concentrate on the
tivities. Nevertheless, the value-added benefits of conceptualization of these characteristics, again
net-based knowledge do not originate from the as constraint or enabling variables that have to
mere extensive use of popular Web sites. In this be manifested not only by knowledge processors,
case, employees are likely to be overwhelmed but also by the members who make up action
and thus, incapacitated by the sheer bulk of the teams. Prior research (Dahlin et al., 2005; Haas
available knowledge rather than energized and mo- & Hansen, 2005; Hackman, 1990; Katz, 1982)
tivated to make valuable use of the comprehensive has identified several variables, such as team size
implementation of this knowledge (Wildavsky, (the maximum number of individuals involved in
1983). The framework discussed in this chapter the team), team skills diversity (the educational
identifies the fundamental role of knowledge background of the members involved in the team),
processors and numerous factors related to action team cognition (familiarity with knowledge re-
teams that can add value to net-based knowledge- lated to the assigned tasks), and team turnover
sharing activities. It is further supported that homogeneity (the time team members spend
the amounts of knowledge provided on various working together), that have an impact on the ef-
Internet repositories can be turned into core or- fectiveness of knowledge-sharing activities within
ganizational and intangible assets when they are organizational teams. Other characteristics, such
placed in the appropriate context (Gold, Malhotra, as technical competences, clear division of roles
& Segars, 2001). In particular, the fundamental and responsibilities within the team, familiarity
role of knowledge processors, as discussed in this with the work environment, or adaptability to
chapter, determines this context. situations not experienced before, however, may
The final purpose of this study is to facilitate be factors that have not been considered in this
organizations in making valuable use of knowl- chapter, but that may influence the broader content
edge embedded in Internet repositories and thus, of the sharing of net-based knowledge.
gain benefits and achieve further development by This work has also shown great interest in ac-
focusing mainly on the fundamental role of knowl- tion teams that work as “knowledge communities.”
edge processors in the sharing of this knowledge. The key feature of these knowledge communities
In addition, scope is left for further investigation is that they are created to carry out a specific
of additional features, as indicated earlier, that task (Earl, 2001). This leads to further research
will also enable an organization to cope with the on the issue of how to retain the knowledge that
demands of the sharing of knowledge derived the members of action teams possess. In other
from the Internet successfully. words, after the specific task has been carried out,
knowledge communities are usually disbanded.
Thus, the amounts of knowledge derived from
future research directions the Internet and effectively used by the members
of knowledge communities, is now obviously in
In order for knowledge processors to perform the possession of both the team leader and the
their dual role efficiently, they should manifest members of the communities. Therefore, the

way to store this net-based knowledge so as to Becker, M. (2001). Managing dispersed knowl-
be reused in its updated form (Hoopes & Postrel, edge: Organizational problems, managerial
1999; Olivera, 2000) is another element of major strategies, and their effectiveness. Journal of
importance that needs further consideration. Prior Management Studies, 38(7), 1037-1051.
research has indicated that communities which
Bechky, B. (1999). Creating shared meaning
may have facilitated “knowledge flows” internally
across occupational communities: An ethno-
among their members, may still limit knowledge
graphic study of a production floor. Paper pre-
flows across communities and in this way, place
sented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
barriers to sharing knowledge throughout differ-
Management, Chicago, IL.
ent organizational parties (Dennis, 1996; Gupta
& Govindarajan, 2000). Accordingly, the factors Becker, M. (2001). Managing dispersed knowl-
to be analyzed are those that facilitate the net- edge: Organizational problems, managerial
based knowledge flows among organizational strategies, and their effectiveness. Journal of
knowledge communities in situations where either Management Studies, 38(7), 1037-1051.
knowledge communities exist simultaneously
Brown, J. W., & Utterback, J. (1985). Uncertainty
within the same organization, or one knowledge
and technical communication patterns. Manage-
community is created after the disbanding of
ment Science, 31(3), 301-311.
another for similar business purposes.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational
learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a
references unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge man-
Brown, J. W., & Utterback, J. (1985). Uncertainty
agement and knowledge management systems:
and technical communication patterns. Manage-
Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
ment Science, 31(3), 301-311.
Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. (2002). Knowledge-
Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology.
sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5),
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
687-710.
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Bridging the
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive
boundary: External activity and performance
capacity: A new perspective on learning and
in organization teams. Administrative Science
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665.
35(1), 128-152.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge trans-
Choo, C. (1996). The knowing organization:
fer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.
How organizations use information to construct
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions.
Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
International Journal of Information Manage-
Argote, L., McEvily, R., & Reegans, R. (2003). ment, 16(5), 329-340.
Managing knowledge in organizations: An
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive
integrative framework and review of emerging
capacity: A new perspective on learning and
themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582.
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,
35(1), 128-152.

Cross, R., & Baird, L. (2000). Technology is munities of practice? Management Learning,
not enough: Improving performance by build- 29(3), 259-272.
ing organizational memory. Sloan Management
Edmondson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the op-
Review, 41(3), 69-78.
erating room: How team leaders promote learn-
Cummings, J. (2004). Work groups, structural ing in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of
diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global orga- Management Studies, 40(6), 1419-1452.
nization. Management Science, 50(3), 352-364.
Epple, D., Argote, L., & Devadas, R. (1991).
Dahlin, K., Weingart, L., & Hinds, P. (2005). Organizational learning curves: A method for
Team diversity and information use. Academy of investigating intraplant transfer of knowledge
Management Journal, 48(6), 1107-1123. acquired through learning by doing. Organization
Science, 2(1), 58-70.
Darr, E., Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1995). The acqui-
sition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in Eppler, M., & Sukowski, O. (2000). Managing
service organizations: Productivity in franchises. team knowledge: Core processes, tools and en-
Management Science, 41(11), 1750-1762. abling factors. European Management Journal,
18(3), 334-341.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working
knowledge: How organizations manage what Ferran-Urdaneta, C. (1999). Teams or communi-
they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business ties? Organizational structures for knowledge
School Press. management. In ACM SIGCPR (Ed.), Conference
on Computer Personnel Research (pp. 128-134).
Davenport, T., & Glaser, J. (2002). Just-in-time
New York, NY: ACM Press.
delivery comes to Knowledge Management.
Harvard Business Review, 80(7), 107-111. Gold, A., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. (2001).
Knowledge management: An organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of Management
knowledge: How organizations manage what
Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.
they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press. Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based
theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
Dennis, A. (1996). Information exchange and use
17(Winter Special Issue), 109-122.
in group decision making: You can lead a group
to information, but you can’t make it think. MIS Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge
Quarterly, 20(4), 433-457. flows within multinational corporations. Strategic
Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496.
Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. (2005). When do
incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Haas, M., & Hansen, M. (2005). When using
Corporate venture capital and investing firm in- knowledge can hurt performance: The value
novation rates. Research Policy, 34(5), 615-639. of organizational capabilities in a management
consulting company. Strategic Management
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strate-
Journal, 26(1), 1-24.
gies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management
Information Systems 18(1), 215-233. Hackman, J. (1987). The design of work teams.
In J. Lorsh (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
Easterby-Smith, M, Snell, R., & Gherardi, S.
behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
(1998). Organizational learning: Diverging com-
Prentice Hall.

Hackman, R. (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work and Huysman, M., & de Wit, D. (2004). Practices of
those that don’t: Creating conditions for effective managing knowledge sharing: Towards a second
teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. wave of knowledge management. Knowledge and
Process Management, 11(2), 81-92.
Haas, M., & Hansen, M. (2005). When using
knowledge can hurt performance: The value Hult, T., Ketchen, Jr. D., & Slater, S. (2004). In-
of organizational capabilities in a management formation processing, knowledge development,
consulting company. Strategic Management and strategic supply chain performance. Academy
Journal, 26(1), 1-24. of Management Journal, 47(2), 241-253.
Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). Huysman, M., & de Wit, D. (2004). Practices of
What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? managing knowledge sharing: Towards a second
Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106-116. wave of knowledge management. Knowledge and
Process Management, 11(2), 81-92.
Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem:
The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across Inkpen, A., & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge
organization subunits. Administrative Science management processes and international joint
Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111. ventures. Organization Science, 9(4), 454-468.
Hansen, M. (2002). Knowledge networks: Ex- Jarvenpaa, S., & Staples, S. (2001). Exploring
plaining effective knowledge sharing in multi- perceptions of organizational ownership of in-
unit companies, Organization Science, 13(3), formation and expertise. Journal of Management
232-248. Information Systems, 18(1), 151-183.
Hansen, M., Mors, M., & Lovas, B. (2005). Javidan, M., Stahl, G., Brodbeck, F., & Wilderom,
Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple C. (2005). Cross-border transfer of knowledge:
networks, multiple phases. Academy of Manage- Cultural lessons from project GLOBE. Academy
ment Journal, 48(5), 776-793. of Management Executive, 19(2), 59-76.
Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). Kanter, R. M. (1982). Dilemmas of managing
What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? participation. Organizational Dynamics, 11(1),
Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106-116. 5-27.
Hardy, C., Philips, N., & Lawrence, T. (2003). Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on
Resources, knowledge and influence: The orga- project communication and performance. Admin-
nizational effectiveness of interorganizational istrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 81-104.
collaboration. Journal of Management Studies,
Levin, D., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of
40(2), 321-347.
weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of
Hislop, D. (2002). Mission impossible? Commu- trust in effective knowledge transfer. Manage-
nicating and sharing knowledge via information ment Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
technology. Journal of Information Technology,
Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (1999). Communities
17(3), 165-177.
of practice, social capital and organizational
Hoopes, D., & Postrel, S. (1999). Shared knowl- knowledge. In E. Lesser, M. Fontaine, & J. Slusher
edge, “glitches,” and product development per- (Eds), Knowledge and communities. Woburn,
formance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(9), MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
837-865.
0
Lindkvist, L. (2005). Knowledge communities Nilakanta, S., & Scamell, R. (1990). The effect
and knowledge collectivities: A typology of of information sources and communication chan-
knowledge work in groups. Journal of Manage- nels on the diffusion of innovation in a data base
ment Studies, 42(6), 1189-1210. development environment. Management Science,
36(1), 24-40.
Lu, L. Leung, K., & Koch, P. (2006). Managerial
knowledge sharing: The role of individual, inter- Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-
personal and organizational factors. Management creating company: How Japanese companies
and Organization Review, 2(1), 15-41. create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Masrick, V. J. (1994). Trends in managerial re-
invention: creating a learning map. Managerial Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1994). A dynamic
Learning, 25(1), 11-34. theory of organizational knowledge creation.
McDermott, R. (1999). Why information tech-
nology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S. (1997). The differ-
management. California Management Review, entiated network: Organizing multinational
41(4), 103-117. corporations for value creation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, K., & Cooprider, J. (1996). The contribu-
tion of shared knowledge to IS group performance. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1994). A dynamic
MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 409-432. theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., & Hislop,
D. (1999). Intranets and knowledge management: Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-
Complex processes and ironic outcomes. In IEEE creating company: How Japanese companies
Computer Society (Ed.), 32nd Annual Hawaii create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, UK:
International Conference on System Sciences: Oxford University Press.
Vol. 1. HICSS-32 (pp.10-27). Los Alamitos, CA:
Okhuysen, G., & Eisenhardt, K. (2002). Integrat-
IEEE Computer Society.
ing knowledge in groups: How formal interven-
Newell, S., Scarbrough, F., & Swan, J. (2000). tions enable flexibility. Organization Science,
Intranets and knowledge management: De-cen- 13(4), 370-386.
tred technologies and the limits of technological
Olivera, F. (2000). Memory systems in organiza-
discourse. In C. Prichard, R. Hull, M. Chumer, &
tions: An empirical investigation of mechanisms
H. Willmott (Eds.), Managing knowledge: Critical
for knowledge collection, storage and access. Jour-
investigations of work and learning (pp. 88-106).
nal of Management Studies, 37(6), 811-832.
London, UK: Macmillan Business.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London,
Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., & Hislop,
UK: Routledge & Kegan Ltd.
D. (1999). Intranets and knowledge management:
Complex processes and ironic outcomes. In IEEE Rulke, D., Zaheer, S., & Anderson, M. (2000).
Computer Society (Ed.), 32nd Annual Hawaii Sources of managers’ knowledge of organizational
International Conference on System Sciences: capabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human
Vol. 1. HICSS-32 (pp.10-27). Los Alamitos, CA: Decision Processes, 82(1), 134-149.
IEEE Computer Society.
Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge as work: Con-
flicts in the management of knowledge workers.

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Voelpel, S., Dous, M., & Davenport, T. (2005).
11(1), 5-16. Five steps to creating a global knowledge-sharing
system: Siemens’ ShareNet. Academy of Manage-
Schulz, M. (2003). Pathways of relevance: Ex-
ment Executive, 19(2), 9-23.
ploring inflows of knowledge into subunits of
multinational corporations. Organization Science, Voorbij, H. J. (1999). Searching scientific infor-
14(4), 440-459. mation on the Internet: A Dutch academic user
survey. Journal of American Society for Informa-
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and
tion Science, 50(2), 598-615.
practice of the learning organization. London,
UK: Random House. Wildavsky, A. (1983). Information as an organiza-
tional problem. Journal of Management Studies,
Shanei, A., Sena, J., & Stebbins, M. (2000).
20(1), 29-40.
Knowledge work teams and groupware technol-
ogy: Learning from Seagate’s experience. Journal Zack, M. (1998). An architecture for managing
of Knowledge Management, 4(2):111-124. explicated knowledge. Sloan Management Re-
view, 39(4), 45-58.
Simonin, B. (1999). Transfer of marketing know-
how in international strategic alliances: An em- Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge
pirical investigation of the role and antecedents and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
of knowledge ambiguity. Journal of International organizational capabilities: An empirical test.
Business Studies, 30(3), 463-490. Organization Science, 6(1), 76-92.
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D.
(1999). Knowledge management and innovation:
Networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge additional reading
Management, 17(2), 109-122.
Boisot, M., & Griffiths, D. (1999). Possession is
nine tenths of the law: Managing a firm’s knowl-
ness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice
edge base in a regime of weak appropriability.
within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
International Journal of Technology Manage-
17(Winter Special Issue), 27-43.
ment, 17(6), 662-676.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorga-
Boland, R., & Tenkasi, R. (1995). Perspective
nizational networks: Effects of network position
making and perspective taking in communities of
and absorptive capacity on business unit innova-
knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350-372.
tion and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(5), 996-1004. Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (1999). Information
technology management: A knowledge-based
Uzzi, B., & Gillespie, J. (2002). Knowledge spill-
perspective. Technovation, 19(4), 209-217.
over in corporate financing networks: Embedded-
ness and the firm’s debt performance. Strategic Collis, D. J. (1994). Research note: How valu-
Management Journal, 23(7), 595-618. able are organizational capabilities? Strategic
Management Journal, 15(Winter Special Issue),
Vandenbosch, B., & Huff, S. (1997). Searching
143-152.
and scanning: How executives obtain informa-
tion from executive information systems. MIS Davenport, T., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C.
Quarterly, 21(1), 81-107. (1997). Building successful knowledge manage-

ment projects. In T. Davenport, J. Gilbert, B. Systems, 31(1), 39-54. Retrieved May 10, 2007,
Probst, & P. VonHeinrich (Eds.), Managing the from http://www.portal.acm.org
Knowledge of the Organization, Ernst & Young
Jack, S. (2005). The role, use and activation
LLP.
of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative
Davenport, T., Gilbert, J., Probst, B., & VonH- analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6),
einrich, P. (eds.) (2002). (2nd Ed.). Knowledge 1233-1259.
Management case book: Siemens best practices.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the
Germany: Willey – VCH.
firm, combinative capabilities, and the replica-
Davies, J., Fensel, D., & Van Harmelen, F. (Eds.). tion of technology. Organization Science, 3(3),
(2002). Towards the semantic Web: Ontology-driv- 383-397.
en knowledge management. England: Willey.
Ivon Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000).
Drucker, P. F., Garvin, D., Leonard, D., Straus, S., Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the
& Brown, J. S. (Eds.). (1998). Harvard business mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power
review on knowledge management. Boston, MA: of innovation.: Oxford University Press.
Harvard Business School Press.
Levin, D. Z. (2000), Organizational learning
Feher, P. (Ed.). (2006). Proceedings of the 7th and the transfer of knowledge: An investigation
European Conference on Knowledge Manage- of quality improvement. Organization Science,
ment (September 4-5, Carvinus University of 11(6), 630-647.
Budapest, Hungary). Reading: Academic Con-
O’Leary, D. E. (1998). Using AI in knowledge
ference Limited.
management: Knowledge bases and ontologies.
Gulati, R. (2007). Managing network resources: IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(3), 34-39.
Alliances, affiliations, and other relational assets.:
Pan, S. L., & Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge
Oxford University Press.
management in practice: An exploratory case
Hislop, D., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. study. Technology Analysis and Strategic Man-
(2000). Networks, knowledge and power: Decision agement, 11(3), 359-374.
making, politics and the process of innovation.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network
structure and knowledge transfer: The effects
12(3), 399-411.
of cohesion and range. Administrative Science
Hislop, D. (Ed.). (2005). Knowledge management Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267.
in organizations: A critical introduction.: Oxford
Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how?
University Press.
Questioning the role of information and com-
Hislop, D., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. munication technologies in knowledge transfer.
(2000). Networks, knowledge and power: Decision Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,
making, politics and the process of innovation. 12(4), 429-443.
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., & Preston, J. (Ed.).
12(3), 399-411.
(1999). Knowledge management: A literature
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2001). Organi- review. Woodstock: Beekman Publishers.
zational knowledge resources. Decision Support
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge
transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice:

Processes, 82(1), 9-27. Learning, meaning and identity.: Cambridge
University Press.
Styhre, A. (Ed.). (2003). Understanding knowl-
edge management: Critical and postmodern Wiig, K. M. (1994). Knowledge management
perspectives. Malmö, Sweden: Copenhagen foundations: Thinking about thinking – how
Business School Press. people and organizations represent, create, and
use knowledge. Schema Press, Limited.
Swan, J., & Scarbrough, H. (2001). Editorial. Jour-
nal of Information Technology, 16(2), 49-55.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge
endnote
transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 1
Term used by Davenport & Prusak (1998) to
Processes, 82(1), 9-27.
call the technologies for Knowledge Man-
agement implemented by the organizations
(i.e., Knowledge Management Systems).

Chapter III
Knowledge Sharing in Virtual
and Networked Organisations
in Different Organisational and
National Cultures
Kerstin Siakas
Alexander Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Greece
Elli Georgiadou
University of Middlesex, UK
abstract
In today’s competitive business environment, increasingly large numbers of organisations use virtual
distributed teams in their operations. This chapter provides a basis for discussion and analysis of
knowledge sharing in culturally diverse networked organisations. Examining the different cultural val-
ues and perceptions related to knowledge sharing, we aim at making the human and cultural dynamics
that bear on knowledge sharing and knowledge management success more explicit. The objectives are
to foster an effective knowledge-sharing culture within virtual distributed teams. The chapter provides
mechanisms for understanding the potential for conflict, for knowledge sharing, and building of trust
among culturally diverse team members. Guidelines for successful knowledge sharing in the global
environment are developed providing indications of the expected benefits for the organisation and the
individuals involved. An outline of future trends and further work complete the chapter.
Knowledge Sharing in Virtual and Networked Organisations
introduction This chapter aims to make the human and

cultural dynamics that influence knowledge
“Knowledge becomes wisdom only after it has sharing within virtual teams, which hardly ever
been put to practical use.” Anonymous meet, more explicit. Particular emphasis is put
on national cultures and their impact on glob-
Knowledge is one of the most valuable strategic ally networked organisations. Scholars have
assets of businesses and an important competi- recently started to pay attention to global and
tive factor. Organisations in the new knowledge- cultural dynamics influencing the KM process
based global economy place great importance (Ai-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, & Mohammed, 2007;
on creation, use, and distribution of information Ang & Massingham, 2007; Bhagat, Kedia, Har-
and knowledge by focusing on maintaining and veston, & Triandis, 2002, Holden, 2001; Siakas
enhancing their knowledge capital. The ability & Georgiadou, 2006). Although the field is under
of organisations to learn, adapt, and change has researched, there are clear indications that or-
become a core competency for their survival. ganisations that demonstrate cultural sensitivity
Successful organisations are those that create and take advantage of cultural differences gain
new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the added business value and competitive advantage.
organisation, and swiftly embody it into new However, the complexity and multidisciplinarity
products and services. of the field call for particular caution.
Information and Communication Technolo- KM today is emerging as a distinct academic
gies (ICTs) and the Internet have provided new discipline of research and practice with roots in a
opportunities for sharing the explicit knowledge, many disciplines, such as management sciences,
not only within one single organisation, but also social sciences, economics, computing science,
between actors of global partnerships and knowl- psychology, and philosophy. A multitude of KM
edge networks. However, many organisations are models with a broad range of approaches are
still struggling to comprehend the Knowledge evident in the literature. However, two distinc-
Management (KM) concept and do not perform tions seem to be prevailing, namely analytical or
any KM activity (Holsapple & Joshi, 2002). In a technology-oriented models and actor or people-
global context, the problem is exacerbated because oriented models (Herder, Veeneman, Buitenhuis,
of the increased complexity of global organisations & Schaller, 2003; Moffett, McAdam, & Parkinson,
and their dependency on people with different 2003). Technology-oriented models emphasise
underlying norms, values, and beliefs. On one the importance of explicit knowledge, the tech-
hand, ICTs favour globalisation and knowledge nological infrastructure, and the codification of
sharing of explicit ICT transferable knowledge and knowledge into ICT systems. People-oriented
on the other hand, they hinder knowledge shar- models, on the contrary, emphasise the importance
ing of content with implicit attributes enabled by of tacit knowledge, the social infrastructure, and
face-to-face interaction. The gap between implicit the business performance.
and explicit knowledge becomes more visible, and Our approach is people-oriented by concentrat-
organisations that can exploit the value-creation ing on the importance of culture in knowledge
opportunities generated by global presence and sharing in virtual and networked organisations.
meet these challenges will gain competitive ad- We recognise the importance of the technol-
vantage. If knowledge is seen as a resource critical ogy-oriented models, but consider, by using the
to an organisation’s survival and success in the iceberg metaphor (Siakas & Georgiadou, 1999),
global market, then the knowledge assets and the that the tacit knowledge-sharing challenges hide
knowledge flows demand good management. under water and end up being the greater part of

the iceberg. If these challenges are acted prop- We encapsulate the interrelationships of
erly upon, they can help to create an effective cultural norms, attitudes, beliefs, experience,
knowledge-sharing environment and if neglected, decisions, and actions. We emphasise the need
they hinder successful knowledge sharing. Our for continuous review and improvement based on
research method is an interdisciplinary behav- empowerment and participation of all stakeholders
ioural approach involving three main disciplines, in diagrammatic form, and generate semiformal
namely psychology (the study of human behaviour, guidelines for successful knowledge sharing
focusing on the individual as a whole), sociology among culturally diverse virtual teams.
(study of relationships among groups focusing The chapter concludes with an outline of future
on the social system), and anthropology (study trends and indications of future research.
of human behaviour as a whole focusing on the
cultural system, beliefs, customs, ideas, and values
within a society, and comparison of behaviour Knowledge management
among different cultures (Siakas, 2002). Our concepts and the role of
arguments are derived from recent literature re- information and
views and reports on the state-of-the-art in KM communication technologies
and cross-cultural research. Our results of field
studies related to knowledge sharing between KM can be viewed as the process of turning data
members of virtual teams carried out in both into information (data in context) and, further on,
academia and industry in several countries are to knowledge (use of information) (Kanter, 1999;
reported. We also reflect on our own experience Spiegler, 2000), or as the organisationally specified
from different European countries with different systematic process for acquiring, organising, and
academic and work values. communicating both tacit and explicit knowledge
Throughout this chapter, we examine the of employees so that other employees may make
KM paradigm outlined as follows: The chapter use of it (knowledge sharing) in order to be more
firstly considers knowledge-sharing concepts effective and productive (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
and the role of ICTs, followed by a discussion KM is a business philosophy. It is an emerging set
of virtual teams and networked organisations of principles, processes, organisational structures,
influencing global knowledge sharing, where all and technology applications that help people
stakeholders are open, flexible, and prepared to share and leverage their knowledge to meet their
take responsibility. business objectives (Gurteen, 1999). This focuses
Subsequently, an extended analysis of culture the individual and places responsibility on the
(both organisational and national) is presented in individual, the knowledge worker. At the same
order to raise understanding and awareness of the time, KM programmes in organisations empha-
importance of taking culture into consideration. sise the holistic nature of creating, sharing, and
We explore the significance of developing a deeper managing knowledge. Organisations formally
understanding of cultural norms of other team capture, manage, and explicitly store knowledge
members in order to avoid pitfalls in knowledge with the help of computer-based systems, such as
sharing between members of virtual and net- Management Information Systems (MIS), Deci-
worked organisation. Cultural factors influenc- sion Support Systems (DSS), and Expert Systems
ing successful KM and national cultures with (ES), which today are becoming ubiquitous in
knowledge sharing potential are demonstrated, organisations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). How-
with reference to Hofstede’s work-related national ever, technology by itself often does not solve
value dimensions. an organisation’s inherent problems relating to

intellectual capital, knowledge and information voluntary actions including openness, scrutiny,
management. Information and Communication trust, and tolerance towards different views and
Technologies (ICTs) seem to enhance the KM interpretations. Organisations expect employees
capabilities of organisations (Alavi & Leidner, to keep professionally up-to-date by continu-
2001; Tanriverdi, 2005). Davis et al. (Davis, ously obtaining internal and external information
Subrahmanian, & Westerberg, 2005) argue that relating to their profession. Knowledge evolves
KM is based 30% on implemented systems and continuously as the individual and the organisa-
the rest on people. The fact is that the view of tion adapt to influences from the external and the
knowledge is changing and today, it is seen as internal environment. Elron and Vigoda-Gadot
human capital that “walks out the door at the end (2006) found that when ICTs are used as the main
of the day” (Spiegler, 2000). communication channel between team members,
Organisations are facing a new challenging the limitations of the communication increase, as
environment, characterised by globalisation, dy- technology cannot provide the same richness as
namism, and increasing levels of complexity due face-to-face interactions, and potentially hinder
to rapid changes in technology and its connected the effectiveness of knowledge sharing. They also
intricate knowledge. Internet-based virtual tools found that influence tactics and political processes
have created new opportunities for rapid access in virtual teams are more restrained and milder
to business information worldwide. Identifying than in face-to-face teams. This seems to indicate
potential business partners and developing busi- that however effective ICTs may be, they cannot
ness links with organisations in other countries replace personal contact.
has become easier for organisations that are ex- Views on Knowledge Management (KM) and
perienced in monitoring Web-based information ICTs are wide ranging between two poles, one
sources, and are able to combine tacit knowledge considering the relationships between KM and
with new knowledge sources that are enabled by ICTs incidental, the other considering ICTs being
ICTs, such as Internet, intranet, groupware, and the core of KM (Holsapple, 2005). This chapter
Computer Supported Cooperated Work (CSCW) considers KM being a social and human phenom-
systems. Explicit knowledge is transferable enon that, by using ICTs as a tool, can improve the
through formal and systematic languages. Tacit or efficiency of knowledge creation, visualisation,
implicit knowledge is context-specific, personal, transfer, evolution, and preservation. ICTs facili-
and subjective, including cognitive elements and tate the amplification, augmentation, and leverage
thus, difficult to formalize and communicate of innate human-knowledge handling capabilities.
(Davis et. al 2005, Siakas & Georgiadou, 2006). The advances in ICTs provide organizations with
Knowledge sharing (transfer) is the process increased flexibility and responsiveness, permit-
where individuals mutually exchange both tacit ting them to rapidly form dispersed and disparate
and explicit knowledge, and jointly create new experts into a virtual team that can work on an
knowledge. This process is essential in transfer- urgent project. ICTs support faster, cheaper, and
ring individual knowledge into organisational more reliable knowledge work of large scale,
knowledge. The capability of an organisation to and the existence of efficient ICTs is inevitably
create, recognise, widely disseminate, and em- an imperative requirement for the existence of
body knowledge in new products and technologies virtual collaboration. However, the emphasis in
is critical when faced with turbulent markets, high this chapter is to unfold the human and cultural
competition, and financial instability (Nonaka, challenges that can create added competitive value
1991). Continuous knowledge creation requires for global and networked organisations.

virtual teams and tion, and thus, also knowledge sharing, in virtual
networKed organisations teams in a global context is considerably much
more difficult due to language, culture, time is-
In today’s highly competitive and rapidly changing sues, and distance. Knowledge sharing with bad
global environment, more and more organisations communication is a big challenge and a difficult
strive to form virtual teams comprised of experts issue to achieve. Teams lacking communication
situated in different locations, organisations, and knowledge sharing will turn into detached
countries, and time zones. The increased complex- groups of uninvolved strangers out of leadership
ity of international organisations and worldwide and cooperation. The individual members of the
business relationships has become a dynamic busi- virtual team and the leader must build a unified
ness reality with intensified competition. Virtual team committed to the common goal, and through
teams are teams of people who primarily interact interdependent interaction, generate group iden-
electronically, and who may meet face-to-face tity and create the feeling of belonging to a group
occasionally and in some projects not at all. In a (Balstrup, 2004).
virtual team, the members work interdependently Despite the many technologies that support
towards a shared goal using Webs of ICTs across collaboration among distributed work groups,
time and space, and often across organisational organisations still face difficulties building on-
boundaries (Handy, 2000; Lipnack & Stamps, line work environments. What is lacking in most
1997; Mansour-Cole, 2001). According to Bal virtual workplaces is a proven methodology, or at
and Teo (2000), virtual teams consist of goal- least guidelines, for identifying and converting
oriented team members/knowledge workers who individual expertise, skills, and experience into
are dispersed geographically, and work supported organisational knowledge, knowledge transfer,
by ICTS more apart than in same location. They and learning investment with organisational
solve problems and make decisions jointly; they value outcome. By sharing information across the
are involved in a coordinated undertaking of inter- organisation, virtual teams naturally build their
related activities, and are mutually accountable own knowledge bases that are consistent with the
for team results. Virtual teams have usually a rest of the company. The ideal environment and
finite duration (few teams are permanent). Virtual working practices will be to change the mindset
teams, by their very nature, imply the presence and behaviour of team members so that instead of
of a group of geographically dispersed individu- perceiving knowledge sharing as an extra task for
als, often from different cultural, educational, the team members, isolated from the knowledge
and professional backgrounds. They work on a of other team members, it (knowledge sharing)
joint project or common task, and communicate becomes the natural way of working for every-
mainly by using e-mail for the duration of a one. The result will be a well-integrated, highly
specific project (Järvenpää & Leidner, 1999). A responsive organisation whose employees can
potential conflict arises when the team members quickly take action regardless of location.
belong to different organisational and cultural In today’s competitive environment, increas-
units, because the teammates do not know where ingly large numbers of organisations, such as
to place their loyalty (Balstrup, 2004). In a virtual Information Technology (IT) companies, use
environment, this is exacerbated because informal virtual teams in their international operations,
communication is reduced, due to the fact that which can constitute subsidiaries, outsourcing
members rarely meet face-to-face. A successful relationships, or global partnerships (Siakas &
leader of a virtual team must excel in applying Balstrup, 2006).
the right choice of ICTs to enable effective com- The organisation’s responsibility is to provide
munication and knowledge sharing. Communica- the necessary structure, and to create systematic

ways to identify and convert individual expertise, 2. Culture defines the relationship between
skills, and experience into organisational knowl- individual and organisational knowledge,
edge, and to strategically align organisational determining who can utilise it, share it,
knowledge transfer and learning investment with control it, and how it can be used in a certain
organisational value outcome, taking into account situation;
both current and future organisational tasks. 3. Culture creates the context for social inter-
Harorimana (2006) argues that it is impossible to action;
transfer knowledge that is not embedded in local 4. Culture shapes the processes by which new
cultural practices and settings, because reciprocity knowledge is created, legitimated, and dis-
norms dominate successful knowledge transfer. tributed.
We believe that this is a challenge we can face
by raising cultural diversity awareness. The main Recent research on knowledge creation,
contribution of this chapter is the analysis of the capture, storage, and distribution, as well as
cultural dynamics influencing knowledge sharing on organisational learning, indicates that com-
in different cultural settings, and the development munication, knowledge sharing, and learning
of guidelines for avoiding conflict and changing in organisations are profoundly influenced by
potential failure to competitive advantage. In cultural values of individual stakeholders (Ham-
distributed ICT environments enhanced with a brick, Davison, Snell, & Snow, 1998; Hofstede,
shift in mindsets, the individuals learn and con- 2001; Hutchings & Michailova, 2004; Pfeffer &
tribute their knowledge to the group, the group Sutton, 2000; Siakas & Georgiadou, 2003; 2006).
learns and contributes to the organisation, and Many scholars and practitioners also claim that a
the organisation facilitates/sponsors the processes supportive organisational culture can enable the
in a perpetual cycle of exchange of information, successful implementation of KM (Ardichvili,
sharing of knowledge and maximises process Mauner, Li, Wenting, & Stuedemann 2006; De
improvement. Long & Fahey, 2000; Lopez, Peon, M., Ordas,
2004; Park, Ribiere, & Schulte, 2004; Siakas &
Georgiadou, 2006). Since culture seems to be
cultural dynamics and an issue of utmost importance, but also a multi-
Knowledge management faceted issue involving many different research
disciplines and views, we consider that a deeper
Culture has been identified as the biggest impedi- presentation, drawn from the literature, is needed
ment to knowledge transfer (Ruggles, 1998) and for a better comprehension of cultures and their
an utmost complex and simultaneously important importance in KM. In particular, the impact of
factor affecting knowledge transfer at all levels, national culture on KM has been neglected in
especially at the transnational level (Duan, Xu, & the literature.
Fu, 2006). Culture influences and moulds beliefs
about the value of knowledge for the individual,
the team, and the organisation. De Long and cultural diversity and its
Fahey (2000) identified four issues influenced by impact on organisations
culture central to knowledge creation, sharing,
and use, namely: In 1952, Kroeger and Kluckholm (1952) found
164 different definitions, with different meanings
1. Culture shapes assumptions about what for the concept of culture. Culture has different
knowledge is and which knowledge is worth layers or levels often overlapping. The lack of
managing;
0
clarity on definitions and meanings of different Hofstede (1994, 2001) distinguished five ele-
terms commonly used in a cultural context could ments, or dimensions, of culture as described
be attributed to the fact that, regarding cultural next.
studies, many different academic disciplines are
involved, where the same terms have different • Power distance (PD), which describes the
meanings; different terms are also used for the extent to which hierarchies and unequal
same concept. distribution of power is accepted;
However, there are similarities in the different • Uncertainty avoidance (UA), which indi-
approaches to identifying and defining culture. Re- cates the extent to which a society feels
searchers (Inkeles & Levison, 1969; Kluckhohn, threatened by ambiguous situations and tries
1951; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Kroeger & to avoid them by providing rules, believing
Kluckhoh, 1952) relate differences between cul- in absolute truths, and refusing to tolerate
tures to different approaches to solving common deviance;
human problems. More recent research (Hofstede, • Masculinity vs. Femininity (Mas/Fem),
2001; Schein, 1985) seems to have adopted this which describes the relationship between the
approach. There are cultures of, for example, a masculine assertiveness, competitiveness,
family, a tribe, a region, a national minority, or a and materialism opposed to the feminine
nation. Hofstede recognises that there is cultural concern for quality of relationships, nurtur-
variation within and among cultures, and there ing, and social well being;
are different levels and forms of cultures. • Individualism vs. Collectivism (Ind/Col),
ICTs provide the bedrock of globalisation. which describes the relationship between the
Increasing numbers of organisations operate individual independence and the collective
on a global scale using culturally diverse teams interdependence of a group;
working across different languages, time zones, • Long-term vs. Short-term Orientation
and locations. Hofstede et al. (Hofstede, Neu- (influenced by Confucius and introduced
ijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990) provided strong later) describes the relationship between
evidence that national cultural differences shape persistence and thrift opposed to personal
organisational behaviour at a local level, and that stability and respect for tradition. This di-
differences in national and regional cultures affect mension has not been well received because
work values. He argued that culture is a collec- it appears confusing both to western readers
tion of characteristics possessed by people who and to Chinese minds (Fang, 2003).
have been conditioned by similar socialisation
practices, educational procedures, and life experi- All these dimensions are a continuum between
ences. The cultural orientation of the members two extremes (0 and 100), and only very few
of a network reflects the complex interaction of national cultures, if any, are wholly at one or the
values, attitudes, and behaviours displayed. They other extreme.
are all part of the cultural learning, and give rise In the current literature, the main focus seems
to misunderstandings and misinterpretation of to be on organisational culture (Hatch, 1993) and
intent. the organisational cultural changes imposed by
Hofstede (2001) stated that everyone belongs globalisation, networks trying to create added
to a number of different groups and categories value, and the unprecedented development of ICTs.
of people at the same time. He calls this mental Changes in strategy with subsequent changes in
programming within people, corresponding to dif- structure and operations create new organisational
ferent levels of culture, for example, at a national, cultures with different team settings (Brannen
professional, and organisational level.

& Salk, 2000; Sackmann & Phillips, 2004). The Harris and Morgan (1991) suggest that when
ultimate objective of a value-creating network is global organisations are aware of cultural strengths
to create superior customer value (Kothandaraman and biases in terms of national and organisational
& Wilson, 2001). The degree of value creation is characteristics, they can build upon such founda-
influenced by core capabilities of the members tions. International managers can take advantage
of the network, as well as by the nature of the of both differences and similarities, such as
relationships that the stakeholders in the network commonalities, through mutual cross-cultural
have with each other. The cultural orientation of synergy, for growth and development.
the members of a network reflects the complex
interaction of values, attitudes, and behaviours
displayed. They are all part of the cultural learn- cultural factors
ing, and give rise to misunderstandings and influencing Knowledge
misinterpretation of intent. sharing
According to Redding (1994), research in
organisational cultural issues and comparative The basic assertion in cross-cultural studies is
organisational theory suffer from theoretical that national culture, expressed in terms of values
poverty and lack of clear direction in general. and beliefs, has a direct impact on organisational
In order to provide adequate perspectives in the culture and individual behaviour (Hofstede 1994,
multiple and complex field, inputs from other 2001; Schein, 1985). The economical, political,
disciplines are required. These inputs improve and legal environment imposed by governmental
understanding not only of facts, but also of the rules, the technical environment, such as com-
underlying meaning. Hofstede’s work contains munication networks, and the sociocultural envi-
references to various theoretical approaches, ronment in which the organisation exists, directly
especially to psychology, and can, according to affect organisational culture and functioning of
Cray and Mallory (1998), be considered more organisations.
theoretically sophisticated than the majority of Organisational culture, in turn, directly af-
the comparative work in the field. fects individual behaviour by imposing guide-
The rapidly changing environment and in- lines on, and expectations from, the members
creasing international activity has created new of the organisation. Values of other stakehold-
demands on organisations, and on those who par- ers, like employees, also create impact on the
ticipate in cross-cultural activities. The emergence organisational culture. One of the key issues for
of cross-cultural organisations has also created a managers in globally networked organisations is
new awareness of the importance of understanding collaboration and shared commitment. Collabora-
other cultures. Comparative cross-national stud- tion presupposes trust, which is a fundamental
ies provide not only substantial information, but requirement of every economic activity (Clarke,
also perspectives on that information, and have 2002). Business activities, in the normal sense,
reflected the increased complexity of international are very complex, and require a great deal of trust
organisations (Redding, 1994). National culture in order to be fully and successfully carried out.
is a major barrier to making global business This trust requirement becomes even more chal-
effective. Different nationalities have different lenging and complex when the type of business is
expectations as to how employers and employ- operating globally. One major contributory factor
ees should act. The need for understanding the to this heightened state of trust requirement is the
effects of the intercultural complexity in the era fact that this type of collaboration, for example,
of globalisation has emerged. e-commerce, is characterised by the “invisibility”

factor (IDA, 2000), and is conducted in the virtual change and innovative behaviour encourages ac-
realm that, in most cases, does not offer face-to- tive exchange of ideas and increased knowledge
face contact among the participants (Ojukwu & sharing. An orientation, promoting information
Georgiadou, 2007). transfer and information flows, is reflected in a
The organisational structures can formally general atmosphere of inventiveness, creativity,
indicate and facilitate connections and communi- and willingness to make changes (Menon &
cations between individuals, as well as they may Varadarajan, 1992).
place limitations on communications, or create A company’s ability to use knowledge depends
intentional or unintentional obstacles both within on how enthusiastic people are about sharing it. Le-
and across organisational boundaries. Structural veraging knowledge is possible only when people
elements of organisations influence the collabora- value building on each other’s ideas and sharing
tion and sharing of knowledge within organisa- their own insights. Much of this is shaped by the
tions (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998), as well as hinder culture of the organisation (Siakas, 2002).
these activities (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001). Clarke (1994) argued that the essence of
Similarly, Goh (2002) stresses that a cooperative sustainable change is to understand the culture
and collaborative organisational culture can lead of the organisation. He stressed that if planned
individuals or groups to have higher propensity changes contradict cultural traditions and biases,
to share knowledge. resistance to the change and difficulties in its
A knowledge-oriented organisational culture implementing are likely to occur. This entails
is clearly one of the most influential factors for suc- global organisations to recognise the importance
cessful KM and knowledge transfer (Davenport of national culture when planning a radical change,
& Prusak, 1998), because a culture that promotes such as initiating networked collaboration. The
Table 1. Trust and knowledge sharing potential in different cultural settings (Siakas & Georgiadou,
2006)
Dimension Characteristic relating to KM Trust Knowledge Sharing

Authoritative leadership, Centralised decision structures,
High Power Distance Low If instruction so requires
Inequality between higher ups and lower downs
Participative leadership,
Low Power Distance High A natural process
Decentralised decision structures
High Uncertainty Suspiciousness to innovations and new knowledge, Has to be enforced by regulations and
Low
Avoidance Uncertainty for ambiguous situations instructions
Low Uncertainty
Problem-solving tasks preferred High Expected
Avoidance
Assertiveness, Hiding of knowledge for competition
Masculinity Low
Sympathy for strong reasons
Cooperation important
Femininity High A basic value
Sympathy for weak
Individualism “I” consciousness Low If personal advantage can be identified
Trust has to be established before any
In-groups High knowledge sharing can take place between
Collectivism in- and out- groups
Out-groups High Can be enhanced by intrinsic motives (e.g.,
higher reputation and status)

more committed the members of an organisation Hofstede’s values for the three countries in the
are to the current frame, the more resistance is field-study are outlined together with the conclu-
likely to occur when introducing a new system, sive remarks in the final report (Siakas, 2002) to the
particularly if this is likely to bring a major cul- Danish global organisation regarding the cultural
tural change. People who have been steeped in differences observed in the interviews.
the traditions and values of an organisation will Denmark: PD – 18 (low), UA – 23 (low), Mas/
experience considerable uncertainty, anxiety, and Fem – 16 (Fem), Ind/Col – 74 (Ind)
pain in the process of change. The difficulties
are exacerbated when introducing new ICTs to “The Danes seem to be very easygoing and taking
inexperienced team members who, in addition, their roles seriously (due to Femininity)…. They
may need to collaborate in a foreign language are proud of working for the organisation and
with people having different underlying norms, they are committed to what they are doing. There
values, and beliefs. is no competition and everybody seems to will-
In the above sections, we demonstrated that ingly both ask for help if needed and also proud
culture may hinder or facilitate the knowledge- of being able to give help if asked for [Knowledge
sharing process. As a result of studies, we derived sharing]. They work well in teams and they are
the principal relationships between Hofstede’s empowered to take delegated decisions.”
dimensions of work-related values to KM, trust,
and knowledge sharing (Siakas & Georgiadou, USA: PD – 40 (low), UA – 46 (low), Mas/Fem
2006) presented in Table 1, which shows that in – 62 (Mas), Ind/Col – 91 (Ind)
low Power Distance (PD) countries, low Uncer-
tainty Avoidance countries (UA), and Feminine “The Americans were very keen on stressing that
countries, trust is high and knowledge sharing they are ambitious, hard working and that they
is an expected natural process, one of the basic like to be productive (due to Masculinity). The
values of the culture. In individualistic cultures, structure is more hierarchical and competitive.
voluntary knowledge sharing is relatively hard They feel they do not have enough information
to achieve, and other supplementary activities, from the mother organisation about what is going
such as incentive systems, are recommended. In on and about the future. They would also like to
collectivistic cultures, knowledge sharing can be play a more active role in the change process and
enhanced if knowledge sharing is rewarded and in decision making... They think that the Danes are
made prominent with higher reputation and status somehow conservative, not willing to take risks and
(Handzic & Lagumdzija, 2006). not very innovative. They are very individualistic,
Evidence from a 2-month field study and ob- but they also want to feel like a team. Trust, seems
servations in a global Danish organisation, with to be an important thing for collaboration. They
subsidiaries in the USA and Germany, confirm the would like more focus on target market issues and
correctness of the theoretical judgement derived on being at the leading edge. They want things to
from the literature review. In total, 56 interviews happen faster.... They also want acknowledgement
with employees in software development on dif- for their efforts and respect from colleagues ….
ferent levels was conducted in Denmark, USA, They think management in Denmark is not aware
and Germany (Siakas, 2002). The field study of their professional level and of how ambitious
was the validation stage of a larger survey study and good professionals they are.”
encompassing 306 questionnaire respondents
from other countries as well. Germany: PD – 35 (low), UA – 65 (high),
Mas/Fem – 66 (Mas), Ind/Col – 67 (Ind)

“The organisational structure in Germany is guidelines for successful

higher than in Denmark. They are competitive, Knowledge sharing among
task-oriented and in general committed to the culturally diverse teams
organisation philosophy. They feel they need more and organisations
instructions or direct rules about how to work (due
to high UA) They also feel that they do not have Global organisations and virtual teams, by defi-
enough information from the mother organisation nition, are required to operate in a multicultural
in general and that there is a need for training setting where technology plays a central role.
especially in quality issues (Not enough knowledge Trust now involves additional technology aspects,
sharing). They have a good team spirit and they including compatibility, reliability, privacy, main-
seem to accept things they don’t like more easily tenance contracts, data management, and owner-
than the Americans do. They want to be acknowl- ship. Uncertainties on any of these aspects result
edged for their achievements and they want to be in poor communication and performance.
respected as equals by the Danes.” The influence of culture (organisational and
national) is instrumental in the setting of objec-
The evidence shows that a knowledge shar- tives, decisions, and actions. Experience itself
ing culture is almost occurring naturally in an generates and modifies knowledge. For successful
environment with low Power Distance and low knowledge sharing, empowerment of all involved
Uncertainty Avoidance values, whilst in cultures and regular review at all points are necessary.
with a higher Power Distance and Uncertainty Figure 1 (an adaptation of a model de-
Avoidance, a more serious cultural change will veloped by Georgiadou (2001)) represents a
be needed for embracing knowledge sharing as model for KM initiatives encapsulating the
a natural process. interactions and influences of values, beliefs,
and experiences on decisions and actions. The
Figure 1. Technology-enabled knowledge sharing approach
Values, beliefs and

attitudes
Moulded by culture
national and
organisational
Objectives Review
(what, why) Decisions Actions Successes
To share knowledge (what, who, Implementation failures
To become competitive how, when, Best practice
To change attitudes where) metrics
Experience
Individual & Team
(organisational)

emphasis here is on continuous review and ditional perspectives, and learn to listen to others.
feedback for improvement. Empowering all the stakeholders to engage in
The outer ellipse signifies a world of ICTs externalising and sharing data, information, and
acting as a reflective dome/dish through which knowledge, results in a learning organisation.
the exchange and sharing of information and Progressing from data to information answers
knowledge are affected. In a virtual team, each the fundamental questions of “who,” “what,”
individual member needs to understand and ac- “where,” and “when.” Going from information
cept that a shared purpose will guide the sharing to knowledge, we need to be able to answer the
of knowledge, sharing of the work load, provid- “how” question, whilst understanding requires
ing mutual support, engaging in negotiation and an appreciation of the “why.”
compromise where necessary, trusting the other The creation of a knowledge-sharing culture
members to do the same for the benefit of the is an essential part of KM initiatives. Changing
project/organisation, but without compromis- deep-rooted attitudes and values is, however, one
ing the individual. The success of the team, the of the most difficult undertakings. In the case of
project, and the organisation at large must be virtual organisations, differences in attitudes are
viewed as an enriching and rewarding experience even more difficult to identify and address. Ef-
for the individual who will gain experience, ad- fective Knowledge Sharing presupposes a change
Table 2. Guidelines for successful knowledge sharing among culturally diverse virtual teams
Step Description Expected Benefits

Ensure that stakeholders have the same understanding of the knowledge value state-
Agree collaboration strategies, objectives,
1. ment and how it relates to business strategies, objectives, and outcomes, together
and outcomes
with their interrelationships
Assess fit of individual, organisational, and
national culture by using the DivA (Diver- Indication of possible contradictions or conformity of values.
2. sity Assessment) automated tool (Siakas & Depending on the results action needs to follow to avoid conflict and instead,
Hyvärinen, 2006) developed from the SQM- view diversity as an enriching opportunity
CODE model (Siakas, 2002)
Design and deliver appropriate training pro-
3. Improvement of cultural awareness as a basis of mutual respect and trust
gramme for cross-cultural awareness
4. Improvement of technical skills ensuring seamless ICT use
gramme for technical aspects
5. Awareness of the importance and opportunities offered by knowledge sharing
gramme for knowledge sharing
Sustainability combining top-down strategy by individual commitment. Individuals
Develop a motivational strategy (benefits for learn and contribute to the group, the group learns and contributes to the organisa-
6.
the individual, team and organisation) tion, and the organisation facilitates/sponsors the processes in a perpetual cycle of
exchange of information, sharing of knowledge, and process improvement
The use of common systems and common processes, such as shared communica-
Identify current practice, complimentary ex-
7. tion processes, task allocation, ownership, and responsibility help team members
perience, and knowledge
increase their understanding of both the project and the view of the partners
Apply best practice and knowledge to pilot
8. project or Reflect on success/failure of ear- Validation of process Leadership identification and development
lier project(s)
Continuous improvement through the understanding of cause-effect analysis
9. Review reasons for success/failure
Formalise processes in view of insights gained through application and review

of attitude, a move from the belief “Knowedge is between actors of global partnerships and knowl-
Power” to Knowledge Sharing is Power,” from edge networks.
compromise to accommodation and consensus, The main contribution of this chapter was
from conflict to collaboration. Different cultures the analysis of the human and cultural dynamics
have different attitudes to scrutinity and criticism. that bear on knowledge sharing and KM success.
They also have different levels of acceptance, These dynamics were unfolded by extensively
openness, and trust, as well as varying levels of analysing cultural issues (national and organi-
tolerance towards different views and interpreta- sational) on knowledge sharing and networked
tions. Political, religious, and social prejudices organisations in order to promote an effective
soon become barriers to trust and openness to knowledge-sharing culture within virtual teams
sharing. It is important for a team/project leader existing in a global context. Cultural characteris-
to be sensitised to potential conflict arising from tics, revealed from the literature and validated in
such differences. a field study conducted in a Danish-based global
Commonalities in all cultures include striving organisation, with subsidiaries in the USA and
for success (at organisational and personal level), Germany, were mapped to Hofstede’s dimensions
seeking individual recognition for successful and conclusions regarding trust and knowledge
contribution, respect for knowledge. Success- sharing, were presented (Table 1).
ful teams and projects in virtual environments Commonalities in all cultures include striving
require that the team members must become for success (at organisational and personal level),
familiar/comfortable with the use of the tech- seeking individual recognition for successful
nologies, develop awareness of cultural norms of contribution, and respect for knowledge. Success-
other team members, be open and flexible, and ful teams and projects in virtual environments
take responsibility. require that the team members must become
We provide a semiformal set of guidelines familiar/comfortable with the use of the tech-
for effective knowledge in virtual environments nologies, develop awareness of cultural norms of
outlining the main benefits that are likely to derive other team members, be open and flexible, and
from the use of these guidelines. It is assumed that take responsibility.
participating individuals, teams, and/or organi- A diagrammatic representation of a technolo-
sations have the intention, in principle, to share gy-enabled knowledge sharing approach (Figure1)
knowledge and to become competitive. was proposed, encapsulating the interrelationships
of cultural norms, attitudes, beliefs, experience,
decisions, and actions. This approach places em-
conclusion phasis on continuous review and improvement,
based on empowerment and participation of all
The ability of organisations to learn, adapt, and stakeholders.
change has become a core competency for their Finally, a set of semiformal guidelines for
survival. Successful organisations are those that Successful Knowledge Sharing among cultur-
create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout ally diverse virtual teams was developed and
the organisation, and swiftly embody it into new presented (Table 2).
products and services. We conclude that in today’s interconnected
Information and Communication Technolo- world, more attention should be paid to studying
gies (ICTs) and the Internet have provided new the cultural dimension in order to develop aware-
opportunities for sharing the explicit knowledge, ness and sensitivity to cultural diversities. Deeper
not only within one single organisation, but also awareness of what divides people from different

cultures is likely to avoid conflicts and engender research, and use, and by the competitiveness of
harmony that, in turn, builds trust. information society and media industries (COM
229, 2005). Deep-rooted cultural and social pat-
terns are likely to influence the differences in
future research directions performance.
Tsatsou (2005) articulates a major critique on
In future, the successful organisation will become the current EU policy process regarding the failure
a learning organisation, where all employees of the EU to recognize and adjust its policy to the
perceive themselves as knowledge workers. ICTs existing cultural particularities of its Member
will continue to develop and play a central role in States. She poses the question of whether digi-
the Information Society. The widespread use of tal divides constitute “cultural divides” having
ICTs has generated new cultural groupings and an impact on the policy, regulation, and future
ways of working, ranging from social computing evolution of the EU Information Society. She
and Communities of Practice (CoP) (Wenger & addresses the need of an EU policy that takes
Snyder, 2000), both emerging phenomena influ- into account the sociocultural particularities of
encing global knowledge sharing. each EU Member State without losing its broad
In June 2005, the European Union launched a scope and common aim throughout the EU. The
new strategic framework “i2010 - European Infor- importance of taking cultural differences into
mation Society 2010” (COM 229, 2005), aiming consideration was also recognised in a large scale
to foster economic growth, and to create jobs in European project (Segalla, 2001) aimed at study-
the information society and media industries by ing cultural differences in interrelations between
deploying and modernising EU policy instru- clients, shareholders, and company employees,
ments that encourage development of the digital with the view of contributing the process of the
economy. The i2010 initiative emphasises ICTs integration of European companies and the Eu-
as a driver of inclusion and quality of life, and ropean economy as a whole.
convergence as a main factor for change for the Future work will involve the use of the DivA
ICT sector and the society at-large (i2010 HLG, tool, together with the guidelines to plan, intro-
2006). To achieve the objectives of the i2010 duce, and monitor KM programmes in selected
strategy, the challenges appearing from the con- organisations in different countries spanning
tinuous changes of the technological issues need cultural diversity in order to collect further
to be carefully analysed and acted upon. qualitative and quantitative empirical data. The
The future European core vision (shared across data will subsequently be analysed, the guidelines
both industries and governments) allows every revised, and customised versions for different
user to be able to connect everywhere, anytime, cultures produced.
with access to adapted and high quality content Organisations, groups, and individuals ben-
and communication services, in a safe and acces- efit from relevant and timely knowledge that is
sible environment. The reality of convergence is delivered/reached in a cost-effective manner. In
developing rapidly (i2010 HLG, 2006). However, future, we also aim to explore the principles and
the digital divide between administrations in EU methods for converting knowledge to wisdom,
member states that have implemented electronic and go some way towards answering the questions
government platforms and those with limited proj- posed by T. S. Eliot (1934):
ects or plans is obvious. Differences in economic
performances between industrialised countries Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
are determined by the level of ICT investment, Where is the knowledge we have lost in informa-
tion? [T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)]

acKnowledgment Clarke, L. (1994). The essence of change. London,

UK: Prentice-Hall.
The authors would like to thank the reviewers, and
Clarke, R. (2002). Trust in the context of e-busi-
particularly, Prof. Ettore Bolisani for his incisive
ness. Internet Law Bulletin, 4(5), 56-59.
comments and constructive criticism.
COM 229. (2005). i2010 – A European Informa-
tion Society for growth and employment. Com-
references munication from the commission to the council,
the European parliament, the European economic
Ai-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Moham- and social committee and the committee of the
med Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and regions, Brussels, 1.6.2005.
knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Jour-
Cray, D., & Mallory, G. R. (1998). Making sense
nal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22-42.
of managing culture. London, UK: International
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Thomson Business Press.
Knowledge management and knowledge man-
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working
agement systems: Conceptual foundations and
knowledge: How organisations manage what they
research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ang, Z., & Massingham, P. (2007). National
Davis, J. G., Subrahmanian, E., & Westerberg, W.
culture and standardization vs. adaption of
(2005). The “global” and the “local” in knowledge
knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge
management. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
Management, 11(2), 5-21.
ment, (1), 101-112.
Ardichvili, A., Mauner M., Li, W., Wenting, T.,
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnos-
& Stuedemann R. (2006). Cultural influences on
ing cultural barriers to knowledge management.
knowledge sharing through online communities
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-
of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management,
127
10(1), 94-107.
Bal, J., & Teo, P. K. (2000). Implementing virtual
teamworking. Part 1: A literature review of best
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-
practice. Logistics Information Management,
127.
13(6), 346-352.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimen-
Balstrup, B. (2004). Leading by detached involve-
sions of national culture and effective leadership
ment – Success factors enabling leadership of
patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in Interna-
virtual teams. MBA Dissertation, Henley Man-
tional Comparative Management, 3, 127-50.
agement College, UK.
Duan, Y., Xu, X., & Fu, Z. (2006). Understand-
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., &
ing transnational knowledge transfer. In P. Feher
Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the
(Ed.), Proceedings of 7th European Conference
cross-border transfer of organizational knowl-
of Knowledge Management (ECKM06) (pp. 126-
edge: An integrative framework. The Academy
135), 4-5 Sept., Public Academic Conferences
of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.
Ltd. Reading, UK.
Brannen, M.Y., & Salk, J. (2000). Partnering across
borders. Human Relations, 53(4), 451–487.

Eliot, T. S. (1934). The rock. MA: Harcourt, of Knowledge Management (ECKM06) (pp. 208
Braintree Book Rack. – 212), 4-5 Sept., Public Academic Conferences
Ltd. Reading, UK.
Elron, E., & Vigoda-Gadot. E. (2006). Influence
and political processes in cyberspace: The case Harorimana, D. (2006). Knowledge networks: A
of global virtual teams. International Journal of mechanism of creation and transfer of knowledge
Cross Cultural Management, 6(3), 295–317. in organisations? In P. Feher (Ed.), Proceedings of
7th European Conference of Knowledge Manage-
Fang, T. (2003). A critique of Hofstede’s Fifth Na-
ment (ECKM06) (pp. 211-222), 4-5 Sept., Public
tional Culture Dimension. International Journal
Academic Conferences Ltd. Reading, UK.
of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 347–368.
Harris, P. R., & Morgan, R. T. (1991). Managing
Georgiadou, E. (2001). Software measurement for
cultural differences, (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf
process and product improvement - controlled
Publishing Company.
experiments and derivation of reengineering
metrics. School of Informatics and Multimedia Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organisa-
Technology, Faculty of Science Computing and tional culture. Academy of Management Review,
Engineering, University of North London, Trans- 18(4), 657–693.
fer Report from Mphil to PhD.
Herder, P. M., Veeneman, W. W., Buitenhuis, M.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge D. J., & Schaller, A. (2003). Follow the rainbow:
transfer: An integrative framework and some A knowledge management framework for new
practice implications. Journal of Knowledge product introduction. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 6(6), 23-30. Management, 7(3), 105-115.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra A., & Segars A. H. (2001). Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organisations,
Knowledge management: An organisational ca- intercultural cooperation and its importance for
pabilities perspective. Journal of Management survival, software of the mind. UK: McGraw-
Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214. Hill.
Gurteen, D. (1999). Creating a knowledge shar- Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences:
ing culture. Knowledge Management Magazine, Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and
2(5). Retrieved from http://www.gurteen.com/ organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA, London:
gurteen/gurteen.nsf/0/FD35AF9606901C42802 Sage Publications.
567C70068CBF5/
Holden, N. (2001). Knowledge management:
Hambrick, D., Davison, S., Snell, S., & Snow, C. Raising the specter of the cross-cultural dimen-
(1998). When groups consist of multiple nationali- sion. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(3),
ties: Toward a new understanding of implications. 155-63.
Organisation Studies, 12(2), 181-205.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowl-
Handy, C. (2000). Trust and the virtual organisa- edge management: A threefold framework. The
tion ( HBR OnPoint Enhanced Edition). HBR On Information Society, 18, 47-63.
Point, June 2000
Holsapple, C. W. (2005). The inseparability
Handzic, M., & Lagumdzija, A. (2006). Motiva- of modern knowledge management and com-
tional influences on knowledge sharing. In P. Feher puter-based technology, Library Hi Tech News
(Ed.), Proceedings of 7th European Conference incorporating Online and CD Notes, Volume 9,
0
Number 1, 2005 , pp. 42-52(11), Emerald Group Kothandaraman P. & Wilson D. T. (2001). The
Publishing Limited future of competition: Value creating networks.
Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 379-
Hunt, J. W. (1981). Applying American behav-
389.
ioural science: Some cross-cultural problems.
Orgnisational Dynamics, 10(1), 55-62. Kroeger, A., & Kluckhohn, F. (1952). Culture:
A critical review of concepts and definitions.
Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2004). Facilitat-
Cambridge: Harvard Business Review.
ing knowledge sharing in Russian and Chinese
subsidiaries: The role of personal networks and Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams:
group membership. Journal of Knowledge Man- Reaching across space, time and organisations
agement, 8(2), 84-94. with technology. New York: Wiley.
i2010 HLG. (2006). The challenges of conver- Lopez, S. P., Peon, J. M. M., & Ordas, C. J. V.
gence. Information Space Innovation & Invest- (2004). Managing knowledge: The link between
ment in R&D Inclusion, i2010 High Level Group, culture and organisational learning. Journal of
12.12.2006. Knowledge Management, 8(6), 93-104.
IDA. (2000). A proposed framework on building Mansour-Cole, D. (2001). Team identity formation
trust and confidence in electronic commerce: in virtual teams. In S. Beyerlein, M. Beyerlein,
A consultation paper, (September 2000). Re- & D. Johnson (Eds.), Virtual teams, Advances in
trieved 17/09/07, from http://unpan1.un.org/in- interdisciplinary studies of work teams, vol. 8.
tradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UN- Oxford: Elsevier Science.
PAN004853.pdf
Menon, A., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1992). A model
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. (1969). National of marketing knowledge use within firms. Journal
character: The study of module personality and of Marketing, 56(4), 53 – 71.
sociocultural systems. In G. Lindsay & E. Aronson
Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2003).
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, vol.
An empirical analysis of knowledge management
4. Addison-Wesley.
applications. Journal of Knowledge Management,
Järvenpää, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Com- 7(3), 6-26.
munication and trust in global virtual teams.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating com-
Organization Science, 10, 791 – 815.
pany. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.
Kanter, V. D. (1999). Knowledge management,
O’Dell, I., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we
practically speaking. Information Systems Man-
knew what we know: Identification and transfer
agement, Fall, 7-15.
of internal best practices. California Management
Kluckhohn, F. (1951). Values and value-orienta- Review, 40(3), 154 - 174.
tion in the theory of action: An exploration in
Ojukwu, D., & Georgiadou, E.(2007). Towards
definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E A.
improving inter-organisational trust amongt
Shils (Eds.), Towards a general theory of action.
SMEs – A case study from developing countries.
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Paper presented at the 9th IFIP International Con-
Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Varia- ference on the Social Implications of Computers
tions on value orientations. Evanstone, IL: Row, in Developing Countries, May 2007, Sao Paolo,
Peterson & Company. Brazil. Retrieved from http://www.ifipwg94.org.
br/fullpapers/R0096-1.pdf

Park, H., Ribiere, V., & Schulte, W. D. (2004). Ross., & G. Staples (eds), Perspectives in Soft-
Critical attributes of organisational culture that ware Quality: Proceeding of the 14th Software
promote knowledge management technology Quality Management Conference (SQM 2006),
implementation success. Journal of Knowledge April, Southampton, UK, The British Computer
Management, 8(3), 106-117. Society, pp. 197-204
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing Siakas, K. V. (2002). SQM-CODE: Software
doing gap: How smart companies turn knowl- quality management – Cultural and organisa-
edge into action. Boston Ma: Harvard Business tional diversity evaluation. PhD Thesis, London
School Press. Metropolitan University, UK.
Redding, S. G. (1994). Comparative management Siakas, K. V., & Balstrup, B. (2006). Software
theory: Jungle, zoo or fossil bed? Organisation outsourcing quality achieved by global virtual
Studies, 15(3), 323-359. collaboration, software process. Improvement and
Practice (SPIP) Journal, 11(3), 319-328.
Rodrigues, C. A., & Blumberg, H. (2000). Do
feminine cultures really behave more feminine Siakas, K. V., & Georgiadou, E. (1999). Process
than masculine cultures? A comparison of 48 improvement: The societal iceberg. In European
countries’ femininity-masculinity ranking to Software Process Improvement Conference, Eu-
their human development rankings. Cross-Cul- roSPI ‘99 (pp. 25-37), Pori, Finland, 25 - 27.10.
tural Management - An International Journal,
Siakas K. V., & Georgiadou E. (2003). Learn-
7(3), 25-34.
ing in a changing society and the importance of
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of notion: Knowledge cultural awareness. In IADIS 2003 (International
management in practices. California Management Association for development of the Information
Review, 40(3), 80-89. Society) (pp. 696-702), International Conference,
Algarve, Portugal, 5-8 Nov. 2003, Vol. I.
Sackmann, S. A., & Phillips, M. E. (2004). One’s
many cultures: A multiple cultures perspective. Siakas, K. V., & Georgiadou, E. (2006). Knowl-
In N. A. Boyacigiller (Ed.), Crossing cultures: edge sharing: Cultural dynamics. In P. Feher
Insights from master teachers. (Ed.), Proceedings of 7th European Conference
of Knowledge Management (ECKM06) (pp. 505-
Schein, E. H. (1985). How culture forms, develops
513), 4-5 Sept., Public Academic Conferences
and changes. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, &
Ltd. Reading, UK.
R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate
culture. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Siakas K. V., Georgiadou E.(2003). Learning
in a Changing Society and the Importance of
Segalla M. (2001). Overview: Understanding
Cultural Awareness, Paper presentet at IADIS
values and expectations of foreign employees
2003 (International Association for develop-
creates a better company. European Management
ment of the Information Society) International
Journal, 19(1), 27-31.
Conference, Algarve, Portugal, 5-8 Nov. 2003,
Siakas K. V. & Hyvärinen J. (2006). On-line Vol. I, 696-702
Assessment of the Fit between National and Or-
Siakas, K. V., & Georgiadou, E. (1999). Pro-
ganisational Culture; A new tool for Predicting
cess Improvement: The Societal Iceberg. Paper
Suitable Software Quality Management System.
presented at the European Software Process
In R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M.

Improvement Conference, EuroSPI ‘99, Pori, additional reading

Finland, 25 - 27.10, pp. 25-37
Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal
Siakas K. V., & Hyvärinen J. (2006). On-line
of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3-9.
assessment of the fit between national and or-
ganisational culture; A new tool for predicting Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (2004).
suitable software quality management system. In Designing for virtual communities in the service
R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M. Ross., of learning. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
& G. Staples (Eds), Perspectives in software bridge, UK.
quality: Proceeding of the 14th Software Qual-
Bettoni, M., Andenmatten, S., & Mathieu R.
ity Management Conference (SQM 2006) (pp.
(2006). Knowledge cooperation in online commu-
197-204), April, Southampton, UK, The British
nities: A duality of participation and cultivation. In
Computer Society.
P. Feher (Ed.), Proceedings of 7th European Con-
Sondergaard, M. (1994). Research note: Hofstede’s ference of Knowledge Management (ECKM06)
consequences: A study of reviews, citations and (pp. 36-42), 4-5 Sept., Public Academic Confer-
replications. Organisation Studies, 15, 447-456. ences Ltd. Reading, UK. Brown, A. D. (1998).
Organisational culture. London, UK: Financial
Spiegler, I. (2000). Knowledge management: A
Times Management, Pitman Publishing.
new idea or a recycled concept? Communications
of the Association for Information Systems (AIS), De Carolis, M., & Corvello, V. (2006). Multiple
June, 3(14), 1-23. competences in distributed communities of
practice: The case of a community of financial
Tanriverdi, H. (2005). Information technology
advisors. In P. Feher (Ed.), Proceedings of 7th
relatedness, knowledge management capability
European Conference of Knowledge Manage-
and performance of multi-business firms. MIS
ment (ECKM06) (pp. 116-125), 4-5 Sept., Public
Quarterly, 29(2 - June), 311-334.
Academic Conferences Ltd. Reading, UK. Fang,
Tsatsou P. (2005). Civil society in Greece: Shap- T. (2006). From “onion” to “ocean,” paradox and
ing new digital divides? The digital divides as change in national cultures. International Studies
“cultural” divides. Implications for closing di- of Management & Organisation, 35(4), 71–90.
vides, ESRC Seminar on “Bridging the Digital
Georgiadou, E., Siakas K. V., & Berki, E. (2006).
Divides,” Oxford Internet Institute, UK, 4 March
Knowledge creation and sharing through student-
2005. Retrieved from http://www.oii.ox.ac.
lecturer collaborative group coursework. In P.
uk/collaboration/seminars/20050304_Panayi-
Feher (Ed.), Proceedings of 7th European Confer-
ota_Tsatsou_Paper.pdf
ence of Knowledge Management (ECKM06) (pp.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: 678-689), 4-5 Sept., Public Academic Conferences
Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Ltd. Reading, UK.
University Press.
Goodstein, L. D. (1981). American business
Wenger, E., & Snyder,B (2000). Communities of values and cultural imperialism. Organisational
practice: The organisational frontier. Harvard Dynamics, 10(1), 49-54.
Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.
Groeschl, S., & Doherty, L. (2000). Conceptual-
ising culture. Cross Cultural Management, An
International Journal, 7(4), 12-17.

Hofstede, G. (1985).The interaction between na- Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analytic social
tional and organisational value system. Journal settings, A guide of qualitative observation and
of Management Studies, 22, 347-57. analysis. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Hofstede, G. (1995). Multilevel research of human McSweeney, B. (2002). Model of national cultural
systems: Flowers, bouquets and gardens. Human differences and their consequences: A triumph
System Management, 14, 207-217. of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations,
55(1), 89–118.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Person-
ality and culture revisited: Linking traits and Mullins, L. J. (1989). Management and organisa-
dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, tional Behaviour. London: Pitman Publishing.
38(1), 52-85.
Neches, R, Fikes, R., Finin T., Patil, R., Senator,
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, T., & Swartout, W. R. (1991). Enabling technol-
G. (1990). Measuring organisational cultures, a ogy for knowledge sharing. AI Magazine, 12(3),
qualitative study across twenty cases. Administra- 16-36.
tive Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.
Sahni, A. K., & Rastogi, A. K. (1995). Trans-
Jabri, M. M. (2005). Commentaries and critical forming corporate culture through total quality
articles : Text–context relationships and their commitment. In 5th World Congress on Total
implications for cross cultural management. Inter- Quality (pp.42 – 45), New Delhi, Feb.
national Journal of Cross-Cultural Management,
Schwen, T. M., & Hara, N. (2003). Community
5(3), 349–360.
of practice. A metaphor for online design? The
Joynt, P., & Warner, M. (1996). Introduction: Information Society, 19, 257-270.
Cross-cultural perspectives. In P. Joynt, & M.
Siakas, K. V., & Siakas E. (2008). The need for
Warner (Eds.), Managing across cultures: Is-
trust relationships to enable successful virtual
sues and perspectives. International Thomson
team collaboration and software outsourcing. The
Business Press
International Journal of Technology, Policy and
Kwai Fun IP, R., & Wagner C. (2007). Weblog- Management, special issue on Human Aspects
ging: A study of social computing and its impact of Information Technology Development, Fall
on organizations. ScienceDirect – Decision Sup- 2007.
port Systems, 1-8.
Storck, J., & Hill P. (2000). Knowledge diffusion
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: through “strategic communities.” Sloan Manage-
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, ment Review, 41(2), 63–74.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tayeb, M. (1988). Organisations and national
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., culture: A comparative analysis. London, UK:
& Gibson. C. B. (2005). Culture and international Sage Publishers.
business: Recent advances and their implications
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997).
for future research. Journal of International Busi-
Riding the waves of culture. Nicholas Brealey.
ness Studies, 36, 357–378.
Williamson, D. (2002). Forward from a critique
of Hofstede’s model of national culture. Human
Relations, 55(11), 1373–1395.

Chapter IV
Towards an Implicit and
Collaborative Evolution of
Terminological Ontologies
Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo
University of Leipzig, Germany
abstract
This chapter is concerned with the evolution of terminological ontologies used for representing personal
knowledge. It first argues that each member of the knowledge society will need a personal knowledge
model representing his/her knowledge. Subsequently, it presents a method for implicitly and collabora-
tively evolving such personal knowledge models, improving by these means the knowledge transfer in
the knowledge society over the Internet. The authors hope that an understanding of the importance of
personal terminological ontologies, and especially of a low-bias approach to their implicit and collab-
orative evolution, will contribute to the transformation from the information to the knowledge society.
introduction and human users. Much work has been done in

the areas of knowledge representation (KR) and
In recent years, the significance of knowledge artificial intelligence (AI). In the seventies, several
sharing and exchange over the Internet has been approaches to KR methods, such as connectionist
recognized by the scientific community to be (Block, 1962; McCulloch & Pitts, 1943) and logic
crucial for the arising knowledge society, which based (Tarski, 1956) were already developed. In
will be based on the next generation of the In- the following decade, main KR projects such as
ternet, that is, the semantic Web (see e.g., Abidi Cyc (Lenat & Guha, 1989) arose. KR languages
& Pang, 2004). The transfer and management of and formats such as CycL (Lenat & Guha, 1989),
knowledge over the Internet demand the existence the knowledge interchange format (KIF) (Hayes
of several technologies, per se. & Menzel, 2001) and Loom (McGregor, 1990)
First, it demands techniques for representing were subsequently developed. These methods
knowledge in a way accessible to both machines then made room for ontology representation
Towards an Implicit and Collaborative Evolution of Terminological Ontologies
languages. Meanwhile, they are the standard for of the interests, knowledge, and requirements of
representing machine-readable knowledge with each user. Yet modeling such knowledge manu-
RDF/OWL (resource description framework/Web ally would be a very costly process with regard
Ontology Language) as W3C (World Wide Web to time and resources. Other operations, such as
Consortium) standards (W3C, 2006). Ontologies updating personal knowledge bases, would also
are considered to be the backbone of the future demand a considerable amount of resources. Due
semantic Web and hence, of the knowledge rep- to the fact that the knowledge of single individuals
resentation in the knowledge society based on it. grows with time, productive KM systems will need
They are universally utilizable KR structures that to continuously capture the growth of personal
have already been used in several contexts such as knowledge, and include it in the personalized
data description (Dwight, Harris, Dolinski, Ball, knowledge models. Thus, the need for approaches
Binkley, Christie, et al., 2002), knowledge com- for the evolution of personal knowledge bases
munication for software agents (Takeda, Iino, & is undeniable. Yet, updating solely the personal
Nishida, 1995), modeling of linguistic knowledge ontologies of employees would not be of use to
(Omelayenko, 2001), and Information Retrieval a company if the growth of knowledge of the
(Müller, Kenny, & Sternberg, 2004). A rapidly employees is not reflected in the global ontol-
growing number of organizations have realized ogy of the company. A method for subsuming
the need to make their knowledge accessible in personal ontologies to a global ontology is thus,
such a way (Kingston, 2008). also needed.
Second, exchanging knowledge demands The goals of this chapter are twofold: first,
a knowledge transfer architecture, which can chosen approaches to KR in the context of KM
be based on shared knowledge bases, personal will be presented, and the use of ontologies for KR
knowledge bases (linked using peer-to-peer tech- in KM will be discussed. The main goal of this
nologies for example), or a combination of both chapter will yet be to introduce a user-centered
(personalized knowledge bases). In knowledge- collaborative evolution approach for personal
intensive organizations, techniques for KR will knowledge bases. Several technical concepts
be potentially used not only to represent global necessary to implement concepts, such as the
knowledge shared by the members from a certain similarity of users within a community and of
domain, but also the personal knowledge of each ontologies, will be introduced. Finally, a possible
user, enabling intelligent agents to perform tasks approach for collaborative and semiautomatic
demanding specific knowledge about the context, ontology evolution, based on natural language
needs, and preferences of the user, for example, processing, will be presented.
personalized semantic information retrieval, This chapter is structured as follows: In the
customized translation, automatic planning, and following section, background knowledge on KR
so forth. By these means, contextually relevant and the use of KR mechanisms for IT-supported
content and knowledge will be made accessible KM will be presented. Criteria for selecting an
to the user, improving his/her effectiveness and appropriate technique for KM will be defined and
therefore, the competitiveness of the whole or- applied to state-of-the-art approaches. Further-
ganization. Improved innovation cycles, shorter more, existing approaches for automatic extraction
time-to-market, and better reuse are only a few of and evolution will be presented. The subsequent
the advantages that such an approach promises. In section will be concerned with a collaborative
order to enable such personalized and customized and user-centered ontology evolution, focusing
operations and services, Knowledge Management on personal terminological ontologies. Finally,
(KM) systems will necessitate a representation the conclusion will be concerned with present-

ing some pros and cons of these methods, and criteria will be used for choosing appropriate
depicting some of the problems that arise and KR techniques for KM. Subsequently, exist-
possible solutions. ing techniques for the evolution of knowledge
represented using the chosen paradigm will be
presented. This will then lead to the core of this
bacKground chapter, a new approach to the evolution of the
given KR model.
According to Song, Nerur, and Teng (2007),
Knowledge Management (KM) is concerned with operations on content and
the “creation, storage, access and dissemination Knowledge
of intellectual assets.” It combines several dis-
ciplines, such as psychology, sociology, IT, and In order to define necessary semantic opera-
management, and aims at finding methods and tions on content, the interdependencies between
techniques for capturing the explicated and tacit information (i.e., content assets), knowledge
knowledge of employees, and diffusing it within (contained in the assets), and working process of
the enterprise to enhance its performance. The the end users (i.e., the context in which they need
area of IT-supported KM began with the arousal the information/knowledge) has to be taken into
of techniques for knowledge storage and retrieval consideration and applied to the standard content
(Kautz & Mahnke, 2003). IT-supported KM is lifecycle. Haertwig and Boehm (2005) defined the
mainly concerned with the development of tech- coherency model displayed in Figure 1.
niques to support the digitalization of knowledge It displays the interdependencies existing be-
into knowledge models, its externalization into tween information, knowledge, and work activities
content assets, and the retrieval and manipula- with respect to information supply and thus, to
tion of assets to improve the knowledge transfer the transfer of knowledge within organizations.
within companies. This chapter will be exclusively The users, as knowledge holders, need to access
concerned with this aspect of KM, focusing espe- relevant information (i.e., content) within a given
cially on the use of ontologies for the description
of content and the associated semantics.
In order to support the diffusion, creation,
and reuse of knowledge, KM tools have to imple- Figure 1. Coherency model for information, knowl-
ment basic operations on knowledge models and edge, and process (Haertwig & Boehm, 2005)
content. These operations will play a central role
when defining an evolution strategy, based on the Knowledge
assumption that they are implemented in all KM
on
pa
ati
ac
ss
tools. Knowledge will be considered as contained

rm
tive
ive
on
nfo
ati
implicitly in content assets, and explicitly stored

kn
kn
cI
cre
User
ow
ow
nti
in knowledge models. For this reason, software

ge
led
led
ma
led
ge
ge
tools for KM must implement these operations

se
ow
wh
for
of
on both content and knowledge models, enabling Active

kn
ile
on
wo
Task
for
ati
wo
rki
the users to manipulate the available knowledge

cre
ng
rki
Context
ng
implicitly or explicitly. In the following, several Content

for
basic operations on content and knowledge will

be presented. Then, criteria for selecting suitable Information for productive knowledge work Process
KR techniques for KM will be depicted. These for storage in knowledge repositories

Figure 2. Content lifecycle (Dutta, 2000)
context set by the business process in which they Creation

are to complete a given task. To achieve that goal,
different operations between the elements of the This operation can be subdivided in two main
model can be used. Haertwig and Boehm (2005) parts: content and knowledge creation. Content
argue that it is necessary to support both the exter- creation consists of the explication of knowledge
nalization of knowledge during the work process in the form of documents or other content assets,
(so called knowledge coproduction) and the inter- and in making these available to the rest of the
nalization of semantically enriched information employees. It usually involves a group of users
to knowledge. Since the knowledge of a company (proofreaders, quality management, etc.), and is
is not yielded by a single individual, but by the implemented as a collaborative process, per se.
whole set of employees, the externalization and To improve the accessibility of created content,
internalization of knowledge must be realized as techniques, such as content annotation, need to
a collaborative sharing process within the context be implemented. This concept is borrowed from
of the company. Yet, since each single user has free tagging, which is state-of-the-art in most col-
special needs with respect to relevant knowledge, laborative tools. The drawback of free tags is their
the possibilities of personalized knowledge-based semantic independence. For example, it cannot be
(i.e., semantic) operations are required as well. inferred that synonym tags characterize the same
Based on these considerations and on the con- concept. Using the concepts yielded in knowledge
tent lifecycle as displayed in Figure 2, four basic models for tagging would enable linking content
operations must be implemented in and supported and knowledge directly. The other aspect of cre-
by KM systems: creation, consumption, curation ation, that is, knowledge creation, refers to the
and abstraction. The operations aggregate the manual or automatic generation of knowledge
functionality of the operations proposed by Dutta models and resources. Since every user needs to
(2001) and extend them by taking knowledge and be able to perform this task, appropriate tool sup-
collaborative concepts into consideration. port is required. Knowledge created by a single

user might be only valid for this given user and of the given user. In order to ensure a transfer of
not globally. Once more, the need for personalized this knowledge to other users, means for selecting
knowledge models is evident. Globally accepted similar users and transferring updates between
knowledge can be considered as being generally ontologies need to be implemented. This implicitly
valid for the organization, and can be integrated collaborative technique is of central importance,
in a global knowledge model. since it requires minimal supplementary effort
from single users while enabling a continuous
Consumption knowledge sharing over the whole company.
Consuming knowledge can be realized on both Curation

content and knowledge models. From the point of
view of content, it is the task of the KM system Data curation is a concept borrowed from the
to provide the user with special tools for sup- world of databases and consists of validating
porting information retrieval, since users do not existing information; a document segment being
usually know where relevant information is to be regarded as valid when it contains reliable infor-
found. Techniques for the automatic provision of mation. The validation process is a collaborative
contextually relevant information must, thus, be process on information segments, and consists of
implemented. Once again, personalized knowl- the alteration of content assets in order to ensure
edge models are required to model the information their validity and superior semantic quality.
needed by users in a given context. The main Through the internalization of the knowledge
drawback of automated information supply, that contained in existing documents, the curation of
is, the discrepancy between the granularities of the knowledge bases can be carried out. Similar to
available content assets and needed information, “abstraction,” this operation must be carried out
can be addressed by combining two operations: on the personalized knowledge base of each user,
content segmentation for extracting contextually and is an important component for the support of
relevant information out of content assets and knowledge transfer with companies.
presenting these, and agglomeration for merging
such content segments to larger content assets criteria for Knowledge
focused on a particular topic (Ngonga Ngomo & representation techniques
Schumacher, 2006).
The operations presented bear several similarities.
Abstraction First, they are all of collaborative nature, enabling
an extensive knowledge sharing between the
Abstraction can be defined as the process of knowledge stakeholders of the company. Second,
formulating general concepts based on common they all allow users to integrate implicitly their
properties of available instances. Information ab- specific knowledge in the global knowledge model
straction is the externalization step from content used in the company in a fast and efficient way.
assets (analyzed by human cognition) to knowl- Third, they demand the existence of a mapping
edge. KM systems must provide the user with between personalized ontologies and the knowl-
functionality for modeling out available knowledge model representing the global knowledge
edge using, for example, a KR kit. This operation of the organization.
models the knowledge explication per se. Since it These analogies require a KR paradigm that
is realized by a single user in a given context, it supports the paradigm of knowledge distribution:
must be applied to the personal knowledge models In order to link the personal knowledge bases to

the company-wide knowledge model, the KR tech- 1975). The description of the world generated
nique used must support distributed storage and by frame-based systems is of static nature.
collaborative manipulation through the knowledge Therefore, frame-based systems are limited
stakeholders themselves. This implies the need for when dealing with procedural knowledge
accurate support with easy-to-use tools designed (Winograd, 1975), but are highly suitable for
for non-specialists. Especially, methods based representing factual knowledge as necessary
on formal description languages do not provide in KM.
such support since they were primarily designed • Logic-based languages represent knowledge
for specialists. A further criterion for the use of using the concepts of first-order logic, and
a KR technique in KM is related with the repre- are thus suitable for the representation of
sentational power of the language. Most formal factual knowledge (see e.g., McCarthy,
languages used in KR have the representational 1968). Each object modeled using frame-
power of first-order logics (FOL). On the other based constructs can be described using
end of the spectrum are purely visual languages an existential statement in first-order logic.
that do not permit the representation of semantics Yet this representation is usually longer
(Myers, 1990). Languages for KM do not primar- and thus, less easy to handle. Logic-based
ily necessitate formal descriptions, since they are systems can represent sequences of actions
mostly used to describe terminological concepts. and can thus be used to represent procedural
Yet they should be able to support the specification knowledge.
of formal relations in order to enable concepts, • Rule-based languages represent knowledge
such as inference, when necessary. through logical statements, called rules or
production rules, that define possible actions
Knowledge representation when given premises are fulfilled. Based on
factual knowledge stored in their working
Techniques for KR can be differentiated according memory (the initial conditions), rule-based
to different axes. From the point of view of the languages allow the inference of new knowl-
type of knowledge to model, one can differenti- edge (see e.g., Gallaire & Minker, 1978).
ate two main classes of knowledge: procedural • Modern ontological languages combine the
and declarative. According to Polanyi (1967), advantages of frame, logic- and rule-based
procedural knowledge is of tacit nature and thus, languages. They allow statements about
difficult to model. Therefore, we will address entities, the definition of global rules, and
methods for modeling declarative knowledge. the usage of inference tools for the extrac-
Declarative KR models are “a set of ontological tion of supplementary knowledge. Further,
statements” (Davis, Shrobe, & Szolovits, 1993), they permit different degrees of formalism
that is, they describe the way in which we do or ranging from no formal specification at all
should think about the world. The representation to FOL (see e.g., Pulido, Ruiz, Herrera,
of factual knowledge can be carried out using Cabello, Legrand, & Elliman, 2006).
several techniques that can belong to one or more
of the following groups (Sowa, 2000): With the emergence of the Web2.0, the ef-
fort invested in the development of ontological
• Frame-based languages specify the objects languages increased considerably. As stated, all
in the world of reference using so-called declarative KR models are a set of ontological
concepts, and describe the knowledge about statements, that is, they describe either elements
the relations between these objects (Minsky, of the world or relationships between these. Onto-
0
logical languages such as OWL (see http://www. one can distinguish three types of ontologies
w3.org/TR/owl-features/ for an exact descrip- (Sowa, 2003):
tion of OWL and its features), the current W3C
standard for ontology description, have been • Formal ontologies, which include a fully
developed exactly for this purpose. Being able axiomatized set of relationships between
to describe factual knowledge like frame-based labeled concepts.
and logic-based languages, they can also define • Prototype ontologies, which describe con-
global rules associated with the objects and their cepts using a set of typical instances and
relations, and integrate different levels of formal are usually of hierarchical nature.
description from none to full FOL. • Terminological ontologies, which describe
The distribution of the knowledge to describe semantic worlds using labeled concepts, and
over several ontologies and locations is an integral a set of usually not or partly axiomatized
part of the current standard OWL that allows the relationships, on which we shall focus in
integration of classes from other ontologies into this chapter.
a given one. All other languages can potentially
support such a distribution, although it is usu- From the point of view of usage, ontologies can be
ally not explicitly desired, like in the case of categorized as global and personal ontologies:
ontologies.
Due to the rapid expansion of the semantic Web, • Global ontologies are ontologies in the com-
tools for the graphical modeling, manipulation, monly used sense. They describe agreements
and maintenance of ontologies through non-ex- on global knowledge and are valid for a
perts have been created. The tools necessary to group of individuals. Numerically, global
manipulate the other languages are mostly difficult ontologies can be seen as the mean of the
to understand and require a strong background personal knowledge of each of the individu-
in formal logics, making them not suitable for als in a group. All three structural categories
non-specialists. of ontologies can be used to describe com-
The representational power of ontologies can mon knowledge. Usually formal ontologies
be varied by selecting the dialect used. The lan- are preferred, since they allow operations
guages OWL-Lite and OWL-DL are decidable and such as inference, which are very useful for
thus, less complex than FOL. OWL-Full, on the software agents.
other hand, bears the same complexity as FOL, • Personal ontologies describe a domain from
and can thus be used to represent the knowledge the point of view of a single individual in a
explicated using frame, logics, and rule-based machine-readable form, and are only valid
languages. It is, therefore, obvious that ontologies for the given user. Although this concept is
are best suited for being used in KM. not completely new, this view of ontology
has gained a broader interest within the
Classification of Ontologies scientific community only during the past
few years (see e.g., Carmichael, Kay, & Kum-
Ontologies are defined as “specification of a merfeld, 2004; Chaffee & Gauch, 2000).
conceptualization” (Gruber, 1993), that is, as It is known that different individuals have
description of entities that might exist in a certain at least slightly different semantic worlds
domain and of the relations between them. There and thus, cannot mean exactly the same
are at least two views on ontologies: structural and thing when they refer to the same concept
user-driven. From the point of view of structure, (Korzybski, 1933). Since knowledge-based

services, such as personalized semantic Existing evolution methods were designed

information retrieval, are an integral part taking formal ontologies into consideration. Still,
of the knowledge-sharing process over the analyzing some of the existing ontology evolution
Internet (knowledge pull and push), the techniques will be of help when considering the
representation of the exact semantics of evolution of personal terminological ontologies.
each user will be needed to ensure a high
level of quality when retrieving knowledge ontology generation and evolution
(knowledge pull), describing knowledge
(knowledge push), and extracting the knowl- One of the main drawbacks of the semantic Web
edge of organizations from the stakeholders idea is linked to the high investments required for
themselves, that is, the users. As displayed modeling ontologies manually (see Lopez, 1999
in Figure 3, the organizational knowledge is for a good overview of methods and principles for
the conjunction of the personal knowledge manually modeling ontologies). For this reason,
of the employees of the companies, which methods for automatically extracting ontologies
itself was acquired through world and per- were created. Most of these methods use machine
sonal experiences. This personal knowledge, learning techniques, such as propositional learn-
which should be expressed in personal on- ing (Maedche & Staab, 2000), Bayesian learning
tologies, might differ only slightly from one (Craven, DiPasquo, Freitag, McCallum, Mitchell,
employee to the other. Since a description Nigam, & Slattery, 2000), clustering (Bisson,
of fuzziness and therefore, a characteriza- Nedellec, & Canamero, 2000) on a different set
tion of slight differences are not possible in of features, such as distributional patterns as
formal ontologies, it is preferable to use the syntactic patterns (Hindle, 1990), or extraction
less formal ontology categories to describe patterns such as Hearst-patterns (Caraballo, 1999).
personal knowledge. Omelayenko (2001), Ding and Foo (2002), and
Figure 3. Conceptual relationships between personal and organizational ontologies (Bennett & Theo-
doulidis, 1998)

Biemann (2005) provide a good overview over with time, ontologies are unavoidably bound to
such techniques. Most of the techniques for ontol- change in order to keep on modeling a domain
ogy extraction require a considerable amount of correctly. According to Stojanovic (2004), the
text to produce acceptable results. The extracted ontology evolution process can be subdivided
ontologies usually have to be corrected manually, into six phases:
which can also be a very expensive undertaking.
The expenses involved in the semiautomatic gen- • Requirements capturing: The domain to
eration of ontologies are yet, always below those model and the granularity of the model are
necessary when modeling the ontology manually. defined in this phase. For automatic extrac-
Automatically generated ontologies do not reflect tion, the choice of the domain is the steering
the semantics of the single users, but solely the factor for the choice of the corpus.
semantics of the corpus they were extracted from. • Change representation: This phase is
Therefore, the need is for methods for evolving concerned with the modeling of the required
terminological ontologies, which can transform changes according to their granularity,
an ontology into a correct model of each user’s which can range from atomic (only one
knowledge. concept or relation has to be modified) to
Evolution is defined by the Cambridge English complex (subsumption of atomic changes).
Dictionary as “a gradual process of change and • Semantics of change: This phase is con-
development.” Ontology evolution can, there- cerned with the systematic resolution of
fore, be understood as the continuous process of inconsistencies that might occur when a
modifying and expanding an ontology in such a change takes place. In the case of formal
way that it shapes up into a correct model of the ontologies, this can be realized by defining
user’s semantics. Another definition was proposed key axioms that always have to hold, and
by Stojanovic (2004, p.15), who defines ontology cascading changes as long as the key axioms
evolution as “the timely adaptation of an ontology hold. Changes that lead to a negation of the
to the arisen changes and the consistent propa- key axioms are rolled back.
gation of these changes to dependent artifacts.” • Change propagation: The forwarding of
This definition is coherent with the one proposed changes to related ontologies and the secur-
previously, with the sole nuance that the consis- ing of their consistency after these changes
tency of a change within the existing ontology have been overtaken takes place in this
can only be evaluated by the user for whom the phase.
ontology is intended. • Implementation: This phase is concerned
Much work has been done on ontology mod- with informing the knowledge engineer
eling and extraction, but ontology evolution has requesting changes with the consequences
yet not been deeply investigated, although the of its requests, applying and logging the
need for ontology evolution techniques is clearly changes. In this phase, the ontology evolu-
existent (Flouris, 2006): Klein and Fensel (2001) tion, as such, takes place.
discuss the decreasing flexibility of applications • Validation: This phase is concerned with
when the included knowledge models are not checking the evolved ontology for correct-
updated. Haase et al. (Haase, Ehrig, Hotho, & ness.
Schnizler, 2004) propose that ontologies can
be highly dynamic and evolve drastically over Although the area of ontology evolution is
time, using the example of a bibliographic peer- related to areas, such as ontology management
to-peer system. Since domain knowledge grows and versioning in literature, we will focus on the

purely evolutionary aspect of ontology evolution, case of terminological ontologies. Thus, termi-
that is, on the process of transforming ontologies nological ontologies can also be evolved and not
into more accurate models. solely modified. Other approaches propose the
Klein and Noy (2003) present a framework use of formalisms such as ACL (Sindt, 2003)
for ontology evolution, and underline some of the or an algebraic representation of DL-ontologies
main restrictions when transforming ontologies, (Flouris, Plexousakis, & Antoniou, 2006) for
pointing out, especially, ontology update, verifi- ontology evolution.
cation, and approval restrictions, yet assuming All approaches to ontology evolution, cited pre-
that all users share a single common ontology. viously, were based on manually modeled formal
Since the views of different users might differ ontologies. As known to the author, the evolution
on certain points, it should be more accurate of terminological ontologies has not yet been
to have local ontologies for each user that are considered in literature. The following section is
evolved using the user’s knowledge. A merging concerned with presenting a possible approach to
of such local ontologies would be the equivalent such an evolution. The formal concepts, presented
to the global ontology for all users asserted by as formulae, are explained within the text.
Klein and Noy.
Stojanovic et al. (Stojanovic, Maedche, Sto-
janovic, & Studer, 2003) consider ontology evo- evolution of terminological
lution to be a reaction to changes, and propose ontologies
a configuration-design approach to tackle the
evolution problem. The same approach is more The collaborative evolution of terminological on-
widely described in Stojanovic (2004), who pro- tologies follows the process depicted in Figure 4
poses that “ontology evolution is accommodated (the different colors depict the evolution processes
when an ontology management system facilitates of different users).
the modification of an ontology by preserving First, an alteration of an existing ontology takes
its consistency.” Changes that occur without place. It is propagated by the ontologies of similar
consistency check are referred to as “ontology users and implemented in them. The validation
modification.” As stated, the consistency check step then consists in accepting or refusing the
is realized by the user and not the system, in the proposed alteration.
Figure 4. Steps of the collaborative evolution of terminological ontologies

preliminary considerations possibilities of doing so: either mapping single

words with concepts, or mapping sets of terms
A theory for the evolution of terminological to a single concept and using a label function to
ontologies demands a precise comprehension of determine the label of the concept. Goodenough
terminological ontologies; of techniques for mea- (1957) suggests that the use of the latter is more
suring the similarity between ontologies and of adequate in relation to human cognition. He
the evolution paradigm. These will be described proposes to break down the meaning of concepts
in this section. into atomic sense units called “semantems.” Each
semantem can be identified with a single term from
Terminological Ontologies the domain corpus, and is a feature that a concept
can have or not. By these means, concepts can be
Formally, a terminological ontology O is charac- mapped to a crisp (i.e., non-fuzzy) subset of the
terized by a set C of concepts, a set of relations set of terms. For example, the concept “car,” as
R, a labeling function λ, and a set of labels L. described previously, would be mapped to a set
The concepts depict elements of thought that containing the terms car, automobile, van, and
characterize existing or fictional artifacts. These truck. Yet this crisp mapping is unable to capture
concepts are mapped to a name (called label), but concepts such as nuances in meaning and the
are not equivalent to this name. For example, the fuzziness of semantics, which are both inherent in
concept labeled “car” is the abstract representation human language, as the existence of expressions
of all entities that belong to a certain degree to the such as “approximately” and “more or less” proves.
family of cars, automobiles, vans, trucks, and so Thus, an extension of the concept of semantems
forth. Interestingly, the concept car is interpreted to the concept of fuzzy semantems is necessary.
differently by different human beings. While “car” Each concept is, thus, mapped to a weighted set
designates, especially, a personal car for some, of terms, with the weights describing the degree
it might much more designate a van for another. to which a term characterizes a concept. A pos-
Concepts in ontologies are modeled through sible fuzzy description of car would then be car
their relationships with each other. The labeling (0.7), automobile (0.3), van (0.3), and truck (0.1).
function λ maps each concept and relation to a With this description paradigm, the description of
label, that is, to a term that designates it. The set nuances and other fuzzy characteristics of natural
L is the set of all used concept and relation labels. languages are possible.
Each label is used only once in an ontology in Three main steps are needed in order to extract
order to prevent the existence of polysemes, that semantem vectors (also called term vectors) from
is, concepts with more than one meaning. text. First, relevant terminology and the relation
Since terminological ontologies for describing between the termini need to be extracted. For
personal ontologies would be too costly when this purpose, a term similarity metric is required.
created manually, they need to be extracted au- Second, the extracted termini must be mapped
tomatically from text corpora dependent on the to concepts by computing a fuzzy description of
user. This extraction can be realized using some of concepts in the term space. Here a concept-term
the techniques for automatic ontology extraction mapping is needed. Third, the relations between
mentioned previously, and will be considered as the concepts need to be extracted. This can be
given in the following. Common to most extrac- achieved by a concept-similarity metric. In the
tion algorithms is that they define a similarity case of fuzzy clustering-based approaches, for
function over a set of keywords K and use it to example, distributional patterns or collocations
generate relations between objects. There are two (Biemann, 2005) can be used to characterize

semantems. A vector metric (such as the cosine Most importantly, it results in a numerical com-
or the Manhattan distance, see NIST, 2007) can parability of ontologies. Several approaches for
then used as a term-similarity measure. A fuzzy measuring the similarity of ontological structures
clustering algorithm (e.g., CBC, Pantel & Lin, have been developed over the years, of which a
2002) can subsequently be utilized for the extrac- few follow: Bisson (1992) designed an approach
tion of clusters (term-concept mapping), which for learning in FOL using a similarity measure
are subsequently labeled and used as concepts. based on the computation of the similarity of
The results of a relation-harvesting algorithm are pairs of occurrences in expressions integrated in a
finally combined with the concepts to create an Jacobi Matrix. Dieng and Hug (1998) represented
initial ontology. The concept-similarity metric is ontologies as conceptual graphs, and developed
based on the underlying fuzzy description. Since a technique for comparing and merging such
the number of relevant words in a corpus is finite, ontologies. Rahm and Bernstein (2001) present
the term-similarity metric can be fully described several approaches for measuring the similarity
using a term-term similarity matrix, which is of schemata in the area of databases, which can
equivalent to a weighted graph called term net. partly be used in ontology evolution. They present
The goal of an approach for the automatic evolu- a classification of schema matchers, and subdivide
tion of terminological ontologies is to modify this these in four main classes of matchers: schema-
matrix according to the needs of the user and the based, instance-based, hybrid, and composite
subsequent propagation of these changes in the matchers. More recently, Haase et al. (Haase,
clustering, the labeling, and the relation harvest- Hotho, Schmidt-Thieme, & Sure, 2005) designed
ing. Figure 5 depicts this extraction process. an approach for collaborative and usage-driven
evolution of formal personal ontologies.
Measuring the Similarity of The approaches presented in these papers
Terminological Ontologies presuppose the use of formal ontologies. Purely
terminological ontologies are not considered.
The description of ontological concepts using Using the proposed description for concepts,
fuzzy semantems presents several advantages. the comparison of terminological ontologies can
Figure 5. Exemplary ontology extraction process

be reduced to the comparison of a set of vectors extracted and described as stated. In particular,
in a given vector space, in this case the space each concept will be considered as being mapped
of semantems. Fuzzy semantem description of to a fuzzy set of terms.
concepts and therefore, the similarity of termi-
nological ontologies, can thus be easily compared Initialization
using existing metrics on vector similarity. The
NIST dictionary of algorithms and data structures The computation of the initial similarity between
(NIST, 2007) provides a good overview of promi- users requires the evaluation of the weights of
nent metrics. An advantage of the existence of a each term in the description of the concepts in-
similarity metric for personal ontologies is that it cluded in each personal ontology. An important
allows the computation of the similarity of users question for this initial ontology extraction step
by measuring the similarity of their ontologies. In is the choice of a representative corpus for given
the areas of peer-to-peer networks and information users. Several solutions are possible: First, seed
retrieval, several techniques for measuring the documents could be used in an iterative process
similarity of users have been developed (see e.g., to retrieve a representative subset of the organiza-
Xiao, Zhang, Jia, & Li, 2001). In the rest of this tional corpus. This method presents the advantage
chapter, the similarity of the personal ontologies of demanding little effort from the user. Yet the
of users will be used as value for the similarity of choice of inappropriate seed documents could
the users themselves. Based on these premises, an potentially lead to a non-representative corpus.
ontology evolution based on change propagation Another possibility is the collection of typical
to similar users can be defined. user queries and the merging of their results to a
data corpus, as used in the domain of personal-
ontology evolution process ized information retrieval. Here, the choice of the
appropriate thresholds for a maximal coverage of
The evolution of personal terminological ontolo- the organizational data with a minimal loss of
gies does not demand an automation of every specificity is of great importance. More interactive
phase necessary to evolve formal ontologies. In approaches using hierarchical document cluster-
particular, all consistency checks are realized ing/classification, as in Information Retrieval,
by the user. Furthermore, the paradigm of col- are another possibility for the determination of
laborative evolution of terminological ontologies an initial user corpus. Baeza-Yates and Ribeiro-
presupposes that personal ontologies are related Neto (1999) give a good overview over modern
to similar personal ontologies. This is necessary IR techniques.
for changes in personal ontologies to be used to Independently from the method chosen for
alter other ontologies of a community. We will the selection of the initial user corpus and the
first shortly present some considerations on the extraction of an initial ontology, the key for the
initialization of the evolution approach. Then, evolution of terminological ontologies are the
we will present formal considerations related typical functions required for the extraction of
to the evolution of single personal ontologies. ontologies. Through the definition of a similarity
Subsequently, the impact of these evolutionary function between terms and concepts (e.g., the
steps on the other ontologies will be discussed. cosine similarity, see Appendix A), the similarity
These considerations will lead to the third part of concepts and thus, of ontologies and users, can
of this section, that is, our vision of an ontology be determined. Given an initial similarity matrix
system that could underlie knowledge communi- for users, the propagation of local alterations can
ties. Personal ontologies will be assumed to be be implemented.

Local Alteration by monitoring the interactions of the user with

computation results, and cumulatively map-
The local alteration of ontologies can be carried ping these to a feedback value (see e.g., Ngonga
out either implicitly through its usage in applica- Ngomo & Schumacher, 2006). The collection of
tions and the provision of feedback, or explicitly feedback can be eased, using the KM operations
by modifying the ontology manually. The im- described, since all KM tools must implement
plicit alteration of personal knowledge bases is these. The resulting feedback can be used to
of great importance because it can be carried out alter either the concept description, that is, the
not only by the user, but also by software agents term-concept mapping, or the term-similarity
representing the user. For example, a retrieval function, or both. If the term-concept mapping
agent in charge of keeping the local repository is chosen, the feedback can be propagated to the
of an employee up-to-date could modify his/her underlying term-term matrix using spreading
ontology implicitly by changing the underlying activation techniques borrowed from the area of
corpus and thus, the underlying match between neural networks. Figure 6 displays an example of
concepts and their description as vectors of se- such a feedback propagation: The selection of a
mantems. Furthermore, feedback collected from concept activates the underlying terms (second
the owner of the ontology during his/her work, image from the left, activated concept, and terms
with/on results generated using the ontology, are marked with double lines). The generation of
could be used for local alteration. The explicit positive feedback (third figure) strengthens the
modification of terminological ontologies is very relation between concept and terms and in between
similar to the modification of formal ontologies terms (fourth figure, ticker lines mark a stronger
as described in literature. Therefore, it will not relation). Ripley (1996) gives a good overview
be further considered in this chapter. Stojanovic over existing techniques in this area.
(2004) presents up-to-date approaches on this Especially important during this process is the
topic. selection of the subnet used for the completion
The implicit alteration of ontologies demands of the process leading to a given feedback. This
the collection of feedback from the user and its ensures that only the knowledge used to produce
integration in the ontology. Feedback can be won the feedback is altered by the feedback. Positive
in several ways: explicitly, by asking the user to feedback increases the similarity values between
rate results computed automatically using some concepts and terms and in-between terms.
knowledge included in the ontology, or implicitly,
Figure 6. Exemplary propagation process

It is thus possible to suppose that every feed- mon to many different areas of research (Newman,
back results in an alteration of the term similarity 2003). The principle of small worlds holds when
matrix of the user, that is, of the semantem space. trying to cluster users in generic communities,
The ontology evolution then takes place by ap- for example, in peer-to-peer networks (Iamnitchi,
plying the initial ontology extraction algorithms Ripeanu, & Foster, 2002). The number of small
on the new similarity values, and combining the worlds is equal to the number of distinct domains
resulting ontology with the current ontology of represented in the whole community of users.
the user. Within each of those small worlds, changes in
the ontology of a user A can be forwarded to the
Propagation ontology of another user B in three steps:
A central aspect of collaborative ontology evo- • Converting the modification of the ontology
lution is the propagation of changes from the into a modification of the term-similarity ma-
ontology of single employees into the ontolo- trix using the spreading-activation principle,
gies of similar employees. Again, the numerical as used in neural networks and Information
description of concepts as vectors of semantem Retrieval (Preece, 1981), if necessary.
plays an important role. Users with similar term- • Propagating the modifications in the term-
similarity matrices will have similar semantic similarity matrix of A into the term-similar-
worlds, since the extracted ontologies will also ity matrix of B using the similarity between
be similar. Yet detecting similar users over the the two matrices as weight. The result of
Internet/intranet can be a difficult task even within this operation is a modified term-similarity
a company. One possible solution for this problem matrix of B.
is to have users explicitly decide to participate in • Applying the ontology extraction process
the knowledge interchange and thus, to register on the updated matrix and implementing
into a community designed for this purpose, and the changes in the ontology of B, if they are
offering some value-added services based on these accepted by B. The changes not accepted by
semantics. The registration would guarantee an B are simply rolled back in the term-similar-
accountability of the users, and allow the auto- ity matrix.
matic detection of subdomains within the user
community and thus, further refinements of the Implementation and Validation
storage strategy (such as ontology clustering for
better accessibility, for example) when necessary. The implementation of this propagation strat-
Another possibility of ensuring a central storage egy can be realized either by a sequential or a
of the personal ontologies of all users is the defi- cumulative update of the term-similarity values.
nition of administrative guidelines. A sequential application of the possible updates
Supposing the existence of such a community, bears the advantage that the user can revoke each
a network of similar users, can be defined over atomic change. Yet since the number of atomic
their term-similarity matrices. A well-known changes can be great, the user might spend more
phenomenon that can then occur is the “small- time updating his/her ontology than using it. The
world” phenomenon, which was initially proposed other alternative, the cumulative update, leads
by Milgram (1967). He supposed that every two to the user having the possibility to revoke one
individuals in the world can be linked together by complex update at a time. Yet this method may
a chain of maximally six acquaintances. Further not permit the selection of acceptable parts of the
experiments showed that this phenomenon is com- ontology update. A solution might be a hybrid ap-

proach that would update the ontology of B using During the ontology generation phase, the
changes of a maximal, user-specific complexity. user chooses a basis corpus and uses a suitable
Either way, the validation of the alteration can be ontology extraction algorithm to generate his/her
undertaken by the user only. The changes refused initial ontology. Since users can have more than
are rolled back in the term-similarity metric. one domain of interest, the extracted ontology
The five steps proposed in Figure 4 fully can be enriched using the global ontology of
describe a technique for the evolution of ontolo- small worlds containing related concepts. Once
gies, presupposing the existence of techniques his/her initial ontology is constructed, the user
for the automatic extraction out of text. The can manipulate the concepts in personal ontolo-
concrete implementation of the different steps gies using a set of applications. Concepts can be
is not explicitly stated, since several approaches manipulated explicitly by modifying the ontology
are possible, as the proposed literature shows. using an ontology-modeling tool such as Protégé
Nevertheless, the method suggested is concrete (Stanford, 2006). Implicit feedback can be col-
enough to show that a collaborative evolution of lected when the user uses semantic services such
personal terminological ontologies is possible. as semantic retrieval engines and manipulates
the information he accesses (Ngonga Ngomo &
resulting framework Schumacher, 2006), or when the user interacts
indirectly with concepts using local software con-
The framework resulting from the considerations nected to his/her ontology. Every type of numeric
presented is displayed in Figure 7. Its life cycle user feedback can be used to evolve the ontology
can be subdivided into three main phases: ontol- by updating the term-similarity matrix.
ogy generation, personal-ontology evolution, and The collaborative ontology-evolution phase
collaborative-ontology evolution. consists in forwarding the changes that occurred
Figure 7. Framework for collaborative ontology evolution
0
in an ontology to all other users sharing the same for a user being a group might present some
common global ontology, that is, in the same small heavy-tail characteristics, leading to small worlds
world. These changes can be revoked by the single containing a very little number of users. Such
users or accepted. Especially interesting is the users with atypical ontologies could not directly
introduction of new concepts, which can lead to profit from collaborative ontology evolution. A
steadily growing ontologies, as is the case with the possible solution for this problem would be to
set of pages of Wikipedia. Furthermore, implicit utilize a combination of fuzzy and hard clustering
knowledge sharing can lead to social phenomena for user clustering. It would approximate atypical
such as the emergence of unexpected user net- ontologies using a linear combination of typical
works, giving the administration of enterprises ontologies.
hints towards the creation or improvement of com- From a global point of view, collaborative
munication channels between the administrative ontology-sharing communities could lead to an
roles included in the emerging small worlds. increase of the “opacity” (i.e., non-transparency)
The local ontologies can be aggregated to a of users acting on the net. The users would have to
domain ontology by periodically merging the log in in a platform and open their knowledge to
personal ontologies of users in a given cluster agents with uncontrollable functionality (i.e., In-
(same or similar roles, tasks, small world cluster ternet search engines). Their personal knowledge
…). The necessary manual steps, especially the could be used by the community service providers
validation, would be carried out by knowledge to serve their own profits, for example. Since a rep-
engineers. resentative subset of the user’s knowledge could
be contained in such an ontology, illegal ontology
transactions could lead to third-persons possess-
conclusion ing a considerable amount of knowledge about
individuals without the will nor the knowledge
We presented an approach to collaborative ontol- of the latter. Nevertheless, the trend towards the
ogy evolution especially designed for personal utilization of personal ontologies will develop with
terminological ontologies, pointing out how a the integration of semantic Web technologies in
fuzzy version of Goodenough’s compositional our working environment. Their evolution would
semantics could be used to define the semantics of thus demand either the integration of technologies
concepts and for collaboratively evolving personal for explicit and implicit feedback in all working
ontologies. The idea of practically each human environments, or generic techniques able to moni-
being having his/her own ontology can seem tor the user and compute feedback independently.
unfeasible, yet the personalization of semantic Generating such feedback and using it during the
services will be impossible without a transfer of ontology evolution process should be one of the
the knowledge of users to the software agents research trends for the years to come.
implementing the services they need to access. Collaborative ontology evolution will be
Thus, there is an existing need for the representa- profitable for different parties: primarily, the
tion of the evolving personal knowledge. users will gain new knowledge through the col-
Collaborative ontology evolution requires that laborative evolution of their ontology. Especially
groups of similar users interchange knowledge. when using implicit techniques, the users will be
The small worlds in user communities are the able to update their and other ontologies with a
basis on which we propose to generate such user low effort (the validation of changes). The low
groups automatically if other clustering patterns, intrusiveness of such a technique is vital for its
such as their roles in the organization, are not acceptance. Yet from a practical point of view,
clearly defined. Yet the probability distribution parameters, such as the update frequency of the

underlying term-similarity matrix and the com- of service automation over the Web yet already
plexity of the changes to realize, at once, must demands a shift from this view of ontologies to a
be set manually. more user-centered approach. Personal ontologies
Organizations would profit from this form of will be used for customizing autonomic software
knowledge sharing as well. From their point of agents that implement specific functionality, mak-
view, a proper handling of knowledge would mean ing the sharing of common agreements to be only
a proper handling of the sources for innovation, one possibility of using ontologies. The evolution
improvement, and improved competitiveness, per of these ontologies will demand the creation of
se. Employees spend a considerable amount of more techniques for acquiring feedback from
time looking for information that either already different sources, interpreting the collected data,
exists or producing information that is never and using it for ontology evolution.
reused by any other employee, due to a lack of The use of multiperspective ontologies (i.e.,
knowledge transfer. The use of collaborative ontologies able to model data from different points
techniques to propagate knowledge around the of view and with variable granularities) will
organization could be a remedy to the typical propagate from the area of research to applica-
state of companies not being aware of their own tions, making mechanisms for their integration
potential. The implications for the organization and evolution necessary. This might also demand
are clearly a higher competitiveness through the approaches, such as automatic ontology extrac-
reuse of existing knowledge and products, the tion and relation harvesting, to be redesigned or
improved efficiency of its employees through an modified.
improved knowledge supply, the internalization Where non-crisp facts are necessary or ex-
of the knowledge of current employees leading clusively available, the use of fuzzy ontologies
to a reduction of the loss of knowledge due to to represent contextual dependences and further
employees retiring from the organization, and the numerically expressible dependences will also
improvement of the interoperability of semantic play an important role in the upcoming knowledge
applications through a more effective supply of society. Again, accurate techniques for their ex-
required information, just to name a few. Possible traction and evolution will need to be developed.
side effects of collaborative ontology evolution Furthermore, software agents implementing fuzzy
are the emergence and dissociation of social net- logic will be more prominently used. Techniques
works. The emergence of new networks could be for the representation of fuzzy ontologies seem
used to discover correlations between roles, and very promising, yet are still at their beginning,
shorten the administrative paths between these to and need to be studied carefully and supported
enhance their collaboration. On the other hand, the by software tools more widely.
dissociation of networks could be a hint towards Ontologies will evolve from the knowledge
conflicts within user groups, an inaccurate tagging representation technique for professionals that
of users with roles, or a need for differentiation they are today, to a knowledge representation tech-
within user groups. nique for every man. This demands the conception
and implementation of ergonomic tools to facilitate
the user-centered modeling/extraction, evolution,
future research directions and tracking of ontologies, for example, through
the implementation of exploration and feedback
Ontologies have been used in several different techniques with low intrusiveness. Such personal
settings, usually as a mean for sharing common ontologies would state some beliefs that would
agreements on some semantics or facts. The trend enable agents to perform customized operations.

Another future research direction is the prediction text. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of
of the evolution of knowledge through software the Association for Computational Linguistics,
agents. This would allow the agents to carry out 120-126.
personalized operations in a more efficient man-
Carmichael, D. J., Kay, J., & Kummerfeld, B.
ner. Alternative representation of knowledge, such
(2004). Personal ontologies for feature selection
as multiperspective (Kingston, 2008) and multi-
in intelligent environment visualisations. In Pro-
faceted ontologies, could be used to improve the
ceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Intelligence
interoperability of knowledge-driven applications
in Mobile Systems.
through their improved reusability.
Chaffee, J., & Gauch, S. (2000). Personal ontolo-
gies for Web navigation. Proceedings of the Ninth
references international Conference on information and
Knowledge Management, 227-234.
Abidi, S. S. R., & Pang, X. (2004). Knowledge
Craven, M., DiPasquo, D., Freitag, D., McCal-
sharing over P2P knowledge networks: A peer
lum, A., Mitchell, T., Nigam, K., & Slattery, S.
ontology and semantic overlay driven approach.
(2000). Learning to construct knowledge bases
International Conference on Knowledge Manage-
from the World Wide Web. Artificial Intelligence,
ment, Singapore, 13-15.
118, 69-113.
Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999).
Davis, R., Shrobe, H., & Szolovits, P. (1993). What
Modern information retrieval. Wokingham: Ad-
is a KR? AI Magazine, 14(1), 17-33.
dison-Wesley.
Dieng, R., & Hug, S. (1998). Comparison of per-
Bennett, B. R., & Theodoulidis, B. (1998). To-
sonal ontologies represented through conceptual
wards a notion of personal ontology. University
graphs. Proceedings of the 13th European Confer-
of Manchester.
ence on Artificial Intelligence, 341-345.
Biemann, C. (2005). Ontology learning from texts:
Ding, Y., & Foo, S. (2002). Ontology research
A survey of methods. LDV-Forum 20(2), 75-93.
and development. Part 1 - A review of Ontology
Bisson, G. (1992). Learning in FOL with a simi- Generation. Journal of Information Science,
larity measure. AAAI, 82–87. Information Science, vol. 28, pp. 123-136, 2002.
Bisson, G., Nedellec, C., & Canamero, D. (2000). Dutta, S. (2001). NCLIS policy recommendation
Designing clustering methods for ontology on linking the information life cycle concept with
building - The Mo’K Workbench. In S. Staab, digital libraries. A comprehensive assessment of
A. Maedche, C. Nedellec, & P. Wiemer-Hastings public information dissemination, 214.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology
Dwight, S. S., Harris, M. A., Dolinski, K., Ball,
Learning, 14th European Conference on Artificial
C. A., Binkley, G., Christie, K. R., Fisk, D. G.,
Intelligence, Berlin, Germany.
Issel-Tarver, L., Schroeder, M., Sherlock, G.,
Block, H. D. (1962). The perceptron: A model for Sethuraman, A., Weng, S., Botstein, D., & Cherry,
brain functioning. Reviews of Modern Physics, J. M. (2002). Saccharomyces Genome Database
34, 123-135. provides secondary gene annotation using the
Gene Ontology. Nucleic Acids Research 30(1),
Caraballo, S. A. (1999). Automatic construction
69-72.
of a hypernym-labeled noun hierarchy from

Flouris, G. (2006). On belief change and ontology Kaashoek, & A. I. Rowstron (Eds.), Revised
evolution. PhD. Thesis. University of Crete. Papers From the First international Workshop
on Peer-To-Peer Systems. Lecture Notes in
Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D., & Antoniou, G.
Computer Science 2429 (pp. 232-241). London:
(2006). Evolving ontology evolution. In Proceed-
Springer-Verlag.
ings of the Current Trends in Theory and Practice
of Computer Science Conference, 14-29. Kautz, K., & Mahnke, V. (2003). Value creation
through IT-supported KM? The utilisation of
Gallaire, H., & Minker, J. (Eds) (1978). Logic and
a KM system in a global consulting company.
databases. New York: Plenum Press.
Informing Science, (6), 75-88.
Goodenough, W. (1957). Componential analy-
Kingston, J. (2008). Multiperspective ontolo-
sis and the study of meaning. Language, 32,
gies: Resolving common ontology development
195–216.
problems. Expert Systems With Applications
Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to 34(1), 541-550.
portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2),
Klein, M., & Fensel, D. (2001). Ontology version-
199-220.
ing for the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the 1st
Haase, P., Ehrig, M., Hotho, A., & Schnizler, International Semantic Web Working Symposium,
B. (2004). Personalized information access in a 75-91.
bibliographic peer-to-peer system. Proceedings
Klein, M., & Noy, N. (2003). A component-based
of the AAAI Workshop on Semantic Web Person-
framework for ontology evolution. Technical Re-
alization, 1-12.
port IR-504, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Haase, P., Hotho, A., Schmidt-Thieme, L., & Sure,
Korzybski, A. (1993). Science and sanity - An
Y. (2005). Collaborative and usage-driven evolu-
introduction to non-aristotelean systems and
tion of personal ontologies. Proceedings of the
general semantics. Institute of General Semantics,
European Semantic Web Conference, 486-499.
Lakeville, USA.
Haertwig, J., & Boehm, K. (2005). A process
Lenat, D., & Guha, R. V. (1989). Building large
framework for an interoperable semantic enter-
knowledge-Based systems: Representation and
prise environment. In Proceedings of the 6th
inference in the Cyc Project. Addison-Wesley.
European Conference on Knowledge Manage-
ment, 227-236. Lopez, F. (1999) Overview of methodologies for
building ontologies. Proceedings of the Interna-
Hayes, P., & Menzel, C. (2001). A semantics for
tional Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
the knowledge interchange format. In Proceedings
workshop on Ontologies and Problem-Solving
of IJCAI 2001 Workshop on the IEEE Standard
Methods.
Upper Ontology.
McGregor, R. (1990). Loom users manual. Work-
Hindle, D. (1990). Noun classification from predi-
ing Paper ISI/WP 22, University of Southern
cate-argument structures. Meeting of the Associa-
California.
tion for Computational Linguistics, 268-275.
Maedche, A., & Staab, S. (2000). Semiautomatic
Iamnitchi, A., Ripeanu, M., & Foster, I. T. (2002).
engineering of ontologies from text. In Proceed-
Locating data in (Small-World?) peer-to-peer
ings of the Twelfth International Conference on
scientific collaborations. In P. Druschel, M. F.
Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineer-
ing.

McCarthy, J. (1968). Programs with common Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London:
sense. In M.Minsky (Ed.) Semantic information Routledge and Kegan Paul.
processing (pp. 75-91). Cambridge MA: MIT
Preece, S. E. (1981). A spreading activation net-
Press.
work model for information retrieval. PhD thesis,
McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical Universtiy of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity.
Pulido, J. R., Ruiz, M. A., Herrera, R., Cabello,
Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 5, 115-133.
E., Legrand, S., & Elliman, D. (2006). Ontol-
Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. ogy languages for the semantic Web: A never
Psychology Today, 60-67. completely updated review. Knowledge-Based
Systems 19(7), 489-497.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing
knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology Rahm, E., & Bernstein, P. (2001). A survey of
vision. McGraw-Hill. approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB
Journal 10(4), 334–350.
Müller, H. M., Kenny, E. E., & Sternberg, P. W.
(2004). Textpresso: An ontology-based informa- Ripley, B. D. (1996). Pattern recognition and
tion retrieval and extraction system for biological neural networks. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
literature. PLoS Biology 2(11). versity Press.
Myers, B. A. (1990). Taxonomies of visual pro- Sindt, T. (2003). Formal operations for ontology
gramming and program visualization. Journal of evolution. In Proceedings of the International
Visual Languages and Computing 1(1), 97-123. Conference on Emerging Technologies.
Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and Song, S., Nerur, S., & Teng, J. T. (2007). An ex-
function of complex networks. SIAM Review ploratory study on the roles of network structure
45(2), 167-256. and knowledge processing orientation in work
unit knowledge management. SIGMIS Database,
Ngonga Ngomo, A.-C., & Schumacher, F. (2006).
38(2), 8-26.
Implicit knowledge sharing. In Proceedings of
the 7th European Conference on Knowledge Sowa, J. F. (2000). KR: Logical, philosophical,
Management (pp. 736-747). and computational foundations. Pacific Grove:
Brooks Cole Publishing Co.
NIST. (2007). Dictionary of algorithms and data
structures. Retrieved August 29, 2007 from http:// Sowa, J. F. (2003). Ontology. Retrieved January
www.nist.gov/dads/ 10, 2007 from http://www.jfsowa.com/
Omelayenko, B. (2001). Learning of ontologies Stanford. (2006). The Protégé Ontology Editor
from the Web: The analysis of existing approaches. and Knowledge Acquisition System. Retrieved
In Proceedings of the International Workshop on January 16, 2007 from http://protege.stanford.
Web Dynamics. edu/
Pantel, P., & Lin, D. (2002). Document cluster- Stojanovic, L. (2004). Methods and tools for
ing with committees. In Proceedings of the 25th ontology evolution. PhD thesis, University of
Annual international ACM SIGIR Conference Karlsruhe.
on Research and Development in information
Stojanovic, L,. Maedche, A., Stojanovic, N., &
Retrieval (pp. 199-206).
Studer, R. (2003). Ontology evolution as recon-

figuration-design problem solving. In Proceedings amples from the areas of knowledge management,
of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge e-commerce and the semantic Web (Advanced
Capture (pp. 162-171). Information and Knowledge Processing). Berlin
- Heidelberg - New York: Springer.
Takeda, H., Iino, K., & Nishida T. (1995). Ontol-
ogy-supported agent communication. In Proceed- Han, J., & Kamber, M. (2001). Data mining:
ings of the American Association for Artificial Concepts and techniques. San Francisco: Morgan
Intelligence Symposium. Kaufmann Publishers.
Tarski, A. (1956). Logic, semantics, and meta- Haykin, S. (1994). Neural networks: A com-
mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. prehensive foundation. New York: Macmillan
Publishing.
W3C. (2006). Web Ontology Language (OWL).
Retrieved January 11, 2007 from http://www. Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. (1990). Finding
w3.org/2004/OWL/ groups in data: An introduction to cluster analy-
sis. UK: Wiley.
Winograd, T. (1975). Frame representations and
the declarative/procedural controversy. Readings Kleinberg, J. (2000). The small-world phenom-
in Knowledge Representation, 185-210. enon: An algorithm perspective. Proceedings of
the thirty-second annual ACM symposium on
Xiao J., Zhang, Y., Jia, X., & Li, T. (2001).
Theory of computing (pp. 163-170).
Measuring similarity of interests for clustering
Web-users. In Proceedings of the 12th Austral- Kleinberg, J. (2002). Small-world phenomena and
asian Database Conference. ACM International the dynamics of information. Advances in Neural
Conference Proceeding Series, 107-114. Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 14.
Levesque, H. J., & Lakemeyer, G. (2000). The logic
of knowledge bases. Cambridge: MIT Press.
additional reading
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organiza-
tional knowledge creation. Organisation Science,
Bishop, C. (1995). Neural networks for pattern
5(1), 14-37.
recognition. Oxford: University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-
Brachman, R., & Levesque, H. J. (2004). Knowl-
creating company. Oxford: Oxford University
edge representation and reasoning. San Francisco:
Press.
Morgan Kaufman.
Patterson, D. (1996). Artificial neural networks.
Davies, J., Fensel, D., & van Harmelenhard, F.
Singapore: Prentice Hall.
(2002). Towards the semantic Web: Ontology-
driven knowledge management. UK: Wiley. Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction
to modern information retrieval. New York:
Fausett, L. (1994). Fundamentals of neural net-
McGraw-Hill.
works. New York: Prentice Hall.
Witten, I. H., & and Eibe, F. (2000). Data mining:
Frakes, W. B., & Baeza-Yates, R. A. (1992). Infor-
Practical machine learning tools and techniques
mation retrieval: Data structures & algorithms.
with Java implementations. San Francisco: Mor-
Prentice-Hall.
gan Kaufmann Publishers.
Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernandez-Lopez, M., & Cor-
cho, O. (2004). Ontological engineering: With ex-

appendix: formal The estimation of the family of mappings M

considerations for a given ontology is the key for the correct
description of the semantics of each user. Fur-
A terminological ontology O is given by: thermore, it can be used to compute the similarity
σ of two users A and B with mappings M A and
O = (C , R, , L), (1) MB respectively, using for example the cosine
similarity see equation (4).
where: Let O = {o1 ... on} be a family of ontologies,
and U = {u1 ... un} be the universe of users with
• C is the set of concepts, some background in a given domain, oi being the
• R is the set of relations with C ∩ R = {} personal ontology of ui. Furthermore, let each user
• λ is the labeling function and ui have a document collection di. Since the users are
• L is the set of labels. all from the same domain, documents can belong
to more than one document collection. Using one
The relations ri are elements of R and map- of the available ontology extraction methods and
pings from C in C: tools (Biemann, 2005), a beginning ontology oi
can be generated for each user ui. Each ontology
ri : C → C (2) extraction technique possesses
λ is a bijective mapping: • A term similarity function tsim,

• A concept to term mapping tc as explained
: C ∪ R → L with ∀ x, x1 ∈ C ∪ R | (x) ≠ (x1) & above and depending on tsim:
∀ x ∈ C ∃! y ∈ L: y = (x) tc = f (tsim , ti , c j ), ti ∈ Θ, c j ∈ C
(3) • A concept similarity function csim depending
on tsim:
Goodenough (1957) defines a mapping between csim = f (tsim , tc , ci , c j ), tc ∈ Θ, ci , c j ∈ C .
each concept from a set C of concepts to a subset
of the power set of Θ, the set of terms. This crisp Since there is a finite number of relevant
mapping does not allow describing the fuzziness words in a corpus, tsim can be fully described
of semantics and nuances in the understanding of using a similarity matrix Γ with γij = tsim (ti, tj).
concepts. We shall thus adopt a fuzzy mapping The goal of an approach for the automatic evo-
between concepts and semantems, matching each lution of terminological ontologies is to modify
concept to a multiset of semantems, that is, of this matrix according to the needs of the user.
terms. Let M be the family of mappings between Atomic changes in terminological ontologies
concepts and fuzzy subsets of Θ, where µi is the can be reduced to an alteration of the mapping
semantem membership function for the concept tsim, reflected in the ontology by changes of csim
ci and can adopt values between 0 and 1. and tc. Complex changes can be reduced to a se-
Equation (4).
∑ i
A
(t ) i
B
(t )
( A, B ) = ∑ cos( A
, B
) with cos( A
, B
)= t∈Θ
∑ (t ) 2 ∑
i i i i A B
i ∈M
A A
i i (t ) 2
i
B
∈M B
t∈Θ t∈Θ

quence of atomic changes. Similarly, to manually (∆ΓA ) and the similarity matrix of B (ΓB). When
modeling ontologies, demanding from the user assuming n users in a small world:
to fill in the γij values would imply demanding
 n −1  B n −1
high investments with regard to time and costs. Γnew
B
= 1 − ∑ Ai
B Γold + ∑ Ai
B ∆Γ Ai (8)
Using the operations on ontologies described in  i =1  i =1
this chapter, hints on the quality of the similarity

A
function can be won and utilized to update the The value of the weights B i is functionally
ontology of each user. Propagating changes from related to the similarity of the users A and B
a user to the other consists of building a weighted (computed for example according to (4)).
sum of the changes in the similarity matrix of A

Chapter V
Computer-Mediated Knowledge
Sharing
Kimiz Dalkir
McGill University, Canada
abstract
Computer-mediated communication has become the foremost means of sharing knowledge in today’s
knowledge-based economy. However, not all Internet-based knowledge-sharing channels are created
equal: they differ in their effectiveness when used for exchanging knowledge. A number of factors
influence the efficacies of knowledge exchange, including: (1) characteristics of the knowledge being
exchanged and, (2) characteristics of the channels used. It is therefore necessary to define key knowledge
and channel attributes in order to understand how knowledge can be effectively shared using computers.
This chapter examines the computer-mediated knowledge sharing mechanisms and proposes a typology
based on media richness and social presence characteristics that can serve as a preliminary conceptual
basis to select the most appropriate channel. The chapter concludes with a discussion of key issues and
future research directions. While much of the research has been done in organizational settings, the
chapter is applicable to all forms of computer-mediated communication.
introduction computer-mediated communication we have at

our disposal today are much more diverse than
Computer-mediated communication may be just a decade or so ago. From the original e-mail
defined as “communication that takes place be- and Usenet messages of the mid-1980s, com-
tween human beings via the instrumentality of munication channels have expanded to include,
computers” (Herring, 1996, p. 1). Computer-medi- among others:
ated knowledge sharing makes use of a number
of computer-based channels, where a channel • E-mails, listservs, and mailing lists
is defined as the specific technological applica- • Newsgroups, bulletin boards, personal
tion or tool used to communicate. The means of homepages, and blogs
Computer-Mediated Knowledge Sharing
• Internet relay chat and instant messaging Computer-mediated communication has

• Collaborative workspaces such as wikis evolved into person-to-person connections (much
• Streaming media such as Web cams, Web like the cell phone transformed calling a physical
casts, podcasts, or Youtube place to calling a specific individual, regardless
• Business teleconferencing, videoconferenc- of their physical location). Computer-mediated
ing knowledge sharing thus appears not only to
• Internet commerce, for example, iTunes to help people find answers to questions and work
purchase and download music together, but also to cultivate or maintain the
• Voice over Internet such as Skype, and online social networks that people have become
• Collaborative or Web-based learning (e.g., a part of. The communication channels provide
Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003). an easy means of reaching out to tap into this
form of “social capital” in both professional and
Knowledge sharing is no longer constrained personal contexts (Field, 2004). Social capital
by synchronous on-site face-to-face meetings. is an important form of intellectual capital (or
Furthermore, new tools continue to emerge such knowledge resource) that encompasses the value
as synchronous broadcast messaging. Wiesz et of networks and the value inherent in the move-
al. (2006) describe the IBM Community Tools, a ment or sharing of knowledge with others in the
computer-mediated communications system used network.
to broadcast instant messages within IBM. The It is therefore quite important to better un-
most common form of broadcast is an invitation derstand the factors that affect computer-medi-
to a group chat (called a “FreeJam”). “Jamming” ated knowledge sharing. Following a review
continues to be a popular and frequently used of the literature from such diverse disciplines
application, and the feature most valued by us- as educational technology, computer-mediated
ers, due to its immediacy. The speed with which communication, human-computer interaction,
questions can be answered, and problems can be library and information studies, and knowledge
solved, provided valuable boosts to productivity management, a number of critical factors that
of all community members. impact the effectiveness of knowledge sharing
Boase et al. (Boase, Horrigan, Wellman, & can be identified, namely:
Rainie, 2006) purport that computer-mediated
communication, such as the Internet, is rapidly • The type of channel (e.g., e-mail), the mode
becoming seamlessly integrated with other knowl- of communication it enables (e.g., text, au-
edge-sharing channels such as the telephone and dio, etc.) together with the degree of social
face-to-face exchanges. They report the phenom- presence possible (the perception of being
enon of “media multiplicity”; the more people in communication with another individual,
see each other in person and talk on the phone, for example, facial expressions, tone of
the more they use the Internet. This suggests voice etc.), and the degree of media richness
interconnectedness and an embedding of new (interactivity, immediacy, cues);
channels within existing channels. The Internet • The characteristics of knowledge (stickiness
is contributing to this trend by moving society vs. leakiness);
towards “networked individualism” by allowing • The characteristics of the participants
people not only to socialize online, but also to link (gender, age, number, one-to-one, many-
up with more knowledgeable peers and experts to-many, degree of Internet literacy);
to make better decisions. • The length and nature of the relationships
(e.g., long-term, professional, personal);
0
• The context, topic, and purpose of the characteristics of

knowledge sharing (e.g., medical advice, computer-mediated
scholarly collaboration); Knowledge-sharing channels
• Synchronous vs. asynchronous interaction
(real-time or delayed); The basic premise of this chapter is that the com-
• Whether the knowledge-sharing activity is munication channel used by people will influence
public or private (e.g., closed group, public and be influenced by the knowledge they share,
Web site) and whether it is moderated or who they share this knowledge with, why they
not. are sharing the knowledge, and how often they
do so. By developing a deeper understanding
Computer-mediated communication should of knowledge types and how the various types
therefore, not be thought of as a single commu- can be shared, organizations can improve their
nication channel, but rather a family of different efforts to identify and share critical knowledge
technological applications. These applications assets, for a vast range of sharing objectives and
are quite diverse but they all have one thing applications. This means that channels or “Elec-
in common: they serve to facilitate interaction tronic Communication systems (ElCom)” should
between users; social interaction niches where be selected for different types of knowledge in
people can “meet” virtually. As Thurlow et al. order to ensure the “best fit” and to ensure that
(Thurlow, Engel, & Tomic, 2004) states, “there’s knowledge-sharing objectives are successfully
more to technology than technology. It’s human met (Bolisani & Scarso, 2000).
communication and what we do with technology
that really counts…..it’s all about the transforma- types of channels
tion of our patterns of social interaction.” (p.2).
Communication channels support different lev- E-mail was one of the first computer-mediated
els of social interaction that, therefore, have an communication channels to be widely embraced
impact on knowledge sharing. When examining by both business and personal users.
computer-mediated knowledge sharing, there A 2x2 matrix is commonly used to describe
appears to be a consensus that two main factors, the major kinds of computer-mediated commu-
at a minimum, must be addressed: the charac- nication systems, as shown in Figure 1.
teristics of the knowledge to be shared, and the
characteristics of channels available for sharing
that knowledge.
Figure 1. Channel type matrix
Same Time Different Time

Synchronous colocated Asynchronous colocated
Same Place (e.g., face-to-face meeting, presenta- (e.g., computer-supported collabora-
tion, voting) tive work)
Synchronous distant
Different (e.g., instant messaging, tele- or Asynchronous distant
Place videoconference, voice over Internet (e.g., e-mail, discussion group, wiki)
VOIP, Web cast, online course)

The types of knowledge-sharing channels but also from being available at the same
range from time. Senders can transcribe knowledge that
is immediately captured for storage and re-
• Face-to-face, technologically unmediated use, and receivers can access the knowledge
(conversing with colleague at water cooler, entities when they are needed most. The
storytelling): the key advantage here is that disadvantages here are once again related
individuals can customize and clarify knowl- to the absence of immediate clarification
edge on demand. Disadvantages include and often the context in which the original
the need for both parties to be present at knowledge entity was recorded.
the same place and time. Additionally, this
type of knowledge sharing typically goes Tiwana and Ramesh (2001) enumerate a
unrecorded, potentially leading to greater number of technologies that are well suited for
distortion and recall biases (Keong & Al- sharing knowledge, such as project management
Hawamdeh, 2002). systems, data warehouses, digital libraries, and
• Face-to-face, technologically mediated organizational memory systems. The authors note
(video conferencing, some online collabora- that a knowledge server, in the form of a Web
tion software): the key advantage here is that server, can act as a content aggregator, linking
individuals do not have to be in the same and organizing explicit knowledge from multiple
location and yet, many of the advantages of sources with tacit knowledge pointers.
face-to-face communication are maintained. Recent trends in blogs and wikis may provide
While the ability to customize knowledge for valuable knowledge-sharing channels for tacit
the receiver continues to be possible, often knowledge. Blogging is defined as the writing
this type of knowledge sharing continues of Web logs (Blood, 2002). Jorn Barger coined
to go unrecorded (Keong & Al-Hawamdeh, the term “Web log” in 1997 (http://www.jjg.
2002). net/infosift). Web logs (or blogs for short) are
• Technological, synchronous (telephone, in- link-driven sites offering personal thoughts,
stant messaging, some online collaboration commentary, and essays by individuals or groups
software, chat rooms): these communication (group blogs). Blogs are typically short, frequently
channels once again free individuals from updated postings arranged chronologically, much
needing to be in the same location to share like an online version of a journal or diary. Web
knowledge. These channels can thus be very logs provide a valuable filtering function for their
useful for distributed organizations. The readers, providing only the more relevant and
disadvantage here, however, is that these vetted content. Blogs are therefore useful tools
channels have varying abilities to properly for community members, and serve to further
convey all the fine nuances of a message cement community cohesion as people feel more
and can easily result in miscommunica- connected to other readers of the blog.
tions. Additionally, not all of these channels Similarly, wikis are also good ways of sharing
permit immediate or accurate recording of knowledge. A wiki is a collaborative authoring
the shared knowledge. environment that allows for bottom-up content
• Technological, asynchronous (e-mail, com- development. A well-known example is that of
munities of practice, discussion groups, wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com). Wikis
written documents): the ultimate advantage may be public or limited to members, but each
with these channels is that individuals are not participant is, in effect, an author and can submit
only free from being in the same location, content. More specifically, a wiki is composed

of Web pages where people input information followed by teleconferencing, desktop videocon-
and then create hyperlinks to another or new ferencing, and face-to-face meetings.
pages for more details about a particular topic. The media richness of various technologies
A wiki site grows and changes at the will of the is defined “by its capacity for immediate feed-
participants. Wikis provide open content virtual back, its ability to support natural language, the
spaces where community members can “store” number of cues (non-verbal) it provides, and the
shared stories, best practices, and other forms of extent to which the channel creates social pres-
valuable knowledge. ence for the receiver” (Chua, 2001). The Media
Given the plethora of choices, there needs to Richness Model proposed by Daft and Lengel
be some criteria used in selecting the most appro- (1984) assessed richness using (1) feedback
priate channel for various types of knowledge. In capability (speed), (2) communication modes
addition to identifying where knowledge falls on used (visual, audio, etc.), (3) source (personal,
the tacit-explicit continuum, media richness and impersonal), and (4) language (natural, numeric,
social presence are two additional criteria that can etc.). The researchers found that people prefer to
be used in selecting the most appropriate technol- use richer channels to be able to more efficiently
ogy-mediated knowledge-sharing channel. and more effectively understand one another. The
more complex the knowledge-sharing task, the
Media Richness and Social Presence richer the channel that is needed. Vickery et al.
Theory (Vickery, Droge, Stank, Goldsby, & Markland,
2004) illustrate by stating, “rich media permit
In terms of distinguishing between the various the transmittal of highly complex and/or tacit
communication channels that are used for knowl- knowledge and support extensive versus routine
edge sharing, the literature focuses on measuring problem solving” (p. 1107).
the degree of social presence that is possible, and A number of researchers have studied chan-
the richness of the media of the channel. nel media richness and social presence, and their
Social presence is defined as the degree to findings are sometimes contradictory. Selected
which individuals perceive that they are inter- studies will be summarized in order to convey the
acting with another human being when using an complexity of the phenomena under study. Keong
ElCom. For example, being able to see such cues and Al-Hawamdeh (2002) and Chua (2001) ana-
as facial expression, or hear differences in tone lyzed various communication channels ranging
of voice, increase the degree of social presence from face-to-face unmediated communication,
afforded by a knowledge-sharing channel. In text- which has the highest media richness, to text
only channels, such as e-mail, users often make only documents, which have the lowest media
use of emoticons to convey different emotions with richness, and bandwidth, and found the same sort
their text. The Social Presence Model (Thurlow, of spectrum Daft and Lengel reported in 1984
2004) ranks different channels and finds, for (in order of decreasing richness): face-to-face,
example, that “e-mail falls somewhere between telephone, e-mail, written personal letters, writ-
business letters and the telephone in terms of its ten formal documents, numeric, formal outputs
social presence….face-to-face communication (e.g., computer-generated).
comes out pretty high.” (p. 49). A number of other Conversely, Panteli (2002) found that e-mail is
researchers (Daft & Lengel, 1984; McGrath, 1990) a richer communication medium than is reflected
identify a continuum whereby communication on the scale of media richness theory. He studied
media can be classified according to their degree e-mail communication over several months and
of social presence, and they place e-mail lowest, found that the way in which e-mail is constructed

may convey more social cues than was previ- judgments or task performance” (p. 271). For
ously believed. Panteli’s findings suggest that example, the authors found that audio-enabled
text-based e-mail is socially constructed by the channels led to increased trust (presumably due
context of the organization in which the e-mail is to speech cues). Decreased social presence was
used. Messages were found to have characteris- not found to decrease the quality of decisions,
tics of spoken communication with frequent use however, and in some cases actually improved
of diverse social cues (found in tone, emoticons, quality (presumably due to a more narrow focus
signatures, etc.). on factual information needed for the task at
Robert and Dennis (2005) refer to a “para- hand, making nonverbal cues less essential for
dox of richness” (p. 1) as they found that high task completion). Conversely, more ambiguous
media richness and social presence resulted in tasks, requiring judgment, collaboration, group
greater motivation for users to process the mes- trust, morale, may require channels with higher
sage; however, at the same time, the ability to social presence and media richness. Task demands
process the information is decreased. Media that and knowledge-sharing goals must therefore play
is less rich and low in social presence improved a large role in the selection of the appropriate
processing ability but decreased motivation. Us- knowledge-sharing channel.
ers appear to prefer to receive large amounts of Andres (2002) conducted empirical studies
content via channels with low social presence, on virtual teams and found that social presence
and smaller amounts of content via richer me- and media richness had a significant impact on
dia. Andres (2002) conducted empirical studies team productivity, perceived interaction quality,
on virtual teams and found that social presence and group process satisfaction. Channels char-
and media richness had a significant impact on acterized as high in media richness and social
team productivity, perceived interaction quality, presence, are found to create a greater sense of
and group process satisfaction. Channels char- interactivity. Other researchers found changes
acterized as high in media richness and social in productivity depending on contextual factors
presence are found to create a greater sense of such as time-dependence of tasks, degree of task
interaction quality. Thurlow et al. (2004) report interdependence, and temporal and/or spatial
that researchers found increased and decreased constraints. There are also exceptions to these
productivity, depending on contextual factors generalizations as some people seek very low
such as time-dependence of tasks, degree of task social-presence channels purposively in order to
interdependence, and temporal and/or spatial ensure anonymity, to overcome anxiety, to break
constraints. There are, of course, exceptions to “bad news,” and so forth. Again, the purpose or
these generalizations; some seek very low social context of the knowledge sharing will play a role
presence channels purposively in order to ensure in determining the best channel to use (Thurlow,
anonymity, to overcome anxiety, to break “bad 2004).
news” and so forth. Again, the purpose or con- Finally, Kock (2005) offers an alternative
text of the knowledge sharing will play a role in to the concept of media richness; that of media
determining the best channel to use. naturalness. The author postulates a link between
Burgoon et al. (Burgoon, Bonito, Ramierez the degrees to which the channel emulates our
Jr., Dunbar, Kam, & Fischer, 2002) found that natural preferences for collocated, face-to-face,
selecting the channel type and level of media synchronous knowledge sharing with the degree
richness depended on the objectives of the of cognitive effort required. Channels that have
knowledge sharing, which range from “higher high media naturalness will require less cognitive
involvement, greater mutuality, favorable social effort on the part of participants

the limitations of showed how people-management practices are

technology-based channels often more fundamental to knowledge sharing
than the use of IT.
Knowledge sharing represents a dynamic ex- As the APQC (1999) also noted, ICT can act
change of information; it is a bidirectional pro- as an enabler of the knowledge-sharing process,
cess. Technical challenges typically consist of but cannot act as the solution to it in and of
interaction constraints, access difficulties, the itself. Allee (2000) also noticed that as knowl-
continuous capture of newly generated content edge complexity increased, the degree to which
and retrieval of content for future use, and reuse technology could be counted on to assist with
by both the original participants in the exchange the task of knowledge sharing was reduced. No
and by other groups of people. The participants in database or technology system can fully capture
the knowledge-sharing exchange must be able to and distribute all the knowledge that floats around
connect with one another and with content relevant a company; nor should it. Thus, the challenge for
to, and required for, their work; in other words, information technology (IT) developers is not to
to hold a conversation that includes information develop systems that aim to replace people as the
resources as both by-products of the conversation primary source of expertise. Rather, as Swan et
(artifacts) and as objects of the conversation (e.g., al. (1999) point out, the aim should be to develop
e-mail attachments). systems that allow experts to engage in active
In 1998, O’Dell and Grayson discussed tech- knowledge sharing through environments that
nology as a catalyst to support knowledge sharing are sufficiently media-rich to support the transfer
initiatives, but warned against relying on it as a of knowledge.
solution. They argue that while technology can McDermott (2000) focused on the importance
play a facilitating role in knowledge sharing, it of making ICT easy to use so that employees can
cannot be the driver of sharing knowledge because easily contribute to, and access, organizational
all the important information about a process is knowledge. From his perspective, ease of use had
too complex and too experiential to be captured less to do with software functionality as much as
electronically. Additionally, they argue that incen- with the degree to which the ICT channels are
tives for, and barriers to, sharing are not really integrated into people’s daily work. Additional
technical, therefore, technology cannot solve the effort and friction in the use of ICT can easily
whole problem. discourage employees from making use of the
Swan et al. (Swan, Newell, Scarbrough, & channels. Choo et al. (Choo, Detlor, & Turnbull,
Hislop, 1999) highlighted the overwhelming 2000) also discuss learning curve as a major
emphasis on information and communication limitation of most knowledge-sharing technolo-
technologies (ICT) and the major gap this leaves gies. The lengthy learning period can prove to
in terms of the importance of people in knowledge be a strong deterrent as people quickly become
sharing. By examining case studies of the use of discouraged, frustrated, and only too willing to
ICT in network creation, they found that focusing resort to more familiar tools. Dalkir and Wiseman
on ICT could limit the potential for encouraging (2006) noted a similar difficulty when studying
knowledge sharing across social communities. a distributed community of practice that quickly
An ICT focus blinds many organizations to the abandoned a complex knowledge network in fa-
importance of the social and cultural aspects vor of a grassroots solution in the form of Skype
that are critical in facilitating the development (telephony over the Internet).
of a truly global, knowledge-sharing network.
In Swan et al. (1999), the cases they studied

Sharing the Knowledge Context tacitness of the knowledge to be shared. Related

to this is the fact that the greater the degree of
Unlike other resources, information or knowledge common knowledge that exists between the
resources are subject to different interpretations; knowledge sharers, the easier it will be to share
they can be stored, presented, and understood in the tacit knowledge in context. The challenge
many different ways. Knowledge to be shared lies in the potential of information technology,
tends to be more subjective in nature than physi- such as the Internet, to offer the required level of
cal objects or even data. Knowledge is much too social presence, credibility, trust, and frequency
dependent on human perception and a shared of interaction required for knowledge sharing to
context between participants in the knowledge occur. As is the case with communities of prac-
exchange to lend it easily to purely technical tice, it is likely that for truly effective knowledge
solutions. It is critical that knowledge sharing sharing to take place, some level of face-to-face
includes sharing of the context. interaction will be required.
Individuals or groups in different organizations Added to the challenge is the fact that the
will likely operate in different contexts (Bolisani sharing of tacit knowledge often requires the
& Scarso, 2000). This may be manifested as dif- members in the exchange to have similar cultural
ferences in technological systems used, software experiences and backgrounds to enable them to
standards, Internet protocols, open networks, properly decode and internalize the messages they
as well as differences in language itself (differ- are receiving. This fact means that as knowledge
ent language, different terms used for the same becomes more tacit in nature, it becomes more
concept, etc.). difficult to share through standard communica-
This difference in context may easily lead to tion channels (Archer & Wang, 2002). Von Hippel
differences in interpreting knowledge that has (1994) refers to this as knowledge stickiness: the
been received, as different groups will have a incremental cost of transferring a given piece of
different set of values, procedures, perspectives, knowledge in a form that is usable by the recipi-
and so forth. It therefore becomes imperative to ent of that knowledge. Szulanski (2003) uses the
not only share knowledge, but to share knowledge term stickiness to refer to the attribute of knowl-
“in situ,” that is, together with its context. This is edge that is particularly difficult to share, due to
especially true for knowledge that is complex and characteristics of the knowledge itself as well as
more tacit in nature. This indicates that a certain characteristics of the channel used to transfer the
minimum level of media richness is required knowledge. Some factors that may increase sticki-
when sharing knowledge as opposed to sharing ness include ambiguous or unproven knowledge,
data or information. lack of motivation on the part of the source or
Hislop (2002) notes that in the social construc- owner of the knowledge, lack of credibility of the
tivist view of knowledge, the transmitter-receiver source, lack of motivation and/or absorptive capac-
metaphor of knowledge sharing is inappropriate ity of the recipient, and organizational context.
because the sharing of knowledge does not involve Tacit knowledge, then, is a form of highly sticky
the simple transferal of a fixed entity (explicit and difficult to transfer knowledge.
knowledge) between two people. Instead, the Brown and Duguid (2002) use the comple-
sharing of knowledge involves two people actively mentary term “leakiness” to describe knowledge
inferring and constructing meaning from two dif- that is more easily and more widely shared.
ferent experiences.” (p. 172) He goes on to note Computer-based networks and communication
that the single most important factor influencing media can serve to increase knowledge leakiness
the knowledge-sharing process is the degree of by overcoming institutional, geographical, and

temporal barriers. Knowledge is said to leak over collaboration will not be able to take place. In
networks and stick to organizational silos. fact, they define collaboration as “the process of
There are ways of decreasing the stickiness working together toward a common purpose or
of tacit knowledge. For example, Roberts (2000) goal in which the participants are committed and
emphasizes the role of trust in the sharing of interdependent, with individual or collective ac-
tacit knowledge. Foos et al. (Foos, Schum, & countability for the results of the collaboration, and
Rothenberg, 2006) note “technologically mediated each of the participants shares a common benefit”
transfer of tacit knowledge will be more success- (p.1). In order for computer-mediated knowledge
ful when it is between agents who share common sharing to be effective, then, participants need to
social, cultural and linguistic characteristics.” (p. share a common objective, they need to feel they
8). Sarker (2005) also found that effective knowl- can rely on the other participants (mutual trust),
edge transfer resulted from frequent exchanges that each is credible and will contribute to the
between individuals perceived to be credible and achievement of the goal.
trustworthy. Finally, Mooradian (2005) notes Riege (2005) provides a comprehensive list of
that the tacit-to-tacit sharing appears to bypass barriers to knowledge sharing. The author divides
explicit knowledge completely as it goes directly these barriers into three categories: individual,
from one mind into another; “tacit knowledge organizational, and technological barriers. Some
flows over a separate channel.” (p. 108). He goes individual barriers are
on to note that transfer mechanisms are not well
characterized, nor are they related to the tacit/ex- • General lack of time to share knowledge,
plicit distinction. The author notes that the degree and time to identify colleagues in need of
of tacitness is directly related to the degree of specific knowledge;
stickiness and is, thus, a strong predictor of how • Low awareness and realization of the value
successful knowledge transfer will be. and benefit of possessed knowledge to oth-
ers;
Motivating People to Share Knowledge • Poor verbal/written communication and
interpersonal skills;
Companies install e-mail or collaborative software • Lack of social network;
and expect knowledge to flow freely through the • Lack of trust in people because they misuse
electronic pipeline. When it doesn’t happen, they knowledge or take unjust credit for it;
are more likely to blame the software or inad- • Lack of trust in the accuracy and credibility
equate training than to face a fact of life: people of knowledge due to the source;
rarely give away valuable possessions (including • Differences in national culture or ethnic
knowledge) without expecting something in return. background, and values and beliefs associ-
(Davenport & Prusak, 2000, p. 26) ated with it (language is part of this).
There are a number of non-technological fac- Some organizational barriers are:

tors that influence the use (or lack of use) of com-
puter-mediated channels for knowledge sharing. • Shortage of formal and informal spaces to
Light et al. (Light, Bell, & Halpern, 2001) describe share, reflect, and generate (new) knowl-
the four pillars of collaboration as dependabil- edge;
ity, consistency, congruency, and mutuality of • Lack of transparent rewards and recognition
shared risks and rewards. The authors note that systems that would motivate people to share
if any of these pillars are “broken” or damaged, more of their knowledge;

• Communication and knowledge flows are to foster during exchanges. Face-to-face knowl-
restricted into certain directions (e.g., top- edge sharing has the highest social presence and
down); media richness, while text-only exchanges have
• Physical work environment and layout of the lowest. The attributes that make it easier or
work areas restrict effective sharing prac- more difficult to share knowledge over Internet
tices; channels also appear to contribute to other factors
• Internal competitiveness within business such as level of cognitive processing required by
units, functional areas, and subsidiaries can recipients, the degree of trust and/or credibility
be high; that is established, and how group productivity.
• Lack of leadership and managerial direc- An important initial step in optimizing knowl-
tion in terms of clearly communicating the edge sharing over the Internet will therefore be
benefits and values of knowledge-sharing to characterize the available knowledge-sharing
practices. channels with respect to their media richness and
social presence. This will enable a better matching
Some technological barriers to knowledge shar- of channels to knowledge types in order to ensure
ing are: that knowledge-sharing goals are met (e.g., shar-
ing information, collaborating, attaining group
• Reluctance to use IT systems due to lack of performance objectives, etc.).
familiarity and experience with them; Table 1 summarizes the media richness and
• Lack of training regarding employee fa- social presence characteristics of knowledge-
miliarization of new IT systems and pro- sharing channels
cesses; As shown in Table 1, media richness and social
• Unrealistic expectations of employees as to presence are usually either both high or both low,
what technology can do and cannot do;
• Lack of compatibility between diverse IT
systems and processes;
• Mismatch between individuals’ need re-
quirements and integrated IT systems and Table 1. Computer-mediated knowledge-sharing
processes restrict sharing practices; channels characterized with respect to their media
• Lack of integration of IT systems and richness and social presence.
processes impedes on the way people do Channel Media Social
things. richness presence
E-mails, listservs, and mailing lists Low Low
Newsgroups, bulletin boards, personal Low Moderate
homepages, and blogs
relationship between
Internet relay chat and instant messaging High High
channel and Knowledge
Collaborative workspaces such as wikis Moderate Moderate
characteristics
Streaming media such as Web cams, High High
Web casts, podcasts or Youtube
The research on media richness and social pres- Business teleconferencing, High High
ence is quite diverse and sometimes reports videoconferencing
conflicting findings. However, most authors Internet commerce, for example, iTunes Low Low
concur that knowledge-sharing channels may to purchase and download music
be ranked with respect to how media rich they Voice over Internet such as Skype High High
are and how much social presence they are able Collaborative or Web-based learning Moderate Moderate

with some exceptions, such as a personal blog or pears to indicate that an ideal combination would
Web page, which may have high social presence be to share highly mobile knowledge over very
but little in the way of immediacy, feedback, and media-rich channels. Knowledge sharing under
number of cues. these conditions will be more efficient and more
It has been argued that a misfit in the types effective, with little loss of meaning or lack of
of knowledge and the communication channels motivation on the part of participants. Media rich
used to transfer it will result in poor knowledge- channels will typically offer multiple modes (e.g.,
sharing performance. Scholars have proposed that audio and video) and high social presence in the
there is a match between explicit knowledge and form of immediacy of feedback. Knowledge that
technology-based mechanisms, as well as between is more difficult to move (“sticky” knowledge)
tacit knowledge and people-based mechanisms in may still be shared to some degree if the media
terms of success of knowledge sharing. As such, richness of the channel is high enough.
there is a need to match sticky knowledge with Face-to-face meetings continue to top the list
rich communication media, such as face-to-face of highest media richness and social presence. No
channels (people-based mechanisms), while computer-mediated knowledge-sharing channel
leaky knowledge can be more reliably transferred can compete with such interactions. However,
through written media (technology-based mecha- compromises have to be made as face-to-face
nisms). For example, knowledge, such as belief meetings become increasingly difficult to sched-
and insight (which are more tacit in nature), can ule, given people’s schedules, workload, and the
be shared more easily through a communication fact that they may not be in the same place at the
channel with high media richness (such as face- same time.
to-face conversation) than through that with low E-mail is the oldest, most basic and ubiqui-
media richness (such as a text-only document). tous form of computer-mediated communication
Figure 2 summarizes the relationship between (Yarmosh, 2006). The use of emoticons and other
channel and knowledge characteristics. forms of emphasis, such as capitalizing letters,
A review of key research to date (e.g., Dyer represents a limited means of increasing social
& Singh, 1998; Kumar & van Dissel, 1996; Maj- presence and media richness. E-mail also often
chrzak, Rice, Malhotra, King, & Ba, 2001; May serves as the means of accessing other channels
& Carter, 2001; Nomura, 2002; Tsui, 2003) ap- such as newsgroups, listservs, discussion groups,
Figure 2. Relationship between knowledge characteristics and channel media richness

Channel Media Richness
LOW HIGH
Knowledge may be easily shared for dis-
HIGH semination purposes (e.g. for your informa-
Most effective computer-mediated knowl-
edge sharing (e.g., online workspaces, wikis)
tion (FYI) type emails, discussion groups)
More difficult barriers must be overcome

Computer-mediated knowledge sharing
before knowledge can be shared (e.g., build-
LOW not recommended as the sole channel (e.g.
ing of trust, social ties, community identity
instant messaging (IM) with other channels
with some face-to-face interactions in a
including face-to-face interactions).
community of practice)

and so on. Finally, e-mail provides at least two to organizational memory. The disadvantage is
major advantages: there is persistence (i.e., e-mails that there is less social presence, as participants
can and often are saved, forwarded, archived, perceive they are interacting with content more
etc.), and there is the ability to attach documents. than connecting with other people.
The most basic advantage likely lies in its almost Online workspaces are collaborative work
universal adoption and lack of any appreciable environments such as intranets or knowledge
learning curve. The major drawback is that it is portals. Intranets are typically environments
often asynchronous, and it is not a particularly provided for all employees, whereas portals
rich medium, usually not rich enough to provide tend to be designed to meet the needs of specific
sufficient context for the knowledge to be shared. groups. Both can offer all the advantages without
There is also the mitigating problem of information the disadvantages of e-mail and IM: there is no
overload; people receive too many e-mails and messaging overload, it can be synchronous or
are spending too much time on e-mail manage- asynchronous, and there is a cumulative preserva-
ment. The cognitive overload often outweighs tion of the valuable content generated, forming
the advantages offered by this channel. E-mail the foundation for an organizational memory for
is probably best reserved for “broadcast” or FYI that company or that community.
types of knowledge exchanges. For example, at the U.S. Federal Aviation
Instant messaging has higher immediacy and Administration (FAA), employees have found
provides greater social presence. The knowledge- online workspaces to be vastly better than trying
sharing interaction “feels” more like a conversa- to get everyone together for a face-to-face meet-
tion. IM also has the same advantages as e-mail; it ing (Olsen, 2006). They were even able to “break
is widely used and easy to learn to use. However, their e-mail habit” by posting to the workspace
unlike e-mail, there is no persistence, no capture rather than e-mailing all participants and sending
of the conversation. No artifacts are automatically e-mail attachments. The FAA has about 22,000
generated. These are valuable tools, for maintain- employees who are storing many of their docu-
ing social ties, that often work best when combined ments in online libraries provided on workspaces.
as a complement to other computer-mediated All content posted becomes simultaneously avail-
communication tools. able to all employees. The organization found
Online communication, conferencing, and unexpected benefits from their move to online
collaboration workspaces appear to offer a more collaboration: in addition to providing greater
balanced approach to knowledge sharing. Par- efficiency in meeting group objectives, employees
ticipants can hold virtual meetings and generate also noted that they felt less isolated, that they had
content in a participatory fashion. Wikis, for a greater sense of belonging and group identify
example, allow all participants to contribute to as a result of using the collaborative workspace.
the online “document” that may be related to a Online workspaces are especially well suited to
specific topic or a specific project. Online mes- communities of practice. Wenger (2001) devised a
sage and discussion boards are typically organized categorization scheme of technology or channels
around topics, and conversations are organized as that are best suited to different activities carried
message threads for each topic. Participants read out by communities of practice. This approach
and post responses that remain on the system after can be adapted for computer-mediated knowledge
they leave. These channels offer the advantage of sharing in general as it provides a good means of
unlimited time to read postings without the need assessing the purpose of the interaction. Table 3 is
to be available at a scheduled time. The content an excerpt outlining some of these categories.
can be stored, which again provides a contribution
00
Table 3. Categories of community-oriented tech- the media richness of channels were described.
nologies (adapted from Etienne Wenger, 2001). Together, these typologies can be used to select
Community Purpose Type of Technology
the best channel to use to share different types
Conversation Discussion group
of knowledge.
Getting work done Project online workspace
The proposed framework of knowledge and
channel characteristics provides an alternative
Learning (formal) E-learning
to the “one size fits all” approach to knowledge
Learning (informal) Synchronous online communication
sharing on the Internet. Individuals wishing to
communicate and collaborate using channel-me-
diated connections will be in a position to adopt
A potential disadvantage of collaborative a more systematic and deliberate approach to
workspaces are that they require familiarity with matching each type of knowledge with the best
the technology or application, and that they often channel to carry that knowledge, whether they be
impose too artificial and rigorous a structure on knowledge workers in organizations or the general
participants, which in turn decreases their media public. As the computer-mediated communica-
richness and social presence (Anderson, Mullin, tion technology evolves, and usage continues to
McEwan, Bal, Carletta, Grattan, & Brundell, intensify and diversify, being able to assess the
2005). best vehicle for knowledge sharing will provide
There are many different types of knowl- a valuable means of ensuring both efficiency and
edge-sharing channels available, each with its effectiveness of the knowledge sharing.
pros and cons and each with varying degrees of Rosen (2007) uses the term “presence aware-
media richness and social presence. The purpose ness” to denote an “…integrated videoconferenc-
of the knowledge sharing, the characteristics of ing, Web conferencing, phone systems, e-mail,
the knowledge to be shared, and the specific fea- calendar, directory programs and public IM
tures of each channel should be considered in a systems to create a presence-enabled work envi-
systematic manner in order to be able to provide ronment that is as close to real time as you can
the best possible support for online interactions. get” (p. 1). This sort of multichannel, synchronous
There is no one best solution, even within a single work environment is posed to become the de facto
organization. Instead, the approach should be that standard in today’s fast-paced world. Decision
of a toolbox, selecting those channels that together making and collaboration are no longer tolerant
will provide the best-integrated knowledge-shar- of any time delays; participants are expected to
ing environment for all participants. be accessible at all times, and able to provide an
almost instant turnaround with respect to joint
work. Presence-enabled workspaces provide a
conclusion high degree of social presence, and the integration
of a multitude of different tools ensures a high
This chapter presented an overview of channels degree of media richness.
used in computer-mediated knowledge sharing.
The critical success factors were identified that
influence how effective knowledge exchanges, future research directions
with knowledge stickiness, and channel media
richness and social presence as being three of Further research is needed to better characterize
the more influential factors. Typologies to char- the diverse computer-mediated channels available
acterize the type of knowledge to be shared and for knowledge sharing, and to provide a more
0
fine-grained typology of the type of knowledge To transform their opinions and experiences into
to be shared. Past research has tended to high- ‘warranted beliefs,’ actionable, contributors had
light tacit and explicit knowledge as knowledge to submit their ideas for peer review, a process
characteristics, where tacit knowledge is said to facilitated by the Web. The peers would quickly
reside in people’s heads, and explicit knowledge vet and refine the story, and connect it to others.
has been documented or captured in some tangible In addition, the author attaches his or her name
form. However, this dichotomy does not provide to the resulting story or tip, thus creating both
much help in selecting the appropriate channel intellectual and social capital, the latter because
to use to communicate or share knowledge. The tech reps who create really great stories become
dimensions of knowledge stickiness or leakiness local heroes and hence more central members of
better characterize how easy it will be to share their community of practice. (p. 7)
that knowledge, but additional dimensions remain
to be identified and better defined. More research is needed to help select knowl-
A number of researchers have researched par- edge-sharing channels for such communities to
ticipants’ preferences such as whether they prefer better create, preserve, and share their valuable
using e-mail or a phone (e.g., Wagner, Eisenstadt, knowledge and know-how.
Hogan, & Pankaskie, 1998). However, additional Finally, to quote the old adage: “it is not what
empirical research is needed to better character- you know, it is who you know.” Social network
ize the knowledge-sharing interaction and how analysis, which is the mapping and measuring of
it can best be mediated, taking into account as how knowledge flows through online interactions,
many critical variables as possible: channel char- can be used to conduct empirical research on the
acteristics, participant characteristics, objectives effectiveness of knowledge sharing for different
of the knowledge sharing, and characteristics of participants, different purposes, different knowl-
the knowledge to be shared. edge content, and different channels.
In addition to collaborative teams, computer- Further research will result in a better un-
mediated communication has facilitated the derstanding of the strengths and limitations of
emergence of communities of practice (Wenger, computer-mediated communication channels:
1998), networks of like-minded professionals those in use today, emerging channels that will be
who typically share knowledge to improve their increasingly adopted in the short term as well as
professional practice. Brown and Duguid (2000) future channels that we cannot yet envisage.
note, “people in such networks have practice
and knowledge in common” (p. 141). One of
the major benefits of such knowledge sharing is references
peer-to-peer mentoring and collective learning.
The best-known example of such learning is the Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and com-
Eureka project at Xerox (Brown, 2000), which munities of practice. OD Practitioners: Journal
had the objective of trying to have photocopier of the Organization Development Network,
repairmen learn from the experiences of their 32(4). Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.
colleagues. There were many stories exchanged in odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowledgen-
an informal fashion amongst the repairmen, some ets.html
“war stories” of extremely challenging problems
Anderson, A., Mullin, J., McEwan, R., Bal, J.,
that were solved. Eureka was an attempt to use a
Carletta, J., Grattan, E., & Brundell, P. (2005).
computer-mediated tool, a virtual workspace, to
Exploring why virtual teamworking is effective
collect and share such stories:
0
in the lab but more difficult in the workplace. In Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramierez Jr., A.
R. Bromme, F. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds), Barri- Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002).
ers and biaes in computer-mediated knowledge Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of
communication. And how they may be overcome mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal
(pp. 119-142). NY, NY: Springer-Verlag. modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal
of Communication, 52(3), 657-678.
Andres, H. P. (2002). A comparison of face-to-face
and virtual software development teams. Team Choo, C., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Web
Performance Management, 8(1/2), 39-48. work: Information seeking and knowledge work
on the World Wide Web. NY, NY: Springer.
APQC: American, Productivity & Quality Center.
(1999). Creating a knowledge-sharing culture: Chua, A. (2001). Relationship between the types
Consortium benchmarking study best-practice of knowledge shared and types of communication
report. APQC International Benchmarking channels used. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
Clearinghouse. ment Practice October, 2001. Retrieved May 25,
2007, from http://www.tlainc.com/articl26.htm
Archer, N., & Wang, S. (2002). Knowledge
management in network organizations. Michael Dalkir, K., & Wiseman, E. (2006). Knowledge
G. DeGroote School of Business, working paper elicitation, organization and dissemination in a
#456. knowledge network: The role of knowledge bro-
kers. In V. Guerrero-Bote (Ed.), Current research
Blood, R. (2002). We’ve got blog. How Web logs
in information sciences and technologies.
are changing our culture. Cambridge, MA: Per-
seus Publishing. Multidisciplinary approaches to global informa-
tion systems.. University of Extremadura and the
Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., & Rainie,
Open Institute of Knowledge.
L. (2006). The strength of Internet ties. The In-
ternet and e-mail aid users in maintaining their Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information
social networks and provide pathways to help richness: A new approach to managerial behaviour
when people face big decisions. PEW Internet and and organizational design. Research in Organi-
American Life Project Report, Report Number zational Behaviour, 6, 191-233.
202-419-4500. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from
http://www.pewinternet/org
knowledge: How organizations manage what
Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (2000). Electronic they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
communication and knowledge transfer. Inter- School Press.
national Journal of Technology Management,
Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view:
20(1-2), 116-133.
cooperative strategy and sources of interorga-
Brown, J. (2000). Growing up digital, the Web and nizational competitive advantage. Academy of
the new learning ecology. Change, the Magazine Management Review, 23(4), 660-79.
of Higher Learning, March/April, 11-22.
Field, J. (2004). Social capital. London, UK; New
Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life York, NY: Routledge.
of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Foos, T., Schum, G., & Rothenberg, S. (2006).
School Press.
Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge
0
disconnect. Journal of Knowledge Management, tive industry. International Journal of Industrial

10(1), 6-18. Ergonomics, 27, 171-86.
Herring, S. (1996). Computer-mediated com- McDermott, R. (2000). Knowing in community:
munication: Linguistic, social and cross-cul- 10 critical success factors in building communities
tural perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: of practice. IHRIM Journal. Retrieved May 25,
Benjamins. 2007, from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/iknowl-
edge
Hislop, D. (2002). Mission impossible? Commu-
nicating and sharing knowledge via information McGrath, J. (1990). Time matters in groups. In,
technology. Journal of Information Technology, J. Galegher, R. E.Kraut, & C. Egido
17, 165-177.
(Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and tech-
Keong, L. C, & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). Factors nical bases of collaborative work (pp. 23-61).
impacting knowledge sharing. Journal of Informa- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum..
tion & Knowledge Management, 1(1), 49-56.
Mooradian, N. (2005). Tacit knowledge:Pphilo-
Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media natu- sophic roots and role in KM. Journal of Knowledge
ralness? The evolution of our biological com- Management, 9(6), 104-113.
munication apparatus and its influence on our
Nomura, T. (2002). Design of “Ba” for success-
behaviour toward e-communication tools. IEEE
ful knowledge management – how engterprises
Transactions on Professional Communications,
should design the places of interaction to gain
48(2), 117-130.
competitive advantage. Journal of Network and
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Jochems, W. (2003). Computer Applications, 25, 263-78.
Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we
computer-supported collaborative learning envi-
knew what we know: Identification and transfer
ronments: A review of the research. Computers
of internal best practices. California Management
in Human Behaviour, 19, 335-353.
Review, 40(3), 154-174.
Kumar. K., & van Dissel, H. (1996). Sustainable
Olsen, F. (2006). FAA: Knowledge sharing
collaboration: Managing conflict and cooperation
shouldn’t be forced. Agency’s use of online col-
in interorganizational systems. MIS Quarterly,
laboration space has expanded to solve work-
22(2), 199-226.
group problems. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from
Light, M., Bell, M., & Halpern, M. (2001). What http://www.fcw.com
is collaboration? Virtual team success factors.
Panteli, N. (2002). Richness, power cues and
Gartner Research Note COM-14-4302. Gartner,
e-mail text. Information and Management, 40,
Inc.
75-86.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R., Malhotra, A., King, N., &
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-shar-
Ba, S. (2000). Technology adaptation: The case of
ing barriers managers must consider. Journal of
a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual
Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.
team. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 569-600
Robert, L., & Dennis, A. (2005). Paradox of rich-
May, A., & Carter, C. (2001). A case study of
ness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE
virtual team working in the European automo-
Transactions on Professional Communication,
48(1), 10-21.
0
Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Wagner, M., Eisenstadt, S., Hogan, W., & Pan-
Questioning the role of information and com- kaskie, M. (1998). Preferences of interns and
munication technologies in knowledge transfer. residents for e-mail, paging, or traditional meth-
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, ods for the delivery of different types of clinical
12(4), 429-493. information. In Proceedings of the AMIA 1998
Symposium, Washington DC. Retrieved May 25,
Rosen, E. (2007). Real-time collaboration gets
2007, from http://www.amia.org
real. Network World. January 23, 2007. Retrieved
May 25, 2007, from http://www.techworld.com Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
Sarker, S. (2005). Knowledge transfer and col-
UK: Cambridge University Press.
laboration in distributed US-Thai teams. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of
Article 15. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http:// practice: A survey of community-orientedtech-
jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/sarker.html nologies. Shareware Report. Retrieved May 25,
2007, from http://www.ewenger.com/tech/
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D.
(1999). Knowledge management and innovation: Wiesz, J. D., Erickson, T., & Kellog, W. A.
Networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge (2006). Synchronous broadcast messaging: The
Management, 3(4), 262-275. use of ICT. In Proceedings, Computer-Mediated
Communication, CHI2006, 22-27 April, 2006.
Szulanski, G. (2003). Sticky knowledge. Barri-
Montreal, Canada. ACM.
ers to knowing in the firm. London, UK: Sage
Publications. Yarmosh, K. (2006). Why Web 2.0 matters to
your business – knowledge sharing. Posted April
Thurlow, C., Engel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004).
25, 2006 to Tech and Productivity. Retrieved
Computer-mediated communication: Social
May 25, 2007, from http://www.technosight.
interaction and the Internet. London, UK: Sage
com/why-web-20-matters-to-your-business-
Publications.
knowledge-sharing/
Tiwana, A., & Ramesh, B. (2001). Integrating
knowledge on the Web. IEEE Internet Comput-
ing, 5(3), 32-39.
additional reading
Tsui, E. (2003). Tracking the role and evolution
of commercial knowledge management software. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Ex-
In C. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook of Knowledge ploring licensing strategies for university inven-
Management. Volume 2 (pp. 122-58). NY, NY: tions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic
Springer-Verlap. Management Journal, 27, 63-79.
Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T. P., Goldsby, Albino, V.,Garavelli, A. C., & Schiuma, G. (2001).
T. J., & Markland, R. E. (2004). The performance A metric for measuring knowledge codification
implications of media richness in a business-to- in organisation learning. Technovation, 21, 413-
business service environment: direct and indirect 422.
effects. Management Science, 50(8), 1106-1119.
Argote, L., Ingram, P, Levine, L., & Moreland,
Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the R. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organiza-
locus of problem solving: Implications for innovations: Learning from the experience of others.
tion. Management Science, 40, 429-440.
0
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision the value of person-to-person knowledge sharing.
Processes, 82, 1-8. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii Conference on
Systems Science. 4-7 January 2006, Kauai, HI,
Athanassiou, N., & Nigh, D. (2000). International-
USA. IEEE Computer Society.
ization, tacit knowledge and the top management
teams of MNCs. Journal of International Business Cavusgil, S., Calantone, R., & Zhao, Y., (2003).
Studies, 31(3), 471-487. Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation
capability. Journal of Business and Industrial
Barson, R., Foster, G., Struck, T., Ratchev, S.,
Marketing, 18(1), 6-21.
Pawar, K., Weber, F., & Wunrum, M. (2000).
Inter- and intra-organisational barriers to shar- Chi, L., & Holsapple, C. (2005). Understanding
ing knowledge in the extended supply-chain. In computer-mediated interorganizational col-
B. Stanford-Smith &P. T. Kidd (Eds.), E-busi- laboration: A model and framework. Journal of
ness: Key Issues, Applications and Technologies. Knowledge Management, 9(1), 53-75.
Washington, DC: IOS Press.
Contractor, F., & Ra, W. (2002). How knowledge
Bhatt, G. (2000). Organizing knowledge in the attributes influence alliance governance choices:
knowledge development cycle. Journal of Knowl- A theory development note. Journal of Interna-
edge Management, 4(1), 15-26. tional Management, 8, 11-27.
Bloodgood, J., & Salisbury, W. (2001). Under- Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working
standing the influence of organizational change knowledge: How organizations manage what they
strategies on information technology and knowl- know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
edge management strategies. Decision Support Press.
Systems, 31 55-69.
Dixon, N. (2000) Common knowledge: How
Bock, G., & Kim, Y-G. (2002). Breaking the myths organizations thrive by sharing what they know.
of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
about knowledge sharing. Information Resources
Englehart C. S., & Simmons, P. R. (2002). Creating
organizational space to for learning. The Learning
Bontis, N., Fearon, M., & Hishon, M. (2003). The Organization, 9(1), 39- 47.
e-flow audit: An evaluation of knowledge flow
Figallo, C., & Rhine, N. (2002). Building the
within and outside a high-tech firm. Journal of
knowledge management network. NY, NY: Wiley
and Sons.
Boutelier, R., Gassman, O., Macho, H., & Roux,
Galbraith, C. S. (1990). Transferring core manu-
M. (1998). Management of dispersed product
facturing technologies in high tech firms. Cali-
development teams: The role of information tech-
forniaManagement Review, 32(4), 56-70.
nologies. R&D Management, 28(1), 13-25.
Gallupe, B. (2001). Knowledge management
Bromme, R., Hesse, F., & Spada, H. (Eds.)
systems: Surveying the landscape. International
(2005). Barriers and biases in computer mediated
Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 61-77.
knowledge communication. And how they may be
overcome. NY, NY: Springer-Verlag. Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). The orga-
nizational learning of safety in communities of
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Gant, D. B.
practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1),
(2006). Understanding the factors influencing
7-18.
0
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge Jackson, P. (1999). Organizational change and
transfer: An integrative framework and some virtual teams: Strategic and operational integra-
practice implications. Journal of Knowledge tion. Info Systems Journal, 9, 313-332.
Jones, S. (Ed.). (1998). Cybersociety 2.0. Com-
Gorman, M. F. (2002). Types of knowledge and puter-mediated communication and community.
their roles in technology transfer. Journal of Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage NMC.
Technology Transfer, 27, 219-231.
Karhu, K. (2002). Expertise cycle - an advanced
Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge method for sharing expertise. Journal of Intel-
flows within multinational corporations. Strategic lectual Capital, 3(4), 430-446.
Management Journal, 21, 473-496.
Koch, N. (1999). Process improvement and or-
Hahn, J., & Subramani, M. (2000). A framework ganizational learning: The role of collaboration
of knowledge management systems: Issues and technologies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publish-
challenges for theory and practice. In Proceed- ing.
ings, 21st International Conference on Information
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (2003). Knowledge of
Systems (pp. 302-312). Brisbane, Queensland,
the firm and the evolutionary theory for the mul-
Australia. Atlanta, GA: Association for Informa-
tinational corporation. Journal of International
tion Systems.
Business Studies, 34, 516-529.
Hendricks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The
Koskinen, K. (2003). Evaluation of tacit knowl-
influence of ICT on the motivation for sharing
edge utilization in work units. Journal of Knowl-
knowledge. Knowledge and Process Manage-
edge Management, 7(5), 67-81.
ment, 6(2), 91-100.
Ladd, A., & Ward, M. A. (2002). An investigation
Herschel, R. T., Nemati, H., & Steiger, D. (2001).
of environmental factors influencing knowledge
Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion: Knowl-
transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management
edge exchange protocols. Journal of Knowledge
Practice, 3. Retireved May 25, 2007, from http://
Management, 5(1), 107-116.
www.tlainc.com/articl38.htm
Holden, M., & Wedman, J. (1993). Future issues
Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2001). Communities
of computer-mediated communication: The re-
of practice and organizational performance. IBM
sults of a Delphi study. Educational Technology,
Systems Journal, 40(4), 831-41.
Research and Development, 41(4), 5-24.
Levin, D., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of
Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing
weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of
and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility. Orga-
trust in effective knowledge transfer. Manage-
nizational Dynamics, 31(1), 60-73.
ment Science, 50(11),1477-1490.
Huysman, M., & de Wit, D. (2002). Knowledge
Maqsood, T., Finegan, A., & Walker, D. (2004).
sharing in practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Biases and heuristics in judgment and decision
Kluwer Academic.
making: The dark side of tacit knowledge. Journal
Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2002). Knowledge of Issues in Informing Science and Information
management in communities of practice. Manage- Technology, 1, 295-301.
ment Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 259.
Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Building the learning
organization: Mastering the 5 elements for cor-
0
porate learning (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Davies- a consumptive-communicative body. In C. Prich-
Black Publishers. ard, R. Hull, M. Chumer, & H. Wilmott (Eds.),
Managing knowledge: Critical investigations of
Matzat, U. (2004). Academic communication
work and learning (pp. 176-198). London, UK:
and Internet discussion groups: Transfer of in-
Macmillan.
formation or creation of social contacts? Social
Networks, 26, 221-255. Riusala, K., & Suutari, V. (2004). International
knowledge transfers through expatriates. Thun-
McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming
derbird International Business Review, 46(6),748-
cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal
770.
Robertson, M., Sorensen, C., & Swan, J. (2001).
McInerney, C. (2002). Knowledge management
Survival of the leanest: Intensive knowledge work
and the dynamic nature of knowledge. Journal
and groupware adaptation. Information Technol-
of the American Society for Information Science
ogy and People, 14(4), 334-352.
and Technology, 53(12), 1009 -18.
Roth, J. (2003) Enabling knowledge creation:
Nardi, B. (2005). Beyond bandwidth: Dimensions
Learning from an R&D organization. Journal of
of connection in interpersonal communication.
Computer Supported Coop Work, 14, 91-130.
Schmitz, J., & Fulk, J. (1991). Organizational
Nickols, F. W. (2000). The knowledge in knowl-
colleagues, media richness and electronic mail.
edge management. In J. W. Cortada & J. A.Woods
Communication Research, 18, 487-523.
(Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook
2000-2001 (pp. 12-21). Boston, MA: Butterworth- Schulz, M., & Jobe, L. (2001). Codification and
Heinemann. tacitness as knowledge management strategies: An
empirical exploration. Journal of High Technology
Nieto, M., & Perez-Cano, C. (2004). The influence
Management Research, 12, 139-165.
of knowledge attributes on innovation protection
mechanisms. Knowledge and Process Manage- Simonin, B. L. (1999). Transfer of marketing
ment, 11(2),117-126. know-how and the efficient international transfer
of technology. The Annals of the American Acad-
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowl-
emy of Political and Social Science, 458, 81-96.
edge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit
knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowl-
Pan S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Bridging com-
munities of practice with information technology
in pursuit of global knowledge sharing. Strategic Snowden, D. (2003). Narrative patterns – the perils
Information Systems, 12, 71-82. and possibilities of using stories in organizations.
In E. Prusak & L. Prusak (Eds.), Creating value
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Glouces-
with knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
ter, MA: Peter Smith.
Press.
Price, D. J. de S. (1963). Little science, big science.
Stoddard, L. (2001). Managing intranets to en-
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
courage knowledge sharing: Opportunities and
Prichard, C. (2000). Know, learn and share! The constraints. Online Information Review, 25(1),
knowledge phenomenon and the construction of 19-29.
0
Subramaniam, M., & Venkatraman, N. (2001). Whitley, E. A. (2000). Tacit and explicit knowl-
Determinants of transnational new product devel- edge: Conceptual confusion around the commodi-
opment capability: Testing the influence of trans- fication of knowledge. Retrieved May 25, 2007,
ferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge. from http://bprc.warwick.au.uk/km093.pdf
Strategic Management Journal, 22, 359-378.
Williams, R. (2006). Narratives of knowledge and
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, intelligence … beyond the tacit and explicit. Jour-
L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to nal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 81-99.
transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge
of Management Information Systems, 18(1),
and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
95-114.
organizational capabilities: An empirical test.
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2000). On or- Organization Science, 6(1), 76-92.
ganizational knowledge and management: A
constructivist approach. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 27-43.
0
0
Chapter VI
Understanding Knowledge
Transfer on the Net:
Useful Lessons from the
Knowledge Economy
Ettore Bolisani
abstract
KM is making its way among the more established branches of business management. Thus, the contri-
bution that can come from an “economic reading” of KM practices cannot be neglected. To systematise
the conceptual backgrounds and to improve the formal modelling, a more direct connection with the
models and approaches of the economic disciplines would be useful, but KM and Economics have often
been two too-distant areas. Recently, the attention to the economic models by KM researchers has in-
creased. On the other hand, a growing number of economists have shown interest in the emerging field
of the “Knowledge Economy,” which focuses on the knowledge as an explicit object of the economic
analysis. From these converging efforts, useful elements for the conceptual systematisation of KM can
arise, and can give theoretical robustness to both the practice and the research. In the light of this, the
chapter examines the contribution that the current studies of the Knowledge Economy can give to the
clearer understanding of KM and, particularly, of Knowledge Transfer processes that are a central ele-
ment of KM. The open research questions that may result from such an “economics-based” approach
to KM are also analysed.
introduction regard, KM is making its way among the more

established branches of business management.
In a broad sense, knowledge management (KM) Indeed, managing knowledge has always
can be intended as the set of interpretative mod- been one of the major concerns of humanity, but
els, methods, normative guidelines, practices, the development of specific KM practices, and
and technologies whose purpose is the deliber- the allocation of a specific budget in companies
ate, coordinated, and systematic management of for these, is relatively recent. The cause of this
knowledge as a key asset in organisations. In this upsurge of interest is often associated to the chal-
Understanding Knowledge Transfer on the Net
lenges of the current economy, which increasingly particular issue of knowledge transfer (KT), and
require new solutions. In the growing uncertainty discuss the contribution that the current studies of
of markets and the globalisation of competition, the knowledge economy can give for the clearer
the knowledge, and the capacity to acquire and understanding of this essential process of KM
exploit it, become essential. Also, the impressive practices. For this, we propose a simple scheme of
advancements of ICT increases the motivation KT that makes it possible to analyse its economic
and eagerness to develop innovative solutions that implications in a more systematic way.
can enable the full exploitation of this enormous
(and, partly, still unexplored) potential.
Maybe because of its relatively young age, the Knowledge management:
background of the conceptual tools on which KM approaches and application
is grounded is still heterogeneous and, somewhat, fields
jumbled. Two main fields traditionally represent
the foundations of KM: Computer Science on the In the attempt to find solutions to typical problems
one hand, and Social Studies on the other hand, of the firms (such as how to consolidate the organi-
integrated with additional elements deriving from sational memory and avoid the negative effects
the business management toolbox. However, of a rapid turnover, or how to limit the negative
considering that the preeminent application field effects of idiosyncratic knowledge islands into the
of KM are the firms, a more direct connection organisation – Franz, Freudenthaler, Kameny, &
with the concepts and models of the economic Schoen, 2002), KM practical programmes have
disciplines would be desirable and useful. been developed as a combination of several ap-
On the other hand, the notion of knowledge proaches (Earl, 2001). These approaches can be
in the economic studies has been, for a long referred to various distinct schools of thought,
time, disregarded. Recently, however, there is an and often imply different views, but can be
upsurge of interest in the so-called “Knowledge mostly grouped into two contrasting categories,
Economy.” These studies can provide useful ele- which are:
ments for the conceptual systematisation of KM
that can both give theoretical robustness to the • The technology-oriented approach, which is
practice, and boost the research. often considered the “first generation” KM.
In this chapter, we delineate some elements The main theme is the development and use
for understanding the links between KM and of the most advanced ICT applications for
knowledge economy, indicate the “hot issues,” the manipulation of knowledge in its codified
and discuss the future research directions. We and explicit forms (see the following). The
assume the perspective of a KM researcher that implementation of knowledge management
attempts to draw useful lessons from a more Systems (KMS–Maier, 2002) is the main
established discipline, in the assumption that aim and result of this approach;
the further development of KM as a central • The human-oriented approach (the “second
managerial discipline is strictly associated with generation” KM) sees the management of
the advancements of the important field of the knowledge mainly as a communicational and
Knowledge Economy. social problem that, well before resorting
In the following section, we first examine the to ICT systems, first involves people and
traditional KM approaches, and give reasons requires the organisation of their interac-
for the necessity of a more direct linkage with tions. The KM solutions that can be adopted
the economic disciplines. Next, we focus on the include, for example, the implementation of

communities of practice (Wenger, McDer- of innovation, have started to treat knowledge as

mott, & Snyder, 2002). a special element that plays a specific role in the
economic models and thus, deserves a peculiar
In accordance to the approaches mentioned, analysis. To indicate these contributions, here we
the principal reference models adopted in KM will refer roughly to the term Knowledge Economy
stem from the area of computer science, on the (Foray, 2004; Stiglitz 1999), which is, frequently
one hand (e.g., approaches to the codification, used to identify this articulated literature.
memorisation, and transmission of knowledge The purpose of this chapter is to debate the eco-
contents), and sociology and psychology on the nomic implications of KM in light of the current
other hand (e.g., modalities of people interaction, studies in the field of the knowledge economy. We
learning processes, etc.). Considering that the will particularly refer to the process of knowledge
main playground of KM practices is represented transfer (KT). KT is an essential component of KM
by firms, it may be surprising that the economic for at least two important reasons: first, because
disciplines have, for a long time, been distant transfers of knowledge occur continuously in
from the KM field, while the linkage between any environment where there are several agents
the economics and the more traditional areas of interacting; and second because, as King (2006)
business management (including e.g., marketing, clearly observes, “without KT, every problem-
operations management, accounting, etc.) is much solving approach or operating skill would have to
more established and robust. The further devel- be reinvented each time.” In the firms, the problem
opment of KM as a managerial discipline cannot of managing knowledge is, mainly, an issue of
neglect the contribution of an “economic reading” KT. To be managed, the knowledge needs to be
of KM practices, and needs a consolidation of its retrieved from some source, processed, and then
economic background and an improvement of its distributed to some users (Garavelli, Gorgoglione,
formal modelling. & Scozzi, 2002). Research and practice cannot
In reality, the KM literature has, to some ex- neglect the need to reach a better understanding
tent, considered the economic implications, but of KT as an essential element of KM.
often without a systematic approach. On the other
hand, for a long time, the notion of knowledge
has not found an adequate space in the economic a simple characterisation of
studies, and even when it has been treated explic- Knowledge transfer
itly, the attempt has often been to introduce the
knowledge in the traditional economic models as It is not easy to clearly define KT. With the attempt
just a kind of good, asset, or production factor. to distinguish it from other similar notions (such
For a long time, the economics has apparently as knowledge sharing and knowledge exchange),
left free range to other disciplines to analyse the literature (cfr. Boyd, Ragsdell, & Oppenheim,
the role of knowledge in the economic activities 2007) proposes numerous definitions that, how-
(Steinmueller, 2002). ever, tend to be too complex, or focus on too de-
Today, things are changing in both fields. On tailed aspects. Here, we just need an abstract but
the one hand, KM books and conference pro- schematic reference that can enable us to identify
ceedings have started to publish contributions and discuss the main components of KT.
of eminent economists (just as an example, see KT will be intended here as the process through
Holsapple, 2003); on the other hand, some fields which a “piece of knowledge” is passed from
of economics, from the knowledge-based theo- somebody (that possesses it in some form) to
ries of the firm (Grant, 1996) to the economics somebody else (that is expected to use it in some

way). This process needs a medium, and occurs in Knowledge items

a framework of rules and mechanisms that influ-
ence it. In our analysis, we thus adopt the simple A first step to understand KT is to examine what
scheme, depicted in Figure 1, consisting of: is exactly transferred, which calls for a suitable
definition of knowledge. Here is not the right
• The knowledge item, that is, the object that place to recall a debate that has occupied phi-
is transferred; losophers from the early beginnings of human
• The knowledge sources, that is, people, history. Rather, the aim is to focalise, if possible,
organisations, or systems that deliver some the economic nature of what is exchanged in a
kind of knowledge item; process of KT.
• The users/receivers, that is, those who KM typically founds its concept of knowledge
receive the knowledge item to make some on the difference from data and information.
use of it; While data are pure measures or “elementary
• The channel or medium, that is, the tech- descriptions” of facts or phenomena, and informa-
nological (or social) system through which tion is data that are organised and can assume a
the knowledge item is carried; particular meaning, knowledge can be considered
• The enabling framework, namely the set as something more. In this sense, knowledge
of rules, procedures, supporting agents, builds on information (and data), but is much more
and intentional measures (or unintentional than those: in KM, it is generally intended as the
factors) that characterise the environment capability of using information to make business
where the KT process occurs. decisions or take actions, or in other words, as
workable information (Malhotra, 2000; Tiwana,
Although (as will result in this analysis as well) 2000). This is an “operational” definition that is
all these elements are mutually interdependent, often functional to the KM practices. But, it does
this simple scheme helps to simplify the examina- not provide a sufficient foundation for the more
tion of the economic implications of KT by focus- formal modelling of KT and KM processes.
ing on each element at a time, separately. The rest With regard to this, however, it is not easy to
of this chapter follows this approach. find a solution in the economic studies. One major
limit of the formal economic models is that, for
decades, information was assumed to be perfect
(Stiglitz, 2002) and, thus, not a specially charac-
terised object of analysis. An important step was,
Figure 1. A simple reference scheme of knowl- indeed, the development of the field of study of
edge transfer information economics that typically investigated
the characteristics of economic systems from the
ENABLING FRAMEWORK viewpoint of elements such as “quantity, quality,
symmetry among agents, distribution, access and
transparency of information and communication,
and their effects on the conduct of agents” (An-
source(s)
of User(s) -
tonelli, 2007, p. 228). It can be noted, however,
knowledge Receiver(s) that the distinction between information and
k l d it knowledge does not emerge evidently, nor is it clear
Channel-medium
whether or not this distinction is important.

For this, the further step, represented by the process that uses or produces knowledge is, thus,
Knowledge Economy, is essential. As Foray (2004) quite difficult to delineate. In other words, a stable
argues, one limit of the approaches of economists and unique model of knowledge processing that
to the issue of knowledge is their attempt to remain connects inputs and outputs, as has been done in
in a “comfortable world” for their analysis. For the classic economic models of production, has
instance, very frequently, knowledge is treated not been defined yet (Foray, 2004).
as just a product of the R&D departments, and Similarly, it looks sensible to affirm that
knowledge items assume the tangible and treatable “knowledge can be accumulated,” but it is not
form of patents. From this viewpoint, the eco- clear how to measure such stocks (obviously not
nomic problem of KT is reduced to a question of in terms of “number of units,” nor in terms of
“exchanging patents and licenses.” Undoubtedly, their “acquisition cost” or “value”). Similarly,
this has provided the context for important studies it seems obvious that there is some form of ob-
and improved our understanding of these mecha- solescence, as happens for physical goods, but a
nisms, but it also appears a substantial reduction sound measure of knowledge depreciation has
of the broader problem of KT. For instance, things not been defined.
get complicated when one considers the learning Another aspect that is, however, related to what
processes that individuals and organisations often was previously said, is the potential subjectivity
perform well outside the boundaries of the R&D of knowledge. As Ancori et al. (Ancori, Bureth,
departments. & Cohendet, 2000) argue, the traditional ration-
Indeed, treated as an economic object, there alistic perspective of the economic models has
are several difficulties with knowledge. For physi- typically considered knowledge as detached from
cal assets, the economists have a rich toolbox of the individuals, that is, something that can exist
concepts, models, and even measurement systems independently from its discoverer, observer, or
that allow their observability and measurableness user. In this sense, the difference between knowl-
as economic objects. However, their application edge and information becomes meaningful, since
to knowledge appears often inadequate: the knowledge is just the progressive accumulation
knowledge seems to escape the analysis conducted (stock) of pieces of information (flow).
using these tools (Foray, 2004). Generally speak- It is just recently that economists have
ing, if we include all the “objects” that are often started to emphasise the intertwined relation-
related to knowledge or are seen as elements of a ships between knowledge and the subjects that
cognitive process (i.e., documents, patents, pro- manipulate it (Ancori et al., 2000). As Holsapple
cedures, know-how, but also experience, feelings, (2003a) argues, we can define knoweldge as a
and even technologies), their nature appears very “representation” that a subject has of an object,
heterogeneous, often unique, and not uniform. procedure, phenomenon, and so forth. Due to
Their boundaries cannot be easily traced, and it this definition, a single item of knowledge is not
is thus virtually impossible to distinguish when independent from the specific “processor” that
one object ends and another starts. possesses, delivers, elaborates, or acquires it. The
Knowledge should not be intended as a ho- processors’ cognitive background, elaboration
mogeneous good that can be just the input of capability, interests, behaviour, and so on, affect
production (as a physical good), nor the physical their “representations of the world” and thus, the
outcome of a business process. Rather, knowledge nature and characteristics of knowledge items. To
items are a complex bundle of elements coming go even further, in a KT process, a knowledge
from various sources (Antonelli, 2007). A clear item that is initially a specific “representation of
relationship between inputs and outputs of a something” possessed by the source will prob-

ably change when acquired by the user that, in to which the knowledge can be detached to the
other words, can have a different representation people that manipulate it.
of the same phenomenon, data, fact, or whatever. It is worth noting that although this classifica-
Knowledge is thus not an a priori component that tion is evocative, it is often difficult to apply both
can be moved, but rather depends on the context to theoretical research and to practice. We would
of usage and on the learning processes that come need an “operational” definition or procedure that
into play (Tyre & Von Hippel, 1997). allows one to identify what kind of knowledge
All this challenges the way knowledge has been a particular knowledge item is in the particular
traditionally treated in the economic analysis, and situation. Despite the numerous proposals, an ad-
calls for new efforts of modelisation. This debate equate solution to this problem has not been found
also gives a useful lesson to the researchers in yet. What is more, as has been well explained by
KM: a central issue that still limits our descriptive Grant (2007), all knowledge includes a degree of
(and prescriptive) models of KT is the problem of tacitness along a continuum in which one or the
measurableness and observability of knowledge other dimension may dominate.
and, more specifically, of knowledge items that Having said that, this classification is prob-
are transferred. ably the most cited and popular both in the KM
To bypass the limitations of ambiguous or literature and in the Knowledge Economy studies,
inappropriate definitions of knowledge, very fre- essentially because it emphasises the core problem
quently, an indirect identification is given, based of KT. There is a general agreement that explicit
on its attributes. This “dimensional classification” and codified knowledge, being in a form that is
of knowledge is often useful to identify peculiar very close to information and data, can be easily
problems that may occur in specific circumstances, transferred from a source to a receiver (some-
or, especially, to find suitable practical solutions times by means of highly automated ICT systems
for specific applications. The way KT can occur, - Bolisani & Scarso, 1999), or can be stored in a
and the ICT channel that can be used, are very database for subsequent reuse. All properties that
often related to attributes of the knowledge that tacit knowledge, instead, does not possess: it is
should be carried (see e.g., Bolisani & Scarso, difficult to manipulate and transfer, and tends to
2000). The problem is that, in the literature, an remain embedded in the people who possess it.
impressive number of attributes of knowledge have If explicit knowledge is more appropriate
been identified: for instance, Holsapple (2003a) for KT, one might say that there are very good
is able to single out 23 different attributes, but reasons to convert tacit knowledge into explicit
even more can be found in the literature. In such knowledge every time this is possible. Indeed, to
way, a reasonably simple model that uses few do that, a number of methods and mechanisms
variables to describe a process of KT becomes for knowledge codification (i.e., the process by
virtually impossible. means of which tacit knowledge is converted into
explicit knowledge) are used in the firms, such as
Codification of Knowledge to translate the experience and capability of em-
ployees into manuals, procedures, best practices,
One particular attribute of knowledge is associated guidelines, and so forth; to keep track of the work
to the distinction between its tacit (i.e., not codifi- of people and teams by means of formal reports;
able, and mostly embedded in people) vs. explicit to record the activities of the firm by measuring
(the one that can be codified and “detached” from technical or economic parameters, and so on. In
its creator) form of knowledge. The existence of some way, we can also see codification as a pro-
tacit components of knowledge is clearly con- cess of KT itself, where knowledge passes from a
nected to the previous discussion on the degree person (the source, e.g., an experienced employee)

to a system (the receiver, such as a database, a impressive growth of some countries (such as
piece of writing, a series of numbers, a sequence the USA) can be explained with their capability
of steps, etc.). The system becomes the support to exploit the potential of codified knowledge.
and storage of codified knowledge that can be, in This does not mean that tacit forms do not play a
turn, made available for the replicated transfers role but, rather, that the main mechanism for the
to other persons (or systems) and for a subsequent economic exploitation of knowledge, and, by this
reuse. The Knowledge Economy literature high- means, for the economic growth, are grounded
lights good reasons that can economically justify on huge investments in codification.
the effort of codification of knowledge by firms If there are sensible reasons to codify knowl-
(Foray, 2004): edge, where is the problem? One problem is that
the process of codification of tacit knowledge into
• Once codified, the knowledge tends to as- explicit knowledge implies a loss in the content,
sume characteristics that are more similar since a part of this remains stuck to its source (von
to many physical goods: it can be described, Hippel, 1994). Thus, in the attempt to transfer tacit
valued, and even traded more easily (on the knowledge from one person, the final outcome is
latter point, see the following); often something different from the initial item:
• The costs of storage, replication, and dis- codification implies the construction of a new mix
semination of knowledge, once codified, of codified and tacit contents (Foray, 2004).
are low; A second issue is that codification is, in
• Globalisation requires increasing efforts of general, very costly. Cowan and Foray (1997)
communication that, as said above, is easier indicate that this process involves three complex
when knowledge is coded; activities that require huge investments, namely:
• Innovation is today a fundamental competi- a) the development of a model that is appropriate
tive weapon; but to produce a continuous for representing, in a formal way, the knowledge
innovation flow, the firms need to exploit an to be coded; b) the creation of a message that can
“organisational memory” of old projects on be stored in an appropriate support; and c) the
which the new ones can be based, thus reduc- development and dissemination of a language to
ing the costs of “reinventing the wheel” any enable the decodification and the exploitation of
time (Argote, Beckamn, & Epple, 1990); this knowledge by the prospective users.
can be made more easily by using explicit
knowledge items;
• The high turnover of today’s companies sources and receivers
requires measures to avoid the loss of useful
experience of employees; As mentioned before, the nature, characteristics,
• Especially in multinational context, there and behaviour of sources or receivers are not
is a need to set and disseminate compat- irrelevant. With regard to this, it should first be
ible standards, best practices, and routines noted that a process of KT may involve com-
among all the dispersed units; pletely different kinds of agents: individuals,
• Last, but not least, the potential of ICT tech- ICT systems, organisational units in a firm, or
nologies can be fully exploited only when different companies. A second important aspect
knowledge is codified. is the motivation to exchange knowledge, which
can vary extremely from one agent to the other.
As macroeconomic investigations seem to Third, KT is not only a bilateral process from
show (see e.g., Abramovitz & David, 1996), the one source to one receiver, but can involve a

multiplicity of sources and receivers. Finally, items, even though a part of the content will be
sources and users are not fixed roles but, rather, lost. Producing a manual for new employees that
can interchange with each other. For reasons of describes the use of a machine can seriously limit
space, here we especially examine the two first the effectiveness of KT, but the costs can be much
aspects, and make some remarks about the third lower than a long apprentice time. In summary,
one in the next section. the need for a cost-benefit analysis of the various
In the very traditional literature of KM, in KM solutions clearly emerges here.
coherence with the two main approaches that When we consider KT as a process involv-
characterise this field (i.e., the technology-oriented ing not single individuals but, rather, different
and the human-oriented approach – see previous), organisational units (team works, departments,
KT is generally analysed as involving two kinds etc.) or distinct firms, the level of analysis changes,
of agents: individuals and/or digital repositories. and other important factors arise. Here, the re-
This can lead to various combinations of conver- cent economic literature provides various useful
sion processes from tacit to explicit knowledge insights. Indeed, there are good reasons to say
and vice-versa (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). that the ultimate aim of KT is, to some extent,
Organisations involved in KM programmes can the exchange of knowledge between individu-
thus choose among different KT solutions, and the als. However, especially considering that KM is
trade-off between costs and benefits of conversion mostly applied to the business environment, it is
and replication of knowledge becomes funda- not possible to neglect the organisational context,
mental. However, this evaluation is not easy: for where people share and transfer knowledge.
instance, when knowledge is transferred from an For instance, employees of a company are
individual to a system, the process of codification not completely free to perform KT processes
generally requires costly investments, but after “the way they like.” Firms make significant ef-
that, the subsequent transfer from that system to forts to organise the process of acquisition of
another, or to a person, can be easily replicated, fresh knowledge, whether or not such efforts
especially in the case of digital technologies. are explicitly recognised as KM processes. As
The effectiveness and actual benefits of such a Nickerson and Zenger (2004) argue, the essential
KT process depends, however, on the degree of tasks of business managers can be described as
“stickiness” of knowledge. follows: to select problems; to decide that there is
Conversely, the transfer of tacit knowledge the need for fresh knowledge to solve them; and
between individuals can be performed by means of to arrange the mechanisms or guidelines through
various methods of direct interaction whose cost which their subordinates will have to seek and
of implementation can, however, vary largely. In acquire knowledge.
some cases, it is easier to allow people to exchange Thus, the existing organisational settings can
their tacit knowledge directly: an immediate seriously affect the efficacy of the KT process.
advice given on the phone is, sometimes, the As Teece (2003) argues, the process of interpre-
most efficient way to solve a person’s problem. tation of fresh knowledge coming from external
In others (for instance, the organisation of a com- sources (“sense-making”) is an essential element
pany’s general meeting, the implementation of a that influences the absorbing capability of an or-
training course, or an apprentice period for new ganisation. Indeed, the interpretative activity is
employees), the KT process can be very costly a kind of abstract model through which an agent
for the firm. interprets the world. The fundamental challenge
In these circumstances, it may become con- here is the bounded rationality (Simon, 1982):
venient to convert tacit knowledge into codified for an organisation, even when its employees are

talented and resourceful, it is very difficult to Indeed, the notion of knowledge transaction is
change continuously “the way it sees the world.” increasingly used, especially because, thanks
Also, the possible actions that can derive from to the concepts and models typically used by
the knowledge acquired are selected among a economists, the explanation of the economic use
limited number of alternatives, and they tend of KT processes can become clearer.
to be similar to those used in the past. Here, the To see KT as a knowledge transaction implies,
weight of existing organisational routines, seen in our scheme of Figure 1, that users are the buyers
as the “memory” of the organisation, is critical. and sources are the sellers of a knowledge item
It is for this reason that the absorptive capacity that represents the object of this particular kind of
is greatest when what is to be learned is related economic exchange (Desouza & Awazu, 2004).
to what the firm already knows (Cohen & Lev- As in any transaction, it should be determined
inthal, 1990). what goods will be bought and sold, and how the
On the other hand, the behaviour of agents goods will be paid. Concerning the first issue, we
may influence the efficacy of KT between firms have already discussed important elements in the
or organisational units. An important issue here previous sections. As regards the second, we can
is the motivation of employees. Let us consider, have a barter market where we buy “a good for a
for instance, the KT receiver: in a firm, the main good.” This is quite rare in the physical economy,
reason for an employee to seek knowledge is the but more frequent in the case of KT since it means
need to solve a problem or to make a decision. that a source may be willing to “sell” knowledge,
However, seeking and acquiring knowledge has having, as a payback, other knowledge or, at least,
a cost for the employees themselves (Antonelli, the “promise” that the user will behave the same
2007). Even when, in the organisation, there is way in case of necessity (a sort of obligation of
an attempt to organise the people’s KT practices, future reciprocity). In several practical solutions
such arrangements may find resistances unless of intrafirm KM, this is what deliberately or
they are consistent with the personal evaluations implicitly happens.
of costs and benefits. Alternatively, payments can be exchanged for
Even more complicated is the case of sources. a common medium (a “currency”); in that case, a
If knowledge has a value, why should a skilled currency system has to be established (although
employee be keen to share his/her precious this does not necessarily mean money), and implies
“property” with other people inside or outside a system of pricing as a way to value knowledge
the organisation? To debate this issue, the notions items. What this currency can be is, however,
of knowledge transaction and knowledge market still debatable. Both the theory and the practice
are useful and important, and are illustrated in have not found an appropriate solution to relate a
the next section. “money” of some kind with a consistent measure
of value of the knowledge item exchanged.
The notion of knowledge transaction recalls
enabling frameworK: another one; that of knowledge market. The
mechanisms for governing Kt practical use of this concept has two main fields
of application. One is the interfirm or external
markets for Knowledge knowledge market, while the other is the knowl-
edge market internal to one organisation. The
The awareness that knowledge can have a value, first type is more near to the typical ideal view
and that KT can have a cost, makes the analogy of economic markets that has, until today, few
with economic transactions particularly useful. attempts of application in KM. However, this area

might attract the increasing attention of research- price should thus be equal to zero for an efficient
ers. Indeed, as the day-by-day practice shows, it diffusion, in accordance to the classic economic
is very unlikely that the single firm can own, or models (Foray, 2004).
internally generate, all the knowledge assets re- A knowledge item can, however, be exclud-
quired by its business (Quintas, Lefrere, & Jones, ible, for instance, when it is tacit and its transfer
1997). Companies are increasingly realising that is difficult, or when it is embodied in a “carrier”
their knowledge resources derive, in significant (a code, an electronic packet, a book, someone
part, from the system of interorganisational re- who knows, etc.) on which there may be some
lationships established with customers, vendors, form of control or “property protection.” Indeed,
business partners, institutions, and even competi- it is only purely immaterial and “disembodied”
tors. The implementation of formal or informal knowledge (i.e., common notions, general con-
interfirm agreements to exchange knowledge and, cepts, and other abstract objects of thought) that
by this way, explore innovations and exploit new can be totally non-excludible. However, even in
ideas (Millar, Demaid, & Quintas, 1997; Peña, this case, it may be said that the cost of processing
2002; Warkentin, Sugumaran, & Bapna, 2001) can and disseminating knowledge is not zero to the
constitute a challenging field for KM researchers extent that the process of assimilation by people
and practitioners. (learning) or the embodying in things (applica-
The development of external knowledge tion) is costly in time and resources.
markets implies that firms accept to deliberately There are also institutional mechanisms that
“trade” their knowledge items with another in- enable a firm to turn public knowledge into an
dependent organization, which involves a form excludible good (Teece, 2003). For instance, as is
of compensation in monetary or non-monetary well known, intellectual property rights (IPR) have
terms. The attention is often put on the buyers been created to provide some form of protection.
of knowledge (i.e., the receivers in a process of In such a way, knowledge is not public any more,
KT), although firms can also consider the com- and can become excludible. This mechanism
mercialization of their knowledge as proactive has been introduced to provide incentives to the
activity, which can be part of their business sources of knowledge. In fact, since the production
strategy. All this opens important scenarios for of knowledge is not a zero-cost activity, how can
knowledge managers. the sources be convinced to spread their knowl-
Knowledge markets are different from other edge publicly, with no payback? For the econo-
markets. Particularly, knowledge is different mists, this is a crucial issue, but is well known
from other commodities that can be traded by knowledge managers as well. For instance,
(Teece, 2003). Here, an important distinction is in communities or practice, one major problem
between the markets for tacit or explicit knowl- is how to motivate the participation, especially
edge. In the analysis of knowledge market, this of those that are deemed to feed the community
classification recalls another one frequently used with their “precious” knowledge.
by economists, namely, the distinction between The use of IPR is not easy nor always useful.
public and private knowledge. Once knowledge is As Stiglitz (1999) notes, protecting the property
discovered, coded, and made public, it becomes a and use of knowledge, and, thus, making it an
public and non-rivalrous good: since knowledge excludible good that can have a market price, can-
is not consumed by the use, there is essentially not be done the same way as protecting physical
zero marginal cost to adding more users, who, properties from, for instance, a thief. Due to the
therefore, do not have to compete for the use of it. complex bundled nature of knowledge items, there
When knowledge is treated as a public good, its are some reasons why protecting knowledge would

be even counterproductive. For instance, new ideas ity that characterises competitive markets. Each
build on the work of others, and often draw on item of knowledge can be different from any other,
the common pool of ideas. It would be impossible and the essential elements that identify goods in
(and unfair) to impede the use of a mathematical physical markets become of few use: quantity
theorem. Thus, a too strong intellectual property does not make any sense, and price is hard to
regime may render KT ineffective. establish. Also, the markets of tacit knowledge
In addition, it should be noted that, from the can fail, since traders have to face several issues
buyer’s (i.e., the KT receiver) viewpoint, public (Desouza & Awazu, 2004)1. One problem is how
knowledge is important but, since it is public, there to “advertise” a knowledge item. To sell a good,
is no motivation to pay for it and, especially, any the seller must signal its features and contents to
other competitor can acquire it easily. Seen in that the potential buyers. However, knowledge is an
way, no competitive advantage would be achieved experience good (Choi et al., 1995): the buyers
from the use of public good while, on the contrary, must experience it to gauge its value. However,
it can be said that it is tacit knowledge (for instance, if the seller allows the buyer to experience a
the one embedded in the minds and experience knowledge item (i.e., to read a book, or attend a
of employees) that represents the grounds of the lesson), then the latter has no need to pay for it.
competitive advantage of firms (Stiglitz, 1999). Systems such as knowledge abstracts (i.e., a kind
In a knowledge-based view, the essence of the of “metaknowledge”), ratings (e.g., a measure of
firm is, thus, its ability to create, transfer, as- the degree of satisfaction by previous users), or
semble, integrate, and exploit knowledge assets. counters (for instance, counting how many users
Knowledge becomes a competitive asset to the downloaded a paper) can be used, and are actually
extent that, as cognitive item, it becomes diffi- used, to signal the quality of a knowledge item.
cult to imitate by competitors. In this sense, the However, their practical implementation and ef-
boundary of a firm can be determined, instead fectiveness are questionable, as the literature on
of transaction costs, by the tacit knowledge and the communities of practice shows.
its limited imitability/replicability by competitors The risk of lemons (Akerlof, 1970) is another
(Teece, 2003). As is well known, assets can be the problem. In a market, when buyers cannot evaluate
source of competitive advantage only if they are goods, the best quality objects can suffer. Trust
supported by a regime of strong appropriability, is an essential element for avoiding the lemons
or they are non-easily tradable, or sticky. problem, but in a knowledge market, there may
In summary, the more a knowledge item is be the need for a regulating body that governs the
appropriable by the buyer, the more this can be establishment of a trustworthy climate.
interested in paying a price for it. If, in a knowledge Also, a market needs liquidity, which means
market, only non-rivalrous knowledge items are convincing enough people to buy and sell their
offered, that is, those that can be easily acquired knowledge, which increases the externalities of
and imitated by competitors, the buyer has no the participation in the market. This situation
incentive to pay for it. becomes particularly critical at the initial estab-
Thus, while public knowledge is more easily lishment of the market.
transferred, it is tacit (or “non public”) knowledge In addition, the traders may try to sell or
that can have a recognised value in a knowledge resell knowledge “illegally,” namely out of the
market and, thus, can give motivations to buyers marketplace circuit. This can especially happen
and sellers for engaging in a knowledge transac- when a knowledge item can be easily replicated. A
tion. However, at the same time, tacit knowledge buyer may decide to spread it outside the organi-
cannot satisfy the essential property of homogene- sation, or pass it on to others without rewarding
0
the seller. This can cause a progressive mistrust ity? And what happens if people refuse to “make
in the knowledge market. Sometimes, especially their tacit knowledge explicit,” fearing that this
in electronic-based knowledge markets, there are can jeopardise their job? And since knowledge is
measures to avoid the “black market” phenomenon power, even in a firm, people can try to keep it
(such as encrypting, password protection, etc.), but scarce in order to increase their indispensability.
these solutions may be or may be not effective, Or, they may tend to diminish the importance of
depending on the specific circumstances. knowledge “not invented here” and to embellish
the power of the knowledge they already have.
internal Knowledge markets In summary, KM initiatives that do not
account for the motivations of individual em-
So far, we have analysed knowledge markets ployees to exchange their knowledge within
involving different organisations. However, from structures whose functioning is similar to that
a KM viewpoint, another concept is even more of knowledge markets, are likely to fail (Brydon
interesting: that of internal knowledge markets, & Vining 2006). Successful KM programmes
that is, the mechanisms, rules, and tools that must recognise elements, such as the significant
support KT as knowledge transactions within the costs of producing knowledge, the externalities
boundary of a single organisation. The concept that employees face when making the decision
of a knowledge market within an individual firm to contribute as knowledge sources, the price of
was popularised by Davenport and Prusak (1998) exchange of knowledge items, and so on. Even
and is now attracting the interest of researchers the technological implementations of an internal
(Brydon & Vining 2006; Desouza & Awazu, knowledge marketplace (e.g., an Intranet, online
2004). Indeed, it is possible to trace myriad of repository, or Web portal) require particular
knowledge transactions occurring among em- arrangements: just like in a physical store, for
ployees and colleagues in an organisation. Many instance, somebody has to display knowledge
of these can be seen as “private bilateral negotia- items “on sale” in an organised way, to facilitate
tions” that are hard to capture and govern by the the exchange (Desouza & Awazu, 2004)
organisation (that cannot, for instance, reward
employees for sharing their knowledge items). Kt accounting
However, others can occur in a “regulated place,”
where people exchange knowledge subjected to Another economic issue that can influence the
some rules. Several current solutions of KM, from further development of KM as a managerial ac-
communities of practice to KMS applications, tivity is that of how knowledge and KT processes
show characteristics that are similar to those of can be accounted. An essential reason is that, for
internal knowledge markets (Bolisani, Scarso, & implementing appropriate solutions to govern KT
Di Biagi, 2006), even though they have not been processes, the firms need to evaluate the costs and
designed explicitly with this purpose. benefits of these. Also, in an external knowledge
The analysis of external knowledge markets, market, the possibility to price knowledge is es-
previously conducted, provides useful insights sential; while in internal knowledge markets, a
into the functioning of internal markets as well, measure of the value of knowledge exchanged can
and some issues appear particularly significant be of use both for establishing the “currency” for
for KM. One is, for instance, the problem of knowledge transactions, and for rewarding the
“payment.” What is the payment for exchanging participation in KT activities.
knowledge in an internal knowledge market? Rec- Although KM is increasingly considered
ognition? Prestige? Possibility of future reciproc- a component of business management, its ac-

counting is one of the most controversial and tions, we have already highlighted various eco-
underdeveloped issues (Bose, 2004). What lacks nomic aspects of ICT in KT processes. Here, we
here is the rationale to treat the problem. Tra- will just focus on a specific point that deserves an
ditional accounting criteria, such as reliability additional examination: the nature of investments
and relevance (Stone & Warsono, 2003), are still in ICT applications in relation to the different KM
difficult to implement in a consistent way. As it approaches that can be followed.
can be easily understood, these difficulties can be One approach to ICT investment in KM
directly associated to many of the issues analysed programmes is that of hard codification. As
in the previous sections. mentioned, to fully exploit the tremendous po-
Until now, a large variety of accounting meth- tential of ICT for its storage and distribution,
ods for KM have been developed (Liebowitz & knowledge needs to be codified. Very often, the
Suen, 2000), which, however, demonstrates the major investment of firms is not in equipment
lack of consensus on a general conceptual ap- or software but, rather, in the codification of
proach. Some methods are based on “indirect” knowledge. There are several examples of ICT
estimates, such as the EVA approach, which applications that demonstrate this: EDI technolo-
measures the value of intangible assets of a com- gies, among the most efficient tools to exchange
pany as its market over-evaluation compared to coded messages directly between information
its actual “hard assets.” The assumption here is systems, are examples of transfers that required
that it is “the sum of everything everybody in the huge investments of codification by all the in-
company knows” that gives it a competitive edge volved parties. Electronic commerce is, as well,
in the market (Grossman, 2006). This technique is another application that requires the efficient
of immediate understanding, but it is too rough, exchange of coded knowledge among traders, to
and fails to explain what knowledge source, re- enable the identification, selection, and payment
ceiver, or KM process is directly responsible for of products online. Similar issues arise in KM
the creation of value. Others propose to measure programmes. As a matter-of-fact, a consistent
the “intangible” assets (the “intellectual capital”) part of the literature on KMS still focuses on the
in the same way as those that have a higher degree efforts to identify ways of coding knowledge ef-
of tangibility. Here the core issue is, again, the lack fectively and efficiently. However, the codification
of a coherent approach to identify and “observe” of tacit knowledge results in a loss of value of the
knowledge items. For KMS applications, specific knowledge item. Thus, the cost of codification
non-economic metrics have also been introduced should be proportioned to the possible loss of
(e.g., the number of accesses, intensity of use, value of knowledge. In this sense, technologies
knowledge repository site; Kankanhalli & Tan, can be seen as both “friends and foes” of KM
2004), that do not have, however, a direct associa- solutions (Hendricks & Vriens, 1999).
tion with the idea of economic value. A substantially different use of ICT consists of
abandoning the purpose of complete codification
in favour of a light use of these technologies. Here,
channel: the ict systems the major effort is, rather, aimed at adapting the
technological system to the social and cultural
Although the channels for KT are not exclusively features of KT processes. A frequent approach
ICT applications (other media, or direct social is to implement a variety of technological sys-
interactions can be used), it is the economic tems to fit the different dimensions of KT that
implication of these technologies that is mostly can emerge in a particular social context (Spies,
important for our analysis. In the previous sec- Clayton, & Noormohammadian, 2005). This,

however, increases the cost of the integration of foundations for a robust conceptual development
the various applications and the complexity of of this increasingly important branch of manage-
the systems. ment. Here, we attempted to demonstrate this
A third possible approach is to detach the potential by analysing a central process of KM,
codifiable part of knowledge (and that can circulate namely knowledge transfer.
in digital formats) from the one that is tacit. The One essential point clearly emerges, and can
notion of “knowledge artifact” used by Newman explain some of the difficulties that KM often
(2003) distinguishes between what knowledge is face, compared to other areas of management. The
(cognitive artifact) and where it is embedded or ultimate purpose of KM is to handle a category of
“packed” (physical artifact). When the physical goods (i.e., knowledge) that is expected to generate
support can be detached from the cognitive con- the most significant part of economic value, but
tent, the codification cost is reduced, and there is also difficult to observe and even more difficult
is lower loss of cognitive value. For instance, to measure. As a matter of fact, a clear consensus
some KMS applications propose “taxonomies” on how to measure the value of knowledge, both
or “maps” as forms of “metaknowledge” that in conceptual and in practical terms, has not been
is used as a proxy of the complete knowledge reached. The recent advancements in the modelisa-
content available, and helps a seeker to retrieve tion of the economic activities that can be related
a particular knowledge item, to find who is the to knowledge represent a promising source of
expert for a particular problem, and so forth. In this ideas for KM researchers as well. With regard to
perspective, the configuration of ICT systems in this, the notions of knowledge transactions and
KT typically comprises two integrated channels: knowledge markets are especially relevant. The
one that carries “metaknowledge” in digital form, models of knowledge markets can be a good rep-
and the other that underpins social interactions resentation of the relationships occurring among
between sources and users. sources and receivers in KT. An immediate practi-
All these three configurations can be found in cal application of these findings is that the KM
the current practice of KM. Here, we argue that programmes that do not account for the economic
their analysis in terms of the trade-off between motivations of individual employees to exchange
codification costs and loss of knowledge value their precious knowledge might fail.
in each specific KM approach, can provide novel As regards ICT systems, which are a core
interpretations into the implications of ICT for element of KM activities, here the Knowledge
KM. Economy analysis suggests a focus on the codi-
fication costs, to understand the potential and
limits of these technologies. An analysis of the
conclusion trade-off between codification costs and loss of
knowledge value in each specific KM programme
The analysis conducted here aimed to stress the can provide novel interpretations into the implica-
relevance of the economic issues in the conceptual tions of ICT for this field.
interpretation and in the practical implementation
of effective KM solutions. As a matter of fact, the
development of KM has suffered from the lack future research directions
of a more direct connection with the economic
disciplines. Today, the results of the studies of A number of potentially interesting research di-
the Knowledge Economy can provide essential rections have already emerged from the analysis
insights to KM researchers, and can represent the illustrated previously. In addition, there are two

other promising points of a future research agenda Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 488-
on which it can be worth to put an emphasis. 500.
The first point regards the mechanisms of
Ancori, B., Bureth, A., & Cohendet, P. (2000).
pricing in KT processes, and more generally,
The economics of knowledge: The debate about
how to reward participation in internal knowl-
codification and tacit knowledge. Industrial and
edge markets. This analysis can involve both
Corporate Change, 9(2), 255-287.
theoretical aspects and empirical investigations,
and might provide useful results for professional Antonelli, C. (2007). The business governance of
purpose as well. localized knowledge. Industry and Innovation,
Another important research area is the exten- 13(3), 227-261.
sion of KM programmes to interfirm environ-
Argote, L., Beckamn, S., & Epple, D. (1990). The
ments. The management of interorganisational
persistence and transfer of learning in industrial
knowledge networks is a challenging arena for
settings. Management Science, 36(2).
the practice of KM. The better understanding
of the fundamental economic mechanisms that Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (1999). Information
regulate KT between distinct firms can shed light technology management: A knowledge-based
on the potential application of KM to networked perspective. Technovation, 19, 209-17.
environments. Here, the concept of knowledge
Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (2000). Electronic com-
market becomes useful again.
munication and knowledge transfer. International
Journal of Technology Management, 20(1-2).
acKnowledgment Bolisani, E., Scarso, E., & Di Biagi, M. (2006).
Economic issues of online professional communi-
The author gratefully thanks his colleague, En- ties. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia
rico Scarso, for his precious comments on the of communities of practice in information and
preliminary version of this chapter. This study knowledge management.= Hershey, PA: IDEA
constributes to the FIRB2003 project “Knowl- Group.
edge management in the Extended Enterprise:
Bose, R. (2004). Knowledge management met-
New organizational models in the digital age,”
rics. Industrial Management and Data Systems,
funded by the Italian Ministry of University and
104(6), 457-468.
Research.
Boyd, J., Ragsdell, G., & Oppenheim, C. (2007).
Knowledge transfer mechanisms: A case study
references from manufacturing. Paper presented at the 8th
European Coference on Knowldege Management,
Abramovitz, M., & David, P. (1996). Technological Barcelona.
Change and the Rise of Intangible Investments:
Brydon, M., & Vining, A. R. (2006). Understand-
The US Economy’s Growth-path in the Twentieth
ing the failure of internal knowledge markets:
Century. In D. Foray & B-A Lundvall (Eds.),
A framework for diagnosis and improvement.
Employment and Growth in the Knowledge-based
Information & Management, 43, 964–974. Choi
Economy. Paris: OCDE.
et al., 1995
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The markets for “lemons”:
Choi, S-Y., Stahl, D. O., & Whinston, A. B. (1997).
Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism.
The economics of electronic commerce. India-
napolis: MacMillan Technical Publishing.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, A. (1990). Absorptive Hendricks, P.H.J., & Vriens, D.J. (1999), Knowl-
Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and edge-based systems and knowledge management:
Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, friends of foes? Information and Management,
35(1), 128-152.Cowan, R., & Foray, D. (1997). 35, 113-125.
The economics of codification and the diffusion
Holsapple, C. W. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of
of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change,
knowledge management. Berlin: Springer-Ver-
6(3), 595-622.
lag.
Dalmaris, P., Tsui, E., Hall, B., & Smith, B. (2007).
Holsapple, C. W. (2003a). Knowledge and its at-
A framework for the improvement of knowledge-
tributes. In C. W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook of
intensive business processes. Business Process
knowledge management (pp. 165-188). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Kankanhalli, A., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2004). A review
knowledge: How organizations manage what they
of metrics for knowledge management systems
and knowledge management initiatives. In 37th
Earl, M. J. (2001). Knowledge management strate- Hawaii International Conference on Systems
gies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Sciences (HICSS) ( pp.238-245). Computer So-
Information Systems, 18(1), 214-233. ciety Press.
Foray, D. (2004). The economics of knowledge. King, W. R. (2006). Knowledge transfer. In D.
Boston: MIT Press. G. Schwatz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge
management. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Franz, M., Freudenthaler, K., Kameny, M., &
Schoen, S. (2002). The development of the Sie- Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercializa-
mens Knowledge Community Support. In T. H. tion of knowledge: Review and research agenda.
Davenport & G. J. B. Probst (Eds.), Knowledge International Journal of Management Reviews,
management case book (pp. 147-159). Berlin: 7(4), 231-255.
Wiley and Sons.
Liebowitz, J., & Suen, C. Y. (2000). Developing
Garavelli, A. C., Gorgoglione, M., & Scozzi, B. knowledge management metrics for measuring
(2002). Managing knowledge transfer by knowl- intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
edge technologies. Technovation, 22, 269-279. 1(1), 54-67.
Grant, K. A. (2007). Tacit knowledge revisited Maier, R. (2002). Knowldege management sys-
– We can still learn from Polanyi. The Electronic tems. Information and communication technolo-
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 173- gies for knowledge management. Berlin: Springer
180. Verlag.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge management for
theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, e-business performance: Advancing information
17(Winter Special Issue), 109-122. strategy to “Internet time.” Information Strategy:
The Executive’s Journal, 16(4), 5-16.
Grossman, M. (2006). An overview of knowl-
edge management assessment approaches. The Millar, J., Demaid, A., & Quintas, P. (1997).
Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(2), Trans-organizational innovation: A framework
242-247. for research. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 9(4), 399-418.

Newman, B. (2003). Agents, artifacts, and (Ed.), Handbook of knowledge management (pp.
transformations: The foundations of knowledge 253-270). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
flows. In C.W . Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook of
Takeishi, A. (2002). Knowledge partitioning in the
knowledge management (pp. 301-317). Berlin:
interfirm division of labor: The case of automo-
Springer-Verlag.
tive product development. Organization Science,
Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2004). A 13(3), 321-338.
knowledge-based theory of the firm – The pro-
Teece, D. J. (2003). Knowledge and competence
blem-solving perspective. Organization Science,
as strategic assets. In C. W. Holsapple (Ed.),
15(6), 617-632.
Handbook of knowledge management (pp. 129-
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge- 152). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
creating company. Oxford: Oxford University
Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge management
Press.
toolkit. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Peña, I. (2002). Knowledge networks as parts of
Tyre, M., & Von Hippel, E. (1997). The situative
an integrated knowledge management approach.
nature of adaptive learning in organizations.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 469-
478.
Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997).
the locus of problem solving: Implications for
Knowledge management: A strategic agenda.
innovation. Management Science, 40(4).
Long Range Planning, 30(3), 385-391.
Warkentin, M., Sugumaran, V., & Bapna, R.
Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rational-
(2001). E-knowledge networks for interorganisa-
ity: Behavioural economics and business organi-
tional collaborative e-business. Logistics Informa-
zation, vol. 2. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
tion Management, 14(1/2), 149-162.
Spies, M., Clayton, A. J., & Noormohammadian,
Wenger, E. C., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.
M. (2005). Knowledge management in a decen-
M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.
tralized global financial services provider: A case
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
study with Allianz Group. Knowledge Manage-
ment Research & Practice, 3, 24-36. Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the
speed of transfer and imitation of organizational
Steinmueller, W. E. (2002). Networked knowledge
capabilities: An empirical test. Organizational
and knowledge-based economies. International
Science, 6(1), 76-92.
Journal of Social Science, 171, 159-173.
Stiglitz, J. (1999). Public policy for a knowledge
economy. OECD Report. Retrieved September
additional reading
18, 2007, from http://www.worldbank.org/html/
extdr/extme/knowledge-economy.pdf
Adler, P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust:
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002) Information and the Change The knowledge economy and the future of capital-
in the Paradigm in Economics. The American ism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215-234.
Economic Review, 92(3), 460-501.
Alkhaldi, F. M., & Olaimat M. (2006). Knowledge
Stone, D. N., & Warsono, S. (2003). Does account- conversion and transfer: A mathematical interpre-
ing account for knowledge? In C. W. Holsapple tation. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information,
Knowledge, and Management, 1, 137-149.

Becker, M. C., & Knudsen, M. P. (2006). Intra- Kafenzis, K., Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., &
and interorganizational knowledge transfer Georgolios, P. (2004). Knowledge marketplaces:
processes: Identifying the missing links. DRUID Strategic issues and business models. Journal of
Working Paper no. 06-32. Retrieved on September Knowledge Management, 8(1), 130-145.
18, 2007, at http://www.druid.dk/uploads/tx_pic-
Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). Develop-
turedb/wp06-32.pdf
ing reputation to overcome the imperfections in
Castells, M. (1996). The information age. Econo- the markets for knowledge. Research Policy, 36,
my, society, and culture. Oxford: Blackwell. 37-55.
Chua, A. (2003). Knowledge sharing: A game Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribu-
people play. Aslib Proceedings, 55(3), 117-129. tion of knowledge in the United States. Princeton:
Priceton Univercity Press.
Consoli, D., & Patrucco, P. P. (2004). The econom-
ics and governance of collective technological Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowl-
knowledge. Paper to be presented at the DRUID edge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations
Summer Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, June and factors in reuse success. Journal of Manage-
14-16. ment Information Systems, 18(1), 27-93.
Desouza, K., & Awazu, Y. (2004). Markets in Matson, E., Patiath, P., & Shavers, T. (2003).
know-how. Business Strategy Review, Autumn, Stimulating knowledge sharing: Strengthening
59-65. your organization’s internal knowledge market.
Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 275–285.
Dosi, G. (1996). The contribution of economic
theory to the understanding of a knowledge-based Pyka, A. (2002). Innovation networks: From
economy. In D. Foray & B. A. Lundvall (Eds), the incentive-based to the knowledge-based
Employment and growth in the knowledge-based approaches. European Journal of Innovation
economy (pp. 81-92). Paris: OECD. Management, 5(3), 152-163.
Drucker, P. (1967). The effective executive. New Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden
York: HarperCollins. City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Drucker, P. (1969). The age of discontinuity; Prusak, L. (2001). Where did knowledge manage-
guidelines to our changing society. New York: ment come from? IBM Systems Journal, 40(4),
Harper & Row. 1002-1007.
Evans, P. B., & Wurster, T. (1999). Strategy and Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information
the new economics of information. In D. Tapscott rules: A strategic guide to the network economy.
(Ed.), Creating value in the network economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Steinmueller, W. E. (2002). Networked knowledge
Grandori, A., & Kogut, B. (2002). Dialogue on and knowledge-based economies. International
organization and knowledge. Organization Sci- Journal of Social Sciences, 171, 159-173.
ence, 13(3), 224-231.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from
Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: knowledge assets: The new economy, markets
Explaining effective knowledge sharing in mul- for know-how, and intangible assets. California
tiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3), Management Review, 40(3), 55-79.
232-248.

Webster, F. (1995). Theories of the information Here, one can find similarities with the tradi-
society. London-NewYork: Routledge. tional economic analysis of the coordination
mechanisms of economic activity. Nickerson
and Zenger (2004), for example, argue that
the selection between market-based or hi-
endnote
erarchy-based KT solutions depend on the
1
nature and characteristics of the problem
The economic analysis also explores the
to be solved. Similarly, Antonelli (2007)
conditions under which knowledge markets
shows that a variety of different modes of
are less effective than other solutions, such as
knowledge governance can be developed
hierarchical or centralised governance of KT.
even in the same organisation.

Chapter VII
Knowledge-Sharing Motivation
in Virtual Communities
Jengchung V. Chen
National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan
J. Michael Tarn
Western Michigan University, USA
Muhammad A. Razi
Western Michigan University, USA
abstract
This chapter explores the motivation of virtual community members in regards to knowledge sharing and
understands the underlying factors of such sharing behaviors. In order to better understand the effects
of the two key factors (expectancy value and transaction cost) on the behaviors of knowledge sharing
in virtual communities, this chapter presents a conceptual model to illustrate the relationship between
transaction cost, expectancy value, and knowledge sharing. The knowledge transaction market is also
further examined, since knowledge sharing is a form of knowledge transaction and the knowledge mar-
ket provides an essential platform for knowledge transaction. This chapter is concluded with closing
remarks and some suggestions for future research direction.
introduction The proliferation of network access has facili-

tated the rapid growth of virtual communities.
Digital technology has provided a new paradigm The impact of virtual communities is increas-
in every corner of our society and resulted in our ingly pervasive, with activities ranging from
lives being changed through interaction over the economic to marketing and social to educational.
Internet. The Internet has provided people with a Hagel and Armstrong (1997) found that most
new platform for social activities, thereby opening virtual communities meet one or more of the four
up entirely new features of social reality. customer needs: interest, relationship building,
Knowledge-Sharing Motivation in Virtual Communities
transaction, and fantasy. First, communities that holds the key to competitive advantages
can be created for members who share special (Grant, 1996). They have begun to support the
interests. Communities that stem from particular development and growth of virtual communities
interests are not necessarily directly connected to meet their business needs and objectives. For
to purchasing activities or consumer behavior. example, in 1999, Caterpillar Inc., with a hundred
Second, communities give people an opportunity manufacturers of construction and mining equip-
to form meaningful personal relationships with- ment, launched its knowledge network to its 12
out direct personal contact. Third, communities CoPs (Communities of Practice) as a Web-based
are created for people to explore new worlds of system delivered via the Internet. Today, this
fantasy and entertainment through games and thriving knowledge network includes 3000 tightly
social experimentation. Individuals are able to focused CoPs. Based on an independent consult-
create new identities and play in a fantasy world. ing firm’s assessment, the tangible ROI (Return
Lastly, communities offer people online space to on Investment) was 200% for internal CoPs and
share information. For example, members share 700% for external CoPs. Caterpillar attributes
information related to the purchasing of goods and its success to the four success factors of CoPs:
services. Prior to purchasing a product, a buyer solid links to strategy, ingrained learning culture,
may consult members of the community and find user-friendly tools, and the core knowledge man-
more information on a particular product. agement support group (Powers, 2004).
This discussion explains the common char- Furthermore, virtual community-service pro-
acteristics of virtual communities. Focusing on viders, such as geocities.yahoo.com, who mainly
knowledge sharing, many individuals participate focus on offering users their Web sites as a place to
in virtual communities, especially in professional build virtual communities for knowledge sharing,
virtual communities, to seek knowledge and solu- are looking for unique, profitable, business models.
tions in favor of resolving problems at work (Hof, It is important to understand why individuals elect
Browder, Elstrom, 1997). Driven by a knowledge to share or not to share their knowledge with other
economy, many organizations have recognized community members when they have a choice.
knowledge as a valuable but intangible resource Identifying the motivations underlying the knowl-
Figure 1. Conceptual model of knowledge sharing in virtual communities

transaction cost
Subject task value
Attainment value
Uncertainty
Intrinsic value
Behavioral uncertainty
Knowledge Sharing
Utility value
Environmental
uncertainty
Cost
Frequency
Transaction frequency
expectancy value
0
edge-sharing behaviors in virtual communities Virtual communities can be categorized on the

would help both academics and practitioners gain basis of their cultural composition and the unique
insights into how to stimulate knowledge sharing collective sense that members share (Leimeister,
in virtual communities. To achieve this research Ebner, & Krcmar, 2005). Given the definitions of
objective, a conceptual model, as shown in Figure virtual communities these authors found some
1, is presented in this chapter and used to explore common keywords such as members, interaction,
the theories behind knowledge sharing in virtual Internet, and shared goals. In order to view it in a
communities or, more specifically, the relationship more comprehensive way, Adler and Christopher
of knowledge sharing with transaction cost and (1998) classified virtual communities into the
expectancy value. The theories and associated following three categories:
literature backgrounds of all components will be
elaborated in the following sections. • Demographic: Demographic virtual com-
This chapter is arranged as follows. In the first munities refer to certain groups or individu-
two sections, the concepts of virtual communities als with similar identity or background. For
and knowledge sharing in virtual communities example, class or department boards on the
are introduced. Then, the discussion turns to Internet, job debate Web sites, and some
transaction cost, expectancy value, and associ- cyber places where the discussion of local
ated theories that help us understand the nature affairs is the main theme belonging to this
of human motivations on knowledge sharing. In kind of virtual community.
the section on the knowledge transaction market, • Professional: Professional virtual com-
knowledge transaction and knowledge market are munities gather groups of professionals for
further examined, since knowledge sharing is a knowledge sharing and/or problem solv-
form of knowledge transaction, and the knowl- ing.
edge market provides an essential platform for • Personal interest: Personal interest virtual
knowledge transaction. At the end of this chapter, communities refer to groups of people with
a discussion on findings and some suggestions for same interests or hobbies, for example, clubs
future research directions is given. of online gaming.
Katzy and Ma (2002) further proposed the

virtual communities notion of virtual professional communities (VPC)
based on the concept of professional virtual
Gusfield (1975) explicated two types of virtual communities. Virtual professional communi-
communities. The first is the traditional territo- ties brought different professions into virtual
rial or geographic community, which refers to a communities; these include professional occu-
neighborhood, town, or region. Thus, the term of pations in various disciplines such as engineer,
community implies the sense of belongingness to a technician, doctor, lawyer, accountant, scholar,
specific spatial setting. The second is a relational consultant, and so on. All the members that
community, concerned with human relationship are set as a default have received formal profes-
without reference to location. For example, there sional education or (certified) trainings. They
are communities of interest such as hobby clubs, mutually share common value and behave with
religious groups, and fan clubs. The above two an expert’s discipline. Therefore, the first step
types of communities are not necessarily mutu- is to determine if the person has the qualified
ally exclusive. Many groups of interest can also profession or expertise to become a member of a
be location-based communities. professional virtual communities. Sociologists

generally consider the following rules to define of the recipient. Furthermore, knowledge sharing
professions (Cox, 1987): and knowledge creation are greatly influenced by
cultural values of individuals (Hambrick, Davison,
• The profession owns unique knowledge. Snell, & Snow, 1998; Hofstede, 2001; Hutchings
• Knowledge can be transferred from old to & Michailova, 2004; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000).
new members. By definition, an information system shares
• Professional practices can be monopo- information. What differentiates information
lized. sharing from knowledge sharing is that the
• The distinguished members decide and es- sharing of information covers a broad spectrum
timate whether the standards for members of exchanges and does not necessarily lead to
reach the reasonable professional level. the creation of new knowledge (Van Beveren,
• Ethical codes and rules are clearly listed. 2002). Knowledge sharing intrinsically implies
the generation of knowledge with the recipient.
Based on these rules, professional virtual In a face-to-face communication, an effective
communities are established and formed by mechanism for gaining knowledge is to request
groups of people who have common interests help from another, such as someone who may
and unique knowledge to interflow, interact, and possess the knowledge or expertise. This request
share information with each other. They teach may lead to a further communication that will
and learn expertise constantly and, eventually, facilitate the creation of new knowledge with
form a social relation network. the recipient.
The professional virtual communities dis- Communication can occur electronically
cussed previously are referred to as virtual com- by e-mailing or online discussion board tools.
munities throughout this chapter. It is mainly Within the context of a virtual community, the
because the colleague kind of relationship in this direct mechanism for engaging another member
type of virtual community provides a meaningful of the group who possesses the knowledge is to
and more consistent base when examining the post an open question or a request for assistance
knowledge sharing behaviors in this context. on the community’s discussion board. Although
lacking the richness of a face-to-face dialogue,
the benefit of online discussion forums is that the
Knowledge sharing in communication becomes accessible to the whole
virtual communities community, and can be archived and accessed by
other members. This way, a single request may
Sharing is a process in which a resource is given by generate many responses. Therefore, individuals
one party and received by another. For sharing to are able to help resolve problems by sharing what
occur, there must be the existence of an exchange. they know through shared perspective, common
A resource must be passed between the source language, and context of virtual communities.
and the recipient. The term “knowledge sharing” Knowledge in virtual communities may be
implies the giving and receiving of information shared in different ways. For example, knowledge
within a context framed by the source. What is may be shared in the form of a story describing
received is the information framed by the recipient a similar experience in which a method or tech-
of the knowledge. In other words, the knowledge nique is developed or used to solve a problem. If
received may not be exactly identical because unable to provide a solution directly, knowledge
the process of interpretation is subjective and may be shared in another form by contacting
framed by the existing knowledge and identity someone who knows and is willing and able to

help. The process of knowledge sharing involves ensure the terms of the contract being observed,
the knowledge source using an online commu- and so on.
nity system as a mechanism to convey what they Williamson (1991) indicates that how com-
know effectively. This process helps the recipient panies determine an appropriate governance
gain necessary understanding and enables them structure between the market and organizational
to develop a solution for the problem. In short, hierarchy would clearly make a differentiation
virtual communities are online networks in which based on the characteristics of transactions.
people with common interests, goals, professions, Griesinger (1990) defines a transaction as an ex-
or practices interact with each other, and a place change of economic or interpersonal resources,
where information and knowledge are able to be or the exchange of goods or services. Williamson
shared in the form of a social and professional (1991) argues that transactions differ in frequency,
way. Knowledge and information are shared in dif- asset specificity, and uncertainty, which are ex-
ferent ways, and motivations behind information plained in detail.
and knowledge sharing in virtual communities
depend on social cognition and social capital, that • Uncertainty: An uncertainty in conjunction
is, social interaction ties, trust, norm of reciprocity, with the transaction cost falls into two prima-
identification, shared vision, and shared language ry categories: behavioral and environmental
(Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006). uncertainties. The behavioral uncertainty
After the concepts of knowledge sharing in arises from the difficulties associated with
virtual communities are well understood, the monitoring the contractual performance
next step is to explore the motivations of virtual of exchange partners (Williamson, 1985).
community members in regards to knowledge For example, there is an uncertainty in the
sharing, and understand the underlying factors of transaction when one cannot ensure that the
such sharing behaviors, including transaction cost other party will not go out of the business
and expectancy value. The associated theories and or try to renegotiate the contract during
concepts include transaction cost theory, transac- the life of the contract. This uncertainty
tion costs on the Internet, expectancy theory of highlights the need for transacting parties to
achievement motivation, and expectancy of suc- safeguard their contract in order to protect
cess. These theories and concepts are explained their rights. As the result, it is expected to
in the following two sections. Furthermore, they raise the costs of writing, monitoring, and
are also applied in the Knowledge Transaction enforcing a contract. The environmental
Market section. uncertainty is a two-dimensional concept
that entails elements of both unpredictabil-
ity and changeability (Klein, 1989; Klein,
transaction cost Frazier, & Roth 1990).
• Frequency: Frequency refers to how often
transaction cost theory a transaction occurs, either occasionally
or cyclically. Therefore, it can be deduced
The transaction cost theory was proposed by that the frequency can be referred to as how
Coase (1937) to interpret the nature of firms. He many times a company seeks to initiate a
argues that in order to carry out a market transac- transaction in the market. Williamson (1981)
tion, it is necessary to discover who one wishes suggests that the frequency with which trans-
to deal with, conduct negotiations for a bargain, actions recur is one of the critical dimensions
draw up the contract, undertake inspection to for describing transactions. As in Internet

shopping, buying frequency has an influ- to minimize transaction costs according to some
ence on consumers’ perceived transaction governance problems. From this discussion and
costs and their willingness to buy online. the nature of sharing in terms with transaction,
The reaction between an experienced and this chapter examines knowledge sharing from
inexperienced online consumer to the same the perspective of transaction cost. Since virtual
level of uncertainty in the transaction process communities are online based, the transaction
could be different because there is a differ- cost incurred on the Internet is further examined
ence in their tolerance of uncertainty. in the next subsection.
• Asset specificity: Asset specificity refers
to the lack of ease with which the human transaction costs on the internet
capital, physical assets, and facilities specifi-
cally tied to the manufacturing of an item Generally speaking, electronic commerce will
can be used by alternative users or put to al- lower the search cost but raise the examination
ternative uses (Williamson, 1981). A central cost, payment cost, and post-sales service cost (Li-
premise of the transaction cost theory is that ang & Huang 1998). Compared to the traditional
the transaction cost increases as transactors commerce channel, the electronic channel may
make greater asset-specific investments. have higher costs in some categories but lower
Increase specialization within a production costs in others. For example, the electronic channel
network cannot be reached without a cost. may provide a search engine that could lower the
When transactors make investments in spe- search and comparison costs by helping customers
cialization, they will put special effort (i.e., find product sources and allowing customers to
complicated contracts) to design a bilateral, compare different prices, but on the other hand, it
or at least quasi-bilateral, and exchange for may increase the examination cost by not letting
a considerable period thereafter (William- the customer try the product physically.
son, 1981). As asset specificity increases, According to Malone et al. (Malone, Yates, &
due to transactors’ fear of opportunism, Benjamin, 1987) and Wigand (1995), four effects
more complex governance structures (i.e., may lead to reduce transaction and coordination
more complicated contracts) are required to costs on the Internet.
eliminate or attenuate costly bargaining over
profits from specialized assets (Williamson, • Communication effect: Advanced informa-
1985). Thus, transaction costs are presumed tion technologies allow more information to
to elevate with an increase in asset specific- be communicated in the same unit of time,
ity. thereby reducing transaction costs.
• Electronic integration effect: A closer
In summary, the idea of the transaction cost electronic linkage between the buyer and
theory is to examine the presumable types of seller is enabled.
transaction costs (direct and opportunity costs) • Electronic brokerage effect: Occurs in
and potential sources (specific assets safeguarding, an electronic marketplace where buyers
adaptation, and performance evaluation). Through and sellers come together to compare of-
analyzing the different principal dimensions ferings.
with respect to the transactions (asset specificity, • Electronic strategic networking effect:
uncertainty, and frequency) under some assump- Info-communication technologies enable the
tions (bounded rationality and opportunism), design and strategic deployment of linkages
people try to design control mechanisms in order and networks among cooperating firms who

intend to gain competitive advantages by the value theory, that is, the expectancy-value
achieving joint, strategic goals. theory of achievement motivation. For example,
Eccles et al. (Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff,
Because of the rapid growth in computing Kaczala, Meece, et al., 1983) modifies motiva-
power, telecommunication services and the tion from expectancy-value model. Atkinson
Internet have improved the flow of information (1964) connects personal choice, insistence, and
and reduced transaction costs, especially the performance with expectancy for success and
searching cost (Wimmer, Townsend, & Chezum, subjective task value.
2000). The new interactive technologies enable However, several differences can be pointed
the “go-between service provider”; it is a kind of out between Eccles and Wigfield (2002) and At-
intermediary that can change the structure of costs. kinson (1964). First, Eccles and Wigfield focus
The Internet links corporations with customers more on the theme, expectation, and value. They
and each other in a much less expensive manner further broaden the influence of both themes
than the traditional means. Since information can in psychological, social, and cultural perspec-
be transmitted onto the Internet simultaneously tives. Moreover, they argue that expectation and
and globally, the “go-between service provider” value are positively correlated, not negatively
can either interact with many customers or only correlated, as Atkinson (1964) suggested. The
one with few additional costs. expectancy-value theory of achievement moti-
Moreover, as a firm gets to know customers vation emphasizes more on the importance of
better and does more business with them, the subjective awareness.
costs of transactions will be further trimmed Expectancy is related to how a person per-
down. In addition, customers can share and forms different tasks or activities, while value,
disseminate their know-how through virtual on the other hand, is related to the motivation or
communities. Consumers can also train and reason for engaging this activity. Expectancy
help each other when making purchasing deci- and task value are the cores of the expectancy-
sions, and eventually reduce costs of searching. value theory of achievement motivation (Eccles
As a key component of the “go-between service & Wigfield, 2002).
provider” offerings, knowledge is an abundant
resource that increases with its frequency of use. expectancy for success
In addition, it may reduce the costs of transaction.
(Vandermerwe, 1999). Expectancy is the prospect of success. Expectancy
for success is defined as the personal belief of
how well he or she can perform in the coming
expectancy value task, including both short- or long-term (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield, 1994). Those who have
expectancy-value theory of high expectancy for success believe that they can
achievement motivation perform well in future or upcoming events and
have a positive prospect of results.
The original meaning of the Latin word “moti- Eccles and Wigfield (2002) pointed out that
vation” is to move. According to this concept, the measurement of expectancy is similar to
research on motivation is part of research on the one used in the personal efficacy expecta-
behavior (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Most recent tion (Bandura, 1997). The major difference is
theories related to this topic focus on belief, that Bandura’s expectancy-value theory mainly
value, and goal. This chapter discusses more on concerned with the prediction of results, while

Wigfield and Eccles focus more on personal or • Attainment value: Based on Battle’s study
performance expectancy, rather than the forecast (1966), attainment value is defined as the
results (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). importance of an individual to complete
Pajares (1996) compared self-performance a certain task. This value usually reflects
and related perspective. He concludes that per- personal intention.
formance is usually measured on the task-specific • Intrinsic value: It indicates the enjoyment
level. It is measured by asking individuals how gained by an individual from activities or
confident they are in related to achieving tasks. a subjective interest from a subject, for
The expectancy-value theory, by Eccles and Wig- example, experiencing the process of in-
field (2002), prefers to measure the capability of volvement. The more intrinsic value that
belief and expectancy within a domain, rather than individual perceived, the more personal
related to a specific activity. Therefore, Wigfield willingness he/she can be inspired.
and Eccles (2002) argued that their measure- • Utility value: It can be determined by the
ment toward self-performance can be used more relation between a task and other current or
generally than Bandura’s or others’ (Wigfield & future tasks, such as career goals, that is,
Eccles, 2000). how well this task would co-relate with, and
benefit to, a personal plan. A positive task
subjective task value means a task that benefits his or her future
goal, even if he or she is not interested in the
In the past, there were different types of research task content at all. For example, students
on subjective task value. Some research extended may select courses that they do not like
Atkinson’s original definition of incentive value but are required to take for meeting their
to discuss the nature of subjective task value, and other interests such as pleasing parents or
further explained it by the corelationship of task accompanying their friends.
value and individual needs (Raynor, 1982). For • Cost: Cost can be a negative point of view in
example, when a job is viewed as valuable, it is some perspectives, such as anxiety and fear
because it satisfies individual needs, or it can ben- toward failure. Cost is the limitation of an
efit an individual with extra value. On the other individual to join activities after he/she has
hand, other research discussed human value in decided to join another one. For example, if
general (Rokeach, 1973). They viewed value as one cannot play with his/her friends due to
an output of an individual internal psychological his/her homework, this cost will let him/her
view, estimated the influence of personal value put more effort to complete the work.
on his or her behavior choices, and provided
arguments over the link between personal value The level of subjective value task can be in-
and behavior. fluenced by both internal and external factors at
Eccles et al. (1983) combined these two theo- the same time. No matter that individuals take
ries; he took the influences of both personal value consideration in the perspective of incentives or
and subjective value on behavior into consider- results; the question of “Why should I do this?”
ation, and integrated them with the expectancy- reflects his or her value, which includes personal
value theory of achievement motivation to define goals, utility, interest, and cost perceived. The ex-
the major factors of expectancy-value; that is, pectancy-value theory of achievement motivation
attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, consolidates related attainment value, internal/
and cost, as summarized. external motivation, and need/cost perspective.
It not only helps us figure out the relationship

between value and successful behavior, but also to. Based on the concept of knowledge transac-
allows us to realize an individual’s subjective tion, knowledge exchange describes the process
value under external environments and internal of knowledge sharing. To motivate members to
cognition perspectives. exchange knowledge, a number of values need to
be practiced. Trust that occurs in the medium of
exchange will facilitate the integrity of knowledge
Knowledge transaction transaction among group members, since they
marKet need to perceive that those people who exchange
their knowledge with them are providing valid
After the discussion of transaction cost and ex- responses to their requests. (Sharratt & Usoro,
pectancy value, their theories help us understand 2003).
the nature of human motivation in regards to
knowledge sharing. In this section, knowledge relationship between Knowledge
transaction and knowledge market are examined, transactions and virtual
since knowledge sharing is a form of knowledge communities
transaction and knowledge market provides an
essential platform for knowledge transaction. Virtual communities are groups of similarly
minded individuals. They get online together
Knowledge market by proxy. Knowledge exchange occurs in virtual,
but socially relevant environments. Conversations
Knowledge differs from information in the re- conducted online allow all other participating
spect that it is an intangible source that exists in group members to see the nature of knowledge
the mind of an individual (Sveiby, 1997). Both exchange and therefore, increase their input
information and knowledge find their origins in (Sharratt & Usoro, 2003). It is quite special, as
data, but knowledge is generated by interpreting group members from diverse geographical loca-
information. A knowledge market is a medium tions and time zones can go online and enter into a
that allows people to meet, ask, and receive knowl- same context to exchange knowledge. Thus, in this
edge. This can be informal or more formalized, context, by having conversation, the knowledge
as in a CoP (Community of Practice), where simi- then can be “transferred” (Zeldin, 1998).
larly minded people are brought together by their Knowledge differs greatly from information
specialized knowledge and self interest (Wenger because information is merely used to inform
& Snyder, 2000). Groups of knowledge, as well people. Knowledge requires a person to identify
as the individual parts, are expanded simultane- it and perceive some kind of meaning from it. It
ously (Johnson, 2001). is a very personal process that requires a number
of conditions to make a contributor or recipient
Knowledge transaction and comfortable during a knowledge exchange (An-
Knowledge exchange dematten, Bettoni, & Mathieu, 2007).
A knowledge transaction describes the search effect of Knowledge transactions on

and acquisition of knowledge. Acquisition of the internet
knowledge requires other people to draw their
own meanings for what is requested. It is con- Some online communities have their basis
ducted in an online environment where others grounded in an existing physical face-to-face
are also allowed to benefit from and/or contribute network, which helps to overcome the need to

develop trust online as people already know each resources for current or future benefits. In the
other. This type of online community is known as transaction cost theory, the transaction means
a Hybrid Physical Virtual Community (Gaved & that buyers and sellers both have independent
Mulholland, 2005). This hybrid aspect means that techniques and the view of positive self-absorp-
knowledge transactions have an unprecedented tion. For the goods or services that people want
level of rapport and social relevance between to exchange, both parties can establish a certain
members, which allows them to support each other contract and complete the exchange activity at a
during a personal or community crisis. In some condition that buyers and sellers can accept.
cases, people with acute medical conditions or In virtual communities, the flow of knowledge
disabilities can use such social networks to support is always two-way or multiway. This knowledge
each other. This takes knowledge transactions to exchange process must have knowledge demand-
a higher level of effectiveness since people can ers and suppliers, and it can even happen without
share and learn how others cope with their health a physical place or certain form to display. Thus,
problems and disabilities. in the knowledge sharing process, knowledge sup-
Cultural differences among virtual com- pliers are sellers. Although knowledge suppliers
munity members can act as barriers to effective and demanders obtain different forms of rewards
knowledge transactions (LeBaron, Pulkkinen, & from exchange processes, they still need to sat-
Scollin, 2000). This highlights the very nature of isfy the conditions that both parties accept, and
virtual communities and knowledge transactions unfortunately, the market mechanisms still have
because people are brought together by common faults. Thus, a virtual community’s knowledge
interests that transcend their national and cultural transaction market often experiences insufficient
identities. Personal- or work-related interests or inadequate phenomenon.
can motivate people to interact with others in a Davenport and Prusak (1998) stated that
virtual community. This virtual community may “knowledge buyers look for support to solve prob-
have a common language and shared culture that lems, while knowledge sellers have knowledge
also related to the concept of cyber citizens who and ability to resolve problems.” Both parties
develop a new online culture for their members possess different expectancies because of their
with a common interest (Flavian & Guinaliu, different roles. Then, knowledge is driven by the
2005). market power, which operation is similar to that
of a service market. The knowledge market also
Knowledge sharing in a Knowledge involves buyers and sellers who determine and
market agree upon a satisfied price after communication
and negotiation.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) think people pursue According to Davenport and Prusak (1998)
knowledge sharing because they desire to finish and Teece’s (1998) studies, the reasons that a
their tasks by using this knowledge, which is the knowledge transaction market is insufficient can
same when they face uncertainties. However, they be summarized as follows:
also expect to obtain some benefits when providing
knowledge for sharing. In a professional virtual • Incomplete information: It means that a
community, this kind of transaction usually does buyer does not know the physical location
not involve money reward. Nevertheless, the fact of the seller and whether the knowledge
of market price mechanisms cannot be ignored. that the seller provides matches his or her
Knowledge market is similar to a typical market, need.
where a participant’s intent is to exchange rare

• Knowledge distributed unfairly: Knowl- as several kinds, such as search cost and moni-
edge is always collected or controlled by a tor cost. The cost of expectancy-value theory in
few people or certain groups, which mo- achievement motivation is defined as how much
nopoly of knowledge market can occur. effort is needed to complete the selected activity.
• Localization of knowledge: People may The main difference between these two theories
have a psychological distance due to distrust. is the cost concepts in which one establishes on
Thus, even if people have proper knowledge, the economic base and another is on psychological
they are still unwilling to communicate with base. From one view, it stands for the amount of
strangers or people who they do not trust. money needed to pay. On the other hand, it means
This is an important reason that leads to an an effort, loss, or damage takes place in order to
insufficient knowledge market. compensate or achieve something. Therefore, the
• Human barrier: In the knowledge mar- generic concept of cost is applicable. Generally
ket, knowledge is expensive and may be speaking, cost stands for a certain payoff that is
difficult to obtain. It means that sellers used to complete or achieve something such as a
are not willing to sell or share with others, transaction or behavior.
and their counterparts have “Not Invented
Here” syndrome or “Class Barrier.” In
other words, upper-social-class people do conclusion
not share knowledge with lower-social-class
people. This type of insufficient knowledge This chapter has been dedicated to provide a
transaction market will eventually lead to better understanding of whether the expectancy
a condition that increases the knowledge value and transaction cost can affect the behavior
transaction cost and seriously impedes the of knowledge sharing in virtual communities, or
sharing behavior. specifically, in professional virtual communities.
Virtual communities cannot be classified by Hagel
This chapter deems that knowledge transaction and Armstrong’s (1997) four basic categories be-
market exists, and it has the same characteristics cause the subjects involved are widely dispersed.
of transaction cost as those of general commodi- It implies that the development of virtual commu-
ties or service market. The problem that occurs nities tends to complicate the management issue.
in knowledge market brings up an unjustifiable Nevertheless, the capacity of professional virtual
transaction cost or the impeding factors that will communities for providing a common platform
result in insufficiency in a knowledge market. It for sharing expertise or knowledge is probably
is one of the main reasons why this study employs more appealing. To ensure a successful experi-
transaction-cost theory to analyze the charac- ence on either a service provider or community
teristics of knowledge sharing among virtual member’s perspective, the theoretical linkages
community members.. between the critical factors, transaction cost,
From this discussion, this study recognizes and expectancy value, and knowledge sharing or
that expectancy value theory of achievement transaction, have been addressed in this chapter.
motivation and transaction cost theory encom- For a service provider, a unique business model
pass the same concept of cost. The definition of can be established. For community members,
cost in the transaction-cost theory is based on their decision to share knowledge and interact with
an economic view. The transaction-cost theory other members can be reasonably justified, based
defines cost as a kind of price for completing on the cost and value of their knowledge sharing,
transaction in the market, and also classifies cost to help other members or receive professional as-

sistance from other members. Finally, identifying and policymakers debate on what kinds of on-
the motivations underlying the knowledge-sharing line behaviors are acceptable and what are not.
behavior in virtual communities would help both At present, no theoretical framework exists for
academics and practitioners gain insights into examining cultural differences in relation with
how to stimulate knowledge sharing in virtual online privacy issues. In reality, research shows
communities. that people are not always as concerned with In-
ternet privacy as they proclaim. This is probably
because their actions are often contrary to what
future research directions they have said ( Hsu, 2006). Cultural differences
have great impacts on the issues related to online
Several outcomes can result from virtual com- privacy. When moving towards virtual communi-
munity activities while sharing knowledge, for ties, it shows a social context in which the group
example, group cohesion and unity, members’ members determine their online security practices
feeling of the virtual community ownership, by the influence of culture within that community.
members’ loyalty to the community, and orga- Cultural influences are strong, but research can
nizational citizenship behaviors (Organ, 1988). only give a general comparative view of what a
These outcomes are not directly related to com- person in a given culture will do with regards
mercial performance, but to social performance to his or her privacy practices. While culture
that may lead the commercial performance in the may heavily influence knowledge behaviors, the
long run. Future research can be done by examin- privacy issues in virtual communities will also
ing the relationship between these outcomes and not be a simple case. As discussed, this study
knowledge sharing in virtual communities. does have room for future research; the effects
Second, the current research can be extended of trust, privacy, and culture on knowledge shar-
to investigate the effect of trust, privacy, and ing in virtual communities are some interesting
culture on knowledge sharing in virtual communi- topics.
ties. Undoubtedly, “trust or privacy” is one of the
most controversial issues in online communities.
The profit motive may indeed create new forms references
of virtual communities with strong commercial
elements that will enhance and expand the basic Adler, R. P., & Christopher, A. J. (1998). Internet
requirements of community; that is, trust and community primer – overview and business op-
commitment to each other. There should be more portunity. Retrieved from http://www.digiplaces.
investigation on how trust is related to transac- com/
tion cost and expectancy value, therefore, the
Andenmatten, S., Bettoni, M., C., & Mathieu, R.
interaction of trust and other factors (i.e., cost and
(2007). Knowledge cooperation in online com-
value) and its relationship with knowledge shar-
munities. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge
ing in virtual communities should be examined.
Regarding issues about online privacy, the nature
of the Internet and its global reach has created Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motiva-
some interesting issues that have crossed national tion. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
and cultural boundaries. With few debates, some
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise
say that the advance in information technology
of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
runs ahead then lays down the laws. Politicians
0
Battle, E. (1966). Motivational determinants of Griesinger, D. (1990). The human side of economic
academic competence. Journal of Personality organization. Academy of Management Review,
and Social Psychology, 4, 534-642. 15(3), 478-499.
Chiu, C-M, Hsu, M-H,, & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Gusfield, J. (1975). The community: A critical
Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual response. New York: Harper Colophon.
communities: An integration of social capital
Hagel, J., & Armstrong, A. (1997). Net gain:
and social cognitive theories. Decision Support
Expanding markets through virtual communities.
Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm.
Hambrick, D., Davison, S., Snell, S., & Snow, C.
Econometrics, 4, 18-33.
(1998). When groups consist of multiple nationali-
Cox, D. E. (1987). Programmatic factors associ- ties: Towards a new understanding of implications.
ated with effective occupational education pro- Organization Studies, 19(2), 181-205.
grams in community colleges. Community/Junior
Hof, R. D., & Browder, P. E. (1997). Internet com-
College Quarterly of Research and Practice,
munities-forget surfers. A new class of netizen is
11(1), 11-17.
settling right. Business Week, 38–45.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working
Hofstede, G.. (2001). Culture’s consequences:
Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983).
Hsu, C. (2006). Privacy concerns, privacy prac-
Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors.
tices and Web site categories: Toward a situational
In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achieve-
paradigm. Online Information Review, 30(5),
ment motives (pp.75-146). San Francisco, CA:
569-86.
W.H. Freeman.
Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2004). Facilitat-
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational
ing knowledge sharing in Russian and Chinese
beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psy-
subsidiaries: The role of personal networks and
chology, 53(1), 109-132.
group membership. Journal of Knowledge Man-
Flavian, C., & Guinaliu, M. (2005). The influence agement, 8(2), 84-94.
of virtual communities on distribution strategies
Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current re-
in the Internet. International Journal of Retail &
search on online communities of practice. The
Distribution Management, 33(6), .405-425.
Internet and Higher Education, 4, 45-60.
Gaved, M., & Mulholland, P. (2005). Grassroots
Katzy, B. R., & Ma, X. (2002). Virtual professional
initiated networked communities: A study of
communities – definitions and typology. In K.
hybrid physical/virtual communities. Paper pre-
Pawar, F. Weber, & K. Thoben (Ed.), Proceedings
sented at the 38th Hawaii Conference on System
of the The 8th International Conference on Con-
Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii.
current Enterprising, Rome, Italy (pp.311-318).
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
Klein, S. (1989). A transaction cost explana-
17(10), 109–122.
tion of vertical control in international markets.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, pectancy-value theory of personality functioning

17(3), 253-260. and change. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectation and
actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology
Klein, S., Frazier, G. L., & Roth V. J. (1990).
(pp. 97-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
A transaction cost analysis model of channel
Associations, Inc.
integration in international markets. Journal of
Marketing Research, 27(2), 196-208. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values,
New York: Free Press.
LeBaron, J., Pulkkinen, J., & Scollin, P. (2000).
Promoting cross-border communication in an Sharratt, M., & Usoro, A. (2003). Understand-
international Web-based graduate course. Elec- ing knowledge sharing in online communities
tronic Journal of Computer Enhanced Learning, of practice. Electronic Journal on Knowledge
2(2). Retrieved February 6, 2001, from http://imej. Management, 1(2), 187-196.
wfu.edu/articles/2000/2/01/index.asp
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational
.Leimeister, J., Ebner, W., & Krcmar, H. (2005). wealth. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Design, implementation and evaluation of trust
supporting components in virtual communities
knowledge assets: The new economy, markets
for patients. Journal of Management Information
for know-how, and intangible assets. California
Systems, 21(4), 101-135.
Management Review, 40(3), 55-79.
Liang, T.-P., & Huang, J.-S. (1998). An empiri-
Van, Beveren J. (2002). A model of knowledge
cal study on consumer acceptance of products
acquisition that refocuses knowledge manage-
in electronic markets: A transaction cost model.
ment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1),
Decision Support System, 24, 29-43.
18-22.
Malone, T., Yates, J., & Benjamin, R. (1987).
Vandermerwe, S. (1999). The electronic “go-
Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies.
between service provider”: A new “middle”
Communication ACM, 6, 485-497.
role taking centre stage. European Management
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship Journal, 17.
behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities
MA: Lexington Books.
of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic Business Review, 139-145.
settings. Review of Educational Research, 66,
Wigand, R. T. (1995). Electronic commerce and
543-578.
reduced transaction costs: Firms’ migration into
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing do- highly interconnected electronic markets. Elec-
ing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge tronic markets, 16, 1-5.
into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory
School Press.
of achievement motivation: A developmental
Powers, V. (2004). Virtual communities at Cat- perspective. Educational Psychology Review,
erpillar foster knowledge sharing. Training & 6, 49-78.
Development, 58(6), 40-45.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-
Raynor, J. O. (1982). Future orientation, self-evalu- value theory of achievement. Contemporary
ation, and achievement motivation: Use of an ex- Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of orga- Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). “In the
nization: The transaction cost approach. American mind of the actor: the structure of adolescents’
Journal of Sociology 87(3), 548–77. achievement task values and expectancy-regulated
beliefs.” Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institu-
letin, 21(3),215-225.
tions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Farquhar, J., & Rowley, J. (2006). Relationships
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic
and online consumer communities. Business
organization: The analysis of discrete structural
Process Management Journal, 12(2), 162-179.
alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly,
36, 269-296. Flor, N. (2006). Addressing the problem of content
restrictions in online community forums. Journal
Wimmer, B. S., Townsend, A. M., & Chezum,
of Information Technology Case and Application
B. E. (2000). Information technologies and the
Research, 8(1), 7-33.
middleman: The changing role of information
intermediaries in an information - rich economy. Füller, J., Bartl, M, Ernst, H., & Mühlbacher, H.
Journal of Labor Research, 21, 407-416. (2006). Community based innovation: How to
integrate members of virtual communities into
Zeldin, T. (1998). Conversations: How talk can
new product development. Electronic Commerce
change our lives. London: Harville Press.
Research, 6(1), 57-73.
Grace-Farfaglia, P., Dekkers, A., Sundararajan,
B., Peters, L., & Park, S-H. (2006). Multinational
additional reading
Web uses and gratifications: Measuring the social
impact of online community participation across
Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T.,
national boundaries. Electronic Commerce Re-
& Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural influences on
search, 6(1), 75-101.
knowledge sharing through online communities
of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, Graff, M. (2006). Constructing and maintaining
10(1), 94-107. an effective hypertext-based learning environ-
ment: Web-based learning and cognitive style.
Baek, E-O., & Schwen, T. (2006). How to build
Education & Training, 4(2-3), 143-155.
a better online community: Cultural perspec-
tives. Performance Improvement Quarterly, Greenfield, G.., & Campbell, J. (2006). Commu-
19(2), 51-68. nicative practices in online communication: A
case of agreeing to disagree. Journal of Organi-
Ballantine, P., & Martin, B. (2004). Forming
zational Computing and Electronic Commerce,
parasocial relationships in online communities.
16(3-4), 267.
Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 197.
Hemetsberger, A., & Reinhardt, C. (2006). Learn-
Choi, D., & Perez, A. (2007). Online piracy, in-
ing and knowledge-building in open-source
novation, and legitimate business models. Tech-
communities: A social-experiential approach.
novation, 27(4), 168-178.
Management Learning, 37(2), 187-214.
Dumont, G., & Candler, G.. (2005). Virtual jun-
Johnson, G.., & Ambrose, P. (2006). Neo-tribes:
gles: Survival, accountability, and governance in
The power and potential of online communities
online communities. American Review of Public
in health care. Communications of the ACM,
Administration, 35(3), 287-299.
49(1), 107-113.

Kidane, Y., & Gloor, P. (2007). Correlating Ren, Y., Kraut, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Apply-
temporal communication patterns of the Eclipse ing common identity and bond theory to design
open source community with performance and of online communities. Organization Studies,
creativity. Computational and Mathematical 28(3), 377-408.
Organization Theory, 13(1), 17-27.
Ridings, C., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2006).
Kling, R., & Courtright, C. (2003). Group behavior Psychological barriers: Lurker and Poster motiva-
and learning in electronic forums: A sociotechni- tion and behavior in online communities. Com-
cal approach. Information Society, 19(3), 221. munications of the Association for Information
Systems, 18, 26.
Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2005). A
multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and Schoberth, T., Heinzl, A., & Preece, J. (2006).
community dynamics in an online health com- Exploring communication activities in online
munity. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human communities: A longitudinal analysis in the
Interaction, 12(2), 201-232. financial services industry. Journal of Organi-
zational Computing and Electronic Commerce,
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital
16(3-4), 247.
intellectual capital and the organizational advan-
tage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2). Sternberg, D. (2003). Online community options.
Marketing Health Services, 23(3), 48 -51.
Neumann, M., O’Murchu, I., Breslin, J., & Dek-
ker, S. (2005). Semantic social network portal Wiertz, C., & Ruyter, K. (2007). Beyond the call
for collaborative online communities. Journal of of duty: Why customers contribute to firm-hosted
European Industrial Training, 29(6), 472-524. commercial online communities. Organization
Studies, 28(3), 347-376.
Nolan, T., Brizland, R., & Macaulay, L. (2007).
Individual trust and development of online busi- Williams, R. L., & Cothrel, J. (2000). Four smart
ness communities. Information Technology & ways to run online communities. Sloan Manage-
People, 20(1), 53-71. ment Review, 41(4), 81–91.
Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D., & Preece, J. (2006). Williamson O. (1975). Market and hierarchies.
Non-public and public online community partici- New York: Free Press.
pation: Needs, attitudes and behavior. Electronic
Ziegler, C-N., & Golbeck, J. (2007). Investigating
Commerce Research, 6(1), 7-20.
interactions of trust and interest similarity. Deci-
sion Support Systems, 43(2), 460-475.

Section II
Applications

Chapter VIII
Opportunities and Obstacles to
Narrow the Digital Divide:
Sharing Scientific Knowledge on the
Internet
Margarita Echeverri
University of Maryland, USA & Tulane University, USA
Eileen G. Abels
Drexel University, USA
abstract
Access to scientific information is considered a competitive advantage to foster knowledge, research,

and development; improve quality of education; and advance professional practices. Although, the Web
was conceived to encourage information sharing, restrictions to some publications reduce access to
knowledge, especially to those in developing countries. This chapter presents a conceptual framework
of the knowledge transfer cycle, and examines key factors affecting the dissemination of scientific infor-
mation. Current challenges facing the open-access initiative of making scientific information free and
available worldwide are also discussed. This chapter examines key factors affecting the dissemination
of scientific information and current challenges posed by the open-access initiative of making scientific
information free and available worldwide.
introduction have moved from being centered on a physical

location (universities, colleges, research institutes,
Information and communication technologies laboratories, or professional organizations), to
(ICT) have transformed the way scientific knowl- being centered on a particular focus or topic
edge is shared nowadays. Scientific communities of interest. Researchers work collaboratively at
Opportunities and Obstacles to Narrow the Digital Divide
international level using Internet, e-mail, online However, as a contradiction, inadequate ac-
chats, electronic forums, mailing lists, Web sites, cess to scholarly scientific information is still
FTP sites, blogs, and wikis. Knowledge and considered an important barrier to research,
information are shared within seconds around especially in less developed countries (LDC)
the world, and are available around the clock (Echeverri, 2006). Scholarly publishing has been
through remote databases, digital libraries, and criticized as being more focused on discussing
electronic journals. restrictions than opportunities for dissemination
The Internet has provided a new channel for when considering the potential offered by the
disseminating electronic journals, which have Internet (Echeverri, 2006; Open Access, 2003).
long been central to scientific communication. For example, licensing agreements are commonly
Electronic journals and the Internet together play required for access to documents, journals, books,
an important role in the new paradigms of creating and databases available on the Web, with layers
and sharing scientific knowledge: access through of protection such as encryptions and password-
the Internet is currently the fastest and least ex- protected subscriptions. Although information
pensive way to distribute scientific information may be available in electronic format on the Web,
worldwide. New models in the publication and this does not mean that it is “freely accessible”
codification of scientific knowledge have trans- anytime, anyplace, and by everyone, which runs
formed the way people search for information. counter to an important principle of the Web:
Now one has the ability to find articles by title, “free access to information for all” (Echeverri,
author, topic, and keywords, independently of 2006; Tenopir et al., 2003).
the journals in which they are published. Then, Even though, the power of the publishing in-
there is a possibility that the article will be freely dustry is such that academic libraries are expected
available on the Web or if not, one has the option to pay whatever is necessary to obtain the mate-
to pay for the article through pay-for-view rather rial (Thomes, 2000), the critics of the high cost
than subscribing to the entire publication. Further- of scientific journals have taken action. In 2003,
more, hypertext links within articles, extended scientists at University of California organized
bibliographic references including articles that a worldwide boycott of six scientific journals
cite and have been cited, and links to databases published, by Reed Elsevier, in molecular biology
and related articles are changing the concept of because of the prohibited costs of subscribing to
“journals” as they have been known. the electronic versions of those journals, which
Electronic publishing has been considered in turn impedes the dissemination of scientific
as important to science as was the invention of knowledge (Foster, 2003).
printing, and is viewed as an innovation producing As one solution to the exorbitant costs of
profound changes in scholarly communication. scientific journals, the Scholarly Publishing
Used effectively, electronic resources and the and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), a
Internet are fostering a new research paradigm coalition of academic and research libraries and
that empowers researchers, authors, students, and organizations, was created to correct the dysfunc-
the general public with richer communication at tions in the scholarly publishing system through
lower costs. In the same way as e-commerce, the Open Access Initiative (OA). Although, more
e-learning and e-government have eliminated and more organizations and authors are joining
the barriers of distance and time, e-research has the OA initiative, this is still in the early stages
provided a way to create, access, understand, use, of adoption. In a study on open access to medical
and share knowledge with new ICT available in literature, McVeigh and Pringle (2005) found that
a networked society. less than 60% of articles published since 1992 in

174 medical journals indexed in the Thomson computer and Internet access are insufficient to
Scientific ISI Citation Databases are electroni- encourage use of technology, and that technical
cally available, and only 21% of those articles and literacy skills are also required.
were available through open access. The digital divide, defined as “. . . the gap
One of the initial reasons that have delayed between individuals, households, businesses and
the adoption of OA journals has been the lack of geographic areas at different socio-economic
quality due to the absence of a peer-review pro- levels with regard both to their opportunities to
cess. Fortunately, in June 2004, the Institute of access information and communication technolo-
Scientific Information (ISI) had classified 239 OA gies (ICTs) and to their use of the Internet for a
journals as adhering to high publishing standards wide variety of activities” (OECD, 2001, p.5) has
and favorably competing with similar journals in been highlighted as one of the main obstacles for
their fields (Testa & McVeigh, 2004). the participation of developing countries in the
Open access to scientific journals, however, modern economy (World Bank, 2002b).
is only a partial solution to wider dissemination A more recent study supports both statements
of scientific information. Other barriers include by Mossberger and the Word Bank, and refers
poor research and English skills, restricted access more specifically to the existence of divides in ac-
to the Internet and scholarly scientific informa- cess and skills that influence knowledge transfer,
tion, limited online library services, and a lack of research, and development. Limitations in access
interlibrary loans (Echeverri, 2006). As noted in to computers, the Internet, and printers, as well
the following quote, competition at international as limitations in English and research skills still
level is not possible without appropriate services represent important barriers in developing coun-
and education: Even if all the people in developing tries (Echeverri, 2006).
countries were to be wired up to all the knowledge This chapter begins with the presentation of
in all the libraries and databases of the world, not a conceptual framework for knowledge transfer,
much would necessarily change unless people in and examines key factors affecting the dissemina-
developing countries had the education and skills tion of scientific information. Then, key barriers
to use this knowledge (World Bank, 2002). to access to scholarly scientific information in
This relates directly to the digital divide dilem- developing countries, and the coping mechanisms
ma. Resolution of the digital divide would contrib- used to overcome those barriers are identified
ute to the elimination of the vicious cycle among based upon empirical evidence. In conclusion,
poverty, inequity, unemployment, poor education, the authors encourage the advancement of open-
lack of literacy skills, and lack of or poor access access initiatives to make scientific information
to and use of ICT. Mossberger et al. (Mossberger, freely available worldwide.
Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003) “divided” the digital
divide into four different types: access divide
(access points, and frequency of computer and conceptual frameworK
Internet use); skills divide (technical competence
and information literacy); economic opportunity During the knowledge transfer cycle in which
divide (experiences, beliefs, and attitudes regard- information and knowledge are exchanged, there
ing computers and economic advancement); and are several players, each assuming different roles.
the democratic divide (attitudes and experiences These players include, among others, members
regarding using Internet for political activities of the scientific community such as research-
or searching information). Using multivariate ers, faculty, and graduate students involved in
statistical analysis, the authors concluded that research activities, libraries, and publishers. The

conceptual framework includes four components to the generation of new knowledge; it does
represented at the top in Figure 1: not mean to disseminate it.
• Knowledge dissemination: Mechanisms
• Knowledge acquisition: Mechanisms used by scholars, libraries, and publishers
used by scholars and libraries to acquire to communicate the new knowledge created
knowledge such as signing licenses agree- such as posting documents on the Web, pub-
ments, contacting the authors, exchanging lishing articles in a journal, publishing new
information, attending conferences, and so books, and so forth. Dissemination implies
forth. Acquisition refers to having access to to make new knowledge accessible to other
the knowledge; it does not mean to absorb people so they can acquire it to begin again
and apply it. the cycle and doing that, to move forward
• Knowledge absorption: Mechanisms used the topic under consideration.
by scholars to absorb and apply knowledge
such as pursuing an academic degree, at- Players in the exchange of scholarly scientific
tending online courses, doing tests in labs, information are represented in boxes below the
applying knowledge in new settings, and knowledge components in Figure 1, and the inter-
so forth. Absorption refers to using the actions among them are shown by the arrows:
knowledge acquired; it does not mean to
create new. • Scholars, as the users of information, who
• Knowledge creation: Mechanisms used by send requirements to libraries and publishers
scholars to create or generate new knowledge to acquire information, and also send them
such as researching, innovating, proposing new information to be published,
new models, and so forth. Creation refers
Figure 1. Conceptual framework (Adapted from Echeverri, 2006)

• Libraries, as intermediaries to the research (their interactions are represented on the right
process, facilitate communication between side of the diagram as leaving arrows from both
librarians, scholars, and publishers to satisfy the scholars and publishers boxes in the figure
demands for acquisition and publication of 1), and publish information either in open access
new information, and or fee-based scientific journals. Scholars publish
• Publishers, as the owners of scholarly their new developments through commercial
scientific information, who use different publishers, open access journals, or other outlets
mechanisms to acquire new information like personal Web sites, wikis, and blogs, the
to publish, such as contacting libraries and new self-publishing mechanisms transforming
scholars for new articles, papers, or books the way knowledge is disseminated nowadays.
to be published Publishers make the new articles, papers, and
books received from scholars available to the
Scholars are the central point connecting the public, using the traditional journals and books
knowledge acquisition (left side) with the knowl- on paper and/or creating new formats such as
edge dissemination (right side) in the framework e-journals and e-books.
and during this process, they interact with libraries Throughout the process, publishers, libraries,
and publishers in different ways. and scholars interact with each other to satisfy the
In the process of acquiring knowledge, scholars supply and demand of scholarly information; ICT
and libraries work together (their interactions are is shown in Figure 1 as a border surrounding the
represented on the left side of the diagram through process, indicating that this is the primary mecha-
arrows to both scholars and libraries in Figure 1), nism fostering knowledge transfer. ICT plays an
and receive either freely available or fee-based important role in facilitating access to informa-
information directly from authors, publishers, tion and reducing obstacles to the acquisition of
or personal contacts. In addition, scholars use information, thereby, creating better conditions
different mechanisms such as accessing informa- for learning, researching, and sustainable develop-
tion directly from the Web or contacting authors; ment, specifically in developing countries.
receiving information directly from academic In summary, the conceptual framework is
programs or professors; requesting that the library focused on the exchange of scholarly scientific
subscribe to a journal, buy the information, or information among three key players utilizing
order an interlibrary loan; or obtaining a personal ICT to foster knowledge transfer. Considering
subscription directly from publishers. Libraries that accessibility is the primary determinant of the
contribute to fulfilling the information needs of extent of use of an information resource (Bishop,
scholars’ using different mechanisms such as 1998; Culnan, 1985), this chapter is concerned
providing access to information directly from primarily with the connection between “access”
the Web, contacting authors, or signing licensing to information, as a requisite to foster knowledge
agreements with the publishers. acquisition, and “use” of that information, as a
Once the information is acquired, scholars requisite to create new knowledge (left side of
absorb it by studying, learning, and applying Figure 1), which are the sine qua non conditions
and, as a result, create new knowledge, which for the effective production of scientific knowl-
has to be disseminated in order to contribute to edge. This chapter will not include discussion of
the advance of the field. the publication of information to disseminate new
In the process of disseminating this new knowledge (shown on the right side of Figure 1)
knowledge, scholars and publishers work together that completes the knowledge transfer cycle.
0
perceived Access to scholarly most of the scientific literature is copyrighted

Scientific Information and Use of and not available in the “publicly indexable
online electronic resources Web” (Graham, 2003).
• Institutional/scholarly Web sites: Schol-
Although, access and use of information are two arly, research-oriented Web sites are those
concepts closely related (we cannot use what created by individuals or institutions to
we cannot access), they have to be clearly dif- provide scientifically relevant content on
ferentiated when studying “access” to informa- services, products, or other issues related
tion and “use” of information. One study on the to a specific topic, for example the National
factors affecting access to and use of scientific Institute of Health (NIH).
information considers access to information as • University library Web sites: When com-
a subjective concept, and defines perceived ac- paring Web sites of universities in developing
cess to scholarly scientific information as the and developed countries, Silvio (1998) points
perception of the ease of obtaining the full text of out that “the least sophisticated kinds of
an information source; the higher the score, the interactivity prevail in the former… while in
more accessibility perceived (Echeverri, 2006). developed countries, universities have Web
Further, use of online electronic resources is sites with a greater degree of interactivity,”
defined as a combination score of the frequency which was confirmed by Echeverri (2006). A
of using eight electronic resources that offer rich greater degree of interactivity in a library’s
possibilities for research activities; the higher the Web site refers to having remote and around
score, the more overall use of these electronic the clock access to the library’s services and
resources for research purposes. resources licensed by the library, the abil-
The eight resources can be categorized as either ity to make online requests for interlibrary
(a) Web sites and search engines or (b) electronic loans, and the possibility to ask questions
publications and services. directly of a librarian.
Web sites and search engines used for research • Other library Web sites: Independent of
by scholars include much information that is freely the degree of interactivity and the use or
available. Despite the ongoing debate about the nonuse of a library Web site affiliated with
use of information freely available on the Web a university, on occasion, scholars may use
as formal resources for research, the advantages other library Web sites (e.g., the Library of
of the Web as a publishing medium has been Congress and Library of Medicine) for dif-
recognized by the Institute for Scientific Informa- ferent reasons such us better access, services,
tion (ISI), which has been building Current Web or coverage of a topic, or more convenience
Contents, a collection of reviewed scholarly Web of use.
sites providing information in the fields of science,
social science, technology, and arts & humanities Electronic publications and services include
(Trolley, 1999). The following are resources and electronic journals, electronic databases, and
tools within this category: online alert services.
• General purpose search engines: Web • Electronic journals: Scholars need access
search engines, such as Google, Yahoo, or to current research very quickly, particularly
AltaVista, provide the ability to conduct in science and technology. Online electronic
searches quickly, which has been seen by journals make research articles available
some authors as a point of concern because relatively quickly, and many publishers

provide online tables-of-contents to facilitate and full-text journals in the health sciences
browsing journal issues. (De Groote & Dorsch, 2003).
• Electronic databases: Many Electronic
databases contain publications and other re-
sources that can be found in print versions of factors affecting both
a magazine, journal, or other credible source. ACCESS TO and USE Of
Two types of databases fall into this category: scholarly scientific
Full-text databases that contain complete information on the web
articles; and bibliographic databases that
contain only citations and/or abstracts. Even though there have been ongoing efforts to
Hybrid databases, with both full-text and examine electronic publishing and the Internet’s
bibliographic records, are becoming more impact on the scholarly community, there is still
common. Electronic databases are differen- much to learn in order to exploit fully the immense
tiated from general Web searches because potential of the Internet and e-publishing. Recent
databases involve access through keywords studies on the information seeking behavior and
and subjects to improve the searching (Wit- research process, as well as a literature review
ten & Bainbridge, 2001). Usually, CD-ROM on the impact of electronic publishing and the
databases are restricted to use directly in the Internet on the dissemination of information, in-
libraries. This restriction has the advantage dicate that attention has been given to describing
of not requiring Internet access, but the how scholars are using Internet-based resources
disadvantage that these resources are not instead of examining the factors that affect their
available from home or work. use (Echeverri, 2006; Zhang, 1999). Four dimen-
• Online Citation Indexes: The proliferation sions have been identified as having an influence
of digital libraries and Web-based abstract- on both access to and use of scholarly scientific
ing and indexing databases and electronic information. These dimensions were derived from
journals is revolutionizing the way research- the framework presented in Figure 1: scholars form
ers conduct research (Ke et al., 2002; Wit- the basis of the user dimension since, they are
ten, 2003) and facilitating interdisciplinary representative of one group of information users;
thinking and understanding of topics and libraries and their information services form the
ideas within the context of other disciplines. library dimension; publishers providing schol-
However, some authors have demonstrated arly scientific information form the information
that searching for information about journals dimension; and information and communication
and locating journal articles is still an ex- technology forms the ICT dimension.
tremely difficult task (Mack et al., 2004). Through a literature review, more than 200
• Online alert services: Awareness of the items were identified that influence access to
availability of a specific information source and/or use of scholarly scientific information on
or channel is crucial to its use (Vakkari & the Web, and fit within the four dimensions of the
Pennanen, 2001). Alert services provide a framework. Grasping the impact of these items
mechanism for users to become aware of is difficult, given the large number and the fact
current research topics and new trends in that the interrelationship between these items is
research. The low use of databases other than not specified in the literature. However, it seems
MEDLINE and journals other than the Ovid evident that the influence of many of these items
collection was considered an indicator of the is more intense in developing countries where the
low awareness of available online databases digital divide is more evident.

Table 1. Summary of factors explaining each dimension (adapted from Echeverri, 2006)
DIMENSION FACTOR ITEMS
Research Project Research process, Months working in a research project, and Number
of grants obtained
Information Literacy Skills Computer skills, Internet skills, and Research skills
Users
Language Skills Influence of content strictness, and Influence of language
Students Anxieties Literature review anxiety and Research design anxiety
Willingness to Pay for Information Willingness to pay for a journal, and Willingness to pay for an article
Level of Services Respondents’ expectations about: Subscriptions to print journals;
Subscriptions to electronic journals; OPAC; Reference services;
Document delivery services; Remote access to library; Training; and
Library hours of service
Library
Online Resources Frequency of using: OPACs (online public access catalogs); Online-
journals subscribed to by the library; Online-databases
Interlibrary Loans Frequency of: Visiting the library for Interlibrary loans; Using online
interlibrary loans services; Using online library help
Access to Information Findability and Accessibility
Use of Information Currency, Reliability, and Relevance
Information
Distinct Conditions Timeliness, Affordability, and Permanence
Type of Sources Importance of seminars, institutional Web sites, and thesis
ICT at Work Access to and Use of computer, Internet, and printer at work
ICT at Home Access to and Use of computer, Internet, and printer at home
ICT ICT at the Library Access to and Use of computer, Internet, and printer at the library
ICT at Other Places Access to and Use of computer, Internet, and printer at other places
ICT Configuration of computer, Internet connections, and printer
To begin to understand how these items can be graduate students will be at a disadvantage to
grouped into factors and how they interact with compete in the new international economic order.
each other in developing countries, a study with Research without reliable and current informa-
graduate students in health sciences in public uni- tion risks drawing faulty conclusions that could
versities in Colombia was conducted (Echeverri, decrease the quality of research in the academic
2006). Graduate students are important to study environment. With appropriate resources and
because they represent the new generation that skills, graduate students in less developed coun-
has been more exposed to new technologies, and tries have the potential one day to raise the level
many will become future faculty and researchers. of scientific and technological research in their
Information behaviors acquired during graduate countries and deal effectively with knowledge
studies will likely continue as professionals. In transfer at the international level. Caution has to
order to be successful, graduate students must be taken in considering these findings as they are
conduct research and publish in journals. This limited to graduate students in one discipline in
requires having easy access to up-to-date and one developing country. However, these findings
reliable scientific information, as well as the skills can be validated through additional research to
needed to use this information. Without these, confirm their generalizability to other countries

and to other user groups, such as scholars. Ini- the greatest predictors of electronic use (Nelson,
tially, the results are useful to provide updated 2001 cited by Tenopir et al., 2003; Vakkari, 2000).
data relating to sharing scientific information on Three items grouped together in this factor: re-
the Internet. search process, months working in the project,
A questionnaire containing more than 100 of and number of grants obtained.
the items identified in the literature as influenc- Research process includes both the stage of
ing access to and/or use of scientific information research as well as the research style as factors
was administered to 886 graduate students doing influencing information use. Kennedy et al. (Ken-
research in PhD, Master’s, and Specialization nedy, Cole, & Carter, 1999) defined three research
programs in health sciences in Colombia. Factor stages: prefocus, focus, and post-focus. Palmer
analysis was used to aggregate 107 of the items (1991) defined five research styles ; non-seekers;
from the survey into 27 groups or “factors” within lone-wide rangers; unsettled-self conscious seek-
the dimensions of the framework. Following is ers; confident collectors; and hunters. Echeverri
the discussion of the items associated with each (2006) combined research stages and styles: (1)
dimension and the results of the factor analysis.1 non-seeker: not involved in any important research
The factors associated with each dimension are activity yet; (2) lone-wide rangers, prefocus: read-
summarized in Table 1. ing/scanning a wide variety of literature to select
the topic of research; (3) unsettled-self conscious
user dimension seekers, prefocus: having a wide topic selected
and trying to narrow it; (4) confident collectors,
The User dimension refers to the differences as- focus: having a topic with clear boundaries and
sociated with individuals that have been identified searching for very specific information; and (5)
as important factors affecting both access to and hunters, post-focus: keeping up with new devel-
use of scholarly scientific information. The User opments on specific information about the topic.
dimension initially included 15 items: research According to Echeverri, scholars in an advanced
process; months working in the research project; research process are more confident in searching
grants awarded; computer skills; English skills; for information and more successful in finding
Internet skills; research skills; literature review the most relevant one.
anxiety; research design anxiety; influence of Length of time spent on research activities has
format; influence of price; influence of content been considered a predictor of use of electronic
strictness; influence of language; willingness to information (Nelson, 2001 cited by Tenopir et al.,
pay for a subscription; and willingness to pay- 2003), meaning that users with more experience
per-view. During the factor analysis, 12 of these in research are more familiar with where to look
items grouped on 5 factors, explaining 73.18% of for information and have more personal contacts
the total variance. The items influence of price to find the information needed.
and influence of format did not group within any Projects funded by grants usually include a
factor, meaning that they should be considered budget to buy the information required, which
independently as single factors. The item English minimizes problems of access. Projects funded by
skills exhibited an interesting behavior that it is small organizations or personal funds are likely to
discussed next. face more difficulties in accessing information.
Research project factor: This factor relates Information literacy skills factor: Three
to the level of respondents’ involvement in the items grouped together in this factor: Computer
research project, and measures whether or not skills, Internet skills, and research skills. They
the person was engaged in research, as one of represent three issues that are directly related to

people’s educational background and computer or electronic); price (free or paid); content strict-
and information literacy (Chen et al., 2000; Eisen- ness (peer-reviewed or non peer-reviewed); and
berg & Johnson, 2002; NSF, 2002). Information language (English, non English). First, since the
literacy skills contribute to the effective use of mid-1990s, much scientific and scholarly infor-
ICT to find and access information, and to process mation has shifted from print to digital format,
and evaluate the information found. and with this shift has come a preference for the
A lack of computer skills is an important digital formats; studies have shown that many
barrier to the effective use of ICT to find, access, researchers utilize online formats almost exclu-
process, and evaluate information (NSF, 2002). sively because of their convenience, currency,
The USA Computer Literacy Initiative defines four and searchability (Tenopir et al., 2003). Second,
basic computer skills as “the essential knowledge price increases over the last 20 years have led to
needed to function independently with a computer: a significant decrease in personal subscriptions
using word processing and spreadsheets, manag- to journals and a bigger impact in developing
ing files, maintaining the computer system, and countries, where currencies are very weak when
using the Internet and other networks.” compared to the U.S. dollar. Furthermore, elec-
Scholars need complex analytical skills and tronic subscriptions available for free on the Web
capabilities to identify, locate, and access the most (open access) or subsidized by the library have
appropriate information sources; and to evaluate, become more common (Tenopir & King, 2000;
organize, and use effectively the information Tenopir et al., 2003). Third, the perception that
obtained (Eisenberg & Johnson, 2002). Several electronic journals are of lower quality than print
problems have been identified when using search journals has been changing with the increased
tools on the Internet: retrieving too much or not number of peer-reviewed print journals that have
enough information; getting lost on a tangent; been digitalized and are available on the Web
and not knowing when to stop searching (Epic, (Tenopir et al., 2003). Also, there has been an
2001 cited in Tenopir et al., 2003). For non-Eng- increase in the inclusion of open access journals,
lish speakers, the lack of English comprehension available freely on the Web, in the Science Cita-
and writing skills results in ineffective use of key tion Index (Testa & McVeigh, 2004). And fourth,
words and search engines, which obstructs the poor English skills have an important impact in
research process and makes the evaluation and the information seeking process, especially for
selection of sources difficult. Having too much or non-English speakers who have to narrow their
too little information leads to stress and anxiety. array of information sources to those written in
Dealing with these search issues requires the use their native language, thus, eliminating much
of complex analytical skills and capabilities that valuable information (Echeverri, 2006).
are components of information literacy (Case, Although, these four items were included in
2002; Eisenberg & Johnson, 2002). the factor analysis, only two of them, influence
Language skills factor: Several authors of content strictness and influence of language,
have linked user’s preferences and information grouped together. Additionally, the item English
behaviors to the use of information services and Skills showed high cross-loads with influence of
sources (Abels, et al., 2004; Larsen, 1997; Stan- language with a high and an inverse relationship
ford University Libraries, 2002; Tenopir et al., meaning that the lower the English skills, the
2003; Thomes, 2000). The following four items higher the influence of language when searching
have been identified as the key characteristics for information. A deeper analysis of these items
shaping users’ preferences when searching for revealed that English Skills is highly related to the
scholarly information on the Web: format (print respondents’ use of online resources (p=.006),

and that there is also an inverse relationship These results are similar to findings obtained
between influence of language and the influence by Stanford University Libraries (2002) in the
of content strictness, meaning that limitations Electronic Journal User Study (eJUST), where the
in English skills have a negative influence on the U.S. and Canadian scholars also stated that they
use of peer-reviewed journals, most of which are would do without the article rather than pay any
written in English. Because much of the scientific amount for online access. This seems to imply
information available on the Web is in English, that the reluctance to pay for information is not
language barriers are very important; especially related to culture or economic development.
in countries whose native language is not English
(Echeverri, 2006; Goldstein, 1985). Although, library dimension
writing, reading, and listening are essential lan-
guage skills, English reading comprehension is The Library dimension refers to the scholars’ use
the skill that most relates to knowledge sharing of the library services that relate directly to their
on the Internet. research activities. Also included are ratings of
Students anxieties factor: Two items, litera- the perceived level of quality and cost of services.
ture review anxiety and research design anxiety, Studies of academic libraries generally focus on
grouped together confirming that high levels of the information resources available and services
anxiety are considered unfavorable to the informa- provided. Common findings include: a decrease in
tion-seeking process. Onwuegbuzie (1997) found the number of visits to the library, use of physical
that scholars experienced high research anxiety collections, and number of reference transactions;
during the selection of a research topic and the an increase in the use of online services provided
associated methodology to use, as well as high by the library, interlibrary borrowing, and demand
library anxiety during the literature review in for user education; and a preferred use of general
a research project. An analysis of the effects of search engines over library interfaces (Covey,
these anxieties in the information-seeking process 2002; 2003; Hiller, 2002; Kyrillidou & Young,
confirms that poor library and research skills 2003, 2004; Tenopir et al., 2003).
engage users in negative feelings and insecurities Important barriers in the use of certain library
that interfere with the information search process services relate to the access to scholarly scientific
(Case, 2002; Kuhlthau, 1991; 1993). information in developing countries. Interlibrary
Willingness to pay for information factor: loan agreements or resources are often lacking,
Two items grouped in this factor: willingness to impose restrictions in time periods and quantity
pay for a journal and willingness to pay for an of documents that may be borrowed, and impose
article. Roughly half of respondents in this study complicated procedures that discourage the use
were not willing to pay for information required of the service. An increase in interlibrary bor-
for their research projects. When asked about their rowing has been noted as a result of the serial
willingness to pay for articles that were critical for crisis (Kyrillidou & Young, 2003, 2004), which
their research, 50 % of the respondents indicated has had an impact on developing countries where
a preference to work without the article than to there are few libraries focused on research, most
pay for it. Furthermore, when asked how much of them funded by the government with budget-
they would be willing to invest annually for a ary constraints, and with a high percentage of
personal subscription to one of the most impor- information to be acquired overseas and under
tant journals in their research area , 42% of the unfavorable conditions including negative cur-
respondents indicated that they would not pay for rency exchanges, high taxes, strict regulations,
a personal subscription under any circumstance. and complex procedures. Remote access to library

services may not be available or may be limited help is used more frequently for issues related to
because of low connectivity speeds for downloads interlibrary loans.
and unreliable service. Due to the low degree of
interactivity of library Web pages in develop- information dimension
ing countries, users do not have access to the
library’s information everywhere and anytime This dimension refers to the information attributes
and usually, the library’ services are restricted influencing users’ access to and use of sources
to its facilities within library hours (Echeverri, of information. The “value” given to specific
2006; Silvio, 1998). characteristics of information is an important
The items identified in this dimension grouped issue when considering the use or lack of use of
into six factors: frequency of using physical library a specific source of information.
services; perceived costs of library services; dis- Several authors have studied the users’
tance to library; level of services; online resources; criteria to select information resources. Using
and interlibrary loan. The following discussion factor analysis, Bateman (1999) defined quality,
focuses only on the last three ones that are more credibility, and completeness as the three main
relevant for this chapter and that, in turn, influ- constructs underlying the concept of relevance for
ence important information behaviors. graduate students, and suggested three additional
Level of services factor: This factor measures constructs for consideration: availability, topical-
how respondents’ expectations of the services ity, and currency. In a similar study, Zhang (1999)
related to research purposes offered by the li- found the following four main constructs to ex-
brary are met. Eight items grouped together in plain how scholars evaluate electronic resources:
this factor: (1) subscriptions to print journals; (2) content and archive (accuracy; authority; con-
subscriptions to electronic journals; (3) OPAC; (4) sistency; and permanence); access (accessibility
reference services; (5) document delivery services; and availability); use (flexibility and ease of use);
(6) remote access to library; (7) training; and (8) and distinct features (timeliness and uniqueness).
library hours of service. Prior to this research, Pinelli (1991) identified
Online resources factor: This refers to the accessibility, relevance, ease of use, expense,
respondents’ frequency of using online resources, familiarity, and reliability as the most compelling
available through the library Web page, for re- factors influencing the use of information sources
search activities. Three items grouped in this fac- by engineers and scientists. Noguera (2003) found
tor: Frequency of visiting the library Web site for that graduate students in mathematics give more
using (1) OPACs (online public access catalogs), importance to reliability of access; convenience
(2) online journals subscribed to by the library, of use; browsability; access to full content; ease
and (3) online databases subscribed to by the of use; and remote access to journals. Although,
library, which are the most common e-resources these studies contribute to an understanding of
available in academic libraries. the key factors influencing users’ selection of
Interlibrary loans factor: This factor resources, they do not discuss the meaning of the
flects the frequency of using interlibrary loans. attributes analyzed, nor do they look for possible
It includes three items: (1) Frequency of visiting relationships among the attributes.
the library for interlibrary loans, (2) frequency of This dimension included 10 items related to
using online interlibrary loans services, and (3) attributes of information: awareness; findability;
frequency of using online library help (e-mail/chat accessibility; usability; reliability; currency; rel-
to the librarian). The fact that the last item grouped evance; timeliness; affordability; and permanence;
in this factor could mean that the library’s online and 5 items related to the importance of the fol-

Table 2. Information dimension: items and factors related to information attributes (Adapted from
Echeverri, 2006)
Knowledge
transfer Factor Item Definition Condition
elements
Ease of knowing of the existence of a Knowing that a document exists does not
None Awareness
specific information imply to be able to find it
Access to Ease of finding the full text of a Finding the document the first time does not
Findability
Information document guarantee that it will be found again
Distinct Finding the document every time does not
Permanence Capability of being found again
Knowledge Conditions imply to have its full text
acquisition Distinct Free or reasonable price to obtain the Free or affordable information does not imply
Affordability
Conditions information access to the full text
Access to Ease of obtaining the full text of an Having the full text of a document does not
Accessibility
Information information source imply to have it on time
Distinct Having the full text on time does not imply
Timeliness Fast or immediate access to the full-text
Conditions its usage
Ease of using, reading, and under- Using, reading, and understanding the infor-
None Usability standing the content of the full text of mation does not imply satisfaction with the
an information source content; it has to be reliable
Trusting the authority, methods, and
Knowledge Reliability Being reliable does not imply being current
procedures
absorption
Use of Up-to-date content reflecting the latest
Currency Being current does not imply to be relevant
Information information and advance in the topic
Relevance Applicability to the topic of interest Success!
lowing types of sources: thesis, institutional Web Use of information factor: Includes the char-
sites, seminars, books, and journals. acteristics influencing the use of a document as
Table 2 presents the attributes in the Infor- a bibliographic reference: reliability, currency,
mation Dimension, explains the relationship and relevance.
between them, identifies the factor with which Distinct conditions factor: Groups the char-
they are associated (if any), and shows how they acteristics that differentiate between the electronic
fit into the knowledge transfer cycle shown in and print resources of information in the research
the framework. process: timeliness, affordability, and perma-
The following factors were obtained during the nence. The fact that these three items grouped
factor analysis. The items usability and aware- together is an important result that integrates the
ness were dropped because of their low factor principle concerns involved in the new models of
loadings, meaning that they were not of concern electronic publishing: fast access, low cost, and
to respondents during the search for, and use of, long-term storage of information.
information for research purposes. Type of sources factor: During the factor
Access to information factor: Refers to the analysis, the items importance of seminars (pro-
attributes influencing the acquisition of informa- ceedings, white papers, technical reports, etc.),
tion required for the research project: findability importance of institutional Web sites (reports,
and accessibility. papers and information posted in the Web sites

Figure 2. Ranking on importance of information attributes (N=854) (Echeverri, 2006)
of international organizations and well known such as health sciences, environmental changes,
research in institutions), and importance of the- and genetics.
sis (master or doctoral thesis) grouped together.
The finding of the factor analysis reinforced the ict dimension
survey findings. The low loading in the factor
analysis of importance of books confirmed the The ICT dimension refers to the availability and
finding that books are considered less important use of specific Information and Communication
by the majority of the population under study. Technologies (ICT) by scholars during their
Also, journals/articles were the type of document research activities, and includes computers, the
considered most important by the majority of the Internet, and printers as those most used for re-
population under study, and the item importance search activities. The ICT dimension included 27
of journals/articles had high cross-loads with items that were initially classified in three factors:
most of all items included in the barriers faced ICT access, ICT use, and ICT type.
to access information, meaning that respondents Access to ICT is one of the critical variables
think on e-journals when talking about access to in the generation, acquisition, dissemination,
information. and utilization of knowledge (Sagasti, 2001), and
Respondents ranked the importance given to lack of access to ICT is still an important barrier
the information attributes when selecting sources limiting the use of information available on the
for their research. Figure 2 shows the various Web (Echeverri, 2006). Barriers such as lack of
attributes ranked with currency of information access to computers, Internet, or printers; costly
being rated among the more important attributes. and restricted online connections; long connect-
This means that although some publishers have a ing times; and ICT unreliability discourage the
policy to provide open access to old issues of their use of resources available on the Web.
journals, this does not solve the access problem, Although studies on the use of electronic re-
specifically when we are talking about informa- sources have concluded that access to computers,
tion on topics that are very highly sensitive and the Internet, and printers, along with the number
require access to state-of-the-art information of access points (home, work, library, and other

places) shape usage frequency (Echeverri, 2006; • ICT type factor: Three items grouped
Stanford University Libraries, 2002; Zhang, 1999), together during the factor analysis: con-
access alone to ICT does not translate into use. figuration of the computer, configuration of
ICT use refers to how often scholars use comput- the Internet connection, and configuration
ers, Internet, and printers in their home, work, of the printer used more often for research
library, and other place for research activities. purposes. Although the Alpha coefficient
While studies have shown that Internet users (.53) is not reliable enough to reach firm
prefer e-journals over printed editions (Stanford conclusions, positive relationships were
University Libraries, 2002), that is true only when found between ICT configuration and use
the conditions to use ICT are favorable and not of e-resources. According to the data, more
problematic for the users (Echeverri, 2006). than half of the respondents had unrestricted
ICT type–configuration of computers, Internet access to a computer (81.0%), the Internet
connections, and printers available for research- (62.1%), and a printer (71.5%) at home. How-
impacts access to scientific information on the ever, more than one-third of the respondents
Web because of the heavy use of graphics and (36.5%) used a modem to connect to the
data. Low speed connections and long delays in Internet from home, with a very low speed
response time discourage the use of electronic to search and download electronic journals
resources, in particular, when restrictions of and other sources. Deeper analysis of data
time and cost exist, as is common in developing showed positive relationships between
countries. computer and Internet configurations and
However, during the factor analysis, the items the use of online resources at the work place
did not group as classified; they grouped instead (p=.000), meaning that the faster Internet
by place (home, work, library, and other places). connections respondents had were at work.
This means that respondents did not differentiate In summary, data confirmed that the lack
between access and use because they tend to use of adequate access to ICT, specifically to
places with better access to ICT to work on their
research project. As a result, five factors, instead
of three, explain the ICT dimension:
Figure 3. Use of online electronic resources
(N=885) (Echeverri, 2006)
• ICT at work factor: Grouped the six items
measuring “access” to and “use” of com-
puter, printer, and Internet at work
• ICT at home factor: Grouped the six items
measuring “access” to and “use” of com-
puter, printer, and Internet at home
• ICT at the library factor: Grouped the
six items measuring “access” to and “use”
of computer, printer, and Internet at the
library
• ICT at other places factor: Grouped the
six items measuring “access” to and “use”
of computer, printer, and Internet at other
places
0
the Internet, is still an important barrier to translates to moderate use of electronic resources
access electronic resources available on the for research purposes. In total, 2% of the respon-
Web. dents were classified as non-users; 30% as low
users; 58% as moderate users; and 10% as high
users of electronic resources for research purposes.
barriers and coping Figure 3 shows the electronic resources listed,
mechanisms for both access in descending order, by their mean scores. Data
to and use of scholarly confirm that respondents prefer the use of gen-
scientific information eral search engines (mean=3.87) over the library
Web site (mean=2.12) to search for scholarly
Although ICT, specifically the Internet, digital information. This result is similar to findings in a
libraries, and electronic journals have provided national study conducted in 392 doctoral research
open access, to some extent, and facilitated the universities in the United States in which 47.4% of
sharing of information worldwide, there are still faculty members and 39.9% of graduate students
significant barriers that impede connecting in- selected “search engines” as the top response to
formation to users, especially in less-developed the question “how do you usually get pointed
countries. to the right information sources?” (Marcum &
In the study described, in addition to the factor Gerald, 2003)
analysis, data were gathered to measure perceived Additionally, the average score of perceived ac-
accessibility and use. Again, the study is limited cess to scholarly scientific information—defined
in that it focuses on students in one country, so in the conceptual framework—was 2.56 from a
caution should be taken in generalizing. However, range of 1 to 5. Figure 4 shows that 87% of the
the findings support other findings reported in respondents found access to be at least somewhat
the literature. difficult. Only 1.1% of the respondents indicated
In this study, the average score for the use of that they perceived access to scholarly informa-
online electronic resources for research activi- tion to be very easy.
ties—defined in the conceptual framework—was During the factor analysis described, the
19.54 out of a total possible score of 40, which following barriers were identified, and help to
explain the high percentage of respondents who
find access to be difficult. These barriers can be
Figure 4. Perceived access to scholarly scientific categorized as personal, technical, and politico-
information (N=882) economic.
The personal barriers found included limited
user skills needed for research purposes. These
are limitations in searching strategies, evaluation
skills (difficulty to select and evaluate informa-
tion), computer skills, and English skills.
Technical barriers found related to limited ac-
cess to ICT and library services. Items included
relate to a lack of or restrictions to access to
computers, Internet ,and printers; lack/limita-
tion of remote access to library services; low
speed of answer/downloads; and unreliability of
the service, which confirms that access to ICT

Figure 5. Barriers to access scholarly scientific information (N=885) (Rank 1 to 5) (Echeverri, 2006)
is still an important concern in the information of the service. Publishers restrictions included
seeking process. two items related to access to information that
Politico-economic barriers found were those is already available on the Web: requirements of
barriers created based on policies or procedures: passwords (registration, membership, affiliation
limiting interlibrary loan services and restrictions to a specific group), and requirement of payments
imposed by publishers to access information. (pay-per-view or journal subscription).
Limitations in interlibrary loan (ILL) service These barriers restrict the capacity of people
included items related to restrictions/lack of agree- to access the information already available on the
ments with other libraries nationally and at the in- Web, and affect the manner in which students and
ternational level; restrictions/lack of information scholars utilize the resources and technology for
systems to handle the loan process; restrictions their research. In this study, respondents ranked
in loans such as limitations in the time/quantity the barriers in order of importance (Figure 5),
of documents to borrow and requirements of ranking the restrictions imposed by publishers to
payment for document delivery (photocopies, access electronic journals as the most important
faxes, phone calls, e-mails, scanning, etc.); and ones: payment and password.
complicated procedures that discourage the use
Figure 6. Coping mechanisms used to overcome barriers (N=883) Echeverri (2006)

When respondents are faced with restrictions passwords through colleagues (means 1.80 and
to access the information they require, they use 1.75 respectively). In contrast, pay-per-view and
coping mechanisms to resolve their information subscribe to journals, were the mechanisms least
needs. As a response to the barriers described, used (mean =0.43 and mean=0.24 respectively).
and in light of the real need for relevant and up- Interestingly, the third most used coping mecha-
to-date and timely information, the following nism was to desist or give up (mean 1.62). This
coping mechanisms were identified. suggests that if respondents do not have access to
A strategy used by some respondents to ac- passwords, they prefer to give up before using other
cess information is to find others to pay for the strategies to obtain the information needed.
subscription to the journals or pay-per-view the
article. The most common sponsors willing to pro-
vide payment are the departments/organizations conclusion
in which the respondent is working, the granting
agency that funds a project, and laboratories or The use of electronic resources has changed
businesses that are interested in promoting the the way scholars conduct research because of
use of their products in specific settings. Some the convenient 24-hour-a-day access, full-text
respondents opted for the option to pay for inter- searching capabilities, interdisciplinary connec-
library loan services (paying the fees imposed tions, availability of the most current research,
by the lender library or institution), and pay for and increasing awareness of new information
document delivery services (paying the cost of resources available on the Web (Echeverri 2006;
mail, fax, and photocopies) on their own, which Roger, 1995; Zhang, 1999).
is less expensive than subscribing to the journals Even though the use of electronic journals has
or paying per view. grown considerably in the last decade, barriers
Another mechanism to obtain documents of to access and use of scientific information on the
interest is approaching personal contacts, peers, Internet continue to exist. Apparently, the most
or friends in other universities or abroad, who problematic issue relates to publishers. Password
have access to a needed document and are able requirements and restrictions to full-text access
to download or print the document and send it discourage the use of online journals and citation
via e-mail or mail. Others prefer to approach indexes. Ease of accessibility often wins out over
the author directly, explaining their need for the authoritativeness and Zipf’s Law of Least Effort
document and difficulty in paying for it. In the (1949), which states that when choosing among
study described, these mechanisms were dropped several paths to a goal, individuals will adopt the
during the factor analysis because of their low course of action that involves the expenditure
loading factors, which could be explained by of the least amount effort, still holds true. It is
the small percentage of respondents using these common to find that publishers’ restrictions to
strategies. access to scholarly scientific information are an
In order to avoid publisher imposed restric- issue of concern even in developed countries.
tions, some respondents used publicly known In a study in Canada, Willinsky (2006a, p.43)
passwords or obtaining authorization to use bor- clearly states that:
rowed passwords from a person/institution that “Policymakers were frustrated by the hefty
has legal access to the publication. subscription rates and pay-per-view costs…. When
As can be seen in Figure 6, the mechanisms they were not able to locate open access studies,
most used to avoid publishers’ restrictions are to they had to depend on freely available research
obtain publicly available passwords or to obtain from institutes, think tanks, and other government

agencies, which did not always reflect the same specifically to search for scholarly literature (peer-
level of quality or rigor found in peer-reviewed reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts, and
scholarly literature” articles, from academic publishers, professional
No specific mechanisms were identified as societies, preprint repositories, universities, and
being used by scholars to deal with their per- other scholarly organizations) located across
sonal barriers, specifically in their limitations in the Web. Google Scholar includes material that
English and research skills; however, due to the “wouldn’t ordinarily be accessible to search
time constraints related to research projects, it is spiders, because it is locked behind subscription
unlikely that there is time to acquire new skills, barriers” (Sullivan, 2004). The inclusion of this
such as English language learning. Options avail- material was possible because Google worked with
able might include hiring some one to conduct publishers to allow the searching and indexing of
research or to request translation services. It is their material.
also possible to hire information professionals to Although, Google Scholar is having a positive
assist with copyright issues or to handle subscrip- impact on the scholars search process, it does
tion problems. However, all of these options are have its limitations. Many of the articles found
costly, and studies have shown that scholars are provide citations and abstracts only, and access
likely to go without needed information rather to full-text would require fee-payment databases.
than spend out of pocket. The search process has been facilitated, but the
While technical barriers of limited access to full-text access remains an issue due to restric-
Internet are being dealt with through access at tions from publishers.
work, this may not be a long-term solution. Cur- As discussed earlier in the chapter, libraries in
rently, it is common to find that employers are developing countries still face serious limitations
limiting the use of Internet for issues not directly in economic and technical resources that restrict
related to their job, and firewalls are being installed them in the negotiation and implementation of
in organizations that may block certain activities interlibrary loan services such as the ILLiad (in-
such as searching resources on the Web, receiving terlibrary loan internet accessible database), and
e-mails, and downloading files. in the development of library Web sites with high
The use of general search engines to find in- level of interactivity (remote and round the clock
formation on the Web, instead of using the library access to the library’s services and its resources).
services because of the limitations in remote Definitely, restrictions to journals reduce access
access, is another common solution that needs to knowledge, especially to “those who work
to be used with caution. Not all scientific and outside of the privileged sphere of well-endowed
technical information is available for free on the research libraries,” which is the case of most de-
Web, and many free resources are not found with veloping countries (Willinsky, 2006, p.119). Being
search engines, but rather are available through faced with these library restrictions and the ones
the invisible Web. For example, patents are freely imposed by publishers, scholars in developing
available on the Web, but one must know to go to countries have found it necessary to satisfy their
patent office Web sites to access them. information needs by sharing passwords among
Some projects are helping to close the digital select groups of users.
divide and provide free access to scientific and Aware of this situation, some organizations and
scholarly information. Being cognizant of the publishers, such as the MIT OpenCourseWare2
importance of access to scholarly scientific infor- and the Developing Countries Oxford Journals
mation, at the end of year 2004, Google launched Online Collection3, are offering free or greatly
its new search engine, “Google Scholar,” designed discounted access to their electronic journals to

not-for-profit organizations and individuals in less Educational programs should consider man-
developed countries. Although, the discounts of- datory the attendance to this kind of training
fered are significant, they usually are restricted to and include it as part of the curriculum.
academic institutions in “low income” countries, • Extend training to build research and infor-
under the World Bank’s GNP-based classification. mation literacy skills to all education levels,
This policy does not consider that scholars and including elementary school.
libraries have restricted budgets to cover their • Implement online interlibrary loan systems,
expenses, and are facing day-to-day struggles to such as ILLiad, with partners worldwide and
survive, either in the most developed countries as include services in other languages.
the United States where libraries are cancelling • Guarantee 24X7 remote access to library ser-
subscriptions to journals because of their exor- vices, and encourage users learning about the
bitant prices that cannot be covered with current library services available and how to access
budgets. In many cases, the issue is not the price them from everywhere. Easy URL or names
so much as the lack of funds in budget. to remember are of great importance when
Publishers are also contributing to the solution accessing services from public computers
of the problem by offering access to old issues of when the user does not have access to ones
their journals, usually a 6-month delay. However, own bookmarks and/or favorite sites.
this does not solve the problem of access; instead, • Strengthen existing consortia of academic
this policy reinforces the digital divide, where libraries to empower them to negotiate
scholars in less developed countries (LDC) will subscriptions to journals as a block for the
never have access to the up-to-date information whole academic sector in the country.
and will not be able to include the latest develop- • Engage to the open access initiative through
ments in their research. In essence, with these learning about the process, being active in
policies, scholars’ research in LDC is always the discussion groups, and creating links to
“left behind.” A policy that will have an impor- open journals in the library Web sites.
tant impact, once fully implemented, is the 2005 • Empower publication of university peer-
NIH Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Ar- reviewed journals and offer free access to
chived Publications Resulting from NIH-funded those journals as exchange of information
Research, which requires that all NIH-funded or collaboration in research.
investigators submit their final publications to the • Expand the NIH’s initiative to open access
National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) PubMed to all publications resulting from NIH-
Central (PMC). This policy has been expanded funded research to other organizations such
as the 2006 Federal Research Public Access Act as NASA, National Sciences Foundation,
that mandates all major agencies to open access World Bank, and so forth, and also extend
to all articles 6 months after publication. the initiative to publications produced by
Recommendations to foster both access to and professional associations such as the Insti-
use of electronic scholarly scientific information tute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
worldwide are summarized below: (IEEE), American Psychological Associa-
tion (APA).
• Make mandatory the attendance to work- • Build virtual communities engaged in
shops and training to build research and specific research topics through the use of
information literacy skills. Most of the time blogs and wikis, free tools that are of easy
the attendance to these events is voluntary. implementation.

• Decrease the time delayed, “embargoed” Initiatives, such as governments making man-
access, to full open access to published datory open access to publicly funded research,
research. such as the National Institute of Health’s Public
• Transform the library to be the “gateway” Access Plan; initiatives to provide access to health
of information. information for free or at discounted costs, such
as PubMed, HINARI, and the Health InterNet-
work Access to Research Initiative; collabora-
future research directions tive worldwide projects to complete open access
journal publishing, such as the Public Library of
Taking full advantage of the advances of ICT Sciences (PLoS), Scientific Electronic Library
would not only make it possible to transfer, al- Online (SCIELO), Bioline International, and
most immediately, information and knowledge Research Papers in Economics; open source pub-
worldwide, but would also bring unlimited new lishing software, such as Open Journal Systems;
possibilities of multidisciplinary research and and strong advocates, such as John Willinsky,
international collaboration. The economic powers Director of the Public Knowledge Project, and
are neglecting human development by imposing Peter Suber, Publisher of the SPARC Open Access
restrictions to the access to information; informa- Newsletter, will all contribute to narrowing the
tion that could contribute to the advance of sci- digital divide. Each time an author, professional,
ences for the well being of people and society. researcher, organization, journalist, politician, or
Open access seems to be the most promising civil servant embraces open access philosophy,
solution to the restrictions imposed by publish- it is a new step towards this goal.
ers to the dissemination of scientific knowledge
worldwide, and is considered the “most important acKnowledgment
scientific gain afforded by the Internet” (Willin-
sky, 2006b, p.9078). Fortunately, the academic The first author would like to acknowledge the
community is attempting to declare their indepen- guidance provided by the members of her Doc-
dence from publishers, which will make it possible toral Committee and especially, to Dr. William
to have freed access to information. The Scholarly Bertrand and Dr Janet C. Rice during the develop-
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition ment of the conceptual framework and statistical
(SPARC) is fostering the Open Access (OA) initia- analysis completed during her doctoral studies in
tive, which strives for completely free worldwide the Payson Center for International Development
electronic distribution of peer-reviewed journal and Technology Transfer at Tulane University
literature in all academic fields with unrestricted
access for all. According to Peter Suber, publisher
of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter: references
All we need is the consent of the copyright holder Abels, E., et al.. (2004). If you build it, will they
to waive some of the rights given by the statute, come? Marketing, 8(10), 13-17.
and to permit the unrestricted reading, download-
Bateman, J. (1999). Modeling the importance of
ing, copying, sharing, storing, printing, searching,
end-user relevance criteria. In ASIS ’99, Proceed-
linking, and crawling of their work. (Interview
ings of the 62nd ASIS Annual Meeting: Vol 36.
with Peter Suber, 2003)
Knowledge Creation, Organization and Use (pp.
396-406). Washington, DC.

Bishop, A. P. (1998). Logins and bailouts: Measur- contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=E

ing access, use, and success in digital libraries. D465377
The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 4(2).
EPIC. (2001). Online use & cost evaluation pro-
Case, D. O. (2002). Looking for information: A gram: The use of electronic resources among
survey of research on information seeking, needs, undergraduate and graduate students. Retrieved
and behavior. Lexington, KY: Academic Press, September 10, 2007, from http://www.epic.colum-
Elsevier Science. bia.edu/eval/find03.html
Chen, C., et al. (2000). Individual differences in Foster, A. (2003). Scientists at the U. of California
virtual environments –Introduction and overview. at San Francisco call for a boycott of 6 biology
Journal of American Society for Information Sci- journals. The Chronicle of Higher Education:
ence, 51(6), 499-507. Information Technology Section, 50(10), Page
A34. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://
Covey, D. T. (2002). Usage and usability assess-
chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i10/10a03403.htm
ment: Library practices and concerns. In Digital
Library Federation and Council on Library and Goldstein, E. (1985). The use of technical infor-
Information Resources, Pub 105, Washington, mation by engineers of the electrical sector in
D.C. Mexico. University of California, Los Angeles,
UMI Doctoral Dissertation.
Covey, D. T. (2003). The need to improve remote
access to online library resources: Filling the Graham, J. (2003). The search engine that could.
gap between commercial vendor and academic USA TODAY, August 26, 2003.
user practice. Libraries and the Academy, 3(4),
Hiller, S. (2002). The impact of information
577-599.
technology and online library resources on re-
Culnan, M. (1985). The dimensions of perceived search, teaching and library use at the University
accessibility to information: Implications for the of Washington. Performance Measurement and
delivery of information systems and services. Metrics, 3(2), 134-139.
Journal of the American Society for Information
Interview with Peter Suber, publisher of SPARC
Science, 36(5), 302-308.
Open Access Newsletter. Library Journal Aca-
De Groote, S. & Dorsch, J. (2003). Measuring use demic Newswire, The Publishing Report, July
patterns of online journals and databases. Journal 24, 2003.
of Medical Library Association. 91(2), 231-241.
Ke, H.-R. et al. (2002). Exploring behavior of
Echeverri, M. (2006). Factors affecting access e-journal users in science and technology: Trans-
to and use of scholarly scientific information: action log analysis of Elsevier’s Science Direct
A model for health science graduate students Onsite in Taiwan. Library & Information Science
in Colombia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Research, 24(3), 265-291.
Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
Kennedy, L., Cole, C., & Carter, S. (1999). The
Eisenberg, M., & Johnson, D. (2002). Computer false focus in online searching: The particular
skills for information problem-solving: Learning case of undergraduates seeking information for
and teaching technology in context. Eric Digest course assignments in the humanities and social
EDO-IR-2002-04. Retrieved September 10, 2007, sciences. Reference & User Services Quarterly,
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/ 38(3), 267-273.

Kuhlthau, C. (1991). Inside the search process: towards them and their potential impact on
Information seeking from the user’s perspective. scholarly communication. Information Services
Journal of the American Society for Information & Use, 21(3/4), 205-214.
Science, 42(5), 361-371.
Noguera, E. (2003). Usability of e-journals and
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process preference for the virtual periodicals room: A
approach to library and information services. survey of mathematics faculty and graduate
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp. Kyrillidou, M., students. Electronic Journal of Academic and
& Young, M. (2003). ARL Statistics 2001-02. SpecialLibrarianship, 4(2-3).
Association of Research Libraries –ARL, Wash-
OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide.
ington, D.C.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Kyrillidou, M., & Young, M. (2004). ARL Statis- Development. Retrieved February 15, 2004 from
tics 2002-03. Association of Research Libraries http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.
–ARL, Washington, D.C. pdf
Larsen, V. (1997). Exploring user behavior utiliz- Onwuegbuzie, J. (1997). Writing a research pro-
ing statistical analysis of WWW HTTPD access posal: The role of library anxiety, statistics anxiety,
logs:Aan enquiry employing Net-Frog. Doctoral and composition anxiety. Library & Information
Dissertation, University of Virginia. Science Research, 19(1), 5-33.
Mack, T. et al. (2004). Designing for experts: Open Access to Scientific Research Editorial.
How scholars approach an academic library (2003). New York Times, August 7, 2003, p. A27.
Web site. Information Technology and Libraries Published on February 10, 2007 by the Society of
(ITAL), 23(1). Scholarly Publishing (SSP). Retrieved August 31,
2007, from http://www.sspnet.org/custom/news/
Marcum, D., & Gerald, G. (2003). Who uses
details.cfm?id=141
what? Report on a National Survey of Informa-
tion Users in Colleges and Universities. D-Lib Palmer, J. (1991). Scientists and information: I. Us-
Magazine, 9(10). Retrieved September 10, 2007, ing cluster analysis to identify information style.
from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/george/ Journal of Documentation, 47(2), 105-129.
10george.html
Pinelli, T. (1991). NASA/DoD Report Number
McVeigh, M., & Pringle, J. (2005). Open access 6: The relationship between the use of U.S. Gov-
to the medical literature: How much content is ernment Technical Reports by U.S. Aerospace
available in published journals? Serials, 18(1), Engineers and Scientists and selected institutional
45-50. and sociometric variables. Aerospace Knowledge
Diffusion Project. NASA Technical Memoran-
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & Stansbury, M.
dum 102774, Department of Defense, Indiana
(2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital
University.
divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press. Roger, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th
ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
National Science Foundation –NSF. (2002). Sci-
ence and engineering: Indicators 2002, volume Sagasti, A. (2001). The knowledge explosion and
1. Arlington, VA: NSF. the digital divide. United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), Human Development Re-
Nelson, D. (2001). The uptake of electronic jour-
ports, background papers. Retrieved September
nals by academics in the UK, Their attitudes

10, 2007, from http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publica- Proceedings of the 62nd Asis Annual Meeting:
tions/background_papers/sagasti.doc V36. Knowledge Creation, Organization and
Use, (pp. 628-632), Washington, DC
Silvio, J. (1998). The virtualization of higher
education: Scope, possibilities and limitations. Vakkari, P. (2000). Relevance and contributing
UNESCO, Regional Centre for Higher Education information types of searched documents in task
in Latin America and the Caribbean (CRESALC). performance. Proceedings of the 23rd annual in-
Rufis’98, International Congress. Universidad ternational ACM SIGIR conference on Research
Regiomontana. Monterrey N.L., México. and Development in Information Retrieval (pp.
2-9). Athens, Greece.
Stanford University Libraries. (2002). Electronic
journal user study: eJUST. Retrieved September Vakkari, P. & Pennanen, M. (2001). Sources, rele-
10, 2007, from http://ejust.stanford.edu/index. vance and contributory information of documents
html in writing a research proposal: A longitudinal case
study. The New Review of Information Behavior
Sullivan, D. (2004). Google Scholar offers access
Research, 2(November), 217 – 232
to academic information. SearchEngineWatch
(Nov 18, 2004). Retrieved September 10, 2007, Willinsky, J. (2006). Altering the material con-
from http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/ ditions of access to the humanities. Tasks for
article.php/3437471 the new humanities: Professing with Derrida
(pp. 118-136). London: Palgrave Macmillan. .
Tenopir, C., & King, D. (2000). Towards electronic
Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://pkp.
journals: Realities for scientists, librarians, pnd
sfu.ca/node/456
Publishers. Washington, D.C.: Special Libraries
Association. Willinsky, J. (2006a). Access to power: Re-
search in international policymaking. Harvard
Tenopir, C. et al. (2003). Use and users of electronic
International Review, summer 2006, 42-45.
library resources: An overview and analysis of
Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://pkp.
recent research studies. Council on Library and
sfu.ca/node/432
Information Resources. Retrieved September
10, 2007, from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/ Willinsky, J. (2006b). Why open access for
pub120/contents.html research and scholarship? Journal of Neurosci-
ence, 26(36), 9078-9079. Retrieved September
Testa, J., & McVeigh, M. (2004). The impact
10, 2007, from http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/re-
of open access journals: A citation study from
print/26/36/9078
Thomson ISI. The Thomson Corporation. Re-
trieved September 10, 2007, from http://www. Witten, I. (2003). Digital libraries and society:
isinet.com/media/presentrep/acropdf/impact-oa- New perspectives on information dissemination.
journals.pdf Department of Computer Science, University of
Waikato, New Zealand. Retrieved September 10,
Thomes, K. (2000). The economics and usage of
2007, from http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~ihw/
digital library collections. Bevier Engineering
DLs.and.society.pdf
Library, University of Pittsburgh, The Associa-
tion of Research Libraries (ARL) Witten, I. & Bainbridge, D. (2001). How to build
a digital library. New Zealand Digital Library
Trolley, J. (1999). New wine and old vessels: The
Project, University of Waikato, New Zealand,
evaluation and integration of Web-based infor-
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
mation in well established resources. Asis ‘99

World Bank. (2002). Harnessing knowledge for Public Knowledge Project–PKP: http://pkp.sfu.
development. III World Knowledge Forum, World ca/
Bank Plenary, Seoul, October 18, 2002. Retrieved
UN World Summit on the Information Society
September 10, 2007, from http://lnweb18.world-
(WSIS): http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html
bank.org/eap/eap.nsf/Attachments/speech/$File/
WKF+Speech.pdf World Bank. Knowledge for Development (K4D)
Framework: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/
World Bank. (2002b). Information and com-
knowledgefordevelopment/k4dcommunity.html
munication technologies: A World Bank Group
Strategy, Executive Summary. The World Bank
Group, Washington, D.C. articles, reports, and books
Zhang, Y. (1999). Scholarly use of Internet-based
electronic resources. Doctoral Dissertation, Uni- European Technology Assessment Network
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. UMI –ETAN. (1999). Transforming European sci-
Digital dissertation AAT 3013240. ence through information and communication
technologies: Challenges and opportunities of the
Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle digital age. ETAN Working Paper prepared for
of least effort; An introduction to human ecology. the Directorate General for Research, European
Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press. Commission, Final Version, September 1999.
Harnad, S. (2003). For whom the gate tolls? How
and why to free the refereed research literature
additional reading online through author/institution self-archiving,
now. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://us-
web sites ers.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Tp/resolution.htm
Association of College & Research Libraries Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemina-
(ACRL): http://www.ala.org/ACRLTemplate. tion is the solution, what is the problem? Science
cfm Communication, 1, 537 – 578.
Centre for Knowledge Transfer: http://www. Kwasik, H., & Fulda, P. (2005). Open access
ckt-ctc.ca/ and scholarly communication—A selection of
key Web sites. Issues in Science and Technology
Digital Divide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digi- Librarianship, Summer 2005. Retrieved Septem-
tal_divide ber 10, 2007, from http://www.istl.org/05-sum-
mer/internet.html
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ):
http://www.doaj.org / Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. & Harnad, S.
(2006). The open research Web: A preview of
International Federation of Library Associa-
the optimal and the inevitable. In N. Jacobs
tions and Institutions (IFLA): http://www.ifla.
(Ed.), Open access: Key strategic, technical and
org/index.htm
economic cspects. Retrived September 10, 2007,
Knowledge Utilization Studies Program –KUSP: from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12369/01/shad-
http://www.nursing.ualberta.ca/kusp/index.htm bch.htm
Public Access to Science Act (HR 2613): http:// Suber, P. (2003). Removing barriers to research.
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2613 College & Research Libraries News, 64(2), 92-
4, 113.
0
Tamber, P. S. (2003). Open access to peer-re- endnotes

viewed research: making it happen. The Lancet,
362(9395):1575-7. 1
Details on the factor analysis may be found
in Echeverri, 2006
Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The 2
A large-scale, Web-based electronic pub-
case for open access to research and scholarship.
lishing initiative that provides free access
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved September
to 1,550 MIT courses materials in 33 aca-
10, 2007 from http://pkp.sfu.ca/node/457
demic disciplines, to educators, students,
WHO. (2004). Galvanising mental health research and individual learners around the world.
in low- and middle-income countries: Role of http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/ [Retrieved
scientific journals. A Joint Statement issued by August 15, 2007]
Editors of Scientific Journals Publishing Mental 3
An Oxford University’s program that allows
Health Research and Department of Mental Health free or discounted electronic access to over
and Substance Abuse World Health Organization, 160 titles of their professional journals to
Geneva. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from “not-for-profit organizations from qualifying
http://www.who.int/entity/mental_health/evi- countries whose mission involves education
dence/en/final_ joint_statement.pdf and/or health”. Oxford University, Develop-
ing Countries offer – Journals, http://www.
oxfordjournals.org/access_purchase/devel-
oping_countries.html [Retrieved August 15,
2007]

Chapter IX
Knowledge Exchange in
Electronic Networks of Practice:
An Examination of Knowledge Types and
Knowledge Flows
Molly Wasko
Florida State University, USA
Samer Faraj
McGill Unversity, Canada
abstract
This study examines knowledge exchange in a worldwide, extra-organizational, Usenet-based electronic

network of practice. Participation in such networks is voluntary, globally distributed, and network par-
ticipants generally do not have personal or organizational ties. The purpose of the study was to inves-
tigate two questions: first, what type of knowledge is being transferred in these networks, and second,
how is knowledge transferred across individuals in electronic networks. To address these questions,
we observed and saved all messages posted to comp.lang.C++ for a period of 7 weeks. Our analyses
include content analysis of 1,562 messages, survey responses from 593 participants, and objective data
from the electronic message postings. The study illuminates how people use computer-mediated com-
munication to support knowledge transfer, the types of knowledge transferred, as well as how knowledge
flows in this network.
introduction organize electronically to discuss and debate

issues based on shared interests. Internet-based
Recent advances in information and communi- technologies have enabled the development of
cation technologies have led to the emergence thousands of freestanding open-membership
of virtual social spaces where individuals self- forums focused on discussing the problems of
Knowledge Exchange in Electronic Networks of Practice
practice (Butler, 2001; Sproull & Faraj, 1995;). electronic network of practice is self-organizing
In these networks, an unlimited number of geo- in the sense that no organizational mandate or
graphically dispersed individuals who come from sponsorship is required for its sustenance.
diverse organizational, national, and demographic An electronic network of practice shares with
backgrounds (Sproull & Faraj, 1995) are able to a community of practice the focus on shared
share knowledge by helping each other solve prob- practice, learning, and joint problem solving.
lems, telling stories of personal experiences, and However, participants in an electronic network
debating issues relevant to the network (Wasko of practice typically do not share a common
& Faraj, 2000). An enduring characteristic of geographic and organizational setting, and these
these networks is the propensity of individuals to networks can become extremely large due to their
provide their valuable knowledge and insights to open worldwide membership and reliance on elec-
strangers (Kollock and Smith, 1996; Rheingold, tronic communication technology. Such networks
1993; Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Individuals benefit differ from communities of practice in that their
from these networks since they gain access to members are typically strangers and do not share
new information, expertise, and ideas that are a common organizational or geographical setting.
often not available locally. Communities of practice are characterized by
We refer to these informal electronic com- strong personal ties and reciprocal interactions
munication networks as “electronic networks of related to mutual engagement, mentoring, and
practice” or ENoPs. Following Brown and Duguid learning (Orr, 1996; Wenger 1998). In contrast,
(2000) in their use of the term “networks of prac- electronic networks of practice are characterized
tice,” we add the term “electronic” to highlight by weak electronic ties that connect strangers
that communication within this type of network worldwide, and interactions are limited by the
of practice occurs through asynchronous com- technological infrastructure.
puter-based communication technologies, such as Electronic networks of practice are similar to
bulletin boards, listservs, and Usenet newsgroups. what Brown and Duguid (2000, 2001) refer to as
We define an electronic network of practice as a networks of practice. Individuals in networks of
self-organizing, open, activity system focused on practice have practice and knowledge in com-
practice that exists through electronic communi- mon, but individuals may never get to know one
cation. These defining characteristics have some another. Knowledge flows through newsletters,
unique technical and social features that influence Web sites, meetings, and professional conferences.
how knowledge is created and exchanged. Con- As a result, exchanges tend to be highly reliant
ceptually, electronic networks of practice share on text representations of knowledge, which also
characteristics with virtual teams, communities holds true for electronic networks of practice.
of practice, and networks of practice. They share However, electronic networks of practice differ
with virtual teams a distributed membership and in that they exist primarily through computer-
reliance on computer networks to bridge distance mediated, asynchronous exchange. Communica-
and time. However, an electronic network of prac- tion between members occurs through message
tice differs from virtual teams in that there is no threads, which resemble conversations, rather
established performance goal or recognized end than static documentation.
point. In electronic networks of practice, partici- Electronic networks of practice play an impor-
pation is voluntary, and its form left entirely to tant role in the transfer of knowledge. For example,
the individual. In contrast, in most virtual teams, electronic networks are supporting distributed
membership is controlled; it is either assigned R&D efforts (Ahuja et al., 2003; Orlikowski et
or approved by some authority. Additionally, an al., 1995) and enabling cooperation around open

source software development (Lakhani & von categorized as a lean medium of exchange (Daft
Hippel, 2000). ENoPs provide an opportunity & Lengel, 1986; Daft et al., 1987). This implies
for individuals interested in a specific practice to that the type of information conveyed through
congregate and share knowledge through activi- electronic channels is limited, and the technology
ties, such as helping each other test and debug may not support complex knowledge transfer. To
computer code (Butler, 2001; Wasko & Faraj, examine this issue, we perform content analysis
2000), and frequently emerge in fields where the of the messages posted to one electronic network
pace of technological change requires access to to empirically investigate the types of knowledge
knowledge and resources that are unavailable exchanged in this network.
within any single organization (Powell et al., The second research question looks at how
1996). knowledge flows in electronic networks. This
However, while interest in how individuals analysis examines the dynamics of knowledge
and organizations can leverage the Internet to transfer in electronic networks by looking at who
facilitate knowledge transfer continues to grow, asks for help, who provides help, and the under-
there is surprisingly little theoretical and empirical lying individual motivations to engage in these
development that addresses knowledge transfer different activities. We examine this issue two
through the use of large, openly available electron- ways: first, how does knowledge flow between
ic networks on the Internet (Butler, 2001; Fulk et individuals, based on level of expertise and mes-
al., 1996). While researchers have examined why sage activity. Second, how does knowledge flow,
individuals share knowledge with strangers, using based on the underlying individual motivations for
theories such as weak ties (Constant et al., 1996), why people ask questions vs. post responses.
the resource-based view of resource availability The second objective of this chapter is to of-
and benefit provision (Butler, 2001), and general- fer examples of how a variety of analysis tech-
ized gift exchange (Kollock, 1999), researchers niques and methods can be leveraged to better
have yet to examine what types of knowledge are understand knowledge transfer via the Internet.
conducive to transfer via the Internet, and how In addressing the research questions posed, our
knowledge flows across individuals. The avail- first analysis describes a process for performing
ability of communication technology to sustain content analysis on message postings. Our second
group interactions does not necessarily translate analysis combines the results from content analysis
into the creation of electronic networks focused with survey data to see if we can predict how and
on practice. Even though there is evidence that why individuals participate. The goal of present-
active knowledge transfer in electronic networks ing our multimethod approach in this chapter is to
of practice can occur, high levels of online in- encourage researchers to pursue multiple methods
teractivity are largely the exception, not the rule in their investigations of knowledge transfer on
(Cummings et al., 2002). While the creation of the Internet. The advantage of Internet-based
a virtual social space for sharing knowledge is research is the ability to actually observe knowl-
technically relatively easy, there is no guarantee edge transfer in practice by examining message
that knowledge transfer between individuals dynamics. Combining objective data available
will actually take place (Alavi & Leidner, 1999; from the electronic network and subjective data
Orlikowski, 1996). from network participants themselves enables
Therefore, the first objective of this chapter is to researchers to develop a deeper understanding
explore two research questions. First, what type of of knowledge transfer across multiple levels of
knowledge is being transferred in these electronic analysis, such as how individuals participate in
networks? Information technologies have been electronic networks, how message content fa-

cilitates knowledge transfer, and how networks how knowledge flows from those who respond to
are sustained over time. We end the chapter by those who ask questions.
discussing the findings, highlighting the study
limitations, noting future trends and other pos-
sible methods for studying electronic networks Knowledge types
of practice, and final conclusions.
Knowledge exchange in electronic networks of
practice is similar to what Nonaka terms “Cyber
bacKground Ba” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). According to
these authors, “Ba” is conceived as the frame
For the purposes of this chapter, we do not distin- (made up of the borders of space and time) in
guish between knowledge and information. From which knowledge is activated as a resource for
our perspective, knowledge is defined simply as creation (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Based on
“that which is known” (Grant, 1996), and the the work of Polanyi (1962), Nonaka defines two
knowledge of interest is the codified knowledge classifications of knowledge: explicit and tacit.
(e.g., knowledge expressed through written text) Explicit knowledge can be expressed in words and
contained in the messages. However, even though numbers, and shared in the form of data, speci-
our focus is on knowledge that is codified, one fications, and manuals. This kind of knowledge
of our main interests is the examination of this can be transferred between individuals formally
codified knowledge in order to determine whether and systematically. Tacit knowledge, on the other
it varies along a tacit-explicit dimension. Thus, hand, is highly personal and hard to formalize,
we are not making the assumption that codified making it difficult to communicate or share with
knowledge can only consist of explicit knowl- others. This form of knowledge is deeply rooted
edge. in an individual’s actions and experiences, and
In addition, we use the word transfer to mean encompasses “know-how” (Nonaka & Konno,
knowledge that has been codified and made 1998).
available to others electronically. We examine In a two-by-two matrix, Nonaka and Konno
knowledge transfer in terms of message postings (1998) propose that new knowledge is created
that are questions and message postings that are through the transformation from tacit to tacit,
responses. We do not explore whether actual tacit to explicit, explicit to tacit, and explicit
“transfer” occurs, meaning we do not know if re- to explicit. Cyber Ba is represented by the last
ceivers actually absorb, understand, and integrate quadrant, the combination of explicit to explicit
the knowledge posted to the electronic network. knowledge (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Cyber Ba is
Prior studies have conceptualized knowledge defined as “a place of interaction in a virtual world
transfer as a process that depends on five fac- instead of real space and time; and represents the
tors: 1) receiver’s perception of the value of the combination phase. Here, the combining of new
knowledge, 2) motivational disposition of the explicit knowledge with existing information and
source (e.g., willingness to share), 3) existence and knowledge generates and systematizes explicit
richness of the communication channel, 4) moti- knowledge throughout the organization” (Nonaka
vational disposition of receiver, and 5) absorptive & Konno, 1998). According to this conceptualiza-
capacity of the receiver ( Alavi & Leidner 2001; tion, knowledge transfer in electronic networks
Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000;). In this chapter, should be limited to explicit knowledge, such as
our approach to examining transfer focuses on specialized facts, definitions, and data.
the content of the questions and responses, and

Winter (1987) presents an alternative view, and result in predictable changes in intrapersonal and
suggests that tacit/explicit should be considered interpersonal variables” (Culnan & Markus, 1987).
a dimension along which knowledge can vary. Media richness has been interpreted to suggest that
From this perspective, tacitness is the degree since media forms differ in their ability to convey
to which the knowledge can be codified. Even information, technology imposes constraints that
knowledge that is primarily tacit can be codified restrict and ultimately determine the outcomes
and expressed through language. Tacit knowledge of actors. This objective, deterministic view of
can be verbalized and expressed through the use technology is not generally appropriate, and is
of metaphors, stories of personal experience, particularly inadequate in the case of informa-
and the use of context. From this point of view, tion technologies (Orlikowski, 1992). According
much of what we know is a combination of both to Dennis and Kinney (1998), the limiting factor
tacit and explicit knowledge, and to the extent may not be the communications media, but “rather
that knowledge is tacit, has implications for how our preconceived perceptions of their limitations”
difficult the knowledge is to codify. based on media richness theory.
Research on knowledge transfer in organiza- Communication media have objective charac-
tions has often focused on selecting the appropriate teristics that determine the capacity of the media
communication media for the type of knowledge to carry information, but in using technology,
to be transferred. Media richness theory (Daft individuals interpret, manipulate, and appropri-
et al., 1987; Daft & Lengel, 1986) describes ate technology in different ways. Technology is
organizational communication channels as hav- physically constructed, but is also socially con-
ing objective characteristics that determine the structed by users through the various features they
channels’ capacity for conveying information. emphasize and use, as well as the meanings that
These characteristics consist of: immediacy of individuals attach to the technology (Orlikowski,
feedback, language variety, number of cues, and 1992). This use of technology as a social practice
personalization. Daft and Lengel (1986) argued is well illustrated by how people have adapted
that managers could improve performance by asynchronous, text-based communication, such
matching communication media to the complexity as used on the Usenet. Even though individuals
(based on either uncertainty or equivocality) of communicating on the Usenet are limited to text
the organizational information processing task. only, individuals have found ways to adapt this
According to the theory, messages should be technology to convey a variety of signals and
matched to communication channels with suf- symbols. Individuals create faces using colon and
ficient and appropriate media richness capacities parentheses keys (emoticons) to convey emotion.
to avoid misinterpretation and maximize efficien- Individuals SHOUT AT EACH OTHER using
cies. Because information conveyed through capital letters to convey anger, frustration, or
computer channels is typically restricted to text gain attention. Individuals translate common
only, according to media richness theory, com- sayings through the use of the symbols available
puter-mediated communication represents a less in text, such as “let me add my $1/50 worth,” or
rich form of exchange. by creating shorthand symbols (FWIW, BTW,
However, media richness has had limited suc- IMHO). Individuals build complex pictures using
cess when tested empirically, and has become a text characters to imitate the drawing of lines.
popular “straw man” theory, set up to be easily And even though the technology was designed to
refuted. Media richness has been referred to as support written communication, individuals in the
a “cues filtered out” approach because it predicts technical groups use the technology to exchange
that the richness of the communication media “will computer code. So although there is an objective

aspect of the technology that limits communica- However, another perspective supported by the
tion to text only, the use of the technology is research of Hesse et al. (1993) suggests that knowl-
socially constructed, based on the social context edge flows differentially. They found that when
of the individuals communicating and the com- networks were used to support oceanographic
munication practices that are adopted to meet the research, scientists on the periphery and core
various needs of these individuals. scientists benefited differentially from network
Therefore, one question is whether the knowl- participation (Hesse et al., 1993).
edge being transferred in electronic networks is Additionally, individual level motivations are
limited to explicit, specialized facts and defini- factors that may affect participation and knowl-
tions due to difficulties of codification, or does the edge transfer in electronic networks of practice.
knowledge vary along a tacit/explicit dimension. Based on previous literature, there appears to
This leads to our first set of research questions: be three primary motivations as to why people
interact with strangers in electronic networks
RQ1: Is the knowledge, although codified, of practice: personal gain, social affiliation, and
primarily explicit, or a combination of professional affiliation (Constant et al., 1996;
tacit and explicit? Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Sources of personal gain
RQ2: How do members convey tacit meaning include a desire to improve one’s reputation and
through codified exchange? status in the network, or to leverage participation
in the network for professional gain (Lakhani &
von Hippel, 2003). Another source of personal
Knowledge flows gain is to find answers to a specific question of
interest (Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Social affilia-
The second phase of this research looks at how tion indicates that individuals may participate
knowledge flows in electronic networks of in order to socialize and create friendships with
practice. This analysis examines the dynamics others who share similar interests. There is early
of knowledge transfer in electronic networks evidence that the Internet is making it possible
by looking at who asks for help, who provides for people to create and sustain new relationships,
help, and the underlying individual motivations thus, fulfilling a need for social affiliation and
to engage in these different activities. Research belonging with others (Walther, 1995; Wellman
shows that individuals gravitate towards com- et al., 1996). Thus, participation may be based on
munities of practice to have increased access to a prosocial orientation and wanting to meet and
knowledge resources. This includes having ac- socialize with others.
cess to more experienced colleagues, leveraging Alternatively, individuals may participate due
existing knowledge through stories, and passing to an intrinsic motivation based on professional
on personal experience to others in the network. affiliation, and a desire to engage in intellectual
Increasing access to knowledge resources should exchange. For many knowledge workers, a social
increase the productivity of the network as a space is at the core of their work and their profes-
whole. But how does knowledge flow between sional identity, where they can collaborate, narrate
individuals within the network, and do people stories, and construct joint solutions and under-
benefit differentially? On the one hand, people standing (Brown & Duguid 1991). Knowledge
may receive equivalent flows and benefits. This work requires the open discussion of topical issues
would assume that all people request and respond and the expression of multiple perspectives away
knowledge at an equivalent level, regardless of from any hierarchical constraints. Whether face-
personal differences, such as level of expertise. to-face (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984) or online

(Pickering & King, 1995), knowledge workers in people combine and exchange knowledge using
a fast changing field are intrinsically motivated to a relatively unsophisticated information technol-
keep up with latest trends in the field, and increase ogy. We view technical (as opposed to social or
their stock of knowledge by asking questions and recreational) Usenet newsgroups as examples of
providing help when they can. what we refer to as electronic networks of practice.
Therefore, the other question investigated Members of such newsgroups are oriented around
in this chapter is how knowledge flows among a specific knowledge practice; they communi-
individuals in the network. As noted previously, cate, sensemake, exchange ideas, and help each
while prior research has investigated why people other with technology topics such as computer
participate and help others, investigating the issues languages, hardware platforms, and complex ap-
of who benefits most from participation, and why plications. This narrow common interest defines
individuals participate in certain ways, has not the boundary of the group and helps differentiate
been fully investigated. This leads to our second the group from others.
set of research questions: We picked one, high-volume, technical News-
group, comp.lang.c++, and collected all of the
RQ3: Do all participants benefit equally or are messages posted to this group for a period of 7
there differential returns to participa- weeks. A total of 9,952 different messages were
tion? posted during this period by 3,284 individuals.
RQ4: Do the underlying individual motiva- The individuals participating in this electronic
tions for participation affect whether network are globally distributed, although the ma-
or not individuals seek answers or post jority of members originate from domain names
responses? from the United States (Appendix A lists country
of origin, number of individuals by country, and
how individuals participated in terms of posting
research setting questions or responses). We sent out an electronic
survey to every individual who posted during that
The study was conducted on the Usenet. The period. Of these, 310 did not reach their recipient
Usenet is a distributed conferencing system, or due to a changed or invalid address. We received
bulletin board, where individuals can post and a total of 593 usable responses from the 2,974
respond to messages. The Usenet consists of people who received the survey, for a response
over 30,000 different discussion areas organized rate of 20.0%.
around issues and topics that participants want
to discuss. The focus of the group and the nature
of the topics under discussion are conveyed to investigating Knowledge
users by the group name. There are six major
domain categories: alternative (alt.), computer We used content analysis to categorize the mes-
(comp.), recreation (rec.), societal (soc.), science sages submitted to the group, for those people
(sci.), and miscellaneous (misc.), and the category who responded to the survey. Content analysis
is typically identified at the beginning of the is a standard methodology in the social sciences
group name. For example, some popular group for studying the content of communication. For
names are soc.women, comp.lang.c, rec.humor, the purposes of this study, we focused on textual
and misc.forsale. content analysis, indicating that we are dealing
Newsgroups are of special research interest exclusively with the analysis of text. Ole Holsti
because they are open and lively forums where (1969) offers a broad definition of content analy-

sis as any technique for making inferences by the people that contribute knowledge to others.
objectively and systematically identifying speci- Messages that are coded as questions indicate
fied characteristics of messages. We developed a that the message purpose is to request informa-
content coding schema (see Appendix B), defin- tion. Responses indicate that the message was an
ing how messages were to be coded. Messages answer to a request for information.
were coded along three separate dimensions: Knowledge content was determined through a
message purpose, knowledge type, and message two-step process. First, categories were developed
form. A total of 1,562 messages were included in a priori, based on the idea that knowledge var-
the analysis, of which 1,136 were responses and ies along a tacit/explicit dimension. We defined
426 were questions. There were over 9,000 mes- five knowledge types that vary from explicit
sages posted to the group during the study time knowledge forms to more tacit knowledge forms:
period, and only the messages posted by survey knowledge source, know-what, know-how, techni-
respondents were analyzed. cal assessment, and professional assessment. A
Message purpose indicates why the message knowledge source was determined if the mes-
was sent to the group. Message purpose fell into sage requested or provided either an electronic,
one of eight categories: (1) questions,( 2) responses, text-based, or personal information source. This
(3) announcements (e.g., job openings, upcoming category represents messages that identify a
events, and calls for papers), (4) messages that specific location to find tools, books, or more
addressed group behavior, (5) messages that ad- information about a specific subject. Examples
dressed professional community standards, (6) of a knowledge source are “does anybody know
junk mail (spam), and (7) thank you replies. If a where I can find…,” “check out this Web site for
message did not fall into one of these categories, more information,” “refer to this book for steps
the message was classified as( 8) other. Table on how to do it,” or “talk to this person.”
1 summarizes the message purpose categories Messages that fall under the know-what cat-
and the number of messages that fell under each egory are requests/answers to technical questions
category. The message purposes of interest to that are specific and definable. In order to qualify
this study are questions and responses. Although as know-what, responses must have a specific,
all messages represent some kind of knowledge clear answer to the question “who knows what,”
codification and transfer, the vast majority of mes- and not be subject to opinion or multiple interpre-
sages are questions and responses. Thus, we are tations. Typical know-what questions/responses
looking at the dynamics underlying the exchange provided definitions of terms such as “does anyone
between people who look for knowledge and know what this means,” explanations of certain
failure codes, and relaying specific facts about
some event.
Table 1. Message purpose Know-how also refers to questions/responses
that contain specific, technical knowledge, but
Questions 426
asks/answers the question “does anyone know
Responses 1136
how.” This category is similar to know-what, in
Announcements 19
that there must be an objective, specific response
Community standards 33
that does not require multiple interpretations.
Professional standards 2
However, unlike know-what, know-how requires
Other 10 that people be able to link know-what type events
Spam 6 together to form meaning in a procedural way.
Thank yous 41 Examples of know how are “does anyone know

how to build…,” “this is how to fix your code,” ily of explicit knowledge that is more readily
and/or “this is how to accomplish that specific codified. Therefore, this would suggest that the
task.” majority of messages should consist of pointers
Technical assessments were coded as those to a knowledge source (e.g., a book or Web site),
messages that are opinion-based, could have and know-what. Due to the tacitness of the knowl-
multiple potential responses, and do not have one edge related to know-how and assessments, this
specific answer. Technical assessments are ex- type of knowledge is more difficult to transfer
pertise-based opinions, typically stemming from via lean, text-based communications; thus, we
personal experience or comprehension of multiple would expect to see fewer messages containing
interacting variables. Assessments typically ad- this type of knowledge content.
dress issues of “why something is happening” or Message form - Finally, messages were coded
“can someone compare these things.” Examples for form. Form categories indicate whether or not
of technical assessments are asking/offering an additional information, in addition to knowledge
assessment of the advantages/disadvantages of type, is conveyed. Three message forms were of
different technical systems, posting/solving a interest to this study: the addition of context, the
complex problem that requires different levels of use of embedded messages, and the transfer of
know-how and know-what in combination with computer code. Context is defined as data that
context/environmental variables, and request- provides additional information used to frame
ing/providing experience-based opinions on the issue at hand. Examples of context include
complex problems. extraneous information such as the office environ-
Professional assessments are similar to techni- ment, the technology requirements, and current
cal assessments in that they are messages that are technical equipment, where to specifically look
opinion-based and subject to multiple interpreta- within a source to find an answer, or under what
tion. However, professional assessments deal with conditions a solution will hold.
issues that occur in the professional community Embedded messages are those responses that
at-large, and not restricted to technical matters. included a copy or snippet from a previous post,
Due to their general nature, professional assess- typically the question being addressed. Finally,
ments are debatable. Topics of professional as- the inclusion of code indicates that computer
sessments are typically the likelihood of product code was included in the message. Examples of
or company success/failure, and the future of the response messages from each of the categories
community at-large. are presented in Appendix B. Table 2 presents
These categories are meant to represent practi- the results of the content analysis.
cal knowledge, or knowledge that would be useful
in a person’s work. However, practical knowledge
was not the only knowledge contributed to the results
group. In addition, some of the messages in the
group conveyed pastime knowledge such as jokes From the content analysis summary, practical
and gossip, or requested/provided additional knowledge was the most common knowledge
information and clarification for an earlier mes- type requested and contributed to the group (there
sage. These messages were not included in this were 276 messages posted that requested clarifica-
analysis. tions, and 58 messages that were jokes, gossip,
Media richness theories would suggest that or humor). The summary includes only the 1,562
due to the lean medium of exchange, the majority messages that were practical knowledge questions
of knowledge transferred would consist primar- and practical knowledge responses. Questions that
0
contained a pointer to a knowledge source were In addition, 44.4% of questions and 41.7% of
posted 13.1% of the time, and responses 10.8% of the responses contained computer code, which
the time. Know-what knowledge was requested indicates that electronic exchange is a useful
22.8% compared to 25% of total responses. Know- medium for collaborative programming. Surpris-
how was contributed 34.1%, and requested 53.3% ingly, even though 35.8% of responses were more
of the time. Finally, 20% of people requested explicit, close to 90% of the response messages
assessments, and people provided assessments relied on the use of context (88.8) and embedded
25.3% of the time. messages (90.4) in order to convey additional
Explicit knowledge, consisting of knowledge meaning. This gives some indication as to how
source and know-what, were only 35.8% of re- codified, text-based communication is used to
sponse volume. Messages that integrated tacit convey knowledge that has tacit elements. This
knowledge, indicated by know-how and technical/ also indicates that these networks are useful for
professional assessments, were contributed 60% the transfer of computer code; however, context
of the time. This seems to indicate that although is still used to convey more specific meaning for
text-based and a lean medium of exchange, people interpreting the code. Thus, the people in this
are using these networks to transfer knowledge electronic network have overcome the inherent
that has tacit dimensions. This lends support to limitations of electronic exchange and are not
the conceptualization of knowledge as varying limited to explicit knowledge exchange, but are
on a tacit/explicit dimension, and that knowledge able to codify tacit meaning as well.
transfer in “Cyber Ba” is not limited to explicit/
concrete exchange, but rather represents the com-
bination of codified with codified knowledge that investigating Knowledge
varies along a tacit/explicit dimension. flows
To investigate how knowledge flows among in-

dividuals, we first divided our sample into three
Table 2. Types of knowledge transfer groups: novices, professionals, and experts,
based on level of expertise obtained from the
Questions Responses
survey data. Level of expertise was estimated
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
by asking respondents to provide their level of
Source: electronic 18 4.2 68 6
expertise on the subject matter of the group, based
Source: book,
other
9 2.1 42 3.7 on a seven-point scale (1 or 2 - novice, 3, 4, or
5—professional, and 6 or 7—expert). Message
Source: multiple 29 6.8 13 1.1
activity for each individual was aggregated so
Know what 97 22.8 284 25
each individual obtained one message activity
Know how 227 53.3 387 34.1
score. Members who posted more than once in
Technical
assessment
65 15.3 237 20.9 the group were assigned an aggregated score to
Professional represent type of participation. For example, if
3 .7 50 4.4
assessment a member posted five messages, and all of the
Context 402 94.4 1009 88.8 messages were responses, this member received
Embedded
6 1.4 1027 90.4
a “1” for message responses. If the group member
message
asked one question, but responded to four ques-
Includes code 189 44.4 474 41.7 tions, this was scored as .2 message questions and
Total 426 1136 .8 message responses. In this way, we were able

to reduce message data down to an individual perts are available to respond. Experts also seem
level of analysis. We then divided the messages to benefit from the exchange with other experts.
into question and response categories. ANOVA Even though experts were three times more likely
was used to determine if there were significant to respond, occasionally experts also asked for
differences between the groups. Included in the advice. This seems to indicate that the majority
comparisons are levels of expertise and type of of knowledge is flowing from the experts to the
knowledge transfer. professional and then from professional to the
In order to examine why people participate, in novices. This also provides some indication that
the survey, we asked people seven questions about electronic networks help to elevate the non-experts
their reasons for participating in the newsgroup, in the field, thereby leveling the field.
reflecting personal gain motivations, social mo- The results for the motivation analysis are
tivations, and professional motivations (using a presented in the Table 4. The items are listed in
seven-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to terms of order of general relevance in terms of
strongly agree). We then use linear regression to motivation (the mean of the survey responses).
see which motivations were significant predictors Two of the top three most important motivations
of posting questions and posting responses (the are those associated with personal gain. Thus, it
same variables as described previously). appears that the personal gain motivations related
“practice” related gains, as opposed to reputation
gains are more important. The professional affili-
results ation motivations were ranked quite a bit higher
than social affiliation motivations.
Results from the ANOVA provide support for In terms of actually predicating participation,
differential benefit (Table 3). Novices were more however, we find that people who post questions
likely to ask questions (F=18.89, p<.001), and do so primarily to solve a specific problem, and
experts were more likely to provide answers then for social affiliation motivations. People who
(F=25.93, p<.001). However, professionals were post responses are significantly less likely to be
just as likely to post questions as responses. motivated to solve a specific problem, but rather
This seems to indicate that knowledge flows in a to help others and keep abreast of innovations in
stepwise fashion between individuals. One pos- the practice. The two personal gain motivations,
sibility is that novices ask easier questions that to enhance personal and professional goals and
professionals are able to answer. Then, when status, were not significantly related to actual
professionals have questions, presumably more participation in the network.
technically advanced and complicated, the ex- The results of this analysis suggest some
interesting findings. In order to understand why
Table 3. ANOVA analysis of knowledge flows

Questions Responses
Frequency Aggregate Frequency Aggregate F Sig
Novice – N=84 90 56.85 82 24.62 18.89 0.001
Professional – N=302 242 140.25 514 155.89 0.789 ns
Expert – N=162 69 43.18 486 112.17 25.93 0.001
Aggregate scores were used in one-way ANOVA

Table 4. Motivations predicting participation

One of my reasons for participating in the newsgroup is: Mean SD Post questions Post responses
1 To solve a specific problem of direct concern to me 5.61 1.77 .42** -.38**
2 To keep abreast of new ideas and innovations 5.48 1.63 -.18** .15**
3 To enhance my personal and professional goals 5.07 1.91 -.07 0.07
4 To help other group members with their problems 4.96 1.67 -.15** .16**
5 To meet new and different people 2.15 1.52 .14** -.14*
6 To build friendships with others 2.14 1.51 .15** -.15**
7 To increase my status and prestige 1.65 1.33 -.08 0.08
R2adj .27** .24**
people participate in electronic networks of prac- ful communities of practice (Brown & Duguid,
tice, it is important to distinguish among types 2000, 2001; Cohen & Prusak, 2001). Our study
of participation. Simply counting the number provides early evidence that electronic networks
of messages posted to a network may result in of practice can successfully adapt the message-
spurious findings, given the variations in mes- based communication technology to sustain their
sage purpose, indicating that different people practice. Thus, in line with the predictions of
participate in different ways and for different technology structuration theories (DeSanctis &
reasons. Therefore, having a diversity of mem- Poole, 1994; Orlikowski et al., 1995) and channel
bers in the electronic network of practice that expansion theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1999), the
includes novices, professionals, and experts, as low richness medium, by itself, does not prevent
well as encouraging participation from people individuals from building and sustaining an
with different motivations, are two important electronic network of practice.
underlying dimensions for how knowledge flows In this study, we find that Cyber Ba is more
in these networks. accurately described as the combination of codi-
fied knowledge with codified knowledge, rather
than the combination of explicit with explicit
conclusion knowledge. Even in instances where specific,
explicit knowledge was contributed, group mem-
This chapter examined the role of electronic bers preferred to provide additional information
networks of practice for supporting the transfer in the forms of context and embedded messages.
of knowledge in electronic networks of practice. So, while text-based communication may lend
In spite of the lean communication medium, itself well to explicit knowledge transfer, such
lack of colocation and members being primarily as computer code, know-what and knowledge
strangers, we found that electronic networks of sources, it is not limited to only explicit knowledge
practice are supporting knowledge exchange be- transfer. It appears that group members prefer to
tween members. Recently, researchers noted the respond with complex contributions that display
emergence of electronic networks of practice and their personal level of expertise. In addition,
expressed skepticism that such networks could group members also rely heavily on additional,
ever develop the strong ties, local embeddedness, contextual information (implying a higher tacit
and identity that so strongly characterizes success- dimension) even in cases where explicit knowledge

may have been sufficient. This would indicate that tively, by investigating the pattern of message
we need to change our thinking about tacit and postings, along with the author of the message.
explicit knowledge being definitional categories Some Web sites even make it possible to collect
of knowledge types. We argue that tacit/explicit personal profiles of the individuals participating,
should be conceptualized as a dimension along ratings of individual participants based on past
which knowledge can vary, and that Cyber Ba participation, and member ratings of the quality
should be conceptualized as the combination of of responses. This makes it possible to employ a
codified knowledge with codified knowledge that variety of methodologies across multiple levels
contains both tacit and explicit characteristics. of analysis to investigate issues of knowledge
The second phase of our study appears to transfer. In terms of objective data, researchers
demonstrate that knowledge flows from experts can investigate issues at the individual level. For
to professionals to novices in a stepwise fashion. instance, by tracking individual participation in
It seems that all group members, regardless of electronic networks, researchers can determine
level of expertise, benefit from participation in who is interacting with whom and to what ex-
the newsgroup, and that experts play a central tent. Methods, such as social network analysis,
role by providing knowledge to others. Similar that examine the pattern of dyadic relationships
to the findings in Hesse, et al (1993), people between people (indicating who is responding to
seem to benefit differentially from participation whom), enable researchers to identify individuals
in electronic networks. We also find that indi- who are central, active participants in the network
vidual motivations differ in terms of why people ( Grewal et al., 2006; Wasko & Faraj 2005).
participate. This indicates that having a diversity In addition to the individual level of analysis,
of individuals participating with varying motiva- research, has examined dynamics at the network
tions is important for encouraging knowledge level. For instance, Butler (2001) examines the
flows. Without individuals seeking answers and sustainability of electronic networks of practice
interested in building social ties with others, there by objectively assessing network size in terms
would not be an audience for others interested in of its membership, message volume, and thread
sharing their knowledge. Additionally, without dynamics to determine the attraction and reten-
individuals who are intrinsically motivated to tion of members over time. Jones et al. (2004)
keep abreast of new ideas and innovations and use objective data to examine how the pattern of
help others with their problems, seekers would communication changes in electronic networks in
not be able to receive answers. response to higher communication loads. Using
social network analysis, other researchers have
examined the underlying structures of electronic
future research directions networks of practice, and found a pattern resem-
bling scale-free networks, where the vast majority
The second purpose of this chapter was to present of contributions are sustained by a small minority
a multimethod approach to the study of electronic of participants (Faraj & Johnson, 2005).
networks of practice. In our analysis, we combined However, when objective data is combined
message level data using textual analysis of the with survey data, researchers can also include
message content with survey data from network issues such as why people participate and to
participants. One of the great advantages of study- what effect. For instance, event-driven survey
ing knowledge transfer on the Internet is that methodologies have been used to examine the
the technology makes it possible for researchers perceived value of the knowledge exchange, by
to actually observe knowledge transfer objec- surveying seekers upon posting a question to as-

sess the quality of the responses (Constant et al., furniture around to find best placements for their
1996). Another study examines the perceptions electronics at home. On Dell island, an avatar can
of trust that form between members of network fly through a gigantic digital version of the Dell
(Ridings et al., 2002). Adding content analysis SP700, a computer geared at the gaming market.
enables researchers to determine who says what Cisco has built an eight-room house to showcase
to whom. The combination of all four methods: its networking products, and its research unit holds
objective, survey, social network analysis, and team meetings in Second Life, bringing together
content analysis data has been used to investigate globally dispersed project teams.
why people participate and help others, and the Second Life has also emerged as one of the
value of the help provided (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). cutting-edge platforms for online education, hav-
By taking a multimethod approach to the inves- ing sold more than 100 islands for educational
tigation of knowledge transfer on the Internet, purposes, including institutions such as Harvard,
researchers move beyond examining questions Pepperdine, and New York University. The senior
related to “what is happening” to more complex editor of the Harvard Business Review gave a
questions, such as why and how knowledge talk on marketing in Second Life, in Second Life.
transfer takes place. Reuters has established a news agency to report
Of course, Internet technologies have now on events in Second Life. Sweden has opened an
advanced to the point that Web sites such as embassy in Second Life, and the United States
secondlife.com and there.com enable knowledge “Capitol Hill Island” was unveiled earlier this
exchange across geographic distance, but provide year. Toyota sells cars in Second Life and clothing
the appearance of being in the same virtual place designer American Apparel sells virtual clothes
through synchronous communications and a for avatars.
shared 3-D experience. People interact with one Future research of knowledge transfer on the
another through their avatars, which are electronic Internet will include investigations about how
representations of themselves. While the poten- to create “virtual” face-to-face communities of
tial of these new Internet-based “metaverses” to practice on the Internet, mapping the evolution
support knowledge exchange is just now being of the community of practice to the electronic
explored, many major corporations and universi- network of practice (as we discuss in this chap-
ties are creating initiatives on Second Life that ter), and then its “de-evolution” back towards
support global knowledge transfer. the initial conceptualizations of communities of
Currently, high-tech companies, including Sun practice, and how technology is able to replace
Microsystems, Dell, HP, Cisco, Oracle, Accen- physical face-to-face interactions with virtual
ture, and IBM, have all staked a claim in Second face-to-face interactions.
Life. For instance, Sun launched its Sun Pavilion
in Second Life, featuring interactive kiosks and
an outdoor theater where an avatar representing references
Sun’s chief researcher, John Gage, held a press
conference. IBM has purchased 24 Second Life Ahuja, M., Galletta, D., et al. (2003). Individual
islands (when viewed from above, it forms their centrality and performance in virtual R&D
logo), more than 3,000 IBM employees have groups: An empirical study. Management Sci-
acquired avatars in Second Life, and about 300 ence, 49(1), 21-38.
routinely use it to conduct company business. IBM
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge
has used one of its islands to set up a virtual store
management systems: Issues, challenges and
for retailer Circuit City, where avatars can move

benefits. Communication of the Association for Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Informa-
Information Systems, 1, 1-28. tion technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam,
K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowl-
of organizational communication: An interdis-
edge management and knowledge management
ciplinary perspective (pp. 421-443). Newbury
systems: Conceptual foundations and research
Park, CA: Sage.
issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., et al. (2002). The
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge trans-
quality of online social relationships. Communi-
fer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.
cations of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 82(1), 150-169. Daft, J. E., Lengel, R. H., et al. (1987). Message
equivocality, media selection, and manager per-
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational
formance: Implication for information systems.
learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a
MIS Quarterly, 11, 354-366.
unified view of working, learning, and innovation.
Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. Daft, R. L., & Lengel R. H. (1986). Organizational
information requirements, media richness and
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing act:
structural design. Management Science, 32(5),
How to capture knowledge without killing it.
355-366.
Harvard Business Review, May-June: 73-80.
Dennis, A., & Kinney, S. (1998). Testing media
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life
richness theory in the new media: The effects of
of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
cues, feedback and task equivocality. Information
School Press.
Systems Research, 9(3), 256-274.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing
and organization: A social-practice perspective.
the complexity in advanced technology use: Adap-
tive structuration theory. Organization Science,
Butler, B. (2001). Membership size, communica- 5(2), 121-147.
tion activity, and sustainability: A resource-based
Faraj, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2005). Reciprocity or
model of online social structures. Information
generalized exchange? Structuring of electronic
Systems Research, 12(4), 346-362.
knowledge networks. Academy of Management
Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1999). Channel expan- Conference, Honolulu, HI.
sion theory and the experiential nature of media
Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., et al. (1996). Connective
richness perceptions. Academy of Management
and communal public goods in interactive com-
Journal, 42(2), 153-170.
munication systems. Communication Theory,
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: 6(1), 60-87.
How social capital makes organizations work.
Grant, R. (1996). Prospering in dynamically com-
petitive environments: Organizational capability
Constant, D., Sproull, L., et al. (1996). The kind- as knowledge integration. Organization Science,
ness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic 7(4), 375-387.
weak ties for technical advice. Organization
Grewal, R., Lilien, G. L., et al. (2006). Location,
Science, 7(2), 119-135.
location, location: How network embeddedness

affects project success in open source systems. Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Learning from notes:
Management Science, 52(7), 1043-1056. Organizational issues in groupware implemen-
tation. In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and
Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge
controversy (pp. 173-189). New York: Academic
flows within multinational corporations. Strategic
Press.
Management Journal, 21, 473-496.
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., et al. (1995). Shaping
Hesse, B., Sproull, L., et al. (1993). Returns to
electronic communication: The metastructuring
science: Computer networks in oceanography.
of technology in the context of use. Organization
Communications of the ACM, 36(8), 90-100.
Science, 6(4), 423-444.
Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social
Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnog-
sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Ad-
raphy of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
dison-Wesley.
Pickering, J. M., & King, J. L. (1995). Hardwiring
Jones, Q., Ravid, G., et al. (2004). Information
weak ties: Interorganizational computer-mediated
overload and the message dynamics of online in-
communication, occupational communities, and
teraction spaces: A theoretical model and empiri-
organizational change. Organization Science, 6,
cal exploration. Information Systems Research,
479-486.
15(2), 194-210.
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards
Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online
a post-critical philosophy. New York: Harper &
cooperation: Gifts, and public goods in cyber-
Row.
space. In M. A. Smith and P. Kollock (Eds.),
Communities in cyberspace (pp. 220-239). New Powell, W. W., Koput, K., et al. (1996). Interor-
York: Routledge. ganizational collaboration and the locus of in-
novation: Networks of learning in biotechnology.
Kollock, P., & Smith, M. A. (1996). Managing
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict
in computer communities. In S. Herring (Ed.), Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community:
Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading,
social and cross cultural perspectives (pp. 109- MA: Addison Wesley.
128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., et al. (2002). Some
Lakhani, K., & von Hippel, E. (2000, May). How antecedents and effects of trust in virtual commu-
open source software works: Free user-to-user nities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
assistance. The 3rd Intangibles Conference. 11, 271-295.
Knowledge: Management, Measurement and
Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1995). Atheism, sex and
Organization, Stern School of Business, NYU.
databases: The net as a social technology. In B.
Lakhani, K., & von Hippel, E. (2003). How open K. J. Keller (Ed.), Public access to the Internet
source software works: Free user-to-user assis- (pp. 62-81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
tance. Research Policy, 32(6), 923-943.
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occu-
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of pational communities: Culture and control in
Ba: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp.
287-365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of com- additional reading

puter-mediated communication: Experimental
observations over time. Organization Science, Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Open
6(2), 186-203. source software user communities: A study of
participation in Linux user groups. Management
Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one
Science, 52(7), 1099-1115.
does: Why people participate and help others in
electronic communities of practice. Journal of Blanchard, A., & Horan, T. (2000). Virtual com-
Strategic Information Systems, 9(2-3), 155-173. munities and social capital. In G. D. Garson (Ed.),
Social dimensions of information technology:
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should
Issues for the new millenium (pp. 6-21). Hershey,
I share? Examining knowledge contribution in
PA: Idea Group.
electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly,
29(1), 1-23. Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the
virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., et al. (1996). Computer
(Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29-59).
networks as social networks: Collaborative work,
New York: Routledge.
telework, and virtual community. Annual Review
of Sociology, 22, 213-238. Hagel, J., & Armstrong, A. G. (1997). Net.gain:
Expanding markets through virtual communities.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice.
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge: University Press.
Preece, J. (2002). Supporting community and
Winter, S., (Ed.) (1987). Knowledge and compe-
building social capital. Communications of the
tence as strategic assets. The competitive chal-
ACM, 45(4), 37-39.
lenge-Strategies for industrial innovation and
renewal. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinom-
ics: How mass collaboration changes everything.
New York: Portfolio.
Teigland, R., & Wasko, M. (2004). Extending
richness with reach: Participation and knowledge
exchange in electronic networks of practice.
In P. Hildreth & C. Kimble (Eds.), Knowledge
networks: Innovation through communities of
practice (pp. 230-242). London: Idea Group
Publishing.

appendix a—summary of global participation
Figures in the top line are sums of aggregate scores of individual level data. Figures on the second line
are averages, sums divided by the total number of participants from that nation.
Table 1.
Members Tenure Personal Expertise Total Questions Responses
ties mssgs
1 Australia 17 210.00 9.00 69.00 38.00 8.20 8.10
13.13 0.53 4.06 2.24 0.49 0.48
2 Belgium 5 37.00 0.00 19.00 7.00 4.00 0.00
7.40 0.00 3.80 1.40 1.00 0.00
3 Brazil 3 74.00 0.00 16.00 12.00 1.00 2.00
24.67 0.00 5.33 4.00 0.33 0.67
4 Canada 25 321.00 2.00 110.00 75.00 9.80 15.16
12.84 0.08 4.40 3.00 0.39 0.61
5 Chile 1 36.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
6 China 2 12.00 8.00 9.00 2.00 2.00 0.00

6.00 4.00 4.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
7 Croatia 1 3.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 0.13 0.88
8 Cyprus 1 6.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
9 Denmark 2 13.00 5.00 9.00 2.00 2.00 0.00

6.50 2.50 4.50 1.00 1.00 0.00
10 Finland 2 9.00 0.00 7.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
4.50 0.00 3.50 1.00 0.50 0.50
11 France 15 318.30 10.00 67.00 31.00 10.00 5.00
22.70 0.71 4.79 2.20 0.67 0.33
12 Germany 28 574.00 46.00 121.00 53.00 14.33 13.47
22.10 1.84 4.84 1.90 0.51 0.48
13 Hong Kong 6 27.00 0.00 18.00 9.00 5.67 0.33
4.50 0.00 3.00 1.50 0.94 0.06
14 India 2 12.00 3.00 6.00 8.00 2.00 0.00
6.00 1.50 3.00 4.00 1.00 0.00
15 Ireland 1 5.00 1.00 3.00 7.00 0.00 1.00
16 Israel 5 53.00 3.00 26.00 22.00 1.33 3.67

13.25 0.60 5.20 4.40 0.27 0.73
17 Italy 4 40.00 4.00 19.00 6.00 3.50 0.50
10.00 1.00 4.75 1.50 0.88 0.13
continued on following page

Table 1. continued
18 Japan 3 23.00 0.00 11.00 8.00 0.50 2.50
7.67 0.00 3.67 2.67 0.17 0.83
19 Jordan 1 4.00 0.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
20 Korea 1 18.00 0.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
21 Malaysia 1 3.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
22 Netherlands 15 206.00 6.00 68.00 47.00 5.67 9.00
23 New Zealand 3 46.00 0.00 9.00 3.00 3.00 0.00

15.33 0.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
24 Norway 2 7.00 0.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
3.50 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.50 0.50
25 Portugal 3 36.00 14.00 11.00 10.00 2.88 0.13
12.00 4.67 3.67 3.33 0.96 0.04
26 Romania 1 4.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
27 Russia 5 21.00 17.00 26.00 7.00 2.00 3.00

4.20 3.40 5.20 1.40 0.40 0.60
28 Singapore 2 38.00 0.00 10.00 2.00 2.00 0.00
19.00 0.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
29 South Africa 3 13.00 3.00 8.00 7.00 1.80 1.20
4.33 1.00 4.00 2.33 0.60 0.40
30 Spain 5 81.00 2.00 20.00 11.00 1.75 3.25
16.20 0.40 4.00 2.20 0.35 0.65
31 Sweden 8 111.00 0.00 24.00 8.00 4.00 4.00
15.86 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.50 0.50
32 Switzerland 2 10.00 3.00 9.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
5.00 1.50 4.50 1.00 0.50 0.50
33 Taiwan 1 5.00 15.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
34 Thailand 1 5.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
35 United Kingdom 22 240.00 8.00 87.00 60.00 7.70 14.15

11.40 0.40 4.14 2.70 0.35 0.64
36 U.S. 2 72.00 6.00 12.00 8.00 0.50 1.50
36.00 3.00 6.00 4.00 0.25 0.75
U.S. comm 223 3481.50 282.00 967.00 737.00 79.40 134.30
16.40 1.32 4.65 3.30 0.36 0.60
continued on following page
0
Table 1. continued
U.S. gov 3 30.00 2.00 10.00 7.00 1.40 0.60
10.00 0.67 3.33 2.33 0.47 0.20
U.S. network 83 854.00 51.00 231.00 210.00 43.25 38.70
10.54 0.62 4.00 2.50 0.52 0.47
U.S. org 8 147.00 6.00 40.00 40.00 0.93 7.07
18.38 0.75 5.00 5.00 0.12 0.88
Edu 58 492.00 10.00 225.00 135.00 29.40 28.20
8.95 0.18 4.10 2.33 0.51 0.49
37 Yugoslavia 1 8.00 0.00 6.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
appendix b—examples of response messages
Professional Assessment with context, and embedded message
XXX wrote:
..snip..
> Read the word *long-term*. Did you seriously think that Digital, a HUGE
> company second to IBM would not see the threat of UNIX and someday be
> bought for chump change by a PC company that has been around since the ‘0’s?
ok, i read *long-term*. Could you translate it into some meaningful like
-years,-years, 0-years ? Does it matter how long that PC company is around ?
The
simple fact is that this ‘PC company’ is doing B$ a year and is looking to
double
that figure withing the next 2-3 years. Apparently they came to the conlcusion
that
this only would be possible by buying another big name operating in the
enterprise IT segment. So they certainly would fail to become a 0B$ company
by throwing away what Digital could bring in.
>
>
> Things change. I’m a UNIX person, but I can see NT moving into the
> Enterprise in the future. Will UNIX be there (Solaris,HP-UX, & AIX)
> of course - but the NT market will be more than enough for Compaq.
Is that your wish or did Compaq tell you? All predictions for theUNIX market in
years

to come show that it will continue to grow and it will do so in the

enterprise segment. In $ volume it will stay well ahead of NT. Both
Gartner and IDC for the years to come predict that in revenue
UNIX will by 0%+ of the enterprise market while
both see NT’s share at -0%.
> Again. Read long-term. If UNIX is so important to Compaq, tell me why

> I’ve never seen Compaq promote UNIX on their servers? Why all I ever
> see is Compaq/Intel/Microsoft NT ads
Because that’s where they do their current business. But to grow where theywant
to they have to do something additional. And as far as i understand,
in number of systems Compaq sells quite some UNX.
Compared to NT of course small. And SCO of today is not an enterprise
unix platform.
> IS that the UNIX Compaq is now supporting? They also have Tandem UNIX
> and SCO UnixWare .0 Enterprise.
Remember, the Compaq/DIGITAL deal is not done as of yet (FTC and

shareholderapproval pending, EC gave ok). As long as this is, there are some
rules (quiet period)
which prohibit to communicate a lot of things. I don’t know how big Tandem’s unix
market is, SCO’s revenue for last FY was around 0M$. Put that in contrast with
Digital’s multi-B$ unix business.
Technical Assessment with context, and an embedded message
>>
>> XXX writes:
>>
>> >In fact, a lot (all?) of the Motorola Suns had Sun’s own MMU in. Memory
>> >fades, but either the Motorola chips were late, or didn’t do what Sun
>> >wanted, or both.
>>
>> All accept the 00 based systems.
>
>Did they use the MMU that the ‘00 had onboard, or did they use the
>external one designed for the ‘00 (the , as I recall)? I was

>involved in a SVR port that was running on a ‘00 board that had the
>off-chip MMU and moved onto a ‘00 board that used the on-chip MMU, and
>I was struck by how much smaller the cache was (0 contexts rather than
>0? Something like that).

As far as I remember the did have page table entries

which was the reral limitation. The company where I worked when this
MMU as actual, made a UNIX system with type MMU’s for this reason
before they switched from a selfmade UNIX like to Sun systems in .
An example of know-how with context, but no embedded messages
Bill,
Two approaches, both require modeling
. Top down. Start with a fresh examination of your requirements and then model
them. Fit the existing data in at the physical level and only use what you need.
If your incumbent solution really is that disparate you are probably doing the
safest thing.
. Reverse engineering. Get every data item in every place you currently have,
document them. Then group them into like descriptions. Use this grouping as
draft entities and begin an ER process.
You want to do the same for function definitions and processes. In the meantime
you need to architect the new system so it all fits together.
I don’ t know of any books that can explain all this. I’ve tried to find a
publisher so I could write on but without luck. The only thing that comes close
are the chapters I wrote in Oracle Data Warehousing Unleashed by Sams Pub.
An example of know-what with context and embedded messages
In article <CF.[email protected]>,
XXX writes:
> Arn’t they all made by IBM / Motorolla ?
>
> (if wrong please enlighten)
No, TI has been Sun’s primary processor foundry for a long time.
An example of source (electronic) with an embedded message, no context
>Beca XXX wrote:

>>
>> If anyone knows of any accounting databases on the web, could you please
>> post them? I would really appreciate it!! Thanks! :-))

>
>
Try looking at www.ardent.com
Good Luck!
message content coding scheme
Indices Message # This is the identifier number for the message posting
E-Mail This is the personal identifier for the member posting the message
Location This is the last part of the e-mail address identifying the domain of the server
Original message 1 original post, 0 a response

Reference message e-mail of person responding to the message
Message Question This indicates if the post was a request for information
Purpose Response This indicates if the post was a response to a request
This indicates that the post was neither a request nor a response, but rather
Announcement
the posting of information helpful to the group
Community std This refers to a post that tries to set community/group standards
Professional std This refers to a post that tries to set standards in the professional community
Technical alternative This indicates that the post is giving another point of view
Other This indicates that the post does not fall into a previous category
This refers to a post that does not contain information that falls within the
Spam
domain of the group
Thank you A specific thanks for receiving help
Knowledge Reference to knowledge Does the post contain a specific reference to a person, written materials,
Type source electronic source, book
Clarification Request for more technical and/or contextual information
Know-How Refers to a specific technical procedure “Does anyone know how to..”
Know-What Refers to specific technical information “Does anyone know what..”
Opinions based on expertise about features/advantages/disadvantages relat-

Technical assessment
ing to the technology
Opinion based on professional expertise about the profession or community
Professional assessment
as a whole
Pastime knowledge Jokes, humor, gossip or news of relevance to the group.

Chapter X
Knowledge Sharing Through
Interactive Social Technologies:
Development of Social Structures in
Internet-Based Systems Over Time
Isa Jahnke
Dortmund University of Technology, Germany
abstract
How do the Internet and new interactive Web-based tools, for example, wikis and discussion boards, affect
people and their behavior in organizations? This chapter will show the emergence of social structures
in Internet-based systems over time. Based on results of an empirical investigation of an Internet-based
knowledge-sharing system, the author demonstrates the change of roles, expectations, and activities in
online communities. Finally, the author sketches some essential process criteria for introducing online
communities, which are extended parts of organizations (e.g., companies and institutions), characterized
by a large size and supplemented the formal company.
introduction 2.0 is, as O’Reilly (2005) said, a “second genera-

tion of Internet-based services.” The common
New buzzwords have become part of our daily idea is to enable people to collaborate and share
lexicon: Web 2.0, social software, and social information online in new ways, such as in wikis,
web, often used as synonyms. These concepts communication tools, social networking sites,
focus on new or existing software systems that and, for example, in Folksonomies. Folksonomy
are influenced by human communication and consists of “folk” and “taxonomy.”1 Folksonomy
collaboration. Web 2.0 is heavily reliant on social is a 21st century practice of collaboration and
interaction, so, social Web-based applications taxonomy. People categorize content such as Web
generate a human-centered design approach. Web pages, online photographs, or Web links. However,
Knowledge Sharing Through Interactive Social Technologies
they do not do it on their own as a lonesome rider, we do so, we see, for example, that “personal
they generate “tags” (labels) in collaboration with Web sites” disappear and blogging becomes the
others. This social process is known as social or favored interaction of Internet users. Individual
collaborative tagging. The underlying idea is that publishing has evolved in the direction of partici-
many Internet users find more suitable classifica- pation. Wikis replace pure “content management
tions and keywords than a computer or a limited systems.” Whereas Web 1.0 was focused more on
number of people at a company can. the downloading of prepared information, Web
To describe such new concepts and new forms 2.0 transfers the process into communication
of Internet-based applications, it is appropriate to about the information (for example blogs). The
compare Web 1.0 and the newer Web 2.0. When behavior of users is changing from being readers
Figure 1. Shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 (similar to O’Reilly, 2005)
Web 1.0 (mainly 1992-2002) Web 2.0 (shift since 2003)

Encylopedia Britannica Online / Wikipedia.com
German Brockhaus etc.
Personal Websites Blogging (e.g., IBM developerWorks Blogs1)
Publishing Participation (e.g., pepysdiary.com2 and many discussion
boards)
Content management systems Wikis
Directories (creating a taxonomy top-down) Social tagging (Folksonomy’: bottom-up),
social bookmarking (e.g., del.icio.us3)
Telephone Instant Messaging (e.g., ICQ), VoIP (e.g., Skype)
GPS non Internet-based New location-based services (mobile devices, e.g., Dodge-
ball4)
Newsgroups Social networking (e.g., facebook.com and xing.com5) /
online communities
 Download of information (download of prepared  Communication & collaboration about the information,
content): one-to-many users creating new knowledge: many-to-many users
1
Retrieved September 9th,, 2007, from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/
2
Pepysdiary.com site “is a presentation of the diaries of Samuel Pepys, the renowned 17th century diarist who lived in
London, England. A new entry written by Pepys will be published each day over the course of several years; 1 January
1660 was published on 1 January 2003.” (Retrieved September 9th,, 2007, from http://www.pepysdiary.com/). People
discuss Pepys’ life and his diary entries by posting own annotations.
3
Del.icio.us is a social bookmarking site. By using tags, people can organize their own bookmarks and see what other
people with similar tags have. This supports the idea to find information from the Internet easier. “Tags are one-word
descriptors that you can assign to your bookmarks on del.icio.us to help you organize and remember them. Tags are
a little bit like keywords, but they’re chosen by you, and they do not form a hierarchy. You can assign as many tags
to a bookmark as you like and rename or delete the tags later. So, tagging can be a lot easier and more flexible than
fitting your information into preconceived categories or folders.” Retrieved September 9th,, 2007, from http://del.icio.
us/help/tags
4
Dodgeball site helps to find friends when people are at different places: “Tell us where you are and we’ll send mes-
sages to all your friends letting them know, so you can meet up. (…) we’ll locate friends of friends within 10 blocks
(…) find venue locations and broadcast messages to all your friends.” Retrieved September 9th,, 2007, from http://www.
dodgeball.com/
5
“Facebook is a social utility that connects you with the people around you.” Retrieved September 9th,, 2007, from
http://www.facebook.com/ Similar to Facebook (especially in USA), Xing.com is popular in Europe.

and consumers (Web 1.0) to authors and producers internet-based communities

(Web 2.0). Figure 1 displays both concepts. and social structures
In this chapter, we will focus on Web-based
groups and communities that are a part of Web Online communities are good examples of typical
2.0. Many empirical studies and practical proj- socio-technical systems (cf. Coakes, 2002): On the
ects give insights into the initiation, support, one side, such Internet-based communities consist
or cultivation of communities (in particular, of actors who use technical systems to communi-
Preece, 2000; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, cate and share knowledge. On the other side, the
2002). Our analysis focuses on communities that technical system influences the communication of
predominantly depend upon computer-supported the community members. An online community
communication, and ask if and how people build owes its existence to the fact that the technical
forms of social structures (e.g., how the com- system exists. People who participate and interact
munity members collaborate). Our analysis is in Internet-based communities share knowledge
particularly concerned with social structures, for and communicate “through” the technical systems
example: How do they interact and will they build (for example, discussion boards, instant messag-
roles (formal/informal roles)? What relevance do ing, or networking tools). Such socio-technical
computer-mediated social relations have on trust phenomena were investigated especially by Preece
and social capital for online groups in Web 2.0? (2000), Kim (2000), Williams and Cothrel (2000)
Does the technical system help to create social and, Wenger et al. (2002), who give design criteria
proximity? Our in-depth case study of the online for cultivating pure online communities as well
community “InPUD,” gives indicators about such as communities of practice (as internal part of
social structures of virtual groups. These indica- business companies).
tors are based on an empirical investigation of the
mentioned case. Definitions of Online Communities
We will first define the concept of online com-
munities as socio-technical systems, define what Our contribution follows the definition of “com-
an online community is, and highlight the social munities of practice” created by Lave and Wenger
structures of online communities. An essential (1991, p. 98) and Wenger et al. (2002, p. 4). Web-
indicator of social structures is the development based communities are generated through social
of roles (Section 2). In Section 3, we describe the relationships among individuals “who share a
case study of the empirical investigation of the concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a
InPUD Community, as an example of Web 2.0 topic, and who deepen their knowledge and ex-
applications, and describe what InPUD actually pertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing
is. In Section 3, we describe also the research basis.” Similar to Preece et al. (Preece, Abras, &
method. Section 4 derives empirical results from Maloney-Krichmar, 2004), we use the term “on-
the case, and shows aspects of social structures line communities” to describe all online groups
that have been developed, based on interactive that have some kind of online presence, but these
social technologies (such as Web 2.0). Section groups differ in the following four areas:
5 sketches some essential process criteria for
introducing online communities supplemented • The size (small groups with just 25 people
to formal organizations. Section 6 offers a con- (members); big groups with hundreds or
clusion, and Section 7 looks forward to possible thousands of people (members).
future areas of study. • The primary content (e.g., discussion boards
about specific books or movies; discussions

about sports like marathon training; commu- the majority of the community members only read
nication about stock exchanges; information the information and do not actively participate.
sharing about classes at universities). The description of such members who “observe
• The lifespan (several years or just for one what is going on but remain silent” is “lurker”
topic). (cf. Preece, 2000, p. 87).
• The type of communication: “Whether Further investigations about roles in online
the community exists only virtually, or has settings, such as elders, leaders, regulars, novices,
a physical presence, or exists primarily and visitors, did particularly Kim (2000) and
through physical connections, for example Preece et al. (2004). These kinds of denotations
a networked neighborhood” (Preece et al., (of the term “role”) are focused on the number of
2004, p. 3). postings of the community members and the date
of registration. It neglects the difference between
value of participation in online formal and informal roles, how the members
communities interact with others, and the dynamic change of
roles and social structures.
In contrast to companies and organizations, where
the members are rather formally bound (e.g., by social structures and roles
work contracts), online communities consist of
informal connections between members, however, Mackinnon (2006) reviewed the literature on
with strong ties (Granovetter, 1973). “Communi- the concept of social structures. He comes to the
ties are defined as collections of individuals bound conclusion that different definitions emphasize
by informal relationships” says Snyder (1997, in “social structures as a set of elements in mutual
Lesser & Prusak, 1999). Koch (2002) reported relation to each other– also known as social
online communities as a set of people who are networks. Instead of just mutual relations, Jary
willing to help each other in order to accomplish and Jary (1991, p. 465) describe the term “social
their own goals. Wenger et al. (2002) add that the structures” as a “relatively enduring pattern or
members form a “joint enterprise and the com- interrelationship of social elements,” that is,
munity continually renegotiates itself through its expectations, social interaction and relation-
members.” The members act in good faith, they ships within social systems. This notion of social
trust each other, although they may not normally structures, as relationships between different
act in such a way: I will help you, even if you do members of groups or as enduring and relatively
not help me immediately because I know you, or stable patterns of relationships, emphasizes the
another community member, will assist me when I idea that social and socio-technical systems, for
need support (cf. Putnam, 1995). This underlying example online communities, are grouped into
idea of altruism7 affects active participation and sets of patterns often defined as roles with dif-
mutual support as well as collaborative knowledge ferent functions, meanings, or purposes. Lave
sharing. Mutual support is given for example and Wenger (1991) give similar results from their
through feedback, annotations, and comments, analysis of “legitimate peripheral participation.”
sharing ideas, answering questions, mutual re- Hence, the analysis of social systems as well as
views, and so forth. online communities needs, besides the analysis of
However, this view on computer-mediated social networks, especially the analysis of social
social interaction neglects the role of the “lurker”: roles. The emergence and change of social roles
just a few community members, in relation to the in virtual communities are essential observable
whole group, answer questions of the others, while aspects that influences and forms the social struc-
ture of communities and vice versa.

Social roles are often defined as sets of expected interaction. Roles are gradually developed
activities performed by individuals. According to in online communities by perceiving the
Dahrendorf (1958), a role is the sum of all behav- repetition of social interaction patterns. Such
ior expectations of a social system (all different repeated and anticipated behavior leads to
members) towards a concrete role actor. From this expectations that characterize a role. These
viewpoint, a role is a set of descriptions defining patterns can metaphorically be described
the expected behavior of a position (Biddle & as role-mechanisms. Role-mechanisms
Thomas, 1966). describe how people take a role or assign
Instead of roles in social systems, roles in someone a role. The role-mechanisms are,
socio-technical systems (e.g., online communi- for example, role-assignment, role-taking, to
ties) depend primarily on technically mediated allow someone’s role-taking, role-changing,
communication. Therefore, the development of role-making, role-(re)defining (Herrmann
roles in online communities can be particularly et al., 2004, p.169). Herrmann et al. (2004)
observed through the written communications explain the role mechanisms, and describe
of community members. Then, a role is a per- empirically how to find and support such role
ceivable interaction pattern created through the mechanisms in Internet-based community
repetition of social interaction8. Such repeated systems.
and anticipated behavior leads to expectations
that characterize a role.
A role consists of the following aspects with case study: the inpud
four observable factors (cf. especially our prior community—an example of
publication that includes a full description of roles web 2.0
for designing community systems: Herrmann,
Jahnke, & Loser, 2004): what was the problem?
1. Position: Members’ position in the online In 2001, the Department of Computer Science
community in relation to the others (also at the University of Dortmund in Germany had
known as network position): How many and about 2,000 students. However, in the years
what social/communicative contacts has a between 1996 and 2001, problems occurred.
member to others? A lot of students did not achieve the degree of
2. Tasks/Activities: what primary activity is computer science (statistic report from 2001).
conducted by the member? (e.g., moderating, This report made clear that many students ended
lurking, contributing) their computer science courses after three or
3. Expectations: How do community members four semesters without degree9 or even moved
communicate to others the expectations they to another the university; others did not take
have about behavior in online discussions the written examinations. But we did not know
(rules of online behavior)? Do members com- exactly why the students were failing and so we
municate just factual information (aspect of wanted to find out why the students were dropping
content) and/or could we observe indices of their computer science studies. Our assumption
information about their relationships to the was based on the “organizational problem.” We
others (aspect of relationship)? assumed that the problem was not just related
4. Online interactions (Role-playing): A to the content of the courses but with the study
role is built and changed by individuals management. So, the primary question for our
by way of their communication and social research was: How do German students organize

their studies at a university? Do they have enough what exactly is the inpud
information about how to organize their studies community?
successfully?10
Additionally, the university has a wide diver- The InPUD community11 can be described as
sity of roles: students who are beginners, who are an “online knowledge sharing community” for
experts, there are tutors for course guidance, study computer science students at the University of
management advisors, lecturers, an examinations Dortmund, Germany. The InPUD community
office, a registry office, and so on. To conclude, differs from other communities that are built in
there are many people in different roles who spare time and that are not a part of a company.
support student’s activities. Each of them has a According to the characteristics from Preece
lot of information and knowledge about study et al. (2004, see also Section 2), the InPUD com-
management. However, the problem seems to be munity is characterized by a large size (more
their joint collaboration. Do they really cooper- than 1,500 people), and is an extended part of
ate and share knowledge as well as they could in the Department of the mentioned university
order to help and promote students? supplemented to the formal organization. The
primary content of InPUD is knowledge (and its
Figure 2. Screenshot of InPUD (in more detail: http://www.inpud.de)
semester plan
discussion boards (forum)
discussion symbol
portal /overview
course Computer architecture
summer semester courses

courses for beginners
courses for the 1. semester
courses for the 3. semester
seminars
00
collaborative creation) about the study of computer as for study management. They are embedded
science, its courses, and study management. The into an information Web site that includes facts
students get information about how to study suc- about course guidance, as well as graphical maps
cessfully, and the opportunities to discuss study of how to study which course at which time.12 The
management, content, and exercises of lectures discussion boards include discussions about se-
as well as seminars. Thus, InPUD helps to share lected lectures. (At the time of writing, 30 boards
information to improve the practice. The com- are online, each with their own moderator.) It is
munity exists primarily online, but has also a possible to discuss exercises and their solutions
physical presence through physical connections, on the discussion boards. Furthermore, there is
for example, networked students in different information, and discussion boards, that have been
courses. InPUD was launched in 2002. initiated by study management advisors, course
In detail, the InPUD Community includes an guidance, or counseling services. The discussion
overview of all classes and lectures that are of- boards include questions and answers referring
fered during the course of a semester. The way to course guidance, for example, “how to study
that the information is structured is the same for successfully,” “how and where to register for writ-
each lecture or seminar. The information about ten examinations,” “where to find the university
the lectures, including any tutorials that are be- calendar (timetable),” “what are the contents of
ing held (and when they are being held), course computer science courses,” “which semester is
materials, notices for examinations, lecturer best suited for studying abroad,” and so forth.
contact information, and often a free discussion Figure 2 shows a screenshot of InPUD.
forum are included, as well as news and search Many members participated. The community
functions. members are primarily people (in particular stu-
The information and content about the study dents) from the Department of Computer Science
management domain were integrated with online at the University of Dortmund, Germany, but
discussion boards. These enabled the potential also people who are interested in studying at the
members to build active social interactions. The department (e.g., high school students). The com-
discussion boards exist for each lecture as well munity members are also made up of advisors
Figure 3. Continuous flow to more usage (dark bars show beginning of new semesters)
0
webpage request: 12.280.211 total

(ø per day: 9.368)

0

0
0
0 0

0
0

0

Sep Okt Nov Dez Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez Jan Feb Jun Aug Okt Dez Jan Feb
0 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
period 02/09/2002 to 28/02/2005 *semester begins
0
Figure 4. InPUD discussion board—Number of contributions per individual

- contributions 511
0 - contributions 167
Number of Individuals
-0 contributions 82
-00 contributions 63
0-00 contributions 31
A core of (about 0)

00 and morecontributions 14 individuals provide
(max. per student) contributions regularly
- more than ,0 individuals

- wrote ,00 postings
(September 00)
from counseling services, course guidance, and The number of requests has grown consistently,
the examinations office. The initiated and empiri- and the access rate usually peaks at the beginning
cally investigated community InPUD currently of a new semester. In October 2002 there were
has more than 1,300 members. only 171,408 requests. A year later, in October
The InPUD community consists of students 2003, there were 292,155 requests and in October
who could theoretically meet at lectures. How- 2004, this had increased to 491,330 requests. To
ever, this face-to-face communication is, in fact, this day, requests are continually increasing (see
unlikely due to the fact that the courses are over- Figure 3).
subscribed; sometimes there are as many as 600 Figure 4 shows the analysis of the communica-
students in a single course; direct social interaction tion structure: About 2,000 students (100%) are
with each person seems to be not realistic. enrolled at the Department of Computer Science
at the German University of Dortmund. More than
stages of development of the inpud 1,330 (66.5%) were registered in September 2006.
community About 670 students (33.5%) are not registered at
the InPUD community. We do not know if these
The InPUD community is continuously increas- “not registered persons” are lurkers or if they do
ing. Since the launch in May 2002, more than 1,330 not use the information portal.
registered participants have written more than About 868 members (of 1,330 registered
24,000 contributions. Registration and login is members) contribute actively. The other 462
only necessary when actively contributing. Obser- members are registered but did not post. We as-
vation and reading is possible without registration sume that these registered InPUD lurkers (23.1%
and without logging in; each user has access to of 2,000 students) want to show their interest in
all information. InPUD is used by more than 60% the community although they did not actively
of students within the Department of Computer participate. It gives different reasons why they
Science at the University of Dortmund. do not post (e.g., motivation, no personal need,
curiosity without exposure; see Section 2; cf.
0
Preece, 2000). Maybe they are waiting for “the marize, the purpose of the empirical procedure
right” moment for posting. was to help students build their online community
A core (of about 190) individuals regularly about study management. Besides the practical
provide contributions: ranging from 26 to 391 purposes, we used the project in order to study
postings (questions/answers) per individual. That people’s behavior, as well as emerging changes
is a significant number. The core members are of social structure and social roles in that online
the elders, leaders, and partly the regulars (cf. community.
Kim, 2000). The other 678 active members (167 Thus, the project was based on an empirical
and 511) make postings in the range from 1 to exploratory research method including ethno-
25. These members can be described as regulars, graphic observations and qualitative interviews
too, but include also novices and visitors (cf. and questionnaires as well as action research
Kim, 2000). processes. The exploratory method was essential
The InPUD discussion board provides an since we did not have sufficient theses in order
awareness tool (provides information about to explain why the students dropped their stud-
activities of the users, formal roles. and current ies. Action research is an iterative process that
status) that shows who and how many users are enables us to understand a social or sociotech-
online at a given time.13 The large number of nical phenomenon or to improve its quality. It
participants indicates that a significant number consists of several phases of analysis (reflection)
of students appreciate this form of knowledge and action (interventions) that are alternate and
sharing. They discuss, ask questions, answer the interwoven. Avison et al. (Avison, Lau, Neilsen,
questions of others, come up with new ideas, and & Myers, 1999) calls it a cycle of activities: “Ac-
help each other. tion research involving researchers and practi-
As already stated, the community also includes tioners acting together on a particular cycle of
lecturers and tutors as well as study management activities, including problem diagnosis, action
advisors. Therefore, it is possible to say that the intervention, and reflective learning (…) in real
success of the InPUD community can be mea- situations, gain feedback from this experience,
sured by the significant number of students who modify the theory as a result of this feedback,
actively participate. More than 60% of computer and try it again” (Avison et al.,1999, pp. 94-95).
science students participate and use the com- Our empirical procedure included the following
munity contents. phases of action research:
how we analyzed the problem: part 1: main steps of implementation

the action research process process
(an exploratory research method)
Identifying the problem(s): Based on semis-
Starting from the problem of the organization of tructured interviews, we found out the student’s
the study management, we started the WIS-proj- main problems with study management. The
ect14 in 2001. The aim was both first to find out, interviews, held between 2001 and 2002 with an
on the one hand, what the barriers to studying open-ended interview guide, included 14 people
were and to establish which factors lead to success face-to-face (8 students and 6 professors/lectur-
for students of computer science and second, to ers). The diversity of how students manage their
give the results back to the students in order to studies was summarized in the following nine
initiate a discussion about these issues. To sum- areas (main problems):
0
1. Students know the importance of attending of students know theoretically how to organize
lectures and learning groups, though they themselves for a successful computer science
do not attend courses.15 course, but they did not practice it.
2. Informal learning groups: students know In addition, the interviews and the question-
how helpful a learning group is, but a lot of naire should also find answers about “how to”
them do not create or participate. spread the main problems into the students’ groups
3. The city of residence of the students is often in order to create awareness and to encourage
not the same as the place where they study discussions about possible solutions. Hence, we
(many students travel to university each day decided to use Internet-based tools for two reasons:
by car or bus). (1) due to the large number of students that would
4. The majority of students take on jobs to fund be involved and (2) to document the process for
their studies; consequently, they have less the next generation of students. Thus, the way to
time to attend courses. an Internet-based information portal was built.
5. New students at German universities need
a high degree of self-organization, but they Creating an information portal: The inter-
have not learnt (and it has not been taught) view results gave the idea to create an Internet-
to organize themselves prior to attending based information portal that would offer an
university. overview of each lecture, seminar, and course per
6. There is a significant amount of information semester, a graphical plan of the first four semes-
available about computer science courses; ters (according to a bachelor degree). Second, the
however, there is no single portal organiz- portal would enable information from the study
ing this information. As a result, students management advisors and other university roles.
are forced to search through a jungle of In May 2002, the first prototype of the commu-
information to find a suitable course. nity system called “InPUD” (Informatic Portal
7. A large number of students say they become University of Dortmund: http://www.inpud.de)
disoriented during the regular nine semes- was launched.
ters (4-5 years), becoming unsure of when Support ways of active communication and
to attend which lectures and seminars and collaboration: Based on empirical insights into
when to register for which examinations. the InPUD prototype, we added a discussion
8. New students have a false impression of board about study management, the nine areas
what a course in computer science really (which see), and selected courses in September
entails. 2002. The aim was to improve the transparency
9. The university experience is not just about of the study management factors that are critical
studying, many students want to find out for success. Information about study management
about themselves and develop their own and seminar content was interwoven with online
personalities. discussion boards. Thus, a computer-mediated
knowledge-sharing system was created. The
Based on the empirical-based main problems, knowledge-sharing process was based upon volun-
a standardized questionnaire was sent out to tary participation. As we will describe later, that
the computer science students at the University was the beginning of an online community.
of Dortmund. Three hundred and eighty four Continuous improvement: From 2002 to
completed questionnaires were returned. This 2006, the project team enhanced the technical
represented a total of about 20% of all computer system and changed some things, for example, to
science students enrolled in the bachelor courses. improve the performance of the technical system.
The results confirmed the thesis: The majority Meanwhile, a lot of new discussion boards were
0
added, likewise more information about study based communities that depend on technically
management was included. The InPUD com- mediated communication. In the InPUD case, we
munity grew. have analyzed how people build social structures
in online communities. We subdivided social
part 2: analyzing the implementation structures with four criteria: network position,
process in order to study emerging task/activities, expectations, and role-playing
social structures (cf. Section 2). From our exploratory case study
about the online community InPUD (from 2001 to
Especially from 2002 to 2006, we analyzed the 2006), we can derive the following results. These
InPUD community and its emerging social struc- results, empirical-based theses, were derived from
tures based on the following research methods. our exploratory study. Hence, the results are not
First in 2003-2004, interviews with eight ex- representative, but can spark off new ideas and
perts were held face-to-face. The experts came innovative new theses about further visions of
from the area of study management, had experi- social structures of Internet-based knowledge
ences of “university management,” and knew sharing systems and online communities.
Web-based IT-Systems very well. We asked what
the crucial factors for successful study manage- (1) the member’s position in the
ment were, in order to compare the experts’ state- online community and changing of
ments with InPUD’s development. Based on the position
empirical results of the interviews with the experts,
we supported the InPUD community with new (.) Members Of Online Communities
ideas, for example, giving members with formal Build Different Qualities Of Social
roles a role name and making roles visible; for Relationships, Just in Time When
instance, the study management advisors were Needed
labeled explicitly. Furthermore, we conducted
participant observation of the online discussions We observed that the members of the InPUD
in InPUD from 2002-2006. Moreover, the analy- community, particularly students, develop social
sis also regarded user statistics, communication relationships online. Some people even build social
structures, as well as qualitative content analysis ties, for example, the same people met habitually
that focused on social relationships, to understand at the same discussion board at the same time.
the social interactions. Wenger et al. 2002 call these members “the core
As a result, in this exploratory action research of the community,” what Kim (2000) differentiates
process, we identified empirically based theses as elders, leaders, und regular members. (Novices
about the emergence of social structures through and visitors are outside of the core; rather on the
social interactive technologies. The results can be edge; cf. Kim, 2000). The emergences of social
found in the next Section, number 4. ties were affected by following aspects:
First, the analysis shows that it was not nec-
essary to create a face-to-face communication
social structures of the among students before the online community
inpud community was created. The students did not take advantage
of the opportunity to build social relationships at
Our empirical analysis focuses on social struc- face-to-face meetings (e.g., seminars, lectures)
tures and in particular, the development and because of the fact that there can be more than
dynamic of (existing and new) roles in Internet- several hundred students at lectures. Although the
0
interviewed experts said it would be important to can read all of the InPUD content. Registration is
promote face-to-face communication before cul- just required when anyone wants to give answers
tivating a Web-based community, we know today or pose questions. Additionally, the registration
that this is not correct for every online setting: needs just a username and an e-mail address.
we explain these differences with homogenous Finally, InPUD is open 24 hours a day, and
and heterogeneous groups. people are able to connect to others. Some stu-
Homogenous groups: The students of InPUD dents really answered questions and helped other
build homogenous interests and therefore, a face- students at night. Instead of one-to-many users’
to-face workshop is unnecessary. The underlying communication, InPUD is able to support the
idea is that homogenous groups have same (or communication from many-to-many users, and
similar) interests and therefore, the members act promote the “wisdom of the crowds” (Surowiecki,
truthful and rely on the others (in more detail, 2004).17
see point 3.1). In summary, these settings enable the InPUD
Heterogeneous groups include people who community and its members to build different
work in hierarchical dependences, for example, qualities of social relationships online, right at the
in the investigated case people work in different moment when people need knowledge. Therefore,
formal roles, for instance, they are advisors, part of the InPUD members combine their knowledge
the counseling services, at the examination office, and may develop their own understanding in a
at the registry office, and they are lecturers and collaborative effort.
so on. Such people, in different formal roles, do As mentioned in Section 2, each community
not have the same goals (although they may have includes also the role of lurkers: the majority of
many similar interests in the context of student the community members just read the informa-
support).16 Consequently, it might be better to cre- tion and do not actively participate. We could
ate a trust-building face-to-face workshop before observe this phenomenon also in the investigated
you support their knowledge sharing with IT. For InPUD community during the community stages
example, the “central office for study management of development; start (in 2002), phase of initial
at the university” creates a face-to-face workshop growth (2002-2004), and phase of sustainable
for advisors at each department. development (2005-2006). The InPUD lurkers
Second, the analysis of InPUD shows that did not give an active input. These people gain
the online communication, through the medium knowledge from other active members without
of the technical system, gives the community sharing. The high number of lurkers seems to be
members the opportunity to find people with the a problem. However, that is not a problem, since
same topic, problem, or passion. A person can they have the essential function of spreading in-
find people with the same interests within a large formation about the existence of the community
rather anonymous group. From the individual’s into other groups. The specific relationship that
viewpoint, a community helps her/him to become is developed between active members and lurkers
“someone with a (new) name”: a person who needs decides if the knowledge-sharing system works
information from others but also has information successfully.
for other people. Furthermore, in contrast to usual lurkers,
Third, the InPUD members could foster their some of the InPUD lurkers did not post but they
collaborative knowledge sharing under the con- were registered. We explain this phenomenon as
dition of a minimum of formal regulations and follows. These registered lurkers want to show
limited university control. For instance, without they are part of the community and they want
registration, every person, also external people, to support the community, but there are many
0
individual reasons why they do not post. Based on “personal relationship people have developed
Preece’s (2000, p. 89) research, this can include, with each other.” In the InPUD community, the
for example, personal factors, desire for privacy, relationships are built through computer-sup-
interaction mechanisms (fear of embarrassing ported communication over a period of time.
oneself), and the time for posting. She lists fur- Trust plays an important role. Fukuyama says that
ther reasons, based on empirical analysis, given social capital is the social capability that develops
by lurkers for not posting. It might be that such when trust in a social system exits (Fukuyama,
registered lurkers become active users later. 1995, p. 26). Finally, the cognitive dimension
identifies the “shared representations,” norms,
(1.2) The Visible Value Of Benefit; and “systems of meaning.”
Providing Immediate Support and In summary, the more members actively
Building More Social Capital participate, with personal relationships as well as
similar social values and meanings, the more social
Meeting on a virtual community platform has not capital will be created. According to Wellman et
the same quality as participating in a “bowling al. (Wellman, Hasse, Witte, & Hampton, 2001),
team” (Putnam, 1995). Nevertheless, for people who demonstrated that the Internet is increasing
who are unable to find other people with the same interpersonal connectivity and organizational
interests in face-to-face situations, meeting in an involvement, the empirical analysis show that In-
online community is better than not meeting at all. PUD leads also to an increase in social capital.
That is one essential and easy-to-know benefit. The building of social capital depends also on
The Internet-based InPUD community gives the quality of social ties. But the “development of
its members easy access to many people and their weak ties is better than not meeting at all” (Preece,
knowledge, this is called “social capital” of a 2000, p.24). The analysis gave some hints about
group. “Social capital is the sum of the resources, the core members of InPUD who built rather
actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a strong ties. The members do not share just pure
group by virtue of possessing a durable network information, but they also wrote some emotional
of more or less institutionalised relationships of sentences to create social relationships (cf. point
mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1.1 as well as point 1.3 about online presence
& Wacquant, 1992, p. 119). In other words, social and social proximity). For example, the members
capital is the access to people, their knowledge, “wish good luck for the exams” and said “thank
and possibly immediate support. A person knows you” when other people helped them.
someone, or someone of someone, who can help.
Such immediate help, for instance, a person’s (.) Online Presence and Social
problem can be solved immediately through other Proximity Through Technical Systems
people, is one of the added values of an online
community. To conclude, the access to a large Based on the InPUD analysis, some members are
social group is the potential for cultivating more better visible than others because of their numbers
social capital and knowledge sharing. or quality of contributions to online discussions
Nahapiet and Goshal (1998) distinguish the (similar to Kim, 2000: elders, leaders, and regulars
concept of social capital into three dimensions: vs. novices and visitors). The degree of online
The structural dimension identifies the “patterns presence affects the perception of the people,
of connections between actors - that is who you their expectations, and finally, their behavior. For
reach and how you reach them” (p. 244). Second, instance, such students who made postings more
the relational dimension describes the form of frequently and more regularly gave answers than
0
others (e.g., who are just one time contributors) have positive influences on the building of social
are more and better visible within the Web-based proximity.
community (cf. Section 3, statistic analysis: several
members post contributions every day). (2) tasks/activities in online
The people’s motivation behind this social communities
interaction, degree of online presence by writ-
ten contributions, is similar to aspect 1.1 (which The InPUD community has many participating
see): to build social ties. Furthermore, interviews members; hundreds of people who give ideas or
with students showed that some of them wanted share their knowledge online. The differences
to “break out” from the anonymous mass (from between communities and organizations, such
the large student’s group of about 2,000 mem- as companies and institutions, are the estab-
bers). The online community gives the students lished formal processes, work roles, and tasks.
the chance to keep in touch with people with the The InPUD community is successful due to the
same problems. A second argument is the “self- fact that it has less formal roles. That means for
profiling” (self-expression) of those people. Third, organizations with knowledge sharing problems,
other members respect members more when they they are not so successful since their processes are
are more present in InPUD. In other words, in more formalized. They might need the support
the minds of the users the more regular online of more informal communication, for example,
presence is connected with a higher degree of computer-supported communities or communi-
competency that can result in a higher status as- ties of practice.
signed by others to such “leaders.” To conclude, During the initial stages (in 2002), the majority
some interviewees assume a connection between of the InPUD community’s members occupied the
the frequency and quality of contributions, on the same position. Tasks were transparent for each
one hand, and a higher social status and acceptance new member. At the outset of InPUD, the main
in the community, on the other hand. Moreover, tasks were following:
such a higher online status also has impacts on
their lives outside of InPUD. These people might • Posting/contributing (function: provides
feel more confident in their face-to-face commu- information for the community or asks
nication as a result of their increased online social questions)
status. For instance, interviews with some students • Only reading (function: takes the informa-
at the Department of Computer Science showed tion and spreads it to the outside world)
that some students also know the strong members • Formal facilitating by academic staff (func-
personally, behind their usernames, and when they tion: gives rules, checks conventions)
want they could meet them face-to-face.
The online presence also influences kinds of In the initial growth phase (from 2002-2004),
“online social proximity” through the technical we observed that the members began to employ
system (what we describe as computer-mediated new forms to communicate. We define these
social proximity). Indicators for such online new forms as “informal posting activities.” For
proximity are emotional interaction patterns, example, some core members took the part of the
for example, they say “thank you” or wish “good informal moderator. They did not have the formal
luck” with exams and further hints. In summary, role of a moderator, but guided the other members
some contributions drift from the main topic, just with words. The following points illustrate the
pure information, to questions about personal differentiation of those informal posting activities
interests, for example, “where do you live?” that (in more detail see Herrmann et al., 2004):
0
• Author: Contributes information, communi- • Conclusion making:Adds comments to the

cates own ideas by writing short statements. process of communication; has an essential
InPUD members add own contributions and influence on the content discussion, for
ideas, for example, “It would be nice, if the example: “From my point of view, it looks
Department had a central Web site with all like ...” or “Summarized… .”
information about the computer science • Promoter of the procedure: Makes the
courses. Inpud is a good idea. Unfortunately current procedure more transparent; sup-
some people in the department do not work ports task completion; positively promotes
sufficiently with Inpud.” the discussion or activities; motivates to
• Scaffolding: Person who gives structure participate, for example: “Yes, I could ex-
to the discussion, for example: “Please, plain the seven answers of the exam after
look at the thread of study management, the exam – when there are enough students
before you ask the same questions like the who will participate. I suggest Wednesday,
others before“; “This question was already 14 February, 10am in room E28. I will not
answered in thread 19.” do this if there are just 3 or 4 people, so,
• Reading as visitor (cf. Kim 2000): Reads come on, and all come to the meeting.”
contributions of other users; visitor: only • Organizational supporter: Helps to give
interested in getting an orientation without another view of the activities (metalevel:
making own contributions (gets inspiration), communication about the communication),
for example, one member wrote: “I am not support to think about organizational con-
a member of this university.” ventions (e.g., how to communicate), for
• Conflict mediator: Acts as mediator in example: “Why have you written this posting
emotional conflicts (e.g., when two people three times? Please, wait a moment before
or more have a dispute); intervention in you write it again” or “You say that someone
emotional discussions (to enable the discus- says the script would be online, but where
sion to continue), for example: “I understand is it and who said this?”
your problem, and it is good that you want • Decision initiator: Combines diverging
to change something, but this thread is not contributions by relating them to a summa-
the right way to solve your problem. Would rizing statement; if the discussion diverges,
you mind talking with the professor face-to- the person calls for an informal vote to reach
face?” consensus, for example: “Do we share this
• Technical supporting: Solves technical view of the problem?”
problems (e.g., a person has problems with
the discussion board since it is off-line at the To conclude, during the growth phase, the In-
weekend; the technical-supporter helps and PUD community was able to build new informal
explains the use of the technical system), for roles. These developments are continuing.
example: “Why is the board so often off-line In the phases of sustainable development of
at the weekend?” The answer of a different InPUD (from 2005-2006), the analysis showed
user in the informal role of technical-helper particularly a lot of new members who were in
was: “I just asked the technical project formal roles, for example, moderating tasks by
team and they said they had upgraded the lecturers, academic staff, and professors). These
software. The new version should work in new formal members started a lot of new topics
two weeks. Hopefully they are right.” on the discussion boards (e.g., studying abroad,
0
women in computer science, discussions about 4. Trust in others’ played roles: which role does
new courses of bachelor and master). she/he play?
Nevertheless, the students, and not the formal
members, were the driving force behind InPUD. Internet-based communities (like the InPUD
Because of their high number as well as good community) need particularly pretrust in the
practice, they pushed the academic staff and beginning. Betrayal of trust can have a signifi-
other students to become involved in this online cant negative impact on the online community,
collaboration and communication. and can limit or dissolve collaborative learning.
“When there is trust among people, relationships
(3) expectations affecting the flourish; without it, they wither” (Preece, 2000, p.
behavior of other members 191). Therefore, the question is how to encourage
trust in computer-mediated communities?
(.) Trust (Implicit Expectation) Similar to Shneiderman’s model (2000) to
facilitate trust, we clarified the context; for ex-
All online communities build their potential on ample, we made transparent that InPUD is part
the basis of trust. Shneiderman (2000, p.58) says of the Department of Computer Science. Second,
that trust is “the positive expectation a person it was important to “make clear commitments,”
has for another person, organization, tool, or for instance, each board has a description about
process that is based on past performance and possible content and the announcement that “off
truthful future guarantees made by a responsible topic discussions will be deleted.” And finally,
person or organization.” The process of trust the trust building was supported by ensuring that
building in the Internet-based InPUD community each discussion board had one or more formal
is computer-mediated and based only on online moderators, a task that is obligatory taken by
communication with little face-to-face contact. academic personnel. The static information in
Hence, the InPUD members who communicate InPUD is also checked by the academic personnel,
with other InPUD users do not generally know in particular, by the administrators. Therefore, the
them outside of this virtual space. Furthermore, formal moderators, although they act as facilitator
anonymity can also be maintained, if desired, by moderately and not often, also gave the InPUD
the use of a discreet username. Similar to Schmidt community the context for facilitating trust.
(2000), we distinguish between four areas of trust.
These are design criteria for facilitating trust: (.) How Online Role Naming Affects
Expectations
1. Trust in the identity of the others: who is
the person behind the name that I see on In the case of the InPUD community, the formal
my computer screen? role of the moderator and others with respon-
2. Trust in the interests and motives of others: sibilities, such as study management advisors,
Which interests/motives does she/he fol- counseling services, or people offering course
low/have? Why does she/he communicate guidance, are integrated into the community
with me? Is the person acting faithfully and by an “online role presence,” for example, “Mr.
giving honest statements? Miller, Advisor of Study Management” or “Mrs.
3. Trust in the expertise of others: Does she/he Smith, Lecturer for Computer Science Study:
know enough about these things to help Human-Computer-Interaction.” To summarize,
me? the formal roles were visible when people com-
municated online.
0
This formal role presence also helps new ible. The moderators “must learn to achieve
community members who can easier assess the a balance,” (Preece, 2002, p. 291). In the
quality of information through the member’s InPUD case, “balance” means that the
role (e.g., formal moderator and advisors). The moderator should act in a moderate way, for
members, in particular students, ascribe more example, delete off-topic remarks, comment
expertise and knowledge to those members who on factually incorrect answers, clarify which
have formal roles. So, the empirical investiga- content may be discussed, which topics are
tion shows that online role presence is essential not required, and make them visible. To
when checking the quality of the given informa- summarize, the InPUD moderators have a
tion. In conclusion, the visible presence of role very moderate position; they only provide
names improves the ability to assess the quality answers when other students had no idea or
of the information given, and this may improve provided incorrect answers.
the frequency and quality of requests that finally • Other members, often students, also took part
encourage the members and affects the evolution in informal moderation activities. In InPUD,
of a community (cf. trust, in point 3.1). the formal moderator role is often supported
by students as informal moderator. These
(4) role-playing: the emergence of informal moderators help other members
online interaction patterns (roles) and tell them “how to ask questions” or tell
them that “this question has already been
The InPUD analysis illustrated the development answered on board 6” (cf. in particular
of roles over a period of time, for example, the point 2, the beginning of the development
interaction pattern of active people, the promoter, of tasks).
the conclusion maker, the decision initiator, and
the conflict mediator (cf. point 2: differentiations Besides these positive aspects of roles, com-
of informal activities). These perceivable inter- munity members can, however, also restrict
action patterns provided a structure for a joint the joint enterprise of knowledge sharing. The
online communication. We describe this by the behavior of the community members, especially
following examples: the moderators, affects the development of the
community: either the community will grow
• Our analysis of the InPUD community better, or the roles have a negative influence on
provides indices for the importance of a the community and cause problems. For example,
moderator (cf. point 3.2) and a promoter: a some people communicate in a negative way when
person who feels responsible for the growth they act carelessly with their choice of words. In
of the community. During the first stage of such cases, the members prevent the cultivation
InPUD’s development of a common culture of a common culture and even more, they can
(in 2002), the formal role of a moderator, destroy trust. In some of such cases in InPUD,
as well as a promoter, was essential. How- other members either did comment the behavior
ever, the frequency of their comments is as “not okay” or they ignore such behavior, they
less important than the fact that the other did not answer or opened new discussion threads.
(or new) members know that a moderator It is important to be aware of these problems.
exists and she/he can delete contributions In the case of “danger,” for example, too much
or comment on false contributions. If there negative influence, it is important to intervene, for
is a moderator’s role, it is also essential to example, as formal moderator, in order to support
make the rules and (off)topic contents vis- the “good” community members.

attractiveness of online necessary to make your personal goals, as well

communities: design criteria as your role, clear, and to compare it with the
community’s need.
The success of online communities depends upon
the interplay of social structures and technical 2. integration of web 2.0
systems: the attractiveness of the socio-techni- applications and critical mass
cal system promotes the online communication.
A socio-technical system, such as the InPUD If it is clear what kind of technical systems the
community, needs to be given the opportunity to group needs, Web 2.0 applications (or new forms of
develop itself, and give people the opportunity to them) should be integrated to the group as quickly
share their information. The members should be as possible in order to support the interests and
able to organize context, create online spaces for formal tasks of the users at their organizations
discussions, and be able to cultivate a common or companies. From the InPUD case, we know
culture of knowledge sharing. that it is important to support many-to-many
Resulting from our observations of the InPUD communication, and the possibility that users
community (cf. Section 4), in this section, we draw can discuss about information when they want.
some general aspects for the attractiveness and Hence, information and communication must be
designing of online communities. This conclu- combined to enable questions and answers. Thus,
sion might be applied to communities that are the creation of new knowledge is possible.
characterized by a large size and supplemented Second, it is essential to have a critical mass
to the formal company. However, we also suggest in the beginning. This is the number of people
these ideas for firm’s internal communities. at online communities who use the technical
system in order to communicate with each other.
1. identify the group and their It attracts other people to invest time at the same
problems community. This phenomenon is also discussed
as the “cold start problem.” Markus and Connolly
According to most designers and researchers, we (1990) showed that in cooperative settings, the use
have no doubt that it is essential to understand the of the technical system increases with the number
group for whom you are designing a community. of users, while the cost for an individual’s use stays
Hence, the possible community members should stable and individual benefit increases. If there are
be consulted and involved in the design process not enough users, the cost/benefit balance is nega-
from the start (cf. Preece et al., 2004, p. 4). tive. An indicator for a well-designed community
The first “To Do” is to identify the group. system is the growth without external marketing.
Furthermore, it is necessary to answer at least For example, the InPUD community grew without
following questions: What problem is the group marketing or any external advertising. Although
faced with? Why do they have insufficient contact, we did not make external marketing, we already
communication, and/or collaboration? Second, if had a lot of participants in the beginning.
the group and the problems are clearer, you can In addition, the project team should ensure just
ask what technical system(s), for example Web2.0 a minimum of formal regulations. That means
applications, are appropriate to support the “new low level of control by project team and company
way” of communication, cooperation, or the leaders. A knowledge-sharing process, which is
social networking. From our empirical analysis, based on the willingness of individual users and
we suggest to ask some people who could be participation is not obligatory, might work better
participants at the new community. Finally, it is than other communities. Furthermore, a success

factor is also the support of rather less formal organization, role names. To conclude, make the
roles, but more members in informal roles (in more less formal roles present in order to show what
detail see Section 4). This factor is closely linked posting comes from what role. Such explicit role
with the next aspect, which is called as “facilitate names (which should comprehensible and not too
the social dynamic” (see point 3). artificial) might help to assess the given informa-
tion. This also affects trust and reliability for the
3. interviewing the people, support community members.
communication about the
community 4. ensure sustainable development
by enabling possible changes
Whilst the whole process of cultivating of an
online community, conduct interviews with pos- From our InPUD analysis, we suggest to support
sible community members about “what is good” social integration, for example: Are the members
and “what could be better.Such a continuous able to exchange their knowledge amongst differ-
evaluation leads to a better understanding of the ent communities and does the technical system
community, and gives ideas for redesigning, not of the community offers the building of diverse
only in the case or problems. networks? This is important also with regard to
Similar to the success factor “minimum of Davenport (2005, p.162f.). His research confirmed
formal regulations,” also the aspect “facilitate the that knowledge workers who are high perform-
social dynamic” includes the support of interac- ers have larger, “stronger and more diverse net-
tions and communication. Following questions works to which they can turn for information”
might help: Could participants constantly read than lower performers. To summarize, it seems
new documents, annotations, and so forth? Do to be essential to support diverse networks, as
members reply relative immediately to questions well as possible changes at the community: Are
from others? How can actors and new members the members able to influence the structure of
react to contributions of other actors? Is the in- the community in accordance with their needs?
teraction between new user and actors, or among Does a person have the opportunity to develop
actors in general, rather complicated, emotional, personally, for example to get more prestige, and
or just okay? To conclude, the support of social have the community members the possibility to
dynamic also means to give people the possibil- create new social networks?
ity to create relationships and the opportunity Finally, from our 5-year research about the
for social networking to enable collaboration and InPUD case, we also recommend an action re-
knowledge sharing. search process with iterative learning cycles. For
Furthermore, ensure a “sufficient quality of this, Preece (2000, p. 291) provides further design
content.” Following questions might be helpful to criteria: a checklist with eight heuristics (usability
achieve that goal: What information is presented? and sociability concerns) for guiding the develop-
Do the members comment on wrong information? ment process and planning evaluations.
Which different roles have been created over time
and who takes part? Once again, are content and
discussion about it integrated in order to promote conclusion
active interactions? A further aspect is to facilitate
the assessment of the quality of the given informa- Knowledge management studies reveal that
tion. One success factor is to give participants, online communities or communities of practice
who take formal roles, for example, staff of the (Wenger, 1998) positively promote knowledge

sharing in organizations. They initiate and en- regulation. For example, the InPUD community
hance information exchange among many people is beginning to create new social conventions, for
in different departments (e.g., Lesser & Prusak, example, new activities and new informal roles
1999; Wenger et al., 2002). Our empirical study, could be observed (cf. Section 4). However, as
mentioned in this publication, also confirmed mentioned in Section 4, these social mechanisms
this thesis. However, our viewpoint focused on can also lead to more social control. These results
the dynamic development of social structures are in accordance with Giddens’ (1984) theory
in the computer-mediated communications of a of the “duality of structures”: on the one side the
big group. structures are composed by those who interact,
Although the InPUD community is different and simultaneously, on the other side, the rules,
from a community created in a firm or from a values, and social relationships are produced and
large international community, we assume that reproduced during social interaction. Both sides
the results (Section 4) as well as the design criteria influence each other.
(Section 5) may be applied for resembling com- Additionally, we have observed that on the
munities with similar attributes, that is, rather one hand, computer-mediated communication can
large communities, lifespan of several years or lead to new social structures (e.g., new informal
more, especially online communication than activities), and on the other hand, the initially
face-to-face. established structures do affect the online com-
Section 4 confirms that members of an on- munication. The members built social structures
line community develop new social structures, through the use of the technical system.
although the InPUD community was only sup- Nevertheless, the emergence of social struc-
ported by a minimum of formal regulations (e.g., tures in online settings leads to a similar differ-
few formal roles, easy log in). entiation as in “physical” societies. The observed
Furthermore, the explanation of the ongoing roles affect social distinctions. Therefore the line
quantitative development of InPUD users refers of thought that “all people are the same” when they
to the continuing evolution of social relationships communicate in online communities must be re-
and ties between its users, which is mirrored in jected. The dynamic of social structures in online
their interactions and written contributions. A communities does make a difference. However,
clear willingness to be helpful to others has been the difference between online and face-to-face
observed. The students developed an interest in settings is following: People who have had bad
the careers of others, although they often only experiences in online settings, for instance, unex-
knew them through InPUD. Due to the activities pected behavior in contrast to the self-description
of its users, InPUD has become a continuously of the online community, are able to participate
growing and helpful database for successfully again by using another nickname, that is not (so
organizing and answering questions about the easily) possible in the “real” world.
study of computer science. Summarized, the empirical aspects (of Section
Moreover, the analysis of the InPUD case 4), emergence of informal roles; visible formal
showed the evolution of social structures. Active roles, providing immediate support and building
social interactions and communication about in- social capital online; enabling social presence,
formation led to new “behavior settings,” rules, building social proximity and trust “through”
and conventions. In the stages of growth, the the technical system, are characteristics of the
online community InPUD formed new social developed results of the social structure over
structures that depend on computer-mediated time at the InPUD community.
communication, and led to technically mediated Although the InPUD case did not include

all technical features as discussed with respect generation (e.g., Web 3.0) when we move from a
to Web 2.0 (cf. Section 1), the success of this social to a socio-technical society.
community was evidently driven by the spirit
underlying of Web 2.0: The evolution of reli-
able, social relationships and the development of acKnowledgment
a valuable basis of content and communication
“through” user-generated content are highly in- I would like to thank Thomas Herrmann for
terweaved. This process was based on a minimum giving me the opportunity to work and carry out
of formal regulations and control, and on only a research in the field of socio-technical systems
very moderate intervention by moderators. We and roles. I gratefully acknowledge and thank
strongly believe that these ingredients are the him for his supervision, help, and advice not only
fundamentals upon fundaments on which the throughout my work on the InPUD project, but
further emergence of Web 2.0, a socio-technical also in developing my own role. I also would like
phenomenon, is based. to thank Volker Mattick, who I worked together
with on this project, and to everyone who made my
research studies such a fulfilling experience.
future research directions
In further research, we will more deeply evaluate references

the quantitative network of the InPUD members,
for example, analyzing who persons communicate Avison, D., Lau, F., Neilsen, P. A., & Myers,
with whom and how often. Furthermore, the ques- M. (1999). Action research. Communications of
tion of how strong the InPUD’s relationships really ACM, 42, 94-97.
are should be investigated in further research.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis.
Moreover, further research should focus also
A method for the study of a small group. Chicago:
on the question of community boundaries in rela-
The University of Chicago Press.
tion to online networks and their affects on the
Internet-based society. Do online communities Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966): Role theory:
build new social boundaries or will they build Concepts and research. New York: John Wiley.
a free-open network where everybody is able
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invita-
to participate without boundaries? Will system
tion to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University
boundaries be dissolved or will they emerge on
of Chicago Press.
a higher level?
In addition, further research should also in- Coakes, E. (2002). Knowledge management: A
vestigate if and how the development of social sociotechnical perspective. In E. Coakes, D. Wil-
structures in online communities leads to new lis, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Knowledge management
social boundaries (e.g., new members could in the sociotechnical world. The graffiti continues
be excluded; closed vs. open system) or if and (pp.4-14). London: Springer.
how the social dynamic leads to new forms of
Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Homo sociologicus. Op-
sociotechnical phenomena and the potential for
laden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
business companies.
To summarize, we want to find answers to Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living.
these research questions to enable us to learn How to get better performance and results from
more about the Web 2.0 phenomenon and the next knowledge workers. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. The social virtues tion of interdependent work tools. In Proceedings
and the creation of prosperity. New York: The of the ACM conference on Computer-supported
Free Press. cooperative work (pp. 371-380). Los Angeles:
ACM Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society.
Cambridge: Polity Press. Nahapiet, J., & Goshal, S. (1998). Social capi-
tal, intellectual capital and the organizational
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak
advantage. Academy of Management Review,
ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-
23(2), 242-266.
1380.
O’Reilly, T. (2005): What Is Web 2.0? Design
Herrmann, T., Jahnke, I., & Loser, K. U. (2004).
patterns and business models for the next gen-
The role concept as a basis for designing commu-
eration of software. Retrieved June, 25th, 2007,
nity systems. In F. Darses, R. Dieng, C. Simone, &
from http://tim.oreilly.com/
M. Zackland (Eds.), Cooperative systems design.
Scenario-based design of collaborative systems Preece, J. (2000). Online communities. Design-
(pp. 163-178). Amsterdam: IOS Press. ing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester:
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Jary, D., & Jary, J. (Eds.). (1991). The Harper
Collins directory of sociology. New York: Harper Preece, J., Abras, C., & Maloney-Krichmar, D.
Collins. (2004). Designing and evaluating online com-
munities: Research speaks to emerging practice.
Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the
International Journal Web based Communities,
Web. Secret strategies for successful online com-
1(1), 2-18.
munities. Berkeley: Peachpit.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s
Koch, M. (2002). Interoperable community plat-
declining social capital. Journal of Democracy,
forms and identity management in the university
6(1), 65-78.
domain. The International Journal on Media
Management, 1, 21-30. Schmidt, M. P. (2000). Knowledge communities.
Munich, Germany: Addison-Wesley.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning.
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Shneiderman, B. (2000). Designing trust into
Cambridge University Press. online experiences. Communication of ACM,
43(12), 57-59.
Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (1999). Communities of
practice, Social capital and organizational knowl- Snyder, W. M. (1997). Communities of practice:
edge. Information Systems Review, 1(1), 3-9. Combining organizational learning and strategy
insights to create a bridge to the 21st century.
Mackinnon, L. (2006). Questioning the level of
Presented at the 1997 Academy of Management
correspondence between structure in economic
Conference, p. 3.
theory and the structure in real world economic
systems. University of Queensland, Australia. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why
Retrieved June 10th, 2007, from http://eprint. the many are smarter than the few and how collec-
uq.edu.au/archive/00004559/01/Structure_in_ tive wisdom shapes business, economies, societies
economic_systems.pdf and nations. Doubleday, Random House inc.
Markus, M. L., & Connolly, T. (1990). Why Wellman, B., Hasse, A., Witte, J., & Hampton,
CSCW applications fail: Problems in the adop- K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease or

2
supplement social capital? Social networks, par- Altruism usually means helping another
ticipation and community commitment. American person without expecting material reward
Behavioral Scientist, 3(45), 437-456. from that person, although it may include
the intrinsic motivated benefit of a “good
feeling” (as sense of satisfaction).
Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 3
We got inspirations of the “interaction proc-
9(5- June).
ess analysis” of Bales (1950). He developed
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. a method for the study of small groups in
(2002). Cultivating communities of practice. A face-to-face situations.
4
guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: The standard length of an undergraduate
Harvard Business School Press. computer science degree in Germany is
nine semesters (4-5 years). The majority of
Williams, R. L., & Cothrel, J. (2000). Four smart
students take 12-14 semesters to complete
ways to run online communities. Sloan Manage-
their course (6-7 years).
ment Review, Summer, 81-91. 5
German students have often a high degree
of freedom: the decision of when to attend
lectures or seminars (in which semester) or
additional reading even when to take examinations (in which
semester) is left to the discretion of each
Herrmann, T., Kunau, G., Loser, K.-U., & Menold, student.
6
N. (2004). Sociotechnical walkthrough: Designing InPUD is an acronym for Informatics Portal
technology along work processes. In A. Clement, University of Dortmund (Germany) and can
F. Cindio, A. M. Oostveen, D. Schuler, & P. van den be found at http://inpud.cs.uni-dortmund.
Besselaar (Eds.), Artful integration: Interweaving de
7
media, materials and practices. Proceedings of German universities offer multitudes of
the Eighth Participatory Design Conference 2004 lectures and students have to create their
(pp. 132-141). New York: ACM Press. own semester plan for lectures; meaning
they can choose which lectures they attend
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R., & Jochems, W. (2004).
and when to attend them.
The effect of functional roles on group efficiency. 8
The community grew without marketing or
In Small Group Research, 35(2), 195-229.
any external advertising.
9
Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is vir- WIS is an abbreviation for the project “De-
tually a social network. In S. B. Kiesler (Ed.), velopment the Computer Science” at the
Cultures of the Internet (pp. 179-205). Hillsdale, University of Dortmund (Prof. Dr. Thomas
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Herrmann). It was promoted by the state of
North Rhine Westphalia (Germany) from
2001-2004.
10
It is not obligatory for German computer
endnotes science students to attend lectures in order
to take the examinations.
1
Taxonomy is the practice and science of 11
People have not the same goals since the role
classification of data, photos, pictures, and “study management advisors” is perceived as
so on. “just an add-on job” that must be conducted

12
by the academic staff from the Department Surowiecki argues that the aggregation of
of Computer Science. This job is an add-on information in groups, resulting in decisions,
job besides research activities, lectures, and is often better than by any single member
doctoral thesis. Hence, from the viewpoint of the group.
of such people, the job “study management”
is not their priority.

Chapter XI
Information Technology in
Times of Crisis:
Considering Knowledge Management for
Disaster Management
Kalpana Shankar Sam Shoulders

Indiana University, USA Indiana University, USA
David J. Wild Sheetal Narayanan

Indiana University, USA Indiana University, USA
Jaesoon An
Indiana University, USA
abstract
Crisis and disaster management requires the sharing of complex information among numerous entities
and individuals. Traditional knowledge management techniques are being used in government agencies
responsible for disaster management, but many new technologies and practices, particularly the Internet
and Web 2.0, are creating opportunities for individuals, responders, and trainers to share what they
know and to acquire needed information, and prepare for the next crisis. However, the use of networked
technologies, like the Internet, is still in its infancy, and the use of them diffuse, with very little cohesion
among researchers and practitioners in disaster management. We argue that although the Internet is
already in extensive use in disaster management, knowledge management will only be effected if top-down
and bottoms-up approaches to information gathering, organization, and dissemination are implemented.
The aim of this chapter is to provide an introduction to some of the many technologies, practices, and
open problems for knowledge sharing in disaster situations, outline some persistent challenges, and
suggest venues for exploration and practice.
Information Technology in Times of Crisis
introduction primarily been shaped by and for the needs of

the private sector. Such efforts have been char-
Information and knowledge are at the heart of acterized by the boundedness of the organization
disaster preparation, response, mitigation, and in which KM is deployed, relative coherence
recovery. Large-scale crises require the coordi- of goals and plans, and the ability to take for
nation of local, regional, and national agencies, granted the kinds of knowledge and skills to be
getting information to and from affected individu- captured and disseminated. However, the Inter-
als and channeling the efforts of volunteers and net, and disasters themselves, of course, are not
private entities. Increasingly, the coordination bounded. Since KM has traditionally been tied
of community-based organizations, individual to specific organizational objectives, it is a chal-
volunteers, major disaster-relief organizations, lenge to consider how its tenets and technologies
and government and corporate entities is accom- can be used in different cross-organizational and
plished through the use of the Internet and other informal contexts. It is also necessary to recon-
networked technologies. The sheer quantity of sider the context of design and use, since most
information that is needed to handle the impact of approaches to KM have relied on static processes
both human-made and natural disasters, manage and knowledge basis of metadata and described
situations on the ground during such crises, and documents (Butler, 2003), neither of which holds
learn enough to make the aftermath smoother in the context of disasters.
and the “next one” less traumatic, presents nu- For example, capturing and displaying the
merous possibilities for knowledge management kinds of information needed by officials who are
technologies and practices, where. The Internet, charged with mobilizing resources and assessing
as in so many other contexts, is both a blessing impacts require large quantities of free-text data
and a curse in this regard. Its scope and imme- and text drawn from reliable sources. Secure
diacy make it extremely useful for disseminating transmission of classified data may be required
information over wide areas, courting feedback, and is not always possible over the Internet. At
sharing information, and presenting information the other end of the scale, families and individu-
in multiple languages and formats (video, images, als affected by a disaster may need to use the
and sound, among others). At the same time, the Internet to contact family and friends, apply
Internet cannot necessarily be relied on in times for benefits, or scan and post photos of missing
of crisis, as it is dependent upon the persistence friends or family members. In some cases, the
of other infrastructural technologies, it is not affected individuals may not be at all familiar
universally accessible or usable, and still presents with accessing the Internet. In short, disasters and
challenges for the secure verification and valida- disaster recovery challenge human and technical
tion of information. systems and what we know about infrastructural
Nevertheless, the Internet and knowledge technologies, social technologies (those that are
management (KM), in general, have an increasing designed and used specifically for collaboration
role to play in disaster mitigation and recovery and communication), systems and information
at all levels, local to global. Both will be essen- design, and the organization of information.
tial in coordinating the actions of human beings At first glance, KM in the disaster manage-
with no common authority who must cooperate ment setting may seem most applicable to formal
around hastily formed networks (Denning, 2006). organizational structures (such as local, regional,
However, making the most of these technologies and national government), but we argue that it is
will require some rethinking of KM, which has a valuable technology for the kinds of grassroots
0
engagement in disaster preparedness, mitigation, the Internet has made context-sensitive design
response, and recovery. This particular area difficult, however.
of disaster management, the use of informa- In this chapter, we argue that the Internet,
tion and the communication of it in crisis, has and other networked technologies in service of
a short history as a research field, with many disaster management, require top-down technol-
empirical studies and little theoretical framing ogy development and implementation through the
(Falkheimer & Heide, 2006). Many of the studies development and deployment of standards and
have focused on description with little overlap technologies, but that knowledge cannot be fully
with the engineering literature on infrastructure utilized without grassroots engagement. While
and technology. Not surprisingly, there has been this may seem obvious, considering knowledge
even less theoretical literature in this arena in- management in crises requires an integration of
tegrating knowledge management practices into networked technologies, social technologies, and
the discourse of community-based approaches practices that draw out tacit knowledge from both
to disaster management, although there has been to inform future learning.
more descriptive and anecdotal work. We provide the reader with an overview of
However, some recent research has been con- the state of the art by discussing the context of
ducted towards the aim of creating an appropriate disaster management, and some of the issues
framework for data collection and analysis in the that make it challenging for traditional KM. We
role of local knowledge networks in disasters (De- derive strategies of managing disaster knowledge,
kens 2007). Dekens suggests that local knowledge outline promising Internet technologies and bot-
for disaster management can be assessed on four tom-up practices of disaster management, com-
dimensions: observation of a disaster, anticipa- munication technologies that aggregate useful
tion through monitoring, communication strate- information, and strategies of transforming the
gies, and adaptation. All of these dimensions of collated information into disaster knowledge (i.e.,
knowledge can be augmented through the use of KM strategies, perhaps the most intriguing uses
the Internet. Kitamoto (2005) posits an informa- of the Internet for disaster management). The
tion aggregation model that models information chapter concludes with discussion of some of our
systems as a network of information sources, current research efforts in this arena, and some
mediators of that information, and the recipients open challenges for using the Internet and KM
of that information, with or without a hub. in disaster situations.
Thinking about how information is shared
across networks like the Internet in crisis and disasters and crises: understanding
disaster management requires a good under- context
standing of human computer interaction design
(HCI). HCI is complex due to the unpredictable Turoff et al. (Turoff, Chumer, Van de Walle, Yao,
nature of human behavior. These interactions 2004) argue that an emergency system not used
usually occur in dynamic situations in which the on a regular basis before an emergency will never
outcomes and expectations are constantly being be of use in an actual emergency. Hence, a system
renegotiated by the status of the situation. The must be used frequently, in prior, in training and
environment is generally very chaotic and often simulation. Related to this is the importance of
life threatening. HCI designers have to be aware aggregating crisis memory for the improvement
of these characteristic constraints. The nature of of response processes. Instead of remaining static,
the system must be evolved and improved by

capturing history of what took place and learning formalized communication in

from the history. disasters
Their second premise emphasizes the impor-
tance of attaining situation information that allows traditional communication
responders to picture the full context surround- technologies
ing the emergency situation. The system must
allow for free communication and information Two-Way Radios
exchange among many individuals dealing with
interpretation and actions at different levels of the Two-way radios are extremely well established,
operation. In addition, the system must be able to and are the primary means of local communica-
refine the communicated data into valid and timely tions for public safety and volunteer agencies in
information about the developing situation to help routine and disaster work for voice, and increas-
responders make execution decisions appropriate ingly digital, information. Radios may be handheld
for the situation. Knowing what data is current (small portable units than can be carried on the
and what the source is (i.e., accuracy and status person, sometimes known as HTs, or portables),
of the data) is as important as the data itself. mobile (higher power radios designed for instal-
Turoff et al.’s third premise is that almost ev- lation in vehicles), or base stations (designed for
erything in a crisis is an exception to the norm, installation in buildings). These radios work in
that is, things no one thought of and prepared for one of a number of bands based on the parts of the
occur in an emergency situation. It is impossible radio frequency spectrum in which they operate.
to predict who will undertake what specific role in The most common are HF (high frequency, also
a crisis situation. This implicates the importance known as shortwave), VHF (very high frequency),
of ensuring flexibility of the system so that indi- and UHF (ultra high frequency).
viduals of appropriate talent and background can Radio communications are either simplex
be formed into a response team for each incident. or repeater based. Simplex communications are
Furthermore, roles often need to change during direct radio-radio communications, and with the
the response process; the system must allow for exception of HF band radios, are typically very
apt coordination of changes in responsibility and short range. Handheld and mobile radios working
accountability. in simplex mode have a maximum range of only a
Given these exigencies, it is not surprising that few miles in ideal conditions; often the practical
most technologies in support of disaster manage- range is much less. Thus, repeaters are widely
ment are usually very formalized, and revolve used to extend the range of handheld and mobile
around traditional communication technologies radios. Repeaters are units that listen on one (in-
(two way radios, and so on). However, they form put) frequency and transmit what they receive on
the backbone of knowledge management for both another (output) frequency. They typically have
formal organizations and citizens engaged in receive-and-transmit antennas on high locations
disaster management. Networked technologies (e.g., antenna towers). Handheld and mobile radios
(which can be used on any network, including the are set to transmit on the repeater input frequency,
Internet) are now starting to be used in addition to and receive on the repeater output frequency, so
these traditional technologies. In the next section, all radio communications are picked up by the
we review some of the existing technologies and repeater and are retransmitted from the high van-
introduce some of the recent network technologies tage point for other radios to receive. Repeaters
that could change practices in the future. generally increase the coverage of handheld and

mobile units to tens of miles, enough to cover an Hurricane Katrina (Krakow, 2005)). Amateur
area of jurisdiction or a small- to medium-sized radio communications are generally the first to be
area. However, when operating in this mode, restored and the last to be destroyed in a disaster
radios are critically dependent on the repeater(s), (Townsend & Moss, 2005). In the United States,
and in disaster scenarios, fixed repeaters often are the establishment of the Amateur Radio Emer-
knocked out of service. gency Service (ARES) and the Radio Amateur
In order that frequencies be used more ef- civil emergency service (RACES) has meant that
ficiently, trunked radio systems (TRSs) have most communities have groups of amateur radio
emerged, and have become popular for public volunteers ready to establish emergency com-
safety and some business use. In a TRS, a small munication networks with their own equipment,
number of input-output frequency pairs (typically should the need arise.
3-20) are allocated and licensed, and a repeater
is set up to operate on each frequency pair. Con- Land-Line Phones
ventionally, this would allow as many user groups
to have “private” communications as there were The public switched telephone network operates
frequency pairs. However, in a trunked system, very reliably in normal situations. However, the
user groups (and radios) are assigned talkgroup network capacity is designed for normal loads,
ID’s, and the radios will only replay communica- and so, in disaster situations, it can quickly be
tions tagged for that particular talkgroup. When overloaded (Bell, 1993; Townsend & Moss, 2005).
a radio transmits, a trunking controller allocates Because of this, the Government Emergency
the radio broadcast to a repeater frequency. Ra- Telecommunications Service (GETS) has been
dios on the system scan all of the frequencies, established to permit certain government and
and will respond to communications broadcast non-governmental phone users to have priority
for the talkgroup(s) they are programmed to re- in times of national, regional, or serious local
ceive. Thus, many hundreds of user groups can emergency (Townsend & Moss, 2005) This system
share a system using only a few frequencies, and did seem to work effectively in the aftermath of
the number of repeaters can be adjusted based Hurricane Katrina, with 94% of GETS calls being
on demand. Popular trunking systems are LTR completed successfully (McGregor, Craighill, &
(mainly for business users), EDACS, a variety of Mosley, 2006).
systems by Motorola, and TETRA (in Europe).
The TRS concept has been recently expanded Cellular and Satellite Telephones
to create statewide public safety radio networks
(with multiple repeater sites throughout the state) Cellular phones are now ubiquitous, and thus,
that operate in a similar manner to a cell phone when they operate reliably, have proved to be an
network. excellent way of communicating emergency infor-
In the United States, as well as around the mation routinely (911 calls, communication with
world, there is a thriving community of amateur family, and so on). However, they have also been
radio operators who are tested and licensed to shown to have two problems in disaster situations:
operate a variety of two-way radios. This com- cellular networks tend to become overloaded in
munity has demonstrated consistent utility in widespread emergencies, and cellular towers can
emergency situations, often being able to establish be easily disabled by adverse conditions (such as
short- and long-range voice and digital commu- loss of power or high winds). The former problem
nications when other methods have failed (for can, to some degree, be subverted by the use of
example in 9/11 (Lindquist & Ortiz, 2001) and text messaging (which see), although 911 centers

are not currently set up to receive text messages. and All Hazards Radio are often interlinked,
Despite these problems, it was interesting that in broadcasting each others’ messages.
the aftermaths of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, cel- Other local systems may be employed in com-
lular networks were among the first infrastructure munities, including dedicated radio receivers for
elements to be restored, due to the deployment of schools, companies, and other key installations
temporary, mobile towers by the cellular network that receive local emergency broadcasts, warning
companies. A wireless equivalent of GETS, the sirens, and so on.
wireless priority service (WPS) also seemed to
work reasonable well during Katrina, with 84% emerging network technologies
of calls being completed successfully (McGregor
et al., 2006) Meissner et al. (Meissner, Luckenbach, Risse,
Satellite phones can be used in almost any Kirste, & Kirchner, 2002) describe three kinds
situation, and so long as a connection can be made of communication networks that are likely to be
with a satellite, they are generally very reliable of importance in future disaster situations: wide
for point-to-point communications. However, area networks, linking the disaster area to the
they are expensive. outside world (such as government authorities),
local area networks, linking command posts and
Emergency Alerting Systems personnel in the disaster area, and “personal area
networks,” linking sensors and displays on the
Several systems exist in the U.S. for alerting people bodies of first responders. These networks would
to local and national hazards. The most widely properly integrate together, permitting all kinds of
used and employed is the National Weather Ser- information, from small granularity (e.g., sensor
vice’s All-Hazards Radio (recently renamed from readings on first responders) to large granularity
weather radio to reflect its use for non-weather (e.g., strategic decisions), to be accessed at any
related emergencies). The all-hazards radio sys- point.
tem employs radio towers, covering most of the There exist two major barriers to implementing
U.S., that routinely broadcast weather forecast networks of varying granularities: reliability of
and condition information on VHF frequencies, information communication performance (e.g.,
and in case of a local or national weather or other transmitting images over low-bandwidth radio
emergency, broadcast an alert tone (including systems), and lack of integration of information
digitized county information) followed by the sources. The latter is likely to be the most difficult
emergency message. All hazards radio decod- problem, as there are so many kinds of sources,
ers/receivers can be bought by members of the proprietary formats, and kinds of communications
public for U.S. $20-$100. media to be considered. However, it is possible that
A related system is the emergency alert system standards will develop for the communication of
(EAS), administered by the FCC and based on disaster information. One example of this is the
the prior cold-war Emergency Broadcast System. common alerting protocol (CAP) for transmission
Through arrangements with local radio and of alert messages. Because of their lack of critical
cable TV stations, EAS messages are distributed dependence on terrestrial infrastructure, satellite
through a network of primary and secondary radio systems are also likely to play a greater role in
stations using decoders at the station sites. EAS disasters, particularly after successes during 9/11
was developed primarily for use for presidential and Katrina (Taylor & Skjei, 2002), although cost
address during a national emergency such as a still precludes widespread use by first responders,
nuclear attack, but it has been also widely used volunteer groups, and so on.
to alert the public about local emergencies. EAS

While effective “top down” planning for the The wireless mesh networks have wireless
use of these newer network technologies is nec- mesh routers and clients connected through the
essary for disaster preparation, it is clearly not mesh topology, and are a mix of fixed and mobile
sufficient. It has become apparent that each major nodes. Multihop technique is used to forward
disaster has unique technology issues, and often, data to and from the Internet; only one of the
groups have to be involved that were not part of mesh nodes needs to have an Internet connection
the planning process (Marcy, 2005). Further, the for this to work. The routers perform the role of
pace of technological innovation means that new the backbone, and also have the gateway/bridge
technologies are often available that can help in functionality, which makes it easier to connect it
disasters (such as WiMAX in Hurricane Katrina to other networks such as the Internet, Cellular,
(Jordan, 2006)) that have not had time to be in- Wi-Fi, and so forth. Each node can dynamically
cluded in plans. Simply investing in immature join the network, and can act as both a client and
technologies is not in itself effective, as these a router. Deploying wireless mesh networks is
technologies have not had time to be tested in relatively easy, as most of the components are
real situations (Townsend & Moss, 2005). Thus, available and have been used in the wireless
there is much interest in ways of harnessing “bot- network protocols.
tom up” innovative technological use in a timely Redundancy is very high, but scalability and
manner during actual disasters, and researching quality of service of real-time services are difficult
ways in which this activity can be encouraged to achieve. Self-healing and dynamic reconfigu-
and supported. ration (updating of connection information and
optimization of the connections) are two important
Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks, Mesh, and features of the MESH networks that make them
Peer-to-Peer Networks very useful in emergency situations.
Related to MESH networks are the more
Local area wireless networks are now widely generalized Peer-to-Peer networks in which a
used in metropolitan areas. Wireless routers that group of computers can collaborate and share
establish these local wireless networks over a information without the need for a centralized
range of typically 100 feet are widely available, server. Whilst developed primarily for file shar-
and are used in many homes and small businesses ing, such systems are clearly robust and redundant
to connect multiple computers to the Internet. and thus, provide a good model for information
More advanced networks are deployed in large sharing in disasters.
buildings (such as airports) and common spaces
that have multiple access points that allow wider Voice Over IP (VOIP)
coverage of the network. A further development
on this theme is the MESH network, which uses Voice over IP is a technology that enables send-
specially modified routers that work together in ing of voice, like data packets, over the Internet
an extensible ad-hoc network (Akyildiz, Wang, using the Internet Protocol (IP) (Robins, 2006).
& Wang, 2005; Bruno, Conti, & Gregori, 2005). The voice data is first converted to a digital
This network can be a fully connected network signal that is then compressed and broken down
(full mesh), where every node in the network is into small packets. Each packet contains the
connected to every other node in the network, or destination address, and can be routed in differ-
a partial mesh, where few nodes would be fully ent directions; they are then reassembled at the
connected and the other few would be connected destination. VoIP has many applications, of which
to only few other nodes. Internet Telephony is the most popular (Jordan,
2006), followed by Conferencing and Fax over

IP. Various technologies are also emerging for organizational use. The bottoms-up approach
interfacing two-way radios with the Internet us- to disaster management is one that relies heav-
ing VoIP (Kaluta, 2006). ily on local knowledge, informal networks, and
transmission of context and content: arenas in
Distributed Sensors which the Internet has long been employed to
connect disparate communities of interest, and
The establishment of personal area networks can share information without extensive training.
allow individuals to participate in data collection This kind of information has always been the
and communication. However, to establish a net- most difficult to capture and use, but perhaps is
work in hostile environments, such as emergency the most useful to victims and potential victims
situations, robust and scalable technologies are of disasters. For example, the large impact of the
necessary. Disasters not only create human casual- Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 was made worse
ties, but also hamper technological networks and by the lack of effective warning systems, and by
infrastructures. In addition, existing technologies a lack of understanding on the part of the general
need to expand or alter to cope with dynamic public of danger signals.
changes occurring during the emergencies. Many recent technologies, such as blogs,
Such robust and scalable networks can be made wikis, and other social networking technolo-
available by utilizing the distributed sensor net- gies, have first found widespread use in bringing
works (DSN) technology. DSN is an ad-hoc mobile people together for entertainment, networking,
network that includes sensor nodes with limited and sharing information in the context of play.
computation and communication capabilities. It A blog, short for Web log, uses widely avail-
senses or collects data from the environment, able applications to provide individuals with
processes the data, and then communicates the the ability to create a chronologically organized
results (Eschenauer & Gligor, 2002). DSN differs commentary, with the ability to integrate text
from traditional embedded wireless networks in and other media, and receive feedback. A similar
two important aspects. Firstly, its scale is larger: collaborative technology, the wiki, allows many
tens of thousands of nodes can be connected as to collaborate to organize information, but is not
opposed to just tens. Secondly, it allows addition organized chronologically. As implementations of
and deletion of sensor nodes, after deployment, to these uses, they have also found utility in disaster
extend the network or replace failing or unreliable situations, not the least because social networks
nodes without physical contact. This characteristic become extremely important, and are a natural
makes DSN especially suitable for hostile areas way for humans to find security in disasters. For
where sensor nodes may be captured, manipulated, example, a group of local bloggers, in the city of
or destroyed by human or natural adversaries. Mumbai, India, used blogs to help individuals
(Eschenauer & Gligor, 2002) share information and pictures on missing rela-
tives during the unprecedented flooding, in the
summer of 2005, that displaced and killed thou-
social technologies: using sands of people. The same blogs were used in the
the internet to share local summer of 2006 during the multiple bomb attacks
Knowledge to the subway system in that city. Similar blogs
were in use during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Many of the technologies discussed in the in the United States as well (Rodriguez, Trainor,
previous section require training, licensing, or & Quarantelli, 2006). These updatable, highly
other mechanisms that make them suitable for interactive systems also serve as an archive of

information, about the development of events, that the context of disaster situations and management
can be mined for useful information for improving processes. Characteristics of disaster contexts
management of future disasters. imply that to manage disaster situations, it is
To date, there are no empirical studies that necessary to have adaptable information systems
validate or evaluate the use of blogging or similar that allow for ongoing training, communication,
technologies in disaster management. It is clear, and information exchange. Functions necessary
though, that social technologies are problematic for communicating, training, and sharing infor-
for use in disaster settings. One of the most obvious mation must be provided in the system, and the
issues is a lack of systematic approaches to their functions must be able to evolve by satisfying
use, or best practices. As mentioned previously, unique requirements of each disaster event, and
sporadic incidents of blogging during the events by accommodating changes and additions in both
of disaster have shown usefulness in sharing in- content and structure over time. In addition, the
formation and helping victims, indicating a need system must be used and rehearsed regularly to
for researching and developing more organized become useful in actual emergencies. Indeed, Gil-
approaches of exploiting them. How Internet lespie and Colignon (1993) explain that training
(and related) technologies and informal use can is one of the three important processes through
be harnessed in systematic ways requires human which emergency preparedness is achieved, along
intervention. We will now discuss how these with planning and exercising.
approaches can be integrated into knowledge Traditionally emergency training has been pro-
management. vided through transitory workshops and brochures
that lack the urgency occurring in actual emer-
gencies. In addition, the practice of knowledge
integrative Knowledge management has scarcely been implemented in
management approaches the sharing, transferring, or archiving of disaster
knowledge. Knowledge mostly resided in the head
From the previous discussion, it is clear that of individuals, and practices of externalizing and
there are two distinct communities, each with sharing knowledge with a broader population
their own practices: official entities that gener- were lacking. Two-way radios, telephone, and
ally use traditional communication techniques alerting systems tended to be distrusted: they
with formal practices, and grassroots citizens have limitations in the number of people who can
using Internet social computing techniques in use them, and are often rigid. In brief, traditional
disaster situations. Both of these communities disaster management practice has tended to be
provide highly useful information and personnel disconnected, closed, and brittle; hence, it could
networks in disasters. We believe that a success- be improved by incorporating more integrated,
ful knowledge management approach in disasters open, and robust approaches.
will be one that integrates the information and In this section, we introduce disaster manage-
practices of both. To tackle this comprehensively ment approaches that can reach, and involve, the
would be a large undertaking. We therefore of- general public, as well as emergency professionals,
fer some examples that are of limited scope, but, by organizing trusted reporters and asking them
nevertheless, approach knowledge management to communicate through a Web-based applica-
in an integrative way. tion called bloomington emergency collaborative
When researching knowledge management information system (BECIS). Second, we discuss
approaches that can be truly useful for disaster two infrastructural knowledge management prac-
management, it is necessary to consider them in tices, service learning and online communities

of practice, that can provide effective means for Shneiderman and Preece call for developing a
organizing volunteers and general public through national social networking site based on Web
network technologies. Lastly, we discuss strategies technologies.
more specific than these infrastructural practices
that can inform us of the kinds of knowledge Knowledge management practices:
management systems appropriate for grassroots adding value to learning
approaches of managing disasters. Storytelling,
modeling, and simulation are considered to be Since the 1990s, many service learning programs
engaging, cognitively effective, realistic, and safe and sponsoring organizations emerged and proved
modes of sharing information. These characteris- to be beneficial in promoting the wellbeing of
tics make them suitable for community-based or community, and increasing participants’ learning
bottom-up disaster management approaches. gains in areas such as career development, citizen-
ship skill, interpersonal development, learning
integration of traditional and other motivation, and so forth. (Strom & Miller, 2002)
information sources using social Learning gains are achieved because, by defini-
computing techniques tion, service learning strives to achieve defined
learning objectives while having students par-
We (the authors of this article) have begun putting ticipate in community service activities (Stanton,
many of the ideas outlined in this chapter into ac- Giles, & Cruz, 1999). Added value of learning gain
tion by creating a local area Internet application makes community service activities more appeal-
for exchanging and capturing critical information ing to educators, students, and parents. Such an
in times of emergencies. This research project appeal increases participation; community needs,
is currently titled the Bloomington Emergency such as bottom-up disaster management, can be
Collaborative Information System, or BECIS. better fulfilled by the increased participation.
Using simple-to-use collaboration software on Campus Compact, the coalition of higher edu-
the Internet, our test system links local volunteers cation institutions for building civic engagement
and individuals who are already involved in emer- into campus and academic life, lists its member
gency response, either through their professional institutions’ relief activities in response to Hurri-
roles or amateur interest, in a network of “trusted cane Katrina on its Web site. Many of the activities
reporters” (our term). In cases of emergencies, this demonstrate service learning practices such as a
group can scan weather and public service radio university campus functioning as a training center,
frequencies, news sources, Internet resources culinary students providing home-cooked meals
(such as weather radar), and other information for victims staying at a facility, and veterinary
sources, and “blog” the information in a com- students caring for rescued pets and farm animals.
mon resource. We are currently in the process of (Campus Compact, 2007)
evaluating the system’s design, infrastructure, and Steiner and Sands (2000) specifically report
training aspects to elicit requirements for a future service learning experiences of medical students
system that would incorporate more requested in responding to Hurricane Floyd. The authors
features and be infrastructure independent. describe how much the students felt it was reward-
Shneiderman and Preece (2007) recently noted ing to provide medical services to the victims and
that technologies in disaster management must participate in other recovery activities. They indi-
support information sharing among the “true” cate that the immediate rewards of the short-term
first responders: average citizens who are involved experience may prove to be a powerful incentive
in, and affected, by crises situations. To this end, to students to continue long-term service activi-

ties, hence, achieving the instructional objective Knowledge management systems

of instilling an ethic of community service and
social responsibility in medical students. In order to expand upon the sociotechnical infra-
If educators and students participating in structure discussed, our current BECIS system
service learning programs each year, or each needs to be enhanced with the capabilities of
semester, start building communities where they knowledge management. When planning for
exchange experiences and reflections as well knowledge management systems, perspectives
as disaster information, the synergy between on knowledge sharing modes give us ideas on
education and disaster management could prove the kind of system appropriate for given contexts
beneficial to both communities. Although a com- and users. The context and user of our interests
munity of practice (Wenger, 1998) is considered are disaster management contexts and volunteers
to be informally created and managed, organized from the community. Sole and Wilson (2002) give
programs, such as service learning, can play a vital a list of knowledge sharing modes that includes
role in nurturing a healthy growth of the com- storytelling, modeling, simulations, codified re-
munity. For example, incentives and rewards can sources, and symbolic objects. Codified resources,
be established in terms of education credits and such as manuals, instructions, textbooks, and so
certificates to reinforce the members’ voluntary, forth, and symbolic objects, such as maps, signs,
informal contribution to disaster management. At prototypes, and so forth, have been traditionally
the same time, technology infrastructure can be utilized much in the disaster management prac-
enhanced to provide time and space for collabo- tice. In fact, knowledge management systems,
ration, and to support the process of distributed in general, have been considered as a tool for
information sharing and subsequent knowledge exchanging codified knowledge. However, bal-
generation. Particularly, using emerging Web ancing these static strategies with more dynamic
technologies and social networking phenomena on and engaging strategies of storytelling, modeling,
the Internet, people can be organized, connected, and simulations can facilitate knowledge sharing
and facilitated through online communities. more effectively. Our target users, members of
Online communities of volunteers partici- the general public, do not necessarily have the
pating in service learning programs can play a motivation to share and generate knowledge
role as the consistently focal point for sharing actively. Hence, it is important that knowledge
disaster information and preparing community management systems, to be used in the disaster
members for disasters. They can provide open management context, utilize more facilitative
and sustainable methods of managing disasters by knowledge sharing modes.
making it possible to organize a large number of
participants continuously and create information Storytelling Systems
redundancy. In addition, systems, processes, and
knowledge acquired and used during these com- Stories tell personal or collective experiences by
munity-based and real-time educational practices recounting what happened, why, and what might
are immediately transferable to those actually happen next, in a vivid, engaging, and entertaining
responding to and recovering from emergencies. manner by employing characters, plots, and drama
Social and technological infrastructures used in (Bruner, 1992). Stories often offer the listener an
ongoing education can be used during the response opportunity to experience the narrated situation
and recovery phases, increasing effectiveness of in a surrogate fashion (Sole & Wilson, 2002).
overall disaster management. Information resulting from a direct or surrogate
experience is encoded in the episodic memory

and becomes readily available for retrieval (Swap, the recognition and categorization tasks. In order
Leonard, Shields, & Abrams, 2001). Stories also for emergency responders to make use of the real-
include rich contextual details that they are ideal time stories in their decision making, the system
carriers of tacit dimensions of knowledge such as must have information-processing functions that
values and norms, trust and commitment, internal- will quickly recognize content of each incoming
ized expertise, and emotional connection (Sole & story and assign it to relevant repositories in real
Wilson, 2002). Easy acquisition and retrieval of time. A rigorous search and index engine such as
knowledge, and effectiveness in building personal semantic blogging (Cayzer, 2004), can expedite the
connection and commitment to intended values process by either augmenting human controllers
and norms, make stories a very strong strategy or by autonomously performing the recognition
for raising awareness and preparedness toward and categorization tasks.
disasters among general public. Indeed, in the
event of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, one of the Modeling and Simulation Systems
few coastal areas to evacuate ahead of the tsunami
was on the Indonesian island of Simeulue, where Modeling and simulation have been recognized
its folklore recounted an earthquake and tsunami as appropriate means for managing emergency
in 1907 (Wikipedia, 2007). tasks in recent years. First of all, they increase
The Indigenous Knowledge in Disaster man- preparedness toward emergencies by exposing
agement Web site (RAIPON & UNEP, 2006) first responders in simulated scenarios, and hav-
shows a good example of incorporating stories ing them experience model behaviors and acquire
in systematic management of disaster knowledge. them. According to Jain and McLean (2003), these
Stories about how indigenous peoples in Russia strategies have been suggested as the key ingredi-
perceive and cope with natural disasters and ent for preparing emergency response, especially
extreme weather events are archived. Each story since the September 11, 2001 terrorism. Modeling
has an identification number, and items can be and simulation strategies also play useful roles in
sorted by the categories of region, disaster type, conducting other emergency management tasks.
knowledge theme, and story type. By reading the In the report of the Committee on Science and
stories, the reader learns about strategies for early Technology for Countering Terrorism (National
detection of coming events, coping strategies, and Research Council, 2002), for example, they were
perceptions of short- and long-term impacts of identified as necessary tools for assessing threat,
these events on biodiversity, without even realizing identifying infrastructure vulnerabilities and
that they are acquiring such knowledge. interdependencies, planning and coordinating
To be useful, such stories must be part of a tech- response, and supporting research on disaster
nical and organizational framework such that the preparedness. Situations, such as the dispersion
knowledge they incorporate can be processed and of hazardous atmospheric release, fire dynamics
acted upon. This requires, among other features, inside building, bio-terror attack, and tornado-
appropriate indexing and searching features. The causing thunderstorms, have been modeled and
system must have information processing func- simulated to study and project impact of the di-
tions that will quickly recognize content of each saster events, improve capabilities for emergency
incoming story and assign it to relevant reposi- response, analyze and develop techniques for
tories in real time. A rigorous search and index identifying possibility of occurrence prior to the
engine, such as semantic blogging (Cayzer, 2004), event, and so forth. (Jain & McLean, 2003)
can expedite the process by either augmenting hu- Knowledge sharing through modeling refers to
man controllers or by autonomously performing the learner’s exposure to behavior of others, par-
0
ticularly experts, as in the activities of mentoring, conclusion

apprenticeship, demonstration, and observation.
Simulation refers to learning through experiential As this review suggests, the use of KM in disas-
situations that recreate the complexities of action, ter/crisis management, particularly in knowledge
as in case studies, role playing, and technology- sharing, is in its infancy, as is the use of the
supported simulations (Sole & Wilson, 2002). Internet. There are indications that integrating
Modeling often precedes or occurs as a part of information shared in traditional, formalized
simulation; hence, the two strategies usually systems with local knowledge and emerging social
appear together in the discussion of knowledge interaction networks (particularly on the internet)
management strategies. The combination of ex- has the potential to greatly improve information
periential situations and expert modeling allows flow in all stages of disaster management; yet it
people to experience aspects of disasters often is unclear how this relates to traditional KM or
dangerous in the real situation, and learn from indeed, whether it is useful to attempt to create
the simulated experience in a safe manner. a cohesive KM system for handling. Since KM
One of the most engaging and immersive is generally predicated upon shared goals and
forms of simulation is Virtual reality (VR). It meanings, it may work best in bounded orga-
provides virtual environments that represent nizational settings with specific outcomes to be
highly realistic simulations of the actual environ- derived from the KM initiative. To some extent,
ments, and allows users to explore and interact successful initiatives will rely on some of the
within the created reality. A virtual experience following keystones:
is acknowledged to evoke the same reactions and
emotions as a real experience, a concept known • Appropriate choice of sustainable infrastruc-
as presence. (Schuemie, Ver Der Straaten, Krijn& tural technologies
Van Der Mast, 2001) This sense of presence has a • Trust in the information that is being gath-
significant impact on how successfully the skills ered and managed
learned in VR will be transferred to the real world, • Appropriate and reliable mechanisms for
because the performance simulated with a sense transfer of information
of presence is more likely to represent the com- • Manageable scope
petence in the actual task than the performance
executed in unrealistic settings. Presence also There are also a number of potential problems
supports effectiveness of VR systems for the with this approach. First, when using these lead-
purpose of knowledge sharing and learning about ing-edge technologies, there is the danger of creat-
“affectively intense behaviors” such as driving ing a “rich get richer” scenario (Quarantelli, 1997),
a car, flying an airplane, treating psychologi- where resource-rich communities are favored with
cal and mental health disorders, and managing access to information. Second, traditional disaster
a disaster event (Tichon et al., 2003). It allows management takes a “top down”, highly controlled
the user to experience and learn, in a simulated approach to disaster planning and management,
environment, of those behaviors that otherwise and it is not clear that this approach would work
would be too dangerous, hostile, or expensive well with “grassroots” technologies. Third, the
to explore. Examples of online VR systems for all-too-common tendency to throw technology at
disaster management include the First Responder social problems exacerbates a widespread organi-
Simulation and Training Environment (FIRSTE, zational problem: to focus on problems that can
2007) and Play2Train (Play2Train, 2007). be solved with new technologies and downplay
those that cannot.

For these reasons, the authors of this piece gies, unwillingness to share information or display
are approaching the KM problem from a “bot- ignorance impede collaboration and information
toms up” approach: using infrastructure, HCI, sharing, a situation that is often reported in KM
and social technologies to integrate fine-grained evaluation. These challenges suggest that, at least
information from “trusted reporters” to provide for the near term, we need to consider the Internet
information to first-responders and others in the as an intriguing possibility for knowledge sharing
position of acting upon information. They are also in terms of crisis, but not necessarily as a formal
exploring the role of practice, information shar- KM system.
ing, and design in creating appropriate interfaces
for such work.
These issues aside, taking a knowledge man- future research directions
agement approach to disaster management entails
tackling many of the same issues that executives Disaster management is a large area of research
face in the corporate sector with respect to KM and practice that requires the integration of techno-
initiatives. The size and complexity of even the logical infrastructures with social and educational
largest structured database or content manage- practices to be effectively carried out. It is also
ment system that most KM implementers are used one with (as yet) few overlaps in the KM field, al-
to working with are nothing in comparison to the though appropriate KM strategies will essentially
multimedia environments represented by blogs help achieve the integration. As mentioned in the
and Wikis. Technical knowledge, or access to the previous section, the discussion of KM strategies
Internet, cannot be assumed, much less literacy. can derive insights by identifying general direc-
Again, consider the case of Hurricane Katrina: tions of system functions implicated by contexts
refugees could find information on benefits and and necessary user tasks: context-aware comput-
disaster recovery on the Internet, but many of ing that is sustainable, secure, and trustworthy.
these people had no computer knowledge. In the Context-aware is a term for the emergent trend
formal entities that are implementing KM strate- toward computing that is:
Table 1.
Disaster phase Technologies Practices
Use of modeling and simulation to identify mitiga-
Storytelling
tion steps
Mitigation Modeling and simulation
Establishing community activities that will help
Communications Infrastructure Deployment
during disasters (e.g., neighborhood organizations)
Storytelling Community planning
Preparedness Modeling and simulation Understanding of risks and threats
Social computing and the Internet Prediction of disasters and community responses
Personal, local- and wide-area networks
Communication amongst volunteers and first
Sensors
responders
Ad hoc networks
Communication of information to citizenry
Response Voice and data communications
Aggregation of information from the disaster area
Alerting systems
Decision making
Predictive Modeling
Prediction of the development of a disaster
Decision making tools
Reconnection if displaced citizenry
Social Computing and the Internet
Rebuilding of communities
Recovery Ad hoc networks
Emotional and practical support
Voice and data communications
Dissemination of aid

• Casually accessible, often invisible. organizations, like the U.S. Secret Service and the
• Frequently mobile or embedded in the en- U.S. Coast Guard, may need to share information
vironment. related to particular leads on a continuing basis.
• Connected to an increasingly ubiquitous However, this sharing must also be restricted.
network infrastructure composed of a wired (Pan, Mitra, & Liu, 2006).
core and wireless edges. Historically there have been three approaches
to information sharing: DAC or discretionary
Making computation useful in the various access control—access to the information is
situations that can be encountered in the real controlled at the discretion of the owner; MAC
world requires that technology responds to the or mandatory access control- allows information
ever-changing context of use and meaning (Dey, to flow in one direction in a lattice of security
Salber, & Abowd, 2001; Moran & Dourish, 2001). labels; ORCON or originator control- each object
One might tabulate the technologies and practices and each user can be treated differently and is
relevant to phases of disasters: discretionary in that the owner is the principal
Clearly, there is overlap in the phases, and source of the policy to be enforced (Sandhu, Ran-
it is of particular interest how technologies and ganathan, & Zhang, 2006). Within the domain of
practices used in one phase might positively or information sharing and KM, how can we have
negatively impact another; for example, a com- secure fault tolerant transmission of information,
munity blog or Web site used by a neighborhood ability to detect intrusion on a distributed system,
organization in a preparedness phase might be and reliability of information delivery?
gainfully employed for information sharing in In context-aware computing, that is, ubiqui-
response and recovery phases. However, if the tous/pervasive computing, in which information
Internet infrastructure is unavailable in those is omnipresent, migrating seamlessly through
phases, the dependence of the community on the the environment to be accessible whenever and
Web site as a source of information might mean wherever needed. We are confronted with tre-
citizenry are less aware of other ways of finding mendous challenges to information security and
information. privacy protection. Enabling secure information
The characteristics of disaster contexts thus sharing among diverse organizations faces two
imply a need for adaptable systems that allow fundamental challenges: one, interoperating
for ongoing training, communication, and infor- among semantically heterogeneous information
mation exchange. In turn, these issues must be sources in an omnipresent manner and two,
dealt with such that the information exchanged maintaining the integrity of each organization’s
can be trusted, is secure, and sustainable: three security policies (Dragovic & Crowcroft, 2004).
qualities that are frankly not represented in the Implementing security for systems that citizens
current Internet.We suggest potential avenues for and officials can share and use requires balancing
exploration in these three arenas, though there needs for access and ease of use with filters for
are many others. spurious or damaging “noise” and security from
hacking or other malicious attack.
Information Sharing and Security
(Securing Information and Networks) Sustainable Design (Context-Aware
Devices vs. Context-Aware
During a crisis, organizations often have a need to Infrastructures)
share information with selected members of other
organizations. For example, the Department of Hong and Landay (2001) have suggested that the
Homeland Security mandates that its constituent services component of the context-aware concep-

tual framework be abstracted out into a service the information would change. A context-aware
infrastructure. By providing uniform abstractions service infrastructure is just another high-level
and reliable services for common operations, abstraction of the conceptual framework of con-
such service infrastructures could make it easier text-aware computing, services component, but
to develop robust applications; even on a diverse far more robust and sustainable.
and constantly changing set of devices and sen-
sors. A service infrastructure would also make it
easier to incrementally deploy new sensors, new references
devices, and new services as they appear in the
future, and as well, scale these up to serve large Akyildiz, I. F., Wang, X., & Wang, W. (2005).
numbers of people. Last, a service infrastructure Wireless mesh networks: A survey. Computer
would make it easier for sensors and devices to Networks, 47(4), 445-487.
share sensor and context information, placing the
Bell, J. K. (1993). How to plan to keep communica-
burden of acquisition, processing, and interoper-
tions open after disaster strikes. In Proceedings
ability on the infrastructure instead of on indi-
of the 1993 national earthquake conference:
vidual devices and applications (2001). Disaster
Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and
management needs to concern itself with the
Eastern United States: A Time for Examination
medium and long-term, and that concern extends
and Action (pp. 339-348).
to the sustainability of designs from concept to
inception. Sustainable design can be defined Bruner, J. S. (1992). The narrative construction
as the creation of artifacts that have a minimal of reality. In H. Beilins & P. B. Pufall (Eds.),
environmental and negative social impact on the Piaget’s theory: Prospects and possibilities (pp.
user and the society at-large. Two, if the service 229-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
components and the sensors are embedded in the
Bruno, R., Conti, M., & Gregori, E. (2005).
device upgrades and repairs are device dependant.
Mesh networks: Commodity multihop ad hoc
This can be both financially costly and impracti-
networks. IEEE Communications Magazine,
cal, if devices are constantly not available due to
March, 123-131.
upgrade. When and where and how to disburse
limited resources can be defined resource alloca- Butler, T. (2003). From data to knowledge and
tion dynamics. Three, this minimizes the issues back again: understanding the limitations of
of operability, by creating standardization based KMS. Knowledge and Process Management,
on the context-aware infrastructure. The general 10(3), 144-155.
inspiration behind this idea is the Internet and the
Campus Compact. (2007). Higher education re-
various layers of protocol that make it possible
sponds to Katrina. Retrieved January 18, 2007,
for computers to interoperate. Each layer would
from http://www.compact.org/resources/down-
be an interactional snapshot of events in the field.
loads/Katrina.pdf
The context-layered design could be real-time
diagram of various contextual information such Cayzer, S. (2004). Semantic blogging and decen-
as time-relevant data, geospatial data, and data tralized knowledge management. Communica-
for various non-governmental organizations, tions of the ACM, 47(12), 47-52.
NGOs, governmental organizations, GOs, and
volunteer groups (Hong & Landay, 2001). As Denning, P. J. (2006). Hastily formed networks.
the crisis evolves, the context of relevance of Communications of the ACM, 49(4), 15-20.
data at any given time will change and therefore,

Dekens. J. (2007). Local knowledge on disaster Hong, J. I., & Landay, J. A. (2001). An infra-
preparedness: A framework for data collection structure approach to context-aware computing.
and analysis. Sustainable mountain development, Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2, 3, & 4),
52, 20-23. Retrieved from http://www.disasterpre- 287-303.
paredness.icimod.org/publications.php
Ivefors, G. M. (1995). Emergency information
Dey, A. K., Salber, D.. & Abowd, G. D. (2001). management and disaster preparedness on the In-
A conceptual framework and a toolkit for sup- ternet. IDA Fifth Annual Conference on Computer
porting the rapid prototyping of context-aware and Information Science, Lingköping, Sweden,
applications. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) November 1995. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from
Journal, 16(2-4), 97-166. http://hb.se/bhs/ith/2-97/gi.htm
Dourish, P. (2001). Seeking a foundation for Jain, S., & McLean, C. (2003). A framework for
context-aware computing. Human-Computer modeling and simulation for emergency response.
Interaction, 16(2, 3, & 4), 229-241. In Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation
Conference (pp. 1068-1076).
Dourish, P. (2003). Speech-gesture driven mul-
timodal interfaces for crisis management. In Jasanoff, S. (1994). Learning from disaster: Risk
Proceedings of the IEEE 91 (pp. 1327-1354). management after Bhopal. Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press.
Dourish, P. (2004.) What we talk about when
we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Jordan, B. (2006). The Katrina response that
Computing, 8(1), 19-30. worked. Homeland Defense Journal, 4, 8-12.
Dragovic, B., & Crowcroft, J. (2004). Informa- Kaluta, R. W. (2006). Organizing community-
tion exposure control through data manipulation level emergency response with interoperable
for ubiquitous computing. In Proceedings of the communications. Homeland Defense Journal,
2004 workshop on New security paradigms (pp. 4, 20-22.
57-64).
Kitamoto, A. (2005). Digital Typhoon: Near real-
Eschenauer, L., & Gligor, V. (2002). A key-man- time aggregation, recombination and delivery of
agement scheme for distributed sensor networks. typhoon-related information. Proceedings of the
In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer 4th International Symposium on Digital Earth,
and Communication Security (CCS’02), Wash- pp. (CD-ROM), 2005-03. Available: http://agora.
ington DC. ex.nii.ac.jp/~kitamoto/research/publications/
kisde05.pdf
Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2006). Multicultural
crisis communication: Towards a social construc- Krakow, G. (2005). Ham radio operators to
tionist perspective. Journal of Contingencies and the rescue after Katrina. Retrieved December
Crisis Management, 14(4), 180-189. 10, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/9228945/
FIRSTE. (2007). Retrieved January 18, 2007,
from http://campus.umr.edu/firste/ Leland, E. (2001). Voice over IP: Is your telephone
system outdated? Retrieved January 12, 2007,
Gillespie, D., & Colignon, R. (1993). Structural
from http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/in-
change in disaster preparedness networks. In-
ternet/page5256.cfm
ternational Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, 11(2), 143–62.

Lindquist, R., & Ortiz, D. (2001). 9/11/01: This is Play2Train. (2007). Retrieved January 18, 2007
Not a Test. QST, 11, 28-34, 59. from http://irhbt.typepad.com/play2train/
Marcy, J. (2005). Communicating after Katrina. Quarantelli, E. L (1997). Problematical aspects
Homeland Defense Journal, 11, 10-11. of the information/communication revolution for
disaster planning and research: ten non-technical
McGee, D. R., Cohen, P. R., & Wu, L. (2000).
issues and questions. Disaster Prevention and
Something from nothing: Augmenting a paper-
Management, 6(2), 94–106.
based work practice via multimodal interaction.
In Proceedings of the ACM Designing Augmented RAIPON & UNEP. (2006). Indigenous knowledge
Reality Environments (DARE) (pp. 71-80). New in disaster management. Retrieved January 18,
York: ACM Press. 2007, from http://www.raipon.org/ikdm/Default.
aspx
McGregor, P., Craighill, R., & Mosley, V. (2006).
Government Emergency Telecommunications Rauschert, I., Agrawal, P., Sharma, R., Fuhrmann,
Service (GETS) and Wireless Priority Service S., Brewer, I., & MacEachren, A. (2002). Design-
(WPS) performance during Katrina. In M. H. ing a human-centered, multimodal GIS interface
Hamza (Ed.), Communications, Internet, and to support emergency management. In Proceed-
Information Technology, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin ings of the 10th ACM International Symposium
Islands. on Advances in Geographic Information Systems
(GIS ‘02) (pp. 8-9). New York: ACM Press.
Meissner, A., Luckenbach, T., Risse, T., Kirste, T.,
& Kirchner, H. (2002). In Design Challenges for an Robins, M. (2006). New IP telephony solutions
Integrated Disaster management Communication for the government enterprise. Homeland Defense
and Information System, First IEEE Workshop on Journal, 1, 22-27.
Disaster Recovery Networks, New York.
Rodriguez, H., Trainor, J., & Quarantelli, E. L.
Moran, T. P. & Dourish, P. (2001). Introduction (2006). Rising to the challenges of a catastrophe:
to special issue on context-aware computing. the emergent and prosocial behavior following
Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2, 3, & 4), Hurricane Katrina. The Annals of the American
87-95. Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1),
82-101.
National Research Council. (2002). Making the
nation safer: The role of science and technology Sandhu, R., Ranganathan, K., & Zhang, X. (2006).
in countering terrorism. Washington DC: National Secure information sharing enabled by Trusted
Academies Press. Computing and PEI models. In Proceedings of the
2006 ACM Symposium on Information, computer
Oviatt, S. L. (1996). Multimodal interfaces for
and communications security (pp. 2-12).
dynamic interactive maps. In Proceedings of
the Conference on Human Factors in Comput- Schuemie, M., Ver Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., &
ing Systems (CHI’96) (pp. 95-102). New York: Van Der Mast, C. (2001). Research on presence in
ACM Press. virtual reality: A survey. Cyberpsychology and
Behavior, 4(2), 183-201.
Pan, C. C., Mitra, P., & Liu, P. (2006). Semantic
access control for information interoperation. In Shneiderman, B., & Preece, J. (2007). 911.gov.
Proceedings of the eleventh ACM symposium Science, 315(5814), 944.
on Access control models and technologies (pp.
Sole, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Storytelling in orga-
237-246).
nizations: The power and the traps of using stories

to share knowledge in organizations. Learning Turoff, M., Chumer, M., Van de Walle, B., & Yao,
Innovations Laboratory (LILA), Graduate School X. (2004). The design of a dynamic emergency
of Education, Harvard University. Retrieved response management information system (DER-
January 18, 2007, from http://lila.pz.harvard. MIS). Journal of Information Technology Theory
edu/_upload/lib/ACF14F3.pdf and Application (JITTA), 5(4), 1-36.
Stanton, T. K., Giles, D. E., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Upkar Varshney, A. S., McGivern, M., & Howard,
Service learning: a movement’s pioneers: Re- C. (2002). Voice over IP. Communications of the
flections on its origins, practice, and future. San ACM, January, 45(1), 88-96.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Steiner, B., & Sands, R. (2000). Responding to Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:
a natural disaster with service learning. Family Cambridge University Press.
Medicine, 32(9), 645-649.
Wikipedia. (2007). 2004 Indian Ocean earth-
Strom, T. Q., & Miller, C. (2002). Service learn- quake: Signs and warnings. Retrieved January 18,
ing. What works in preventing school violence: 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_In-
The safe and responsive fact sheet series. Safe dian_Ocean_earthquake
& Responsive Schools Project, Indiana Educa-
Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for safety. New
tion Policy Center, Indiana University. Retrieved
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
January 18, 2007, from http://www.indiana.
edu/~safeschl/service_learning.pdf
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, additional readings
L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to
transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal
Amdahl, G. (2002). Disaster response: GIS for
of Management Information Systems, 18(1),
public safety. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
95-114.
Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., & Hilhorst, D. (2004).
Taylor, A., Skjei, S. M. (2002). A disaster-recov-
Mapping vulnerability: Disasters, development
ery plan for local municipalities using currently
and people. Earthscan Publications
available communication satellite facilities and
services, National Conference on Digital Govern- Battista, F., & Baas, S. (2004). The role of local
ment, ACM International Conference Proceeding institutions in reducing vulnerability to recurrent-
Series, 1-11. natural disasters and in sustainable livelihoods
development. Consolidated report on case studies
Tichon, J., Hall, R. H., Hilgers, M. G., Leu, M.
and workshop findings and recommendations
C., & Agarwal, A. (2003). Education and training
prepared by Rural Institutions and Participation
in virtual environments for disaster management.
Service (SDAR), Food and Agriculture Organiza-
In Proceedings of the World Conference on Edu-
tion of the United Nations (FAO).
cational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecom-
munications (EdMedia) (pp. 1191 – 1194). Bellotti, V, & Edwards, K. (2001). Intelligibil-
ity and accountability: Human considerations
Townsend, A. M., & Moss, M. M. (2005). Tele-
in context-aware systems. Human-Computer
communications infrastructures. In Disasters:
Interaction, 16(2, 3, & 4), 193-212.
Preparing cities for crisis communications. Re-
trieved January 18, 2007, from http://hurricane. Bernsen, N.O. (1994). Modality theory in support
wagner.nyu.edu/report1.pdf of multimodal interface design. In Proceedings of

1993 Intelligent MultiMedia MultiModal Systems Retrieved from http://www.disasterpreparedness.

(pp. 37-44). icimod.org/knowledge.php
Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets Fischer, G. (2001). Articulating the task at hand
third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th and making information relevant to IT. Human-
Nordic conference on Human-computer interac- Computer Interaction, 16(2, 3, & 4), 243-256.
tion: changing roles (pp. 1-8).
Frincke, D., & Wilhite, E. (2001). Distributed
Bornträger, C., Cheverst, K., Davies, N., Dix, network defense. In Workshop on Information
A., Friday, A., & Seitz, J. (2003). Experiments Assurance and Security United States Military
with multimodal interfaces in a context-aware Academy (pp. 236–238).
city guide.In Proceedings of Mobile HCI (pp.
Gurstein, M. (2005). Tsunami warning systems
116-130).
and the Last Mile: Towards community based and
Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Billinghurst, M., Camp- ICT enabled disaster response systems. Journal of
bell, L., Chang, K., Vilhjálmsson, H., et al. (1999). Community Informatics, 1(2). Available: http://ci-
Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
Horowitz, M., Martonosi, M., Mowry, T., &
Human factors in computing systems: the CHI
Smith, M. (1996). Informing memory operations:
is the limit (pp. 520-527).
providing memory performance feedback in
Chittaro, L. (2003). Human-computer interaction modern processors. In Proceedings of the 23rd
with mobile devices and services. In 5th inter- annual international symposium on Computer
national Symposium, Mobile HCI 2003, Udine, architecture (pp. 260-270).
Italy, September 8-11, 2003. Springer.
Kaptelinin, V. (2003). Learning with artefacts:
Comfort, L. K., et al. (2002). Complex systems integrating technologies into activities. Interact-
in crisis: Anticipation and resilience in dynamic ing with Computers, 15(6), 831-836.
environments. Retrieved December 26, 2006,
Kim, S., Vasireddy, V., & Harfoush, K. (2007a).
from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/
Scalable coordination for sensor networks in
doi/10.1111/1468-5973.00164/abs/
challenging environments. Seoul, Korea: ACM
Cowan, D. D., Mayfield, C. I., Tompa, F. W. & Press.
Gaspani, W. (1998). New role for community
Lennon, J. A. & Maurer, H. (2001). Can knowl-
networks. Communications of the ACM, April,
edge management help in poverty-stricken coun-
41(4), 61-63.
tries and crisis situations? Journal of Universal
Dey, A. K., & Abowd, G. D. (1999). Towards Computer Science, 7(4), 327-334. Retrieved
a better understanding of context and context- from http://www.jucs.org/jucs_7_4/can_knowl-
awareness. GVU Technical Report GIT-GVU- edge_management_help/Lennon_J.pdf
99-22, College of Computing, Georgia Institute
Lyles, M. A., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2003). The
of Technology. (ftp://ftp.cc.gatech.edu/pub/gvu/
Blackwell handbook of organizational learning
tr/1999/99-22.pdf)
and knowledge management. Malden, MA; Ox-
Disaster preparedness and local knowledge knowl- ford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
edge base. Prepared by International Centre for
Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2002). The next wave
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).
of nomadic computing: A research agenda for in-

formation systems research. Information Systems ubiquitous sensing. Circuits and Systems Maga-
Research, 13(4), 377-388. zine, IEEE, 5(3), 19-31.
MacEachren, M., Cai,G., McNeese, M., Sharma, Putnam, L. (2002). By choice or by chance: How
R., & Fuhrmann, S.In press. GeoCollaborative the Internet is used to prepare for, manage, and
crisis management: Designing technologies to share information about emergencies. First Mon-
meet real-world needs. In Proceedings of the 7th day 7(11). Retrieved from http://www.firstmonday.
Annual National Conference on Digital Govern- org/issues/issue7_11/index.html
ment Research, San Diego, California. Retrieved
Ren, K., & Lou, W. (2007). Privacy-enhanced,
from http://www.geovista.psu.edu/publica-
attack-resilient access control in pervasive
tions/2006/MacEachren_dgo2006.pdf
computing environments with optional context
MacEachren, A., Cai, G., Sharma, R., Rauschert, authentication capability. Mobile Networks and
I., Brewer, I., Bolelli, L., et al. (2005). Enabling Applications, 12(1), 79-92.
collaborative geoinformation access and decision-
Schafer, W. A., Carroll, J. M., Haynes, S. R., &
making through a natural, multimodal interface.
Abrams, S. (2005). Emergency management as
International Journal of Geographical Informa-
collaborative community work. ECSCW 2005:
tion Science, 19(3), 293-317.
Ninth European Conference on Computer-
Mcallister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. Supported Cooperative Work. Retrieved from
(2004). Combining interaction and context design http://cscl.ist.psu.edu/public/users/jcarroll/Self/
to support collaborative argumentation using a PapersOnline
tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer
Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the user in-
Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194-204.
terface: strategies for effective human-computer
Nardi, B. (1995). Some reflections on the applica- interaction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Long-
tion of activity theory. Context and consciousness: man Publishing Co., Inc.
activity theory and human-computer interaction
Sorensen, C., Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., & Degross,
table of contents, 235-246.
J. (2005). Designing ubiquitous information envi-
Nardi, B., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The place of ronments: Sociotechnical issues and challenges.
face-to-face communication in distributed work. Berlin: Springer.
Distributed Work, 83-110.
Srivastava, Sanjay K. Bandyopadhayay, S.
Olson, G., & Olson, J. (2003). Human-computer Manikiam, B. Hegde, V. S, &. Jayaraman, V.
interaction: Psychological aspects of the human (2006). A geo-informatics based approach for
use of computing. Annual Review of Psychology, disaster risk assessment: a perspective analy-
491-517. sis. Disaster forewarning diagnostic methods
and management. In F. Kogan, S. Habib, V. S.
Peters, R., Pak, R., Abowd, G., Fisk, A., & Rog-
Hegde, & M. Hegde (Eds.). Proceedings of the
ers, W. (2004). Finding lost objects: Informing
SPIE, Volume 6412, pp. 641214. Retrieved May
the design of ubiquitous computing services for
18, 2007, http://www.science.gov/scigov/link.
the home. Georgia Tech GVU Technical Report:
html?redirectUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fadsabs.har-
GIT-GVU, 04-01.
vard.edu%2F%2Fabs%2F2006SPIE.6412E..25S
Puccinelli, D., & Haenggi, M. (2005). Wireless
Stephenson, R., & Anderson, P. S. (1997).
sensor networks: applications and challenges of
Disasters and the Information Technology

Revolution. Disasters, 21(4), 305-334. Retrieved Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding
from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ computers and cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
abs/10.1111/1467-7717.00065 Publishing Corporation.
Wallace, W. A., & Balogh, F. D. (1985). Deci- Zhu, S., Setia, S., & Jajodia, S. (2003). LEAP:
sion support systems for disaster management. efficient security mechanisms for large-scale
Public Administration Review, 45(Special Issue: distributed sensor networks. In Proceedings of
Emergency Management). the 10th ACM conference on Computer and com-
munication security (pp. 62-72).
0

Chapter XII
Managing Knowledge-Based
Complexities Through
Combined Uses of Internet
Technologies
Cécile Godé-Sanchez
Research Center of the French Air Force, France
Pierre Barbaroux
Research Center of the French Air Force, France
abstract
This chapter introduces a theoretical framework to study how Internet technologies provide organizations
with additional capabilities to handle various forms of communication and decision-making complexi-
ties. In particular, we investigate how specific use-based combinations of Internet technologies emerge
within operational contexts. Principal illustrations are drawn from the U.S. military uses of Tactical
Internet during recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military contexts offer relevant illustrations
of organizations using Internet within complex decision environments for which short-term responsive-
ness and tactical adaptability are critical. Within this framework, we discuss the conditions for which
combined uses generate additional value for organizations, and we underline the active role played by
final users in exploiting the benefits of tactical Internet. Finally, we examine their additional value in
the formulation of an effective technological strategy.
introduction and communication processes (Gittell & Weiss,

2004; Pickering & King, 1995). Exploiting the
Information and Communication Technologies benefits of ICTs often requires deep organizational
(ICTs) provide organizations with major tech- transformations. Organizations have to select an
nological solutions to manage decision-making appropriate technological strategy (and implement
Managing Knowledge-Based Complexities Through Combined Uses of Internet Technologies
associated technological tools) with regard to of warfare, this new doctrine consists in using
the decisions and problems they face. Therefore, digital Web-based tools (Tactical Internet, TI)
understanding the impact of ICTs on an organi- to communicate and to make decisions. Tactical
zation involves a close examination of its uses. Internet comprises various functions related to
This issue goes far beyond technical aspects to distinct knowledge processes: decision making
be related to a socio-organizational “use-based” and communication. In using decision-support
approach of technology (Barley, 1986; De Sanctis and communication tools, war fighters learn
& Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992). There is a need to combine knowledge-based functions and
to discuss the uses of ICTs in terms of contextual- processes, which, in turn, enable them to solve
ized work practices, and to understand how uses operational problems.
emerge through the actions of final users within We now develop a theoretical framework that
organizational contexts (Brown & Duguid, 1991; describes the ways ICTs enable organizations
Orlikowski, 2000). to manage various forms of complexity. Then,
In this chapter, we focus on the use of Internet we provide empirical illustrations, and analyze
technologies within organizations, and analyze how Tactical Internet affects knowledge sharing
their impact on decision making and knowledge and decision making within military organiza-
sharing. We develop a theoretical framework to tions. Finally, we suggest that combined uses of
study how Web-based tools provide organizations Web-based tools are one of the main sources of
with additional capabilities to handle various value for the organization, and enable decision
information and knowledge problems. According makers to manage complexities. The last section
to our framework, people assimilate technolo- is conclusive.
gies with regard to their technical features while
satisfying their own needs. Uses are driven by
the logic of adaptation of final users to uncertain the use of information and
and complex conditions. Hence, technologies communication technologies
might trigger the emergence of unexpected uses, to manage uncertainty and
and generate mitigated results. We suggest that complexity
combinations of technology uses enable orga-
nizations to control and foster decision making Organizations are confronted to increasing paces
and communication processes. Therefore, we of technological and socio-organizational changes
investigate how specific use-based combinations that are major sources of uncertainty and com-
of technological functions, knowledge types, and plexity. In seeking to adapt their products and
knowledge processes emerge within operational services to changing circumstances, organiza-
contexts, and we discuss the conditions for which tions develop technological solutions to deal with
use-based combinations generate additional value multiple forms of complexity. Before discussing
for organizations. the various types of knowledge and processes
Principal illustrations are drawn from the re- involved in the development of such technological
cent U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and solutions, the next section focuses on the concepts
Iraq. These operations have been the opportunity of uncertainty and complexity.
for U.S. military organizations to experiment
with a new model of warfare that consists in ex- complexity and uncertainty
ploiting network-centric technologies to develop
information superiority on the battlefield (Alberts, Complexity is a cross-disciplinary research topic
Gartska, & Stein, 1999). At the tactical level that is firmly rooted in systems theory and infor-

mation theory. It is often associated with such core sion maker who starts collecting and computing
concepts as uncertainty, non-linearity, chaos, and information and data about her/his environment.
emergence (Simon, 1969b). Complexity is widely Confronted to uncertainty, the decision maker
used in economics and management science as a cannot have access to any exhaustive and complete
theoretical concept able to cope with the analysis set of information and data. Her/his rationality
of individual and organizational decision making is limited by incomplete and/or imperfect infor-
and learning (Anderson, 1999; March, 1991; Non- mation sets that make rational decision making
aka, 1994). Complexity is also currently used by hard to achieve (Shackle, 1961). By contrast, in
evolutionary, as well as institutional economists, situations of complexity, the decision maker might
to study how patterns of interactions emerge well have collected all the relevant information
and evolve within and across markets and firms about her/his environment and still be unable to
(Arthur, Durlauf, & Lane, 1997). develop a relevant understanding. Complexity
Following Herbert Simon, complexity refers appears when a decision maker feels cognitively
to situations in which a great number of entities uncomfortable with the interpretation of a par-
interact in a non-simple way (Simon, 1969a; Si- ticular data or event. This might reflect her/his
mon, 1969b). Many conceptions of complexity ambiguous and/or equivocal understanding of
in social sciences, as well as in natural sciences, the behaviours and interactions that characterize
consider that complex phenomena might emerge her/his environment and its components.
from frequent interactions between simple enti- Discriminating between uncertainty and
ties. All complexity theorists share the same view complexity is thus critical because they rely
that a system is complex when its macrobehaviours on different phenomenological perceptions of
cannot be explained simply by referring to micro- the relationships between the organization and
level interactions and behaviours. This statement its environment. According to Zack (2001),
reflects the idea that within complex systems the uncertainty corresponds to situations for which
whole is more than the sum of the parts. Such a organizations do not have enough information
definition is widely accepted by scholars who as- (1) to make rational decisions, and (2) to predict
sume that complex system dynamics emerge from events that have an impact on current and future
inextricable microinteractions between simple decisions. Organizations might need the kind of
entities. Further, scholars acknowledge that the information related to the variety of elements
behaviour of a complex system is highly unpredict- and relationships that must be simultaneously
able. Even when a complex system is deterministic, considered in order to decide effectively. The
it might be highly sensible to initial conditions, variety of interactions between heterogeneous and
and generates unexpected macrobehaviours. On often dispersed events and components is a key
the one hand, a complex system can be chaotic, characteristic of organizations’ decision-making
evolutionary, or self-organizing by virtue of its environment. Therein, the goal of organizations
structure and dynamics and, on the other hand, is to develop a relevant representation of the
it can exhibit radical uncertainty. complex relationships between the elements that
For the purpose of this chapter, we suggest have an impact on its own decisions. Confronted
that complexity is a core concept from which a to uncertainty, organizations collect, analyze,
theoretical framework can be developed in order and contextualize a variety of data in order to
to cope with organizational behaviours. Before accumulate information, and create knowledge
analysing how organizations manage complexity, about external conditions. These processes extend
the conceptual difference between uncertainty and organizations’ responsiveness and strategic capa-
complexity must be established. Consider a deci- bilities (Davenport, Harris, De Long, & Jacobson,
2001), and reduce uncertainty.

Complexity is quite different. Complexity variety of decision-making contexts. Next section

emerges when organizations experiment interpre- investigates the various types of knowledge the
tive failures. If organizations effectively reduce organization deals with in order to make effec-
uncertainty by continuously collecting and pro- tive decisions under conditions of complexity
cessing additional information about their envi- and uncertainty.
ronment, it does not mean they have a unique or
convergent interpretation of this information. The taxonomies of Knowledge
accumulation and processing of information do
not provide organizations with appropriate con- Conceptually, knowledge splits into two broad
ceptual framework to interpret information in an categories: explicit and codified knowledge vs.
unambiguous and/or univocal way (Zack, 2001). implicit and tacit knowledge. There is a vast litera-
We propose that ambiguity and equivocality are ture on the distinction between codified and tacit
more likely to emerge in organizational contexts knowledge and its implications for organizations’
within which the diversity of decision makers’ managers and decision makers (Cowan, David, &
mental models can induce divergent, multiple, Foray, 2001; Häkanson, 2007; Johnson, Lorenz,
and/or contradictory interpretations of common & Lundvall, 2002; Nonaka, 1994). Knowledge
information. Therefore, interpretive failures are is made explicit through its codification on a
more likely to occur when different decision mak- particular support. Explicit forms of knowledge
ers interact, communicate, and share common are congenial since they can be stored, absorbed,
goals, but fail to correctly interpret information and disseminated easily within and across or-
about their environment. ganizations. However, even when knowledge
We suggest that uncertainty and complexity has been made explicit and codified, it remains
require specific capabilities to collect and exploit highly subjective. Codified knowledge needs to
additional information about critical elements be complemented with tacit forms of knowledge
and events, and to assess the nature of their rela- that are embodied in knowledge workers’ expe-
tionship. In particular, organizations must have rience and expertise. The absorption and inter-
the capability to identify, develop, and improve pretation of codified knowledge depend on prior
appropriate knowledge, expertise, and skills skills and competences. Further, the codification
in order to reduce information and knowledge of knowledge does not automatically enhance
gaps. Problems of interpretation cannot be sim- the organization’s capacity to share knowledge
ply handled by collecting and integrating more (Jensen, Johnson, Lorenz, & Lundvall, 2007).
information. To deal with interpretive forms of The diffusion and sharing of codified knowledge
complexity, organizations must improve their depend on the codification process per se. The code
sense-making capabilities, and develop appropri- used to write knowledge down, and the resulting
ate communication contexts that enhance coopera- levels of knowledge abstraction and generaliza-
tion and knowledge sharing. When organizations tion, contribute to its effective diffusion among
are confronted with complexity, they need to individuals and communities (Boisot, 1998).
improve their sense-making capability (Weick, Lundvall and Johnson (1994) have proposed
1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). a useful set of distinctions that digs more deeply
The concepts of complexity and uncertainty into the variety of knowledge organizations deal
provide a useful typology that relates to vari- with. This set is based on four types of knowl-
ous knowledge-based problems. In situations of edge: know-what, know-why, know-how, and
complexity and uncertainty, organizations must know-who. As Jensen et al. (2007) argue, “while
be able to collect, store, transform, and com- important aspects of know-what and know-why
municate a variety of knowledge types within a may be obtained through reading books, attending

lectures and accessing data bases, the two other complexity. Building on the previous analysis, we
categories are more rooted in practical experi- suggest that organizations have to manage four
ence” (p. 3). “ideal forms” of knowledge-based complexity.
One should consider that the former two types The four forms are respectively oriented toward
of knowledge, know-what and know-why, are usu- one particular dimension of organizational con-
ally related to explicit knowledge that have been text: environment, information, cognition, and
codified (or could be “easily” codified with reason- communication.
able costs) and stored on particular supports. By
contrast, the latter two types of knowledge, know- • Environment forms of complexity are as-
how and know-who, are characterized by implicit sociated with physical features of organiza-
and tacit forms of knowledge that have been mainly tions’ external and internal environment; in
acquired through learning, experimentation, and particular (1) the number of actors involved
social practices. Subsequently, know-how and in decision-making and coordination, (2)
know-who are embodied in people’s skills and the geographical dispersion of their activi-
experiences, and cannot be shared easily without ties, and (3) the integration of contingent
additional cognitive efforts. behaviours within organizations’ plans and
The previous taxonomies provide useful in- decisions. These forms of complexity relate
sights on the distinction between complexity and to the intricacy of the internal and external
uncertainty. While uncertainty is conceptually interactions between the various units and
related to the decision maker’s inability to build actors that make up the organization and its
an exhaustive and complete set of information environment as a whole.
(codified knowledge) about a particular situation, • Information forms of complexity emerge
complexity is associated with ineffective cogni- when organizations are confronted with
tive activities that might lead the decision maker information incompleteness. These forms
to develop ambiguous and/or equivocal percep- of complexity are also related to the archi-
tion and interpretation of this set of information. tecture of the decision-making models that
This means that the reduction of uncertainty is have been implemented and employed by
logically concerned with the accumulation of the organization.
explicit and codified knowledge, while complexity • Cognitive forms of complexity are associated
is effectively managed through the development with decision makers’ psychological states
of tacit knowledge, and learning by experimenta- (e.g., stress, emergency, crisis management)
tion. However, the coupling of uncertainty and and mental models’ diversity, which make
complexity with two ideal types of knowledge up the cognitive structure of the organiza-
does not mean that the perception of uncertainty tion.
by the decision maker is exclusive and free from • Communication forms of complexity appear
any form of ambiguity or equivocality. As codified when formal and informal communications
and tacit knowledge, uncertainty and complex- between units and partners involved in col-
ity appear in a much more mixed form in real laborative projects require rich interactions
organizational life. and strong knowledge-sharing mecha-
nisms.
four forms of complexity
Within this framework, two categories of
The organization can be simultaneously con- information and knowledge-processing problems
fronted to many forms of knowledge-based are particularly significant: information gaps and

knowledge gaps. We define information gaps as with knowledge-based complexities. However,

the lack of information (codified knowledge) about ICTs cover a large spectrum of heterogeneous
a given situation, and the variety of interactions be- tools and support various knowledge processes.
tween facts, events, and actors. Information gaps Next section develops a use-based perspective on
are related to environment and information forms information and communication technologies,
of knowledge-based complexity. By contrast, and discusses how combined uses emerge and
knowledge gaps are related to communication improve organizational capabilities.
failures due to divergent mental models and mis-
interpretations (or multiple interpretations) of the the use of icts: a
same data, circumstances, and events. Knowledge combination-based approach
gaps are associated with communication and cog-
nitive forms of knowledge-based complexity (tacit Many scholars have proposed classifications to
knowledge). Together, information and knowledge link knowledge processes to sets of dedicated
gaps can cause biased decisions and create coor- technologies. For instance, Marwick (2001) as-
dination failures. Moreover, these two categories sociated ICTs with the four different phases of
of problems often occur simultaneously within the knowledge life cycle formalized by Nonaka
organizations’ decision-making environment. and Takeuchi (1995). Alavi and Tiwana (2003)
In many cases, decision-makers cannot clearly identified the key technologies that support the
discriminate between information shortcomings creation, the storage/retrieval, the transfer, and
and interpretive failures. Table 1 presents the four the application of knowledge in organization.
forms of complexity that characterize organiza- Despite the interest of these classifications, they
tions’ decision-making environment. are primarily focused on knowledge management
In implementing information and communica- processes. Subsequently, the basic functions
tion technologies, organizations seek to hamper of ICTs, such as communication and decision
the effects of complexity. ICTs tend to improve the support, remain in the background. In order to
quality of both communication and decision-mak- grasp the effect of ICTs on both information and
ing processes (Huber & Crisp, 2003) by providing knowledge gaps, it is critical to define a framework
organizations with additional capacities to deal that associates knowledge processes with basic
Table 1. Four forms of knowledge-based complexity

functions of technologies. This could clarify the ple. ICTs that focus on communication, such as
mechanisms through which ICTs enable organiza- e-mail, text-chat, and videoteleconferencing, gen-
tions to process a variety of knowledge types and erate interactive knowledge processes in allowing
to deal with uncertainty and complexity issues. individuals to share a part of their tacit knowing.
In that way, the classification proposed by Zack Such dedicated ICTs refer to “communication”
(1999) is helpful in making ICTs’ functions easy to technologies. They facilitate (1) communication
identify. Zack distinguished two main knowledge across time and geographical location with greater
processes: integrative and interactive. He associ- precision to target groups, and (2) participation
ated each knowledge process with (1) a specific and control in networks (Huber & Crisp, 2003).
type of knowledge and (2) a set of technologies. As collaborative and communication tools, such
Integrative knowledge process refers to the technologies make the conversion of tacit know-
management of existing stocks and sequential ing into explicit knowing easier, and reduce the
flows of explicit knowledge in organization. As probability of misinterpretation to emerge. We
we previously mentioned, explicit knowledge is suggest that communication technologies may
related to declarative knowledge (know-what and efficiently reduce knowledge gaps related to com-
know-why) that is formal and can be packaged munication and cognitive forms of knowledge-
as information. Declarative knowledge is codi- based complexity.
fied, documented, transferred, and easily shared. In associating integrative and interactive
Hence, the set of ICTs dedicated to integrative knowledge processes with basic functions of ICTs,
process provides a way to integrate and manage the previous framework points out the ways tech-
declarative knowledge. We suggest calling these nologies help to manage and create knowledge.
tools “decision-support” technologies. Decision- Nevertheless, this classification tends to establish
support technologies are upgrading databases, a rather deterministic link between knowledge
expert systems, online management information processes and basic functions of technologies.
systems, tactical navigation aids, information Even when Zack introduced combinations of
repositories, and so forth. As Huber and Crisp knowledge processes, he always associated a spe-
(2003) argued, decision-support tools allow the cific set of ICTs with a single knowledge process.
organization to (1) store and retrieve large amounts This perspective promotes a linear cause-effect
of knowledge, (2) combine and reconfigure relationship in which technology systematically
knowledge so as to create new knowledge, and produces the desired (or near desired) effect on
(3) use the decision models developed in experts knowledge management goals.
and decision makers’ mind and stored as expert In this chapter, we seek out to avoid technologi-
systems. We consider that decision-support tech- cal determinism since it plays down contextual
nologies enable organizations to handle problems effects and human factors on technologies. In
related to environment and information forms of order to develop our framework, we adapt the
knowledge-based complexity. typology of Zack to a “use-based” perspective.
The second knowledge process is called Structurational models (Barley, 1986; De Sanctis
interactive. It concentrates primarily on support- & Poole, 1994; Orlikowski, 1992; Orlikowski &
ing interactions among individuals holding tacit Robey, 1991) fit well with our purpose since they
knowledge. Since tacit knowledge is developed are inherently dynamic and grounded in ongoing
from experiences and action, it is difficult to ar- human action. According to the authors, people
ticulate and share. However, tacit knowledge can appropriate the “embodied structures” inscribed
be made explicit, in particular through knowledge in technologies during their uses. Structures are
exchanges and rich communications among peo- here understood as the set of rules and resources

developed in recurrent social practices (Giddens, workflow is implemented to sustain repetitive

1984). When people interact regularly with tech- tasks, dealing with a large amount of informa-
nologies, they are engaged with some of these tion and following rigorous procedures. In that
rules and resources that shape their actions by case, it represents a production-assisting tool, and
facilitating some outcomes and constraining supports an integrative knowledge process. On
others (Orlikowski & Robey, 1991). Then, dif- the other hand, workflow is deployed in order to
ferent types of appropriation might occur that facilitate a project management or an innovation
preserve, substitute for, combine, enlarge, con- process. In this case, procedures are not decided
trast, constrain, affirm, or negate the structures beforehand. Individuals contribute to their defini-
provided by ICTs (De Sanctis & Poole, 1994, p. tion through collaborative exchanges during the
135). Orlikowski (2000) went deeper into the project life cycle. Therefore, workflow supports
idea of appropriation in focusing on “emergent cooperation, among individuals, in articulating
structures” of technologies. Through their regular- disseminated knowledge and activities. It can be
ized and contextualized engagement with ICTs, assimilated to a collaborative tool and generates
final users enact a set of rules and resources that interactive knowledge process. The different uses
structure their ongoing interactions with technolo- of workflow depend on the particular ways and
gies. The concept of enactment represents the conditions final users deal with.
ability of final users to translate technologies into A given technology enables organizations to
action and to transform them during action. In process declarative as well as procedural knowl-
their recurrent and situated practices, final users edge. The contribution of technology as integrative
shape the technologies’ structures that shape their or interactive knowledge process depends on its
uses. Orlikowski stressed on the recursive nature effectiveness, at a given time, in fulfilling orga-
of users’ interactions with technologies. Further, nizational goals. Final users adopt a technology
she highlighted that when people use ICTs, they with regard to their needs, at a given time and
draw on (1) technologies’ structures gradually within a given context. More precisely, they com-
inscribed by designers and users in their previous bine their uses to adapt their actions to uncertain
interactions, (2) their skills, knowledge, expecta- and complex circumstances. Such combinations
tions about technologies and their uses, and (3) are situated since they fulfill particular needs in
their knowledge and experiences concerning the particular ways.
organizational and social contexts in which they We refer to the concept of use as the combina-
live and work, including cultural values and social tion of knowledge processes, knowledge types,
conventions (Orlikowski, 2000, p. 410). and basic functions of technologies, in order to
Technologies’ uses are, thus, strongly affected study how organizations exploit decision support
by situated practices. That is the reason why and communication tools. However, we consider
the impact of ICTs’ implementation is difficult that combined uses can generate mitigated results.
to anticipate. People are able to enact a single On the one hand, they might enable organizations
technology in different ways, depending on their to reduce both information and knowledge gaps.
needs, their situation, the context of use, and so On the other hand, combined uses might create
forth. Such an insight is critical for our framework additional and unexpected decision making and
since it stresses on the non-linear relationship communication problems.
between ICTs functions and knowledge pro- The use of tactical Internet (TI) by U.S. military
cesses. For instance, Benghozi (2002) reported organizations provides a relevant example to grasp
that the implementation of workflow generates the impact of combined uses on decision making
two different types of uses. On the one hand, and communication. Indeed, military organiza-

tions act within highly demanding environments system—PLGS), and videoteleconferencing

where time pressures are severe and errors only (VTC) to study how combined uses of Web-based
tolerated at minimum rates. Tactical Internet is tools provide the military with effective capaci-
considered by the military as an effective set of ties to reduce both information and knowledge
decision-making and communication technolo- gaps. We stress on the unexpected effects of such
gies that enables dispersed units to achieve tactical combinations, especially problems of misunder-
goals within highly austere conditions. As such, standing and information overload.
the TI example provides significant insights for
a variety of distinctive organizational contexts using tactical internet to reduce
(medical health care, fire brigades, nuclear plants, information and Knowledge gaps:
etc.) within which responsiveness and adaptability insights from the text chat
are decisive success factors (Faraj & Xiao, 2006).
Therefore, we focus on military organizations Text-chat is widely used tactically on U.S. Navy
since they offer illustrations of organizations that ships and by Special Forces (U.S. Army and
use Internet technologies within complex decision U.S. Marine Corps), and is a key communica-
environments. Examples are drawn from recent tion tool for all military services (Seymour &
military operations in Afghanistan (Operation En- Cowen, 2006). Chat tools can be very useful for
during Freedom – 2001) and Iraq (Operation Iraqi conversing and sharing files with remote war
Freedom – 2003). We have chosen to investigate fighters. This technology allows multiple users
these two operations since they represent the first synchronous participation within various chat
operations in history where a truly digital force rooms. Since text-chat enables collaboration as
has been deployed in real war situations. well as real time information dissemination, it is
used by the military to coordinate disseminated
units, but also to supplement (or in some cases
the use of tactical internet replace) other Command and Control systems
within the u.s. military (Eovito, 2006). During Operation Iraqi Freedom,
organizations 4th Air Support Operation Group (ASOG from the
US Army) used chat tool to combine operations
Tactical internet (TI) consists of various Web- (the so-called close air support —CAS) between
based tools as modern collaboration systems Special Forces on the ground and Air Force
(chat, e-mail, videoteleconferencing, voice over planes. Uses of chat were wide-ranging. On the
Internet protocol), computer decision-support aids one hand, it appeared useful to task Unmanned
(Tactical navigation aids, automated interfaces to Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and others sensors in
training and simulation systems), and upgrading order to collect and disseminate intelligence to
databases (modification, filtering, and storage all units requiring information for CAS execu-
of graphics, text files, tactical environment, and tion. Imagery from UAVs, weather forecasts, and
target data). Such Internet technologies tend to other target information, were easily distributed
improve the common operational picture (COP) among soldiers. This extra information about en-
that enables war fighters to access the same in- vironment features and evolution of tactical goals
formation and knowledge and to obtain a clear helped to manage information gaps. On the other
picture of the tactical situation (Seymour & hand, chat tool allowed real-time collaboration
Cowen, 2006). between CAS key actors for questions on strike-
Next sections focus on text-chat, upgrading related, target, and coordination with other parallel
databases (as the positioning location guidance agencies. Chat helped to monitor the mission in

preparation and to send debrief/mission report unexpected effects that increased organizational
once pilots returned. As a result, chat enhanced decision making and communication problems.
efficient collaborative interactions.
Despite the lack of non-verbal cues (Scott, creating unexpected information
Cummings, Graeber, Nelson, & Bolia, 2006; and Knowledge gaps: insights from
Wainfain & Davis, 2004), text chat provided the text chat, the positioning
war fighters with frequent occasions to exchange location guidance system (plgs)
know-how as experiences, stories, viewpoints, and the videoteleconferencing (vtc)
and more conceptual knowledge. In sharing pro-
cedural knowledge and creating new know-how, Many officers and scholars reported suboptimal
chat supports the externalization of knowledge results of text-chat uses (Akavia & Gofer, 2006;
through the conversion of tacit knowledge to Eovito, 2006; Scott et al., 2006). Its promises were
explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). not fully realized due to some unexpected issues.
One of chat critical properties for users is to ac- Since knowledge-sharing occured in real-time,
cess multiple rooms simultaneously. It gave to 4th war fighters had to remain focused and watch-
ASOG the opportunity to manage information ful in order to hold the right information at the
from sensors while communicating with other right moment. The situation could become very
key actors involved in the operation: soldiers stressful since they did not want to miss out criti-
were dealing with declarative and procedural cal information. The problem was to determine
types of knowledge at the same time. They de- the moment where soldiers stopped collecting
veloped combinations of uses that generated both information and concentrated exclusively on
interactive and integrative knowledge processes. mission execution. Therefore, soldiers quickly
Such combined uses improved their situational felt themselves under pressure and overloaded
awareness with no additional cost in time and by information flow. Such a result illustrates a
effort. Eovito (2006) reported that soldiers felt problem related to the lack of skills in managing
their situational awareness without chat could be information spaces. Recent researches and ex-
strongly diminished, and information dissemina- periments into human performance (Cummings,
tion and coordination would be a struggle. 2005) suggest that subjects remain fixated on the
This illustration suggests that the efficiency of chat interface, and ignore the task of retargeting
Internet technologies comes from combinations missiles in urgent and stressful situations. Even
of uses developed by final users on the battlefield. when instructors repeat that the primary mission
War fighters assimilated chat’s technical features, is retargeting, subjects are still focused on chat;
and adapted them to their operational needs and answering all queries before dealing with retarget-
constraints. They looked beyond chat’s initial ing problems. Even if time and effort are saved
collaborative functions, and also used it as a from repeating questions (previous conversations
decision-support tool. A single Web-based tool are written and time stamped), the multiple rooms
allowed war fighters to develop and to exploit both property tends to increase the amount of informa-
interactive and integrative knowledge processes. tion available at a given time. Such a situation can
Such combined uses improved knowledge-sharing be explained since we consider the volume and
and decision-making processes on the battlefield. the time-sensitive nature of chat traffic.
However, despite significant improvements, many After-action reports from Afghanistan and
information gaps and knowledge gaps remained Iraq stressed additional information-space
unsolved. Further, combined uses generated management problems concerning the use of
0
Web-based decision-support tools. The Posi- task (Scott et al., 2006). Clarifying the situation
tioning Location Guidance System (PLGS) from the receiver introduces significant costs: it
provides a relevant example of such problems. requires effort, and may be disruptive if infor-
The U.S. Army uses PLGS in order to capture mation is provided at an inopportune moment
tactical information in real time: opposing and (Dabbish & Kraut, 2004). As a result, the ability
allied forces locations appear on the display(s) as of knowing when and how to communicate with
coloured icons on a digitized map. Information a remote team (if it is available for conversation
is related to troop movements, speed of moving, or not) has to be acquired by final users in order
battle development (level of fuel, ammunitions, to avoid communication failures. Such misinter-
etc.). PLGS also provides e-mail communication pretations of non-verbal cues can produce more
to exchange procedural knowledge on tactical challenging situations.
situation. War fighters reported that they could After-action reports from Operation Iraqi
feel overloaded with the amount of information, Freedom also indicated that the use of vide-
and that sometimes much of it may have had little oteleconferencing (VTC) by U.S. military often
bearing on their missions (Wilson, 2005). They led participants to question the commander intent.
received messages and images from too many As Wainfain and Davis (2004) pointed out, VTC
different networks, leading them to operate a often challenges the attendees in interpreting each
large number of selections that involved additional one’s body language and gestures, especially as
pressure. Reports also indicated that soldiers the number of participants increases. VTC lim-
tended to automatically transmit data from sen- its non-verbal, para-verbal, and status cues, and
sors to the highest level of command. Problems reduces the quality of the knowledge exchanged.
arose when numerous sensors detected a single Participants are also less willing to engage a
vehicle, at the same time. In that case, the threat discussion and find a solution. VTC appears less
was overestimated. All these examples illustrate persuasive than face-to-face, in part because of
the limitation of Web-based tools combined uses. the poor image resolution and the delays in VTC’s
Even if uses tend to generate integrative as well audio. During mission preparation, such disadvan-
as interactive knowledge processes, information tages constrained the commanders to clarify their
and environment forms of complexity are not fully objectives through more detailed e-mails, but in
handled. Information gaps still subsist, mainly most cases, by face-to-face meetings. As a result,
due to a lack of skills dedicated to information the time required to prepare operation was longer
space management. than expected (Fox, 2004; White, 2002). Such a
Further, problems of misinterpretation and knowledge gap between commanders and war
sense-making still persist despite extended ex- fighters on the ground illustrates the limitation of
change opportunities through Tactical Internet. explicit communication Web-based technologies.
Knowledge gaps arose because war fighters at- If chat and VTC promise efficient collaboration,
tribute different interpretations to the same cue, they lack the richness of face-to-face interactions.
the same message, or the same tactical situation. This is the reason why knowledge sharing through
Cues, like conversational pauses during chat ex- Tactical Internet tools must be accompanied by
changes, could be misinterpreted, and introduced more subtle group interactions to help the military
unwarranted confusion. When a team failed to communicate and coordinate during joint opera-
answer to a text message, the sender could mis- tions (Scott et al., 2006).
interpret this lack of response as a disagreement Illustrations from operations Enduring Free-
with its statement, while it was just as likely that dom and Iraqi Freedom highlight one main result:
the message receiver was concentrated on another in generating integrative and interactive knowl-

edge processes, combined uses of Web-based example, ICTs generate an exponential increase
tools improve knowledge sharing and decision of knowledge-processing speed, volumes, and
making on the battlefield. However, they often memorization capacities. On the one hand, the
trigger the emergence of additional information introduction of decision-support and communica-
and knowledge-related problems. This point tion tools triggers the generalization of automated
raises the more general question of Web-based command and control loops for a wide range of
tools’ net value for organizations. While Internet well-structured repeated decisions. The result is
technologies inspire organizations’ strategy to a continuous trend toward optimized decision
leverage knowledge, they themselves cannot fully loops because the rate of interactions increases
explain their organizational value. Technologies both vertically and horizontally, reducing decision
might provide efficient solutions to knowledge- time lags, and allowing for a selective control of
based problems if both technological and socio- decision-making tempo. On the other hand, the
organizational factors are taken into account by number and variety of available communication
managers who seek out to develop an effective tools are extended. The quality of communica-
technological strategy. tions increases significantly, thanks to the variety
of communication supports (e.g., voice, texts,
images, videos) that can be transmitted. By
the additional value promoting horizontal communications within a
generated by combined uses hierarchically organized system, Web-based tools
of icts in organizations facilitate the decentralization of decision making.
This suggests that ICTs create additional autonomy
Analysing combined uses of Internet technologies within the organization’s hierarchy, enhancing or-
within organizations, the first thing that comes ganizational flexibility and adaptability. However,
into views is that we need to identify the various the organizational impact of decision-support and
domains for which ICTs are likely to generate communication tools remains ambivalent. ICTs
additional value. We identify two organizational can turn the chain of command into a decentralized
areas: (1) decision making and (2) knowledge network of interacting decision nodes, but they
sharing. Since the effects of the implementation of can also reinforce a trend toward centralization
ICTs are non-linear, issues concerning technolo- and direct supervision of subordinates that might
gies enactment by final users must be addressed impede intermediate decision makers’ initiatives,
to ensure organizational benefits. This perspec- and create a climate of distrust.
tive might affect the strategic management of Another critical issue concerning the net value
technological change in organization. of ICTs relates to knowledge sharing. While
technological attributes affect both the collective
articulating decision making and storing and sharing of knowledge and the ability
Knowledge sharing through icts: for individuals to communicate frequently (Fulk
an ambivalent relationship & DeSanctis, 1995), they should be mixed with
socio-organizational factors to better appreciate
Successful organizations are able to develop valu- the role played by ICTs in the process of knowledge
able competences dedicated to decision making sharing. Among these factors, van den Hooff et al.
and knowledge sharing under conditions of un- (van den Hooff, Elving, Meeuwsen, & Dumoulin,
certainty and complexity. Many of these valuable 2003) regard interindividual trust and community-
competences are dependent on the technological based identification as major determinants since
attributes of modern Internet technologies. For they affect individuals’ ability and willingness to

share knowledge and cooperate. As Faraj and Xiao formation strategy (or business model) to drive
(2006) argued, knowledge sharing “is one of the technology deployment and utilization. Hence, the
most difficult aspects of expertise coordination. implementation of ICTs should be motivated by
Technological solutions provide redundancy but organizational expectations about their strategic
cannot replace the human element” (p. 1163). It value for the organization. The conditions for
is therefore critical to keep in mind that a great success reside in the attributes and qualities of
deal of knowledge sharing depends on people’s the strategy-driven model of technological change
willingness to share what they know, often through adopted by the organization.
verbal, informal, and face-to-face interactions. The issues of technology appropriation by
Pickering and King (1995) also suggested that users, technology integration within specific
cooperation in the digital work place depends on work-contexts, and organizational transforma-
a particular category of individuals who provide tion need to be addressed together to ensure
loose connections between members of strong-tie that technology can deliver upon the promise
communities. This need for a weak-tie commu- of organization performance. There is a need
nication network as a complement to Web-based to discuss the combined uses of ICTs in terms
tools is reinforced within organizations exhibiting of a contextualized set of practices that remains
high levels of geographical dispersion of opera- emergent and tacit. Therefore, combined uses refer
tions. Such organizations are indeed dependent to work practices that emerge from an ongoing
on long-distance intra- and interorganizational stream of activities and are enacted through the
communications to ensure effective coordina- actions of individuals within specialized contexts
tion. They can exploit Web-based technologies (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Brown & Duguid, 1998;
to connect organizational units within loosely Orlikowski, 2000).
coupled cooperative structures. Therein, weak We suggest that a balanced integration of
ties might serve as “bridges” between strong-tie formal and informal decision-making and com-
networks, and provide organizationally useful munication mechanisms, based on combined uses
information. of ICTs, should be privileged in order to enhance
The organizational value of Internet technolo- organizations’ adaptation to uncertain and com-
gies for organizations is not straightforward. ICTs plex circumstances. By focusing on combinations
cannot be managed only through preconceived of formal and informal communications, tangible
technological standards and routines. Combined and intangible assets, and interactive and integra-
uses of ICTs cannot be fully expected because tive processes, organizations are able to leverage
decision making cannot be specified in sufficient strategic value from the deployment of ICTs.
detail to be carried out, repeated, and standard- Our perspective has a natural affinity with the
ized. resource-based view of competitive advantage
in the strategy field (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991).
the additional value of icts: The resource-based view states that a firm devel-
a strategic perspective ops a competitive advantage by combining, and
effectively deploying, its physical, human, and
As Malhotra (2005) reminded us, investing in organizational resources in ways that add unique
the most advanced technologies does not ensure value (Barney, 1991). This perspective draws
real business-performance improvements. Most attention to the role played by individual and
of the leader organizations in a wide range of collective skills, knowledge, routines, and learn-
industries did not massively invest in ICTs. In ing mechanisms. Theses resources result from
contrast, they have adopted a well-designed trans- complex social structures (as rules and resources)

built over time and, thus, difficult to understand coordinating inter individual knowledge and ac-
and imitate (Colbert, 2004). Our combined uses tions. However, designing an effective strategy
framework is connected to the resource-based for deploying and exploiting ICTs cannot ensure
view since it promotes such combinations of organizational value. According to our approach,
physical, human, and organizational resources. the core problem of Internet technologies manage-
Final users improve the basic functions of ICTs ment relates to the evolving social practices that
by combining and deploying routines, skills, and fold together the planned and the unexpected, the
knowledge processes and types. Value comes from tacit and the codified, into a complex combination
these capacities of combination and recombination of uses. For ICTs to generate value, it is therefore
of tangible and intangible resources, depending critical to combine the top-down approach with
on contextual and working circumstances. a localized mode of management that focuses on
Despite its focus on the role played by man- how knowledge is formed and made explicit, how
agers in the selection, development, combina- it is created and shared, and how it is dissemi-
tion, and deployment of a firm’s resources, the nated. Here, the governance of the organization
resource-based view offers little in the way of follows a bottom-up mode of management that
prescriptions. It does not specifically deal with seeks to exploit “enactive” socio-organizational
how an organization can develop and support the dynamics.
efficient combinations of tangible and intangible
resources to create and sustain competitive ad-
vantage (Delery, 1998). Our concept of combined conclusion
uses might be useful for building and maintain-
ing a competitive advantage. By focusing on the This chapter developed a theoretical framework
need to reconcile planned uses with unexpected to analyze how Internet technologies help orga-
ones, this concept offers a practical view on the nizations to handle various forms of complexity
way organizations can effectively manage what related to decision making and knowledge sharing.
Sanchez et al. (Sanchez, Heene, & Thomas, 1996) First, it built on the concept of combination of
called “the coordinated deployment of resources.” ICTs’ uses to study how individuals learn to mix
In particular, our concept of combination insists on different knowledge processes and technological
the role played by both centralized and decentral- functions to manage both information gaps and
ized coordination mechanisms in the generation knowledge gaps. Second, it developed illustra-
of appropriate technology uses. This means that tions that highlighted the role played by combined
organizations should reconcile two competitive uses emerging from the exploitation of Tactical
approaches of organizational change: a top-down Internet by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and
strategy-based approach and a bottom-up mode of in Iraq. Within this framework, we underlined
management. Amin and Cohendet (2004) called the active role played by final users in exploiting
these two competing perspectives “management the benefits of ICTs, and we focused on both the
by design” and “management by communities.” expected and unexpected effects of ICTs uses
The first mode (management by design) focuses on various organizational processes. This view
on organizational design issues and coordination led us to examine the additional value of ICTs in
mechanisms. The governance of the organization terms of the role played by combined uses in the
is conceptualized from a top-down approach, formulation of an effective technological strategy
suggesting the dominance of hierarchical rela- that reconciles a top-down approach of technology
tionships and a routine-based architecture for with a bottom-up mode of management.

future research directions order to provide knowledge intensive organiza-

tions with effective core capabilities.
The greatest barriers to the effective uses of
Web-based tools are not technical: they relate to transformation of organizational
individual as well as organizational competences architecture and communication
that are encapsulated in daily work practices. interfaces
These practices emerge in a particular context,
and remain tacit. Within this framework, two This chapter raises a number of issues related to
research issues can be explored: organizational change. In particular, it insists on
two critical dimensions that underlie the trans-
• The acquisition and coordination of core formation of organizations. The first dimension
technological and organizational capabilities is concerned with the exploitation of networking
through various modes of individual and communication technologies and its impact on
organizational learning. organizations’ communication structures. The
• The definition of organizational change second dimension is more related to the evolution
as a coevolutionary process between the of organizational structures induced by the de-
organization’s architecture and its com- ployment of network-centric technologies. By and
munication interfaces. large, these dimensions relate to the coevolution of
organizations’ architecture, and interfaces. This
core capabilities and learning future research path could build on the theory of
processes complex products and systems (CoPS, Prencipe,
Davis, & Hobday, 2003) and modularity (Langlois,
In the field of strategic management, the main 2002) to understand organizational transformation
challenge for organizations is to acquire, exploit, and technological change.
and adjust core capabilities in responding to com-
plex circumstances. We argue that two types of
capability are likely to become core. The first one acKnowledgment
is concerned with the reduction of information
gaps, and relates to the development of informa- The authors would like to thank Ettore Bolisani
tion space management capabilities. The second and the three anonymous referees for their helpful
one should facilitate the reduction of knowledge suggestions and comments on this chapter. Ideas
gaps, and is linked to the development of knowl- expressed in this chapter are those of the authors
edge-sharing capabilities. Each type of capability and do not reflect the position of the French Min-
is associated with distinct knowledge activities istry of Defense nor of the French Air Force.
(knowledge sharing and information processing),
and requires appropriate learning processes.
To understand how organizations acquire and references
exploit both information space management and
knowledge-sharing capabilities, it is critical to Akavia, G., & Gofer, E. (2006). Two weeks with
focus on the nature of the learning mechanisms a network-centric infantry company in an urban
involved. This future research path shall insist warfare trial. Paper presented at the Command and
on the variety of individual and organizational Control Research and Technology Symposium,
learning mechanisms that must be articulated in San Diego, CA.

Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2003). Knowledge Colbert, B. (2004). The complex resource-based
management: The information technology di- view: Implications for theory and practice in
mension. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles strategic human resource management. Academy
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and of Management Review, 29(3), 341-358.
knowledge management (pp. 104-121). Oxford:
Cowan, M., David, P., & Foray, D. (2001). The
Blackwell Publishing.
explicit economics of knowledge codification
Alberts, D. S., Gartska, J. J., & Stein, F. P. (1999). and tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change,
Network-centric warfare: Developing and le- 9(2), 211-253.
veraging information superiority. Washington
Cummings, M. (2005). The need for command
D.C: Department of Defense C4ISR Cooperative
and control instant message adaptive interfaces:
Research Program.
Lessons learned from tactical Tomahawk hu-
Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of man-in-the-loop simulations. Cambridge, MA:
knowledge: Firms, capabilities, and communities. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Humans
Oxford: Oxford University Press. and Automation Laboratory.
Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and or- Dabbish, L., & Kraut, R. (2004). Controlling
ganization science. Organization Science, 10(3), interruptions: Awareness displays and social mo-
216-232. tivation for coordination. In Proceedings of ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, R., & Lane, D. (1997).
Work (pp. 182-191). ACM Press.
The economy as an evolving complex system II.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., De Long, D. W.,
& Jacobson, A. L. (2001). Data to knowledge to
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion
results: Building an analytic capability. California
for structuring: Evidence from observation of
CT scanners and the social order of radiology
departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic
31, 78-108. human resource management: Implications for
research. Human Resource Management Review,
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained
8, 289–309.
competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17, 99–120. De Sanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing
the complexity in advanced technology in use:
Benghozi, P. J. (2002). Technologie et organi-
Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Sci-
sation : le hasard et la nécessité. Annales des
ence, 5(2), 121-47.
Télécommunications, 57(3-4), 289-305.
Eovito, B. (2006). The impact of synchronous
Boisot, M. (1998). Knowledge assets. Secur-
text-based chat on military Command and Con-
ing competitive advantages in the information
trol. Paper presented at the 11th International
economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Command and Control Research and Technology
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Knowledge Symposium, Cambridge, UK.
and organization: A social-practice perspective.
Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in fast-
response organizations. Management Science,
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing 52(8), 1155-1169.
knowledge. California Management Review,
40(3), 90-111.

Fox, G. (2004). Virtual collaboration: Advantages March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation
and disadvantages in the planning and execution in organizational learning. Organization Science,
of operations in the information age, Newport: 2(1), 71-87.
Naval War College.
Marwick, A. (2001). Knowledge management
Fulk, J., & DeSanctis, G. (1995). Electronic com- technology. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 814-
munication and changing organizational forms. 830.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organiza-
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: tional knowledge creation. Organization Science,
Outline of the theory of structure. Berkeley, CA: 5(1), 14-34.
University of California Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge
Gittell, J., & Weiss, L. (2004). Coordination creating company: How Japanese companies
networks within and across organizations: A create the dynamics of innovation? New York:
multilevel framework. Journal of Management Oxford University Press.
Studies, 41(1), 127-153.
Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology:
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of Rethinking the concept of technology in organiza-
competitive advantage. California Management tions. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
Review, 33(3), 114–135.
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and
Häkanson, L. (2007). Creating knowledge: The constituting structures: A practice lens for study-
power and logic of articulation. Industrial and ing technology in organizations. Organization
Corporate Change, 16(1), 51-88. Science, 11(4), 404-428.
Huber, G., & Crisp, C. (2003). Organizations, in- Orlikowski, W., & Robey, D. (1991). Information
formation systems impact on. In. H. Bidgoli (Ed.), technology and the structuring of organizations.
Encyclopedia of information systems (pp. 413-26). Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169.
San Diego: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Pickering, J., & King, J. (1995). Hardwiring weak
Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, ties: Interorganizational computer-mediated
B.A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of communications, occupational communities, and
innovation. Research Policy. organizational change. Organization Science,
6(4), 479-486.
Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A.
(2002). Why all this fuss about codified and tacit Sanchez, R., Heene, A., & Thomas, H. (1996).
knowledge? Industrial and Corporate Change, Toward the theory and practice of competence-
11(2), 245-262. based competition. In R. Sanchez, A. Heene,
& H. Thomas(Eds.), Dynamics of competence-
Lundvall, B-A., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learn-
based competition: Theory and practice in the
ing economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2),
new strategic management (pp. 1-36). London:
23-42.
Elsevier Science.
Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating knowledge man-
Scott, S., Cummings, M., Graeber, D., Nelson, W.,
agement technologies in organizational business
& Bolia, R. (June). Collaboration technology in
processes: Getting real time enterprises to deliver
military team operations: Lessons learned from
real business performance. Journal of Knowledge
the corporate domain. Paper presented at the

Command and Control Research and Technology ington, D.C.: Report for Congress, Congressional
Symposium, San Diego, CA. Research Service, The library of Congress.
Seymour, G., & Cowen, M. (2006). A review of Zack, M. (1999). Managing codified knowledge.
team collaboration tools for crisis response in the Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45-58.
military and government. Paper presented at the
Zack, M. (2001). If managing knowledge is the
Command and Control Research and Technology
solution, then what’s the problem? In Y. Malhotra
Symposium, San Diego, CA.
(Ed.), Knowledge management and business
Shackle, G. L. S. (1961). Decision, order and model innovation (pp. 16-36). Hershey, PA: Idea
time in human affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge Group Publishing.
University Press.
Simon, H. A. (1969a). The architecture of com-
plexity. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), The Science of the additional reading
artificial (pp. 192-229). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. Andreu, R., & Ciborra, C. (1996). Organisational
learning and core capabilities development: the
Simon, H. A. (1969b). The science of the artificial.
role of IT. Journal of Strategic Information Sys-
Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
tems, 5, 111-127.
Van den Hooff, B., Elving, W., Meeuwsen, J.
Argyres, N. S. (1999). The impact of informa-
M., & Dumoulin, C. (2003). Knowledge sharing
tion technology on coordination: Evidence from
in knowledge communities. In M. Huysman, E.
the B-2 “stealth” bomber. Organization Science,
Wenger, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Communities and
10(2), 162-180.
technologies (pp. 119-141). Boston: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational
learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wainfain, L., & Davis, P. (2004). Challenges in
virtual collaboration: Videoconferencing, audio- Boland, R. J., Tenkasi, R. T., & Te’eni, D. (1994).
conferencing and computer-mediated communi- Designing information technology to support
cations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, distributed cognition. Organization Science,
National Defense Research Institute. 5(3), 456-475.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organiza- Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Organizational
tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. learning and communities of practice. In M. D.
Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D.
learning (pp. 58-82). London: Sage Publication.
(2005). Organizing and the process of sensemak-
ing. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (2001).
Knowledge specialization, organizational cou-
White, J. (2002). Retrospect of information
pling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do
technology’s impact on society and warfare:
firms know more than they make? Administrative
revolution or dangerous hype? Newport: Naval
Science Quarterly, 46, 597-621.
War College.
Chandler, A. (1966). Strategy and structures.
Wilson, C. (2005). Network centric warfare: Back-
Cambridge: MIT Press.
ground and oversight issues for Congress, Wash-

Crowston, K. (1997). A coordination theory ap- March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organiza-
proach to organizational process design. Orga- tion. New York: Wiley.
nization Science, 8(2), 157-175.
McDermott, R. (1999). Why information tech-
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working nology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge
knowledge: How organizations manage what management. California Management Review,
they know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 41(4), 103-117.
Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Design-
Davis, A., & Hobday, M. (2005). The business ing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs NJ:
of project: Managing innovation in complex Prentice-Hall.
products and systems. Cambridge: Cambridge
Orton, J. E., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely
University Press.
coupled systems: A re-conceptualization. Acad-
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A emy of Management Review, 15(2), 203-223.
review of some literatures. Organization Studies,
Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core com-
14(3), 375-394.
petence of the corporation. Harvard Business
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Ar- Review, 79-91.
chitectural innovation: The reconfiguration of
Prencipe, A., Davis, A., & Hobday, M. (2003). The
existing product technologies and the failure of
business of systems integration. Oxford: Oxford
established firms. Administrative Science Quar-
University Press.
terly, 35(1), 9-30.
Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity,
Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innova-
flexibility, and knowledge management in product
tion and industrial organization. Research Policy,
and organization design. Strategic Management
26, 689-710.
Journal, 17, 63-76.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do?
Schilling, M. (2000). Toward a general modular
Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization
systems theory and its application to interfirm
Science, 7(5), 702-718.
product modularity. Academy of Management
Langlois, R. N. (2002). Modularity in technology Review, 25(2), 312-334.
and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Schuen, A. (1997). Dy-
and Organization, 49, 19-37.
namic capabilities and strategic management.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Wang, Q., & Majchrzak, A. (1996). Breaking
Cambridge University Press.
the functional mindset in process organizations.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). Core capabilities Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 92-99.
and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge
product development. Strategic Management
and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
Journal, 13, 111-125.
organizational capabilities: An empirical test.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational Organization Science, 6(1), 76-92.
learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate
340.
learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities.

0
Chapter XIII
Leading Firms as Knowledge
Gatekeepers in a Networked
Environment
Deogratias Harorimana
Southampton Solent University, UK
abstract
This chapter introduces the role of the knowledge gatekeeper as a mechanism by which knowledge is
created and transferred in a networked environment. Knowledge creation and transfer are essential for
building a knowledge-based economy. The chapter considers obstacles that inhibit this process and argues
that leading firms create a shared sociocultural context that enables the condivision of tacit meanings
and codification of knowledge. Leading firms act as gatekeepers of knowledge through the creation of
shared virtual platforms. There will be a leading firm that connects several networks of clients and sup-
pliers who may not interact directly with one another, but are, indeed, connected indirectly though the
leading firm that acts as a gatekeeper. The chapter argues that a large firm connecting several clients
and suppliers at the multinational level represents a gatekeeper, but even individuals and focal firms
in industrial districts can be gatekeepers. The author hopes that, through this discussion, academics,
researchers, and doctoral students will have a comprehensive theoretical and practical basis on which
to study the role of leading firms in building innovations and virtual teams of knowledge sharing in a
highly networked and competitive environment.
introduction lationships can be a source of novel ideas and

expert insights useful for innovation processes.
This chapter discusses the role of leading firms Firms can develop global channels and create
in knowledge sharing practices in networked platforms not only to exchange products or ser-
environments. In a global economy, distant re- vices, but also in order to benefit from outside
Leading firms as Knowledge Gatekeepers in a Networked Environment
knowledge inputs and desire for growth. Recent relationships that are perceived to be essential
indications also are that, in a global knowledge to distance networking and knowledge sharing.
economy, organisational success can no longer be The indications are that the value of knowledge
measured based on its internal interactions alone. building can be maximised where social ties seem
Rather, corporate success can be derived from to exist; and above all, the identity of the source
its capacity and its ability to identify and access plays a greater part. This chapter uses theories
external knowledge sources located far away, and that may be borrowed from different subject do-
to convert this knowledge into an explicit format mains to enrich the debate. This is because, on
that can be transferred and reused. the one hand, there continues to be what can be
On the one hand, this is an indication that seen as technology-led knowledge management
knowledge is an external factor that can have an research that appears to sideline social tools such
effect on firms’ innovative processes, and that as communities of practice, social networks,
the extent of the effect is more or less dependent gatekeepers, and alike. On the other hand, we
on the extent of relationships with other firms. continue to observe research into knowledge
On the other hand, the author acknowledges that management that is inclined more to the social
many of the developed countries have successfully tools named, but does not bring in a technology
integrated information and computer technol- perspective. In particular, in such research, the
ogy to support business processes, but research Internet-supported knowledge sharing is not
into knowledge creation and knowledge transfer talked about. These are two interrelated areas,
processes remains subdivided along several lines; and they complement each other. Even in distant
and this subject still lacks focus and consistency. knowledge sharing, relationships are built and
The value of the availability of the Internet to sustained over time. In this chapter, the author will
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and not present further new empirical research; rather,
Development (OECD) nations can be related he aims to provide food for thought, and a new
to cultural understanding as well as scientific way of thinking that would seek to bring together
development. However, codified knowledge can knowledge-creation and knowledge-transfer (KT)
be shared on the net, whilst much of the tacit research to an intersection with technology-sup-
knowledge cannot. In this chapter, the author ported knowledge-sharing practices.
introduces perspectives of knowledge-sharing
practice under the support of leading firms, and
discusses how this is supported by social interac- the context in
tions as well as technological tools such as the Knowledge-based economy
Internet. Using knowledge gatekeeper theories, research
we are able to show that the practices of both
sharing knowledge and, more specifically, shar- …. Ultimate limits to growth may lie not so much
ing knowledge through networking and virtual in our abilities to generate new ideas, as in our
places offered by leading and focal firms, may abilities to process to fruition an ever-increasing
be directly linked to existing social relationships abundance of potentially fruitful ideas. (Weitzman,
that characterise communities’ members. Social 1998, p. 331)
relationships are sophisticated and they may
include several networks that, in a broad sense, This statement underlines the need to have this
act as knowledge gatekeepers. In this process, debate on how and why building the knowledge
identity and learning culture of recipients play society and enabling the extraction of value from
an important role in building trust and long-term knowledge exchange constitutes an integral part

of today’s leadership and academic concerns. The This suggests two things that businesses are
foundation for the knowledge economy was first faced with. (1) Developing innovative tools for
introduced by Drucker (1966) in The Effective collecting appropriate information, and (2) being
Executive, in which he described the difference able to translate this information into knowl-
between the manual worker (1966, p.2) and the edge that sustains their competitive advantage.
knowledge worker. A manual worker works with Moreover, knowledge that sustains competitive
his hands and produces things. A knowledge advantage is often that which is implicit and sticky
worker (Drucker 1966:3) works with his head (Von Hippel, 2005, p.8, p.67). This is the form
and produces ideas, knowledge, and information. of knowledge perceived as the source of innova-
For OECD countries, the rules and practices that tion (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). Drucker (1994,
determined success in the industrial economy of p. 9) emphasises that “How well an individual,
the 19th and 20th centuries need rewriting for an an organization, an industry, a country, does in
interconnected world where resources, such as acquiring and applying knowledge” is a reflec-
know-how, are more critical than other economic tion on the conditional requirements to achieving
resources (Bell, 1973) 1, and this chapter can be firm competitive advantage through continuous
seen as one of a series of contributions towards internalisation of knowledge both at firm and
achieving this goal. Research into how these rules individual levels
can be rewritten at the level of firms and indus-
tries in terms of networking, knowledge creation,
knowledge transfer, and knowledge-management preliminary concepts
processes is subdivided and lacking an integrated
approach, while there is an increasing role and The author will introduce concepts that will
significance of knowledge as an input to eco- require our readers concur as to their meanings
nomic processes leading to fundamental changes as we set out in this chapter. In the first instance,
(OECD, 1996). readers can be alerted to the fact that knowledge
Some of these changes rest on advances in sharing is not the same as “information shar-
information technology that are leading to a ing.” Similarly, “knowledge sharing” is not the
paradigm shift. This paradigm shift is linked to equivalent of “knowledge transfer.” The United
the fact the world is experiencing basic changes States Department of Defense research team that
in economic functioning, and changes in the eco- introduced the concept of knowledge sharing
nomic rules, for both business and policymakers suggested that the goal of knowledge sharing
(Smith, 2000). In fact, Drucker predicted that in would be to develop techniques, methodologies,
the age of social transformation: and software tools for knowledge sharing and
knowledge reuse, design, implementation, or
… How well an individual, an organization, an execution time (Patil, 1992). Knowledge sharing is
industry, a country, does in acquiring and apply- therefore more complex than information sharing,
ing knowledge will become the key competitive and much closer to knowledge transfer. However,
factor. The knowledge society will inevitably knowledge sharing requires communication that,
become far more competitive than any society in turn, requires a common language (Neches et
we have yet known—for the simple reason that al 1990). Thus, “information sharing” becomes a
with knowledge being universally accessible, subpart of knowledge sharing in itself.
there will be no excuses for non-performance… Knowledge sharing goes much further to in-
(Drucker, 1994, p.9). clude an unspoken aim to achieve a continuous
application of what one already knows. This pro-

cess becomes much more complex in its process creation and knowledge-transfer research that at-
because it entails knowledge transfer (KT). The tempt to provide a definition in the first place, and
Office of Science and Technology (OST) (2007) the models in the second ranking. As we set out
of the British Government defines KT as “the this chapter, we will refer to knowledge sharing
process of transferring good ideas, research results and extracting value from knowledge exchange.
and skills between universities, other research Readers are advised that the author willingly
organisations, business and the wider community accepts that the two concepts are not interchange-
to enable innovative new products and services able, as knowledge sharing is a continuation from
to be developed,” (http://www.ost.gov.uk). In ad- information sharing, and it is much more complex
dition, KT may involve the effective sharing of than information sharing.
ideas, knowledge, or experience between units of
a company or from a company to its customers.
At the organisational level, KT is defined as “the Knowledge conversion
practical problem of getting a packet of knowledge models
from one part of the organisation to another (or
all other) part(s) of the organization” (Argote & Among the several models that exist with regard
Ingram, P., .2000). This is the definition Argote to KT, some have been developed more than
and Ingram (2000) built on in their study of the others. Among those successful models, many
context of organisational studies within which KT appear to concentrate at organisational levels. At
was described as the sole basis for competitive organisational levels, they include studies on (1)
advantage. Argote and Ingram’s study defined knowledge gatekeepers (Allen & Cohen, 1969),
KT in terms of observed changes in experiences, which is explored later on in this chapter, (2)
both at the organisational recipient units as well as Communities of Practice (CoPs) (Lave & Wenger,
the source. Changes in organisational knowledge 1991), (Lave & Wenger, 1991),(3) Nonaka (1994)
(that is, routine or best practices) can be observed and Nonaka and Takeuchi ‘s(1995) knowledge
through changes in the knowledge or performance conversion model, widely known as the “SECI
of recipient units. model.”
This variety of definitions constitutes a starting In a Community of Practice, members are
point to realising the complexity of knowledge involved in a set of relationships over time (Lave
transfer. Several studies (Bresman et. al. 1999, p. & Wenger 1991, p. 98), and communities develop
447; Garavelli et. al. 2002, p. 271; Simonin 1999b, around things that matter to people (Wenger 1998,
p. 596-7; Szulanski 2000, p. 10) point out that KT p.8). The fact that they are organising around some
is a complex, time-consuming, and difficult proc- particular area of knowledge and activity gives
ess. What we essentially have is a subject that, members a sense of joint enterprise and identity.
so far, has not been completely studied from its For a CoP to function, it needs to generate and
epistemological foundations up to its deep concep- appropriate a shared repertoire of ideas, commit-
tual analysis, which is typically characterised by ments, and memories. It also needs to develop
a variety of models. Attempts made to define KT various resources such as tools, documents,
link (1) the types of knowledge being transferred: routines, vocabulary, and symbols that, in some
knowledge being perceived as tacit or codified), way, carry the accumulated knowledge of the
and (2) physical and social factors: the source community. In other words, it involves practice
and recipient, the distance knowledge travels, (ways of doing and approaching things that are
and cultural differences, and identity. All these shared to a significant extent among members).
are but elements that have featured in knowledge The interactions involved, and the ability to

undertake larger or more complex activities and This model has prerequisites if it is to be suc-
projects though cooperation, bind people together cessful: (1) the organisational leadership must
and help to facilitate relationship and trust. Al- be actively involved in motivating employees to
though CoPs can offer a culturally homogeneous dynamically support this culture of knowledge
space and a set of shared interpretative elements development, as well as being able to manage
that facilitate knowledge exchange, even by means unstoppable changes and make adjustments to
of ICT tools, their implementation is limited by required changes; (2) the ability of a company
their specific scope. Also, these are useful inside to identify its knowledge capabilities and assets;
the single organisation, but are less effective for and (3) the learning culture of employees. This
connecting different organisations. already indicates potential problems that need
Another model often referred to is the Sociali- further studies, for instance, we already know that
sation, Externalisation, and Internalisation model Nonaka’s model was developed in the Japanese
(known as the SECI model). Nonaka (1994, p.19) culture where there is a “one job for life” ethic.
was the architect of the SECI model, but this was A legitimate question, for example, as to
yet to be fully developed (see Nonaka & Takeuchi, whether this model is applicable to western or-
1995). The later study provides the detailed ac- ganisational cultures remains to be evidenced.
counts of the knowledge creation process, which Secondly, the SECI model appears to be linear,
allows us to understand the dynamic nature of and evidence of its flexibility is still lacking. Can
knowledge creation, and offers advice on how it change direction to start at any of its steps (see
to fruitfully manage such a process. For Nonaka Figure 2)? Can it respond to changing patterns of
(1994) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), in the a learner’s needs during the KT process?
SECI model, knowledge creation is a continuous Cumming and Teng (2003) also proposed a
dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge (see KT practice based on relationships’ interdepend-
Figure 1). This interaction is represented in a spiral ency. This model gives a view of what goes on
knowledge creation diagram that becomes larger when KT involves many organisations. While
in scale as it moves up through the organisational Nonaka’s SECI model aims to study knowledge
levels. Along this process, the circle can trigger creation and KT processes within the sociological
new spirals of knowledge creation and the circle context of an organisation, Cumming and Teng’s
starts again (Figure 2). model takes us a step further to understanding the
Figure 1. SECI, knowledge conversion model, as described in Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)
Tacit Knowledge Tacit Knowledge
Externalization: Articulating
Socialization: Empathizing
People are able to build up concepts. These
Tacit This is where people share tacit knowledge Explicit
concepts are combined with tacit knowledge,
Know. through a face-to-face communication and Know.
consequently facilitating its communication
shared experiences.
via interactions and recordings
Internalization: Embodying
Less experienced learn from those who
Combination :Connecting
are most experienced and knowledgeable.
Tacit This is a result of combining a choice of Explicit
People share experiences and external
Know. elements of explicit knowledge such as Know.
knowledge becomes part of individuals’
building archetype.
knowledge base, and finally, creating an
organizational asset.
Explicit Knowledge Explicit Knowledge

Figure 2. Knowledge conversion process accord- another. Thus, trusting one another becomes an
ing to Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) important tool in identifying tacit knowledge to
be transferred. Social relationships are perceived
as important in this process of identification; it
is even better when people have similar cultures
and understanding.
cultural influence in the

building of Knowledge
economy
Cultures heavily influence what is perceived as

useful, important, or valid knowledge in an or-
ganisation. Culture shapes what a group defines
as relevant knowledge, and this will directly affect
which knowledge a unit focuses on (De Long &
relationships and interdependency of knowledge
Fahey, 2000, p. 120).
and the environment, both at the source and at
the recipient site. This is essential in any study of
The degree of cultural distance is widely con-
KT, given that both the type of knowledge and the
sidered as one of the major obstacles to successful
nature of relationships that facilitate KT would
performance in cross-cultural business relation-
dictate the outcome.
ships. Most results, derived from previous studies
Cummings and Teng’s (2003) proposed model
of knowledge creation and KT, concluded that cul-
tells us that it is necessary to identify which knowl-
tural differences in a network of knowledge con-
edge is needed (that can be transferred). Both the
stitute just one of many other barriers. The main
source of the knowledge and the recipient site must
argument is that common identity, as opposed to
be able to understand one another. Cultural simi-
the cultural distance between cultures, impacts on
larities must be greater than their differences. If
knowledge sharing and transfer (Shenkar, 2001).
people’s cultures are similar, this will be reflected
Johanson and Vahlen (1977, p.24) define cultural
in terms of trust, mutual engagement, and clarity
distance as the result of culture-based factors that
of knowledge-sharing activities.
impede the flow of information between the firm
The majority of KT studies seem to agree that
and its partners. Cultural distance matters, with
where an element of trust is strong, knowledge to
regard to knowledge, because it raises barriers
be transferred can be identified, and the context
for understanding other members of the organisa-
and extent of its application can be agreed upon
tion elsewhere. Maximising return using the net
with both the source and the recipient. In the ab-
will require the addressing of such issues and
sence of trust, knowledge identification becomes
undoubtedly, very little, or nothing at all, will be
more subjective, and less likely to achieve change,
achieved before such issues of cultural difference,
which must be reflected in terms of changing
trust, and identity are addressed.
behaviour (or at least changing practice) at the
For this study to contribute towards the un-
recipient unit. The importance of having social
derstanding of issues that may effect knowledge
relationships in knowledge transfer is that people
sharing practices, the argument is supported
are able to identify areas of tacit lacuna with one
that someone better informed would act as a

gatekeeper to facilitate knowledge creation and the boundaries of an individual’s experiences,

the KT processes (Allen 1977; Allen & Cohen, intuitions, and feelings, and involves trust and
1967). Alternatively, technology, and particularly confidence when imparting it from one person to
the Internet, has taken a greater role in replac- another. However, this raises the further question
ing copresence via either virtual relationships of how can businesses maximise their knowledge-
or more commonly, in increasing and creating sharing practices that involve tacit knowledge?
virtual networks without human beings having On analysing the latest research, however, we
to meet one another. start to uncover some practices that are a target of
gathering mechanisms that would facilitate tacit
knowledge sharing. These have been identified
the tacit-codified Knowledge as a combination of tools ranging from videos,
influence online chat rooms, recording of workshops, and
networking.
Several studies (particularly Chartrand, 2002:12)
described the “know-why” as that knowledge
which is associated with scientific theories of the the issue of codification and
principles and laws of nature. This is the kind of transfer of Knowledge
knowledge that underpins the advancement of t
the technological development of products and The process by which knowledge evolves and
processes in most industries. The production and spreads through an organisation involves in-
reproduction of “know-why” (Chartrand, 2002, terchanging its nature between tacit and codi-
p.12) is often organised in specialised organisa- fied forms. The way this is achieved has been
tions, such as research laboratories and univer- demonstrated at large in Nonaka’s (1994, p.19)
sities. To gain access to this kind of knowledge, spiral model, in which knowledge is created as
firms have to interact with those organisations well as transferred through socialisation. The act
who own this knowledge; using any possible of interacting with people does allow people to
mechanism that is available to them. There are learn from one another. Through this interaction,
several mechanisms, ranging from recruiting people can come up with new insights and ideas
scientifically trained labour, engaging in direct that may lead to new knowledge development and
contact, and joint activities, such as developing application (externalisation). Socialisation can
virtual platforms where knowledge sharing activi- help people to determine what knowledge can
ties is conducted. With regards to “know-how,” be codified, and that which cannot. The process
this refers to skills or the ability to do something; of codification includes three aspects; these are
it includes insight and personal judgment that, so model building, language creation, and the writing
far, have been linked to undocumentable knowl- of messages. With the development and change in
edge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). For example, several technologies, these three activities have
“know-how” has to be employed when judging been affected by changes in costs and benefits in
market prospects for a new product or recruit- particular, and technological development has cut
ing and training staff. The same is true for the down the costs of codification (Cowan & Foray,
skilled workers operating complicated machine 1997). Technical change is another area that fa-
tools. It is also true for highly specialised ser- cilitates the diffusion of codified knowledge, for
vices, such as those that are consultancy based. example, via Web spaces; this is increasing the
“Know-how”(Chartrand, 2002, p.12) is typically value of codified knowledge. There are, however,
a kind of knowledge developed and kept within some issues that can be raised here, for example,

the effects of temporal relations between the three experience of whatever his tacit knowledge con-
aspects of codification suggested that, in some cerns through, for example, on-the-job training
cases, are inevitable, given the nature of advances and informal learning at work (Herbig, Büssing, &
in technological changes. The codification process Ewert, 2001; Marchant & Robinson, 1999; Patel,
may be dependent on language and the context Arocha, & Kaufman, 1999; Wagner, Sujan, Sujan,
of the knowledge being codified; moreover, there Rashotte, &Sternberg, 1999). Others, however,
has been a suggestion that the ongoing process in suggest that we are biologically predisposed
which codification would take place may be path towards certain kinds of tacit knowledge thus
dependent (Cowan & Foray 2000, p.241). minimising the role of experience (Patel et al.,
The path dependency of knowledge is very 1999; Torff, 1999).
much related to the type of knowledge itself. Codi- One issue that has aroused much interest, par-
fied knowledge has been defined as that which can ticularly following Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995)
be transmitted in formal, systematic language. thesis about the knowledge creation process, has
From a technological point of view, however, codi- been whether tacit knowledge can be converted
fied knowledge is discrete or “digital” (Snowden, into explicit knowledge. Here, we find widely and
2002). It is also referred to as “codified” because strongly differing opinions. Patel et al., (1999),
it has been captured in records of the past, such as Ambrosini and Bowman (2001), Herbig & Büss-
libraries, archives, and databases, and is assessed ing (2003), and Tsoukas (2003) argue that tacit
on a sequential basis. Codified knowledge can be knowledge is, by definition, non-verbal, inarticu-
expressed in words and numbers, and it can be lable, unconscious, or ineffable. However, Wagner
shared in the form of data, scientific formulae, and Sternberg (1985, 1986), Spender (1996), Torff
specifications, manuals, and the like. This kind (1999), and Boiral (2002) argue that it is rarely
of knowledge can be readily transmitted using expressed, or difficult to express, or to simply
the Internet and manuals systematically. Unlike assume that it can be made explicit. Difficulties
codified knowledge, it has been said that it is not include the fact that it is, by definition, personal
possible to codify or document tacit knowledge and context based on the holders’ fear that mak-
in manuals (Polanyi, 1966). ing it explicit entails losses, and that extraction
Polanyi (1966) is, by tradition, the authorita- requires a supportive environment involving trust
tive source for the concept of tacit knowledge. and appropriate social structures. It is probably
Many regard tacit knowledge as personal, private of little surprise to tacit-knowledge theorists
knowledge, thus, appropriately treated only at that it is widely accepted among academics of
the individual level (Ambrosini & Bowman, knowledge management that tacit knowledge
2001; Boiral, 2002; Johannessen, & Olaisen, cannot be codified; therefore implying that if this
2001). Others refer to collective or organisational knowledge could be codified, it could no longer
tacit knowledge linking this with organisational be considered as tacit knowledge. However, one
capabilities, routines, and procedures (Colis, simple question has to be asked: When does
1996; Johannessen, & Olaisen, 2001; Leonard & one’s knowledge cease to be tacit? And, when
Sensiper, 1998; Nelson & Winter, 1982; Spender, and where do we move from tacit knowledge to
1996). Collins (2001) claims that tacit knowledge codified knowledge?
is manifested in the form of the life of a group, During social gatherings, people translate per-
and he also points to a supra-individualistic if not sonal and team experiences to develop knowledge
collective form. databases. These databases are retrievable in a
There is general agreement that tacit knowl- form of codified knowledge. However, this is an
edge is acquired through an individual’s direct attempt to elicit somebody else’s experiences. We

can also see people using video conferencing, pod gateKeepers and their role
casts, and so on. These are tools in themselves in Knowledge conversion
that aim at facilitating social interactions, where
one can see the body language as well as hear Knowledge gatekeepers create a shared sociocul-
the person speaking. What does a person learn tural context that enables the condivision of “tacit”
from this process? In my view, this is codified meanings, knowledge codification, and transmis-
knowledge being shared, but also a semitacit sion. According to the pioneer of the concept of
knowledge. the “knowledge gatekeeper” (Allen, 1977, p.145), a
Tacit knowledge is thus said to be both an “gatekeeper” is a key person (or a group of people)
individual and a collective type of knowledge; who facilitates knowledge transfer by informal
individuals acquire it through experience, from communication by taking an intermediary role.
live chats and distant videoconferencing. This Gatekeepers differ from their colleagues in their
is, however, still somewhat innate. The pres- orientation toward outside knowledge sources. On
ence of others is generally regarded as essential average, gatekeepers read, advise local communi-
for its acquisition. Some recent authors, such as ties, search online, and present and publish papers
Busch et al (2002: 10), suggested that eventually, more than researchers, scientists, academics, and
tacit knowledge becomes codified in practice local leadership do. Initially, Allen (1977, p. 145)
as individuals, organisations and finally, all identified gatekeepers as
of us learn by its successful application. If we
can take this argument further, we can see that … A small number of key people to whom oth-
tacit knowledge may become codified during its ers frequently turned for information. These key
reduction into simple underlying principles, but people differ from their colleagues in the degree
not all of it can be codified. Gourlay (2006) even to which they exposed themselves to sources of
goes as far as to say that this knowledge facilitates technological knowledge outside their organiza-
routine behaviours (in both negative and positive tion. Their features are such as they constitute a
senses), but, it is simultaneously a source of small community of individuals, they are at the
innovation. Clearly, there is no one who acclaims core of an information network, they overexposed
confidently whether this type of knowledge may be to external sources of information, and the link-
convertible into explicit knowledge. This of course ages they develop with external actors are more
raises the question of how technology can facilitate informal. (Allen, 1977, p. 145)
the sharing of this type of knowledge. Perhaps
these difficulties arise because tacit knowledge Whilst early studies of knowledge gatekeeper
is unconscious (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003) research focussed on individuals or a group of
or even ineffable (Tsoukas, 2003) and difficult (or peoples’ role in knowledge conversion, these stud-
impossible) to investigate using empirical methods ies have moved on to include the role of leading
per se. The need to translate and transfer tacit firms (Malpiero, Munari, & Sobrero, 2005) who
knowledge constitutes a driving force to create play similar roles to that initially envisaged by
an environment where tacit knowledge can be Allen (1967). Leading firms can create shared
codified and transferred. One of many solutions to virtual platforms to avoid rigidity of fixed con-
this is building up a favourable environment where figuration by decentralising the interface into a
networking can allow knowledge conversion from virtual meeting place into which part or all of the
tacit to explicit form. partners have to make their way. Interactions do
not require physical presence or durable coloca-
tion. Physical interaction may follow as a result,

but this type of interaction requires partners’ offered by ICT facilities and flexibility with in-
identification and an established common base creasing control and efficiency. Leading firms may
of interest. Wherever partners are not located emphasise the importance of partnerships between
in the same site, this would require a physical firms, and depend on relationship management
meeting in order to initiate further interactions. instead of market transactions (Webster & Fre-
However, interfirm interactions are generally part deric, 1992). They depend on negotiation, rather
time and do not require continuous face-to-face than market-based processes, as principal bases
interaction. for conducting business. These organisations, act-
As gatekeepers expand their networks of in- ing as gatekeepers through creating platforms of
teractions, they can access valuable knowledge knowledge sharing, can fulfil several functions at
from their networks and bring it into the operation a time. First, in addition to some intangible ben-
of daily formal or informal businesses, including efits associated with information collected from
intranet and extranet, or human beings such as participants, organisations are able to strengthen
individuals or a group of professional associa- their internal capacity of knowledge development
tions. In particular, gatekeepers can be seen as and knowledge translation. Secondly, they can
an essential element of boundary spanning that develop interorganisational strategies arising
is informal and increasingly Internet-based, through shared platforms.
which reduces distant relationship barriers. In Leading firms set up a shared resource centre
the foreseeable future of technological develop- connecting several of their partners and alliances
ments, this kind of virtual relationship may be through a single intranet. In doing so, they cre-
likely to increase. ated a platform that brings together several parts
Gatekeepers, in the form of leading firms, of the worldwide organisation, incorporating
may contribute to the articulation of internal and customers, suppliers, and users, including the
external resources, allowing local actors to benefit parent company, from around the world. Indeed,
from their own external relations, but also giv- this could be a question of technicality, but it is
ing external actors access to local resources. As increasingly becoming a part of corporate social
evidence, Gannon (2005, p.22), who used the case responsibility, allowing people to learn from what
of the Bologna automatic packaging machinery they do, and by doing so, to attract customers who
district in Emily-Romagna (Italy), the “Packaging understand their products better. As such, anyone
Valley,” has shown how some enterprises (com- on the supplier, buyer, and manufacturer network
mitenti) organise their networks of subcontractors can be allowed to have access to the intranet.
and coordinate the work of highly specialised This adds value knowledge of products, but of
small and medium enterprises (terzisti) to whom course, a leading firm acting as a gatekeeper is
they pass on the requirements and specifications able to collect information on customers’ needs,
of external customers. In a similar move, in the and the product development teams are able to
textile district of Prato, the role is played by the plan ahead for market demands. In introducing
“impannatori,” who may specialise in this func- his work on democratising innovation, Von Hip-
tion, so much so, as to abandon production tasks pel (2005) argued:
in order to exclusively devote themselves to this “Users aided by improvements in computer
unique activity (Gannon, 2005, p.22). and communications technology, increasingly
Gatekeepers and their networks are also can develop their own new products and services.
regarded as an especially significant strategy These innovating –users both individuals and
for managing long-term exchange relationships firms-often freely share their innovations with
between firms. They combine autonomy often others, creating user-innovation communities and
a reach intellectual commons.” ibid (p1)

The point the author wants to make here is using virtual platforms provided by leading
that organisations are increasingly allowing gatekeeper firm leads to knowledge translation,
consumers and suppliers to access their inside not all knowledge resources can be translated
knowledge. In doing so, companies are breaking from their tacit forms. Knowledge shared on
the conventional approach to the development of the company’s platform, which was not relevant
innovative products by focusing instead on the to its core businesses, can only be translated by
users’ knowledge of goods and services compa- those who find it relevant, and this may spark
nies have on offer. Conventionally, customers (or new innovations, of which some, if not all, lead
consumers) and buyers have different profiles to new business start-ups. Innovation activities
as well as different needs. Consumers are also and knowledge production only require limited
distributed across geographical boundaries and moments of face-to-face interactions and do not
cultures. This heterogeneous aspect of consum- necessarily give rise to related and similar busi-
ers makes it difficult to for them to share their nesses. Moreover, Torre’s (2006), study finds
implicit knowledge, resulting from membership that geographical proximity limitation can be
heterogeneity in terms of cultures, languages, adequately achieved through virtual spaces or at
and physical distance. the most, through temporal interactions, knowl-
In order to be successful, those firms that edge sharing, and services, through individuals
are providing a platform of knowledge sharing or staff travelling to each others’ locations. In
ensure that knowledge conversion from tacit to each of these situations, knowledge conversion
explicit takes place. In the leading firm, the role into tangible results is supported by two things:
of the research and development (R&D) teams is (1) trust, where company directors, locally and at
to ensure that product specifications are respond- the parent company level, encourage knowledge
ing to consumers’ and customers’ expressed sharing and new products developments involv-
needs. Such an approach has generated active ing customers, and (2) by social relationships
participation of network members and, in some and products that are tailored to meet local and
circumstances, this has led to the birth of innova- individual needs.
tive communities.
Another aspect that is so far yet to be studied
is the distribution of possible “differing” innova- gateKeepers of Knowledge
tive ideas, which may result from a heterogenic as a mechanism of
membership of these innovative communities Knowledge creation,
that emerges along one line of business. In some networKing, and Knowledge
cases, knowledge collected may not necessarily transfer
fall within the core mission of the gatekeeper firm.
In fact, Von Hippel (2005) says that: “When users The literature reveals that there is currently an
needs are heterogeneous and when information increasing interest in the use of gatekeepers of
drawn by innovators is sticky, it is likely that knowledge for management, and for the transfer
product-development activities will be widely of knowledge both at the local and increasingly
distributed among users, rather than produced at the international level. Those who prefer to
by just a few prolific user innovators”(Ibid p93). employ “gatekeepers” are mainly motivated by
Moreover, “individual users and user firms tend the fact that, like knowledge intermediaries,
to develop innovations that serve their particular KT domains involve an inherent distribution of
needs…” (ibid p.94). The underlying issue here is sources, problem-solving capabilities, and respon-
that, where such a knowledge-sharing platform sibilities. Interactions in KT environments are
0
fairly sophisticated. These include negotiation, Particularly, this study refers to Aloni (1985),
information sharing, and coordination, which whose investigations into the literature review of
all require complex social skills that gatekeepers studies of informal communication of scientific
can often apply. and technical information were published in the
Based on the nature of their role of imparting American Management literature between 1976
knowledge within the local knowledge system, and 1982. These included Tushman and Katz,
knowledge gatekeepers can be seen as “knowl- (1980) who has extended and developed Allen’s
edge senders.” These are distinguished by their (1969) approach to gatekeepers of knowledge.
knowledge of technological advancement that Aloni’s (1985) literature survey demonstrates that
stimulates other local organisations to approach the subject has been mentioned only infrequently
them for advice (Pinch, Henry & Tallman, 2003). in the management literature and abstracts of
Some organisations have individuals who act information science of recent years. What Aloni’s
as networkers, who motivate others and/or who literature survey reveals is that even management
promote the sharing of knowledge within the scientists view the informal KT as a special type of
communities and local firms (Malpiero et al, organisational communication arrangement. This
2005). Knowledge gatekeepers appear to behave attracts the question of whether there is enough
like boundary spanners; they are able to access empirical evidence to sufficiently identify the role
information from other firms. Allen (1977) of the gatekeeper.
identified gatekeepers according to the degree of
interconnectivity with other colleagues in other
organisations. He undertook a study of the com- gateKeepers in
munication network within the R& D division of a organisations
large aerospace firm in which gatekeepers brought
their knowledge contribution into the organisation. Gatekeepers of knowledge have been given
Some of the gatekeepers’ contributions included several appellations to include knowledge seek-
bringing new information to the project from ers/knowledge senders (Ali, Pascoe, & Warne,
outside their own organisations. Because bringing 2002), knowledge brokers (Sverisson, 2001), and
new information to the project from outside can knowledge intermediaries (Howells, 2002; Max
be valuable, organisations that are aware of this Lock Centre, 2000).Knowledge brokers are people
should support and use technical gatekeepers in who facilitate the creation, sharing, and use of
the most efficient ways. knowledge in an organisation. Many organisations
Although gatekeepers have been described as have created knowledge broker roles such as a
mediating individuals or knowledge brokers, not “knowledge coordinator” or a “chief knowledge
everyone agrees. Persson (1981) argues against officer.” The term “knowledge broker” is also
Allen’s studies of gatekeepers in research and de- sometimes used to describe companies or indi-
velopment organisations. In his view, Allen’s flow viduals that operate commercially as knowledge
model of gatekeepers does not inform us of who traders or provide knowledge-related services.
the gatekeeper is communicating what is being Sverisson (2001) uses the concept of knowledge
discussed to, or what effect the gatekeeper has on brokers in an analysis of the opportunities for, and
internal informal dissemination of information. the obstacles to, entrepreneurial activities, which
Using an empirical study of an R&D organisa- are posed by a pragmatic environmentalism in
tion, Persson presented a thesis that gatekeepers Sweden. Sverisson argues that knowledge brokers
can contribute to an elitist pattern of distribution can identify an opportunity to network. The op-
rather than to a reduction of the information gap. portunities in a network of people and businesses

are such that there may be obstacles to knowledge while retaining outside access to a large variety of
sharing. In asserting the opportunity, obstacles resources and opportunities. Another advantage
are seen as the driving force behind the need of course is that knowledge gatekeepers can be
for networking brokerage, knowledge-oriented very good boundary-spanning mechanisms that
(or “translation”) brokerage, and brokerage of are not necessarily subject to strict control and
organisational or technological novelties. Sveris- rules that may apply elsewhere if the firm, as a
son’s (2001) work suggested that the obstacles are whole, attempted to access the information from
rooted in the inertia of prevailing technological elsewhere. In fact, Allen Scott (2006) points out
structures and in the fragmentation of practical that in a network economy, there is a fundamental
environmental knowledge, both of which can be difference between innovation that comes from
turned into opportunity by environmental brokers. R&D programmes and innovation that occurs by
The resulting opportunity space is a collective or coincidence. In the first case, we know who is
“‘networked” type of entrepreneurial practice that participating and what the aim is. The latter may
has developed in the openings provided by prag- occur when firms engage in mutual discussions
matic environmentalism. Knowledge brokerage and assessment; individuals caught up in this
activity is not necessarily profit oriented or focused discussion will often arrive at insights that would
on creating new businesses, as knowledge brokers otherwise have remained hidden from them. Scott
tend to do more than they are paid for, and often (2006) argues that this is where a gatekeeper can
have no formal responsibility for carrying out the be an essential element. As a member of such an
role. They are often at the core of information; informal negotiation, he/she can create a holistic
they continuously seek to understand the implica- picture of where innovation is likely to come
tions of research results for their communities, from. It is therefore much easier to predict the best
even when communities do not require them to candidate to conduct such highly socially driven,
provide knowledge contribution. but skillfully approached, negotiations.
Local/global tradeoffs can be solved by ex-
ploring the new organisational configurations
Knowledge gateKeepers of those networks that rely on the design of
outside firms’ boundaries interfaces between local and global networks,
such as networks of practice or intermediaries
The knowledge transfer process should be con- that resemble knowledge brokers’ behaviours. As
sidered as an adaptive process of interactions that this chapter shows, one of many other ways put
relies partly on spatial proximity to spread and forward to build an interface is by setting up two
create knowledge. Though it is not supposed that different types of mechanisms; the first, around
gatekeepers in local networks can be efficient if a key-actor, or “gatekeeper,” that ensures the
they become isolated from the rest of the world, linkages between local and global interactions;
per se, their work is such that separating them the second, through the concept of “temporary
from their outside connections could drain them proximity,” which would permit agents to set
of their meaning. The role of gatekeepers within up and mobilise links without requiring actors’
wider networks is a key feature of the process durable colocation. This temporary proximity
of knowledge creation and transfer that opens can be realised by actors moving for a limited
knowledge renewal and possible recombination. duration from their location to those areas that
Local arrangements (for example, the introduc- need training, support in developing business
tion of a gatekeeper) within a global network can processes, and assistance in setting up systems
allow firms to take advantage of spatial proximity with the ultimate intention of the locals being able

to run these systems independently. In this case, a successful Italian furniture district, behave as
however, locals would still have access to the gatekeepers of knowledge. While their empirical
benefits provided through the network of experts analysis was carried out on a small sample of
(that is, the gatekeepers). Knowledge gatekeepers, technicians working within firms’ knowledge-
therefore, play a diffusion role; a linkage role, intensive units, findings can serve as an indication
and they are a source of knowledge and specific of the role of leading firms in knowledge creation
information to businesses. and knowledge-sharing practices within the con-
texts of industrial districts in Southern Italy. The
study adopted social network techniques to trace
Knowledge gateKeepers linkages between technicians and external sources
perceived as “boundary of knowledge, and to evaluate their relevance for
spanners”? innovative activities. Morrison’s findings suggest
that leading firms absorb external knowledge and
Well-explained and further-explored works on only disperse it to their own network of clients,
the role of gatekeepers are those which are asso- and to those who are exclusively perceived as
ciated with “boundary spanners” (Sonnenwald, partners. Within this theoretical framework, Mor-
1995, 1996; Sonnenwald & Lievrouw, 1997). rison (2004) concluded that leading firms cannot
These authors characterised design as a process necessarily serve as knowledge gatekeepers.
of “contested collaboration” (1995, p.873), and
specified the types of boundary spanning roles On the one side leaders may behave as district’s
in engineering teams: “organisational bound- screening actors. That is they incorporate within
aries, task boundaries, discipline boundaries, their networks the best providers and subcon-
personal boundaries, and multiple boundaries” tractors. A creative-destruction mechanism then
(1996, p.180) Based on Sonnenwald’s study, she favours the survival of the most efficient ones. On
argued that boundary spanning must occur across the other side they could produce perverse effects.
boundaries of organisations as well as within a They may strengthen internal asymmetries and in
project . The study by Sonnenwald and Lievrouw turn exasperate conflicts, in particular between
(1997) was conducted, in a high technology firm, large and medium firms. (2004, p.30)
to examine the applicability of those boundary
roles. From the questionnaires and extensive in- It is, therefore, believed that in some regions,
terviews, they found that there exist certain types companies may present asymmetric structures
of communication roles or multiple roles in the that limit the extent to which they can share
design team, and individual work performance knowledge outside their boundaries of networks.
is strongly related to the communication among Firms do use their buying influence to incorpo-
team members. rate, within their networks, the best suppliers and
subcontractors or “portage.” These leading firms
can create and develop destructive mechanisms,
can leading firms be inhibiting and sometimes preventing knowledge
Knowledge gateKeepers? flow to the outside world. Moreover, Von Hippel
(2005) in “Democratizing innovation” has argued
In an attempt to study the role of the gatekeeper that leading firms incorporate subcontractors,
in manufacturing firms in the Murge district, and create subnetworks of suppliers, as well as
Southern Italy, Morrison’s (2004) study investi- an end-user-supplier relationship. In doing so,
gated to what extent leading firms, located within firms are able to collect information they need

from their customers. Firms are, in return, able constitutes an essential element. However, there
to develop products that meet customers’ aspi- is an initial significant obstacle to KT that is rep-
rations and standards, and the ownership of the resented by the the impossibility of codifying it,
acquired (both old and new) knowledge remains and to convey knowledge through ICT channels.
the property of the firm. Secondly, there is another barrier, associated with
In the context of leading firms, however, the cultural distance between players, that hinders
Porter (1990) has suggested that firms may pre- an effective knowledge-sharing flow among both
vent their knowledge from freely circulating, individuals and organisations. The cultural dis-
particularly if they believe that this is the source tance hinders the codification of knowledge that is
of their competitiveness. Moreover, firms may required in order to be able to transfer knowledge
not want to share knowledge because of the costs through various means. While tacit knowledge is
and risks involved. Huber’s (1991) and Pan and accepted as the source of innovation, it is codified
Scarborough’s (1998) research has shown that knowledge that is easier to transfer.
because time is a scarce resource in organisations, The chapter introduced theories and practices
extrinsic rewards signal to employees that time of knowledge creation, knowledge conversion,
spent sharing knowledge is deemed important and transfer models that have been developed
by the organisation. Indeed, practitioners and in the literature. Against this background, and
researchers have identified nontrivial extrinsic from the understanding of existing models, the
rewards for knowledge sharing as an important chapter concludes that in order to solve knowl-
motivator to knowledge transfer (Davenport & edge-sharing problems that hinder the process of
Prusak, 1998; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; knowledge conversion and knowledge sharing,
Knowledge Partnership Management Group there is an inevitable need to create a “shared”
(KPMG), 2000), but surprisingly, surveys have sociocultural context that enables the condivision
found that the majority of organisations’ execu- of “tacit” meanings. This shared sociocultural
tives do not believe that their organisations reward context allows knowledge translation from an
or recognise knowledge transfer and knowledge implicit form to an explicit form. However, this
sharing (KPMG, 2000). Moreover there is an is best supported through the implementation
almost total lack of “hard evidence” available to of networked environments, where networking
support the claim that large firms cannot be gate- can occur.
keepers for those new or relatively weak and small The solution is represented by “gatekeepers.”
firms. Rather, there is evidence that suggests that The presence of gatekeepers can be found even in
some large firms may help to train local human interorganisational networks. Also, there may be a
capacity, particularly where weak governments leading firm that connects a network of clients and
are unable to provide the skilled labour needed by suppliers that may not interact with one another
firms investing in their countries. In this regard, directly, but are indeed connected through the
some large companies engage in supporting local leading firm that, in this way, acts as knowledge
businesses through initiatives, and by investing gatekeeper. In such a way, a gatekeeper represents
in research and development activities, as well an element that resolves the problem of cultural
as in training staff. homogeneity, and provides functions of “mean-
ing translation,” trust building, and tacit-explicit
conversions.
conclusion Thus, a large firm, connecting several clients
and suppliers at a multinational level, represents
This chapter argued that in the process of building a knowledge gatekeeper. But, even focal firms in
knowledge economy, knowledge transfer (KT) local industrial districts can represent gatekeepers.

Virtual enterprises are forms of networks where a acKnowledgment

gatekeeper enables the condivision of knowledge
by means of information and computer technolo- Dr. Carol Bulpett (Southampton Solent University)
gies tools as well. for her advice, reviews, and tireless support and
encouragement.
Dr. Ettore Bollisani, (Book Editor) for his
future research directions reviews and advice.
Sophie N’jai (Postgraduate Research Admin-
The concept of the “knowledge gatekeeper” may istrator at Southampton Solent University) for her
not have received a great deal of research inter- efforts in the editing of the submitted version of
est in the field of management and knowledge this chapter.
transfer, but this trend is changing. At the time,
the management view of the concept was limited
purely to an internal communication issue. From references
the early 1980s, however, the concept was revived,
with many research studies conducted in the areas Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom, Journal
of R&D and technology transfer (see Allen, 1966; of Applies Systems Analysis, 16, 3-9.
Herzog, 1981; Malpiero et al, 2005; Morrison,
Ali, I., Pascoe, C., & Warne, L. (2002). Interac-
2004; Persson, 1981; Pinch & Henry, 1999; Pinch
tions of organizational culture and collaboration
et al, 2003; Tushman & Katz, 1980;). The most
in working and learning. IEEE Journal of Edu-
interesting part of the recent studies is that there
cational Technology and Society, 5(2).
is a clear shift from an informal communication
system to a much more serious economic matter for Allen, T. J. (1970). Communication networks in
organisations. Also, there is growing confidence R & D laboratories. Journal of R & D Manage-
among researchers that knowledge gatekeepers ment, 1(1), 14-21.
are essential for positive business performance
and delivering of results. Probably one of the Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technol-
most striking issues is the shift from the subject ogy; Technology transfer and the dissemination
domain of the research. Initially, conceptualisation of technological information within the Research
of the knowledge gatekeeper seemed to be led by and Development organization. Cambridge, MA:
technology transfer (see Allen, 1977; Allen, 1996; MIT Press.
Allen & Cohen, 1969). Recent studies, however, Allen, T. J. (1966) Managing the flow of scien-
do suggest a significant shift from perceptions of tific and technological information. Cambridge,
the subject as management and technology issues Mass.: M.I.T. (Ph D thesis).
alone to being included more in the economic and
human geography research, receiving much more Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information
attention from economic geographers (see Scott, flow in research and development laboratories.
A. 2006; Malpiero et al, 2005; Morrison, 2004; Administrative Science Quarterly, (4), 12-19.
Pinch & Henry; 1999; Pinch et al, 2003, just to Allen, T. J. & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information
mention a few). It is not clear from the evidence in flow in research and development laboratories.
this study whether this change could be associated Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12-19.
with an increased focus on knowledge manage-
ment research, or whether it could be associated Aloni, M. (1985). Patterns of information transfer
with subject diversification. among engineers and applied scientists in complex
organizations. Scientometrics, 8, 5-6.

Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit Chen, C. H., & Shish, H. T. (2005). High-tech
knowledge: Some suggestions for operational- industries in China. Edward Elgar Publishing.
ization. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6),
Colis, D. (1996). Organizational capability as a
811–829.
source of profit. In B. Moingeon & A. Edmondson
Argote, L., & Linda, P.(2000). KT: A basis for (Eds), Organizational learning and competitive
competitive advantage in firms. Organizational advantage. London: Sage.
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1),
Collins, H. M. (2001). Tacit knowledge, trust
150-169.
and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science,
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial 1(31), 71-85.
society: A venture in social forecasting. New
Cowan, R., David, P. A., & Foray, D.(2000). The
York: Basic Books.
explicit economics of knowledge: Codification
Benedict, B. M. (1996). Making the modern reader and tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change,
cultural mediation in early modern literary an- 9(2), 211-253.
thologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cowan, R., & Foray D. (1997). The economics
Retrieved from http//www.pupress.princeton.
of codification and the diffusion of knowledge.
edu/books/benedict/
Industrial Corporate Change, 6, 595-622.
Birkinshaw, J. (2001). Why is knowledge man-
Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B.S. (2003). Transfer-
agement so difficult? Business Strategy Review,
ring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting
12(1) 11-18.
knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineer-
Boiral, O, (2002). Tacit knowledge and environ- ing and Technology Management, 20(1) 39-68.
mental management. Long Range Planning, 35,
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L.(1998). Working
291–317.
Bresman, J., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999). know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Knowledge transfer in international acquistions. Press.
Journal of International Business Studies, 30,
439-462.
Busch, P., & Richards, D. (2000). Graphically The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4),
defining articulable tacit knowledge. ACM In- 113 - 127.
ternational Conference Proceeding Series, 9,
Doz, Y. L. (1988). Technology partnerships
51 – 60.
between larger and smaller firm: Some critical
Busch, P., Richards, D., Dampney, C., Galloway, issues. In F. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds), Co-
J., (2002). Selected tacit knowledge observations operative strategies in international business.
within two organisations. Sydney Area Workshop Lexington, MA.
on Visual Information Processing December
Drucker, P. (1966). The knowledge worker. New
University of Sydney, (pp. 5-11).
York: Harper Collins.
Chartrand, H. H. (2002). The competitiveness of
Drucker, P. (1994). The age of social transfor-
nations in a global knowledge-based economy:
mation. The Atlantic Monthly, 274(5), 53-80.
An individual interdisciplinary studies. Unedited
Retrieved 02/03/2007, from http//www.provider-
PhD Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.

sedge.com/docs/leadership_articles/Age_of_So- Harorimana, D. (2006), Knowledge networks: A

cial_Transformation.pdf mechanism of creation and transfer of knowledge
in organisations? In P. Feher (Ed.), European
Easterby-Smith M., & Lyles M. A. (2003). Intro-
conference of knowledge management (pp. 213-
duction watersheds of organizational learning and
222). ACI.
knowledge management. In M. Easterby-Smith,
& M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The blackwell handbook Hedlund, G., & Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of
of organizational learning and knowledge man- knowledge management in the West and Japan.
agement (pp 1–15). Blackwell Publishing Ltd, In P. Lorange (Ed.), Implementing strategic
Oxford. processes: Change, learning and cooperation.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Easton, G. (1992). Industrial networks.A review.
In B. Axelsson & G. Easton, (Eds.), Industrial Herbig, B., & Büssing, A.(2003). Comparison
networks, A new view of reality. London: Rout- of the role of explicit and implicit knowledge in
ledge. working. Psychology Science, 45(3), 165–188.
Garavelli, A. C., Gorgoglione, M., & Scozzi, B. Herbig, B., Büssing, A., & Ewert, T. (2001). The
(2002). Managing knowledge transfer by knowl- role of tacit knowledge in the work context of
edge technologies. Technovation, 22, 269-279. nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(5),
687–695.
Ghauri, P. N., & Prasad, B. (1995). A network
approach to probing Asia’s interfirmlinkages. Herzog, A. J. (1981). The gatekeeper hypothesis
Advances, International Comparative Manage- and the international transfer of scientific knowl-
ment, 10, 63-77. edge .The Journal of Technology Transfer, 6(1).
Gourlay, S. N. (2006). Towards conceptual clarity Hildreth, P., & Kimble, C. (2004). Knowledge
concerning “tacit knowledge”: A review of empiri- networks innovation through communities of
cal studies. Knowledge Management Research practice. London, Hershey: Idea Group Inc.
and Practice, 4(1), 60-69.
Hong, J., Pöyhönen, A., & Kyläheiko, K. (2006).
Granovetter, M. S (1983).The strength of weak Cultural and communicative interaction and
ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological the development of dynamic capabilities. In P.
Theory, (1), 201-233. Feher (Ed.), European conference of knowledge
management (pp241-249). ACI.
Griffith, D. A., & Harvey, M. G. (2001). Executive
insights: An intercultural communication model Howells, J. L.(2002). Tacit knowledge, innova-
for use in global interorganizational networks. tion and economic geography. Urban Studies,
Journal of International Marketing, 9(3), 87- 39(56), 871-884.
103.
Huber, G. P. (1991).Organizational learning: The
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowl- contributing processes and the literature. Orga-
edge management social dimension lessons from nization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
Nucor steel. Sloan Management Review, 71-80.
Johannessen, J. A., & Olaisen, B. (2001). Misman-
Hakansson, H. (1989). Corporate technological agement of tacit knowledge the importance of tacit
behaviour: Cooperation and networks. London: knowledge, the danger of information technology,
Routledge. and what to do about it. International Journal of
Information Management, 21, 3–20.

Johanson, B., Karlson, & Stough. (2004). The the development of legal expertise. In Sternberg
emerging digital economy entrepreneurship. In RJ & Horvath JA (Eds.) Tacit Knowledge in
Clusters and olicy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Professional Practice,(pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johanson, J., & Vahlen, J. E. (1977). The inter-
nationalization process of the firm - A model of Max Lock Centre. (2000). Communication for de-
knowledge development and increasing foreign velopment: Comments from peer review. London:
market commitments. Journal of International Max Lock Centre, University of Westminster.
Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.
Morrison, A. (2004). Gatekeepers of knowledge
KPMG Consulting. (2000). Knowledge Manage- within industrial districts: Who they are, how they
ment Research Report. KPMG. interact. Milan: Centro di Ricerca Sui Processi di
Innovazione e Internazionalizzazione, CESPRI.
Kraut, R. E., & Streeter, L. A. (1995). Coordina-
tion in software development. Communications Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services
of the ACM, 38(3), 69-81. as actors of knowledge transformation: The role of
KIBS in regional and national innovation systems.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning
Research Policy, 30, 1501-1516.
legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge
University Press. Neches,R., Fikes, R., Finin,T., Gruber,T., Patil,
P.,Senator, T., & Swartout,W.(1991). Enabling
Leonard, D. & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of
technology for knowledge sharing. AI Magazine,
tacit knowledge in group innovation. California
12(3), 37-56.
Management Review 40(3), 112-132.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary
Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge codification and
theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:
the geography of innovation the case of Brescia
Belknap Press.
mechanical cluster. Research Policy, 30, 1479-
1500. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organiza-
tional knowledge creation. Organization Science,
Lundvall, B-Å., & Foray, D.(1996). The knowl-
5(1) 14-37.
edge-based economy from the economics of
knowledge to the learning economy: OECD Em- Nonaka, I. (2005). Knowledge management criti-
ployment and Growth in the Knowledge- Based cal perspectives on business and management.
Economy. Paris: OECD. Routledge.
Malipiero, A., Munari, F., & Sobrero, M..(2005). Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-
Focal firms as technological gatekeepers within creating company. New York, Oxford: Oxford
industrial districts: Knowledge creation and dis- University Press.
semination in the Italian packaging machinery
OECD (1996). The knowledge-based economy.
industry. DRUID Working Paper N°05-05.
OECD: Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.
Malperio, F. (2005). Local firms and technological org/dataoecd/51/8/1913021.pdf
gatekeepers within industrial districts knowledge
OST. (2007). Knowledge transfer. In British
creation and dissemination in real-estate industry.
Library’s strategy (2005 – 2008) glossary. Re-
DRUID Research paper 15 (5)55
trieved 20/07/2008, from http://www.bl.uk/about/
Marchant G., & Robinson J. 1999. Is knowing strategic/glossary.html
the tax code all it takes to be a tax expert? On

Pan, S., & Scarbrough, H. (1998). A sociotech- measurement of cultural differences. Journal of
nical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman International Business Studies, 32(3), 519-535.
laboratories. Journal of Knowledge Management,
Simonin, B. (1997). The importance of developing
2(1) 55-66.
collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the
Patel, V., Arocha, J., & Kaufman, D. (1999). Ex- learning organization. .Academy of Management
pertise and tacit knowledge in medicine. In R. J. Journal, 40(5), 1150–1174.
Sternbern & J. A. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge
Simonin, B. L. ( 1999a). Ambiguity and the pro-
in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
cess of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances.
Erlbaum Associates.
Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595-623.
Patil, S. R, Fikes, R., Patel-Schneider, P., McKay,
Simonin, B. L. (1999b). Transfer of marketing
D. P., Finin,T., Gruber,T., & Neches R.(1992).
know-how in international strategic alliances :An
The DARPA knowledge sharing effort: Progress
empirical investigation of the role and antecedents
report. Washington DC: United States Depart-
of knowledge ambiguity. Journal of International
ment of Defense.
Business Studies, 30(3), 463-490.
Persson, O. (1981). Critical comments on the
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The
gatekeeper concept: Science and technology. R&
transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA:
D Management, 11(1), 37-40.
Harvard Univ. Press.
Pinch, S., Henry, J. M., & Tallman, S. (2003). From
Smith, K. (2000). What is the knowledge economy?
industrial districts to knowledge clusters: A model
Knowledge-intensive industries and distributed
of knowledge dissemination and competitive
knowledge bases. The Learning Economy - Firms,
advantage in industrial agglomerations. Journal
Regions and Nation Specific Institutions. DRUID
of Economic Geography, 31, 665-682.
Summer Conference. June 15-17.
Pinch, S..,& Henry, N. (1999). Discursive aspects
Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing;
of technology innovation from knowledge sharing
Paradox and descriptive self awareness. Journal
perspective. Environmental planning, 373-388
Polanyi, M. (1996). The tacit dimension. Garden
Sonnenwald, D. H. (1995). Contested collabora-
City, NY: Doubleday.
tion: A descriptive model of intergroup communi-
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of cation in information system design. Information
nations. New York: Free Press. Processing and Management, 31(6) 859-877.
Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core Sonnenwald, D. H. (1996). Communication roles
competence of the corporation. Harvard Business that support collaboration during the design pro-
Review, 68(3) 79-92. cess. Design Studies, 17, 277-301.
Scott, A., (2006). Geography and economy: The Sonnenwald, D. H., & Lievrouw, L. (1997). Col-
Clerendon Lectures in Geography and Envi- laboration during the design process: A case
ronmental Studies. Oxford: Oxford University study of communication, information behavior,
Press. and project performance. In R. Savolainen, G.
Taylor, & B. Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking
Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited
in context (pp. 179-204).
towards a more rigorous conceptualization and

Spender, J-C. (1996). Competitive advantage Von Hippel, E. (2005).Democratizing innovation.

from tacit knowledge? Unpacking the concept MIT Press.
and its strategic implication. In B. Moingeon &
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg R. J. (1985). Practical
A. Edmondson (Eds.), Organizational learning
intelligence in real-world pursuits the role of tacit
and competitive advantage. London: Sage.
knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social
Spender, J.C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis Psychology 49(2) 436–458.
of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Man-
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg R. J. (1986). Tacit
agement Journal, Special Issue, (17), 45-62.
knowledge and intelligence in the everyday
Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M.(1996). Knowledge world. In R. J. Sternberg, & R. K. Wagner (Eds.),
and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Practical Intelligence, (pp. 51–83). Cambridge
Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 5–9. University Press, Cambridge.
Sverisson, (2001). Translation networks, knowl- Wagner, R. K., Sujan, J., Sujan, M., Rashotte, C.
edge brokers and novelty construction: Pragmatic A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Tacit knowledge in
environmentalism in Sweden. Acta Sociologica, sales. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.),
44(4), 313-327. Tacit knowledge in professional practice. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,.
ness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice Webster, J., & Frederic, E. (1992). The changing
within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, role of marketing in the corporation, Journal of
17, 27-43. Marketing, 56(4), 17-37.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth.
transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2)
Organization Behavior and Human Decision 331-360.
Processes, 82 (1), 9-27.
Torff, B. (1999). Tacit knowledge in teaching folk Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:
pedagogy and teacher education. In R. J. Stern- Cambridge University.
berg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in
Williams, J. D., Han, S.-L., & Qualls, W. J. (1998).
professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
A conceptual model and study of cross-cultural
Erlbaum Associates.
business relationships. Journal of Business Re-
Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do we really understand tacit search, 42, 135-143.
knowledge? In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles
Zander, U., & Kogut B. (1995). Knowledge and
(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of organizational
the speed of the transfer and imitation of organiza-
learning and knowledge management. Oxford:
tional capabilities: An empirical test. Organization
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Science, 6(1) 76–92.
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External
communication and project performance: An
investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Man-
additional reading
agement Science, 26, 1071-1085.
Van de Ven, A., & Ferry, D.L. (1980). Measuring Cunningham, P., Cunningham, M., & Fatelnig,
and assessing organizations. New York: John P.(2003). Building the knowledge economy - Is-
Wiley.
0
sues, applications, case studies( Part 1 & 2). From open to distributed structures? Ecole des
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales Universités
d’Aix-Marseille II et III, working paper n°2007-
Gannon, F. (2005). Le district des machines auto-
07.
matiques pour l’emballage de la région de Bolo-
gne: logique industrielle et interaction sociale, A Torre, A. (2006). Clusters et systèmes locaux
working paper in Une approche interactioniste d’innovation. Un retour critique sur les hypothèses
de la complexité (Zimmermann J.B. Coord.) ACI naturalistes de la transmission des connaissances
« Systèmes complexes en SHS » à l’aide des catégories de l’économie de la proxi-
mité, Regions et Développement, 24.
Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2000). (The) Industrial
agglomeration (of Motor Sport Valley): A knowl- Vale, M. (2004). Innovation and knowledge driven
edge, space, economy approach. In J. Bryson, P. by a focal corporation: The case of the AutoEuropa
Daniels, N. Henry, & J. Pollard (Eds.), Knowledge, Supply Chain. European Urban and Regional
space, economy. London: Routledge. Studies, 11(2), 124-140.
Malipiero, A., Munari, F., & Sobrero, M. (2005). Zimmermann, J. B. (2002). Grappes d’entreprises
Focal firms as technological gatekeepers within et petits mondes: une affaire de proximités. Revue
industrial districts: Knowledge creation and dis- Economique, 53(3 Mai), 517-524.
semination in the Italian packaging machinery
industry. Communication to the DRUID, DRUID
Working Paper N°05-05.
endnote
Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive
1
concept of localization economies: towards a Danie Bell put forth the concept of a post-
knowledge based theory of spatial clustering. industrial society or information age in his
Environment and Planning, 34, 439-449. book The Coming of Post-Industrial Society
(1973). Later, he renamed this concept the
Morisson, A. (2004). Gatekeepers of knowledge
information society, for which he is gener-
within industrial districts: Who they are, how
ally considered as the creator of the term
they interact. Paper presented at the 4th Proximity
(1979). By an information society, Bell
Conference, Proximity, Networks and Coordina-
means that we move from a producer of
tion, Marseille, June 2004.
goods (manufacturing) to a service economy,
Rychen, F., & Zymmermann, J. B. (2007). Indus- and that theoretical knowledge, technology,
trial clusters and the knowledge-based economy: and information become the major mode of
commodity.

Chapter XIV
The Role of Knowledge
Mediators in Virtual
Environments
Enrico Scarso
abstract
This chapter discusses the role of online knowledge mediator, an entity that occupies an intermediate
position in a knowledge transfer/exchange between a source and a receiver, and whose task is to assist and
facilitate the knowledge transfer process, when performed through the use of Internet-based technologies
to a significant degree. In the present rapidly evolving world of Internet, many types of virtual knowledge
mediators continue to come out with different features and functions. Despite their growing diffusion,
little effort has been devoted to examine their practices thoroughly. In light of this, the chapter aims to
develop an analytical framework that could be of use to a deeper and more systematic investigation of
these new economic agents. It is a two-dimensional framework, since it is based on two complementary,
conceptual views of the knowledge transfer process, that is, the cognitive and the economic one.
introduction Internet–related information and communication

technologies (ICTs). Actually, such technologies
Although knowledge has, for a long time, been have dramatically reduced costs and increased
recognised as a key resource for achieving and speed, spatial reach, and amount of information
sustaining competitive advantage, only in recent and knowledge flows (Becerra-Fernandez &
years the need to efficiently and effectively man- Sabherwal, 2006; Kim & Trimi, 2007).
age it has emerged clearly, especially as a conse- In that context, the discipline of Knowledge
quence of the increased possibilities offered by the Management (KM) has developed, and has at-
The Role of Knowledge Mediators in Virtual Environments
tracted the increasing interest of both scholars and exchange is similar to knowledge transfer, but it
practitioners. According to Coakes et al. (Coakes, takes place between two parties and is reciprocal in
Bradburn, & Sugden, 2004), KM entails any that the recipient will reward the sender by trans-
process or practice of creating, acquiring, cap- ferring to him/her a different piece of knowledge
turing, sharing, and using knowledge, wherever (or by paying him/her for the knowledge received).
it resides, to enhance learning and performance Given the theme of the chapter, in the following
in organisation. Similarly, Holsapple and Joshi pages, the three terms will be used interchange-
(2006) define KM as an entity’s (e.g., an indi- ably, as often done in the literature.
vidual, group, organisation, etc.) deliberate and At the beginning, during the so-called first
organised efforts to expand, cultivate, and apply generation KM that mainly considered knowledge
available knowledge in ways to add value to the as an object that can be possessed and exchanged
entity, in sense of positive results in accomplish- (Huysman & Wulf, 2006), ICTs were deemed to
ing its goals or fulfilling its purpose. To sum up, be able to overcome most of the difficulties and
KM involves several processes1 whose ultimate obstacles related to the knowledge transfer proc-
aim is to make the relevant knowledge available ess. In reality, those technologies, especially the
where it can be usefully applied to enhance the Internet-based, may have a double effect, may
performance of the organisation, thus, generating be friends or foes, as rightly said by Hendriks
economic value. and Vriens (1999). On the one side, in fact, they
Even if all the different KM activities give their make possible to have access to a vast amount of
specific contribution to the value generation, the information, to communicate without space and
KM literature has always devoted particular at- time constraints, to store, retrieve, and manipulate
tention on the knowledge transfer process (Riege, a large quantity of data and documents rapidly and
2007). The reason is the fact the actual challenge effectively. On the other side, the same technolo-
organizations have to deal with is not increment- gies are making it even easier to get lost in a sea
ing the existing knowledge pool, but locating of chaotic, and even dangerous, information, as
and capturing the needed piece of knowledge well depicted by the term “information overload,”
and transferring it where it is of use. Knowledge which has been recently coined to denote such
transfer is important also because it allows avoid- a situation. Furthermore, they may induce the
ing the need to reinvent an already successfully belief that the success of the knowledge transfer
applied solution. To this point, it can be recalled process is only a matter of having an adequate
the famous saying of an HP top executive, “if we technological infrastructure, an idea that many
only knew what we already know” (Sieloff, 1999), experiences have revealed to be completely wrong
that exactly indicates where the heart of the mat- (Desouza, 2003; Walsham, 2001).
ter resides. It must be specified that the literature On the contrary, according to the recently
makes a distinction between the terms knowledge emerged second generation KM that considers
transfer, sharing, and exchange (Boyd, Ragsdell, & knowledge as constructed through joint experi-
Oppenheim, 2007; King, 2006a, 2006b; Lindsey, ence in social networks and groups (Newell et al.,
2006). In particular, while knowledge transfer is 2006), technology is a still necessary (Holsapple,
one directional, since the knowledge flows from 2005) but not sufficient tool, while it is essential
the sender to the recipient(s), knowledge sharing to implement appropriate organisational struc-
is a multidirectional process that usually occurs tures (e.g., communities of practice, knowledge
between several actors, who can be senders and networks, etc.), processes, and mechanisms able
receivers at the same time. Conversely, knowledge to facilitate the sharing of experience, ideas, and
suggestions directly among individuals.

Among the various organisational solutions in both empirical investigation and theoretical
that can be employed to favour the knowledge thought on this matter, so it could be useful to
transfer process, specific attention deserves the attempt to fill that gap.
resort to a particular kind of third party, here This is the aim of the present chapter that ex-
designated as knowledge mediators. A knowl- amines the key aspects of knowledge mediators
edge mediator is an entity (individual, team, in virtual environments. It opens by giving some
organisation) that occupies an intermediate posi- basic notions about organisational knowledge, in
tion in a knowledge exchange between the source particular, the distinction between explicit ant
(sender) and the user (receiver), and whose task tacit knowledge is addressed, as well as its impact
is to assist and facilitate the knowledge transfer. on knowledge transferability. Next, the chapter
This role seems to be particularly useful in the focuses on the knowledge transfer process. In
case of virtual exchanges of knowledge, that is, particular, three different models of that proc-
performed through the use of Internet-based ess are illustrated and discussed, as well as the
ICTs (e.g., e-mail, Web site, knowledge portal, related issues and problems. Then, after recalling
online meeting space, bulletin boards, common what extant KM literature says about the knowl-
databases, groupware, wikis, and so on) to a edge mediator role, an integrated framework,
significant degree. In such circumstances, in fact, to describe this emerging role is proposed, that
the sender and the receiver are not directly con- combines the basic elements of the three mod-
nected, but communicate via Internet-based tools els. The chapter closes with some summarizing
whose design, implementation, and management considerations and indications on possible future
is usually in charge of an external agent that acts research directions.
as online knowledge mediator.
In the present rapidly evolving world of In-
ternet, many new types of virtual knowledge on the concept of
mediators continue to come out with different organisational Knowledge
features that can operate both inside and between
organisations. Our attention will be about those Before analysing the knowledge transfer proc-
latter, since KM is progressively shifting towards ess, the notion of organisational knowledge, that
an interorganisational use, aimed at bringing is, knowledge created and circulating inside an
together and effectively integrating knowledge organization, is recalled, given that a proper
coming from a variety of external and dispersed understanding of this concept is crucial in order
sources. In this case, a specific company assumes to consider the transfer process. In this connec-
the role of interorganisational knowledge broker, tion, it is worth noting that the literature is full
and performs its job by means of Internet-based of definitions of knowledge and of classifications
technologies. Interesting examples of such kinds concerning its different kinds. As far as the
of companies are Monster, in the area of job re- definition of the term is regarded, a commonly
cruitment; FindLaw and Legalco in that of legal agreed and mentioned one is that of “justified
services; HotDispatch, devoted to the need of true belief,” meaning that individuals justify the
IT/IS professionals. Despite the growing diffu- truthfulness of their beliefs based on their observa-
sion of those new economic actors, little effort tions of the world. Justification hinges on unique
has been devoted to describe and classify their viewpoints, personal sensibility, experience, and
practices, and to investigate and analyse their history (Nonaka, von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006),
role to support interorganisational knowledge and is highly influenced and shaped by the socio-
exchanges. Actually, the literature is lacking organisational context the individuals belong to.

Another frequently quoted definition is that of 2007). In light of this, information (i.e., what is
“actionable or workable information” (Malhotra, actually transferred through any communication
2000; Tiwana, 2000), that is, information that has channel) can be considered as the explicit repre-
been organised and analysed to convey meaning, sentation of knowledge, while the tacit dimension
experience, learning, and expertise so that it is comes into play when the user interprets, interacts,
understandable and applicable to problem solving and applies information in a context. Again, this
and decision making (McKinnel Jacobson, 2006). means that information always requires a tacitly
This more pragmatic working definition has the constructed cognitive background to be correctly
merit of highlighting the business orientation of understood and employed.
the organisational knowledge. Also, it is more As well explained by Grant (2007), all
suited to the case of electronic knowledge transfer, knowledge includes a degree of tacitness along
since ICTs can only handle data and information a continuum in which the one or the other di-
(Albino, Garavelli, & Gorgoglione, 2004; Bolisani mension may dominate. As clearly depicted in
& Scarso, 1999). Thus, we will refer to it here, but Figure 1 (derived by Grant from Polanyi, 1958),
without overlooking the role the context plays to the continuum ranges from a situation where
understand and use that actionable information there is little tacitness, and the knowledge can
correctly. be held by many people with a limited common
About the different kinds of knowledge, the background and experience (this is, e.g., the case
most mentioned and used classification refers of the knowledge needed to cook a dish); through
to the widely known distinction popularised by a situation where only experts (of a certain do-
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) that differentiates main) can completely share the knowledge given
between tacit and explicit knowledge2. It is worth their common background, specific training, and
analysing this issue thoroughly, since it is widely experience; to the situation where there is a strong
acknowledged that the more or less tacit nature of personal component, and the knowledge results
knowledge directly affects its transferability. very difficult to articulate and share; and finally,
According to most KM literature, explicit reaching the point that knowledge is impossible
knowledge represents the knowing about (the to codify/articulate (the “ineffable” knowledge,
objective knowledge), while tacit knowledge the as that needed to play golf). The degree of ex-
knowing how (or the subjective knowledge). Ex- plicitness closely affects the language (spoken,
plicit knowledge comes from a rationalisation of written, symbolic) that has to be used to transmit
the information about facts, and can be codified in one’s own knowledge to another individual. When
the form of formulas, designs, reports, and so on; knowledge is highly explicit to the most, it can be
for that reason, it is relatively easy to obtain, store, articulated by means of a generic language; on the
and transfer. On the contrary, tacit knowledge is contrary, as the level of tacitness increases, a more
directly connected with ideas, perceptions, and specific language is needed to fully articulate it.
experience, and therefore, is quite impossible to This is the case of a jargon used by the members
codify. Generally, it can only be observed when of a particular professional business group, whose
applied, acquired through practice and experience, meaning is quite impossible to understand outside
and is consequently difficult to transfer. In reality, that group. In this area, the concept of implicit
as underlined by Keane and Manson (2006) and knowledge might be positioned, that is, knowl-
by Grant (2007), referring to the seminal works of edge that having a prevailing tacit dimension
Polanyi (1958, 1967), tacit and explicit are not two requires significant efforts to be codified. In such
distinct types but two inseparable dimensions of a circumstance, articulation can be done only in
knowledge (see also McAdam, Mason, & McCroy, favour of a community that shares a specialized

cognitive background, that is, having a common and background knowledge to be transferred to
language, shared visions and mental models, other people. On the other hand, since it is a more
similar practices, and so on. Since codification is individual and instrumental knowledge, probably
very expensive in this case, implicit knowledge has a limited applicability outside its original
remains unarticulated very often, and thus has a context, and thus, less need to be transferred.
limited circulation. Another interesting classification that supple-
Highly personal knowledge pertains to the ments the previous one is that recently proposed by
sphere of natural aptitudes, intuition, and skills of Schwartz (2006), who, following Aristotle’s way
the single individual, and thus is very difficult to of thinking, distinguishes among five “virtues”
translate in explicit forms. Ineffable knowledge, (i.e., types) of thought:
which is virtually impossible to articulate, is po-
sitioned at the maximum degree of tacitness. This • Epistémé, that is, factual or scientific
is the case of something that one is able to do (e.g., knowledge. It is pure knowledge such as of
riding a bicycle) without really knowing why. In mathematics and logic;
such situations, he/she knows perfectly how to do • Tèchné, that is, skill-based technical and
those things, though he/she knows the particulars action-oriented knowledge. It deals with
of what he/she knows only in a subsidiary/instru- things that change rather than with constant
mental manner and is quite ignorant of them. Thus, relationships found in epistémé;
he/she may say that he/she knows these matters • Phrónésis, that is, experiential self-knowl-
even though he/she cannot tell clearly, or hardly edge or practical wisdom based on experi-
at all, what it is that he/she knows. Subsidiary or ence. It deals with action and getting things
instrumental knowledge is not known in itself, done;
but in terms of something focally known, to the • Noûs, that is, intuition. It embodies the
quality of which it contributes, and to this extent perception side of knowledge, and thus, it
it is unspecifiable (Polanyi, 1958, p. 88). is largely personal and tacit;
In short, when the tacit dimension becomes pre- • Sophía, that is, theoretical knowledge of
dominant, knowledge articulation becomes more universal truths or first principles, and thus,
difficult, rises in incompleteness, requires more is less interesting from the KM point of
specialised and richer languages and representa- view.
tion forms, and often calls for additional context
Figure 1. The tacit/explicit dimension (from: Grant, 2007)

As underlined by the author, the different models of the Knowledge

types of knowledge raise specific demands to the transfer process
knowledge management activities and in particu-
lar, appear more or less suitable to be handled To identify and discuss the possible role played
by means of computer-based tools. In particular, by a virtual knowledge mediator, a representa-
factual knowledge (epistémé) can be organised in tion of the knowledge transfer process is of use.
knowledge bases, databases, documents, and so In the literature, there exist several models of
on, and hence, can be enabled and exchanged by this process, which are helpful to recall here. In
IT and computer-mediated communications quite general, all the models refer to the simple case
easily. Skill-based and action-oriented knowledge of a “single” transfer involving two subjects: the
(tèchné), in that it belongs to the sphere of the sender and the recipient. As said in the introduc-
individual physical abilities, is more difficult to tion, real circumstances are much more complex
encapsulate and reuse. Attempts have been done to since more subjects may be involved3, and knowl-
replicate and implement it by artificial intelligent edge exchanges may be reciprocal, more or less
and decision support systems, but those technolo- simultaneous, and so forth. In any case, if it is a
gies seem to be still undeveloped. Insofar as it can knowledge transfer, or a knowledge sharing, or a
be narrated and described (in case histories, best knowledge exchange, the basic question concerns
practices, and the like), experiential self-knowl- the actual transmission of a piece of knowledge
edge or practical wisdom based on experience from a source to a receiver. Thus, the following
(phrónésis) can be stored, replicated, and delivered models, which represent the knowledge transfer
through rich media-based computer technologies. process, describe a single step of a more complex
Lastly, intuition (noûs) is very difficult to share, process that generally may be multistep, bidirec-
but it is possible to have a digital representation of tional and involve several actors.
where it can be found (who possesses it) and how
it might be applied. Furthermore, Internet-based the communication-like model
applications can enable the social network through
which noûs is uncovered. Again, possible use of We first refer to the communication-like perspec-
computer-based technologies to transfer a specific tive borrowed by the Shannon and Weaver (1949)
type of knowledge seems to depend on the weight transmission model of communication, that con-
assumed by the tacit dimension: the smaller its siders the knowledge transfer process as a form
incidence, the easier it will be to articulate and of communication (Figure 2), where a sender (the
hence, exchange it by means of ICTs. knowledge source) transmits a message (contain-
Given our interest in online environments, ing the transferred knowledge) to a receiver (Lin-
in the rest of the chapter, when we will consider sdey, 2006; McKinnel Jacobson, 2006). In order
the knowledge transfer process, we will refer to to be transferred, knowledge is firstly encoded in
knowledge whose explicit component is prevail- a message, and then sent through a communica-
ing (i.e., knowledge placed in the right side of tion channel. Once arrived at the destination, the
Figure 1). This is also in line with the definition message is decoded by the receiver, who may also
of knowledge as actionable or workable informa- send a feedback to the sender through the same (or
tion, assumed in the first section. another) channel. The model highlights that all the
various steps/tasks of the communication/transfer
process are disturbed by noise, whose effect is to
distort the whole communication. The success of

Figure 2. The communication-like model of the knowledge transfer process (from: Lindsey, 2006)
the knowledge transfer process is also influenced the cognitive model

by some relevant characteristics of the various ele-
ments (McKinnel Jacobson, 2006). As regards the According to the cognitive perspective (Figure 3),
knowledge source, they are the perceived value of a piece of knowledge, owned by some source, is
the owned knowledge, its credibility, and motiva- firstly externalised, that is, represented in a mes-
tion. The effectiveness of the message is affected sage through an appropriate format, language,
by the kind of knowledge that is being shared, its and so forth. As previously said, the degree of
scope, and the nature (routine or non-routine) of explicitness, that is, the extent to which knowledge
the task that the transmitted knowledge intends can be verbalised, written, drawn, and the like,
to support. As far as the receiver is concerned, his reflects on its transferability. The resulted message
motivation and absorptive capacity play a crucial is then transmitted by various means, ranging from
role. Lastly, as to the communication channel, key electronic channels to verbal communications.
factors are its features (related to the employed Once received, the message is internalised, that
means), its degree of formality, and direction. is, read, understood, assimilated, and exploited by
This model offers a simple but fundamental the recipient. Internalisation consists in applying
starting point to analyse the main elements that the tacit (contextual) dimension to the respective
constitute the knowledge transfer process, and explicit representation (the message) in order to
to identify the communication barriers that may reconstruct the original meaning. The success of
affect its success. However, essentially because this process requires an “interpretative context”
of its technical derivation, it overlooks some as- (or background) shared by the interacting parties
pects that deeply affect the knowledge transfer (i.e., the sender and the receiver should give the
process; the most important ones are the cognitive same meaning to the message); a reciprocal interest
and social context in which the transfer occurs, in transferring knowledge; and a mutual “trust,”
and the cognitive features of the message itself since the parties should not doubt the quality of
(McKinnel Jacobson, 2006). Both these issues are the knowledge transferred and its “proper” use.
taken into account by the cognitive view that is The cognitive model underscores some relevant
largely adopted by the KM literature (Albino et issues, as follows:
al., 2004; Garavelli, Gorgoglione, & Scozzi, 2002;
Hendriks & Vriens, 1999; Mentzas, Apostolou, • Knowledge is formed and resides inside
Kafentzis, & Georgolios, 2006; Tuomi, 2000). human beings, who are its very producers
and users. Consequently, any knowledge

transfer process starts and finishes with an • A key role is played by the knowledge gap
individual; (cognitive distance) that separates the source
• Especially in the case of virtual knowledge from the receiver. It is worth noting that
exchanges, what is really transferred are there is an always-existing gap, since two
the data (numbers, words, images, sounds, individuals will never share exactly the same
etc.) that constitute the fixed representation values, beliefs, observations, and viewpoints
of the message. Communication may be (Nonaka et al., 2006). Strictly related with
synchronous or more often asynchronous; the former is the concept of stickiness that
in the latter case the message has to be denotes the costs of transferring knowledge
temporarily stored somewhere; between two parts. Stickiness will be rela-
• There are several barriers that hinder the tively low when the source and the recipient
reception and the internalisation of the share the same context and are engaged in
cognitive content of the message, and thus, the same practice; on the contrary, sticki-
the full and accurate absorption of the ness will be very high in case of different
transmitted knowledge (see: Disterer, 2001; contexts and practices. However, while
Riege, 2005; Yih-Ton Sun & Scott, 2005 for knowledge redundancy and overlapping
a complete list). Those barriers intervene at facilitate knowledge exchanges, relevant
the individual, organisational, and technol- benefits notably reduce as the gap between
ogy level, and regard both cognitive and the participants narrows;
social/cultural aspects, as well as technical • Trust is a necessary condition to make the
factors; transfer possible. People, in fact, are will-
Figure 3. The cognitive model of the knowledge transfer process

ing to exchange their knowledge only if markets.” According to the transaction-like view,
they trust each other. This is particularly a knowledge exchange can be represented as
the case of virtual exchanges, where the consisting of the following phases (Kafentzis et
two parties are not colocated, and cannot al., 2004):
control themselves directly. Real-life experi-
ence shows that trust derives from different • The contact/matching phase, where the
bases and is of different types, and this has participants are searching the necessary
a different impact on the extent and nature information about receivers, senders, and
of the knowledge shared (see: Ford, 2003 their knowledge. This phase ends when the
for a broad discussion). Usually, the level two parties come into contact and the actors
of trust increases with the enhancement of develop concrete intentions of exchanging
the cooperative relationship that links the knowledge. The result is a precise request
different parties. and offer of knowledge;
• In the contracting phase, the negotiation
Since it explicitly incorporates the context in takes place, and the economic and other
which the knowledge transfer occurs and better conditions of the transaction are settled;
specifies the cognitive phases (externalisation • The execution phase, when the settlement of
and internalisation) of the transfer process, the the knowledge exchange occurs. This phase
cognitive-like model gives a more complete rep- involves the effective transfer of the piece of
resentation than the communication-like one. Its knowledge, as well the respective payment
main limit consists in the fact that (likewise the (or other types of reward), and other related
communication-like model) this model focuses on services.
the transfer/exchange stage, without considering
those preceding and following the single transfer, The transaction-like perspective highlights some
and which are decisive for its execution. Also, the factors that the previous two views partially
previous perspectives put the economic aspects overlooked:
of a knowledge exchange in the background, and
this is clearly not the case of knowledge exchanges • As any business transaction, a knowledge
that involve business organisations. transaction may also involve three different
kinds of players: the buyer (i.e., the receiver
the transaction-like model and user), who is looking for a required piece
of knowledge; the seller, who possesses
To include the economic aspects of a knowledge the searched knowledge; and the broker,
transfer, it is of use to refer to a quite different, who helps buyers and sellers to meet, and
but complementary, approach that consists in facilitates the knowledge exchange;
equating the exchange of a piece of knowledge • In order that the exchange occurs, its “eco-
to a business transaction, where knowledge is nomic” requirements have to be fulfilled. In
the object of the transaction. This perspective is other word, all the involved parties must have
adopted by some authors (Desouza & Awazu, an (direct or indirect) economic motivation
2003; Kafentzis, Mentzas, Apostolou, & Geor- and interest to participate in the exchange.
golios, 2004; Matson, Patiath, & Shavers, 2003) To this point, it must be remembered that a
who embrace an economic reading of knowledge knowledge exchange generates value, since
exchanges, and develop the notion of “knowledge it allows making a business use of the ex-
0
changed knowledge. It must also be noted the role of virtual

that the knowledge transfer process produces Knowledge mediators:
costs that must be borne by someone; towards a descriptive
• The matching phase is strongly based on frameworK
metaknowledge, that is knowledge about the
exchanged knowledge. Metaknowledge, in the Knowledge mediator task:
fact, is required to locate the knowledge the evidence from the Km literature
user is searching for, to analyse its content, to
assess its value, and so on. Metaknowledge Although from different, but surely complemen-
does concern both the piece of knowledge tary, perspectives, the former models put the ac-
and its sources, and can be owned by single cent on the fact that the knowledge transfer process
individuals, as well as articulated in several is bristling with difficulties and barriers, so that
forms. Directories of experts, yellow pages, its accomplishment cannot be taken for granted.
knowledge maps, abstracts, and taxonomies Often, in fact, when knowledge is transferred,
are typical examples of different kinds of it may get “damaged,” resulting in depreciated
metaknowledge. value. It is just to overcome those problems that
new agents, that is, the knowledge mediators, have
What is of interest here is that knowledge emerged in everyday life, as testified by the large
markets (here considered as the physical, or better, number of references the KM literature makes to
the virtual places where the knowledge exchanges individuals, teams, and also business organisa-
occur) show the typical market problems, such as tions that occupy an intermediary (supporting)
the market of lemons effect, due to information position in the knowledge-exchanging processes.
asymmetries between sellers and buyers; the Since there is no room here for a complete over-
chicken-and-egg dilemma, originating from the view, in that follows, only some influential KM
need that the market reaches a minimal size; the authors will be recalled.
possible existence of black markets that appear To begin with, Davenport and Prusak (1998)
when one of the participants makes an illegal use discuss knowledge brokers, or gatekeepers, as
of the exchanged knowledge (e.g., by transferring individuals who act as a link between knowledge
the acquired knowledge to another user without senders and receivers. In particular, they consider
informing and rewarding the original provider); document managers as a special kind of broker
and the need of advertising strategies that take whose task is to direct searchers to relevant
into account that knowledge objects are experience information. As for him, Teece (1998) identifies
good, whose value to the potential receiver is not the function of knowledge translator, that is, an
unknown until the knowledge is revealed, and after individual who is able to express the interests of a
revelation, the potential acquirer has no need to group according to the interpretative frameworks
pay for it, and can resell it at near-zero marginal and languages used by another group of people.
cost (Desouza & Awazu, 2003). Furthermore, as Also, Brown and Duguid (2001) consider transla-
any market, a knowledge market is subjected to tion as a typical job of a knowledge broker.
failures4 that may concern the previously recalled Maier (2002) affirms that the knowledge broker
three market players as well as the market-wide is one of the various roles, established within KM
conditions (Matson et al., 2003). projects, whose task consists in surfing, that is,
helping people in moving inside the company’s
knowledge repositories; searching, that is, col-

lecting documents and locating experts belonging the intervention of an intermediary is particularly
to a specific knowledge domain; analysing, that useful to improve the intelligibility and usability
is, writing reports and studies, by evaluating, of the knowledge received by the end user.
synthesising documents, and referring to the The mentioned literature strictly focused on
located experts. Knowledge mediators may also the role of knowledge mediator inside a single
fulfil other functions. For example, they may act organisation, where this role can be played by
as knowledge-matter specialists, having in charge one or more individuals belonging to the same
the development/management of a particular field organisation, and performing the task of favouring
of knowledge, or, they may be managers of a the transfer and sharing of knowledge between
specific network or community of practice. the different parties (employees, teams, divisions)
On this subject, Markus (2001) deserves a of the organisation.
particular mention. He is probably the KM scholar More recently, given the increased atten-
who analysed the notion of knowledge mediator tion put to the external sources of knowledge,
the most thoroughly when dealing with the topic the interest has moved towards mediators that
of knowledge reuse, that is, the process through enable the exchanges of knowledge between
which knowledge is captured (i.e., documented), different organisations. It is quite superfluous to
packaged (i.e., selected, cleaned, structured, point out that exchanges that take place between
formatted, and indexed for future reuse), dis- organisations raise additional challenges, the first
tributed (i.e., sent to the potential user by means and foremost one pertains to trust (Oshri, 2006).
of push and/or pull mechanisms), and reused. Mentzas et al. (2006) give several examples of
In his opinion, knowledge reuse involves three intermediaries who support interorganisational
roles: the knowledge producer (the originator and knowledge sharing. In these cases, the knowledge
documenter of knowledge); the knowledge inter- mediator is not a single individual or group, but a
mediary, who prepares knowledge for successive distinct company that does its business connect-
reuse by eliciting it, indexing it, summarising it, ing two or more companies willing to exchange
packaging it, and who performs various functions knowledge. Those companies usually make an
in distribution and facilitation; and knowledge intense use of Internet-based technologies in their
reuser, who retrieves the knowledge content and daily work, and thus, they can be rightly defined
applies it in some way. He also notes that the three virtual mediators.
roles can be performed by the same individual(s)
or group(s), different individual(s) or groups, or the Knowledge mediator task: a
some combination. Different knowledge reuse cognitive and economic reading
situations, according to the knowledge distance
that separates the reuser from the producer, can As underlined by the empirical evidence, many
be encountered, each one raising different ques- kinds of knowledge mediators exist who perform
tions to the knowledge intermediary. The most a variety of rather different functions and roles.
challenging one occurs when knowledge has to This could be the reason why the relevant litera-
be documented for users who are very dissimilar ture results is quite fragmentary and lacking in a
(in cognitive terms) to producers. In such cir- common vision. Furthermore, since the literature
cumstances, it must be taken into account that deserves less attention to interorganizational
the reuser may be completely outside the original knowledge sharing, a similar little interest is de-
context, and thus, he/she runs the risk of not being voted to interorganizational knowledge mediators.
able to understand the relevance, or not correctly In point of this, in the following sections, we will
applying the acquired knowledge. In this cases, try to better understand, discuss, and classify the

possible role of a virtual knowledge mediator; at enced by the two elements that affect the transfer
this aim we will refer to the previously discussed process mostly, that is, the tacit, complex, specific,
models of the knowledge transfer process. and systemic nature of the exchanged knowledge,
In accordance with the communication-like and the cognitive distance (the knowledge gap)
model (Figure 2), the main function of the media- that separate users from sources (Figure 3). When
tor is to reduce (or limit) the noise that disturbs knowledge is substantially tacit, complex, and
each step of the transfer process. Thus, they may specific, externalisation becomes very hard and
get involved in all the phases of the process, but consequently, only a limited part of the knowledge
especially in the arrangement and management possessed by the source can be expressed in a
of the appropriate communication channels, and message and then transmitted. Moreover, in case
in elaborating (amending, integrating, storing, of systemic knowledge, it requires complementary
etc.) the message in order to increment its intel- knowledge to be usefully applied. The notion of
ligibility; thus, adding value to the recipient. In cognitive distance refers to people who, operating
light of this, two main roles can be identified in different contexts, have different languages,
for a mediator: channel manager and content interpretative frameworks, and the like. In those
manager. While the former essentially works on conditions, internalisation is very difficult, and
the technical side, the latter is responsible for the this prevents the receiver from fully understanding
cognitive matter of the exchanged messages, in and absorbing the transmitted knowledge. Based
particular, for its capturing, storing, manipulating, on these two elements, Cillo (2005) suggests a
updating, validation, and so on. Clearly, this is a classification of four types of internal knowledge
quite simple and simplifying classification that, mediators that can directly extend also to the cases
however, may be a useful starting point to deepen of external (i.e., interorganisational) and virtual
the analysis of the role of knowledge mediator, knowledge mediators (Figure 4):
and in particular, of the skills and capabilities
they are requested to have. • Information broker, who transfers simple
Referring to the cognitive view, the role of information between two parties belonging
knowledge mediator seems to be primarily influ- to closely related context and with sporadic
Figure 4. Types of knowledge mediators (adapted from: Cillo, 2005)

interactions. Probably in the long run, this ent communities of practice well represent
type of broker will be strongly supported such a situation.
(and partially replaced) by technological
devices; The transaction-like model gives a comple-
• Knowledge coder, who selects the knowl- mentary view, since it focuses on the roles that a
edge to be transferred and codifies it in a virtual knowledge mediator can assume during
coherent language. This mediator operates the different phases of a knowledge transaction. To
essentially as an information translator this point, it is of use to refer to the literature about
when the contexts of the two parties are very virtual mediators, where five roles are identified,
distant, but the knowledge is not complex. as follows (Barnes & Hinton, 2007):
An example is the exchange of information
between different departments of the same 1. Informational: This role involves the
organisation. Generally, they are sporadic provision of information about receivers,
interactions; sources, and related knowledge, and results
• Integrated knowledge broker, who oper- to be crucial during the contact/matching
ates in the case of complex knowledge and phase;
similar contexts. Such a broker accesses 2. Transactional: The mediator might partici-
and transfers knowledge by continuously pate in the transaction directly as either a
interacting with the two parties. A typical knowledge buyer or a seller; or alternatively,
situation is that of an intermediary acting it might act to facilitate the transaction, for
inside a community of practice; example, by giving assistance to the par-
• Pure knowledge broker, who interprets ticipants during the contractual phase;
and manipulates knowledge. They act in 3. Assurance: This role is that of providing
situations where cognitive distance is great, assurance of the quality of the exchanged
knowledge is very complex, and interactions knowledge, and of ensuring the correct
are continuous. Brokers between two differ- behaviour of participants. This function is
Figure 5. Business and knowledge intermediation: A comparison

Functions Business intermediation Knowledge intermediation
• Assembling or splitting of homogeneous
• Grouping or subdivision of
knowledge
homogeneous goods
• Integration of fragmented and
Physical (concerning • Assortment of heterogeneous goods
heterogeneous knowledge
the exchanged good) • Physical storage
• Storage and updating
• Transportation
• Translation/contextualization
• Conditioning
• Transfer
• Demand and supply connection
• Source and recipient connection
• Purchase and selling
• Acquisition and selling
Commercial • Assistance and consulting
• Certification of sources
• Commercial risk
• Content validation and certification
• Warranty
• Price setting • Price setting
Economics/Financial
• Funding • Costs allocation
• Information • Information
Communication
• Promotion • Promotion

Figure 6. A two-dimensional framework of the cognitive and transactional role of knowledge media-
tors
Cognitive roles Integrated Pure
Information Knowledge
knowledge knowledge
broker coder
Transactional roles broker coder
Informational
Transactional
Assurance
Logistical
Customisation
performed both during the information and better fulfilling the end users’ requirements, and
the settlement phase. Mediators can choose hence, pertain to the customisation role. The
to enhance their assurance role by provid- most these needs are user and context specific,
ing some kind of legal guarantee, and/or by the most will be the knowledge manipulating
deliberately building and reinforcing their activity performed by the intermediary. Knowl-
reputation; edge storage and transfer pertain to the logistical
4. Logistical: It consists in delivering the role, and are especially crucial when knowledge
needed knowledge to the end user. In case transfer is asynchronous, that is, when the piece
of virtual transactions, the delivery is made of knowledge has to be stored somewhere and
through online distribution channels; somehow before being sent to the recipient. Lastly,
5. Customisation: It involves the tailoring of transactional roles involve the commercial and
the knowledge objects to meet the needs economics/financial functions of costs allocation
of individual users. The tailoring process and price setting.
increases the value of knowledge transac- What is worth noting here is that, given the
tion, notably, in that it aims to make the complexity and multifaceted nature of the in-
exchanged knowledge of better use for the termediation function, as a commercial broker
recipient. may offer a more or less complete service, also
a knowledge mediator may perform all, some,
An analogous transaction-like way to cat- or only one of the enumerated functions. This
egorize the activities carried out by a knowledge means that one or more mediators may assist a
mediator consists in drawing a parallel with the knowledge transfer, each specialised in a set of
main functions performed by a business media- knowledge intermediation functions.
tor (Figure 5).
Those functions are directly associated with developing a descriptive framework
the roles previously discussed. For instance, the
informational roles generally require an intense In the light of what up to here discussed, an in-
communication effort to give the participants the tegrated interpretative framework of the virtual
information needed for their contact. As formerly knowledge mediator role is developed that com-
recalled, metaknowledge plays a crucial role here, bines the cognitive with the economic view. It is
in that it facilitates demand getting in touch with a two-dimensional framework (see Figure 6) that
supply. The “physical” functions, in particular, considers both the cognitive and the transactional
those related to knowledge manipulation, allow role at the same time, and identifies 20 possible

different specific roles that a knowledge media- preliminary indications about the nature and the
tor may assume. In our intention, the framework key features of this new economic agent have
should be a useful tool to analyse and classify been given. In particular, a descriptive framework
real cases of virtual knowledge mediators. In has been developed that by combining the cogni-
this sense, it can be seen as a first step towards a tive and the transactional dimension of virtual
deeper and more systematic investigation of this knowledge mediators, should allow examining
new phenomenon. some key aspects of their business strategies and
The framework offers some food for thought behaviours. The framework intends to provide an
about the knowledge mediator role. In particular, analytical tool that should be of help in explain-
it raises some interesting research questions about ing and thoroughly understanding the practice of
the actual nature of such a role. For instance, are knowledge intermediation in virtual environment.
all the cognitive and transactional roles compat- Clearly, ongoing empirical investigation is needed
ible to one another? That is, are there any empty in order to test and refine the framework. This is
(not viable) cells in the matrix of Figure 6? Also, not a simple task, since the Internet world is very
are some kinds of knowledge mediator more dynamic, and new types of knowledge mediators
widespread than others? Is there an extreme spe- seem to continue to emerge.
cialisation in this sector? Are operators vertically
integrated (i.e., along the cognitive dimension) or
horizontally integrated (along the transactional future research directions
dimension)? How much is this role affected by
the kind of industry where the mediators act? Despite its two-dimensional nature, the frame-
Answering these questions could certainly be a work leaves in the background some important
first step towards a better understanding the role of aspects that deserve particular attention in the
knowledge mediators in virtual environments. future. A crucial one concerns the competitive
factors of the knowledge intermediation activity.
Since it is a new business model on the Internet,
conclusion its key components should be deeply investigated,
with special attention on the related economic
As strongly confirmed by both the every day prac- aspects. In this connection, the transactional
tice and the theoretical thinking, the knowledge nature of the knowledge intermediation business
transfer process is at the basis of the KM activities, should be considered more thoroughly, with direct
since it makes it possible to transfer the available reference of knowledge as the object of economic
knowledge from where it resides to where it can be exchange. Assuming that perspective should
economically exploited. Unfortunately, this pro- allow one to tackle two crucial and interrelated
cess is bristling with several difficulties and bar- questions, that is, what is the value generated by
riers that increase when knowledge is exchanged the exchanged knowledge (and the related costs),
through virtual channels and involves different and who (and how much) is willing to pay for
organisations. To overcome such problems, the that value. Answering those questions should
presence of a knowledge mediator is required, allow better understanding the conditions of the
who acts as a bridge between the involved par- economic sustainability of the virtual knowledge
ties, that is, source and receiver. Given the recent mediator business model (Scarso, Bolisani, &
origin of such phenomenon, little is still known Di Biagi, 2006). Unfortunately, the economic
about which functions the knowledge mediator and market-like view, which seems to be use-
role consists of. In the present chapter, some ful to analyse knowledge transfer and sharing

processes, still represents a marginal approach references

inside the KM literature, and hence, it should be
further developed. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge
Another question, which could be an interest- management and knowledge management sys-
ing future research topic, concerns the impact tems: Conceptual foundations and research issues.
of the technological evolution on the knowledge MIS Quarterly, 25, 107-136.
mediator role. Without doubt, in the future,
Albino, V., Garavelli, A. C., & Gorgoglione, M.
KM will benefit from continual and even more
(2004). Organisation and technology transfer.
dynamic progress in ICT, and thus, the future
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(2),
of KM will be very different from the present
584-600.
(Becerra-Fernadez & Sabherwal, 2006). But,
what about knowledge mediators? Will the new Apostolou, D., Papailiou, N., & Mentzas, G.
technological tools replace the intermediation (2007). Developing knowledge networks: A prac-
role or call for new kinds of mediators? Probably tical methodology and experiences from cases.
upcoming technologies will automate a good part International Journal of Knowledge Management
of the mediator’s job, till to substitute the simplest Studies, 1, (3/4), 330-355.
functions, as affirmed by Cillo (2005). This will
occur especially if it will be possible to develop Barnes, D., & Hinton, M. (2007). Developing a
new representations able to make the transferred framework to analyse the roles and relationships
knowledge more suitable to the virtual commu- of online intermediaries. International Journal
nication channels and to enhance the absorptive of Information Management, 27, 63-74.
capability of the receivers. However, since interor- Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2006).
ganisational knowledge exchanges will continue ICT and knowledge management systems. In D.
to intensify, the knowledge intermediation needs G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge
will continue to increase and to become even Management (pp. 231-236). Hershey, PA: Idea
more sophisticated. To sum up, probably does not Group.
exist a univocal answer to such a question, and
the effects of technological advancements will Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (1999). Information
depend on each specific situation, in terms of the technology management: A knowledge-based
more or less tacit, and more or less systematic perspective. Technovation, 19, 209-217.
nature of exchanged knowledge, kind of involved Boyd, J., Ragsdell, G., & Oppenheim, C. (2007).
participants and their relationships, width of the Knowledge transfer mechanisms: A case study
cognitive gap, and so on. from manufacturing. In B. Martin & D. Remenyi
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th European Confer-
ence on Knowledge Management (Vol. I, pp.
acKnowledgment 139-146). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences
Limited.
The chapter contributes to the FIRB 2003 project
“Knowledge management in the extended enter- Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Structure and
prise: New organizational models in the digital spontaneity: Knowledge and organization. In I.
age,” funded by the Italian Ministry of University Nonaka, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Managing Industrial
and Research. Knowledge. Creation, Transfer and Utilization
(pp. 44-67). London: SAGE.

Cillo, P. (2005). Fostering market knowledge use in based technology. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
innovation: The role of internal brokers. European ment, 9(1), 42-52.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2006). Knowl-
Coakes, E., Bradburn, A., & Sugden, G. (2004). edge management ontology. In D. G. Schwartz
Managing and leveraging knowledge for or- (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management
ganisational advantage. Knowledge Management (pp. 397-402), Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Research & Practice, 2, 118-128.
Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working the knowledge sharing in communities, towards
knowledge: How organizations manage what they a social capital analysis. Journal of Information
know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Technology, 21, 40-51.
Desouza, K. C. (2003). Knowledge management Kafentzis, K., Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., &
barriers: Why the technology imperative seldom Georgolios, P. (2004). Knowledge marketplaces:
works. Business Horizons, January-February, Strategic issues and business models. Journal of
25-29. Knowledge Management, 8(1), 130-146.
Desouza, K. C., & Awazu, Y. (2003). Constructing Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K-K.
internal knowledge markets: Considerations from (2006). Knowledge producers and consumers. In
mini cases. International Journal of Information D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge
Management, 23, 345-353. Management (pp. 459-466). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group.
Disterer, G. (2001). Individual and social barri-
ers to knowledge transfer. Paper presented at the Keane, B. T., & Mason, R. M. (2006). On the nature
34th Hawaii International Conference on System of knowledge. Rethinking popular assumptions.
Sciences, Maui, Hawaii. Paper presented at the 39th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.
Ford, D. P. (2003). Trust and knowledge manage-
ment: The seeds of success. In C. W. Holsapple Kim, S-K, & Trimi, S. (2007). IT for KM in the
(Ed.), Handbook on knowledge management (Vol. management consulting industry. Journal of
1, pp. 553-575). Berlin: Springer. Knowledge Management, 11(3), 145-155.
Garavelli, A. C., Gorgoglione, M., & Scozzi, B. King, W. R. (2006a). Knowledge sharing. In D.
(2002). Managing knowledge transfer by knowl- G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge
edge technologies. Technovation, 22, 269-279. Management (pp. 493-498). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group.
Grant, K. A. (2007). Tacit knowledge revisited
– We can still learn from Polanyi. The Electronic King, W. R. (2006b). Knowledge transfer. In D.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 173- G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge
180. Management (pp. 538-543). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group.
Hendriks, P. H. J., & Vriens, D. J. (1999). Knowl-
edge-based systems and knowledge management: Lindsey, K. L. (2006). Knowledge sharing bar-
Friends or foes? Information & Management, 35, riers. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
113-125. Knowledge Management (pp. 499-506). Hershey,
PA: Idea Group.
Holsapple, C. W. (2005). The inseparability of
modern knowledge management and computer-

Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge management ay- Oshri, I. (2006). Knowledge reuse. In D. G.

stems. Information and Communication Tech- Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge
nologies for knowledge management. Berlin: management (pp. 487-492). Hershey, PA: Idea
Springer. Group.
Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge management for Papoutsakis, H. (2007). Sharing knowledge in the
e-business performance: Advancing information organisation: A retrospective analysis and empiri-
strategy to “Internet time.” Information Strategy: cal studies. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge
The Executive’s Journal, 16(4), 5-16. Management, 5(2), 231-244.
Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowl- Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Towards
edge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University
and factors in reuse success. Journal of Manage- of Chicago Press.
ment Information Systems, 18(1), 27-93.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension, Garden
Matson, E., Patiath, P., & Shavers, T. (2003). City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Stimulating knowledge sharing: Strengthening
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-shar-
your organization’s internal knowledge market.
ing barriers managers must consider. Journal of
Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 275-287.
McAdam, R., Mason, B., & McCroy, J. (2007).
Riege, A. (2007). Actions to overcome knowledge
Exploring the dichotomies within the tacit
transfer barriers in MNCs. Journal of Knowledge
knowledge literature: Toward a process of tacit
knowing in organisation. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(2), 43-59. Scarso, E., Bolisani, E., & Di Biagi, M. (2006).
Knowledge intermediation. In D. G. Schwartz
McKinnel Jacobson, C. (2006). Knowledge shar-
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management
ing between individuals. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.),
(pp. 360-367). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp.
507-504). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Schwartz, D. G. (2006). Aristotelian view of
knowledge management. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.),
Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., Kafentzis, K., & Geor-
Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp.
golios, P. (2006). Interorganizational networks
10-16). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
for knowledge sharing and trading. Information
Technology Management, 7, 259-276. Seufert, A., von Krogh, G., & Bach, A. (1999).
Towards knowledge networking. Journal of
Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough,
H., & Swan, J. (2006). Sharing Knowledge Across
Projects. Limits to ICT-led Project Review Prac- Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The math-
tice. Management Learning, 37(2), 67-185. ematical theory of communication. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.
edge-creating company, Oxford, UK: Oxford Sieloff, C. G. (1999). If only HP knew what HP
University Press. knows: The roots of knowledge management at
Hewlett-Packard. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006).
ment, 3(1), 47-53.
Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolu-
tionary paths and future advances. Organization Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from
Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208. knowledge assets: The new economy, markets

for know-how, and intangible assets. California Griffith, T. I., & Sawyer, J. E. (2006). Supporting
Management Review, 40(3), 55-79. technologies and organizational practices for the
transfer of knowledge in virtual environments.
Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge management
Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 407-423.
toolkit. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holsapple, C. W. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook on
Tuomi, I. (2000). Data is more than knowledge:
knowledge management. Berlin: Springer.
Implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy
for knowledge management and organizational Hutzschenreuter, T., & Listner, F. (2007). A con-
memory. Journal of Management Information tingency view on knowledge transfer: Empirical
Systems, 16(3), 103-117. evidence from the software industry. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 5, 136-150.
Walsham, G. (2001). Knowledge management:
The benefits and limitations of computer sys- Maier, R., & Händrich, T. (2006). Knowledge
tems. European Management Journal, 19(6), management systems. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.),
599-608. Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp.
442-450). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Yih-Ton Sun, P., & Scott, J.L. (2005). An investi-
gation of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal Priestley, J. L. (2006). Knowledge transfer within
of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 75-90. interorganizational networks. In E. Coakes & S.
Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Communities of
Practice in Information and Knowledge Manage-
ment (pp. 307-316). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
additional readings
Scott, J. E. (2003). The role of trust in e-business
Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (2000). Electronic knowledge management. International Journal
communication and knowledge transfer. Inter- of Electronic Business, 1(2), 187-210.
national Journal of Technology Management,
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is
20(1/2), 116-133.
organizational knowledge? Journal of Manage-
Chen, S., Duan, Y., & Edwards, J. S. (2006). Inter- ment Studies, 38(7), 974-993.
organisational knowledge transfer process model.
In E. Coakes, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of Communities of Practice in Information and
endnotes
Knowledge Management (pp. 239-245). Hershey,
PA: Idea Group. 1
Although the various scholars make use of
du Plessis, M. (2007). Knowledge management: different terms, there is substantial agree-
What makes complex implementation success- ment on the main processes that characterise
ful? Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), KM, and that can be summarised as follows:
91-101. knowledge generation (creation or acquisi-
tion), which entails the internal development
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge
or the external acquisition of new knowledge;
transfer: An integrative framework and some
knowledge storage and retrieval, needed
practice implications. Journal of Knowledge
to preserve, organise, and make accessible
existing knowledge; knowledge transfer and
sharing, which consists of the transmission of
00
the knowledge where it is of use; knowledge resources, and social relationships among
application, which involves the exploitation them who interact in order to accumulate
of the previously generated, organised, and and use knowledge mainly by means of
transferred knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, knowledge creation and sharing processes,
2001; Holsapple & Joshi, 2006; Maier, 2002; for purpose of creating value (Seufert, von
Schwartz, 2006). Krogh, & Bach, 1999). Knowledge sharing
2
Other classifications, less significant here, networks are types of networks among indi-
are based on the content and the owner of viduals, communities or organisations that
the knowledge. The former distinguishes serve as a locus for facilitating knowledge
among (Alavi & Leidner, 2001): descrip- sharing and effective knowledge work (Pa-
tive knowledge (know-about), procedural poutsakis, 2007). Such networks are denoted
knowledge (know-how), causal knowledge by multidirectional and intense knowledge
(know-why), knowledge of the sources flows that link the various participants, who
of knowledge (know-who), and relational can be at the same time knowledge senders,
knowledge (know-with). The latter differ- receivers, and manipulators.
4
entiates between individual and collective In particular, Matson et al. (2003) identify
(organisational) knowledge, with the second nine market failures: three related to the
being constructed and existing in the joint supply side (i.e., lack of external knowledge
action of a group of individuals engaged in sources; lack of codification mechanisms,
a common effort. According to Tsoukas and lack of incentives to codify/share); three to
Vladimirou (2001), any business knowledge, the demand-side (i.e., ineffective delivery
including the individual one, has an organi- mechanisms, perception that knowledge is
sational dimension, since its creation, dis- not valuable, lack of external awareness);
semination, and use occur inside a specific three to the market enabler (i.e., lack of
organisational environment. intermediaries, inconsistent knowledge
3
As a matter of fact, collaboration is always architecture, uncoordinated knowledge
more at the heart of the KM processes systems); and three to the market itself (i.e.,
(Apostolou, Papailiou, & Mentzas, 2007), redundant initiatives, inadequate measures,
and it generally occurs within the so-called unprotected intellectual property).
knowledge networks, that is, a set of actors,
0
0
Chapter XV
Knowledge Management in
Virtual Enterprises:
Supporting Frameworks and Enabling Web
Technologies
Stavros T. Ponis
National Technical University Athens, Greece
George Vagenas
Ilias P. Tatsiopoulos
abstract
The new globalized and demanding business environment of the 21st century has created a shift from
traditional organizations to more loose and flexible business schemes shaped in the form of Virtual
Enterprises. This transformation would never have been successful without the support of Information
Technologies and particularly the Web. Internet, in the last decade, has become the universal medium
of interactions between distributed entities. In this chapter, the issue of Knowledge Management sup-
port for Virtual Enterprises is discussed. Building upon the current state of the art, this chapter aims to
identify the major knowledge requirements of VEs, in an effort to provide a roadmap towards a holistic
Knowledge Management framework that will satisfy the excessive knowledge needs of Virtual Enterprises
at the interorganizational level. In that context, the role of supporting Web and Semantic Web technolo-
gies for the enactment of KM in VEs is described in detail.
introduction damental reassessment of the way enterprises

are doing business. Modern business entities,
The 21st century’s unstable and highly competi- more like world-class competing athletes that
tive business environment is calling for a fun- are constantly asked to run faster, jump higher,
and throw further, are continuously stressed,
Knowledge Management in Virtual Enterprises
by both competitors and customers, to produce organizational schemes, knowledge and its inter-
more customized products in low costs and high organizational management, is a crucial factor for
quality. Competition is relentless and according gaining and sustaining competitive advantages
to Zwegers et al. (Zwegers, Wubben, & Hartel, (Preiss, Goldman, S& Nagel, 1996). This chapter
2002), three are the major factors that put ad- aims to address the issue of Knowledge Manage-
ditional requirements to enterprises, namely the ment (KM) support for virtual enterprises with
globalization of market, production and supply; the use of IT, and particularly, Web technologies.
the emergence of outsourcing activities; and the Our perspective on KM, as presented in this sec-
turn of customers’ demand towards highly cus- tion, is not static. Knowledge is generated, passed
tomized products. on, used, and in turn, contributes to its regen-
This new and demanding environment has eration. In order for this to happen, an intensive
created an enterprise management shift from cooperation and an open real-time knowledge
well-defined, stable enterprises having limited re- exchange between participants in the global in-
lationships with other companies and focusing on formation environment are required, so that the
internal efficiency and effectiveness, toward loose right knowledge from distributed sources can
enterprise formations, tightly integrated with their be integrated and transferred to the right person
suppliers and customers, pursuing overall optimi- within the right context at the right time for the
zation. In a nutshell, one can argue that nowadays, right purpose. The aggregate of these interrelated
there is a well-recognized change of management activities is found in the literature under the term,
direction, from “self-centered” closed enterprises Knowledge Logistics-KL (Ponis, Tatsiopoulos,
to global, open enterprises (Browne & Zhang, & Vagenas, 2006; Smirnov, Pashkin, Chilov, &
1999), cooperating and forming interenterprise Levashova, 2004). An often critique on KL goals
organizations in order to achieve a sustainable is that they describe mostly an “ideal world.” Still,
position in the market, and ensure their survival in the highly demanding reality of VEs, in which
and business success. excellence is the prime requirement, Knowledge
In this new networked business reality, the Logistics and the constant pursue of its optimistic
30-years old slogan “knowledge is power,” by the goals is an imperative, even though most of the
ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) time the road to their achievement is harsh and
Turing Award winner, Ed Feigenbaum (Feigen- the results often dubious.
baum & McCorduck, 1983, p.8), has proved more In the next section, a brief literature review on
than accurate. As Peter Drucker (1993) and others KM, and existing state of the art on KM frame-
have claimed, Western organizations are not be- works, is conducted. This section provides the
coming more labor, material, or capital-intensive, reader with the necessary theoretical background,
but more knowledge intensive, an observation that and enables the better understanding of the next
holds particularly true in the case of the compe- section dealing with VEs’ particular knowledge
tency-oriented networked-enterprise formations characteristics and needs.
of the new era. As a result, there is an unambigu-
ous recognition by academics, researchers, and
practitioners about the importance of knowledge Knowledge management:
and knowledge management (Drucker, 1968; definitions and approaches
Nonaka, 1991; Wiig, 1997), which displays all
the characteristics of a nascent megatrend (Bair, A fundamental issue in providing a complete
Fenn, Hunter, & Bosik, 1997). definition of knowledge and its management is
Especially in the case of virtual enterprises to understand its differences in comparison to
(VEs), one of the most dominant contemporary information and data. The distinction between
0
data, information, and knowledge already appears and thus, provide guidance to practitioners. This
in the CODASYL report of 1971 (CODASYL, multidisciplinary focus has resulted in an abun-
1971) on general features of database systems. dance of perspectives on KM. First, there are those
On the one hand, data comprises a set of discrete that adopt a mechanistic view of KM, focusing
and objective facts concerning events (Joia, 2000), on intellectual capital and treating knowledge
while information is the result of analyzing and resources in an ordinary resource management
interpreting data (Bourdreau & Couillard, 1999). fashion. Second, approaches exist that concen-
On the other, hand knowledge is ‘‘a justified belief trate on knowledge processes, determining and
that increases an entity’s capacity for effective analyzing the activities that can be performed
action’’ (Nonaka, 1994, p. 15). However, it is on knowledge itself. And finally, few are the ap-
difficult to draw a discrete line separating these proaches that percept KM in an integrated manner
concepts, a reality reflected in the interchangeable and based on that, provide a holistic description
use of the terms information and knowledge in of the KM paradigm in an applicable form. An
the KM literature. This is mainly because of the exhaustive literature review, conducted by the
dynamic relationships among the triple of data authors, presented in the remainder of this section,
information and knowledge. In the same spirit, proves (at least to our extensive knowledge of the
Spiegler (2000) suggests a recursive and spiral field) that KM theoretical frameworks addressing
model of linking the triple, according to which VEs’ specific needs in an applicable form simply
‘‘yesterday’s data are today’s information, and do not exist. It is the aim of this chapter to ad-
tomorrow’s knowledge, which in turn recycles dress this shortcoming by identifying the major
back through the value chain into information and knowledge characteristics and needs of VEs, and
then into data’’(p. 3). It is clear that in a subjective providing a roadmap towards a holistic knowledge
field such as KM, strict and rigid approaches do not management framework in the context of VEs.
apply, and restricting a philosophical concept, such The perspectives on KM (Intellectual Capital,
as knowledge, in the confinement of an inflexible IT, processes, and holistic), mentioned previ-
definition has nothing to offer. As a result, while ously, are also evident in existing framework
we have tried to use the concepts of information approaches found in literature. In this chapter,
and knowledge in a distinct way, the reader has we utilize the definition of frameworks provided
to be aware that this was not always possible. In by CEN (2004) in the European Guide of Good
this sense, Holsapple’s and Joshi’s (2004) defini- Practice in Knowledge Management. According
tion for KM is adopted, according to which KM to that definition, a KM Framework is a structure
is an entity’s systematic and deliberate efforts to relating the various components of knowledge
expand, cultivate, and apply the available knowl- management (processes, activities, and enablers)
edge in ways that add value to the entity. Added to each other. It provides a schematic picture of
value is regarded as the production of positive how these various aspects depend on each other,
results that support the entity in accomplishing and how they are positioned within KM activi-
its objectives or fulfilling its purpose. ties and projects. A detailed literature review (of
A detailed look in the literature proves that at least 30 KM frameworks and numerous KM
knowledge management (KM) attracts the inter- papers), in existing research efforts that support
est of scientists from a wide range of disciplines, knowledge management, has provided us with
mainly organizational science, strategy and a list of KM frameworks, organized into four
management science, computer science, as well distinct categories, depending on the perspective
as management information systems that have of their approach to knowledge and its manage-
attempted to define and structure the KM domain ment, shown in the following Table. It should be
0
Table 1. KM frameworks
Framework Short Description
IC frameworks
The intangible assets monitor (Sveiby, 1997) The IAM is a technique for measuring intangible assets, and a presentation format
that displays a number of relevant indicators for measuring intangible Assets,
according to the company strategy. The framework identifies three kinds of intan-
gible assets: external structures, internal structures, and employee competence.
The skandia navigator (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997) The Skandia Navigator is a technique for evaluating the soft assets of an organiza-
tion, as well as a management reporting system that helps managers visualize and
develop measures that reflect intangible assets, and guide them into the future.
It identifies company goals along five focus areas: financial, process, renewal/
growth, human, and costumer.
IT frameworks
KM IT architecture (Mühlbauer & Versteegen, 2000) The KM IT architecture is based on the assumption that technology is indispens-
able for knowledge management processes, and shows what kind of components
can be integrated into a KM IT architecture.
The CommonKADS methodology (Schreiber, Ak- CommonKADS is the leading methodology to support structured knowledge en-
kermans, Anjewierden, de Hoog, Shadbold, van der gineering. It now is the European de facto standard for knowledge analysis and
Velde,. & Wielinga, 1999) knowledge-intensive system development. It enables the analysis of opportunities
and bottlenecks in how organizations develop, distribute, and apply their knowl-
edge resources.
Process frameworks
The knowledge creation process – The SECI model Nonaka and Takeuchi developed a theoretical model set, analyzing, in detail,
(Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995) the knowledge-creation process through the elaboration of a five-phase model.
Furthermore, they provided a model qualifying the conversion of knowledge be-
tween the two identified knowledge modes (tacit and explicit).
Building blocks of knowledge kanagement (Probst, The building blocks of KM model claims to support the implementation of KM
Raub, & Romhard, 1997) by dividing it into eight modules. These modules/ building blocks represent activ-
ities that are directly knowledge related (identification, acquisition, development,
distribution, preservation, and use of knowledge, goal-setting, and measurement.
The knowledge chain model (Holsapple & Singh, The knowledge chain model identifies five primary (acquisition, selection, gen-
2001) eration, internalization, and externalization) and four secondary KM activities
(leadership, coordination, control, and measurement).
Holistic frameworks
Model of organizational knowledge management The APQC model identifies seven KM processes (create, identify, collect, adapt,
(Andersen & APQC, 1996) organize, apply, and share) that manipulate corporate knowledge, and four orga-
nizational enablers (leadership, measurement, culture, and technology) that facili-
tate that manipulation. The model does not characterize in detail the nature and
the interrelationships of its constructs.
The know-Net approach (Mentzas, Apostolou, Abeck- The Know-Net claims to be a total knowledge-management solution that provides
er, & Young, 2003) a holistic knowledge-management framework. This framework defines the main
components of KM; a KM methodology, supporting the implementation of KM
initiatives; and an intranet-based KM tool, supporting the collection, organiza-
tion, and sharing of knowledge.
European knowledge management framework (CEN, This European KM Framework aids organizations towards the successful imple-
2004)(http://www.cenorm.be) mentation of a KM project. It sees three KM dimensions, a) value-adding pro-
cesses that should be in the centre of any KM initiative, b) core knowledge activi-
ties (identify, create, store, share, and use), which form an integrated KM process,
and c) enablers that support knowledge activities.
0
noted that this list is not exhaustive. There are driven organizations (Filos, 2005), still, KM has
other studies that could be included in the list; not managed to address their particular needs
still, the ones described in this table constitute, to adequately.
our opinion, the predominant and most complete As for KM tools, a research of the available,
research efforts for each identified category. so labeled, KM Systems (KMS) reveals the im-
From the quite exhaustive literature review, maturity of the respective market. For one thing,
which produced the results of the following table, there is no integrated and complete KM IT solu-
it was made obvious to the research team that the tion (Lindvall, Rus, & Suman Sinha 2003; Maier,
situation regarding KM in modern organizations 2002; Marwick, 2001; Schmaltz, Hagenhoff, &
is still blurry and highly unstructured. There Kaspar, 2004), but rather isolated tools capable of
are no standardization bodies providing a set of supporting specific KM tasks. According to Maier
commonly accepted guidelines to researchers (2002), the basic categories of KM applications
or practitioners. As a relatively new scientific include (a) intranet infrastructures providing
field, KM is still dominated by several research basic functionality for communication, e-mail,
proposals, and is receiving strong fluctuations. teleconferencing, as well as storing, exchanging,
As a result, literature regarding KM frameworks searching, and retrieving of data and documents,
is highly fragmented, generating a gap between (b) document and content management systems
the theoretical approaches of KM and the practi- handling electronic documents or Web content
cal challenges of coping with knowledge in the respectively, (c) workflow management systems
every day business practice. This situation is supporting the execution of well-defined work-
amplified by the immaturity of the available KM flows, (d) artificial intelligence technologies
applications that have, up to now, failed to provide supporting search and retrieval of distributed
holistic support to KM business practice, leaving knowledge, user profile management, text, and
organizations struggling to effectively use and Web mining, (e) business intelligence tools and
integrate knowledge management tools. Such data warehouses, supporting the transformation
assertions describing the inefficiency of KM to of fragmented organizational and competitive
connect theoretical guidelines with tangible busi- data into goal-oriented “knowledge,” (f) visual-
ness practice, as well as the inadequacies of KM ization tools assisting the relationships between
Systems, have been proved by a large number of knowledge, people, and processes (g) groupware
testimonials and empirical studies (Chase, 1997; tools supporting time management, discussions,
KPMG, 2003). meetings, or creative workshops of work groups
In addition, one can argue that a gap between and teams, and finally (h) e-learning systems
theory and business practice is more intense in offering specified learning content to employees
the business context of distributed and networked in an interactive way and thus, supporting the
enterprises. Existing frameworks provide no teaching and/or learning process. An effort to
actual support for the enactment of KM in the integrate these disparate KM tools into a complete
context of virtual enterprises. Indeed, in this KM solution is the KM Architecture Model, pre-
respect, few proposals have been documented, sented in Figure 1 (Lindvall et al., 2003 based on
such as the KnowNet approach (Mentzas et al., Lawton, 2001). However, up to now we have not
2003), which includes a rough specification of been able to identify a documented implementa-
an interorganizational KM approach, and even tion of this architecture.
fewer have been successfully implemented. In Literature reveals the fact that the most promi-
summary, literature reveals that although VEs, nent use of IT in the support of KM is mostly docu-
by common assent, are considered knowledge- mented in the extensive use of mere Content and
0
Figure 1. The KM architecture model, adopted by Lindvall et al., 2003

Intellectual Customer
Business Application E-learning Competence
Property Relationship
Layer Management Management
Management Management
Personalized
Knowledge Portal
Knowledge Gateway
Data and Knowledge

KM Services Collaboration Services Expert Networks
Discovery
Organizational
Knowledge Map
Taxonomy
Document and Content

Knowledge Repositories
Management
Low level IT Web browsers, Word Processors, E-mail Browsers, File Servers, DBMS,
Infrastructure Multimedia Generators, Messaging Tools, and Internet/ Intranet Servises
Bulletin
Information and Electronic Multimedia Logged
Boards/ Databases E-mails
Knowledge Sources Documents Files Chats
Newsgroups
Document Management Systems, which provide research Consortium investigating new IT-based
some support for knowledge work but neverthe- business strategies and customer services in
less, offer limited capabilities, and suffer from deregulated energy markets. EnerSearch oper-
severe weaknesses in the semantic level, providing ates with the minimal number of permanent
low accuracy of search results. Semantic features staff, and projects are carried out by a network
of KMS are of great importance, especially in of researchers geographically spread across the
the context of networked organizations, in order continent. The goal of the initiative was to improve
to enable and support cross-industry enterprise the management of both information items and
collaboration, systems interoperation, and last domain knowledge used to organize information,
but not least, unstructured knowledge extraction while minimizing the additional effort required
from the dispersed organizational knowledge from content managers and knowledge workers.
bases or the Web. Research and development was carried in the
In this chapter, the glass is seen half full and framework of the European On-To-Knowledge
therefore, the identified shortcomings in current project. The outcome was a major decrease in
state of the art are viewed as a significant research the mistakes during search tasks, as well as a
opportunity. This optimism mainly stems from minor reduction of the time required to complete
the positive and encouraging results of the initial, information-finding tasks.
and thus immature and partial to some extent, This real-life example proves both the neces-
attempts to address the issue of managing knowl- sity and the feasibility of effectively addressing
edge in VEs. To draw an example from current KM in VEs, while at the same time points out the
literature, we cite the EnerSearch AB case of need for a more structured approach capable of
implementing an ontology and Semantic Web enhancing knowledge management performance.
based knowledge management approach (Mika, The first step towards a successful KM imple-
Iosif, Sure, & Akkermans, 2003). EnerSearch mentation for VEs is the identification and clear
AB (http://www.enersearch.com) is an industrial understanding of their particularities, and the
0
determination of the specific requirements they The common ground of almost all definitions
produce. The successful outcome of this initial for Virtual Enterprises in the current literature is
challenge will constitute the cornerstone of the their strong dependence on information and com-
developed KM structure. munication technologies (ICT) that are primarily
responsible for interconnecting geographically
distributed business partners and thu,s enabling
current trends enabling knowledge flow and collaboration. Although not
Knowledge management in a panacea, in the case of managing knowledge
virtual enterprises in the context of virtual enterprises, ICT, and
particularly Web technologies, seem to promise
The identification of the VE organizational para- one reliable and effective remedy based on a well
digm, and a first reference on its core operational defined IT infrastructure and architecture, and the
characteristics, can be traced back to the 1980s use of standards. Current trends in infrastructures
(Miles & Snow, 1986). Still, a more elaborated are moving from client/server over the Intranet
approach of the concept appeared later on, in towards P2P (peer to peer) over the Internet, while
the early 1990s, in high impact publications by for architectures, there is a significant transition
Drucker (1990) and the Iacocca Institute in 1991 from transaction/layer-based approaches towards
(Nagel & Dove, 1993), which placed the loose service-based and agent-based ones. Finally, the
enterprise concept within the context of wider use of standards is widely accepted as a mecha-
and already accepted management movements nism for the relief of heterogeneity symptoms in
like Lean Production and Agile Manufacturing. virtual enterprises. Standards can be used for
The term “virtual” made its first appearance in elements and their meanings (semantic hetero-
literature in 1992 (Davidow & Malone 1992), fol- geneity), data models, languages and exchange
lowed by the solid definition of Byrne (1993), who formats (syntax heterogeneity), and communi-
states that a Virtual Enterprise can be defined as cation mechanisms (system heterogeneity). In
a temporary network of independent companies, the remainder of this section, the issues of Web
suppliers, customers, and rivals, linked by infor- technologies and standards that can be used for
mation technology (IT) to share skills, costs, and enabling KM, in the context of VEs, are going
access to one another’s market. to be discussed in detail.
Further developments and parallaxes of the The open and dynamic environment of a VE
VE concept, based mostly on the strength of the calls for a well-defined IT architecture capable
bond and level of formalism of the relationship of supporting information exchange between
between participating business entities, originated the geographically dispersed partners of the
in a number of proposals for new organizational collaborative VE network, sharing resources
models, such as the extended enterprise (Browne, among multiple organizations, and organizing
Sackett, & Wortmann, 1995), smart organiza- tasks executed in a collaborative manner by more
tions (Filos, 2005), and Supply Chains (Stevens, than one partner. Unfortunately, this statement
1998). The result of applying those models can is far from the real-life business situation, where
be anything from a rather stable alliance between information exchange, not to mention knowl-
partners, as in a supply chain (Li, Cabral, Doume- edge, between different enterprise information
ingts, & Popplewell 2006), on one end, to a more systems, is very difficult. This deficiency, when
transitory cooperation, as in a Virtual Enterprise, viewed from a strict IT perspective, becomes
on the other. an interoperability issue mostly attributed to
0
heterogeneity. Heterogeneity is a term used to consist of a single agent mostly performing in-
describe differences in hardware, operating formation retrieval and filtering. However, as the
systems, data models, data semantics, and data technology matures and addresses increasingly
quality. Sheth (1998) classifies heterogeneity into complex applications, it is expected that the next
four categories: (a) system heterogeneity, which generation of agent technology will perform infor-
includes incompatible hardware and operating mation gathering in context and sophisticated rea-
systems, (b) syntax heterogeneity, which refers to soning in support of user problem-solving tasks.
different languages and data representations, (c) These capabilities create the need for systems that
structure heterogeneity, which includes different consist of multiple agents that communicate in a
data models such as relational and object-oriented peer-to-peer fashion. Such functions will require
models, and (d) semantic heterogeneity, which techniques, based on negotiation or cooperation,
refers to the meaning of terms. Up to now, many that lie firmly in the domain of Multi Agent System
technological approaches have been proposed (MASs) (Bond & Gasser, 1988; O’Hare & Jen-
aiming to support the universal communication of nings, 1996). A multiagent System can be defined
information, such as electronic data interchange as a loosely coupled network of problem solvers
(EDI) systems that are based on highly structured (agents) that interact to solve problems that are
messages and middleware technologies using beyond the individual capabilities or knowledge
remote procedure calls (RPCs) between CORBA of each problem solver (Durfee & Lesser, 1989).
and DCOM objects. However, these approaches The characteristics of MASs (Sycara, 1998) are
are too rigid, do not address heterogeneity at all that (a) each agent has incomplete information
levels, and most important, could not be used or capabilities for solving the problem and, thus,
efficiently over HTTP, raising compatibility and has a limited viewpoint, (b) there is no system
security issues. Therefore, alternative approaches global control, (c) data are decentralized, and (d)
have been investigated, with the most prominent computation is asynchronous.
one being SOAP (simple object access protocol The use of the agent paradigm and technologies
(SOAP). SOAP is an XML-based protocol that in order to support KM in VEs is motivated by
works over HTTP, enabling communication the specific needs of a distributed and dynamic
between applications running on different oper- knowledge management system that demands
ating systems, technologies, and programming a flexible, scalable, and highly customizable IT
languages (http://www.w3c.org.). infrastructure. Camarinha-Matos (2005) provides
One of the most challenging system heteroge- an exhaustive list of arguments in favor of using
neity issues for Virtual Enterprises is openness. MAS to address virtual enterprise interoperability
Openness can be achieved by establishing a system issues, such as the distributed, autonomous, and
capable of dynamically changing, and still being heterogeneous composition of VEs easily mapped
able to communicate with other systems. The by MAS, the dynamic nature of VEs requiring a
distributed nature of KM processes in the VE con- flexible modeling paradigm, and so forth. MAS
text requires technologies that can support open applications (Chaib-draa, 1995; Durfee, 1996;
systems (Hewitt, 1986) reality. Agent systems Durfee & Lesser, 1989), show that despite some
technology emerged as a possible solution, and difficult challenges (Bond & Gasser, 1988), they
it has generated lots of excitement in recent years can provide many potential advantages if solu-
because of its promise for implementing software tions to these identified problems are intertwined
systems that operate in open and distributed en- (Gasser, 1991). Still, and despite these motivating
vironments, such as the Internet. Currently, the elements, it is true that the application of MAS
majority of agent-based systems on the Internet technology to support VE infrastructures is mostly
0
limited to research projects, most of them using • Information integration: Currently, the
agents to represent VE network members, and ad hoc integration of different pieces of
to support relatively simple processes, such as knowledge that lay in a network’s disparate
partner search and team formation. The failure KBs in order to respond to a user’s query is
of MAS to establish themselves through large, practically impossible.
commercial, working applications has created
a negative image, forcing well-known scientists Ontologies promise to resolve these problems
of the field, such as Rzevski, to wonder whether by moving from a document-oriented view of
MAS are a myth or a practical reality (Rzevski, KM to a content-oriented view, where knowledge
2003). Currently, the disappointment by the items are semantically enriched, mapped, and
technology seems to have been relaxed, and the interlinked. The emerging hype around ontolo-
“hype” stigma that had been created has worn gies is mainly due to what they promise, that is,
off. This can partly be attributed to the close re- sharing a common understanding of the structure
lation of the MAS and the widely accepted Web and meaning of information among people or
services concepts. Cultivating that relationship, software agents (Musen, 1992). Ontologies grew
Web service support by multi agents systems, and out of being a philosophical endeavor of finding
new synthetic concepts, such as Service Agents the top-level categories of existence (those appear
(Petrie, & Bussler, 2003), are gaining acceptance in the works of Aristotle, Kant, and Heidegger)
by the research community, and have the potential into an important tool in domain-knowledge rep-
to become the new trend in the VE technology resentation, and recently, for information-systems
scientific area. modelling and knowledge engineering (Raban
However, while overcoming system heteroge- & Garner, 2001). In the VE context, with many
neity is a good start, it is certainly not enough in the different legacy applications, database systems,
VE context. In order to address the fundamental operating systems, and data formats, ontologies
barrier of structural and semantic heterogeneity, are considered as the only means in order to
we propose ontologies as a knowledge represen- overcome structural and semantic heterogene-
tation means for agents (Weiss, 2000). Current ity, by providing dynamic and flexible maps of
knowledge-oriented IT solutions, such as content the information contained in the disparate data
and document management systems, have severe sources.
semantic weaknesses in core knowledge intensive The combined use of agents and ontologies
processes, such as addresses heterogeneity at the system, structure,
and semantic levels. In an effort to overcome
• Searching information: Existing key- syntax heterogeneity referring mostly to com-
word-based suffers from limited precision munication issues in a multiagent System, the use
(how many retrieved documents are really of Web services Architectures and technologies,
relevant?) and recall (has all relevant infor- in order to orchestrate and coordinate the dif-
mation/ knowledge been found?). ferent agents, seems as the appropriate solution.
• Presenting information: The format of a Web services can be described as self-contained,
query response is a list of hyperlinks; textual self-describing, modular applications that can be
and graphical information that is denoted published, located, and invoked across the Web.
by them. As a result, human browsing and Once a Web service is deployed, other applica-
reading is required to extract relevant infor- tions (and other Web services) can discover and
mation from information sources (Fensel, invoke the deployed service. W3C Web Services
2001). Architecture Group (W3C, 2003) provides a
0
Figure 2. The Web services’ conceptual ladder- two overlapping approaches

Discover service flow
WSFL
(UDDI, ebXML registries)
Describe Static UDDI service discovery
Quality of service
(WSDL)
management
service publication
security
Access Direct UDDI
(SOAP)
WSDL service description
XML
SOAP xml based messaging
Communication Layer
(HTTP, SMTP, other protocols) HTTP, FTP, email, network
MQ, IIOP, etc
Dacota et al., 2003

Kreger, 2001
concrete definition of Web services according infrastructure that facilitates real-time accessibil-
to which “A Web service is a software system ity of the services, and communication among
designed to support interoperable machine-to- them and between them and human agents. While
machine interaction over a network. It has an HTTP is the de facto standard network protocol
interface described in a machine-processable for Web services, other protocols can also be
format (specifically WSDL)”. In an effort to draw supported, including SMTP and FTP.
a line between the concepts of agents and Web- The next level addresses communication is-
services the W3C declares (W3C, 2003) that “A sues between Web services, or else the syntax of
Web service is viewed as an abstract notion that the transmitted messages. For this purpose, the
must be implemented by a concrete agent. The eXtensible Markup Language (XML) standard
agent is the concrete entity (a piece of software) is used as the messaging protocol, addressing
that sends and receives messages, while the the request for syntactic interoperability. In par-
service is the abstract set of functionality that is ticular, SOAP, developed as the Simple Object
provided. Other systems interact with the Web Access Protocol, but no longer an acronym, is the
service in a manner prescribed by its description XML-based message protocol utilized. SOAP is a
using SOAP-messages, typically conveyed using unidirectional envelope syntax for passing XML
HTTP with an XML serialization in conjunction compliant information among Web services.
with other Web-related standards.” In summary, Currently, SOAP is combined with HTTP and
we conclude that Web services are software ap- SMTP as underlying communication protocols,
plications that operate on the Web, providing a but others are still also possible, according to the
specific service by exploiting distributed comput- specification.
ing and informational resources, based on Web One step up the Web services’ conceptual
standards such as XML. The following Figure ladder lies the description layer. At this level,
presents two overlapping approaches describing web service definition language (WSDL) is the
the stack of Web services’ standards. de facto standard for XML-based service descrip-
The upper layers of both approaches build tion. WSDL is `an XML format for describing
upon the capabilities provided by the lower layers. network services as a set of endpoints, operating
Since Web Services must be network accessible, on messages containing either document-oriented
the foundational layer in every case is the network or procedure-oriented information (W3C, 2001).

An extension to WSDL aiming to support this have much of the communications software and
collaboration is the web services flow language infrastructure needed to support Web services.
(WSFL), designed by IBM, an XML-based lan- As for their limitations, according to Beznosov et
guage, for the description of Web Services com- al. (2005), these mostly fall into two categories.
positions as part of a business process definition First, Web services are not proven technology,
(Leymann, 2001). and there is some suspicion that Web services are
Web services are meaningful only if poten- the fashionable solution of the day, the same way
tial users are able to find information sufficient that MAS were in the end of the previous decade.
to permit their execution, so the highest level The second reservation about Web services has
of the Web service stack caters exactly for this to do with their heavy reliance on XML. While
issue. The most prominent technologies of this there are many advantages to XML, size is not
layer include universal description, discovery, one of them, since using XML expands the size
and integration (UDDI) and ebXML registries. of data several times.
Simply put, UDDI is a directory where organi- Despite some current limitations of ontologies,
zations can register their Web services, making MAS, and Web services, we believe that their
them globally available and allowing for their combined use has great potential in supporting
dynamic discovery. The information provided KM in the VE context. First of all, they can deal
in a UDDI business registration consists of three with the knowledge sharing need of VEs, by
components (Daconta, Obrst & Smith2003): (a) addressing geographical distribution issues and
white pages of company contact information, language variety, through their distributed Web
(b) yellow pages that categorize businesses by nature, and the use of ontologies that can provide
standard taxonomies, and (c) green pages that a multilingual knowledge environment. Further-
document the technical information about services more, they are applicable in the VE environment
that are exposed. since they can deal with the disparate computing
Although the hype about Web services is environment (system heterogeneity) through the
on its prime, it is true that they are still in the use of agents that can act independently of the
adoption phase, and successful business cases different legacy applications, database systems,
that prove their value are few. Nevertheless, ac- and operating systems that might exist in a VE,
cording to Beznosov et al. (2005), Web services and thus, enable interoperability and integration,
have many characteristics that set them apart which are considered crucial issues for knowledge
from solutions that came before them, and make management. Finally, the modular nature of Web
Web services more likely to succeed. First of all, Technologies enables the efficient inclusion and
Web services enjoy the active involvement of exclusion of new members (and their systems)
major software vendors, such as Microsoft, IBM, into the network, which is absolutely necessary,
and Sun, that few other distributed technologies given the temporal and project-oriented character
enjoy. Secondly, Web services are based on the of a VE.
loose coupling of applications, not requiring a
common application environment at both ends of
a transaction, and thus, allowing the subscriber Knowledge management in
and provider to adopt the technology that is most virtual enterprises: a
suited to their needs. Moreover, by using XML, holistic approach
Web services have a flexible model for data in-
terchange that is independent of the computing So far, in this chapter, the need for a holistic
environment. Finally, the use of Internet standard approach towards KM, in the context of virtual
protocols means that most organizations already enterprises, has been determined, and a tech-

nological toolset, consisting of Web services, which include the KM strategy, organization,
Multiagent Systems, and ontologies to enable this processes, technology, and the knowledge that is
approach, has been defined. What remains to be processed, used, and stored during the lifecycle
seen is the actual approach that can benefit from of a virtual enterprise (see Figure 3).
this IT infrastructure. Holistic approaches toward Providing a sense of direction for KM is
any problematic or underexplored area of business considered fundamental in order to successfully
presuppose a common consent of stakeholders embody such a complicated business discipline.
on the importance of the subject. Unfortunately, The strategic component intents to deal with this
in the unstable business environment of the 21st need by specifying the high-level goals of KM,
century, the emphasis on operational aspects, and coupled with directions guiding their achieve-
the stress for achieving “quick and dirty” results ment. However, the long-term perspective of
on financial indicators, usually leads to the un- strategy conflicts with the rather short horizon
derestimation or overlooking of “soft processes,” of VEs. As a result, from a strategic viewpoint,
such as knowledge management, with a long and we consider essential the existence of a business
cloudy horizon of return on investments. This network responsible for designing and controlling
phenomenon is further enhanced in the case of soft, managerial operations, such as knowledge
small and medium enterprises that, on the one management. Naturally, the business network is
hand, lack know-how and resources, but still not limited to supporting KM; nonetheless, it is a
constitute the majority of the participants in vir- major strategic enabler of KM in VEs. In detail,
tual enterprise formations, on the other. In order the business network is “a cooperative alliance
to overcome this jeopardy, the establishment of of enterprises established to jointly exploit busi-
a knowledge-sensitive business ecosystem that ness opportunities through setting up virtual
will favor the establishment and operation of a enterprises. The main purpose of a network is to
knowledge-breeding environment is essential. prepare and manage the life cycle of VEs and to
In this chapter, we utilize the notion of the KM prepare product life cycles. The network is thus
ecosystem, and we highlight its major constituents, to be seen as a potential, from which different
VEs can be established in order to satisfy diverse
customer demands. The network will seek out
Figure 3. The KM ecosystem and await customer demands, and when a specific
customer demand is identified the business poten-
tial is realized by forming a VE. Compared to a
virtual enterprise, a network can accordingly be
perceived as a relative long-termed cooperation
since it typically sets up multiple VEs” (Vesterager
Pedersen, & Tølle, 1999).
It is now evident that strategic planning can-
not be subjected to the extreme time pressure
that rules the operation of VEs and thus, is to be
executed at the network level. Of course for an
enterprise network that aims at flexibility, numer-
ous and complex strategic declarations are not a
desired option. On the contrary, we claim that the
network’s business strategy, defining the type of
projects and the business opportunities that are

to be pursued, should be enriched and extended organization component is competency manage-

with the respective knowledge aspects. In detail, ment, which requires the description of both the
the business strategy can provide a valuable available and required business skills in order to
source for analyzing the necessary competencies carry out the networks current projects and future
that should be possessed by the partner of the strategy. The concept of core competences was
network, generating substantial support for the introduced by Prahalad and Hamel (1990), and
recruitment of new network partners. In this way, according to Fletcher (2001), is defined as the
KM strategy becomes perfectly aligned with the answer to the question: “What does an organi-
overall network’s objectives. zation need for future successes?”. This reality
A major issue that has to be resolved at the has already been identified by the Globeman21
strategic level is the protection of each company’s project (Vesterager, Pedersen, & Tølle, 1999),
intellectual rights, and the resolution of relative which proposes the competency manager as one
trust, cultural, and legal issues. However, this of the fundamental roles in the network of busi-
strategic goal is extremely complicated due to ness partners. Taking it one more step further, we
intrinsic characteristics of VEs. On the one hand, believe that a knowledge manager is also essential,
VEs rely on knowledge sharing in order to excel and should be responsible for monitoring the
their current expertise and enhance their competi- whole KM initiative, and providing the required
tive position, adopting a perspective with emphasis guidance for its successful application.
on the dynamic, regenerative, and infinite nature As for the VE KM roles and responsibilities,
of knowledge. On the other hand, though, there things are somewhat more complicated, due to
are many factors setting barriers to knowledge the different, ad hoc forms that a VE can take
diffusion. For one thing, each individual com- (Thoben & Jagdev, 2001). In this chapter, we
pany has a natural tendency to protect their own utilise the established “star” formation for virtual
knowledge from both rivals and partners, in an enterprises (Thoben & Jagdev, 2001) as a basis for
effort to secure their competitive advantage. At the our analysis. According to the “star” formation,
same time, in the VE business context, companies a dominant enterprise is sited in the centre of the
unify their resources in order to produce a more star topology, playing the role of the VE leader.
complex or innovative product. Such projects This enterprise is responsible for managing all
,though, for most of the participating firms, do the leading phases of the VE life cycle, starting
not constitute their sole business activity. On the from project initiation and team formation to the
contrary, it is almost certain that many of them final VE dissolution. From a KM perspective,
would be participating, in the past or the future, this central enterprise should be responsible for
in other competing strategic formations, or they the internal monitoring and control of KM, and
would simply be doing business by competing work in close cooperation with the networks
with the established network. This form of com- competency and knowledge managers.
petition between VE members creates significant The knowledge processes component focuses
security, privacy, and confidentiality issues, es- on the description of knowledge processes that
pecially regarding knowledge assets that have to take place, consciously or not, in every organiza-
be handled/ managed in a coherent and mutually tion, but also on their effective embodiment into
agreed manner. the business activity. Within the context of this
The KM organization component aims at study, seven core, knowledge processes have been
specifying and describing the required KM roles, identified: (a) knowledge identification, which
thus, providing a concrete structure for implement- traces and maps the required knowledge to sup-
ing KM in VEs. The major task,related to the port business processes execution and enterprise

strategy implementation, (b) knowledge capture, What is more, effective knowledge sharing is
which is the process during which existing in- realized when each organization, and the VE as
ternal or external knowledge is represented in a a whole, utilize the shared knowledge in order to
formalized way, (c) knowledge acquisition, from improve their know-how and fulfill the VE mis-
external environment through interaction with sion successfully. Thus, a major factor that has to
customers, suppliers, competitors, and partners, be considered is the trade-off between the value
(d) new knowledge creation, through R&D, ex- gained by sharing knowledge against protecting
perimentation, lessons learned, creative thinking, and internally using it. In this respect, Loebecke
and innovation. In detail, Knowledge creation is et al. (Loebecke, Van Fenema, & Powell, 1999)
the task that complements knowledge acquisition identified three dimensions of interorganizational
and focuses on generating new skills, new prod- knowledge transfer, which are synergy, levera-
ucts, better ideas, and more efficient processes, gability, and negative reverse impact. Synergy
(e) organization and storage of all the available denotes the value added to the cooperation from
knowledge, in order to support its effective use the interdependent knowledge sharing. Levera-
and reuse. Organization and storage includes the gability refers to the potential of each partner,
selective retention of information and knowledge separately, to capitalize value from utilizing the
in properly indexed and interlinked knowledge shared knowledge. Finally, negative reverse im-
repositories, (f) knowledge sharing is the extent pact describes the sender’s lost knowledge value
to which people share their knowledge through its due to its use by the receiver (e.g., sharing a patent
effective access and distribution to users on the has a huge negative reverse impact).
basis of their needs and interests, (g) knowledge As for knowledge organization and storage,
use and reuse is the application of knowledge to they are considered as fundamental processes,
support effective decision making, problem solv- since they constitute a safe pathway in reassur-
ing, and customer service. Next, we will focus ing that most of the information and knowledge
on the most important knowledge processes in generated will not be lost following the VE’s
the VE context, these being knowledge sharing, dissolution. Furthermore, people, in making
organization, and storage. decisions, are called to analyze large amounts
The most important process at the interorga- of knowledge/information that originates from
nizational level, which constitutes the base of the different enterprise domains, such as product
collaboration between VE partners, is knowledge specifications and designs, project management
sharing. Participating business entities join ca- reports, marketing researches, customer needs
pacities and expertise in order to cover a market and feedback, and so forth. In this information-
need by producing a usually highly complex overloaded environment, knowledge organization
product that no participating firm is capable or is a decisive prerequisite for its effective reuse.
willing to produce by itself. As a result, sharing The reuse of stored past experience can be very
and integrating knowledge and information, and useful in several situations, for example, for speed-
making it visible throughout the organization, is a ing up the VE formation phase and the selection
vital, yet complex task. The main reason for this of partners, of for implementing similar projects
complexity is the distributed nature of VEs. The with different partners.
geographical distribution and the task variety and The knowledge component of the VE KM eco-
complexity of partners create a set of differences system refers to the actual content that is created,
(workflow, business rules, language, cultural, etc.) shared, and used during the VE lifecycle. One of
that jeopardize effective knowledge sharing. the most critical issues regarding the knowledge

content relates to variety of linguistic patterns management. Particularly in the VE context,

and content. It is inevitable that linguistic dif- interoperability and integration between heteroge-
ferences and terminology gaps, especially those neous hardware and software platforms of the VE
identified in business terminology, would lead to members are the most crucial issues regarding ICT.
misunderstandings, even in the case VE partners It is not rare, the phenomenon of data produced
that share the same dialect/language. Furthermore, by an application of one VE partner that cannot
the project-oriented nature of VEs denotes their easily be integrated in the information system of
reliance on non-routinized, highly contextual, and another. In addition, the obstacles of integrating
situational knowledge. In response to the require- different back-end or legacy applications and
ments that this situation raises, the main goal of information or databases from multiple sources
the content view of KM in VE is to exhaustively are, most of the time, costly and time consuming.
structure the available knowledge, providing a To address these issues, semantic web technolo-
semantic unification space that is necessary in gies and ontology engineering come to play, in
overcoming ambiguity and the communication an attempt to create a modular environment and
barriers that it imposes. In doing so, knowledge thus, permit, to the furthest possible extent, the
has to be formally represented through the use of efficient inclusion and exclusion of new members
structured approaches, such as knowledge maps, (and their systems) into the network. The situation
taxonomies, Entity Relationship diagrams, and gets even harder in run-time mode, when different
especially, ontologies. systems are called not only to identify each other,
Last but not least, the technology component, but also to operate and collaborate in an effective
including the technological infrastructure and and efficient manner. In that case, current state
especially ICT (Information and Communica- of the art suggests multiagent Systems and Web
tion), plays a critical role in successful knowledge services heavily relying on XML constructs as
the best possible solution.
Figure 4. Obstacles to a successful use of knowledge in virtual organizations (Neumann, 1999, p. 28)

What is more, a VE relies on knowledge com- Figure 4. The characteristics of the KM

ing from a variety of sources including knowl- framework
edge of existing and potential partners, as well
as knowledge of the customers and the market.
Thus, the availability of an effective knowledge
management system, capable of scanning both the
intranet and the Web, is considered a strong advan-
tage over competition, especially when it comes
to opportunity identification and team formation.
Finally, one general issue in VEs’ operation that
puts additional pressure to supportive ICT solu-
tions is that of trust. Business partners may be
known only from electronic contacts, and this fact
imposes significant security requirements from
an IT solution in order to protect each company’s
intellectual property and to secure the data sent
over the network.
In conclusion, it is inarguable that virtual
enterprises are overwhelmed with particular characteristics of this framework that development
knowledge needs that traditional enterprises do has to achieve are shown in Figure 4.
not have, or at least not at this level of importance. The initial goal of the framework is to provide
This fact is also evident in the work of Neumann, the means to define and structure the set of orga-
presented in Figure 3, who identified the foremost nizational KM concepts required for the building
obstacles to the successful use of knowledge in of a knowledge intensive enterprise capable of
Virtual Organizations. In an effort to establish efficiently managing knowledge management
the foundations for the development of a holistic in its internal and its external (intra-enterprise)
and sound KM framework in support of VEs, in environment. In doing so, we propose the inte-
this section, we tried to analyze these VE specific gration of enterprise modeling and knowledge
characteristics and needs along the five major management in an effort to provide a holistic yet
components of the KM ecosystem of VEs. process-oriented framework (Ponis, Tatsiopoulos,
Vagenas, & Koronis in press). This objective will
be achieved through the utilization of existing and
well-established enterprise-modelling techniques
proposal of a holistic Km
that support virtual enterprises in their heavy
frameworK
task of constantly readjusting their way of doing
business and particularly, the rapid inclusion,
Throughout this chapter, we have argued that the
analysis, and dissemination of new products, new
nature, dynamics, and operational characteristics
processes, and new organizational structures into
of VEs demand a holistic approach towards knowl-
the system.
edge management that is inevitably heavily relied
The framework utilizes ARIS Architecture
on IT, and especially the Web. One of the main
(architecture of integrated information systems)
research goals supported by these arguments is
(Scheer, 1999), and its enterprise modeling (EM)
the development of such a framework, tailor it to
and Knowledge modeling capabilities, in an effort
the Greek industrial reality, and practically evalu-
to provide structure to the KM ecosystem and
ate it through a series of pilot projects. The major

overcome modeling deficiencies troubling similar contain the necessary information required for
research efforts identified in the literature. ARIS is tracing an agent, understanding its operation,
a leading business process management platform and if necessary, integrate it with one, or more
that provides users with an intuitive user interface, than one, other agents into one single workflow
smart Web technologies, and high level of scalabil- sequence.
ity (visit http://www.ids-scheer.com for details).
ARIS integrates a range of different modelling
methods and frameworks, such as, Event-driven future research directions
Process Chain (EPC), UML, BPEL, and so forth,
which enable the deployment of ARIS in many It is true that the basic concepts of this approach
different business areas, such as risk manage- are attractive, but as with all theoretical constructs,
ment, performance management, and knowledge their actual implementation hides challenges and
management. By exploiting the ARIS enterprise issues that, in essence, they constitute the limita-
modeling capabilities, the knowledge practitioner tions of the approach, at least for the present time.
is provided with a powerful and scalable ready- The main issues of the proposed approach are the
to-use KM toolset that addresses the analysis following: (a) creating industry-wide, ready-to-use
and modeling requirements of the knowledge ontologies in a machine-readable format to address
management processes thus, enhancing the rapid language and terminology issues thus, boosting
communication of knowledge logistic activities team formation and enhancing cooperation and
within the entire enterprise. An indicative list of production performance and efficiency, (b) utiliz-
methodological tools ARIS provides the analyst ing techniques based on semantic Web and rich
includes extended Event-driven Process Chain media concepts to support integration and interop-
diagrams (eEPCs), organizational charts, knowl- erability issues throughout the network (c) creating
edge maps, and knowledge network diagrams. smart, flexible, and efficient workflow enactment
As for the technological counterpart of the based on sophisticated service choreography,
KM framework the combined use of agents, Web (d) enabling secure and trusted communication
technologies, and ontologies seem to be the solu- protocols, for the Internet, based on public key
tion, as analyzed earlier in this chapter. In previous encryption schemes and the development of access
research efforts by the authors (Ponis et al., 2006), controls, (e) elaborating coherent and functional
the general scheme of the required IT infrastruc- user management models able to support the
ture has been determined. The main operational complex relationships between VE members, the
actors in this infrastructure are software agents efficient management of user identities, policies,
that fall into two main categories, namely content and passwords. Apparently, this list will grow
(wrapper agents, translation agents, ontology even bigger if one will add non-IT related issues
Agents) and system agents (broker agents, moni- of the cultural, legal, and socioethical nature,
toring agents, security agents, user agents). The such as resistance to change, intellectual property
first are responsible for manipulating knowledge rights and trust, and personal relationships within
assets at the content and metacontent (metadata) the VE, respectively. Still, this would go out and
layer while on the other hand, system agents are beyond the scope of this chapter.
responsible for administration issues such as the To address those mentioned shortcomings of
coordination, control, security, and effectiveness the approach, future research actions are currently
of the multiagent system. All software agents are in plan, with the most imminent ones being the
registered as Web services through the use of enrichment of the elaborated ontology library
UDDI, WSDL, and WSFL repositories, which with the required system ontologies (e.g., agent

description ontology), the expansion of current ments, the respective market is still fragmented
ontologies to more sectors in collaboration with in- and immature, since most of the efforts in the
dustrial partners, and the elaboration of reference area have been conducted by research projects
knowledge service workflows on a per industry that, and it hurts to admit so, very rarely find
basis. These actions are expected to increase the their way to the commercial software market in
framework’s generality and enhance its flexibility the form of a viable product. To heal this trauma,
and dynamic amorphousness enabling VEs to knowledge engineers, and IT systems that support
pursue business opportunities in other vertical them, have to work closely together; evolve, and
industries. by evolving, finally manage to resolve a number
of critical issues before knowledge management
can fully exploit the numerous possibilities that
conclusion IT, and in particular the Web, can provide them.
In an attempt to contribute to these efforts and
It is inarguable that virtual enterprises are over- establish the foundations for the development of
whelmed with particular knowledge needs that a holistic and sound KM framework in support
traditional enterprises do not have, or at least not of VEs, in this chapter, we tried to analyze these
at this level of importance and time pressure. How- VE specific needs along the five major compo-
ever, as literature proves, the area of knowledge nents of the KM ecosystem described earlier in
management in the VE context is still in the initial this chapter: KM strategy, KM Organization,
stages of evolution, lacking structured approaches KM Processes, KM Technology, and processed
and holistic frameworks that will unite concepts knowledge itself.
together into a solid application roadmap. What remains to be seen is how VE forma-
Toward this objective, although not a panacea, tions can be persuaded into making the necessary
information technologies play a rather significant investments in budget and resources that are
role. Even for the skeptics among the researchers needed for the deployment and implementation
who claim that ICT are not the magic wand, one of a structured approach for managing their
can say that maybe it is, since they can make the knowledge. Major reasons for their current cau-
VE construct disappear by simply withdrawing tious attitude seem to be the lack of the required
from it. In our opinion, ICT are embedded in level of IT know-how, the absence of hard core
the very core of cotemporary virtual enterprises empirical validation of the current approaches
that try to compete in a global environment. IT in real-life working environments, and the dif-
infrastructures and standards are necessary to ficulty of determining the actual cost and time
ensure interoperability, syntactic conformity, and needed to implement such approaches and in-
workflow enactment within the VE enterprise frastructures.
network.
The need for technology support, if not self-
justifiable, becomes evident by the advancements references
achieved in the design and development of IT
infrastructures, support frameworks, and services Andersen, A., & The American Productivity and
for VEs in the last 15 years. A critical role in these Quality Center. (1996). The knowledge manage-
efforts has been played by the World Wide Web, ment assessment tool: External benchmarking
which is already established as the almost de facto version. Winter.
standard platform for information exchange in
Bair, J., Fenn, J., Hunter, R., & Bosik, D. (1997).
distributed environments. Despite these advance-
Foundations for enterprise knowledge manage-

ment (Report R-400-105). Stamford: Gartner 14924-1). CEN, The European Committee for
Group. Standardization.
Beznosov, K., Flinn, D., Kawamoto, S. and Chaib-draa, B. (1995). Industrial applications
Hartman, B. Extended and virtual enterprises - of distributed AI. Communications of the ACM,
similarities and differences. Information Security 38(11), 49–53.
Technical Report, 10, 2-14.
Chase, R. (1997). The knowledge based organisa-
Bond, A. H., & Gasser, L. (1988). Readings in tion: an international survey. Journal of Knowl-
distributed artificial intelligence. San Francisco, edge Management, 1(1), 38-49.
CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
CODASYL. (1971). Feature analysis of gener-
Bourdreau, A., & Couillard, G. (1999). System alized data base management systems. ACM,
integration and knowledge management. Informa- May.
tion Systems Management, 1(3), 24–32.
Daconta, M. C., Obrst, L. J., & Smith, K. T. (2003).
Browne, J., & Jagdev, H. S. (1998). The extended The semantic Web: A guide to the future of XML,
enterprise - A context for manufacturing. Journal Web services, and knowledge management. In-
of Production, Planning & Control, 9(3), 216 dianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
-229.
Davidow, W. H., & Malone M. S. (1992). The vir-
Browne, J., Sackett, P. J., & Wortmann, J. C. tual corporation. New York: Harper Business.
(1995). Future manufacturing systems - towards
Drucker, P. F. (1968). The age of discontinuity
the extended enterprise. Computers in Industry,
guidelines to our changing society. New York:
25(3), 235-54.
Harper & Row.
Browne & Zhang, (1999). Extended and virtual
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New
enterprises - similarities and differences. Inter-
York: HarperBusiness.
national Journal of Agile Management Systems,
1(1), 30-36. Drucker, P. F. (1990). The emerging theory of
manufacturing. Harvard Business Review, 68(3),
Byrne, J. (1993). The virtual corporation. Business
94-102.
Week, 26(3), 36–41.
Durfee, E. (1996). Planning in distributed artificial
Camarinha-Matos L. M. (2003). Infrastructures
intelligence. In G. M. P. O’Hare & N. R. Jennings
for virtual organizations - where we are. In Emerg-
(Eds.), Foundations of distributed artificial intel-
ing Technologies and Factory Automation: Vol.
ligence (pp. 231–246). New York: Wiley.
2. Proceedings of ETFA ‘03 (pp. 405- 414).
Durfee, E. H., & Lesser, V. (1989). Negotiating
Camarinha-Matos L. M. (2005). ICT infrastruc-
task decomposition and allocation using partial
tures for VO. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H.
global planning. In L. Gasser & M. Huhns M.
Afsarmanesh, & M. Ollus(Eds.), Virtual organiza-
(Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence, volume
tions: Systems and practices (pp. 89-110). Boston:
2 (pp. 229–244). San Francisco, CA: Morgan
Springer Science and Business Media.
Kaufmann.
CEN. (2004). European guide to good practice
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual
in knowledge management - Part 1: Knowledge
capital: Realizing your company’s true value by
management framework (ICS 03.100.99, CWA
0
finding its hidden brainpower. New York: Harper zburgresearch.at/knowledge_base/ kpmg_2003.

Business. pdf
Feigenbaum, E. A., & McCorduck, P. (1983). Kreger, H., & IBM Software Group. (2001). Web
The fifth generation: Artificial intelligence and services conceptual architecture (WSCA 1.0).
Japan’s computer challenge to the world. MA: Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://www-
Addison-Wesley. 306.ibm.com/software/solutions/ webservices/
pdf/WSCA.pdf
Fensel, D. (2001). Ontologies: Silver bullet for
knowledge management and electronic com- Lawton, G. (2001). Knowledge management:
merce. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. ready for prime time? IEEE Computer, 3(2),
12-14.
Filos, E. (2005). Virtuality and the future of or-
ganisations. In G. Putnik & M. M. Cunha (Eds.), Leymann, F. (2001). Web services flow language
Virtual enterprise integration: Technological and (WSFL 1.0). IBM Software Group. Retrieved April
organizational perspectives. Hershey, PA: Idea 10, 2007, from http://xmlcoverpages.org/WSFL-
Group Publishing. Guide-200110.pdf
Fletcher, S. (2001). Competence-based assessment Li, M., Cabral, R., Doumeingts, G., & Popplewell
technique. London: Kogan Page. K. (2006). Enterprise interoperability – Research
roadmap (Final Version). Retrieved November
Gasser, L. (1991). Social conceptions of knowl-
11, 2006, from http://cordis.europa.eu/ist/ict-ent-
edge and action. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3),
net/ei-roadmap_en.htm
107–138.
Lindvall, M., Rus, I., & Suman Sinha S. (2003).
Hewitt, C. (1986). Offices are open systems. ACM
Software systems support for knowledge man-
Transactions of Office Automation Systems, 4(3),
agement. Journal of Knowledge Management,
271–287.
7(5), 137-150.
Holsapple C. W., & Joshi K. D. (2004b). A for-
Loebecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P.
mal knowledge management ontology: Conduct,
(1999). Coopetition and knowledge transfer. The
activities, resources, and influences. Journal of
DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems,
the American Society for Information Science
30(2), 14-25.
and Technology, 55(7), 593 – 612.
Maier, R. (2002). State-of-practice of knowledge
Holsapple, C. W., & Singh, M. (2001). The knowl-
management systems: Results of an empirical
edge chain model: Activities for competitiveness.
study. Upgrade, 3(1). Retrieved October 10, 2006,
Expert Systems with Applications, 20(1), 77-98
from http://www.upgrade-cepis.org
Joia, L. A. (2000). Measuring intangible corporate
Marwick, A. D. (2001). Knowledge manage-
assets: Linking business strategy with intellectual
ment technology. IBM systems journal, 40(4),
capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), pp.
814-900.
68-84.
Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., Abecker, A., & Young,
KPMG. (2003). Insights from KPMG’s European
R. (2003). Knowledge asset management – Be-
Knowledge Management Survey 2002/2003.
yond the process-centred and product-centred
KPMG Knowledge Advisory Service Amsterdam.
approaches. London: Spinger-Verlag.
Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://ep2010.sal-

Mika, P., Iosif, V., Sure, Y., & Akkermans, H. Ponis, S., Tatsiopoulos, I. & Vagenas, G. (2006).
(2003). Ontology-based content management in Ontology support for virtual organisations: A
a virtual organization. In S. Staab & R. Studer proposed framework for knowledge management.
(Eds.), Handbook on ontologies (pp. 455-476). The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture
Heidelberg: Springer. and Change Management, 6(8), 89-100.
Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1986). Organizations: New Ponis, S., Tatsiopoulos, I. P., Vagenas, G., & Ko-
concepts for new forms. California Management ronis, E. (in press). A process-based knowledge
Review, 28(2), 68-73. management framework supported by ARIS
Enterprise Modelling architecture. International
Mühlbauer, S., & Versteegen, G. (2000). Wis-
Journal of Applied Systemic Studies.
sensmanagement. Empirische Untersuchung,
beste Praktiken und Evaluierung von Werkzeugen. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core
Höhenkirchen: IT Research. competition of the corporation. Harvard Business
Review, May-June, pp. 79-91.
Musen, M. (1992). Dimensions of knowledge
sharing and reuse. Computer and Biomedical Preiss, K., Goldman, S. L., & Nagel, R. N. (1996).
Research, 25(5), 435-467. Cooperate to compete. Building agile business re-
lationships. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Nagel, R., & Dove, R. (1993). 21st century manu-
facturing enterprise strategy. Bethlehem, PA: Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhard, K. (1997). Wissen
Iacocca Institute, Lehigh University. Managen. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
Neumann, R. (1999). Die Organisation als Ord- Raban, R., & Garner, B. (2001). Ontological
nung des Wissens. Habilitation-Thesis, University engineering for conceptual modelling. Paper
of Klagenfurt. presented at the 9th Austrian Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, Vienna, Austria.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating com-
pany. Harvard Business Review, 69(November- Scheer, A. W. (1999). ARIS - Business process
December), 96-104. framework. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organiza- Schmaltz, R., Hagenhoff, S., & Kaspar, C. (2004).
tional knowledge creation. Organization Science, Information technology support for knowledge
5(1), 14-37. management in cooperations. Paper presented at
The Fifth European Conference on Organizational
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, K. (1995). The knowledge
Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities.
creating company: How Japanese companies cre-
ate the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H., Anjewierden, A.,
University Press. de Hoog, R., Shadbold, N., van der Velde, W., &
Wielinga, B. (1999). Knowledge engineering and
O’Hare, G., & Jennings, N. (1996). Foundations
management, the common KADS methodology.
of distributed artificial intelligence. New York:
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wiley.
Sheth, A. P. (1998). Changing focus on interoper-
Petrie, C., & Bussler, C. (2003). Service agents
ability in information systems: From system, syn-
and virtual enterprises: A survey. IEEE Internet
tax, structure to semantics. In M. F. Goodchild, M.
Computing, July-August.
J. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, & C. A. Kottman (Eds.),
Interoperating geographic information systems.
Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Spiegler, I. (2000). Knowledge management: A additional reading

new idea or a recycled concept. Communications
of the AIS, 3(14), 1–24. Alavi, M. (1997). KPMG Peat Marwick U.S.:
One giant brain. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Stevens, J. (1998). Integrating the supply chain.
School.
International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Materials Management, 13(1), 37-56. Antoniou, G., & Harmelen, F. V. (2004). A se-
mantic Web primer (Cooperative Information
Sveiby, K. (1997). The new organizational wealth.
Systems). London: The MIT Press.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Aricon Consortium. (2004). Aricon handbook of
Sycara, K. P. (1998). Multiagent systems. AI
virtual enterprises – Business advantage through
magazine, 19(2), 79-92.
collaboration.
Thoben, K. D., & Jagdev, H. (2001). Typological
Bayardo, R. J., Bohrer, W., Brice, R., Cichocki, A.,
issues in enterprise networks, Journal of Produc-
Fowler, G., Helal, A., Kashyap, V., Ksiezyk, T.,
tion Planning and Control, 12(5), 421–436.
Martin, G., Nodine, M., Rashid, M., Rusinkiewicz,
Vesterager, J., Pedersen, J. D., & Tølle, M. (1999). M., Shea, R., Unnikrishnan, C., Unruh, A., &
Virtual enterprise reference architecture and Woelk, D. (1997). InfoSleuth: Agent-based seman-
methodology, a modified for publication extract tic integration of information in open and dynamic
of deliverable 1.3 “Final Report on Models” of environments. In. SIGMOD ‘97, Proceedings
IMS 95001/ESPRIT 26509 Globeman21 (Global ACM SIGMOD International Conference on
Manufacturing in the 21st Century). Management of Data. ACM SIGMOD Record,
26(2), 195-206. Tucson, AZ: ACM Press.
Weiss, G. (Ed.) (2000). Multiagent systems: A
modern approach to distributed artificial intel- Davies, J., Fensel, D., & van Harmelen, F. (Eds.)
ligence. London: MIT Press. (2003). Towards the semantic Web: Ontology-
driven knowledge management. Chicester, UK:
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Integrating intellectual capital
John Wiley & Sons.
and knowledge management. Long RangePplan-
ning, 30(3), 399-405. Davies, J., Studer, R., & Warren, P. (Eds.). (2006).
Semantic Web technologies: Trends and research
W3C. (2003). Web Services Architecture, W3C
in ontology-based systems. John Wiley & Sons.
Working Draft 8 August 2003. Retrieved Novem-
ber 13, 2006, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/ Forbairt. (1996). Virtual corporation defined.
WD-ws-arch-20030808/ Summary Section for Forbairt Internet Report,
Forbairt, Ireland.
Zwegers, A., Wubben, H., & Hartel, I. (2002).
Relationship management in enterprise networks. Fowler, A. (2000). The role of AI-based technology
In V. Marik, L. M. Camarinha-Matos, & H. Af- in support of the knowledge management value
sarmanesh (Eds.), Knowledge and technology activity cycle. Journal of Strategic Information
integration in production and services – Balanc- Systems, 9(1), 107-128.
ing knowledge and technology in product and
GLOBEMEN - Global Engineering and Manu-
service life cycle (pp. 157-164). Boston: Kluwer
facturing in Enterprise Networks. IMS 99004,
Academic Publishers.
IST-1999-60002. Retrieved from http://globemen.
vtt.fi, 2000-2002.

Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. (1994). O’Leary, D. E. (1998). Using AI in knowledge
Agile competitors and virtual organizations: management: Knowledge bases and ontologies.
Strategies for enriching the customer. New York: IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(3), 34-39.
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Remus, U. (2002). Prozessorientiertes Wissens-
Gray, P. D. M., Preece, A., Fiddian, N. J., Gray, management. Konzepte und Modellierung. (Dis-
W. A., et al. (1997). KRAFT: Knowledge fusion sertation). Regensburg: Universitat Regensburg,
from distributed databases and knowledge bases. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop
Rzevski, G. (2003). Multiagent systems: The
on Database and Expert Systems Applications
myth or practical reality? Keynote paper, Volga
(DEXA ‘97) (pp. 682- 691). Toulouse, France:
Conference on Complex Adaptive Systems, Sa-
IEEE.
mara, Russia.
Guarino, N. (1998). Formal ontology and informa-
Smirnov, A., Pashkin, M., Chilov, N., & Levasho-
tion systems. In N. Guarino (Ed.), Proceedings
va, T. (2004). Knowledge logistics in information
of FOIS’98 (pp. 3-15). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
grid environment. Future Generation Computer
Retrieved from http://www.loa-cnr.it/Papers/
Systems, 20(1), 61–79.
FOIS98.pdf.
Staab, S., Studer, R., Schnurr, H. P., & Sure, Y.
Hendler, J. (2001). Agents and the semantic Web.
(2001). Knowledge processes and ontologies. IEEE
IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 30–37.
Intelligent Systems, 16(1), 26-34.
Kucza, T. (2001). Knowledge management process
Taniar, D., & Rahayu, J. W. (Eds.) (2006). Web
model. Technical Research Centre of Finland,
semantics and ontology. Hershey: Idea Group
VTT Publications 455.
Publishing.
Lin, S., & Lu, D. (2003). Web services based
Taylor Small, C., & Tatalias, J. (2000). Knowledge
supporting platform for virtual enterprise. Paper
management model guides KM process. The Edge
presented at the 8th International Conference on
Newsletter. Retrieved April 7, 2002, from www.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design
mitre,org/pubs/edge/april_00.htm
Proceedings.
Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996). ONTOLO-
Mariotti, J. L. (1996). The power of partnerships
GIES: Principles, methods and applications.
- the next step beyond TQM. Reengineering and
Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), 93-155.
lean production. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers. Weggeman (1997). Kennismanagement, inricht-
ing es besturing vas kennisintensieve organisaties.
Schiedam: Scriptum management.

Chapter XVI
Sharing and Protecting
Knowledge:
New Considerations for
Digital Environments
G. Scott Erickson
Ithaca College, USA
Helen N. Rothberg
Marist College, USA
abstract
As knowledge management (KM) practice increasingly moves onto the Internet, the field is changing.
The Internet offers new opportunities to use knowledge assets, defines new types of knowledge assets,
and readily spreads knowledge beyond the borders of the organization to collaborators and others. This
potential is tempered, however, by new threats to the security of proprietary knowledge. The Internet also
makes knowledge assets more vulnerable to competitive intelligence efforts. Further, both the potential
and the vulnerability of knowledge on the Internet will vary according to the nature of knowledge assets
(tacitness, complexity, appropriability). Those looking to practice KM must, more than ever, understand
their knowledge assets and how to best employ them.
introduction the organization to systems for measuring and

managing knowledge assets, and now to infor-
Knowledge management (KM), even though a mation technology (IT) KM installations, we
young discipline, has already passed through have seen the field grow in its sophistication and
a number of stages. From the recognition that applications.
personal, tacit knowledge has unique value to In this chapter, we will look at some specific
trends in KM related to the Internet. Initially,
Sharing and Protecting Knowledge
there are ways in which KM, as it is traditionally Internet has raised all sorts of new concerns about
understood, is changing, as new methods and knowledge protection, as it and other information
techniques come online. The Internet has opened technology advances have amplified competitive
up the use of knowledge and knowledge-related intelligence (CI) threats. Digital knowledge is an
assets, allowing greater and more effective shar- issue in and of itself, and when digital knowledge
ing, and it has also expanded the number of tools is available through the Web, protection becomes
we can apply to KM processes. an issue.
Secondly, if one takes a broader view of what
constitutes valuable knowledge within an organi-
zation, as well as a broader view of organizational Knowledge management
boundaries, the increasingly tight Web-based ties
between a firm and its e-network also create new The basic concepts of KM, and its companion
opportunities for knowledge management. Rather field intellectual capital (IC), have been with us
than just considering the core organization in a for some time. From Drucker’s (1991) knowledge
network and its knowledge assets, a more complete workers to Edvinsson’s (Edvinsson & Sullivan,
perspective now includes all collaborators with 1996) attempts to measure the knowledge assets
whom firms exchange knowledge or information. of the firm, we have been talking about the man-
Established Internet-based systems for immediate agement of these intangible resources for almost
exchange of such assets have contributed to this two decades. A full discussion of KM/IC and
broad trend. their underlying theory requires defining some
Thirdly, an often overlooked part of KM is basic terminology, as described in Table 1. Let
protection of these valuable proprietary knowl- us start with IC.
edge assets. While KM theorists and practitio- Intellectual capital (IC), as the name implies,
ners typically recommend ever more knowledge grew out of an interest in intellectual property
sharing, few in the field ever talk about keeping (IP). IP includes formalized knowledge assets
these valuable proprietary assets protected. The that can be structured and then protected by
Table 1. Knowledge definitions

Data are “observations or facts out of context” and information is “data within some meaningful con-
Preknowledge
text” (Zack, 1999, p.46).
“That which we come to believe and value on the basis of the meaningfully organized accumulation
of information (messages) through experience, communication, or inference” (Zack, 1999, p.46). Also
Knowledge
sometimes termed know-how, learning that takes place leading to individual expertise (Zander & Kogut,
1995).
Intangible assets of the firm. Personal knowledge, corporate culture, social capital with those outside the
Knowledge assets
organization, intellectual property, or any other valuable organizational knowledge.
Formalized knowledge assets, qualifying for a patent, copyright, trademark, or other institutionalized
Intellectual property (IP)
protection mechanism.
Knowledge assets of the firm. The field of intellectual capital focuses on the identification, measure-
Intellectual capital (IC) ment, and management of these intangible assets. Includes IP (in most treatments, not all) as well as less
formalized knowledge (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997).
The practice of managing knowledge assets, focusing on identification, capture (when possible), orga-
Knowledge management (KM) nization, sharing, and analysis. Closely related to IC, the differences are more in emphasis on measure-
ment (IC) vs. management (KM).

Table 2. Knowledge variables
Knowledge assets that are personalized and difficult (perhaps impossible) to communicate (Nonaka &
Tacit knowledge
Takeuchi, 1995, Polanyi, 1967).
Knowledge assets that can be captured by the organization, more easily communicated, and perhaps
Explicit knowledge
stored in a formalized manner in an IT system or elsewhere (Choi & Lee, 2003).
Human capital Personal knowledge assets pertaining to job performance.
Organizational knowledge assets including corporate culture, information technology systems, and
Structural capital other ingrained knowledge.
Knowledge concerning relationships with those outside the core firm (suppliers, customers, regulators,
Collaborative/relational capital and so forth.) (Bontis, 1998; Edvinsson & Malone, 1997).
Does the knowledge draw upon “distinct and multiple kinds of competencies” in order to be under-
Complexity
stood (Zander & Kogut, 1995)?
Ability of the firm to keep the knowledge to itself, including observability (Zander & Kogut, 1995),
Appropriability
stickiness, and causal ambiguity.
mechanisms such as patents, copyrights, trade- as “preknowledge,” referencing their potential to

marks, and trade secrets. A great deal of theory become knowledge assets and their value in the
has developed around IP, and the field is relatively hands of others (as we will discuss later). This is
well understood in terms of developing technology not a common reference, but we believe it critical
and protecting it with the standard mechanisms. to the concept of managing knowledge sharing
Technology transfer, leakage, licensing, and other and protection.
such issues also have a history in the literature, As noted earlier, intellectual capital is made
as we shall discuss. up of knowledge assets; the full knowledge of
The field of IC grew out of efforts by accoun- the organization. Part of this is intellectual prop-
tants and other practitioners to treat softer, less erty; part, less well-defined knowledge assets.
definable intangible assets in a manner similar to Knowledge management is the process of trying
IP. Again, patented knowledge can be identified, to better utilize these knowledge assets, through
described in a patent application, and valued for identification, capture by the organization (when
licensing purposes. All sorts of other knowledge possible), sharing, and analysis (Davenport &
exists within organizations that cannot be formal- Prusak, 1998). Numerous tools exist for better
ized in such a manner, but is valuable or poten- managing knowledge, from information tech-
tially valuable (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999; nology (IT) installations to person-to-person
Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Getting a handle on techniques such as communities of practice and
such assets so that they can be more effectively storytelling.
managed is the point of IC/KM. If they can be A number of key concepts have been devel-
identified and measured (the IC/accounting point oped having to do with managing knowledge.
of view), then they can be better managed (the Some of the most important are summarized in
KM point of view). Table 2. Essentially, the type of knowledge and its
As KM theory has developed, knowledge has environment can have a substantial effect on an
been more specifically defined as data or infor- organization’s ability to manage the assets. These
mation subjected to reflection. Data, as the table variables can also impact the choice of tools for
notes, is basic observations and/or facts, while collecting and sharing knowledge.
information is data with context. The authors The distinction between tacit and explicit
have taken to referring to data and information knowledge predates interest in KM (Polanyi,

1967). As applied in KM, and for our purposes, a concept referred to as combinative capabilities
the distinction is particularly important (Nonaka (Kogut & Zander, 1992), absorptive capacity (Co-
& Takeuchi, 1995). Tacit knowledge is typically hen & Levinthal, 1990), or knowledge integration
personal and difficult, perhaps impossible, to (Grant, 1996). Appropriability refers to the ability
express or explain. Explicit knowledge is easier to of an organization to keep valuable knowledge to
communicate and share and, as a result, easier for itself. Patents, for example, have been valued by
the firm to capture and codify. These differences firms for decades because of their potential for
are critical for how KM systems are organized and conferring appropriability to a technology. With
administered, as tacit-to-tacit sharing is much dif- a patent, an organization can keep the technology
ferent from explicit to explicit (or the other possible to itself, preventing others from using the product
combinations) (Boisot, 1995; Nonaka & Takeu- or process. Hence, the firm can appropriate the
chi, 1995). At its simplest, explicit knowledge gains from a valuable technology. Other types of
can be digitized and spread widely with modern KM can be harder to appropriate, and concepts,
IT systems. Tacit knowledge remains more of a such as the stickiness of the knowledge (are there
personalized one-to-one or one-to-small group elements in place that make the knowledge us-
process (Denning, 2000; Wenger, 1998). able only in its current circumstance?) (Teece,
Another common distinction in the literature 1998; von Hippel, 1994) and causal ambiguity
is between human, structural, and collaborative (how much of the application of the knowledge
or relational capital (Bontis, 1998; Edvinsson can be kept hidden?) (Lippman & Rumelt, 1982;
& Malone, 1997). Human capital refers to indi- Reed & DeFillippi, 1990), are also relevant to the
vidual job-specific knowledge, whether running discussion. Both complexity and appropriability
a machine, delivering a service, or managing an can affect the ability of an organization to share
operation. Structural knowledge has to do with its knowledge assets.
knowledge assets embedded within the organiza- This background is key to understanding how
tion such as the IT structure, corporate culture, the Internet affects knowledge development and
and other such system-wide elements. Collabora- protection. As we further develop the framework
tive capital relates to knowledge about interacting of this chapter, the place of these concepts will
with those outside the firm, matters such as taking become clear. The key point is that KM is complex,
care of a key supplier, satisfying the wishes of a varying by circumstances, and that a number of
customer, working well with an R&D partner factors will affect the success or failure of a KM
or key regulator, and so forth. Some treatments program. Further, KM/IC is a different concept
have also added competitive capital, knowledge than traditional IP, requiring different strategies
concerning competitors’ activities, and strategies, and different treatment. We are just beginning
though this piece is far from universal (Rothberg to explore how to better manage knowledge, and
& Erickson, 2002). its practice has already been complicated by the
The literature also addresses other variables rapid growth of the Internet.
related to how knowledge might be managed. Two
that continually recur in studies are complexity
and appropriability (Kogut & Zander, 1993; Reed the internet
& DeFillippi,1990; Zander & Kogut, 1995). Com-
plexity of knowledge can make it more difficult Over the past few years, the Internet has had a
to transfer; among other things, recipients must significant impact on the traditional practice of
be prepared to understand it and employ it prop- KM. Most major consulting organizations and
erly, fitting it in with existing knowledge assets, IT services firms have standard, but customiz-

able, Web-based KM installations allowing the not often recognized by scholars or theorists.
collection and dispersion of knowledge from Firms engaged in KM will typically both collect
throughout the firm (Matson, Patiath, & Shavers, knowledge from and share knowledge with a
2003). These systems allow accessible data storage range of collaborators, sometimes only close ones,
throughout the globe, search capabilities, usage sometimes more distant partners. Knowledge
rankings, usefulness ratings, and so forth. They may be available from or useful to suppliers, op-
can also develop competency and skills catalogs, erations partners, distribution partners, research
identifying experts in particular knowledge ar- partners, marketing partners, and others. Thus,
eas. As a result, although the knowledge of these e-networks exist that routinely move knowledge
experts might not be captured, per se, the experts around between collaborators.
are made available to the full organization as Secondly, the infrastructure supporting these
resources when the need or opportunity arises. e-networks and/or entirely independent informa-
In a number of ways, these Web-based systems tion and data-sharing networks have prolifer-
can become IT-supported influence networks, ated over the last decade as Enterprise Resource
recording and compiling the individuals most in Planning, Supply Chain Management, Customer
demand from colleagues for help, including the Relationship Management , and similar systems
type of help requested. have moved onto the Web (Economist, 2000).
Most of these applications are not new. They Operational requirements for inputs and labor,
have improved over the past few years, but the inventory levels, sales data, customer data, and
basic concepts and applications have been around similar information and data are exchanged by
for a while. Note that just about all have to do with network partners every day. These systems both
explicit knowledge or cataloging those with tacit move around and store the massive amounts of
knowledge. The newest Internet advances have information and data we previously referred to
more to do with tacit knowledge. With the growth as preknowledge. Again, basic data and informa-
of collaborative tools in the consumer realm, there tion are preknowledge, but can become valuable
is little surprise that a number of these mechanisms knowledge assets, if subjected to analysis through
are being applied to knowledge management data mining, business intelligence, or similar
(Vara, 2006). From Wikis collaboratively building methods.
knowledge stores to social networking tools simi- Dell, of course, has always been one of the first
lar to MySpace, from downloadable audio/video firms noted when discussing these e-networks.
playable on an iPod to internal blogs and Web Although the firm’s pioneering efforts are not
pages that allow easy sharing of perceptions and as much of a differentiator as they were 5 years
perspectives, these tools provide mechanisms to ago (chiefly because competitors have copied
publish and share more personal, tacit knowledge their supply chain and production systems), the
throughout organizations. Firms that know how firm’s quick move to the Web still illustrates the
to employ these mechanisms can enhance their value of these systems (Park & Burrows, 2001).
KM capabilities. When a Dell customer pushes the key to order a
These changes and trends are of interest to customized laptop over the Internet, the produc-
those in the KM field, but they are not as striking tion and supply requirements are simultaneously
as some other aspects of KM and the Internet. routed to all suppliers throughout the e-network,
To properly understand the impact of these other who know immediately what they need to sup-
aspects, we need to extend the boundaries of ply and where. At the bottom of these systems is
what we consider KM to be. Initially, KM system a lot of knowledge (what are Dell’s best-selling
extensions beyond the core firm are common but models?) and preknowledge (what parts do I need

to deliver on Tuesday?) flying around between from one individual to another, requiring direct
collaborators. contact and, at times, specialized techniques.
Similarly, Wal-Mart is renowned for its While still harder to communicate than explicit
IT-driven logistics, and has particularly close knowledge, sharing of tacit knowledge has cer-
relations with large suppliers such as Procter & tainly been made easier with Web-based systems.
Gamble (P&G) (Economist, 2000). The two are As noted earlier, identifying the individual who
so connected that one product manager at P&G holds the key knowledge, even if they are located
voiced a desire that when a customer picked up on the other side of the globe or in another part of
a package of Bounty paper towels from the store the e-network, is possible with today’s KM sys-
shelf, he wanted the tree for a replacement roll to tems. It is then just a matter of communication.
be dropping simultaneously in a forest in Geor- Complexity typically makes knowledge
gia. Wal-Mart and P&G are tied together closely harder to share, as well. But again, the Internet
enough that this is almost possible, exchanging has had a role in making the process easier. At
price, volume, promotional, operational, and the heart of the complexity issue, as noted ear-
customer preknowledge and knowledge in real lier, is the difficulty in locating and transferring
time. the full range of intellectual capital necessary to
Another example is UK retailer Tesco, well understand and use a particular knowledge asset.
known for its Clubcard customer loyalty program Web-based systems more easily transfer, or at least
(Rohwedder, 2006). With its massive Web-created allow access to, the complete set of assets needed
database of consumer preknowledge, the grocer is for understanding and application.
able to build knowledge not only about customer When appropriability is high, knowledge is
segments, but about individual customers. This more specific to an original application and harder
knowledge allows Tesco to tailor merchandise, to transfer to different circumstances; therefore,
pricing, and even promotional offers to each it is again more difficult to share. And again, the
unique consumer. The firm is able to share and Internet plays a part in making knowledge sharing
even sell its preknowledge and knowledge to col- more effective. When the conditions of use are
laborators and other consumer goods providers. more easily accessed in the KM system or subject
to easy identification and transfer when ques-
tions arise, knowledge sharing is more effective.
discussion: Km and the The ability of systems to store the full range of
internet knowledge necessary for application, to quickly
provide answers to follow-on questions, or to pro-
What do these trends mean in terms of the con- vide immediate access to the original knowledge
ceptual structure developed earlier in this chapter? holder is critical to effective management. All
The issue is knowledge sharing and transfer. In these aspects are provided by the Internet.
general, explicit knowledge is more easily spread. To summarize, not only KM systems, but
Once it is captured and codified, the organization also Web-based data and information systems
can share it with whomever it likes. The Internet, are routinely transferring tremendous quantities
of course, makes this even easier. Moreover, of knowledge and preknowledge throughout e-
explicit knowledge can be shared through the networks. These knowledge assets are important
Internet across the boundaries of the firm with to the successful operations of contemporary
all sorts of collaborators. organizations and their network partners, and the
But the Internet also impacts tacit knowledge. more the assets are shared, the more effective the
Personalized knowledge was often hard to transfer network can be. The Internet has already had an
0
impact on effectiveness by directly changing the both explicit and tacit (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2003;
influence of the variables determining KM suc- Fleisher & Bensoussan, 2007). These methods
cess. Regardless of the level of tacitness, complex- can generally be grouped into four categories
ity, and appropriability, the move to Web-based (Rothberg & Erickson, 2005). Initially, publicly
KM and preknowledge systems has made any available information can be used. Published
particular combination of these variables more sources, regulatory filings, public appearances
effective in managing knowledge assets. by a competitor’s employees, and other such
methods can be quite fruitful. Secondly, human
intelligence within the organization is available.
protection Employees often know things about competitors.
Sources can include salespeople who have heard
The move to the Internet becomes even more im- about competitive offerings, scientists who know
portant, however, when one adds the vulnerability what is going on in competitive R&D labs, or
of knowledge assets to competitive incursions. even employees who have previously worked for
There is growing recognition among both scholars the competitor. Indeed, a common technique is
and practitioners that KM and competitive intel- to simply hire away a key employee, provided it
ligence (CI) are two sides of a coin. Knowledge or can be done without violating non-compete and
preknowledge that is valuable to an organization non-disclosure agreements. Thirdly, human in-
will be equally valuable to its competitor(s) if they telligence may be available from sources outside
can obtain it (Liebeskind, 1996). CI operations the firm. Suppliers, vendors, research partners,
are a growing means to obtain knowledge about production partners, marketing partners, and so
competitors, including their critical knowledge forth, may all also have knowledge concerning
assets (Fuld, 1995; Gilad, 1994). a competitor. And of course, all may have em-
Once again, when we talk about the more ployees who might have previously worked at the
established discipline of intellectual property, competitor, or for someone within the competitor’s
these matters are more settled. Well-understood extended network of collaborators. Finally, CI ini-
mechanisms for protection (patents, copyright, tiatives may seek to actively gather information or
etc.) exist, and are routinely applied. Indeed, knowledge through observation, simply calling up
some organizations have explicit strategies for and asking, or more ethically challenged methods,
managing the release of IP, either through tech- such as dumpster diving, surreptitious picture
nology transfer (with stacks of legal documents taking on tours, and pretexting. Mainstream CI
and careful framing concerning what IP is to be professionals would disavow ethically or legally
shared and what not) or leakage (allowing access, questionable methods, but economic espionage
often in order to set an industry standard) (Teng does occur as well, and only reinforces the point
& Cummings, 2002). Because of the established that competitive intelligence is an important and
nature of IP and its management tools, firms growing trend.
understand what they are dealing with, and are Once preknowledge or knowledge is captured
able to make strategic decisions about what gets by a CI operation, it is gathered, analyzed, and,
disseminated and how. However, KM is still much ideally, acted upon. Knowledge of competitive
less structured, harder to protect (though trade activities or strategies can be extremely useful in
secret law holds potential), and thus, competitive building one’s own strategic and tactical plans.
intelligence becomes more of an issue. Consequently, any type of competitor data, in-
CI traditionally utilizes numerous methods to formation, or knowledge can be useful to a CI
gather and analyze knowledge and preknowledge, operation attempting to build an understanding

of a competitor and its actions. The preknowledge to work with one another most effectively, who
we discussed in the previous section can be just can perform what functions best, and who to go
as valuable as better-developed knowledge assets to for problem solving. KM is essentially based
when analyzed correctly. Indeed, a CI operation on the concept of the most valuable resources
may be better able to create knowledge from of the firm being found in employee heads, and
preknowledge, through analysis, than would the hiring away the employee or employees remains
originating firm. one of the simplest and most effective methods of
The key point is that as KM systems have prolif- obtaining those knowledge assets, both explicit
erated, so has the vulnerability of organizations to and tacit.
competitive intelligence. This is particularly true Further, these same issues now spread beyond
with the simultaneous expansion of knowledge and the boundaries of the firm. As noted earlier, KM
preknowledge sharing on the Internet. Consider and related systems extend to collaborators. As
first the ways in which traditional CI methods have a result, CI operations have many more potential
been made more effective by these trends. In terms targets than might have been the case previously.
of human intelligence, CI operations have many Whether publicly available information, human
more potential targets, each with access to much intelligence, or active gathering, any e-network
more knowledge and/or preknowledge, from both member can be a target, and CI efforts can choose
their own organization and, potentially, a wealth whatever individual or group appears to be the
of collaborators. This is a direct result of Web-ac- weak point. The core firm may not even be aware
cessible KM and preknowledge systems. So, when of some of the poorly protected access points to
an employee is hired away from a competitor, its proprietary knowledge if they are situated a
the potential is there for them to bring not only long way out along the e-network; in some cases,
the tacit knowledge in their heads, but additional the collaborator itself might be interested in the
knowledge or preknowledge to which they might knowledge.
have been exposed. Further, the individual would Recent examples of this phenomenon include
likely have had access to the KM system of the advertising agencies utilizing employees with
previous employer, raising the possibility of file experience from client A to work on projects
downloads and transfer of explicit organizational for a direct competitor, client B (Vranica, 2001,
knowledge or preknowledge via e-mail, portable 2005). Law firms have been an issue because of
storage devices, or other mechanisms. This raises client-specific knowledge in some cases (Terhune,
a classic issue concerning who owns what knowl- 2006). Suppliers, vendors, research partners,
edge and what the exiting employee is entitled and others are all fair game, too. Essentially, the
to take with them. Whether or not the employee most vulnerable point of an e-network is the one
is legally entitled to specific knowledge, with most likely to be attacked. A very recent suit
widespread access to KM and other Web-based filed by Oracle against SAP had to do with the
systems, the potential for something substantive latter entering the former’s KM system through
leaving with an employee is present. customers and technical support (Vara, 2007). CI
Some firms, for example, have even taken attacks on Microsoft have gone through public
to hiring away entire teams holding targeted relations and other non-profit affiliates of the firm
knowledge (McGregor, 2006). Well-functioning (Simpson & Bridis, 2000). A pointed CI action
groups not only have typical knowledge about against HP went through both retailers and sup-
how to perform their own jobs (and knowledge or pliers (Tam, 2002)
preknowledge concerning their specific organi- As noted, sometimes the collaborator itself
zation), but they also have social capital built up can be a concern. Earlier, we discussed the close
within the team. They have knowledge about how

working relationship between P&G and Wal-Mart. or with a grudge, can expose the organization
Based on that relationship, a tremendous amount of to infiltration (Allison, 2006). In some cases,
preknowledge (sales volume, pricing information, it may be employees or others with good inten-
promotional tactics, and results) and knowledge tions. Regardless of the motivation for releasing
(P&G’s consumer research) pass between them. In knowledge or preknowledge, the Internet is an
the mid-nineties, when P&G’s trademark on White extremely effective dispersal mechanism. Apple,
Cloud toilet tissue expired, Wal-Mart snapped up for instance, is a company that seemingly does
the rights and started selling the brand as a private everything right in terms of security, both in its
label (Ellison, Simmerman, & Forelle, 2005). As systems and in how it manages employee behavior
a result, the retailer was now using previously (Wingfield, 2006). But Apple has been pursuing
shared knowledge to directly compete with P&G a “John Doe” case against an apparently internal
in the toilet tissue market. individual who leaked new product information
The use of Internet-based KM and similar to blogging Web sites attracting Apple fans. Once
systems also poses some new opportunities for a secret of that sort is out, the Web allows it to be
infiltration. Some are technology related, others quickly and easily spread, including to competi-
have more to do with individuals. However, they tors. There may be little a firm can do about it if
create new threats and are likely to be in the van- its security procedures are considered partially
guard of ever-increasing challenges to protecting at fault (O’Grady v. Superior Court, 2006). Of
proprietary knowledge and preknowledge. course, if the blogger or a Web site is hostile, the
Initially, the simple fact that much knowledge problem only intensifies.
and preknowledge is stored digitally opens up
new opportunities for CI operations. We have
already covered this in relation to individuals discussion: ci and the
accessing more knowledge, but it also creates internet
issues with protecting computer systems them-
selves. Although the methods of attack are often A wave of anecdotal evidence suggests that more
illegal and certainly unethical, Web-based KM knowledge and preknowledge is available online,
and similar systems are open to hacking, theft, open to direct or indirect incursion by CI efforts.
wireless eavesdropping, and other basic computer Easily referenced numbers on enterprise system
security issues. Further, the past few years have spending, IT security spending, and competitive
seen a sharp rise in the loss of laptops, personal intelligence employment and spending show
digital assistants, portable storage devices, and tremendous growth in all areas over the past de-
other such hardware potentially holding valuable cade. How do these trends fit into our theoretical
knowledge or preknowledge. Just in 2006, well- framework?
publicized episodes occurred involving Equifax In the same way that the Internet enhances
and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (Mc- the ability of an organization to share knowledge
Queen, 2006), Ameriprise Financial and Fidelity more widely, so it makes that same knowledge
Investments (Levitz, 2006), and Towers Perrin more vulnerable. Explicit knowledge is readily
(Wall Street Journal, 2007). Discarded hard drives available and can be directly targeted by CI op-
and other computer security issues are becoming eratives through IT incursions or by individuals
ever bigger concerns (Ilett, 2006) with IT access, who may themselves be subject
A related, but different, threat is found in to CI manipulation. Similarly, tacit knowledge is
system users. Not just exiting employees, but also more vulnerable, as the knowledge identification
those employees failing to follow procedures, databases we have discussed earlier are apt to be

targeted. Further, a number of CI techniques are Whether a positive or a negative, the Internet
specifically designed to piece together a profile affects KM systems by dramatically increasing the
of a competitor, product, or individual based on potential number of users, making huge amounts
snippets of information. If a great number of tacit of knowledge available to each, digitizing ex-
hints (not full knowledge) are available on the In- plicit knowledge (or guides to where to find tacit
ternet, they may mean nothing to the originating knowledge), and extending beyond the borders of
organization, but a CI team could find something the firm to include all partners of an e-network.
interesting through proper analysis. Thus, the impact of the Internet can be captured
Just as complex knowledge is easier to share in the equation in Figure 1: f(N,A,D,R).
through the Internet, so it is easier to lose, as the The effectiveness of a knowledge manage-
full knowledge base can disappear in the blink of ment initiative, as we have discussed repeatedly,
an eye. Similarly, appropriation is harder, as the is impacted by the variables:
knowledge is not kept only by the firm holding
the knowledge, and the circumstances of its use • Tacitness (the more tacit knowledge is, the
are more likely to be transferred with it. harder it is to share)
The conceptual picture of what we have dis- • Complexity (the more complex knowledge is,
cussed can be summarized in Figure 1. The impact it is harder but more beneficial to share)
of the Internet can be captured in some function • Appropriability (the more appropriable or
with the components discussed earlier: specific knowledge is, it is harder but more
beneficial to share)
• Number of users (N)
• Amount of organizational knowledge avail- One could also add type of knowledge (human
able to each user (A) capital, structural capital, or relational capital)
• Degree of digitization of knowledge base though we have not discussed that aspect at any
(D), and length in relation to the Internet. Therefore, these
• Range of network partners with access knowledge components will help to determine
(R)
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
Knowledge Knowledge Management

Components Effectiveness
Tacitness
Complexity
Appropriability
Competitive Intelligence
Vulnerability
(Type of knowledge)
Internet
f(N,A,D,R)

the effectiveness of a program to develop and the people with access to proprietary knowledge.
share knowledge. Proper training, incentives to follow appropriate
The risk from competitive intelligence ac- procedures, and so forth, are important to getting
tivities is affected by the same variables, as the individuals to use, transfer, and store knowledge
tacitness (tacit knowledge is less vulnerable), assets appropriately. It is fairly well known, espe-
complexity (complex knowledge is less vulner- cially in hacking circles, that the cleanest way into
able), and appropriability (appropriated or specific a system is not a direct technical attack, but rather
knowledge is less vulnerable) of the knowledge “social engineering,” essentially manipulatng
impact the CI threat. Again, these knowledge people to get the knowledge or to get access to
components will help to determine the vulner- the knowledge or preknowledge you want. Finally,
ability of a program to protect knowledge. as should be clear from the previous discussion,
However, the impact of the Internet will be it is important to have all your collaborators on
felt in both the knowledge component, effective- board, too. If you are going to share knowledge
ness relationship and the knowledge component, and preknowledge with them, you need some level
vulnerability relationship. The Internet enhances of comfort that they are taking the same precau-
the underlying components, expanding their po- tions, both hard and soft, that you are. Indeed,
tential for KM use and increasing their impact on compliance standards similar to those for quality
susceptibility to CI incursion. The Internet, then, or environmental protection may be the way to
has raised the stakes concerning the security of go (Carr, Erickson, & Rothberg, 2004).
knowledge and preknowledge management sys-
tems. All sorts of proprietary knowledge assets
are dispersed digitally throughout e-networks, conclusion
and are accessible to many, many individuals
both inside and outside the organization. Digital What we see, then, are a variety of changes coming
knowledge or preknowledge is much easier to together to make the environment within which
move. Weak points in the security system can be KM is practiced both much more promising and
targeted and infiltrated; once the knowledge or much more challenging. The Internet has allowed
preknowledge is out, it can be spread much more KM systems to become an organized part of the
easily, raising the possibility that even competi- daily life of numerous organizations, with employ-
tors not actively practicing CI might come across ees entering, searching for, and retrieving relevant
pertinent secrets. knowledge on a routine basis. Moreover, a more
What to do? The specifics of protection of comprehensive view of the knowledge assets of
knowledge and counterintelligence have been firms also brings the preknowledge contained in
covered in depth, including the new complica- Web-based information systems, such as ERP,
tion of the Internet, in other venues (DeGenaro, SCM, and CRM, into the discussion. Although
1996; Rothberg & Erickson 2005). Further, the not part of our classic view of knowledge (and
appropriate answer depends on vulnerability, risk, certainly not IP), this preknowledge can become
and other firm-specific considerations. However, valuable either in the hands of the firm or in the
some common principles are fairly straightfor- hands of one of its competitors. The unprocessed
ward. Obviously, the basics of computer security preknowledge has the potential to be just as useful
are critical, with hardware protections, firewalls, as the processed knowledge. Further, all of this
encryption, and all the other IT network security knowledge and preknowledge is increasingly
prescriptions. Probably not as obvious are the being shared across the Web with collaborators
softer parts of security, basically, the behaviors of of all kinds.

All aspects of this scenario make KM a more defined and measured as well, something that may
effective tool, but they also make organizations be possible within a specific firm.
much more vulnerable to CI incursions. Digital An even more interesting direction from our
preknowledge or knowledge, stored in massive point of view is exploring the balance and tension
amounts, accessible to many more individuals, between how far to share knowledge and how far to
inside and outside the core organization is much protect knowledge. These aspects clearly operate
harder to protect. Moreover, CI techniques are in opposing directions, as more knowledge spread
also adapting to the opportunities provided by the among more individuals implies more CI vulner-
move of knowledge and preknowledge systems ability. Further, this balance is unlikely to be the
onto the Internet. same for all firms, operating in all industries, in
As a result, organizations seeking to establish all nations. Numerous variables at each level are
a competitive advantage from KM need to look likely to affect the tension. Determining a method
to the Internet and collaborators for the fullest to measure the balanced factors, as well as mea-
collection and dispersion of knowledge and suring pertinent variables at the firm, industry,
preknowledge assets. They also need to take ap- and national level would be invaluable to firms
propriate steps to protect these assets. IT security trying to make these sorts of decisions.
systems, employee training, counterintelligence,
and other steps are all important; these steps
need to be taken throughout the e-network. It references
is not enough to ensure knowledge is secure
within one’s own firm, it needs to be secure in the Allison, K. (2006). How to unearth the IT moles.
hands of collaborators as well. A balance needs Financial Times, (September 5), 10.
to be struck between the benefits of sharing and
Boisot, M. (1995). Is your firm a creative destroyer?
the risks of infiltration. That is the increasingly
Competitive learning and knowledge flows in
formidable challenge facing today’s users of KM
the technological strategies of firms. Research
and systems.
Policy, 24, 489-506.
Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An explor-
future research directions atory study that develops measures and models.
Management Decision, 36(2), 63-76.
The most obvious and useful direction for addi-
Bouthillier, F., & Shearer, K. (2003). Assessing
tional research is in developing formal hypotheses
competitive intelligence software: A guide to
and testing the relationships illustrated in the
evaluating CI technology. Medford, NY: Infor-
figure. Kogut and Zander (1993) have developed
mation Today.
some measures for the knowledge variables (tacit-
ness, complexity, appropriability), so the trick will Carr, C., Erickson, G. S. & Rothberg, H. (2004).
be to define and measure KM effectiveness and Intellectual capital, competitive intelligence
CI vulnerability. The former should not pose too and the economic espionage act. International
much of a problem, as there are standard (though Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital,
unsettled) definitions of IC, such as market/book 1(4), 460-482.
value or Pulic’s VAIC method. The latter is the
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investi-
sticky part, and to fully explore the framework,
gation of KM styles and their effect on corporate
the measures for the Internet function need to be
performance. Information & Management, 40,
403-417.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorp- Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynami-
tive capacity: A new perspective on learning and cally-competitive environments: Organizational
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, capability as knowledge integration. Organization
35(1), 128-152. Science, 7(4), 375-387.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999).
knowledge: How organizations manage what they What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?
know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106-116.
DeGenaro, B. (1996). Counterintelligence. In B. Ilett, D. (2006). Out damned data—the lingering
Gilad & J. Herring (Eds.), The art and science dangers of a hard disk’s memory. Wall Street
of business intelligence. Greenwich, CT: JAI Journal, (October 4), 6.
Press.
Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the
Denning, S. (2000). The springboard: How firm, combinative capabilities, and the replica-
storytelling ignites action in the knowledge-era tion of technology. Organization Science, 3(3),
organization. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heine- 383-397.
mann.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of
Drucker, P. F. (1991). The new productivity chal- the firm and the evolutionary theory of the mul-
lenge. Harvard Business Review, 69(November- tinational corporation. Journal of International
December), 69-76. Business Studies, 24(4), 62-645.
Economist. (2000). Inside the machine: A survey Levitz, J. (2006). Ameriprise, Massachusetts
of e-management. The Economist, (November settle over company’s loss of laptop. Wall Street
11). Journal, (December 12), B2.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intel- Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy,
lectual capital: Realizing your company’s true and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management
value by finding its hidden brainpower. New Journal, 17(Winter), 93-107.
York: Harper Business.
Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain
Edvinsson, L. & Sullivan, P. (1996). Developing a imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences
model for managing intellectual capital. European in efficiency under competition. Bell Journal of
Management Journal, 14(4), 356-364. Economics, 13(2), 418-438.
Ellison, S., Simmerman, A. & Forelle, C. (2005). Matson, E., Patiath, P., & Shavers, T. (2003).
P&G’s Gillette edge: The playbook honed at Wal- Strengthening your organization’s internal
Mart. Wall Street Journal, (January 31), A1. knowledge market. Organizational Dynamics,
32(3), 275-285.
Fleisher, C. & Bensoussan, B. (2007). Business
and competitive analysis: Effective application McGregor, J. (2006). I can’t believe they took
of new and classic methods. Upper Saddle River, the whole team. Business Week, (December 18),
NJ: FT Press. 120-122.
Fuld, L. (1995). The new competitor intelligence. McQueen, M. P. (2006). Laptop lockdown. Wall
New York: John Wiley & Sons. Street Journal, (June 28), D1.
Gilad, B. (1994). Business blindspots. Chicago: Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capi-
Probus Publishing. tal, intellectual capital, and the organizational

advantage. Academy of Management Review, Teng, B-S., & Cummings, J. L. (2002). Trade-offs
23(2), 242-266. in managing resources and capabilities. Academy
of Management Executive, 16(2), 81-91.
edge-creating company. New York: Oxford Terhune, C. (2006). Coke legal battle with bot-
University Press. tlers stalls on lawyer-conflict claim. Wall Street
Journal, (August 10), A2.
O’Grady v. Superior Court (2006). 139 Cal. App.
4Th 1423. Vara, V. (2006). Offices co-opt consumer Web
tools like “wikis” and social networking. Wall
Park, A., & Burrows, P. (2001). Dell, the conqueror.
Street Journal, (September 12), B1.
Business Week, (September 24), 92-102.
Vara, V. (2007). Oracle’s SAP suit casts light on
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New
technical support. Wall Street Journal, (March
York: Anchor Day Books.
23), B4.
Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal
Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and
ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable
the locus of problem solving: Implications for in-
competitive advantage. Academy of Management
novation. Management Science, 40(4), 429-439.
Review, 15(1), 88-102.
Vranica, S. (2001). Foote Cone loses two accounts
Rohwedder, C. (2006). No. 1 retailer in Britain
from Coke in wake of Pepsi suit. The Wall Street
uses “clubcard” to thwart Wal-Mart. Wall Street
Journal, (November 12), B3.
Journal, (June 6), A1.
Vranica, S. (2005). Lowe’s old gang flocks to new
Rothberg, H. N, & Erickson, G. S. (2002). Com-
shop; string of former colleagues join still-un-
petitive capital: A fourth pillar of intellectual
named agency; defections hurt Interpublic. The
capital? In N. Bontis (Ed.), World Congress on
Wall Street Journal, (December 13), B11.
Intellectual Capital Readings (pp.94-103). Wo-
burn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, Wall Street Journal. (2007). Towers Perrin laptops,
client data stolen. Wall Street Journal, (January
Rothberg, H. N., & Erickson, G. S. (2005). From
9), A17.
knowledge to intelligence: Creating competitive
advantage in the next economy. Woburn, MA: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:
Simpson, G. R., & Bridis, T. (2000). Oracle hired
firm to probe Microsoft allies. Wall Street Journal, Wingfield, N. (2006). At Apple, secrecy compli-
(June 28), A3. cates life but maintains buzz. Wall Street Journal,
(June 28), A1.
Tam, P. (2002). High-technology giant duels with
nimble knock-off artists. Wall Street Journal, Zack, M. A. (1999). Managing codified knowl-
(September 25), A1. edge. Sloan Management Review, (Summer),
45-58.
knowledge assets: The new economy, markets Zander, U., & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the
for know-how, and intangible assets. California speed of transfer and imitation of organizational
Management Review, 40(3), 55-79. capabilities: An empirical test. Organizational
Science, 6(1), 76-92.

additional reading Gilad, B., & Herring, J. (1996). The art and sci-
ence of business intelligence. Greeenwich, CT:
Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. JAI Press.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based
Birkinshaw, J., & Sheehan, T. (2002). Managing theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
the knowledge life cycle: Knowledge isn’t static, 17(Winter), 109-122.
but it often gets managed as if it were. Sloan
Lesser, E. L. (2000). Knowledge and social capital.
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organizational
Montgomery, D. B., & Weinberg, C. B. (1998).
knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital:
Toward strategic intelligence systems. Marketing
Framing and advancing the state of the field. In-
ternational Journal of Technology Management,
18(5-8), 433-462. Norling, P. M., Herring, J. P., Rosenkrans, W. A.,
Stellpflug, M., & Kaurman, S. B. (2000). Putting
Brooking, A. (1996. Intellectual capital: Core as-
competitive technology intelligence to work.
sets for the third millennium enterprise. London:
Research-Technology Management, (November-
Thomson Business Press.
December), 18-24.
Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (Eds.). (2002). The
Saint-Onge, H. (1996). Tacit knowledge: The key
strategic management of intellectual capital and
to the strategic alignment of intellectual capital.
organizational knowledge. New York: Oxford
Strategy and Leadership, (March/April), 10-14.
University Press.
Schultz, M., & Jobe, L. A. (2001). Codification and
Davenport, T. H., DeLong, D. W., & Beers, M.
tacitness as knowledge management strategies: An
C. (1998). Successful knowledge management
empirical exploration. Journal of High Technology
projects. Sloan Management Review, (Winter),
Management Research, 12, 139-165.
43-57.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997). The new organizational
Diereckx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock
wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge-
accumulation and the sustainabability of com-
based assets. New York: Berrett-Kohler.
petitive advantage. Management Science, 35,
1504-1513. Winter, S. G. (1987). Knowledge and compe-
tence as strategic assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The
Eells, R., & Nehemkis, P. (1984). Corporate intel-
competitive challenge: Strategies of industrial
ligence and espionage. New York: MacMillan.
innovation and renewal (pp.159-184). Cambridge,
Fuld, L. (2006). The secret language of competitive MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
intelligence. New York: Crown Business.
Zack, M. A. (1999). Developing a knowledge
Ghoshal, S., & Westney, D. E. (1991). Organizing strategy. California Management Review, 41(3),
competitor analysis systems. Strategic Manage- 125-145.
ment Journal, 12(1), 17-31.

0
Chapter XVII
Identifying Knowledge
Values and Knowledge Sharing
Through Linguistic Methods:
Application to Company Web Pages
June Tolsby
Ostfold University College, Norway
abstract
How can three linguistical methods be used to identify the Web displays of an organization’s knowledge
values and knowledge-sharing requirements? This chapter approaches this question by using three lin-
guistical methods to analyse a company’s Web sites; (a) elements from the community of practice theory
(CoP), (b) concepts from communication theory, such as modality and transitivity, and (c) elements from
discourse analysis. The investigation demonstrates how a company’s use of the Web can promote a work
attitude that actually can be considered as an endorsement of a particular organizational behaviour. The
Web pages display a particular organizational identity that will be a magnet for some parties and deject
others. In this way, a company’s Web pages represent a window to the world that need to be handled
with care, since this can be interpreted as a projection of the company’s identity.
introduction display in terms of an organization’s knowledge

values and knowledge sharing requirements? The
The aim of this chapter is to analyse a company’s answers to this question were found by doing a
Web pages to see if this could provide some text analysis, using tools within the field of lan-
answers to the following question: How can lin- guage theory, and by applying concepts from a
guistical methods be used to identify what the Web community of practice theory (CoP) (Wenger,
Identifying Knowledge Values and Knowledge Sharing Through Linguistic Methods
1998). Still, an analysis of a set of Web pages Knowledge of how and why the text was pro-
cannot give a complete picture of the different duced would require additional empirical data
aspects of an organization since their main pur- from the inside of the organization, but this was
poses lie in their commercial value. Web pages beyond the aim of this study. Rather, this chapter
published by companies can have a variety of demonstrates how some linguistic concepts and
aims, like attracting new customers or investors a social theory on learning can be applied to
by displaying their products, the knowledge, and uncover how a set of Web pages present how the
the achievements of the company. Furthermore, organization works, and what knowledge values
Web pages could aim at attracting new employees, and sharing requirements can be identified using
display the legal and political values of the com- such methods. This chapter is about knowledge
pany, and provide an easy way to gain access to value and knowledge sharing. It refers to how
the company’s financial information and product knowledge gets its value from being shared with
portfolio updating. others. Partly this perspective is a result of social
The use of a set of linguistical methods does interaction (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
not pay attention to the graphical elements of Wenger (1998) explored, in detail, how a practice
the Web pages, only the written text. This is, of is more than just a learning process, but also how
course, a weakness when the choice is to analyse the practice is created as a continuous process of
a set of Web pages, since design and layout are negotiation and renegotiation of meaning, and how
such important elements of Web pages. Neverthe- this process forms our identity. His idea is that
less, in this chapter, one has deliberately omitted members of a community of practice participate
the elements of design and layout as part of the in a shared activity or enterprise. He emphasises
data interpretation, first and foremost because that participation embraces all kinds of relations,
the aim was to do a textual analysis that would controversial ones as well as harmonious ones,
not be influenced by any design and layout con- intimate as well as political, competitive as well as
siderations. cooperative, and our ability (or inability) to shape
The organizational image that Web pages the practice. He also highlights that “participation
display is most likely a result of a refinement goes beyond direct engagement in specific activi-
process, created through interpretations and ties with specific people. It places the negotiation
reinterpretations, as results from negotiations of meaning in the context of our forms of member-
between members within the organization. When ship in various communities. It is a constituent of
the Web pages of a company are analysed lin- our identity” (Wenger, 1998, p. 57).
guistically, caution should be made with respect Anyone interested in organizational behav-
to how these results are interpreted and applied. iour might find the methods and the results of
My perspective is that Web pages reflect how the this chapter worthwhile in providing a different
organization works, not only how organizational entrance to how an organization’s knowledge
phenomena can be read from the Web pages. By values and knowledge management practices can
using three selected linguistical approaches, it be interpreted and understood.
is demonstrated how Web pages can be analysed What is presented in this chapter is a historical
for a first understanding of how an organization snapshot of company Web pages at a particular
works. Web pages analysed in this way will then place in time, and which are no longer accessible.
provide a useful tool for further in-depth investiga- The reason for choosing Web pages as empirical
tions of a company, and as a frame of references data was that a company’s Web pages provide
to whether the Web pages actually display how easy accessible data, useful for developing a
an organization works. first understanding of the image the company is

projecting to the world. By studying these Web text focusing on these forms, and tend to discuss
pages, we are able to draw useful information them from a narrow textual perspective, without
about how the organization works. paying attention to the textual setting, and how
the textual setting imbeds content, context, and
meaning. Halliday points out, in his functional
bacKground grammar, how “a language is interpreted as a sys-
tem of meanings, accompanied by forms through
Putnam, Phillips, and Chapman have pointed out which meanings can be realized” (Halliday, 1994,
that communication theory has failed to “uncover p. xiv). Within this functional grammar, Halliday
the subtle and complex ways that communica- defines modality as the way a statement refers to
tion and organization are interrelated,” and, “do “the judgement of the speaker” (Halliday, 1994,
not account for new developments in discourse p. 75). On the other hand, she defines transitivity
and language analysis that set forth what com- as “representational meaning, what the clause is
munication is and how it operates as organizing” about, which is typically some process with asso-
(Putnam, Phillips, & Chapman, 1996, p. 77). As ciated participants and circumstances” (Halliday,
an answer to this challenge, this chapter demon- 1994: 179). When talking about discourse analy-
strates how a linguistical analysis of a company’s sis, Halliday is concerned both with explaining,
Web pages’ can tell us something about how the through the linguistic analysis, how and why the
organization works. text means what it does mean, and if and how the
A threefold approach was used to achieve the text is effective in achieving its purpose. The latter
results discussed in this chapter. Firstly, modal- point requires attention to the context of the text
ity and transitivity, as linguistic forms, were (Halliday, 1994: p. xv). In this chapter, transitivity
applied in order to identify the company’s own and modality have functioned as instruments of
relationship to the knowledge-sharing process. identifying what is being said by analysing the
Secondly, elements from a theory of communities text according to Halliday‘s functional gram-
of practice were applied to understand how the mar. Modality and transitivity should, within
company stimulates knowledge-sharing practices. the context of this chapter, be interpreted as the
Thirdly, elements from discourse analysis were degree of affinity between the teller/speaker and
used to place the studied text in context. Such an the sentence, and as the connections between
approach was adopted here for three reasons. grammatical subjects and objects (Jørgensen &
Primarily, to demonstrate if, by studying a Phillips, 1999: p. 95). Modality focuses upon the
company’s Web pages, we are able to produce any degree of relation between the speaker and the
information about how the organization works. sentence. Typically, in sentences such as “it is
To accommodate this, the research in this chapter cold,” “I find it cold,” “perhaps it is a bit cold,”
applies the linguistic concepts of modality and different ways of talking about the temperature,
transitivity. Modality is not an agreed concept and different modalities, whereby the speaker
within the field of language theory, and is still relates himself/herself with the expression, are
discussed among theorists. It can be intended as shown. Transitivity, on the other hand, focuses
“what properly belongs to the semantics of modal upon how events and processes are connected
verbs and what belongs to pragmatic inference (or not connected) with grammatical subjects
proceeding from the semantics of modal verbs and objects, and are used to uncover ideological
in specific discourse contexts” (Wald, 1993, p. consequences that different presentations may
61). The search for modality and transitivity in a have. In a sentence like “50 nurses were given
text can indicate tautology, as authors analyse a the sack yesterday,” a passive form is used, and

the sacking of the nurses is presented as a natural not sufficient, since it does not shed any light on
phenomenon, something just happening without the connections between texts and the societal
an agent being responsible. Using such a sentence and cultural processes and structures. Jørgensen
emphasises the effects, ignoring the actions and and Phillips (1999) argue that discourse could be
processes leading to them (Jørgensen & Phillips, understood as the way we talk about and perceive
1999, p. 95). the world (or parts of the world). Despite this, at-
The second purpose is to see if and how ele- tention should be paid to the fact that discourse
ments used by Wenger (1998), in his CoP theory, is a “dubious” word, and, as a concept, has been
appear or could be revealed from studying the criticised. Alvesson and Karreman (2000) claim
company’s Web pages. Hence, Etienne Wenger’s that the term discourse sometimes incorporates
(1998) concepts of meaning and identity in a everything, and thus, stands for nothing. Their
community are applied to understand how these explanation to the multitude of interpretations
concepts can be found in the company’s Web of discourses and discourse analysis is, to many
pages. His concept of identity embeds both the researchers, a question of balance between the
idea of learning as an individual and a collective terms emphasised. It is questionable if the focus
process, and the idea that we create our identities should be on the language interpretation, or
through a learning process. Accordingly, identity meaning, or both. Additionally, consideration
should be viewed as an individual, as well as col- should be paid to how the language used relates
lective element, shaped through a negotiation “in to other issues (meaning, practices). For some
the course of doing the job and interacting with types of discourses, this may represent a shift
others” (Wenger, 1998, p. 146). In order to analyse from traditional concerns (values, cognition,
the Web pages using Wenger’s concepts of identity, practices, and events) to a strong interest in the
the text will be analysed with an emphasis upon language in action/social context, without paying
how the text presents the employee performance, attention to meaning (Alvesson & Karreman,
and the skills that the employees were expected 2000). A reasonable interpretation of Alvesson
to have when they entered the company, or were and Karreman is that discourse analysis needs
expected to achieve while they worked there. to incorporate not only language and meaning,
The third purpose is to see if a particular but also ideas, conceptions, and so forth. This
organizational discourse can be inferred from illustrates how difficult the discourse analysis
the company’s Web pages. One of those who is, and attention should be paid to the fact that
used Halliday’s functional grammar, as a tool for a discourse analysis will never unveil the total
understanding texts and the textual context, is picture, but only fragments of it.
Norman Fairclough (1992), in his critical discourse As indicated, it is worth reflecting on the inter-
analysis. Critical discourse analysis should be pretation of empirical data, as expressed through
understood as an analysis applied for investigating a company’s Web pages. New knowledge and
the relations between discursive practices, as well new methods equip us with a new set of tools for
as social and cultural development in different analysing the data as time passes (Bloch, 1998).
social connections (Fairclough, 1992). There is, This could induce the awareness of new facets
according to him, a need for an interdisciplinary of the data, and thus, might change the way we
perspective, combining text analysis and social approach and interpret them. Nevertheless, the
analysis, to understand how people actively cre- interpretation of a set of Web pages will only
ate a rule-bound world of daily practices (Fair- give an instant view of the company, since Web
clough, 1992). Doing only a text analysis as part pages are intended to be updated regularly, and
of a discourse analysis is, for Fairclough (1992), they will change according to how the organiza-

tion develops. Therefore, their dynamic character the interpretative orientation of this research.
only enables us to give a snapshot of how the The interpretative approach was chosen in order
organization presents itself at the time of the to give a just representation of the studied object
analysis. From another point of view, rather than (Holloway & Jefferson, 2000).
demonstrating how Web pages, over time, reflect This analysis deals with “ambiguous represen-
organizational development, the goal of this chap- tations” that potentially could yield a variety of
ter was to demonstrate if it is possible to identify accounts, but considering the methods used in this
an organization knowledge sharing values by chapter, the aim is to give a viable representation
linguistical analysis of its Web pages. It should (Riessman 1993, p. 8). Hence, it is insignificant
be mentioned that Web pages of the company for the results produced in this chapter that the
studied in this chapter are no longer available on representations are ambiguous.
the Internet. Therefore, the findings presented here
will only demonstrate how a linguistical analysis
can be done, and its results. Nevertheless, I hope the learning process within
researchers will be inspired to conduct similar the Knowledge management
studies using a broader spectrum of company Web debate
pages, and thereby provide a better approach to
how Web pages can be analysed, and what they Since the focus of this book is knowledge values
tell us about the organization. and knowledge sharing, as displayed via the Inter-
The three analytical perspectives, linguistic, net (the World Wide Web), it is important to define
communities of practice, and discourse, fit with
Figure 1. The root of knowledge management (from Mårtensson, 2000).

a few issues concerning the importance of view- two latter (tasks and goals) define the structural
ing knowledge as a result of a learning process. conditions for any organization.
Learning within an organizational landscape can Organizational learning is an overall joint
be split into two main areas: knowledge develop- designation that describes how the organization
ment and knowledge measurement. Mårtensson handles its knowledge and experiences. This
(2000) made a literature review of the origins of attitude is characterized by the fact that, to per-
knowledge management, and how this concept form organizational learning, it is important to
can be understood. Her claim is that knowledge consider the “contrasts and interaction between
management is considered as a “prerequisite for the competence potentials which are available in
higher productivity and flexibility in both the the organization and how to use them in a learning
private and the public sectors” (Mårtensson, 2000, perspective” (Rasmussen et. al., 2001, p. 10).
p. 204). She claims that knowledge management Hence, organizational learning, viewed as a
deals with how the “intellectual capital” of the learning process, is thus a coplay of many small
company can be administrated and facilitated. actors’ know-what, know-how, attitude, and
Accordingly, knowledge management is about learning.
strategy and measurement, as illustrated in The two dominating views of organizational
Figure 1. learning are the technical view and the social view
As seen in Figure 1, Mårtensson (2000) il- (Easterby-Smith, Burgoyne, & Araujo, 1999).
lustrates that strategy deals with how knowledge The technical view assumes that organizational
production occurs and how it is linked to measure- learning is about how to respond and process
ment. In her model, Mårtensson (2000) shows that information, both inside and outside the orga-
intellectual capital consists of the two elements, nization, in an efficient way. Argyris and Schön
strategy and measurement. Measurement deals (1996) are two of the major contributors to this
with building new information systems to measure school. When Argyris and Schön (1996) talk about
knowledge creation. The latter element thus treats learning, they define this as a result of an inquired
knowledge creation as other financial approaches action, and claim that the performance of an ac-
do, that is, by counting and measuring (Roos, tion new to the organization is the most decisive
Roos, Dragonetti, & Edvinsson, 1997). test to understand whether a particular instance
This brings us to how learning is defined, from of organizational learning has taken place. This
an organizational point of view, and, for obvious is based upon two considerations. First, that a
reasons, to the concepts of “organizational learn- collective, in the form of an organization with
ing” and “learning organizations.” Simplified, members that learn for it, exists; and secondly, that
an organization can be defined as a collaboration these members are able to carry out, on behalf of
between different individuals to solve specific the organization, a process of inquiry that results
tasks, where the tasks are divided into several in a learned product. Argyris and Schön (1996)
subtasks distributed to the individuals. In large define a collective as an organization capable of
organizations, this process can be very complex acting, based on a rule-governed way of deciding,
(Rasmussen, Dahl, Mølbjerg Jørgensen, Laursen, delegating, and setting the boundaries of member-
& Rasmussen, 2001). Additionally, customers, ship. The members of an organization carry out a
suppliers, and external cooperating partners will process of inquiry resulting in a learned product.
influence the process. An organization can be in- A process of inquiry is, thus, defined as a process
terpreted as a collaboration between individuals, going from thought to doubt, to resolution of
related to a set of defined tasks and goals. The doubt, and to action. Argyris and Schön (1996)

claim that an inquiry cannot become part of an on the individuals’ capability to learn from their
organizational inquiry unless it is undertaken by work experiences and from working with oth-
individuals who function as agents of the orga- ers. Also, within this approach to the learning
nization, in accordance with the roles and rules organization, there is an emphasis on how learn-
that prevail in that organization. When individual ing can be improved, that is, the development
and organizational inquiries intersect, individual of methods to enhance learning. One example
inquiry helps to shape organizational inquiry. A is the “dialogue” method, used to improve the
new organizational inquiry emerges, which then quality of communication between people. By
feeds back to shape the further inquiry carried using a structured method for intervention into
out by individuals. In this way, organizations are workgroups, the members are required to allow
sources of knowledge, and knowledge is either space for everybody to speak, avoid evaluating
in the minds of individual members or recorded each other’s comments, and be willing to speak
in the organization’s files, through which the out their views (Senge, 1990).
organization becomes understandable (to itself Hence, a learning organization that emphasises
and others). a technical view is oriented towards designing the
Once recorded and embedded in routines learning process in order to achieve an improved
and practices, organizational knowledge can performance in the company, and therefore empha-
be inspected and decoded, even when the indi- sises the value of knowledge for the organization.
viduals who perform these routines are unable to A social approach to the learning organization
pronounce it. In this sense, any organization, in focuses on how the individuals’ experience can
itself, both represents answers and solutions to a be optimised. Thus, both perspectives are based
set of questions or a set of problems. on the design of learning processes, but focus on
Applying a social view to organizational learn- different aspects of the organization to achieve
ing means focusing on how people develop their this: on the organizational value of knowledge
work experiences. Such a view sees learning as rather than the individual value of knowledge,
something emerging from social interactions. respectively.
The authors that contributed to develop this no-
tion of organizational learning come from three
different schools of thought that see learning a) as choosing the object of
socially constructed, b) as a political process, or study
c) as implicated in the culture of the organization
(Easterby-Smith et. al., 1999). Seeing learning as The Web pages studied in this chapter were chosen
socially constructed emphasises that data have because of three criteria. Firstly, to use a more
no significance unless people define what they novel approach for analysing how an organiza-
mean. Therefore, people have to be engaged in a tion’s knowledge sharing values can be identified
sense-making process. from its Web pages. Secondly, the Web pages
Researchers who consider organizational should contain a broad spectrum of information
learning from a political perspective are con- about the company’s policies, expectations, and
cerned with how learning, as a social interaction, requirements of employees. Thirdly, they should
will be influenced by people’s interest. Thus, a provide a rich text to which the application of the
particular interpretation of information will suit chosen methods could be feasible. In this way, the
some people’s interest and harm others (East- analysing methods, more than the case, would be
erby-Smith et. al., 1999; Wenger, 1998). A social decisive for selecting the Web pages.
approach to the learning organization focuses

At the time of the study, spring 2000, I was To what extent this caused loss of linguistical
working at Aalborg University, Denmark, and structure and meaning is hard to tell, but it could
based on these criteria, the Web sites of the lo- not be ignored. Nevertheless, the translations were
cal Science Park (NOVI PARK), situated next to done with an aim of being as true as possible to
Aalborg University, emerged as sources to identify the original structure and meaning.
potential companies (Novi Park Web pages, 2006). As previously described, the analysis of the
The companies located at the Novi Park, at that Web pages was motivated by this research aim:
time a handful of software companies, complied to understand what organizational knowledge
with the criteria. The one selected, Cadcam Con- sharing values are displayed on the company’s
sult, emerged as the most interesting, judging Web pages, by using a set of specific methods
from its Web pages. within linguistical theory in combination with
Cadcam Consult was, at the time of the study, CoP theory and discourse analysis.
a 10-year-old consulting company, offering busi-
ness advice and software to businesses. During analysing modality and transitivity
these years, the company had developed and
implemented IT solutions for production com- The first element examined in Cadcam Consult’s
panies within four main areas: development of Web pages was the way the company valued
automatic order systems, strategic planning of their employees. Cadcam Consult declared they
technology and information technology, system emphasised the organization’s ability to solve
development, and standard products of technical complex tasks and therefore, they preferred to
information technology. employ people with higher education.
The approach used in this chapter is explor-
ative. The aim is to apply a set of methods on a Cadcam Consult put emphasis on the organi-
single case, in order to see what insights this gives zation’s ability to solve complex tasks, and thus
in terms of interpreting the organizational image employ preferably highly educated personnel.
displayed. Therefore, the applied methods and
their results are the main focus in this study. It is In terms of modality and transitivity, this
important to bear in mind that this investigation sentence shows high modality, since Cadcam
was undertaken to demonstrate the application of Consult related themselves to the context of the
a set of analysing tools in order to interpret what sentence, and placed themselves in the sentence as
Web pages can tell us about an organization. The the grammatical subject. In terms of transitivity,
approach applied should not be considered as an it is shown that Cadcam Consult’s ability to solve
objective method, but rather as a starting point complex tasks was related to holding personnel
for a more coherent approach to analysing Web with higher education. Thus, both this effect, and
pages. This will provide us with the possibility the actions or events leading to this effect, could
to illustrate the organizational image without be found in the sentence.
having to do interviews or read official company When writing about how the company worked
literature. and collaborated to produce their products, the
The data to be analysed consisted of eight Web degree of modality becomes high, since Cadcam
pages forming a description of the company’s pro- relate themselves strongly to this , by using the
file, its products, and its employee requirements. term “we,” which was supported by the adjectives
The Web pages were in Danish and, for the purpose “considerable,” “large,” and “best,” as can be seen
of this book, they were translated into English. in the following sentences.

We have a considerable level of knowledge, inside It was not possible to infer, from the Web pages,
both production- and information technology. We conclusively to what extent Cadcam Consult were
put large emphasis on the collaboration between able to achieve these effects, but some indications
our customers, their products, their production were found. By emphasising their closeness to
technology and their information technology. The the NOVI Science Park, they promote a view
organization functions as a well collaborative where they can provide their customers with the
team, giving us the best conditions for solving latest technology, by their peer existence in a
many different tasks. science park.
In terms of transitivity, an agent (i.e., “the By establishing the company at NOVI (the NOVI
organization,” “we’” can be identified in all of Science Park), we have gained a location close
these statements. It was less obvious to identify to Aalborg University, AAU. Through this, we
the effects, except for being able to “solve many accomplish close contact with AAU’s research
different tasks.” In terms of how events and activities and thus can support our customers
processes are connected, the text emphasises the with the most recent new knowledge.
combination of a high knowledge level, a close
collaboration with customers, and collaboration Another indication can be found, where all
inside the company, but it does not show the ef- the different requirements required from their
fects of this. Some actions and some processes customers through the years were listed, and the
in their relationships were identified, but with a company concluded that this made them experts:
rather fuzzy connection to their effects. technical/administrative efficiency – an area in
Further, in the text, it was possible to identify which Cadcam Consult are specialists.
what the aim of the relationship to the custom- And finally, it is stated that applying an au-
ers was. tomatic order handling system would provide
companies with a “substantial competitive ad-
Our aim is to create productivity for our custom- vantage.”
ers through the development and use of advanced
information technology. We wish to build collabo- An automatic order handling system will give order
ration with our customers, based upon the neces- producing companies a substantial competitive
sary trust required to establish and carry out the advantage. At the same time the customers’specific
necessary changes in the customer’s company. products will be offered with efficiency correspond-
ing to that of serial producing competitors. This
A high degree of modality is achieved by plac- is documented through several assignments we
ing the company in the sentences as a grammatical have been, and continually is, involved in.
subject, that is, “our” referring to Cadcam Consult,
combined with an expected effect, “create produc- When Cadcam Consult, in their Web page,
tivity” and “change customer’s company,” based talked about how they supported the development
on “development and use of technical informa- of their customers, a high degree of modality and
tion technology” and “trust.” This demonstrates transitivity can be found: the text analysis shows
that events and processes are connected with the that the development of customer companies is
grammatical subjects and objects. In short, that associated with the integration of information
“technology changes how we do our jobs and live technology and traditional technology. This is
our lives” (Tolsby, 2000, p. 2) illustrated in the next two paragraphs.

We perform strategic planning and development a serious organization achieving its goals.
of Your Firm’s technology based on an integra- When analysing the Web pages of Cadcam
tion of information technology and traditional Consult, their high profile on team cooperation
technology. Both in production - and information became apparent; this was considered one of the
technology have we much knowledge, and par- best requirements needed to solve a multitude of
ticularly we have expertise of the use of electronic tasks. The company spoke of the organization’s
data processing to support the production tasks. ability to solve complex tasks that require highly
We develop technical and administrative systems educated personnel. Cadcam Consult’s home page
based on the customer’s specifications. illustrated quite well what the aim of this company
was: Compact solutions for complex tasks.
In conclusion of this text analysis, attention
should be paid to the aspects related to a func- application of concepts from cop
tional grammar, by identifying how and why the theory
text means what it does, and if it is effective in
achieving its purpose. A set of Web pages might In order to understand the learning process tak-
be designed to achieve several goals. The text ing place in Cadcam Consult, the Web pages
analysis shows that Cadcam Consult wanted to were analysed with the concepts of identity and
attract particular employees, and to do that, they meaning in mind (Wenger, 1998). In his CoP
described their capabilities by listing in what (Community of Practice) theory, Wenger (1998)
fields they operated, what they achieved, and emphasises how practice is more than just a
how this could accommodate the customers’ re- learning process, but also that the community
quests. Then, it can be said, we know something of practice is created as a continuous process of
about how and why by interpreting the text. On negotiation and re-negotiation of meaning, and
the other hand, whether the text was effective this process forms our identity. Since we are
in achieving its purpose is not so easy to reveal. looking at the learning process as it is displayed
That would depend on both how well a message on a set of Web pages, we need to contextualise
is communicated through the Web pages, and on the definition of learning.
the specific results obtained by the organization Illeris (1999) tried to tie together some of the
and resulting from reading the pages. This would different notions of learning. He affirms that
require knowledge about how easy the company learning basically consists of two related processes
was able to recruit new employees, and whether influencing each other: firstly, the coplay between
or not new customers had been reached since the the individual and his/her surroundings, includ-
launch of these Web pages. ing the interaction with different types of media
Another aspect to be considered in a textual (e.g., a book, a tape, a computer); and secondly,
analysis, the way it was conducted here, is the the internal cognitive acquisition and prepara-
reflection about what was in the mind of the text tion process leading to something being learned,
creator. The Web pages should function both as a learning result (Illeris, 1999, p. 15-16). Thus,
a window of opportunities for new recruits, but learning involves some negotiation of meaning,
at the same time, display a serious image of hard- made tacit (i.e., internalised by the individual)
working organization, offering robust solutions and materialised (Easterby-Smith et. al., 1999;
based on customer requests. A restricted, rather Polanyi, 1983; Wenger, 1998). This implies that
neutral design and layout, without moving objects learning occurs through social interaction (Lave
and commercials, focused at presenting a text & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). If we look at how
message that is aimed at building up a picture of Cadcam Consult’s Web pages comply with this, we

find the following: The work climate is free and knowledge of the technologies we are working
informal, focusing on technology, development with, but we expect you to think that development
and implementation. If you are a sharp program- and implementation using World Class-IT should
mer, this is an advantage, but if you are not, we be exciting. By us, you will be allowed to use
will be helpful with further education. We work your technical knowledge and participate in the
with the following platforms: SAP, Baan, Solid development of the most recent IT technologies.
Works, Pro/E, AutoCAD, ME10, Microsoft, C, With a technical IT career you will get access to
C++, Java, Visual Basic, Xpress. the most stimulating, the most stimulating, best
This tells how Cadcam Consult stressed their paid, and most attractive career-related jobs, both
informal work atmosphere, but at the same time, now and in the future.
since the focus was be on work, they stressed
that the purpose (meaning) of creating a some- This text illustrates how learning in Cadcam
what relaxed environment, was the “focusing on Consult was based upon teamwork and a close col-
technology, development and implementation.” laboration with the customer, where a prerequisite
In order to create such an environment, Cadcam for this was created through an informal atmo-
Consult declared they used several strategies “to sphere by employing highly educated personnel
recruit highly educated personnel,” which would with similar background, knowledge and skills.
ensure a minimum of knowledge relevant for solv- If we apply Wenger’s (1998) theory, the text tells
ing the company’s projects. Another strategy was us that this will only be achieved if employees
to educate the employees as part of making them learn the “shared repertoire” of the company,
equipped to use the “shared repertoire” necessary something which was considered a precondition
to work in this company (Wenger, 1998). The for completing their assignments (as shown in the
message, displayed via the Web pages, leaves an previous paragraph).
impression of a company that gives considerable In contrast to the emphasis on teamwork, the
freedom to the employees, since the text tells us investigation also showed how Cadcam Consult,
that they were made responsible for the comple- through their Web pages, projected the image of an
tion of their assigned projects, all the way from organization that valued autonomous employees
sales until delivery, ending in the maintenance who were able to work on an individual basis, if
phase of the delivered product. Furthermore, the required. However, despite the apparent freedom
text on the Web pages tells us that if employees the Web pages claim is offered to employees in
convey to these circumstances and are enthusi- the company, some signs found in the Web pages
astic about the artefacts necessary to produce the show that employees wanting to work for this
products according to customer’s satisfaction, the company needed to be able to use, or adapt to, the
employees will be able to explore their engineer- tools used for developing the learning product of
ing knowledge and participate in the development the company. Therefore, autonomous employees
of the latest IT technologies. Furthermore, what are seen as those able to conform to the prevail-
the Web pages promise the employees is the most ing requirements of the company. Thus, these
stimulating, best paid, and most attractive career- contrasting requirements and expectations were
related jobs, both now and in the future. regarded as equally important in the relationship
between the employees and the company.
You are responsible for your assignments, and to A way to achieve this was to recruit employees
accomplish them, of a sequence of activities from with a similar background. In this case, similar
sales, development, implementation, delivery and background not only referred to employees with
maintenance. We do not expect you to have a deep the same education, but, more specifically, to the
0
skills they were required to have. In this way, the some of the capabilities and learning processes
company’s Web site illustrated how the company the company need to comply to, such as faster
created a uniform knowledge level facilitating a throughput, faster order handling, increased ca-
particular learning process. pacity, less mistakes, increasing demand for data,
For the survival of the company, it was not need for production times, increasing demand for
enough to have an even knowledge level, but documentation, and increasing standardisation.
equally important was to build on the learning All these requirements demanded that Cadcam
traditions of the company. Building on existing Consult was able to find appropriate solutions, and
learning traditions would enable the company to thus, they imbedded a process of problem solving
remain competitive and profitable. and learning, according to their Web pages.
According to the message conveyed by the Web According to Wenger (1998), learning occurs
pages, the company considered themselves having through a socialisation process, normally when
a high level of knowledge, both within production an employee is getting acquainted with how the
and information technology. Additionally, their work should be done. On Cadcam Consult’s Web
technical solutions needed to be compatible with pages, this happens through formal training and
the customers’ products, production technology, through practical experiences in the organization.
and information technology. In order to solve The processes taking place between employees
their assignments and to make reliable solutions in the company happen through negotiation and
for complex tasks, the Web pages of Cadcam unlearning in teams, and solving work tasks.
Consult display that the company gave priority to This demonstrated how Cadcam Consult’s Web
a set of knowledge and skill to which employees pages possess some of the elements defining a
had to fulfill. community of practice. An important element
The aim for Cadcam Consult, as laid out on the within this theory is that a true community of
company Web pages, was to create productivity practice may extend beyond project groups and
for their customers through the development and organizational settings, and thus does not cease
use of advanced technical information technol- to exist when a project is over, or when people
ogy. They wanted to build collaboration with change to another organizational setting when
their customers, based upon the necessary trust they change jobs. These elements cannot be read
required to start and go through with the required from the Web pages studied here; accordingly, it
changes in the customer’s company. cannot be concluded that Cadcam Consult is a
On their Web pages, Cadcam Consult pre- community of practice, nor can it be concluded
sented their location in the NOVI Science Park that it is not.
and thus, their closeness to the university is an
argument for being able to provide their custom- using a discourse approach
ers with the latest up-to-date knowledge. The
learning process reveals itself on a set of Web If a discourse analysis, as claimed by Fairclough
pages, through the requirements and expectations (1992), includes going beyond a pure textual
it poses to potential employees. The employees analysis, and takes both societal, cultural pro-
have to be able to possess particular knowledge/ cesses, and structure into consideration, then it
skills (programming and strategic planning), is not possible to infer from the Web pages what
which poses particular requirements upon the discourse they belong to. On the other hand, one
employees involving cooperation, teamwork, and could argue that it is possible to look at the broader
collaboration with the customers. The customers’ context of the produced text, taking the company
requests indicated, as described on the Web pages, operative environment and its characteristics

into consideration. It could be argued that the Trustworthiness is the basis for creating trust
Web pages have another important role, namely, (Hardin, 1996, p. 29). Hardin’s background is the
spreading and sharing relevant information to be field of political sciences, and his ideas about trust
used by the company’s employees. Thus, the Web must be considered from an institutional perspec-
pages become a tool for knowledge distribution tive. Acting trustworthy depends on individuals’
within the company. When spreading knowledge, commitment and interest, but can be supported
they also spread a particular behaviour, as in the by a “network of laws and conventions” or self-
case of the Web pages studied in this chapter. interest in “maintaining particular relationships”
The result of this is that the Web pages promote (Hardin, 1996, p. 42). Nevertheless, any discus-
what traditions the company stands fo,r and how sion about trustworthiness deals basically with a
they want these traditions to be continued by a relationship between two individuals. It is from
homogeneous work force with particular skills this perspective that Hardin (1996) discusses
and education. The latter could then be a relevant trustworthiness, and therefore, his ideas get a ge-
description of the dominating organizational neric resonance applicable to any situation where
discourse of Cadcam Consult. trustworthiness results. Trust, as is displayed as a
Trust is an element emphasised in Cadcam discourse on Cadcam Consult’s Web pages, could,
Consult’s Web pages. Our aim is to create produc- therefore, be defined as trustworthiness. From
tivity for our customers through development and the explanations provided by Jones (1996) and
use of advanced technical information technology. Hardin (1996), we can infer that trustworthiness
We wish to build collaboration with our custom- builds on goodwill, competence, commitment,
ers, based upon the necessary trust required and interest, but that laws, conventions, norms,
to establish and go through with the necessary and rules can back that trustworthiness.
changes in the customer’s company. It should be noted that a vital element in
Furthermore, employees need to learn how Cadcam Consult discourse is to have employees
to establish a climate of trust, with customers, capable of establishing trustworthy relationships
that allows them to access their organization. to customers. However,trust is something that is
Trust and confidence are considered as important not acquired, but is a result of commitment and
prerequisites for establishing a mutual learning interest (Hardin, 1996). When Cadcam Consult
process between the company and its customers. includes trust as part of their Web discourse, they
Trust must also be considered in a discussion of are taking both societal, cultural processes, and
the elements that make the social practice between structure into consideration: societal processes,
superiors and subordinates occur. since trust extends beyond the borders of the
According to Karen Jones (1996), trust consists company and into the wider society, to customers;
of two elements: 1) a cognitive element and 2) an and cultural processes, since the organizational
affective element. The first element, cognition, discourse is promoting this as an integral part of
is based on the understanding of the conditions what an employee is expected to be, according
that make us trust in the other. This is based upon to the Web pages of Cadcam Consult.
“optimism about the goodwill and competence of As such, this employee involvement ini-
another” (Jones, 1996, p. 7). The affective element tiative is aimed at increasing productivity and
of trust is based on how emotions “are distinctive organizational success (Marchington, 2001).
ways of seeing a situation” (Jones, 1996, p. 11). Employees can take on different roles involving
Therefore, the affective element influences “one’s different degrees of authority and decisive power,
willingness to rely on the other seems reasonable” something that can be difficult to turn off once
(Jones, 1996, p. 11). the employees are expected to be ordinary team

members. Shifting roles from one project to the the company in a way that emphasises a particular
next can cast the team into a wait-and-see position, learning element aimed at producing particular
not knowing how to relate to other employees that products. Analysing the Web pages shows that
formerly had more authority and responsibility. A Cadcam Consult had a high degree of awareness
wait-and-see position signals that trust is at stake of the importance of interaction in the learning
here, and the potential of distrust towards the at- process. The company emphasises values such
titudes and beliefs the former project leader bring as close collaboration through teamwork, both
back with him as an ordinary project member. It inside the company and with their customers. The
is fair to say that “optimism about the goodwill research shows that the company values this as
and competence of another” is under threat (Jones, a prerequisite for completing their assignments.
1996, p. 7). Hence, according to Alvesson and Part of the learning process is to establish trust
Karreman (2000), the way trust manifests itself, with customers, to allow the company access to
in the studied Web pages, has a structuring effect their organization. Trust and confidence are con-
on employees in terms of framing their action. sidered important prerequisites for establishing
This qualifies it for “a close-range/determination a mutual learning process between the company
notion of discourse” (Alvesson & Karreman, and its customers. Contrasting the emphasis put
2000, p. 1138). on teamwork, my investigation also shows that
the company values autonomous employees who
also are able to work on an individual basis, if
conclusion required. Despite the apparent freedom offered
to the employees, I find signs showing that em-
In this chapter, a company’s Web pages have been ployees who want to work in this company have
linguistically analysed. This was done to see if to be able to use, or adapt to, the tools used for
application of a set of methods, taken from learning developing the learning product of the company.
and communication theory, is a feasible approach Autonomous employees are therefore intended as
to identify how an organization works. It has been employees that are able to conform to the, at any
revealed that the identification of modality and one time, prevailing requirements of the company.
transitivity, in combination with CoP concepts Thus, both requirements and expectations are
and discourse analysis, can be viable tools for equally important in the relationship between the
identifying how the Web pages of the company is employees and the company.
projected, and what this can tell us about the way This study of these Web pages also showed that
the organization works. Additionally, the research the development of a particular learning product
showed that knowledge of learning processes of is associated with a high degree of uniformity
a company could be obtained even from its Web in the company’s organization. An element that
site, which provides a useful amount of material allows this is the recruitment of employees with
to identify elements of such processes. Based on a similar background. In this case, similar back-
these elements, we are able to describe how and ground not only refers to the same education,
why the company learns, the aspects involved in but more specifically, to the skills employees are
these processes, the requirements of the employ- required to have. The text on the studied Web
ees, and the expected learning product. Further- pages demonstrated what types of problem the
more, by using linguistical elements to analyse customers face, and the different set of solutions
the Web pages, it is possible to discover what the company has chose to develop to deal with
particular organizational behaviour is promoted. these problems. Thus, the company’s Web site il-
This is achieved through communicating about lustrated how the homogeneous level of knowledge

that the company created facilitated a particular future research directions

learning process.
In order to understand some of the long-term By studying a set of Web sites, this chapter frames
impacts of company Web pages on employees some of the knowledge-sharing and knowledge-
understanding of an organization, more investiga- management practices that can be promoted using
tions are needed. When a company’s Web pages the Internet, and how these affect potential recruit-
promote a particular discourse, it will limit the ment policies and organizational behaviour. For
pool of potential employees. The Web pages end up future researchers, more detailed studies, using the
advocating a perfect view of how the organization analytical tools from learning and communication
works. The Web becomes a new courier for the theory, are needed. As shown in this chapter, these
stories, talk, and action in the company and thus, analytical tools will be beneficial in uncovering
contribute to uphold a particular organizational some of the knowledge values that can be identified
identity, through communication of the company through a linguistical analysis of a company’s Web
in a way that emphasises a particular knowledge- pages. This will provide the research community
sharing practice aimed at producing particular with a useful amount of material that allows
products. This will deprive the company from us to understand how knowledge management
getting a more heterogeneous work environment and sharing is presented via a company’s Web
that promotes collaboration, engagement, and pages. Moreover, we are able to create a sensible
creativity. A fallacy would be the promotion of description of how the World Wide Web displays
elite employee identities “internally, elite identity how these processes take place. Furthermore,
develops through a process of reflexivity amongst managers and companies need to understand
organizational members with reference to cultural that the Web has a major impact on what image
artefacts, norms and values which are shaped the outside world gets of the company, not only
through a variety of symbolic, strategic, and dis- through sophisticated layout and good design,
cursive media which in turn embeds identity in but also through the messages imbedded in the
organizational culture” (Alvesson & Robertson, text. Only by analysing the text on the Web pages
2006, p. 200). is itpossible to fully understand what company
Therefore, when Web pages are designed, image is projected to the outside world.
their content needs to be analysed in order to
understand the effect of the messages they send.
This is necessary if one wants to be considered acKnowledgment
a dynamic and employee-friendly organization.
It does not help to put emphasis on teamwork if I am extremely grateful for the feedback and
the real message is autonomous employees who help from Dr. Ettore Bolisani in finishing this
are able to work on an individual basis. Nor does chapter. Much appreciation also goes to the three
it matter to emphasis learning and knowledge anonymous reviewers. Invaluable language help
values if this only means adapt to the tools used has come from my colleague Ester Log.
by the company. Consequently, the message to
employees was you should be able to work on an
individual basis, but we expect you to adjust to references
our practice. Autonomous employees were those
able to conform to the, at any time, prevailing Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varie-
requirements of the company. ties of discourse - On the study of organizations

through discourse analysis. Human Relation, Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:
53(9), 1125—1149. Llegitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organiza-
tional learning II theory, method, and practice. Marchington, M. (2001). Employee involvement
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley-Publishing at work. In J. Storey (Ed.), Human resource
Company Inc. management, a critical text (2nd. ed). Cornwall:
Thomson Learning.
Bloch, M. E. F. (1998). How we think they think an-
thropological approaches to cognition, memory Mårtensson, M. (2000). A critical review of knowl-
and literacy. USA: Westview Press. edge management as a management tool. Journal
Cadcam Consult Web pages. (2000). Retrieved
February – March, 2000, from http://www.novi. Novi Park Web pages. (2006). Retrieved January
dk/cadcam/ 15, 2006, from http://www.novi.dk
Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., & Araujo, L. Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. USA:
(1999). Organizational learning and the learning Peter Smith.
organization developments in theory and practice.
Putnam, L L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996).
Gateshead: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Metaphors of communication and organization.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social In R. Stewart, C. H. Clegg, & W. R. Noord (Eds.),
change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Handbook of organization studies (pp. 375-408).
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to
functional grammar. New York: Arnold. Rasmussen G. J., Dahl, P. N., Mølbjerg Jørgensen,
K., Laursen, E., & Rasmussen, P. (2001). Per-
Hardin, R. (1996). Trustworthiness. Ethics, 107(1),
spektiver på organisatorisk læring (VCL-serien
26-42.
nr. 28, ISSN 1399-7300). Aalborg, Denmark:
Holloway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing Aalborg University, Center for Organisatorisk
qualitative research differently free association, Læring Videncenter for Læreprocesser.
narrative and the interview method. Wiltshire:
Riessman, K. C. (1993). Narrative analysis. CA:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Sage Publications.
Illeris, K. (1999). Læring - aktuell læringsteori
Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N., & Edvinsson,
i spenningsfeltet mellom Piaget, Freud og Marx
L. (1997). Intellectual capital: Navigating in the
(Learning – Current Learning Theory between
new business landscape. London: MacMillan
Piaget, Freus and Marx). Gylling: Roskilde
Business.
Universitetsforlag.
Senge, P. M (1990). The fifth discipline: The art
Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude.
& practice of the learning Organization. London:
Ethics 107(1), 4-25.
Century Business.
Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. (1999). Diskurs
Tolsby, J. (2000). Taylorism given a new hand:
analyse som teori og metode. (Discourse analysis
How an IT system changed employees flexibility
as theory and method). Gylling: Roskilde Uni-
and personal involvement in their work. Journal
versitetsforlag.
of Organizational Change Management, 13(5),
482-492.

Wald, B. (1993). On the evolution of would and Greyling, M. A., (1998). Mental models of the
other modals in the English spoken in East Los Internet - theory and application in human factors.
Angeles. In N. Dittmar & A. Reich (Eds.), Modal- International Journal of Industrial Ergonmics,
ity in language acquisition (pp. 59-96). Berlin: 22(4), 299-305.
Walter de Gruyter.
Harman, K., & Ackermann, E. (2004). Searching
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice & researching on the Internet & World Wide Web.
learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: London: Franklin Beedle & Associates Inc.
Hawisher, G. (1999). Global literacies and the
World Wide Web. London: Routledge.
Holloway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing
additional reading
qualitative research differently free association,
narrative and the interview method. Wiltshire:
Addleson, M. (2001). Stories about companies:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Boundaries, structures, strategies, and processes.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 22, 169- Hudson, R. (1999). The learning economy, the
182. learning firm and the learning region: A sympa-
thetic critique of the limits to learning. European
Alvesson, M., & Robertson, M. (2006). The best
Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 59-72.
and the brightest: The construction, significance
and effects of elite identities in consulting firms. Illeris, K. (2000). Tekster om Læring. (My trans-
Organization, 12(2), 195-224. lations: Texts about Learning) Gylling: Roskilde
Universitetsforlag.
Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving the Web: The
original design and ultimate destiny of the World Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2002). Knowledge
Wide Web. San Francisco, Ca: HarperBusiness. management in communities of practice: Being
true to the communicative character of knowl-
Dainton, M., & Zelly, E. D. (2004). Applying
edge. Management Communication Quarterly,
communication theory for professional life: A
16(2), 259-66.
practical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd. Littlejohn, S. W, & Foss, K. A. (2007). Theories
of human communication. England: Wadsworth
Duguid, P. (2005). The art of knowing: Social
Publishing Company.
and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits
of the community of practice. The Information Martin, T. L. (2004). Poiesis and possible worlds:
Society 21(2), 109-118. A study in modality and literary theory. Canada:
University of Toronto Press.
Epple, D., Argote L. & Devadas R. (1991).
Organizational learning curves; A method for Miller, K. (2004). Communication theories:
investigating intra-plant transfer of knowledge Perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.).
acquired through learning by doing. Organization McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Lan-
Science, 2, 58-70. guages.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Introduction to discourse analy- O’Halloran, K. (2004). Critical discourse analysis
sis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge. and language cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University.Royce T. D., & Bowcher, W. L. (2006).

New directions in the analysis of multimodal dis- Trevino, L., Lengel, R., Bodensteiner, W., Gerloff,
course. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. E., & Muir, N. (1990). The richness imperative
and cognitive style: The role of individual dif-
Shedletsky, L., & Aitken, J. E. (2003). Human
ferences in media choice behavior. Management
communication on the Internet. England: Allyn
Communication Quarterly, 4(2).
& Bacon.
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and
Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. K., & Daft, R. L.
discourse analysis: A comparative and critical
(1987). Media symbolism, media richness and
introduction. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
media choice in organizations. Communication
Research, 14(5), 553-574.

Compilation of References
Abels, E., et al.. (2004). If you build it, will they come? Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and
Marketing, 8(10), 13-17. knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations
and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Abidi, S. S. R., & Pang, X. (2004). Knowledge sharing over
P2P knowledge networks: A peer ontology and semantic Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management
overlay driven approach. International Conference on and knowledge management systems: Conceptual founda-
Knowledge Management, Singapore, 13-15. tions and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107-136.
Ackerman, M. S. (1994). Augmenting the organizational Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge
memory: A field study of Answer Garden. In R. Furuta & C. management and knowledge management systems: Con-
Neuwirth (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCW’94 (pp. 243–252). ceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly,
Chapel Hill, NC: ACM. 25(1), 107-136.
Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom, Journal of Ap- Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2003). Knowledge management:
plies Systems Analysis, 16, 3-9. The information technology dimension. In M. Easterby-
Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
Adler, R. P., & Christopher, A. J. (1998). Internet community
learning and knowledge management (pp. 104-121). Oxford:
primer – overview and business opportunity. Retrieved
Blackwell Publishing.
from http://www.digiplaces.com/
Alberts, D. S., Gartska, J. J., & Stein, F. P. (1999). Network-
Ahuja, M., Galletta, D., et al. (2003). Individual centrality
centric warfare: Developing and leveraging information
and performance in virtual R&D groups: An empirical
superiority. Washington D.C: Department of Defense C4ISR
study. Management Science, 49(1), 21-38.
Cooperative Research Program.
Ai-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed Y. F.
Albino, V., Garavelli, A. C., & Gorgoglione, M. (2004).
(2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing:
Organisation and technology transfer. Benchmarking: An
Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
International Journal, 11(2), 584-600.
ment, 11(2), 22-42.
Ali, I., Pascoe, C., & Warne, L. (2002). Interactions of
Akavia, G., & Gofer, E. (2006). Two weeks with a network-
organizational culture and collaboration in working and
centric infantry company in an urban warfare trial. Paper
learning. IEEE Journal of Educational Technology and
presented at the Command and Control Research and
Society, 5(2).
Technology Symposium, San Diego, CA.
Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The markets for “lemons”: Quality
of practice. OD Practitioners: Journal of the Organization
uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal
Development Network, 32(4). Retrieved May 25, 2007, from
of Economics, August, 488-500.
http://www.odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowled-
Akyildiz, I. F., Wang, X., & Wang, W. (2005). Wireless mesh genets.html
networks: A survey. Computer Networks, 47(4), 445-487.
Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cam-
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management bridge, MA: MIT Press.
systems: Issues, challenges and benefits. Communication
of the Association for Information Systems, 1, 1-28.
Allen, T. J. & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in Anderson, A., Mullin, J., McEwan, R., Bal, J., Carletta, J.,
research and development laboratories. Administrative Grattan, E., & Brundell, P. (2005). Exploring why virtual
Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12-19. teamworking is effective in the lab but more difficult in
the workplace. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse & H. Spada (Eds),
Allen, T. J. (1966) Managing the flow of scientific and
Barriers and biaes in computer-mediated knowledge com-
technological information. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. (Ph
munication. And how they may be overcome (pp. 119-142).
D thesis).
NY, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Allen, T. J. (1970). Communication networks in R & D
Anderson, P. (1999). Complexity theory and organization
laboratories. Journal of R & D Management, 1(1), 14-21.
science. Organization Science, 10(3), 216-232.
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology; Tech-
Andres, H. P. (2002). A comparison of face-to-face and
nology transfer and the dissemination of technological
virtual software development teams. Team Performance
information within the Research and Development orga-
Management, 8(1/2), 39-48.
nization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on
Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in
knowledge processes. In Organizational learning: The
research and development laboratories. Administrative
psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6),
Science Quarterly, (4), 12-19.
797-810.
Allison, K. (2006). How to unearth the IT moles. Financial
Ang, Z., & Massingham, P. (2007). National culture and
Times, (September 5), 10.
standardization vs. adaption of knowledge management.
Aloni, M. (1985). Patterns of information transfer among Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 5-21.
engineers and applied scientists in complex organizations.
Antonelli, C. (2007). The business governance of localized
Scientometrics, 8, 5-6.
knowledge. Industry and Innovation, 13(3), 227-261.
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse
Apostolou, D., Papailiou, N., & Mentzas, G. (2007). Devel-
- On the study of organizations through discourse analysis.
oping knowledge networks: A practical methodology and
Human Relation, 53(9), 1125—1149.
experiences from cases. International Journal of Knowledge
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some Management Studies, 1, (3/4), 330-355.
suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management
APQC: American, Productivity & Quality Center. (1999).
Studies, 38(6), 811–829.
Creating a knowledge-sharing culture: Consortium bench-
Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowl- marking study best-practice report. APQC International
edge: Firms, capabilities, and communities. Oxford: Oxford Benchmarking Clearinghouse.
University Press.
Archer, N., & Wang, S. (2002). Knowledge management
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Bridging the boundary: in network organizations. Michael G. DeGroote School of
External activity and performance in organization teams. Business, working paper #456.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665.
Ardichvili, A., Mauner M., Li, W., Wenting, T., & Stu-
Ancori, B., Bureth, A., & Cohendet, P. (2000). The eco- edemann R. (2006). Cultural influences on knowledge
nomics of knowledge: The debate about codification and sharing through online communities of practice. Journal
tacit knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 94-107.
255-287.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis
Andenmatten, S., Bettoni, M., C., & Mathieu, R. (2007). for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior
Knowledge cooperation in online communities. The Elec- and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
tronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 1-6.
Argote, L., & Linda, P.(2000). KT: A basis for competitive
Andersen, A., & The American Productivity and Quality advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human
Center. (1996). The knowledge management assessment Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
tool: External benchmarking version. Winter.
Argote, L., Beckamn, S., & Epple, D. (1990). The persistence
and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management
Science, 36(2).

Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for struc-
knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework turing: Evidence from observation of CT scanners and
and review of emerging themes. Management Science, the social order of radiology departments. Administrative
49(4), 571-582. Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
Argote, L., McEvily, R., & Reegans, R. (2003). Managing Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institution and struc-
knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework turation: Studying the links between action and institution.
and review of emerging themes. Management Science, Organization Studies, 18(1), 93-117.
49(4), 571-582.
Barnes, D., & Hinton, M. (2007). Developing a framework
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning to analyse the roles and relationships of online intermedi-
II theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison aries. International Journal of Information Management,
Wesley-Publishing Company Inc. 27, 63-74.
Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, R., & Lane, D. (1997). The economy Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competi-
as an evolving complex system II. Reading, MA: Addison- tive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.
Wesley.
Bateman, J. (1999). Modeling the importance of end-user
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. relevance criteria. In ASIS ’99, Proceedings of the 62nd ASIS
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Annual Meeting: Vol 36. Knowledge Creation, Organization
and Use (pp. 396-406). Washington, DC.
Avison, D., Lau, F., Neilsen, P. A., & Myers, M. (1999).
Action research. Communications of ACM, 42, 94-97. Battle, E. (1966). Motivational determinants of academic
competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern infor-
ogy, 4, 534-642.
mation retrieval. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2006). ICT and
Bair, J., Fenn, J., Hunter, R., & Bosik, D. (1997). Foundations
knowledge management systems. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.),
for enterprise knowledge management (Report R-400-105).
Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp. 231-236).
Stamford: Gartner Group.
Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Bal, J., & Teo, P. K. (2000). Implementing virtual teamwork-
Bechky, B. (1999). Creating shared meaning across occupa-
ing. Part 1: A literature review of best practice. Logistics
tional communities: An ethnographic study of a production
Information Management, 13(6), 346-352.
floor. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy
Baldwin, N. S., & Rice, R. E. (1997). Information-seeking of Management, Chicago, IL.
behavior of securities analysts: Individual and institutional
Bechky, B. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational
influences, information sources and channels and outcomes.
communities: The transformation of understanding on a
Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
production floor. Organization science. 14(3), 312-330
48(8), 674-693.
Becker, M. (2001). Managing dispersed knowledge: Or-
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. A method
ganizational problems, managerial strategies, and their
for the study of a small group. Chicago: The University of
effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7),
Chicago Press.
1037-1051.
Balstrup, B. (2004). Leading by detached involvement
Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review
– Success factors enabling leadership of virtual teams. MBA
of the literature. Industrial Corporate Change, 13(4),
Dissertation, Henley Management College, UK.
643-677.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A
New York, NY: Freeman.
venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for struc-
Bell, J. K. (1993). How to plan to keep communications open
turing: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and
after disaster strikes. In Proceedings of the 1993 national
the social order of radiology departments. Administrative
earthquake conference: Earthquake Hazard Reduction in
Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
the Central and Eastern United States: A Time for Exami-
nation and Action (pp. 339-348).
0
Benedict, B. M. (1996). Making the modern reader cultural Bloch, M. E. F. (1998). How we think they think anthro-
mediation in early modern literary anthologies. Princeton: pological approaches to cognition, memory and literacy.
Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http//www. USA: Westview Press.
pupress.princeton.edu/books/benedict/
Block, H. D. (1962). The perceptron: A model for brain
Benghozi, P. J. (2002). Technologie et organisation : le functioning. Reviews of Modern Physics, 34, 123-135.
hasard et la nécessité. Annales des Télécommunications,
Blood, R. (2002). We’ve got blog. How Web logs are changing
57(3-4), 289-305.
our culture. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Bennett, B. R., & Theodoulidis, B. (1998). Towards a notion
Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2006).
of personal ontology. University of Manchester.
The strength of Internet ties. The Internet and e-mail aid
Berends, H. (2005). Explore knowledge sharing: Moves, users in maintaining their social networks and provide
problem solving and justification. Knowledge Management pathways to help when people face big decisions. PEW
Research & Practice, 3, 97-105. Internet and American Life Project Report, Report Number
202-419-4500. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.
Berger, C. J. (1979). Organizational structure, attitude
pewinternet/org
and behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1,
169-208. Boiral, O, (2002). Tacit knowledge and environmental
management. Long Range Planning, 35, 291–317.
Beznosov, K., Flinn, D., Kawamoto, S. and Hartman, B.
Extended and virtual enterprises - similarities and differ- Boisot, M. (1995). Is your firm a creative destroyer? Com-
ences. Information Security Technical Report, 10, 2-14. petitive learning and knowledge flows in the technological
strategies of firms. Research Policy, 24, 489-506.
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H.
C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of Boisot, M. (1998). Knowledge assets. Securing competitive
organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. The advantages in the information economy. Oxford: Oxford
Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221. University Press.
Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966): Role theory: Concepts Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (1999). Information technology
and research. New York: John Wiley. management: A knowledge-based perspective. Technova-
tion, 19, 209-17.
Biemann, C. (2005). Ontology learning from texts: A survey
of methods. LDV-Forum 20(2), 75-93. Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (2000). Electronic communication
and knowledge transfer. International Journal of Technol-
Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. (1984). The power of obedi-
ogy Management, 20(1-2), 116-133.
ence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 540-549.
Bolisani, E., Scarso, E., & Di Biagi, M. (2006). Economic
Birkinshaw, J. (2001). Why is knowledge management so
issues of online professional communities. In E. Coakes &
difficult? Business Strategy Review, 12(1) 11-18.
S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice
Bishop, A. P. (1998). Logins and bailouts: Measuring ac- in information and knowledge management.= Hershey,
cess, use, and success in digital libraries. The Journal of PA: IDEA Group.
Electronic Publishing, 4(2).
Bond, A. H., & Gasser, L. (1988). Readings in distrib-
Bisson, G. (1992). Learning in FOL with a similarity mea- uted artificial intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan
sure. AAAI, 82–87. Kaufmann.
Bisson, G., Nedellec, C., & Canamero, D. (2000). Design- Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study
ing clustering methods for ontology building - The Mo’K that develops measures and models. Management Decision,
Workbench. In S. Staab, A. Maedche, C. Nedellec, & P. 36(2), 63-76.
Wiemer-Hastings (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on
Bose, R. (2004). Knowledge management metrics. Industrial
Ontology Learning, 14th European Conference on Artificial
Management and Data Systems, 104(6), 457-468.
Intelligence, Berlin, Germany.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflex-
Blankenship, R. L. (1980). Colleagues in organization.
ive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.

Bourdreau, A., & Couillard, G. (1999). System integration Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Structure and spontaneity:
and knowledge management. Information Systems Manage- Knowledge and organization. In I. Nonaka, & D. J. Teece
ment, 1(3), 24–32. (Eds.), Managing Industrial Knowledge. Creation, Transfer
and Utilization (pp. 44-67). London: SAGE.
Bouthillier, F., & Shearer, K. (2003). Assessing competitive
intelligence software: A guide to evaluating CI technology. Brown, J. W., & Utterback, J. (1985). Uncertainty and
Medford, NY: Information Today. technical communication patterns. Management Science,
31(3), 301-311.
Boyd, J., Ragsdell, G., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Knowledge
transfer mechanisms: A case study from manufacturing. Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of informa-
Paper presented at the 8th European Coference on Knowldege tion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Management, Barcelona.
Browne & Zhang, (1999). Extended and virtual enterprises
Boyd, J., Ragsdell, G., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Knowledge - similarities and differences. International Journal of Agile
transfer mechanisms: A case study from manufacturing. In Management Systems, 1(1), 30-36.
B. Martin & D. Remenyi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eu-
Browne, J., & Jagdev, H. S. (1998). The extended enterprise
ropean Conference on Knowledge Management (Vol. I, pp.
- A context for manufacturing. Journal of Production,
139-146). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences Limited.
Planning & Control, 9(3), 216 -229.
Brannen, M.Y., & Salk, J. (2000). Partnering across borders.
Browne, J., Sackett, P. J., & Wortmann, J. C. (1995). Future
Human Relations, 53(4), 451–487.
manufacturing systems - towards the extended enterprise.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. (1993). Potential power and Computers in Industry, 25(3), 235-54.
power use: An investigation of structure and behavior.
Bruner, J. S. (1992). The narrative construction of reality. In
Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441-460.
H. Beilins & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Piaget’s theory: Prospects
Bresman, J., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999). Knowledge and possibilities (pp. 229-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
transfer in international acquistions. Journal of Interna-
Bruno, R., Conti, M., & Gregori, E. (2005). Mesh networks:
tional Business Studies, 30, 439-462.
Commodity multihop ad hoc networks. IEEE Communica-
Brown, J. (2000). Growing up digital, the Web and the new tions Magazine, March, 123-131.
learning ecology. Change, the Magazine of Higher Learn-
Brydon, M., & Vining, A. R. (2006). Understanding the
ing, March/April, 11-22.
failure of internal knowledge markets: A framework for
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Knowledge and organiza- diagnosis and improvement. Information & Management,
tion: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 43, 964–974. Choi et al., 1995
12(2), 198-213.
Burger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramierez Jr., A. Dunbar, N.
working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science,
E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity
2(1), 40-57.
principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal
California Management Review, 40(3), 90-111. of Communication, 52(3), 657-678.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing act: How to Burns, T., & Flam, H. (1987). The shaping of social orga-
capture knowledge without killing it. Harvard Business nization. London: Sage.
Review, May-June: 73-80.
Busch, P., & Richards, D. (2000). Graphically defining
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of informa- articulable tacit knowledge. ACM International Conference
tion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Proceeding Series, 9, 51 – 60.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organiza- Busch, P., Richards, D., Dampney, C., Galloway, J., (2002).
tion: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, Selected tacit knowledge observations within two organi-
12(2), 198-213. sations. Sydney Area Workshop on Visual Information
Processing December University of Sydney, (pp. 5-11).

Butler, B. (2001). Membership size, communication activ- Cayzer, S. (2004). Semantic blogging and decentralized
ity, and sustainability: A resource-based model of online knowledge management. Communications of the ACM,
social structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 47(12), 47-52.
346-362.
CEN. (2004). European guide to good practice in knowledge
Butler, T. (2003). From data to knowledge and back again: management - Part 1: Knowledge management framework
understanding the limitations of KMS. Knowledge and (ICS 03.100.99, CWA 14924-1). CEN, The European Com-
Process Management, 10(3), 144-155. mittee for Standardization.
Byrne, J. (1993). The virtual corporation. Business Week, Chaffee, J., & Gauch, S. (2000). Personal ontologies for
26(3), 36–41. Web navigation. Proceedings of the Ninth international
Conference on information and Knowledge Management,
Cabrera, A. & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing
227-234.
dilemma. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687-710.
Chaib-draa, B. (1995). Industrial applications of distributed
Cadcam Consult Web pages. (2000). Retrieved February
AI. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 49–53.
– March, 2000, from http://www.novi.dk/cadcam/
Chartrand, H. H. (2002). The competitiveness of nations in
Camarinha-Matos L. M. (2003). Infrastructures for virtual
a global knowledge-based economy: An individual interdis-
organizations - where we are. In Emerging Technologies
ciplinary studies. Unedited PhD Dissertation, University
and Factory Automation: Vol. 2. Proceedings of ETFA ‘03
of Saskatchewan.
(pp. 405- 414).
Chase, R. (1997). The knowledge based organisation: an
Camarinha-Matos L. M. (2005). ICT infrastructures for
international survey. Journal of Knowledge Management,
VO. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, & M.
1(1), 38-49.
Ollus(Eds.), Virtual organizations: Systems and practices
(pp. 89-110). Boston: Springer Science and Business Me- Chen, C. H., & Shish, H. T. (2005). High-tech industries in
dia. China. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Campus Compact. (2007). Higher education responds to Chen, C., et al. (2000). Individual differences in virtual envi-
Katrina. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www. ronments –Introduction and overview. Journal of American
compact.org/resources/downloads/Katrina.pdf Society for Information Science, 51(6), 499-507.
Caraballo, S. A. (1999). Automatic construction of a hyper- Chiu, C-M, Hsu, M-H,, & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Under-
nym-labeled noun hierarchy from text. Proceedings of the standing knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An
37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational integration of social capital and social cognitive theories.
Linguistics, 120-126. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1999). Channel expansion theory Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation
and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153-170. Information & Management, 40, 403-417.
Carmichael, D. J., Kay, J., & Kummerfeld, B. (2004). Personal Choo, C. (1996). The knowing organization: How orga-
ontologies for feature selection in intelligent environment nizations use information to construct meaning, create
visualisations. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial knowledge, and make decisions. International Journal of
Intelligence in Mobile Systems. Information Management, 16(5), 329-340.
Carr, C., Erickson, G. S. & Rothberg, H. (2004). Intellectual Choo, C., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Web work:
capital, competitive intelligence and the economic espionage Information seeking and knowledge work on the World
act. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Wide Web. NY, NY: Springer.
Capital, 1(4), 460-482.
Chua, A. (2001). Relationship between the types of knowl-
Case, D. O. (2002). Looking for information: A survey of edge shared and types of communication channels used.
research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice October,
Lexington, KY: Academic Press, Elsevier Science. 2001. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.tlainc.
com/articl26.htm

Ciborra, C. U., & Andreu, R. (2001). Sharing knowledge Collins, H. M. (2001). Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q of
across boundaries. Journal of Information Technology, sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 1(31), 71-85.
16(2), 73-81.
COM 229. (2005). i2010 – A European Information Soci-
Cillo, P. (2005). Fostering market knowledge use in innova- ety for growth and employment. Communication from the
tion: The role of internal brokers. European Management commission to the council, the European parliament, the
Journal, 23(4), 404-412. European economic and social committee and the commit-
tee of the regions, Brussels, 1.6.2005.
Clarke, L. (1994). The essence of change. London, UK:
Prentice-Hall. Constant, D., Sproull, L., et al. (1996). The kindness of
strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for techni-
Clarke, R. (2002). Trust in the context of e-business. Internet
cal advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
Law Bulletin, 4(5), 56-59.
Cook, S. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies:
Coakes, E. (2002). Knowledge management: A sociotechni-
The generative dance between organizational knowledge
cal perspective. In E. Coakes, D. Willis, & S. Clarke (Eds.),
and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4),
Knowledge management in the sociotechnical world. The
381-400.
graffiti continues (pp.4-14). London: Springer.
Covey, D. T. (2002). Usage and usability assessment: Library
Coakes, E., Bradburn, A., & Sugden, G. (2004). Managing
practices and concerns. In Digital Library Federation and
and leveraging knowledge for organisational advantage.
Council on Library and Information Resources, Pub 105,
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2, 118-
Washington, D.C.
128.
Covey, D. T. (2003). The need to improve remote access
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Econometrics,
to online library resources: Filling the gap between com-
4, 18-33.
mercial vendor and academic user practice. Libraries and
Cobb, A. T. (1980) Informal influence in the formal organi- the Academy, 3(4), 577-599.
zation: Perceived sources of power among work unit peers.
Cowan, M., David, P., & Foray, D. (2001). The explicit eco-
Academy of Management Journal, 23, 155-161.
nomics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Industrial
CODASYL. (1971). Feature analysis of generalized data and Corporate Change, 9(2), 211-253.
base management systems. ACM, May.
Cowan, R., & Foray D. (1997). The economics of codifica-
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How tion and the diffusion of knowledge. Industrial Corporate
social capital makes organizations work. Boston, MA: Change, 6, 595-622.
Harvard Business School Press.
Cowan, R., David, P. A., & Foray, D.(2000). The explicit
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive economics of knowledge: Codification and tacitness. In-
capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. dustrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 211-253.
Cox, D. E. (1987). Programmatic factors associated with
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A effective occupational education programs in community
new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative colleges. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research
Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. and Practice, 11(1), 11-17.
Colbert, B. (2004). The complex resource-based view: Craven, M., DiPasquo, D., Freitag, D., McCallum, A.,
Implications for theory and practice in strategic human Mitchell, T., Nigam, K., & Slattery, S. (2000). Learning
resource management. Academy of Management Review, to construct knowledge bases from the World Wide Web.
29(3), 341-358. Artificial Intelligence, 118, 69-113.
Colis, D. (1996). Organizational capability as a source of Cray, D., & Mallory, G. R. (1998). Making sense of manag-
profit. In B. Moingeon & A. Edmondson (Eds), Organi- ing culture. London, UK: International Thomson Business
zational learning and competitive advantage. London: Press.
Sage.

Cremer, D. D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness:
dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality A new approach to managerial behaviour and organiza-
and Social Psychology, 28(10), 1335-1341. tional design. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 6,
191-233.
Cross, R., & Baird, L. (2000). Technology is not enough:
Improving performance by building organizational memory. Daft, R. L., & Lengel R. H. (1986). Organizational informa-
Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 69-78. tion requirements, media richness and structural design.
Management Science, 32(5), 355-366.
Culnan, M. (1985). The dimensions of perceived accessibility
to information: Implications for the delivery of information Dahlin, K., Weingart, L., & Hinds, P. (2005). Team diversity
systems and services. Journal of the American Society for and information use. Academy of Management Journal,
Information Science, 36(5), 302-308. 48(6), 1107-1123.
Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technolo- Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Homo sociologicus. Opladen, Ger-
gies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. many: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication:
Dalkir, K., & Wiseman, E. (2006). Knowledge elicitation,
An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 421-443). Newbury
organization and dissemination in a knowledge network: The
Park, CA: Sage.
role of knowledge brokers. In V. Guerrero-Bote (Ed.), Cur-
Cummings, J. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and rent research in information sciences and technologies.
knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management
Dalmaris, P., Tsui, E., Hall, B., & Smith, B. (2007). A
Science, 50(3), 352-364.
framework for the improvement of knowledge-intensive
Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B.S. (2003). Transferring R&D business processes. Business Process Management Journal,
knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer 13(2), 279-305.
success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Manage-
Darr, E., Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition,
ment, 20(1) 39-68.
transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organi-
Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., et al. (2002). The quality of zations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science,
online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 41(11), 1750-1762.
45(7), 103-108.
Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living. How to get
Cummings, M. (2005). The need for command and con- better performance and results from knowledge workers.
trol instant message adaptive interfaces: Lessons learned Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
from tactical Tomahawk human-in-the-loop simulations.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1997). Working knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Humans and Automation Laboratory.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge:
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of
How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Har-
the firm. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
vard Business School Press.
Dabbish, L., & Kraut, R. (2004). Controlling interruptions:
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., De Long, D. W., & Jacob-
Awareness displays and social motivation for coordination.
son, A. L. (2001). Data to knowledge to results: Building
In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Computer Supported
an analytic capability. California Management Review,
Cooperative Work (pp. 182-191). ACM Press.
43(2), 117-138.
Daconta, M. C., Obrst, L. J., & Smith, K. T. (2003). The
Davenport, T., & Glaser, J. (2002). Just-in-time delivery
semantic Web: A guide to the future of XML, Web services,
comes to Knowledge Management. Harvard Business
and knowledge management. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley
Review, 80(7), 107-111.
& Sons Inc.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How
Daft, J. E., Lengel, R. H., et al. (1987). Message equivocality,
organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard
media selection, and manager performance: Implication for
Business School Press.
information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 354-366.

Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: Dennis, A., & Kinney, S. (1998). Testing media richness
How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback
Harvard Business School Press. and task equivocality. Information Systems Research,
9(3), 256-274.
Davidow, W. H., & Malone M. S. (1992). The virtual cor-
poration. New York: Harper Business. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the com-
plexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration
Davis, J. G., Subrahmanian, E., & Westerberg, W. (2005).
theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-147.
The “global” and the “local” in knowledge management.
Journal of Knowledge Management, (1), 101-112. Desouza, K. C. (2003). Knowledge management barriers:
Why the technology imperative seldom works. Business
Davis, R., Shrobe, H., & Szolovits, P. (1993). What is a KR?
Horizons, January-February, 25-29.
AI Magazine, 14(1), 17-33.
Desouza, K. C., & Awazu, Y. (2003). Constructing inter-
De Groote, S. & Dorsch, J. (2003). Measuring use patterns
nal knowledge markets: Considerations from mini cases.
of online journals and databases. Journal of Medical Library
International Journal of Information Management, 23,
Association. 91(2), 231-241.
345-353.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural
Deutsch, A. (1952). The mentally ill in America (2nd ed.).
barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Manage-
New York: Columbia University Press.
ment Executive, 14(4), 113-127
Dey, A. K., Salber, D.. & Abowd, G. D. (2001). A conceptual
De Sanctis, G., & Poole, M. (1994). Capturing the complex-
framework and a toolkit for supporting the rapid prototyping
ity in advanced technology in use: Adaptive structuration
of context-aware applications. Human-Computer Interac-
theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121-47.
tion (HCI) Journal, 16(2-4), 97-166.
DeGenaro, B. (1996). Counterintelligence. In B. Gilad & J.
Dieng, R., & Hug, S. (1998). Comparison of personal ontolo-
Herring (Eds.), The art and science of business intelligence.
gies represented through conceptual graphs. Proceedings
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
of the 13th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Dekens. J. (2007). Local knowledge on disaster prepared- 341-345.
ness: A framework for data collection and analysis. Sus-
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review
tainable mountain development, 52, 20-23. Retrieved from
of Sociology, 23, 263-287.
http://www.disasterpreparedness.icimod.org/publications.
php Ding, Y., & Foo, S. (2002). Ontology research and develop-
ment. Part 1 - A review of Ontology Generation. Journal
Delery, J. E. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource
of Information Science, Information Science, vol. 28, pp.
management: Implications for research. Human Resource
123-136, 2002.
Management Review, 8, 289–309.
Dirks, T. K., & Ferrin, D. (2001). The role of trust in orga-
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between or-
nizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450-467.
ganizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s
point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Disterer, G. (2001). Individual and social barriers to knowl-
Management Review, 21, 619-654. edge transfer. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii Interna-
tional Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.
Denning, P. J. (2006). Hastily formed networks. Commu-
nications of the ACM, 49(4), 15-20. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of
national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede
Denning, S. (2000). The springboard: How storytelling
revisited. Advances in International Comparative Manage-
ignites action in the knowledge-era organization. Woburn,
ment, 3, 127-50.
MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dosi, G., Winter, S. G., & Teece, D. J. (1992). Towards a
Dennis, A. (1996). Information exchange and use in group
theory of corporate coherence. In G. Dosi, R. Giannetti,
decision making: You can lead a group to information, but
& P. A. Toninelli (Eds.), Technology and enterprise in a
you can’t make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 433-457.
historical perspective. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press

Dourish, P. (2001). Seeking a foundation for context-aware intelligence, volume 2 (pp. 229–244). San Francisco, CA:
computing. Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2, 3, & 4), Morgan Kaufmann.
229-241.
Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. (2005). When do incumbents
Dourish, P. (2003). Speech-gesture driven multimodal learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Corporate venture
interfaces for crisis management. In Proceedings of the capital and investing firm innovation rates. Research Policy,
IEEE 91 (pp. 1327-1354). 34(5), 615-639.
Dourish, P. (2004.) What we talk about when we talk Dutta, S. (2001). NCLIS policy recommendation on linking
about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(1), the information life cycle concept with digital libraries.
19-30. A comprehensive assessment of public information dis-
semination, 214.
Doz, Y. L. (1988). Technology partnerships between larger
and smaller firm: Some critical issues. In F. Contractor & Dwight, S. S., Harris, M. A., Dolinski, K., Ball, C. A.,
P. Lorange (Eds), Cooperative strategies in international Binkley, G., Christie, K. R., Fisk, D. G., Issel-Tarver, L.,
business. Lexington, MA. Schroeder, M., Sherlock, G., Sethuraman, A., Weng, S.,
Botstein, D., & Cherry, J. M. (2002). Saccharomyces Genome
Dragovic, B., & Crowcroft, J. (2004). Information exposure
Database provides secondary gene annotation using the Gene
control through data manipulation for ubiquitous comput-
Ontology. Nucleic Acids Research 30(1), 69-72.
ing. In Proceedings of the 2004 workshop on New security
paradigms (pp. 57-64). Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a
high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota
Drucker, P. (1966). The knowledge worker. New York:
case. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345-367
Harper Collins.
Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: coopera-
Drucker, P. (1994). The age of social transformation. The
tive strategy and sources of interorganizational competi-
Atlantic Monthly, 274(5), 53-80. Retrieved 02/03/2007, from
tive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4),
http//www.providersedge.com/docs/leadership_articles/
660-79.
Age_of_Social_Transformation.pdf
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward
Drucker, P. F. (1968). The age of discontinuity guidelines to
a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems
our changing society. New York: Harper & Row.
18(1), 215-233.
Drucker, P. F. (1990). The emerging theory of manufactur-
Easterby-Smith M., & Lyles M. A. (2003). Introduction
ing. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 94-102.
watersheds of organizational learning and knowledge
Drucker, P. F. (1991). The new productivity challenge. Har- management. In M. Easterby-Smith, & M. A. Lyles (Eds.),
vard Business Review, 69(November-December), 69-76. The blackwell handbook of organizational learning and
knowledge management (pp 1–15). Blackwell Publishing
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Ltd, Oxford.
HarperBusiness.
Easterby-Smith, M, Snell, R., & Gherardi, S. (1998). Or-
Duan, Y., Xu, X., & Fu, Z. (2006). Understanding trans- ganizational learning: Diverging communities of practice?
national knowledge transfer. In P. Feher (Ed.), Proceedings Management Learning, 29(3), 259-272.
of 7th European Conference of Knowledge Management
(ECKM06) (pp. 126-135), 4-5 Sept., Public Academic Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., & Araujo, L. (1999).
Conferences Ltd. Reading, UK. Organizational learning and the learning organization
developments in theory and practice. Gateshead: SAGE
Durfee, E. (1996). Planning in distributed artificial intel- Publications Ltd.
ligence. In G. M. P. O’Hare & N. R. Jennings (Eds.), Foun-
dations of distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 231–246). Easton, G. (1992). Industrial networks.A review. In B.
New York: Wiley. Axelsson & G. Easton, (Eds.), Industrial networks, A new
view of reality. London: Routledge.
Durfee, E. H., & Lesser, V. (1989). Negotiating task de-
composition and allocation using partial global planning. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs,
In L. Gasser & M. Huhns M. (Eds.), Distributed artificial values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1),
109-132.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, Eovito, B. (2006). The impact of synchronous text-based
C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and chat on military Command and Control. Paper presented
academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement at the 11th International Command and Control Research
and achievement motives (pp.75-146). San Francisco, CA: and Technology Symposium, Cambridge, UK.
W.H. Freeman.
EPIC. (2001). Online use & cost evaluation program: The
Echeverri, M. (2006). Factors affecting access to and use of use of electronic resources among undergraduate and
scholarly scientific information: A model for health science graduate students. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from
graduate students in Colombia. Unpublished doctoral dis- http://www.epic.columbia.edu/eval/find03.html
sertation, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
Epple, D., Argote, L., & Devadas, R. (1991). Organizational
Economist. (2000). Inside the machine: A survey of e-man- learning curves: A method for investigating intraplant
agement. The Economist, (November 11). transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing.
Edmondson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room:
How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary Eppler, M., & Sukowski, O. (2000). Managing team knowl-
action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), edge: Core processes, tools and enabling factors. European
1419-1452. Management Journal, 18(3), 334-341.
Edvinsson, L. & Sullivan, P. (1996). Developing a model Eschenauer, L., & Gligor, V. (2002). A key-management
for managing intellectual capital. European Management scheme for distributed sensor networks. In Proceedings
Journal, 14(4), 356-364. of ACM Conference on Computer and Communication
Security (CCS’02), Washington DC.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual capital:
Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cam-
brainpower. New York: Harper Business. bridge: Polity Press.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2006). Multicultural crisis
Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden communication: Towards a social constructionist perspec-
brainpower. New York: Harper Business. tive. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,
14(4), 180-189.
Eisenberg, M., & Johnson, D. (2002). Computer skills
for information problem-solving: Learning and teaching Fang, T. (2003). A critique of Hofstede’s Fifth National
technology in context. Eric Digest EDO-IR-2002-04. Culture Dimension. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.eric. Management, 3(3), 347–368.
ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICSer
Faraj, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2005). Reciprocity or generalized
vlet?accno=ED465377
exchange? Structuring of electronic knowledge networks.
Eliot, T. S. (1934). The rock. MA: Harcourt, Braintree Academy of Management Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Book Rack.
Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in fast-response
Ellison, S., Simmerman, A. & Forelle, C. (2005). P&G’s organizations. Management Science, 52(8), 1155-1169.
Gillette edge: The playbook honed at Wal-Mart. Wall Street
Feigenbaum, E. A., & McCorduck, P. (1983). The fifth
Journal, (January 31), A1.
generation: Artificial intelligence and Japan’s computer
Elron, E., & Vigoda-Gadot. E. (2006). Influence and political challenge to the world. MA: Addison-Wesley.
processes in cyberspace: The case of global virtual teams.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change.
6(3), 295–317.
Empson, L. (2001). Fear of exploitation and fear of con-
Fensel, D. (2001). Ontologies: Silver bullet for knowledge
tamination: Impediments to knowledge transfer in merg-
management and electronic commerce. Berlin: Springer-
ers between professional service firms. Human Relations,
Verlag.
54(7), 839-862
Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. T., & Newcombe, R.
(2003). Knowledge-sharing context confusion and con-

troversy. International Journal of Project Management, on knowledge management (Vol. 1, pp. 553-575). Berlin:
21, 177-187 Springer.
Ferran-Urdaneta, C. (1999). Teams or communities? Or- Foster, A. (2003). Scientists at the U. of California at San
ganizational structures for knowledge management. In Francisco call for a boycott of 6 biology journals. The
ACM SIGCPR (Ed.), Conference on Computer Personnel Chronicle of Higher Education: Information Technology
Research (pp. 128-134). New York, NY: ACM Press. Section, 50(10), Page A34. Retrieved September 10, 2007,
from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i10/10a03403.htm
Fidel, R., & Green, M. (2004). The many faces of acces-
sibility: Engineers’ perception of information sources. Fox, G. (2004). Virtual collaboration: Advantages and
Information Processing and Management, 40, 563-581. disadvantages in the planning and execution of operations
in the information age, Newport: Naval War College.
Field, J. (2004). Social capital. London, UK; New York,
NY: Routledge. Franz, M., Freudenthaler, K., Kameny, M., & Schoen,
S. (2002). The development of the Siemens Knowledge
Filos, E. (2005). Virtuality and the future of organisations.
Community Support. In T. H. Davenport & G. J. B. Probst
In G. Putnik & M. M. Cunha (Eds.), Virtual enterprise in-
(Eds.), Knowledge management case book (pp. 147-159).
tegration: Technological and organizational perspectives.
Berlin: Wiley and Sons.
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. The social virtues and the
FIRSTE. (2007). Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://
creation of prosperity. New York: The Free Press.
campus.umr.edu/firste/
Fuld, L. (1995). The new competitor intelligence. New York:
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude interac-
John Wiley & Sons.
tion and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fulk, J., & DeSanctis, G. (1995). Electronic communication
and changing organizational forms. Organization Science,
Flavian, C., & Guinaliu, M. (2005). The influence of virtual
6(4), 337-349.
communities on distribution strategies in the Internet. In-
ternational Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., et al. (1996). Connective and com-
33(6), .405-425. munal public goods in interactive communication systems.
Communication Theory, 6(1), 60-87.
Fleisher, C. & Bensoussan, B. (2007). Business and com-
petitive analysis: Effective application of new and classic Gallaire, H., & Minker, J. (Eds) (1978). Logic and databases.
methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press. New York: Plenum Press.
Fletcher, S. (2001). Competence-based assessment tech- Garavelli, A. C., Gorgoglione, M., & Scozzi, B. (2002).
nique. London: Kogan Page. Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge technologies.
Technovation, 22, 269-279.
Flouris, G. (2006). On belief change and ontology evolution.
PhD. Thesis. University of Crete. Gasser, L. (1991). Social conceptions of knowledge and
action. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3), 107–138.
Flouris, G., Plexousakis, D., & Antoniou, G. (2006).
Evolving ontology evolution. In Proceedings of the Cur- Gaved, M., & Mulholland, P. (2005). Grassroots initiated
rent Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science networked communities: A study of hybrid physical/virtual
Conference, 14-29. communities. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii Conference
on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii.
Foos, T., Schum, G., & Rothenberg, S. (2006). Tacit knowl-
edge transfer and the knowledge disconnect. Journal of Georgiadou, E. (2001). Software measurement for process
Knowledge Management, 10(1), 6-18. and product improvement - controlled experiments and
derivation of reengineering metrics. School of Informatics
Foray, D. (2004). The economics of knowledge. Boston:
and Multimedia Technology, Faculty of Science Computing
MIT Press.
and Engineering, University of North London, Transfer
Ford, D. P. (2003). Trust and knowledge management: Report from Mphil to PhD.
The seeds of success. In C. W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook
Ghauri, P. N., & Prasad, B. (1995). A network approach to
probing Asia’s interfirmlinkages. Advances, International
Comparative Management, 10, 63-77.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini D., & Odella, F. (1998). Towards a Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the
social understanding of how people learn in the organiza- firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special
tion. Management learning, 29(3), 273-297. Issue), 109-122.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of com-
Polity Press. petitive advantage. California Management Review, 33(3),
114–135.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline
of the theory of structure. Berkeley, CA: University of Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competi-
California Press. tive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge
integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387.
Gilad, B. (1994). Business blindspots. Chicago: Probus
Publishing. Grewal, R., Lilien, G. L., et al. (2006). Location, location,
location: How network embeddedness affects project suc-
Gillespie, D., & Colignon, R. (1993). Structural change in
cess in open source systems. Management Science, 52(7),
disaster preparedness networks. International Journal of
1043-1056.
Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 11(2), 143–62.
Griesinger, D. (1990). The human side of economic organiza-
Gittell, J., & Weiss, L. (2004). Coordination networks within
tion. Academy of Management Review, 15(3), 478-499.
and across organizations: A multilevel framework. Journal
of Management Studies, 41(1), 127-153. Griffith, D. A., & Harvey, M. G. (2001). Executive insights:
An intercultural communication model for use in global
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer:
interorganizational networks. Journal of International
An integrative framework and some practice implications.
Marketing, 9(3), 87-103.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(6), 23-30.
Grossman, M. (2006). An overview of knowledge manage-
Gold, A. H., Malhotra A., & Segars A. H. (2001). Knowl-
ment assessment approaches. The Journal of American
edge management: An organisational capabilities perspec-
Academy of Business, 8(2), 242-247.
tive. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1),
185-214. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable
ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199-220.
Goldstein, E. (1985). The use of technical information by
engineers of the electrical sector in Mexico. University of Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge
California, Los Angeles, UMI Doctoral Dissertation. management social dimension lessons from Nucor steel.
Sloan Management Review, 71-80.
Goodenough, W. (1957). Componential analysis and the
study of meaning. Language, 32, 195–216. Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows
within multinational corporations. Strategic Management
Gourlay, S. N. (2006). Towards conceptual clarity concern-
Journal, 21(4), 473-496.
ing “tacit knowledge”: A review of empirical studies. Knowl-
edge Management Research and Practice, 4(1), 60-69. Gurteen, D. (1999). Creating a knowledge sharing culture.
Knowledge Management Magazine, 2(5). Retrieved from
Graham, J. (2003). The search engine that could. USA
http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/0/FD35AF9
TODAY, August 26, 2003.
606901C42802567C70068CBF5/
Granovetter, M. S (1983).The strength of weak ties: A net-
Gusfield, J. (1975). The community: A critical response.
work theory revisited. Sociological Theory, (1), 201-233.
New York: Harper Colophon.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Ameri-
Haas, M., & Hansen, M. (2005). When using knowledge can
can Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
hurt performance: The value of organizational capabilities
Grant, K. A. (2007). Tacit knowledge revisited – We can still in a management consulting company. Strategic Manage-
learn from Polanyi. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge ment Journal, 26(1), 1-24.
Management, 5(2), 173-180.
Haase, P., Ehrig, M., Hotho, A., & Schnizler, B. (2004).
Grant, R. (1996). Prospering in dynamically competitive Personalized information access in a bibliographic peer-
environments: Organizational capability as knowledge to-peer system. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on
integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387. Semantic Web Personalization, 1-12.
0
Haase, P., Hotho, A., Schmidt-Thieme, L., & Sure, Y. (2005). of 7th European Conference of Knowledge Management
Collaborative and usage-driven evolution of personal (ECKM06) (pp. 208 – 212), 4-5 Sept., Public Academic
ontologies. Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conferences Ltd. Reading, UK.
Conference, 486-499.
Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of
Hackman, J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsh weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits.
(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hansen, M. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effec-
Hackman, R. (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work and those tive knowledge sharing in multiunit companies, Organiza-
that don’t: Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San tion Science, 13(3), 232-248.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s
Haertwig, J., & Boehm, K. (2005). A process framework your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business
for an interoperable semantic enterprise environment. In Review, 77(2), 106-116.
Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Knowledge
Hansen, M., Mors, M., & Lovas, B. (2005). Knowledge shar-
Management, 227-236.
ing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases.
Hagel, J., & Armstrong, A. (1997). Net gain: Expanding Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 776-793.
markets through virtual communities. Boston, MA: Harvard
Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your
Business School Press.
strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Re-
Häkanson, L. (2007). Creating knowledge: The power and view, 77(2), 106-116.
logic of articulation. Industrial and Corporate Change,
Hansen, T. M. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining
16(1), 51-88.
effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Or-
Hakansson, H. (1989). Corporate technological behaviour: ganization Science, 13(3). 232-248.
Cooperation and networks. London: Routledge.
Hardin, R. (1996). Trustworthiness. Ethics, 107(1), 26-42.
Hall, H. (2001). Social exchange for knowledge exchange.
Hardy, C., Philips, N., & Lawrence, T. (2003). Resources,
Paper presented at Managing knowledge: Conversations
knowledge and influence: The organizational effectiveness
and critiques, University of Leicester Management Center,
of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management
10-11 April 2001.
Studies, 40(2), 321-347.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional
Harorimana, D. (2006), Knowledge networks: A mechanism
grammar. New York: Arnold.
of creation and transfer of knowledge in organisations? In
Hambrick, D., Davison, S., Snell, S., & Snow, C. (1998). P. Feher (Ed.), European conference of knowledge manage-
When groups consist of multiple nationalities: Toward a ment (pp. 213-222). ACI.
new understanding of implications. Organisation Studies,
Harorimana, D. (2006). Knowledge networks: A mechanism
12(2), 181-205.
of creation and transfer of knowledge in organisations? In
Hambrick, D., Davison, S., Snell, S., & Snow, C. (1998). P. Feher (Ed.), Proceedings of 7th European Conference of
When groups consist of multiple nationalities: Towards a Knowledge Management (ECKM06) (pp. 211-222), 4-5 Sept.,
new understanding of implications. Organization Studies, Public Academic Conferences Ltd. Reading, UK.
19(2), 181-205.
Harris, P. R., & Morgan, R. T. (1991). Managing cultural
Hamilton, G., & Biggart, N. W. (1985). Why people obey: differences, (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Com-
Theoretical observations of power and obedience in complex pany.
organizations. Sociological Perspectives, 28(1), 3-28.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organisational culture.
Handy, C. (2000). Trust and the virtual organisation ( HBR Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657–693.
OnPoint Enhanced Edition). HBR On Point, June 2000
Hayes, P., & Menzel, C. (2001). A semantics for the knowl-
Handzic, M., & Lagumdzija, A. (2006). Motivational influ- edge interchange format. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2001
ences on knowledge sharing. In P. Feher (Ed.), Proceedings Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology.

Hedlund, G., & Nonaka, I. (1993). Models of knowledge Hiller, S. (2002). The impact of information technology
management in the West and Japan. In P. Lorange (Ed.), and online library resources on research, teaching and
Implementing strategic processes: Change, learning and library use at the University of Washington. Performance
cooperation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Measurement and Metrics, 3(2), 134-139.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence Hindle, D. (1990). Noun classification from predicate-argu-
of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge ment structures. Meeting of the Association for Computa-
and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100. tional Linguistics, 268-275.
Hendriks, P. H. J., & Vriens, D. J. (1999). Knowledge-based Hislop, D. (2002). Mission impossible? Communicating and
systems and knowledge management: Friends or foes? sharing knowledge via information technology. Journal of
Information & Management, 35, 113-125. Information Technology, 17, 165-177.
Herbig, B., & Büssing, A.(2003). Comparison of the role Hof, R. D., & Browder, P. E. (1997). Internet communi-
of explicit and implicit knowledge in working. Psychology ties-forget surfers. A new class of netizen is settling right.
Science, 45(3), 165–188. Business Week, 38–45.
Herbig, B., Büssing, A., & Ewert, T. (2001). The role of Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organisations, intercul-
tacit knowledge in the work context of nursing. Journal of tural cooperation and its importance for survival, software
Advanced Nursing, 34(5), 687–695. of the mind. UK: McGraw-Hill.
Herder, P. M., Veeneman, W. W., Buitenhuis, M. D. J., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing
Schaller, A. (2003). Follow the rainbow: A knowledge man- values, behaviours, institutions, and organisations. Thou-
agement framework for new product introduction. Journal sand Oaks, CA, London: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G.. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing
Herring, S. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across na-
Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Am- tions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
sterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
Holden, N. (2001). Knowledge management: Raising the
Herrmann, T., Jahnke, I., & Loser, K. U. (2004). The role specter of the cross-cultural dimension. Knowledge and
concept as a basis for designing community systems. In Process Management, 8(3), 155-63.
F. Darses, R. Dieng, C. Simone, & M. Zackland (Eds.),
Holloway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative
Cooperative systems design. Scenario-based design of col-
research differently free association, narrative and the
laborative systems (pp. 163-178). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
interview method. Wiltshire: Sage Publications Ltd.
Herschel, R. T., Nemati, H., & Steiger, D. (2001). Tacit to
Holsapple C. W., & Joshi K. D. (2004b). A formal knowledge
explicit knowledge conversion: Knowledge exchange proto-
management ontology: Conduct, activities, resources, and
cols. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 107-116.
influences. Journal of the American Society for Information
Herzberg, F. (1964). The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and Science and Technology, 55(7), 593 – 612.
the problems of manpower. Personnel Administration, 27,
Holsapple, C. W. (2003a). Knowledge and its attributes. In
3-7.
C. W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook of knowledge management
Herzog, A. J. (1981). The gatekeeper hypothesis and the (pp. 165-188). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
international transfer of scientific knowledge .The Journal
Holsapple, C. W. (2005). The inseparability of modern
of Technology Transfer, 6(1).
knowledge management and computer-based technology.
Hesse, B., Sproull, L., et al. (1993). Returns to science: Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 42-52.
Computer networks in oceanography. Communications of
Holsapple, C. W. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of knowledge
the ACM, 36(8), 90-100.
management. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hewitt, C. (1986). Offices are open systems. ACM Transac-
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge man-
tions of Office Automation Systems, 4(3), 271–287.
agement: A threefold framework. The Information Society,
Hildreth, P., & Kimble, C. (2004). Knowledge networks 18, 47-63.
innovation through communities of practice. London,
Hershey: Idea Group Inc.

Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2006). Knowledge man- of personal networks and group membership. Journal of
agement ontology. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia Knowledge Management, 8(2), 84-94.
of knowledge management (pp. 397-402), Hershey, PA:
Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2004). Facilitating knowl-
Idea Group.
edge sharing in Russian and Chinese subsidiaries: The role
Holsapple, C. W., & Singh, M. (2001). The knowledge chain of personal networks and group membership. Journal of
model: Activities for competitiveness. Expert Systems with Knowledge Management, 8(2), 84-94.
Applications, 20(1), 77-98
Huysman, M., & de Wit, D. (2004). Practices of managing
Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences knowledge sharing: Towards a second wave of knowledge
and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. management. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(2),
81-92.
Hong, J. I., & Landay, J. A. (2001). An infrastructure ap-
proach to context-aware computing. Human-Computer Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support the knowledge
Interaction, 16(2, 3, & 4), 287-303. sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis.
Journal of Information Technology, 21, 40-51.
Hong, J., Pöyhönen, A., & Kyläheiko, K. (2006). Cultural
and communicative interaction and the development of dy- i2010 HLG. (2006). The challenges of convergence. Infor-
namic capabilities. In P. Feher (Ed.), European conference mation Space Innovation & Investment in R&D Inclusion,
of knowledge management (pp241-249). ACI. i2010 High Level Group, 12.12.2006.
Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in Iamnitchi, A., Ripeanu, M., & Foster, I. T. (2002). Locating
context: The influence of organizational commitment. Com- data in (Small-World?) peer-to-peer scientific collaborations.
munication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. In P. Druschel, M. F. Kaashoek, & A. I. Rowstron (Eds.),
Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130. Revised Papers From the First international Workshop on
Peer-To-Peer Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Hoopes, D., & Postrel, S. (1999). Shared knowledge,
2429 (pp. 232-241). London: Springer-Verlag.
“glitches,” and product development performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 20(9), 837-865. IDA. (2000). A proposed framework on building trust and
confidence in electronic commerce: A consultation paper,
Howells, J. L.(2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and eco-
(September 2000). Retrieved 17/09/07, from http://unpan1.
nomic geography. Urban Studies, 39(56), 871-884.
un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UN-
Hsu, C. (2006). Privacy concerns, privacy practices and PAN004853.pdf
Web site categories: Toward a situational paradigm. Online
Ilett, D. (2006). Out damned data—the lingering dangers of a
Information Review, 30(5), 569-86.
hard disk’s memory. Wall Street Journal, (October 4), 6.
Huber, G. P. (1991).Organizational learning: The contrib-
Illeris, K. (1999). Læring - aktuell læringsteori i spennings-
uting processes and the literature. Organization Science,
feltet mellom Piaget, Freud og Marx (Learning – Current
2(1), 88–115.
Learning Theory between Piaget, Freus and Marx). Gylling:
Huber, G., & Crisp, C. (2003). Organizations, information Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
systems impact on. In. H. Bidgoli (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. (1969). National character: The
information systems (pp. 413-26). San Diego: Elsevier
study of module personality and sociocultural systems. In
Science Publishers.
G. Lindsay & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social
Hult, T., Ketchen, Jr. D., & Slater, S. (2004). Information psychology, vol. 4. Addison-Wesley.
processing, knowledge development, and strategic supply
Inkpen, A., & Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge management
chain performance. Academy of Management Journal,
processes and international joint ventures. Organization
47(2), 241-253.
Science, 9(4), 454-468.
Hunt, J. W. (1981). Applying American behavioural science:
Interview with Peter Suber, publisher of SPARC Open Ac-
Some cross-cultural problems. Orgnisational Dynamics,
cess Newsletter. Library Journal Academic Newswire, The
10(1), 55-62.
Publishing Report, July 24, 2003.
Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2004). Facilitating knowl-
edge sharing in Russian and Chinese subsidiaries: The role

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on
conceptual framework. Human Resource Development online communities of practice. The Internet and Higher
Review, 2(4), 337-359. Education, 4, 45-60.
Ivefors, G. M. (1995). Emergency information management Joia, L. A. (2000). Measuring intangible corporate assets:
and disaster preparedness on the Internet. IDA Fifth An- Linking business strategy with intellectual capital. Journal
nual Conference on Computer and Information Science, of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), pp. 68-84.
Lingköping, Sweden, November 1995. Retrieved January
Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics
10, 2007, from http://hb.se/bhs/ith/2-97/gi.htm
107(1), 4-25.
Jain, S., & McLean, C. (2003). A framework for modeling
Jones, Q., Ravid, G., et al. (2004). Information overload
and simulation for emergency response. In Proceedings of
and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A
the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 1068-1076).
theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information
Järvenpää, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication Systems Research, 15(2), 194-210.
and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science,
Jordan, B. (2006). The Katrina response that worked.
10, 791 – 815.
Homeland Defense Journal, 4, 8-12.
Jarvenpaa, S., & Staples, S. (2001). Exploring perceptions
Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. (1999). Diskurs analyse
of organizational ownership of information and expertise.
som teori og metode. (Discourse analysis as theory and
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 151-
method). Gylling: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
183.
Kafentzis, K., Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., & Georgolios,
Jary, D., & Jary, J. (Eds.). (1991). The Harper Collins direc-
P. (2004). Knowledge marketplaces: Strategic issues and
tory of sociology. New York: Harper Collins.
business models. Journal of Knowledge Management,
Jasanoff, S. (1994). Learning from disaster: Risk manage- 8(1), 130-146.
ment after Bhopal. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Kaluta, R. W. (2006). Organizing community-level
Press.
emergency response with interoperable communications.
Javidan, M., Stahl, G., Brodbeck, F., & Wilderom, C. (2005). Homeland Defense Journal, 4, 20-22.
Cross-border transfer of knowledge: Cultural lessons from
Kankanhalli, A., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2004). A review of
project GLOBE. Academy of Management Executive,
metrics for knowledge management systems and knowl-
19(2), 59-76.
edge management initiatives. In 37th Hawaii International
Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B.A. Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS) ( pp.238-245).
(2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Computer Society Press.
Research Policy.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K-K. (2006). Knowl-
Johannessen, J. A., & Olaisen, B. (2001). Mismanagement edge producers and consumers. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.),
of tacit knowledge the importance of tacit knowledge, the Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp. 459-466).
danger of information technology, and what to do about Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
it. International Journal of Information Management, 21,
Kanter, R. M. (1982). Dilemmas of managing participation.
3–20.
Organizational Dynamics, 11(1), 5-27.
Johanson, B., Karlson, & Stough. (2004). The emerging
Kanter, V. D. (1999). Knowledge management, practically
digital economy entrepreneurship. In Clusters and olicy.
speaking. Information Systems Management, Fall, 7-15.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project
Johanson, J., & Vahlen, J. E. (1977). The internationalization
communication and performance. Administrative Science
process of the firm - A model of knowledge development
Quarterly, 27(1), 81-104.
and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of
International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32. Katzy, B. R., & Ma, X. (2002). Virtual professional com-
munities – definitions and typology. In K. Pawar, F. Weber,
Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. (2002). Why
& K. Thoben (Ed.), Proceedings of the The 8th Interna-
all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Industrial
and Corporate Change, 11(2), 245-262.

tional Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, Rome, Italy lated information. Proceedings of the 4th International
(pp.311-318). Nottingham: Nottingham University Press. Symposium on Digital Earth, pp. (CD-ROM), 2005-03.
Available: http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/~kitamoto/research/pub-
Kautz, K., & Mahnke, V. (2003). Value creation through IT-
lications/kisde05.pdf
supported KM? The utilisation of a KM system in a global
consulting company. Informing Science, (6), 75-88. Klein, M., & Fensel, D. (2001). Ontology versioning for
the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the 1st International
Ke, H.-R. et al. (2002). Exploring behavior of e-journal
Semantic Web Working Symposium, 75-91.
users in science and technology: Transaction log analysis
of Elsevier’s Science Direct Onsite in Taiwan. Library & Klein, M., & Noy, N. (2003). A component-based framework
Information Science Research, 24(3), 265-291. for ontology evolution. Technical Report IR-504, Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam.
Keane, B. T., & Mason, R. M. (2006). On the nature of
knowledge. Rethinking popular assumptions. Paper pre- Klein, S. (1989). A transaction cost explanation of vertical
sented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System control in international markets. Journal of the Academy
Sciences, Maui, Hawaii. of Marketing Science, 17(3), 253-260.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge work as Klein, S., Frazier, G. L., & Roth V. J. (1990). A transaction
organizational behavior. International Journal of Manage- cost analysis model of channel integration in international
ment Review, 2(3), 287-304. markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 196-208.
Kennedy, L., Cole, C., & Carter, S. (1999). The false focus Kluckhohn, F. (1951). Values and value-orientation in the
in online searching: The particular case of undergradu- theory of action: An exploration in definition and clas-
ates seeking information for course assignments in the sification. In T. Parsons & E A. Shils (Eds.), Towards a
humanities and social sciences. Reference & User Services general theory of action. Cambridge MA: Harvard Uni-
Quarterly, 38(3), 267-273. versity Press.
Keong, L. C, & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). Factors impacting Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations on value
knowledge sharing. Journal of Information & Knowledge orientations. Evanstone, IL: Row, Peterson & Company.
Koch, M. (2002). Interoperable community platforms and
Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the Web. Secret identity management in the university domain. The Inter-
strategies for successful online communities. Berkeley: national Journal on Media Management, 1, 21-30.
Peachpit.
Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The
Kim, S-K, & Trimi, S. (2007). IT for KM in the management evolution of our biological communication apparatus and
consulting industry. Journal of Knowledge Management, its influence on our behaviour toward e-communication
11(3), 145-155. tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications,
48(2), 117-130.
King, W. R. (2006). Knowledge transfer. In D. G. Schwatz
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey, Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm,
PA: Idea Group. combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology.
King, W. R. (2006). Knowledge sharing. In D. G. Schwartz
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp. 493- Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and
498). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation.
Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 62-645.
King, W. R. (2006). Knowledge transfer. In D. G. Schwartz
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (pp. 538- Kollock, P. (1999). The economies of online cooperation:
543). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Gifts, and public goods in cyberspace. In M. A. Smith and
P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 220-239).
Kingston, J. (2008). Multiperspective ontologies: Resolving
New York: Routledge.
common ontology development problems. Expert Systems
With Applications 34(1), 541-550. Kollock, P., & Smith, M. A. (1996). Managing the virtual
commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communi-
Kitamoto, A. (2005). Digital Typhoon: Near real-time
ties. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communica-
aggregation, recombination and delivery of typhoon-re-

tion: Linguistic, social and cross cultural perspectives (pp. Pub. Corp. Kyrillidou, M., & Young, M. (2003). ARL Sta-
109-128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. tistics 2001-02. Association of Research Libraries –ARL,
Washington, D.C.
Korzybski, A. (1993). Science and sanity - An introduction
to non-aristotelean systems and general semantics. Institute Kumar. K., & van Dissel, H. (1996). Sustainable collabora-
of General Semantics, Lakeville, USA. tion: Managing conflict and cooperation in interorganiza-
tional systems. MIS Quarterly, 22(2), 199-226.
Kothandaraman P. & Wilson D. T. (2001). The future of
competition: Value creating networks. Industrial Marketing Kyrillidou, M., & Young, M. (2004). ARL Statistics 2002-
Management, 30(4), 379-389. 03. Association of Research Libraries –ARL, Washington,
D.C.
KPMG Consulting. (2000). Knowledge Management Re-
search Report. KPMG. Lakhani, K., & von Hippel, E. (2000, May). How open source
software works: Free user-to-user assistance. The 3rd Intan-
KPMG. (2003). Insights from KPMG’s European Knowl-
gibles Conference. Knowledge: Management, Measurement
edge Management Survey 2002/2003. KPMG Knowledge
and Organization, Stern School of Business, NYU.
Advisory Service Amsterdam. Retrieved March 10, 2007,
from http://ep2010.salzburgresearch.at/knowledge_base/ Lakhani, K., & von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source
kpmg_2003.pdf software works: Free user-to-user assistance. Research
Policy, 32(6), 923-943.
Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape:
Structure, cognition and power in organizations. Admin- Larsen, V. (1997). Exploring user behavior utilizing statis-
istrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342-369. tical analysis of WWW HTTPD access logs:Aan enquiry
employing Net-Frog. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Krakow, G. (2005). Ham radio operators to the rescue after
Virginia.
Katrina. Retrieved December 10, 2006, from http://www.
msnbc.msn.com/id/9228945/ Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legiti-
mate peripheral participation, Cambridge: University of
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations:
Cambridge Press.
Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review
of Psychology, 50, 569-598 Lawler, E. E. III (2000). Rewarding excellence. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kraut, R. E., & Streeter, L. A. (1995). Coordination in
software development. Communications of the ACM, Lawton, G. (2001). Knowledge management: ready for
38(3), 69-81. prime time? IEEE Computer, 3(2), 12-14.
Kreger, H., & IBM Software Group. (2001). Web services LeBaron, J., Pulkkinen, J., & Scollin, P. (2000). Promoting
conceptual architecture (WSCA 1.0). Retrieved November cross-border communication in an international Web-based
1, 2006, from http://www-306.ibm.com/software/solutions/ graduate course. Electronic Journal of Computer Enhanced
webservices/pdf/WSCA.pdf Learning, 2(2). Retrieved February 6, 2001, from http://imej.
wfu.edu/articles/2000/2/01/index.asp
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying
the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported col- Leckie, G. J., Pettigrew, K. E., & Sylvain, C., (1996). Model-
laborative learning environments: A review of the research. ing the information seeking of professionals: A general model
Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 335-353. derived from research on engineers, health care profession-
als, and lawyers. Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161–193.
Kroeger, A., & Kluckhohn, F. (1952). Culture: A critical
review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge: Harvard Leimeister, J., Ebner, W., & Krcmar, H. (2005). Design,
Business Review. implementation and evaluation of trust supporting com-
ponents in virtual communities for patients. Journal of
Kuhlthau, C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information
Management Information Systems, 21(4), 101-135.
seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371. Leland, E. (2001). Voice over IP: Is your telephone system
outdated? Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.
Kuhlthau, C. (1993). Seeking meaning: A process approach
techsoup.org/learningcenter/internet/page5256.cfm
to library and information services. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Lenat, D., & Guha, R. V. (1989). Building large knowledge- Lindkvist, L. (2005). Knowledge communities and knowl-
Based systems: Representation and inference in the Cyc edge collectivities: A typology of knowledge work in groups.
Project. Addison-Wesley. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1189-1210.
Leonard, D. & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowl- Lindquist, R., & Ortiz, D. (2001). 9/11/01: This is Not a
edge in group innovation. California Management Review Test. QST, 11, 28-34, 59.
40(3), 112-132.
Lindsey, K. L. (2006). Knowledge sharing barriers. In D. G.
Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (1999). Communities of practice, Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management
social capital and organizational knowledge. In E. Lesser, (pp. 499-506). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
M. Fontaine, & J. Slusher (Eds), Knowledge and communi-
Lindvall, M., Rus, I., & Suman Sinha S. (2003). Software
ties. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
systems support for knowledge management. Journal of
Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (1999). Communities of practice, Knowledge Management, 7(5), 137-150.
Social capital and organizational knowledge. Information
Linton, (2003). OWL: A system for the automated sharing
Systems Review, 1(1), 3-9.
of expertise. In M. Ackerman., V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds.),
Levin, D., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you Sharing expertise. Cambridge MA: MIT-Press.
can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching
transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
across space, time and organisations with technology.
Levitz, J. (2006). Ameriprise, Massachusetts settle over New York: Wiley.
company’s loss of laptop. Wall Street Journal, (December
Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Uncertain imitabil-
12), B2.
ity: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under
Leymann, F. (2001). Web services flow language (WSFL competition. Bell Journal of Economics, 13(2), 418-438.
1.0). IBM Software Group. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from
Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge codification and the geogra-
http://xmlcoverpages.org/WSFL-Guide-200110.pdf
phy of innovation the case of Brescia mechanical cluster.
Li, M., Cabral, R., Doumeingts, G., & Popplewell K. (2006). Research Policy, 30, 1479-1500.
Enterprise interoperability – Research roadmap (Final
Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. (1968). Motivation and organi-
Version). Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://cordis.
zational climate. Boston: HUP
europa.eu/ist/ict-ent-net/ei-roadmap_en.htm
Loebecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P. (1999).
Liang, T.-P., & Huang, J.-S. (1998). An empirical study on
Coopetition and knowledge transfer. The DATABASE for
consumer acceptance of products in electronic markets:
Advances in Information Systems, 30(2), 14-25.
A transaction cost model. Decision Support System, 24,
29-43. Lopez, F. (1999) Overview of methodologies for building
ontologies. Proceedings of the International Joint Confer-
Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercialization of
ence on Artificial Intelligence workshop on Ontologies and
knowledge: Review and research agenda. International
Problem-Solving Methods.
Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 231-255.
Lopez, S. P., Peon, J. M. M., & Ordas, C. J. V. (2004).
Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory
Managing knowledge: The link between culture and or-
of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter),
ganisational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management,
93-107.
8(6), 93-104.
Liebowitz, J., & Suen, C. Y. (2000). Developing knowledge
Lu, L. Leung, K., & Koch, P. (2006). Managerial knowl-
management metrics for measuring intellectual capital.
edge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal and
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 54-67.
organizational factors. Management and Organization
Light, M., Bell, M., & Halpern, M. (2001). What is col- Review, 2(1), 15-41.
laboration? Virtual team success factors. Gartner Research
Lundvall, B-Å., & Foray, D.(1996). The knowledge-based
Note COM-14-4302. Gartner, Inc.
economy from the economics of knowledge to the learning
economy: OECD Employment and Growth in the Knowl-
edge- Based Economy. Paris: OECD.

Lundvall, B-A., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Malone, T., Yates, J., & Benjamin, R. (1987). Electronic
Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23-42. markets and electronic hierarchies. Communication ACM,
6, 485-497.
Mack, T. et al. (2004). Designing for experts: How scholars
approach an academic library Web site. Information Tech- Malperio, F. (2005). Local firms and technological gate-
nology and Libraries (ITAL), 23(1). keepers within industrial districts knowledge creation and
dissemination in real-estate industry. DRUID Research
Mackinnon, L. (2006). Questioning the level of corre-
paper 15 (5)55
spondence between structure in economic theory and the
structure in real world economic systems. University of Mansour-Cole, D. (2001). Team identity formation in virtual
Queensland, Australia. Retrieved June 10th, 2007, from teams. In S. Beyerlein, M. Beyerlein, & D. Johnson (Eds.),
http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00004559/01/Structure_in_ Virtual teams, Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work
economic_systems.pdf teams, vol. 8. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Maedche, A., & Staab, S. (2000). Semiautomatic engineer- March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organi-
ing of ontologies from text. In Proceedings of the Twelfth zational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
International Conference on Software Engineering and
Marchant G., & Robinson J. 1999. Is knowing the tax code
Knowledge Engineering.
all it takes to be a tax expert? On the development of legal
Mahoney, T. A. (1996). Journal publishing and organization expertise. In Sternberg RJ & Horvath JA (Eds.) Tacit
science: An analysis of intelligence application Nstitrte. Knowledge in Professional Practice,(pp. 3–20). Mahwah,
Organization Science, 7(4), 443-455. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Maier, R. (2002). Knowldege management systems. Infor- Marchington, M. (2001). Employee involvement at work.
mation and communication technologies for knowledge In J. Storey (Ed.), Human resource management, a critical
management. Berlin: Springer Verlag. text (2nd. ed). Cornwall: Thomson Learning.
Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge management aystems. Infor- Marcum, D., & Gerald, G. (2003). Who uses what? Report
mation and Communication Technologies for knowledge on a National Survey of Information Users in Colleges and
management. Berlin: Springer. Universities. D-Lib Magazine, 9(10). Retrieved September
10, 2007, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/george/
Maier, R. (2002). State-of-practice of knowledge manage-
10george.html
ment systems: Results of an empirical study. Upgrade,
3(1). Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.up- Marcy, J. (2005). Communicating after Katrina. Homeland
grade-cepis.org Defense Journal, 11, 10-11.
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse:
(2000). Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-sup- Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse
ported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, success. Journal of Management Information Systems,
24(4), 569-600 18(1), 27-93.
Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge management for e-busi- Markus, M. L., & Connolly, T. (1990). Why CSCW ap-
ness performance: Advancing information strategy to plications fail: Problems in the adoption of interdependent
“Internet time.” Information Strategy: The Executive’s work tools. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on
Journal, 16(4), 5-16. Computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 371-380). Los
Angeles: ACM Press.
Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating knowledge management
technologies in organizational business processes: Getting Marsden, P. V. (1983). Restricted access in networks and
real time enterprises to deliver real business performance. models of power. American Journal of Sociology, 88(4),
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 7-28. 686-717
Malipiero, A., Munari, F., & Sobrero, M..(2005). Focal Marshall, L. (1997). Facilitating knowledge management
firms as technological gatekeepers within industrial and knowledge sharing: New opportunities for information
districts: Knowledge creation and dissemination in the processionals. Online, 21(5), 92-98.
Italian packaging machinery industry. DRUID Working
Mårtensson, M. (2000). A critical review of knowledge
Paper N°05-05.
management as a management tool. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 4(3), 204-216.

Marwick, A. (2001). Knowledge management technology. McGrath, J. E., & Argote, L. (2001). Group processes in
IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 814-830. organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale
(Eds), Blackwell handbook of social psychology, vol. 3 (pp.
Marwick, A. D. (2001). Knowledge management technology.
603–627). Group Processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell,.
IBM systems journal, 40(4), 814-900.
McGregor, J. (2006). I can’t believe they took the whole
Masrick, V. J. (1994). Trends in managerial reinvention: cre-
team. Business Week, (December 18), 120-122.
ating a learning map. Managerial Learning, 25(1), 11-34.
McGregor, P., Craighill, R., & Mosley, V. (2006). Govern-
Matson, E., Patiath, P., & Shavers, T. (2003). Stimulating
ment Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS)
knowledge sharing: Strengthening your organization’s
and Wireless Priority Service (WPS) performance dur-
internal knowledge market. Organizational Dynamics,
ing Katrina. In M. H. Hamza (Ed.), Communications,
32(3), 275-287.
Internet, and Information Technology, St. Thomas, U.S.
Matson, E., Patiath, P., & Shavers, T. (2003). Strengthening Virgin Islands.
your organization’s internal knowledge market. Organiza-
McGregor, R. (1990). Loom users manual. Working Paper
tional Dynamics, 32(3), 275-285.
ISI/WP 22, University of Southern California.
Max Lock Centre. (2000). Communication for development:
McKinnel Jacobson, C. (2006). Knowledge sharing be-
Comments from peer review. London: Max Lock Centre,
tween individuals. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia
University of Westminster.
of Knowledge Management (pp. 507-504). Hershey, PA:
May, A., & Carter, C. (2001). A case study of virtual team Idea Group.
working in the European automotive industry. International
McQueen, M. P. (2006). Laptop lockdown. Wall Street
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27, 171-86.
Journal, (June 28), D1.
McAdam, R., Mason, B., & McCroy, J. (2007). Exploring
McVeigh, M., & Pringle, J. (2005). Open access to the medi-
the dichotomies within the tacit knowledge literature: To-
cal literature: How much content is available in published
ward a process of tacit knowing in organisation. Journal
journals? Serials, 18(1), 45-50.
Meissner, A., Luckenbach, T., Risse, T., Kirste, T., &
McCarthy, J. (1968). Programs with common sense. In
Kirchner, H. (2002). In Design Challenges for an Integrated
M.Minsky (Ed.) Semantic information processing (pp.
Disaster management Communication and Information
75-91). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
System, First IEEE Workshop on Disaster Recovery Net-
McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of works, New York.
the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Math-
Menon, A., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1992). A model of mar-
ematical Biophysics 5, 115-133.
keting knowledge use within firms. Journal of Marketing,
McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired 56(4), 53 – 71.
but cannot deliver knowledge management. California
Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., Abecker, A., & Young, R.
(2003). Knowledge asset management – Beyond the pro-
McDermott, R. (2000). Knowing in community: 10 critical cess-centred and product-centred approaches. London:
success factors in building communities of practice. IHRIM Spinger-Verlag.
Journal. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.co-i-
Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., Kafentzis, K., & Georgolios,
l.com/coil/iknowledge
P. (2006). Interorganizational networks for knowledge
McGee, D. R., Cohen, P. R., & Wu, L. (2000). Something sharing and trading. Information Technology Manage-
from nothing: Augmenting a paper-based work practice ment, 7, 259-276.
via multimodal interaction. In Proceedings of the ACM
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the
Designing Augmented Reality Environments (DARE) (pp.
workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand
71-80). New York: ACM Press.
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McGrath, J. (1990). Time matters in groups. In, J. Galegher,
Mika, P., Iosif, V., Sure, Y., & Akkermans, H. (2003). Ontol-
R. E.Kraut, & C. Egido
ogy-based content management in a virtual organization.

In S. Staab & R. Studer (Eds.), Handbook on ontologies Mühlbauer, S., & Versteegen, G. (2000). Wissensmanage-
(pp. 455-476). Heidelberg: Springer. ment. Empirische Untersuchung, beste Praktiken und Evalu-
ierung von Werkzeugen. Höhenkirchen: IT Research.
Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1986). Organizations: New concepts
for new forms. California Management Review, 28(2), Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as ac-
68-73. tors of knowledge transformation: The role of KIBS in
regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy,
Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology
30, 1501-1516.
Today, 60-67.
Müller, H. M., Kenny, E. E., & Sternberg, P. W. (2004).
Millar, J., Demaid, A., & Quintas, P. (1997). Trans-organi-
Textpresso: An ontology-based information retrieval and
zational innovation: A framework for research. Technology
extraction system for biological literature. PLoS Biology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(4), 399-418.
2(11).
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowl-
Musen, M. (1992). Dimensions of knowledge sharing and re-
edge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology vision. Mc-
use. Computer and Biomedical Research, 25(5), 435-467.
Graw-Hill.
Myers, B. A. (1990). Taxonomies of visual programming
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation.
and program visualization. Journal of Visual Languages
In D. Maggusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the
and Computing 1(1), 97-123.
crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology.
Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Nagel, R., & Dove, R. (1993). 21st century manufacturing
enterprise strategy. Bethlehem, PA: Iacocca Institute,
Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2003). An em-
Lehigh University.
pirical analysis of knowledge management applications.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 6-26. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellec-
tual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of
Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk
and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a
classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105, Nahapiet, J., & Goshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellec-
1396-1426. tual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of
Mooradian, N. (2005). Tacit knowledge:Pphilosophic roots
and role in KM. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(6), National Research Council. (2002). Making the nation safer:
104-113. The role of science and technology in countering terrorism.
Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Moran, T. P. & Dourish, P. (2001). Introduction to special
issue on context-aware computing. Human-Computer National Science Foundation –NSF. (2002). Science and
Interaction, 16(2, 3, & 4), 87-95. engineering: Indicators 2002, volume 1. Arlington, VA:
NSF.
Morrison, A. (2004). Gatekeepers of knowledge within
industrial districts: Who they are, how they interact. Neches,R., Fikes, R., Finin,T., Gruber,T., Patil, P.,Senator,
Milan: Centro di Ricerca Sui Processi di Innovazione e T., & Swartout,W.(1991). Enabling technology for knowledge
Internazionalizzazione, CESPRI. sharing. AI Magazine, 12(3), 37-56.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The Nelson, D. (2001). The uptake of electronic journals by
role of social network ties during socialization. Academy academics in the UK, Their attitudes towards them and their
of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149-1160. potential impact on scholarly communication. Information
Services & Use, 21(3/4), 205-214.
Moser, P. K., & Nat, A. V. (1987). Human knowledge. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Nelson, K., & Cooprider, J. (1996). The contribution of
shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly,
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual
20(4), 409-432.
inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary
theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
0
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S. (1997). The differentiated network:
economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Organizing multinational corporations for value creation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Neumann, R. (1999). Die Organisation als Ordnung des
Wissens. Habilitation-Thesis, University of Klagenfurt. Nomura, T. (2002). Design of “Ba” for successful knowledge
management – how engterprises should design the places
Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H.,
of interaction to gain competitive advantage. Journal of
& Swan, J. (2006). Sharing Knowledge Across Projects.
Network and Computer Applications, 25, 263-78.
Limits to ICT-led Project Review Practice. Management
Learning, 37(2), 67-185. Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Har-
vard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.
Newell, S., Scarbrough, F., & Swan, J. (2000). Intranets and
knowledge management: De-centred technologies and the Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational
limits of technological discourse. In C. Prichard, R. Hull, knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-34.
M. Chumer, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Managing knowledge:
Nonaka, I. (2005). Knowledge management critical perspec-
Critical investigations of work and learning (pp. 88-106).
tives on business and management. Routledge.
London, UK: Macmillan Business.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of Ba: Building
Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., & Hislop, D. (1999).
a foundation for knowledge creation. California Manage-
Intranets and knowledge management: Complex processes
ment Review, 40(3), 40-54.
and ironic outcomes. In IEEE Computer Society (Ed.),
32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1994). A dynamic theory of
Sciences: Vol. 1. HICSS-32 (pp.10-27). Los Alamitos, CA: organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,
IEEE Computer Society. 5(1), 14-37.
Newman, B. (2003). Agents, artifacts, and transformations: Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating
The foundations of knowledge flows. In C.W . Holsapple company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of
(Ed.), Handbook of knowledge management (pp. 301-317). innovation? New York: Oxford University Press.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
N
Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of
complex networks. SIAM Review 45(2), 167-256. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating
company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ngonga Ngomo, A.-C., & Schumacher, F. (2006). Implicit
knowledge sharing. In Proceedings of the 7th European Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating
Conference on Knowledge Management (pp. 736-747). company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2004). A knowledge- Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, K. (1995). The knowledge creating
based theory of the firm – The problem-solving perspective. company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics
Organization Science, 15(6), 617-632. of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nilakanta, S., & Scamell, R. (1990). The effect of informa- Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organiza-
tion sources and communication channels on the diffusion tional knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and
of innovation in a data base development environment. future advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208.
Management Science, 36(1), 24-40.
Nonanka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational
NIST. (2007). Dictionary of algorithms and data struc- knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
tures. Retrieved August 29, 2007 from http://www.nist.
Novi Park Web pages. (2006). Retrieved January 15, 2006,
gov/dads/
from http://www.novi.dk
Noguera, E. (2003). Usability of e-journals and preference
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what we
for the virtual periodicals room: A survey of mathematics
know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices.
faculty and graduate students. Electronic Journal of Aca-
California Management Review, 40(3), 154-174.
demic and SpecialLibrarianship, 4(2-3).

O’Grady v. Superior Court (2006). 139 Cal. App. 4Th anxiety. Library & Information Science Research, 19(1),
1423. 5-33.
O’Hare, G., & Jennings, N. (1996). Foundations of distrib- Open Access to Scientific Research Editorial. (2003).
uted artificial intelligence. New York: Wiley. New York Times, August 7, 2003, p. A27. Published on
February 10, 2007 by the Society of Scholarly Publishing
O’Reilly, C. (1978). The intentional distortion of information
(SSP). Retrieved August 31, 2007, from http://www.sspnet.
in organizational communication: A laboratory and field
org/custom/news/details.cfm?id=141
investigation. Human Relations, 31,173-193.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior:
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social
The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
control: Corporations, cults and commitment. Research in
Books.
Organizational Behavior, 18, 157-200.
Orlikowski, W. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethink-
O’Reilly, T. (2005): What Is Web 2.0? Design patterns
ing the concept of technology in organizations. Organization
and business models for the next generation of software.
Science, 3(3), 398-427.
Retrieved June, 25th, 2007, from http://tim.oreilly.com/
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting
OECD (1996). The knowledge-based economy. OECD:
structures: A practice lens for studying technology in or-
Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/datao-
ganizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.
ecd/51/8/1913021.pdf
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Learning from notes: Organi-
OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. Or-
zational issues in groupware implementation. In R. Kling
ganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(Ed.), Computerization and controversy (pp. 173-189). New
Retrieved February 15, 2004 from http://www.oecd.org/
York: Academic Press.
dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf
Orlikowski, W. J., Yates, J., et al. (1995). Shaping electronic
Ojukwu, D., & Georgiadou, E.(2007). Towards improving
communication: The metastructuring of technology in the
inter-organisational trust amongt SMEs – A case study
context of use. Organization Science, 6(4), 423-444.
from developing countries. Paper presented at the 9th
IFIP International Conference on the Social Implications Orlikowski, W., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology
of Computers in Developing Countries, May 2007, Sao and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems
Paolo, Brazil. Retrieved from http://www.ifipwg94.org. Research, 2(2), 143-169.
br/fullpapers/R0096-1.pdf
Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of
Okhuysen, G., & Eisenhardt, K. (2002). Integrating knowl- a modern job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
edge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility.
Oshri, I. (2006). Knowledge reuse. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 487-492).
Olivera, F. (2000). Memory systems in organizations: An Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
empirical investigation of mechanisms for knowledge
OST. (2007). Knowledge transfer. In British Library’s
collection, storage and access. Journal of Management
strategy (2005 – 2008) glossary. Retrieved 20/07/2008, from
Studies, 37(6), 811-832.
http://www.bl.uk/about/strategic/glossary.html
Olsen, F. (2006). FAA: Knowledge sharing shouldn’t be
Ostrom, E. (2003). Toward a behavioral theory linking
forced. Agency’s use of online collaboration space has
trust, reciprocity and reputation. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker
expanded to solve workgroup problems. Retrieved May
(Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from
25, 2007, from http://www.fcw.com
experimental research (pp. 19-79). New York: Sage.
Omelayenko, B. (2001). Learning of ontologies from the
Oviatt, S. L. (1996). Multimodal interfaces for dynamic
Web: The analysis of existing approaches. In Proceedings
interactive maps. In Proceedings of the Conference on Hu-
of the International Workshop on Web Dynamics.
man Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’96) (pp. 95-102).
Onwuegbuzie, J. (1997). Writing a research proposal: The New York: ACM Press.
role of library anxiety, statistics anxiety, and composition
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings.
Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.

Palmer, J. (1991). Scientists and information: I. Using Petrie, C., & Bussler, C. (2003). Service agents and virtual
cluster analysis to identify information style. Journal of enterprises: A survey. IEEE Internet Computing, July-
Documentation, 47(2), 105-129. August.
Pan, C. C., Mitra, P., & Liu, P. (2006). Semantic access Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing doing gap:
control for information interoperation. In Proceedings of How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston,
the eleventh ACM symposium on Access control models MA: Harvard Business School Press.
and technologies (pp. 237-246).
Pickering, J. M., & King, J. L. (1995). Hardwiring weak
Pan, S. L., & Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge manage- ties: Interorganizational computer-mediated communica-
ment in practice: An exploratory case study. Technology tion, occupational communities, and organizational change.
Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(3), 359 - 374. Organization Science, 6, 479-486.
Pan, S., & Scarbrough, H. (1998). A sociotechnical view Pickering, J., & King, J. (1995). Hardwiring weak ties:
of knowledge-sharing at Buckman laboratories. Journal of Interorganizational computer-mediated communications,
Knowledge Management, 2(1) 55-66. occupational communities, and organizational change.
Pantel, P., & Lin, D. (2002). Document clustering with com-
mittees. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual international Pinch, S., Henry, J. M., & Tallman, S. (2003). From industrial
ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in districts to knowledge clusters: A model of knowledge dis-
information Retrieval (pp. 199-206). semination and competitive advantage in industrial agglom-
erations. Journal of Economic Geography, 31, 665-682.
Panteli, N. (2002). Richness, power cues and e-mail text.
Information and Management, 40, 75-86. Pinch, S..,& Henry, N. (1999). Discursive aspects of tech-
nology innovation from knowledge sharing perspective.
Papoutsakis, H. (2007). Sharing knowledge in the organisa-
Environmental planning, 373-388
tion: A retrospective analysis and empirical studies. The
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), Pinelli, T. (1991). NASA/DoD Report Number 6: The re-
231-244. lationship between the use of U.S. Government Technical
Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and
Park, A., & Burrows, P. (2001). Dell, the conqueror. Busi-
selected institutional and sociometric variables. Aerospace
ness Week, (September 24), 92-102.
Knowledge Diffusion Project. NASA Technical Memoran-
Park, H., Ribiere, V., & Schulte, W. D. (2004). Critical at- dum 102774, Department of Defense, Indiana University.
tributes of organisational culture that promote knowledge
Pipek, V., Hinrichs, J., & Wulf, V. (2002). Sharing expertise:
management technology implementation success. Journal
Challenges for technical support. In M. Ackerman, V. Pipek,
& V. Wulf (Eds), Beyond knowledge management: Sharing
Patel, V., Arocha, J., & Kaufman, D. (1999). Expertise and expertise, Cambridge MA: MIT-Press.
tacit knowledge in medicine. In R. J. Sternbern & J. A.
Play2Train. (2007). Retrieved January 18, 2007 from http://
Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in professional practice.
irhbt.typepad.com/play2train/
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Towards a
Patil, S. R, Fikes, R., Patel-Schneider, P., McKay, D.
post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago
P., Finin,T., Gruber,T., & Neches R.(1992). The DARPA
Press.
knowledge sharing effort: Progress report. Washington
DC: United States Department of Defense. Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-
critical philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.
Peña, I. (2002). Knowledge networks as parts of an integrated
knowledge management approach. Journal of Knowledge Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London, UK:
Management, 6(5), 469-478. Routledge & Kegan Ltd.
Pentland, B. T. (1995). Grammatical models of organizational Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Double-
processes. Organization Science, 6(5), 541-556. day & Company Inc.
Persson, O. (1981). Critical comments on the gatekeeper Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension, Garden City, NY:
concept: Science and technology. R& D Management, Doubleday Anchor.
11(1), 37-40.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Pritchard, C. (2000). Know, learn and share! The knowledge
Day Books. phenomena and the construction of a consumptive-commu-
nicative body. In C. Pritchard, R. Hull, M. Chumer, & H.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge
Willmott (Eds.), Managing knowledge: Critical investiga-
and Kegan Paul.
tions of work and learning. London: MacMillan Press.
Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. London: Routledge
Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhard, K. (1997). Wissen Ma-
and Kegan Paul.
nagen. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. USA: Peter
Pulido, J. R., Ruiz, M. A., Herrera, R., Cabello, E., Le-
Smith.
grand, S., & Elliman, D. (2006). Ontology languages for
Polanyi, M. (1996). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: the semantic Web: A never completely updated review.
Doubleday. Knowledge-Based Systems 19(7), 489-497.
Ponis, S., Tatsiopoulos, I. & Vagenas, G. (2006). Ontology Putnam, L L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors
support for virtual organisations: A proposed framework of communication and organization. In R. Stewart, C. H.
for knowledge management. The International Journal Clegg, & W. R. Noord (Eds.), Handbook of organization
of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 6(8), studies (pp. 375-408). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
89-100.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining
Ponis, S., Tatsiopoulos, I. P., Vagenas, G., & Koronis, E. (in social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
press). A process-based knowledge management framework
Quarantelli, E. L (1997). Problematical aspects of the infor-
supported by ARIS Enterprise Modelling architecture.
mation/communication revolution for disaster planning and
International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies.
research: ten non-technical issues and questions. Disaster
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Prevention and Management, 6(2), 94–106.
New York: Free Press.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge
Powell, W. W., Koput, K., et al. (1996). Interorganizational management: A strategic agenda. Long Range Planning,
collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of 30(3), 385-391.
learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quar-
Raban, R., & Garner, B. (2001). Ontological engineering for
terly, 41, 116-145.
conceptual modelling. Paper presented at the 9th Austrian
Powers, V. (2004). Virtual communities at Caterpillar Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vienna, Austria.
foster knowledge sharing. Training & Development, 58(6),
Rahm, E., & Bernstein, P. (2001). A survey of approaches
40-45.
to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal 10(4),
Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of 334–350.
the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3) 79-92.
RAIPON & UNEP. (2006). Indigenous knowledge in disaster
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities. Designing usability, management. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www.
supporting sociability. Chichester: Wiley & Sons, Ltd. raipon.org/ikdm/Default.aspx
Preece, J., Abras, C., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2004). Rasmussen G. J., Dahl, P. N., Mølbjerg Jørgensen, K.,
Designing and evaluating online communities: Research Laursen, E., & Rasmussen, P. (2001). Perspektiver på or-
speaks to emerging practice. International Journal Web ganisatorisk læring (VCL-serien nr. 28, ISSN 1399-7300).
based Communities, 1(1), 2-18. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University, Center for Organ-
isatorisk Læring Videncenter for Læreprocesser.
Preece, S. E. (1981). A spreading activation network model
for information retrieval. PhD thesis, Universtiy of Illinois Rauschert, I., Agrawal, P., Sharma, R., Fuhrmann, S.,
at Urbana-Champaign. Brewer, I., & MacEachren, A. (2002). Designing a human-
centered, multimodal GIS interface to support emergency
Preiss, K., Goldman, S. L., & Nagel, R. N. (1996). Cooper- management. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International
ate to compete. Building agile business relationships. New Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. (GIS ‘02) (pp. 8-9). New York: ACM Press.

Raynor, J. O. (1982). Future orientation, self-evaluation, Robins, M. (2006). New IP telephony solutions for the gov-
and achievement motivation: Use of an expectancy-value ernment enterprise. Homeland Defense Journal, 1, 22-27.
theory of personality functioning and change. In N. T.
Rodrigues, C. A., & Blumberg, H. (2000). Do feminine cul-
Feather (Ed.), Expectation and actions: Expectancy-value
tures really behave more feminine than masculine cultures?
models in psychology (pp. 97-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
A comparison of 48 countries’ femininity-masculinity rank-
Erlbaum Associations, Inc.
ing to their human development rankings. Cross-Cultural
Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial Management - An International Journal, 7(3), 25-34.
hierarchies. Human Relations, 15(1), 3-15
Rodriguez, H., Trainor, J., & Quarantelli, E. L. (2006).
Redding, S. G. (1994). Comparative management theory: Rising to the challenges of a catastrophe: the emergent
Jungle, zoo or fossil bed? Organisation Studies, 15(3), and prosocial behavior following Hurricane Katrina. The
323-359. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 604(1), 82-101.
Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, bar-
riers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Roger, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New
Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88-102. York, NY: Free Press.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homestead- Rohwedder, C. (2006). No. 1 retailer in Britain uses “club-
ing on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison card” to thwart Wal-Mart. Wall Street Journal, (June 6),
Wesley. A1.
Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., et al. (2002). Some antecedents Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values, New
and effects of trust in virtual communities. Journal of York: Free Press.
Strategic Information Systems, 11, 271-295.
Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N., & Edvinsson, L. (1997).
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers Intellectual capital: Navigating in the new business land-
managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Manage- scape. London: MacMillan Business.
ment, 9(3), 18-35.
Rosen, E. (2007). Real-time collaboration gets real. Network
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers World. January 23, 2007. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from
managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Manage- http://www.techworld.com
ment, 9(3), 18-35.
Rothberg, H. N, & Erickson, G. S. (2002). Competitive
Riege, A. (2007). Actions to overcome knowledge transfer capital: A fourth pillar of intellectual capital? In N. Bontis
barriers in MNCs. Journal of Knowledge Management, (Ed.), World Congress on Intellectual Capital Readings
11(1), 48-67. (pp.94-103). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann,
Riessman, K. C. (1993). Narrative analysis. CA: Sage Rothberg, H. N., & Erickson, G. S. (2005). From knowl-
Publications. edge to intelligence: Creating competitive advantage in
the next economy. Woburn, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-
Ripley, B. D. (1996). Pattern recognition and neural net-
Heinemann.
works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of notion: Knowledge man-
Robert, L., & Dennis, A. (2005). Paradox of richness: A
agement in practices. California Management Review,
cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on
40(3), 80-89.
Professional Communication, 48(1), 10-21.
Rulke, D., Zaheer, S., & Anderson, M. (2000). Sources
Roberts, J. (2000). From know how to show how: Question-
of managers’ knowledge of organizational capabilities.
ing the role of information and communication technology
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic
82(1), 134-149.
Management, 12(4), 429-443.
Sackmann, S. A., & Phillips, M. E. (2004). One’s many cul-
Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Question-
tures: A multiple cultures perspective. In N. A. Boyacigiller
ing the role of information and communication technologies
(Ed.), Crossing cultures: Insights from master teachers.
in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 12(4), 429-493.

Sagasti, A. (2001). The knowledge explosion and the digital in cooperations. Paper presented at The Fifth European
divide. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and
Human Development Reports, background papers. Retrieved Capabilities.
September 10, 2007, from http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publica-
Schmidt, M. P. (2000). Knowledge communities. Munich,
tions/background_papers/sagasti.doc
Germany: Addison-Wesley.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational
Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H., Anjewierden, A., de Hoog,
socialization: Making sense of the past and pre sent as a
R., Shadbold, N., van der Velde, W., & Wielinga, B. (1999).
prologue for the future. Journal of Vocation al Behavior,
Knowledge engineering and management, the common
51, 234-279.
KADS methodology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer J. (1977). Who gets power and
Schuemie, M., Ver Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & Van Der
how they hold on to it: A strategic contingency model of
Mast, C. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A
power. Organizational Dynamics, 5, 3-21.
survey. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 4(2), 183-201.
Sanchez, R., Heene, A., & Thomas, H. (1996). Toward the
Schulz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness:
theory and practice of competence-based competition. In
Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy
R. Sanchez, A. Heene, & H. Thomas(Eds.), Dynamics of
of Management Journal, 44, 661-681.
competence-based competition: Theory and practice in the
new strategic management (pp. 1-36). London: Elsevier Schulz, M. (2003). Pathways of relevance: Exploring inflows
Science. of knowledge into subunits of multinational corporations.
Sandhu, R., Ranganathan, K., & Zhang, X. (2006). Secure
information sharing enabled by Trusted Computing and Schwartz, D. G. (2006). Aristotelian view of knowledge
PEI models. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium management. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
on Information, computer and communications security Knowledge Management (pp. 10-16). Hershey, PA: Idea
(pp. 2-12). Group.
Sarker, S. (2005). Knowledge transfer and collaboration in Scott, A., (2006). Geography and economy: The Clerendon
distributed US-Thai teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Lectures in Geography and Environmental Studies. Oxford:
Communication, 10(4). Article 15. Retrieved May 25, 2007, Oxford University Press.
from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/sarker.html
Scott, S., Cummings, M., Graeber, D., Nelson, W., & Bo-
Scarbough, H., Swan, J., & Preston, J. (1999). Knowledge lia, R. (June). Collaboration technology in military team
management: A literature review. London: Institute of operations: Lessons learned from the corporate domain.
Personnel and Development. Paper presented at the Command and Control Research and
Technology Symposium, San Diego, CA.
Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge as work: Conflicts in the
management of knowledge workers. Technology Analysis Searing, D. D. (1991). Roles, rules and rationality in the new
and Strategic Management, 11(1), 5-16. institutionalism. The American Political Science Review,
85(4), 1239-1260.
Scarso, E., Bolisani, E., & Di Biagi, M. (2006). Knowledge
intermediation. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Segalla M. (2001). Overview: Understanding values and
Knowledge Management (pp. 360-367). Hershey, PA: Idea expectations of foreign employees creates a better company.
Group. European Management Journal, 19(1), 27-31.
Scheer, A. W. (1999). ARIS - Business process framework. Selznick, P. (1943). An approach to a theory of bureaucracy.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag. American Sociological Review, 8, 47-54.
Schein, E. H. (1985). How culture forms, develops and Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of
changes. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds.), the learning organization. London, UK: Random House.
Gaining control of the corporate culture. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass. Senge, P. M (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice
of the learning Organization. London: Century Business.
Schmaltz, R., Hagenhoff, S., & Kaspar, C. (2004). Infor-
mation technology support for knowledge management Seufert, A., von Krogh, G., & Bach, A. (1999). Towards
knowledge networking. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment, 3(3), 180-190.

Seymour, G., & Cowen, M. (2006). A review of team col- Siakas K. V. & Hyvärinen J. (2006). On-line Assessment
laboration tools for crisis response in the military and of the Fit between National and Organisational Culture; A
government. Paper presented at the Command and Control new tool for Predicting Suitable Software Quality Manage-
Research and Technology Symposium, San Diego, CA. ment System. In R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M.
Ross., & G. Staples (eds), Perspectives in Software Qual-
Shackle, G. L. S. (1961). Decision, order and time in human
ity: Proceeding of the 14th Software Quality Management
affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conference (SQM 2006), April, Southampton, UK, The
Shanei, A., Sena, J., & Stebbins, M. (2000). Knowledge British Computer Society, pp. 197-204
work teams and groupware technology: Learning from
Siakas K. V., & Hyvärinen J. (2006). On-line assessment
Seagate’s experience. Journal of Knowledge Management,
of the fit between national and organisational culture; A
4(2):111-124.
new tool for predicting suitable software quality manage-
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical ment system. In R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M.
theory of communication. Chicago: University of Illinois Ross., & G. Staples (Eds), Perspectives in software qual-
Press. ity: Proceeding of the 14th Software Quality Management
Conference (SQM 2006) (pp. 197-204), April, Southampton,
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical UK, The British Computer Society.
theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Il-
linois Press. Siakas, K. V. (2002). SQM-CODE: Software quality manage-
ment – Cultural and organisational diversity evaluation.
Sharratt, M., & Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding knowledge PhD Thesis, London Metropolitan University, UK.
sharing in online communities of practice. Electronic Jour-
nal on Knowledge Management, 1(2), 187-196. Siakas, K. V., & Balstrup, B. (2006). Software outsourcing
quality achieved by global virtual collaboration, software
Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited towards process. Improvement and Practice (SPIP) Journal, 11(3),
a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of 319-328.
cultural differences. Journal of International Business
Studies, 32(3), 519-535. Siakas, K. V., & Georgiadou, E. (1999). Process improve-
ment: The societal iceberg. In European Software Process
Sheth, A. P. (1998). Changing focus on interoperability in Improvement Conference, EuroSPI ‘99 (pp. 25-37), Pori,
information systems: From system, syntax, structure to se- Finland, 25 - 27.10.
mantics. In M. F. Goodchild, M. J. Egenhofer, R. Fegeas, & C.
A. Kottman (Eds.), Interoperating geographic information Siakas, K. V., & Georgiadou, E. (2006). Knowledge shar-
systems. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ing: Cultural dynamics. In P. Feher (Ed.), Proceedings
of 7th European Conference of Knowledge Management
Shibutani, T. (1962). Reference groups and social control. (ECKM06) (pp. 505-513), 4-5 Sept., Public Academic
In Human Behavior and Social Processes (pp. 128-147). Conferences Ltd. Reading, UK.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Sieloff, C. G. (1999). If only HP knew what HP knows:
Shneiderman, B. (2000). Designing trust into online experi- The roots of knowledge management at Hewlett-Packard.
ences. Communication of ACM, 43(12), 57-59. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 47-53.
Shneiderman, B., & Preece, J. (2007). 911.gov. Science, Silvio, J. (1998). The virtualization of higher education:
315(5814), 944. Scope, possibilities and limitations. UNESCO, Regional
Centre for Higher Education in Latin America and the
Siakas K. V., & Georgiadou E. (2003). Learning in a chang-
Caribbean (CRESALC). Rufis’98, International Congress.
ing society and the importance of cultural awareness. In
Universidad Regiomontana. Monterrey N.L., México.
IADIS 2003 (International Association for development
of the Information Society) (pp. 696-702), International Simon, H. A. (1969). The architecture of complexity. In H.
Conference, Algarve, Portugal, 5-8 Nov. 2003, Vol. I. A. Simon (Ed.), The Science of the artificial (pp. 192-229).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Siakas K. V., Georgiadou E. (2003). Learning in a Changing
Society and the Importance of Cultural Awareness, Paper Simon, H. A. (1969). The science of the artificial. Cambridge,
presentet at IADIS 2003 (International Association for devel- MA: MIT press.
opment of the Information Society) International Conference,
Algarve, Portugal, 5-8 Nov. 2003, Vol. I, 696-702

Simon, H. A. (1979). Models of thought. New Haven, CT: edge in organizations. Learning Innovations Laboratory
Yale University Press. (LILA), Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.
Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://lila.pz.harvard.
Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality: Be-
edu/_upload/lib/ACF14F3.pdf
havioural economics and business organization, vol. 2.
Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Sondergaard, M. (1994). Research note: Hofstede’s con-
sequences: A study of reviews, citations and replications.
Simonin, B. (1997). The importance of developing col-
Organisation Studies, 15, 447-456.
laborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning
organization. .Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), Song, S., Nerur, S., & Teng, J. T. (2007). An exploratory
1150–1174. study on the roles of network structure and knowledge pro-
cessing orientation in work unit knowledge management.
Simonin, B. (1999). Transfer of marketing know-how in
SIGMIS Database, 38(2), 8-26.
international strategic alliances: An empirical investigation
of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity. Journal Sonnenwald, D. H. (1995). Contested collaboration: A de-
of International Business Studies, 30(3), 463-490. scriptive model of intergroup communication in information
system design. Information Processing and Management,
Simonin, B. L. ( 1999a). Ambiguity and the process of
31(6) 859-877.
knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 20(7), 595-623. Sonnenwald, D. H. (1996). Communication roles that
support collaboration during the design process. Design
Simonin, B. L. (1999b). Transfer of marketing know-how in
Studies, 17, 277-301.
international strategic alliances :An empirical investigation
of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity. Journal Sonnenwald, D. H., & Lievrouw, L. (1997). Collaboration
of International Business Studies, 30(3), 463-490. during the design process: A case study of communica-
tion, information behavior, and project performance. In
Simpson, G. R., & Bridis, T. (2000). Oracle hired firm to probe
R. Savolainen, G. Taylor, & B. Dervin (Eds.), Information
Microsoft allies. Wall Street Journal, (June 28), A3.
seeking in context (pp. 179-204).
Sindt, T. (2003). Formal operations for ontology evolution.
Sonnenwald, D. H., & Pierce, L. (2000). Information behav-
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerg-
ior in dynamic group work contexts: Interwoven situational
ing Technologies.
awareness, dense social networks and contested collabora-
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of tion in command and control. Information Processing and
cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Management, 36(3), 461-479.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal and external Sowa, J. F. (2000). KR: Logical, philosophical, and
frames of reference for academic self-concept. Educational computational foundations. Pacific Grove: Brooks Cole
Psychologist, 37(4), 233-244. Publishing Co.
Smith, K. (2000). What is the knowledge economy? Knowl- Sowa, J. F. (2003). Ontology. Retrieved January 10, 2007
edge-intensive industries and distributed knowledge bases. from http://www.jfsowa.com/
The Learning Economy - Firms, Regions and Nation Specific
Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M.(1996). Knowledge and the
Institutions. DRUID Summer Conference. June 15-17.
firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter
Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing; Paradox Special Issue), 5–9.
and descriptive self awareness. Journal of Knowledge
Spender, J.C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dy-
namic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
Snyder, W. M. (1997). Communities of practice: Combining Special Issue, (17), 45-62.
organizational learning and strategy insights to create a
Spender, J-C. (1996). Competitive advantage from tacit
bridge to the 21st century. Presented at the 1997 Academy
knowledge? Unpacking the concept and its strategic im-
of Management Conference, p. 3.
plication. In B. Moingeon & A. Edmondson (Eds.), Orga-
Sole, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Storytelling in organizations: nizational learning and competitive advantage. London:
The power and the traps of using stories to share knowl- Sage.

Spiegler, I. (2000). Knowledge management: A new idea or Stojanovic, L. (2004). Methods and tools for ontology
a recycled concept? Communications of the Association for evolution. PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe.
Information Systems (AIS), June, 3(14), 1-23.
Stone, D. N., & Warsono, S. (2003). Does accounting ac-
Spiegler, I. (2000). Knowledge management: A new idea count for knowledge? In C. W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook
or a recycled concept. Communications of the AIS, 3(14), of knowledge management (pp. 253-270). Berlin: Springer-
1–24. Verlag.
Spies, M., Clayton, A. J., & Noormohammadian, M. (2005). Storey, J., & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge management
Knowledge management in a decentralized global financial initiatives: Learning from failure. Journal of Knowledge
services provider: A case study with Allianz Group. Knowl- Management, 4(2), 145-156.
edge Management Research & Practice, 3, 24-36.
Strom, T. Q., & Miller, C. (2002). Service learning. What
Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1995). Atheism, sex and databases: works in preventing school violence: The safe and respon-
The net as a social technology. In B. K. J. Keller (Ed.), sive fact sheet series. Safe & Responsive Schools Project,
Public access to the Internet (pp. 62-81). Cambridge, MA: Indiana Education Policy Center, Indiana University.
MIT Press. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www.indiana.
edu/~safeschl/service_learning.pdf
Stanford University Libraries. (2002). Electronic journal
user study: eJUST. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from Sullivan, D. (2004). Google Scholar offers access to academic
http://ejust.stanford.edu/index.html information. SearchEngineWatch (Nov 18, 2004). Retrieved
September 10, 2007, from http://searchenginewatch.com/
Stanford. (2006). The Protégé Ontology Editor and Knowl-
searchday/article.php/3437471
edge Acquisition System. Retrieved January 16, 2007 from
http://protege.stanford.edu/ Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many
are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes
Stanton, T. K., Giles, D. E., & Cruz, N. I. (1999). Ser-
business, economies, societies and nations. Doubleday,
vice learning: a movement’s pioneers: Reflections on its
Random House inc.
origins, practice, and future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers. Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth. San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
Stein, R. T. (1982). High status group members as exemplars:
A summary of field research on the relationship of status to Sverisson, (2001). Translation networks, knowledge brokers
congruence conformity. Small Group Behavior, 13, 3-21. and novelty construction: Pragmatic environmentalism in
Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 44(4), 313-327.
Steiner, B., & Sands, R. (2000). Responding to a natural
disaster with service learning. Family Medicine, 32(9), Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999).
645-649. Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and
networking. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2),
Steinmueller, W. E. (2002). Networked knowledge and
109-122.
knowledge-based economies. International Journal of
Social Science, 171, 159-173. Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999).
Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and
Stevens, J. (1998). Integrating the supply chain. International
networking. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4),
Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Manage-
262-275.
ment, 13(1), 37-56.
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001).
Stiglitz, J. (1999). Public policy for a knowledge economy.
Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge
OECD Report. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
in the workplace. Journal of Management Information
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/extme/knowledge-
Systems, 18(1), 95-114.
economy.pdf
Swidler A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies.
Stojanovic, L,. Maedche, A., Stojanovic, N., & Studer,
American sociological Review, 51, 273-286
R. (2003). Ontology evolution as reconfiguration-design
problem solving. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Sycara, K. P. (1998). Multiagent systems. AI magazine,
Conference on Knowledge Capture (pp. 162-171). 19(2), 79-92.

Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impedi- Teng, B-S., & Cummings, J. L. (2002). Trade-offs in man-
ents to the transfer of best practice. Strategic Management aging resources and capabilities. Academy of Management
Journal, 17, 27-43. Executive, 16(2), 81-91.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impedi- Tenopir, C. et al. (2003). Use and users of electronic library
ments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic resources: An overview and analysis of recent research
Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 27-43. studies. Council on Library and Information Resources.
Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.clir.org/
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Im-
pubs/reports/pub120/contents.html
pediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27-43. Tenopir, C., & King, D. (2000). Towards electronic jour-
nals: Realities for scientists, librarians, pnd Publishers.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer:
Washington, D.C.: Special Libraries Association.
A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organization Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1), 9-27. Terhune, C. (2006). Coke legal battle with bottlers stalls
on lawyer-conflict claim. Wall Street Journal, (August
Szulanski, G. (2003). Sticky knowledge. Barriers to knowing
10), A2.
in the firm. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Testa, J., & McVeigh, M. (2004). The impact of open ac-
Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. (1968). Organizational climate.
cess journals: A citation study from Thomson ISI. The
Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Graduate School
Thomson Corporation. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from
of Business
http://www.isinet.com/media/presentrep/acropdf/impact-
Takeda, H., Iino, K., & Nishida T. (1995). Ontology-sup- oa-journals.pdf
ported agent communication. In Proceedings of the Ameri-
Thoben, K. D., & Jagdev, H. (2001). Typological issues in
can Association for Artificial Intelligence Symposium.
enterprise networks, Journal of Production Planning and
Takeishi, A. (2002). Knowledge partitioning in the interfirm Control, 12(5), 421–436.
division of labor: The case of automotive product develop-
Thomes, K. (2000). The economics and usage of digital li-
ment. Organization Science, 13(3), 321-338.
brary collections. Bevier Engineering Library, University of
Tam, P. (2002). High-technology giant duels with nimble Pittsburgh, The Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
knock-off artists. Wall Street Journal, (September 25),
Thurlow, C., Engel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer-medi-
A1.
ated communication: Social interaction and the Internet.
Tanriverdi, H. (2005). Information technology relatedness, London, UK: Sage Publications.
knowledge management capability and performance of
Tichon, J., Hall, R. H., Hilgers, M. G., Leu, M. C., & Agarwal,
multi-business firms. MIS Quarterly, 29(2 - June), 311-
A. (2003). Education and training in virtual environments
334.
for disaster management. In Proceedings of the World
Tarski, A. (1956). Logic, semantics, and meta-mathematics. Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Telecommunications (EdMedia) (pp. 1191 – 1194).
Taylor, A., Skjei, S. M. (2002). A disaster-recovery plan for Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge management toolkit.
local municipalities using currently available communica- Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
tion satellite facilities and services, National Conference
Tiwana, A., & Ramesh, B. (2001). Integrating knowledge
on Digital Government, ACM International Conference
on the Web. IEEE Internet Computing, 5(3), 32-39.
Proceeding Series, 1-11.
Tolsby, J. (2000). Taylorism given a new hand: How an IT
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets:
system changed employees flexibility and personal involve-
The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible
ment in their work. Journal of Organizational Change
assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55-79.
Management, 13(5), 482-492.
Teece, D. J. (2003). Knowledge and competence as strategic
Torff, B. (1999). Tacit knowledge in teaching folk pedagogy
assets. In C. W. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook of knowledge
and teacher education. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Horvath
management (pp. 129-152). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
0
(Eds.), Tacit knowledge in professional practice. Mahwah, Tyler, R. T. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 323-345.
Townsend, A. M., & Moss, M. M. (2005). Telecommuni-
cations infrastructures. In Disasters: Preparing cities for Tyre, M., & Von Hippel, E. (1997). The situative nature of
crisis communications. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science,
http://hurricane.wagner.nyu.edu/report1.pdf 8(1), 71-83.
Trolley, J. (1999). New wine and old vessels: The evaluation Upkar Varshney, A. S., McGivern, M., & Howard, C.
and integration of Web-based information in well established (2002). Voice over IP. Communications of the ACM, Janu-
resources. Asis ‘99 Proceedings of the 62nd Asis Annual ary, 45(1), 88-96.
Meeting: V36. Knowledge Creation, Organization and Use,
Uzzi, B., & Gillespie, J. (2002). Knowledge spillover in
(pp. 628-632), Washington, DC
corporate financing networks: Embeddedness and the
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational firm’s debt performance. Strategic Management Journal,
networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capac- 23(7), 595-618.
ity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy
Vakkari, P. & Pennanen, M. (2001). Sources, relevance and
of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004.
contributory information of documents in writing a research
Tsatsou P. (2005). Civil society in Greece: Shaping new proposal: A longitudinal case study. The New Review of
digital divides? The digital divides as “cultural” divides. Im- Information Behavior Research, 2(November), 217 – 232
plications for closing divides, ESRC Seminar on “Bridging
Vakkari, P. (2000). Relevance and contributing informa-
the Digital Divides,” Oxford Internet Institute, UK, 4 March
tion types of searched documents in task performance.
2005. Retrieved from http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/collabora-
Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR
tion/seminars/20050304_Panayiota_Tsatsou_Paper.pdf
conference on Research and Development in Information
Tsoukas, C. & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Retrieval (pp. 2-9). Athens, Greece.
Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science,
Van de Ven, A., & Ferry, D.L. (1980). Measuring and as-
13(5), 567-582.
sessing organizations. New York: John Wiley.
Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do we really understand tacit knowl-
Van den Hooff, B., Elving, W., Meeuwsen, J. M., & Du-
edge? In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Black-
moulin, C. (2003). Knowledge sharing in knowledge com-
well handbook of organizational learning and knowledge
munities. In M. Huysman, E. Wenger, & V. Wulf (Eds.),
management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Communities and technologies (pp. 119-141). Boston:
Tsui, E. (2003). Tracking the role and evolution of com- Kluwer Academic Publishers.
mercial knowledge management software. In C. Holsapple
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational com-
(Ed.), Handbook of Knowledge Management. Volume 2 (pp.
munities: Culture and control in organizations. In B. M.
122-58). NY, NY: Springer-Verlap.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
Tuomi, I. (2000). Data is more than knowledge: Implications behavior (pp. 287-365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge manage-
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of
ment and organizational memory. Journal of Management
organizational socialization. Research in Organizational
Information Systems, 16(3), 103-117.
Behavior, 1, 209-264.
Turoff, M., Chumer, M., Van de Walle, B., & Yao, X. (2004).
Van, Beveren J. (2002). A model of knowledge acquisition
The design of a dynamic emergency response management
that refocuses knowledge management. Journal of Knowl-
information system (DERMIS). Journal of Information
Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5(4), 1-36.
Vandenbosch, B., & Huff, S. (1997). Searching and scan-
Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communication
ning: How executives obtain information from executive
and project performance: An investigation into the role of
information systems. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 81-107.
gatekeepers. Management Science, 26, 1071-1085.
Vandermerwe, S. (1999). The electronic “go-between ser-
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1983). Uncertainty, social
vice provider”: A new “middle” role taking centre stage.
location and influence in decision making: A sociometric
European Management Journal, 17.
analysis. Management Science, 29(1), 12-23.

Vara, V. (2006). Offices co-opt consumer Web tools like W3C. (2006). Web Ontology Language (OWL). Retrieved
“wikis” and social networking. Wall Street Journal, (Sep- January 11, 2007 from http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/
tember 12), B1.
Wagner, M., Eisenstadt, S., Hogan, W., & Pankaskie, M.
Vara, V. (2007). Oracle’s SAP suit casts light on technical (1998). Preferences of interns and residents for e-mail,
support. Wall Street Journal, (March 23), B4. paging, or traditional methods for the delivery of different
types of clinical information. In Proceedings of the AMIA
Vesterager, J., Pedersen, J. D., & Tølle, M. (1999). Virtual
1998 Symposium, Washington DC. Retrieved May 25, 2007,
enterprise reference architecture and methodology, a modi-
from http://www.amia.org
fied for publication extract of deliverable 1.3 “Final Report
on Models” of IMS 95001/ESPRIT 26509 Globeman21 Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg R. J. (1985). Practical intelligence
(Global Manufacturing in the 21st Century). in real-world pursuits the role of tacit knowledge. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 49(2) 436–458.
Vickery, S. K., Droge, C., Stank, T. P., Goldsby, T. J., &
Markland, R. E. (2004). The performance implications of Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg R. J. (1986). Tacit knowledge
media richness in a business-to-business service environ- and intelligence in the everyday world. In R. J. Sternberg,
ment: direct and indirect effects. Management Science, & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical Intelligence, (pp. 51–83).
50(8), 1106-1119. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Voelpel, S., Dous, M., & Davenport, T. (2005). Five steps Wagner, R. K., Sujan, J., Sujan, M., Rashotte, C. A., &
to creating a global knowledge-sharing system: Siemens’ Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Tacit knowledge in sales. In R.
ShareNet. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), J. Sternberg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in
9-23. professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates,.
Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus
of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Manage- Wainfain, L., & Davis, P. (2004). Challenges in virtual
ment Science, 40(4), 429-439. collaboration: Videoconferencing, audioconferencing and
computer-mediated communications. Santa Monica, CA:
Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of
Rand Corporation, National Defense Research Institute.
problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management
Science, 40, 429-440. Wald, B. (1993). On the evolution of would and other modals
in the English spoken in East Los Angeles. In N. Dittmar
Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of
& A. Reich (Eds.), Modality in language acquisition (pp.
problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management
59-96). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Science, 40(4).
Wall Street Journal. (2007). Towers Perrin laptops, client
Von Hippel, E. (2005).Democratizing innovation. MIT
data stolen. Wall Street Journal, (January 9), A17.
Press.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory.
Voorbij, H. J. (1999). Searching scientific information on the
Academy of Management Review, 16, 57–91.
Internet: A Dutch academic user survey. Journal of American
Society for Information Science, 50(2), 598-615. Walsham, G. (2001). Knowledge management: The benefits
and limitations of computer systems. European Management
Vranica, S. (2001). Foote Cone loses two accounts from
Journal, 19(6), 599-608.
Coke in wake of Pepsi suit. The Wall Street Journal, (No-
vember 12), B3. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-medi-
ated communication: Experimental observations over time.
Vranica, S. (2005). Lowe’s old gang flocks to new shop;
string of former colleagues join still-unnamed agency;
defections hurt Interpublic. The Wall Street Journal, (De- Warkentin, M., Sugumaran, V., & Bapna, R. (2001). E-
cember 13), B11. knowledge networks for interorganisational collaborative
e-business. Logistics Information Management, 14(1/2),
W3C. (2003). Web Services Architecture, W3C Working
149-162.
Draft 8 August 2003. Retrieved November 13, 2006, from
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-ws-arch-20030808/ Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share?
Examining knowledge contribution in electronic networks
of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 1-23.

Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: Why Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social
people participate and help others in electronic communi- learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246
ties of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice:
9(2-3), 155-173.
A survey of community-orientedtechnologies. Shareware
Webster, J., & Frederic, E. (1992). The changing role of Report. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.ewenger.
marketing in the corporation, Journal of Marketing, 56(4), com/tech/
17-37.
Wenger, E. C., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002).
Weick, K. E. (1979) The social psychology of organizing. Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Business School Press.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thou- Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business
Review, 139-145.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Or-
ganizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Wenger, E., & Snyder,B (2000). Communities of practice:
Science, 16(4), 409-421. The organisational frontier. Harvard Business Review,
78(1), 139–145.
Weiss, G. (Ed.) (2000). Multiagent systems: A modern
approach to distributed artificial intelligence. London: Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002).
MIT Press. Cultivating communities of practice. A guide to managing
knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. The Quar-
terly Journal of Economics, 113(2) 331-360. White, J. (2002). Retrospect of information technology’s
impact on society and warfare: revolution or dangerous
Wellman, B., Hasse, A., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001).
hype? Newport: Naval War College.
Does the Internet increase, decrease or supplement social
capital? Social networks, participation and community com- Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A
mitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 3(45), 437-456. normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7(3),
418-428.
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., et al. (1996). Computer networks as
social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual Wiesz, J. D., Erickson, T., & Kellog, W. A. (2006). Synchro-
community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238. nous broadcast messaging: The use of ICT. In Proceedings,
Computer-Mediated Communication, CHI2006, 22-27
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice learning,
April, 2006. Montreal, Canada. ACM.
meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Wigand, R. T. (1995). Electronic commerce and reduced
transaction costs: Firms’ migration into highly intercon-
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, nected electronic markets. Electronic markets, 16, 1-5.
UK, Cambridge: University Press.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achieve-
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning as ment motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational
a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5- June). Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value
meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University. theory of achievement. Contemporary Educational Psy-
chology, 25, 68-81.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- Wiig, K. M. (1997). Integrating intellectual capital and
versity Press. knowledge management. Long RangePplanning, 30(3),
399-405.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Wikipedia. (2007). 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake: Signs
Press. and warnings. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

Wildavsky, A. (1983). Information as an organizational Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers
problem. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 29-40. and cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for safety. New Brunswick, Winter, S., (Ed.) (1987). Knowledge and competence as
NJ: Transaction Press. strategic assets. The competitive challenge-Strategies
Williams, J. D., Han, S.-L., & Qualls, W. J. (1998). A concep- for industrial innovation and renewal. Cambridge, MA:
tual model and study of cross-cultural business relationships. Ballinger.
Journal of Business Research, 42, 135-143. Witten, I. & Bainbridge, D. (2001). How to build a digital
library. New Zealand Digital Library Project, University of
Williams, R. L., & Cothrel, J. (2000). Four smart ways
Waikato, New Zealand, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
to run online communities. Sloan Management Review,
Summer, 81-91. Witten, I. (2003). Digital libraries and society: New per-
spectives on information dissemination. Department of
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization:
Computer Science, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociol-
Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.cs.waikato.
ogy 87(3), 548–77.
ac.nz/~ihw/DLs.and.society.pdf
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of
World Bank. (2002). Harnessing knowledge for develop-
capitalism. New York: Free Press.
ment. III World Knowledge Forum, World Bank Plenary,
Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic orga- Seoul, October 18, 2002. Retrieved September 10, 2007,
nization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. from http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/eap/eap.nsf/Attach-
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269-296. ments/speech/$File/WKF+Speech.pdf
Willinsky, J. (2006). Altering the material conditions of World Bank. (2002b). Information and communication
access to the humanities. Tasks for the new humanities: technologies: A World Bank Group Strategy, Executive
Professing with Derrida (pp. 118-136). London: Palgrave Summary. The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.
Macmillan. . Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://pkp.
Xiao J., Zhang, Y., Jia, X., & Li, T. (2001). Measuring
sfu.ca/node/456
similarity of interests for clustering Web-users. In
Willinsky, J. (2006a). Access to power: Research in in- Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Database Conference.
ternational policymaking. Harvard International Review, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 107-
summer 2006, 42-45. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from 114.
http://pkp.sfu.ca/node/432
Yarmosh, K. (2006). Why Web 2.0 matters to your business
Willinsky, J. (2006b). Why open access for research and – knowledge sharing. Posted April 25, 2006 to Tech and
scholarship? Journal of Neuroscience, 26(36), 9078-9079. Productivity. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.
Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://www.jneurosci. technosight.com/why-web-20-matters-to-your-business-
org/cgi/reprint/26/36/9078 knowledge-sharing/
Wilson, C. (2005). Network centric warfare: Background Yih-Ton Sun, P., & Scott, J.L. (2005). An investigation
and oversight issues for Congress, Washington, D.C.: Re- of barriers to knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge
port for Congress, Congressional Research Service, The Management, 9(2), 75-90.
library of Congress.
Zack, M. (1998). An architecture for managing explicated
Wimmer, B. S., Townsend, A. M., & Chezum, B. E. (2000). knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 39(4), 45-58.
Information technologies and the middleman: The changing
role of information intermediaries in an information - rich Zack, M. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan
economy. Journal of Labor Research, 21, 407-416. Management Review, 40(4), 45-58.
Wingfield, N. (2006). At Apple, secrecy complicates life but Zack, M. (2001). If managing knowledge is the solution,
maintains buzz. Wall Street Journal, (June 28), A1. then what’s the problem? In Y. Malhotra (Ed.), Knowledge
management and business model innovation (pp. 16-36).
Winograd, T. (1975). Frame representations and the de- Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
clarative/procedural controversy. Readings in Knowledge
Representation, 185-210.

Zack, M. A. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least
Management Review, (Summer), 45-58. effort; An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA:
Addison-Wesley Press.
Zander, U., & Kogut B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of
the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in
empirical test. Organization Science, 6(1) 76–92. cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42,
726-743.
Zeldin, T. (1998). Conversations: How talk can change our
lives. London: Harville Press. Zwegers, A., Wubben, H., & Hartel, I. (2002). Relationship
management in enterprise networks. In V. Marik, L. M.
Zhang, Y. (1999). Scholarly use of Internet-based elec- Camarinha-Matos, & H. Afsarmanesh (Eds.), Knowledge
tronic resources. Doctoral Dissertation, University of and technology integration in production and services
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. UMI Digital dissertation – Balancing knowledge and technology in product and
AAT 3013240. service life cycle (pp. 157-164). Boston: Kluwer Academic
Zhao, L., & Reisman, A. (1992). Toward metaresearch on Publishers.
technology transfer. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

About the Contributors
Ettore Bolisani has a degree in electronic engineering (“Laurea”) and a PhD in innovation studies at
the University of Padua (Italy). He is associate professor at the Faculty of Engineering at the University
of Padua. Prior to this position, he was assistant professor at the University of Trieste (Italy) and, in
1997, research fellow at PREST (University of Manchester–UK), where he conducted a research project
funded by the European Commission on the developments of electronic commerce. His research centres
on technology assessment and technology management, with an emphasis on information and com-
munication technologies. He has worked in several research projects funded by the European Union, by
Italian public institutions, and private organisations as well. His current interest focuses on the economic
implications of knowledge management and electronic commerce. On such topics, he has published
various articles in international journals and chapters in books, and has been editor of Special Issues.
***
Eileen G. Abels is Master's’ Program director and associate professor in the College of Information
Science and Technology at Drexel University. Prior to joining the faculty at Drexel in January 2007, Dr.
Abels spent more than 15 years at the College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland.
Dr. Abels received her PhD from UCLA. Her dissertation work explored the information behaviors of
scientists and engineers in Mexico. Her current research focuses on access to information in electronic
environments, remote reference services, and automated question answering services. She teaches
courses related to information access and access in electronic environments.
Jaesoon An is a research scientist in the Pervasive Technology Labs at Indiana University. She
formerly worked at Microsoft and Samsung Electronics as a member of research and development di-
vision. She completed her master’s and doctoral programs in instructional technology at the University
of Georgia and Indiana University-Bloomington, respectively.
Pierre Barbaroux is senior researcher at the Research Center of the French Air Force (CReA), in
the Defense and Knowledge Management Department. He is also associate researcher at the GREDEG
– UMR CNRS 6227, University of Nice – Sophia Antipolis, DEMOS laboratory. He holds a PhD degree
in economics from the University of Nice – Sophia Antipolis. His privileged research fields are cogni-
tive economics and complex adaptive systems theory. His current research interests focus on industrial
organization, organization theory and innovation.
Jengchung V. Chen is assistant professor in telecommunications management at National Cheng

Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. He holds a PhD in communication and information sciences from
the University of Hawaii. He has published articles dealing with privacy and trust issues in 20 refereed
journals, including Industrial Management and Data Systems, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Information, Communication and Society, International Journal of Mobile Communications,
and Labor Law Journal.
Kimiz Dalkir is currently an assistant professor in the McGill School of Information Studies where
she developed a specialization stream in knowledge management. Dr. Dalkir has published extensively
on knowledge sharing and organizational memory challenges, including Knowledge Management in
Theory and Practice (June 2005, Butterworth-Heineman). Dr. Dalkir pursues research on the effective-
ness of knowledge processing in both profit and non-profit organizations, learning in peer networks, and
measurement frameworks for assessing knowledge management success. Dr. Dalkir has developed and
teaches courses on knowledge management, knowledge taxonomies, intellectual capital management,
and communities of practice, and was awarded the Distinguished Teaching Award in 2007.
Margarita Echeverri is a research assistant professor at the School of Public Health and Tropical
Medicine at Tulane University. Before this position, Dr Echeverri was the coordinator of the master in
information management at the College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland and cur-
rently teaches as adjunct professor in the same program. Dr. Echeverri received her PhD in international
development from Tulane University, and is a specialist in information technology and social manage-
ment, with experience in national and international organizations in administration and organizational
analysis, design, and implementation of information systems, electronic libraries, virtual classrooms,
and WEB-based training. Her interests focus on the use of information technology to foster knowledge
transfer, education, health, and research, as the main pillars for social development.
G. Scott Erickson is associate professor and chair of marketing/law in the School of Business,
Ithaca College. He holds a PhD from Lehigh University. Research interests include knowledge man-
agement, intellectual property, and trade secrets. His book with Helen Rothberg, From Knowledge to
Intelligence: Creating Competitive Advantage in the Next Economy, was published by Butterworth-
Heinemann/Elsevier in 2005.
Samer Faraj is associate professor in the Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University. He
received his doctorate in MIS from Boston University’s School of Management and an MS in technology
and policy from MIT. Prior to getting his doctorate, he spent a decade working in a variety of consulting
and IS positions. His research interests include the coordination of expertise in software development
and health care, the development of online knowledge communities, and the organizational impact of IT.
His work has appeared in journals, such as Information Systems Research, Management Science, MIS
Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, and Information Technology & People. He is senior editor at Organization

Science, an associate editor of Information Systems Research and on the editorial board of Information
and Organization. In addition, he is currently coediting the special issue of Organization Science on IT
and organizational form and function. He has received three NSF grants and a Fulbright award.
Elli Georgiadou is a principal lecturer in software engineering at the School of Computing, Mid-
dlesex University, London. Her teaching includes software quality, software measurement (metrics &
estimation), methodologies, case, project & knowledge management, and software development. she is
engaged in research in software measurement for product and process improvement, methodologies,
knowledge management, metamodelling, cultural issues, and software quality management. She is a
member of the university’s Global Campus project (developing and offering ODL). She has extensive
experience in academia and industry, and has been active in organising/chairing conferences and
workshops under the auspices of the British Computer Society and the ACM British Chapter. She is her
school’s coordinator of european activities, projects and international exchanges.
Cécile Godé-Sanchez holds a PhD degree in economics from the University of Aix-Marseille III.
She is currently senior researcher at the Research Center of the French Air Force (CReA), in the Defense
and Knowledge Management Department. She is also associate researcher at the GREDEG – UMR
CNRS 6227, university of Nice – Sophia Antipolis, DEMOS Department. Her privileged research fields
are information systems management and technological change. Her current researches focus both on
the cultural aspect of technological change and the coordination in network-centric organizations.
Deogratias Harorimana is a PhD student and part-time lecturer at Southampton Solent University
(UK). Prior to that, Deogratias worked for some of the largest organisations in Africa and Europe.
These include The American Rescue Committee and United Nations. Deogratias graduated in busi-
ness information management. His doctorate’s primary research focuses on the “Role of Gatekeepers
in the Knowledge Creation and Transfer Process.” He publishes in the area of knowledge gatekeepers,
knowledge networks and communities of practice, identity formation, and impact of culture on knowl-
edge transfer. Deogratias chairs the United Kingdom’s Royal Geographical Society and the Institute
of British Geographers Post Graduate Research Group, as well as a member of the Higher Education
Research Group Committee of the Royal Geographical Society and the Institute of British Geographers.
Harorimana is a member of the European Institute of Development Studies, a member of organising
committee of the European Conference of Knowledge Management and a regular speaker and reviewer
to the European Conference at Knowledge Management. Harorimana is the co author of the book “Le
Café et les Cafeiteurs du Rwanda, quels Sont les motivations? Publibook, Paris (Forthcoming).
Anthony Ioannidis is an assistant professor of management at the Department of Business Admin-

istration, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece. He has previously taught at the Uni-
versity of Patras, Greece, University of La Verne California, Athens Campus, and Baruch College, The
City University of New York. He holds a BS from the University of Athens, Greece, and, an MBA, an
MPhil, and a PhD from Baruch College, The City University of New York. He also possesses working
experience as management consultant with leading consultancy firms in the United States and Greece,
in the areas telecommunications, media, and technology. His current research interests include strategy
formation, organizational design, knowledge management, reputation management and the role of CEO,
and public-private partnerships.

Isa Jahnke, Dr. phil., studied social science in Germany. After this, she worked 3 years at a con-
sultancy company. Later, from 2001 until 2004 she began her research in the field of socio-technical
knowledge management and online communities at the University of Dortmund, Department Computer
Science and Sociology. After her PhD, she moved as research assistant to the University of Bochum,
Department of Information and Technology Management (IMTM). She works and researches about
socio-technical systems, computer-supported cooperative work, as well as collaborative learning, and
in particular knowledge management and cultivating Web-based communities. Further information:
http://www.imtm-iaw.rub.de. Contact: [email protected]
Shuhua (Monica) Liu is now a PhD Candidate in the Information School, University of Washington
(Seattle, WA, USA). She graduated from Nankai University, China in 2002 with a master in management.
She also got her bachelor in information sciences and bachelor in economics from Nankai University in
1999. Before coming to the University of Washington to pursue her research in knowledge management
and employee knowledge sharing, Shuhua (Monica) worked as an assistant manager in Bridgestone
China in Tianjin City and then a journalist in international news reporting in Xinhua News Agency,
Beijing between 1999 and 2003. Shuhua (Monica) is now working on her doctoral dissertation on em-
ployee knowledge sharing and system integration. She will specifically investigate organizational factors
influencing employees’ decisions in sharing knowledge and organizational processes that challenge
business process reengineering efforts facilitated by mobile information systems.
Sheetal Narayanan is a graduate student in the School of Informatics. After completing the require-
ments for the computer science master's degree, she is pursuing her second master's in human computer
interaction. She is a research assistant for professor David Wild.
Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo was born in 1983. He received his diploma (MSc) in computer sciences
from the University of Leipzig in 2004 with a thesis on the theoretical foundations of information spaces.
He is currently completing his doctoral studies at the same university. His domains of interest include
knowledge management, knowledge-free natural language processing, extraction techniques for termi-
nological ontologies and their practical application in the domain of business information systems.
Stavros T. Ponis is a lecturer in the Section of Industrial Management and Operations Research of
National Technical University Athens (NTUA), where he is teaching a number of courses in a graduate
and post graduate level (supply chain management, e-commerce and management of information
systems among others). Dr. Ponis is also an expert reviewer for the European Community, the general
secretariat of research and development and the Greek Information Society S.A.. His current research
interests and publications move around the areas of virtual enterprises, knowledge logistics for em-
powering supply chain effectiveness and performance, UML and agent modelling, e-commerce, and
supply chain management systems.
Muhammad A. Razi is associate professor of computer information systems at Western Michigan

University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. He has published papers in various topics. His research appeared
in several academic journals, including Journal of Small Business Strategy, International Journal of
Industrial Engineering, Logistic Information Management, International Journal of Manufacturing
Technology and Management and others.

Helen Rothberg is associate professor of strategy in the School of Management, Marist College.
She holds a PhD from City University Graduate Center. She is also the principal consultant for HNR
Associates, a network of knowledge focusing on strategic change, competitive intelligence, and know-
ledge management challenges. Her research interests include competitive intelligence and knowledge
management.
Enrico Scarso received a degree in electronic engineering and a PhD degree in industrial innovation
from the University of Padua. He is associate professor of engineering management at the University
of Padua. His current research interests include economics and management of technology, and knowl-
edge management. He has published in several journals and has presented various papers at international
conferences. He is a member of IAMOT (International Association for Management of Technology) and
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – Engineering Management Society).
Kalpana Shankar is an assistant professor of informatics at Indiana University School of informa-

tics. She has a BS in molecular biology from Princeton University and a PhD in library and informa-
tion science from the University of California, Los Angeles. She has worked in database design and
management and government program evaluation. Her areas of expertise include data and knowledge
management in research science, data sharing and research ethics, and the use of emerging technologies
in establishing and maintaining communities of practice.
Sam S. Shoulders is a graduate student in the School of Informatics at Indiana University-Bloomin-

gton, completing his requirements in the master's degree program in human-computer interaction/de-
sign. His interests include context-aware computing, information security, and information searching
in complex systems.
Evangelia Siachou is a PhD candidate at the Department of Business Administration, Athens Uni-
versity of Economics and Business, Greece. She holds a bachelor degree in international and european
Studies from the Panteion University of Athens and an MSc in Industrial and personnel management
from the London School of Economics. She possesses training experience in the DG Development of
European Commission and work experience in the Strategic Planning Department of ATHOC 2004
(Athens Olympic Games). Her current research interests include knowledge transfer, business model
innovation, and strategic human resources management.
Kerstin Siakas is an assistant professor at the Department of Informatics at the Alexander Techno-
logical Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Greece since 1989. Her teaching includes management
information systems (project & knowledge management), information society and software quality
assurance. She is the project leader of the Entrepreneurship programme in the University and European
coordinator of activities and exchange in the department. She has extensive experience in industry
regarding development of large Information Systems projects in multicultural environments. She has
a PhD in software quality management from London Metropolitan University. Her research spans a
range of issues in information systems quality management, knowledge management and information
society, in particular in human and cultural aspects, but also in pedagogic issues, such as technology
based distance learning.
00
J. Michael Tarn is associate professor of computer information systems at Western Michigan

University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. He holds a PhD and an MS in information systems from Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. He taught at Chowan College, North Carolina for 3
years before he became a member of Broncos in Summer 1999. Dr. Tarn is the major adviser and coor-
dinator for the new interdisciplinary and inter-collegial telecommunications & information management
(TIM) program.
Ilias P. Tatsiopoulos is a professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering - National Technical

University Athens (NTUA). He has been a member of the Senate of NTUA and he serves in the Edito-
rial Board of the Production Planning & Control Journal. His research interests move around supply
chain management and enterprise information systems.
June Tolsby works as a project manager, researcher and lecturer at Ostfold University College, Fa-
culty of Engineering. June Tolsby holds a BSc in Computation from UMIST (University of Manchester
Institute of Science and Technology, UK) and a MA within ESST (Education in Society Science and
Technology) from Oslo University. She has worked as a programmer, consultant, and researcher for 18
years within various organizations in Norway. She affiliated with Aalborg University, Department of
Business Studies in Denmark as a PhD student. Her research topics cover grounded theory, use of ICT,
organizational learning and communication, learning theories, product development and design.
George Vagenas is a mechanical engineer of the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA),
who specialized in industrial engineering. He is also a doctoral researcher in the Sector of Industrial
Management and Operational Research of the NTUA’s Mechanical Engineering School. His current
research interests include the areas of supply chain management and knowledge management, with an
emphasis on Web-based technological support.
Molly Wasko is an associate professor in the Department of Management Information Systems

at Florida State University where she teaches primarily strategic information technologies, corporate
information security, and research methods. She received her doctorate in MIS from the University of
Maryland, College Park, and she holds an MBA from Averett University. Prior to getting her doctorate,
she spent 8 years working in production and operations management. Her research interests include the
intersection of digital and social networks, social network analysis, the development of online communi-
ties, and open source software projects. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Strategic IS, Decision
Sciences, MISQ, JAIS, JCMC and JITTA, and has been presented at ICIS, ECIS, AOM, and AMCIS.
She is a member of the Academy of Management, AIS and INFORMS.
David Wild is an assistant professor of informatics at Indiana University School of Informatics.

After graduating with a BSc in Computing Science from Aston University, U.K., he completed a PhD
and postdoctoral research in Information Studies at Sheffield University, U.K., specializing in chemi-
cal information handling. He worked for 6 years in the pharmaceutical industry, applying informatics
techniques to science and drug design, before joining the School of Informatics in 2004.
Giuseppe Zollo is full professor of business and management at the Faculty of Engineering of the
University of Naples Federico II, Italy and director of the Center for Communication and Organizational
0
Innovation at the University of Naples Federico II. During the years 1985-86 he was visiting research
associate at the Dept. of Economics of Northeastern University, Boston (MA), USA. His research in-
terests include Management of Technological Innovation, Small Innovative Enterprises, Information
Technology Management, Competencies Management, soft computing for business and economics. He
received several awards for his scientific activity such as: Entrepreneurship Award from the Universitat
Autonoma de Barcelona (1992); RENT Award from the European Institute for Advanced Studies in
Management, Brussels (1993, 1995, & 2000); Best Paper Award from FGF Universitat of Dortmund
(1994); European Quality Award for research on T.Q.M from EFQM (1997), 2005 GITM conference
Best paper award. He is Vice President of the International Association for Fuzzy Sets Economy and
Management (SIGEF) and serves as editorial board member in the Fuzzy Economic Review, the Journal
of Information Technology: Cases and Application, and the Journal of Global Information Technology
Management. He is coauthor of the book Organizational Cognition and Learning Building Systems for
the Learning Organization (ISP 2007).
0
0
Index
A D
action teams 24–39, 368 digitization 334
agent technology 309 disaster management 219–240, 384, 390
amateur radio 223 discourse analysis 340–347, 351, 353–359
amateur radio emergency service (ARES) 223 distributed sensor networks (DSN) 226
appropriability 325, 328, 330, 331, 335, 336
At this level, web service definition language E
(WSDL) 311 electronic networks of practice 173–178, 183–188,
avatar 185 392
B emergency alert system (EAS) 224
enabling framework 118
black market 121 expectancy value theory 139
bloomington emergency collaborative information explicit dimension 2, 3, 4, 5
system (BECIS) 227
G
C
Gatekeepers 260, 268, 269, 270–278, 281, 380
centrality 24 groupware 108
codification 115
codified knowledge 261, 266, 267, 268, 274 H
cognitive model 288, 289 hard codification. 122
common alerting protocol (CAP) 224 high frequency (HF) 33, 222
common operational picture (COP) 249 human-oriented KM 111
communities of practice 173, 177, 183, 185, 188,
393 I
community of practice theory (CoP) 340
competitive intelligence 325, 326, 33–339, 362, 363 implicit expectation 210
computer-mediated communication 89, 90, 91, 104, implicit feedback 81
105, 107, 372, 390 indigenous knowledge in disaster management 230
context-aware computing 232–236, 367, 373, 380 informal knowledge 11
context-aware devices 233 informal norms 12
context-aware infrastructures 233 information broker 293, 295
core capabilities 255 information gaps 245, 246, 249, 250, 254, 255
cyber ba 175, 181, 183, 184 InPUD 197–217
institute of scientific information (ISI) 148
integrated knowledge broker 294, 295
Index
intellectual capital (IC) 326 Play2Train 231, 236, 383

intellectual property rights (IPR) 119 positioning location guidance system (PLGS) 249
internet-based communities 197, 205, 210 pure knowledge broker 294
K R
knowledge-based complexity 245, 246, 247 Radio Amateur civil emergency service (RACES)
knowledge absorption 149, 158 223
knowledge acquisition 149, 158 role-playing 211
knowledge conversion 5, 126, 263
knowledge creation 149 S
knowledge dissemination 149 scholarly publishing and academic resources coali-
knowledge economy 111, 112, 126, 389 tion (SPARC) 147, 166
knowledge gaps 244–255 second life 185
knowledge gatekeepers 261, 263, 271–275 semantems 75, 76, 77, 78, 87
knowledge interchange format (KIF) 65, 84, 371 semantic web technologies 316
Knowledge Market 137, 138 sensor networks 235, 238, 239, 240, 368
knowledge Mediator 291, 292 service learning 227, 228, 229, 237, 389
knowledge representation (KR) 65 social capital 90, 102
knowledge transactions 137 social constructionist approach 3
knownet 306 social proximity 207
KT accounting 121 social software 195
L social web 195
subjective knowledge 285
learning as socially constructed 346 subjective task value 136
less developed countries (LDC) 147, 165 sustainable design 233
linguistic methods 340
location guidance system (PLGS) 250, 251 T
M tacit dimension 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 21, 383

tactical Internet (TI) 248
media richness theories 180 team leaders 24
modality 340, 342, 347, 348, 353, 356 technology-based channels 95
technology-oriented KM 111
N transaction cost theory 133, 134, 138, 139
national culture 50–64, 366 transitivity 340, 342, 347, 348, 353
networked organisations 45–49, 52, 57 U
O ultra high frequency (UHF) 222
online interaction patterns 211 universal description, discovery, and integration
ontology evolution 66, 72–85, 369, 375, 388, 389 (UDDI) 312
Operation Iraqi Freedom 249, 251 V
organisational culture 47–64, 370, 371, 377, 382,
383, 387, 393 very high frequency (VHF) 222
organisational knowledge 48–50, 263, 284, 285 videoteleconferencing (VTC) 250
organizational sciences 2 virtual corporation 320, 363, 366
OWL 66, 71, 86, 392 virtual enterprises 308, 312–322, 323, 361, 362, 383
virtual professional communities (VPC) 131
P virtual teams 46–49, 55–59, 60, 61, 360–378
perceived access 151 voice over Internet protocol 249
physical transfer 4
0
Index
W
Web 1.0 196, 197
Web 2.0 195–197, 212–216, 382
web services flow language (WSFL) 312
wireless priority service (WPS) 224
world wide web consortium (W3C) 66
0

Building The Knowledge Society On The Internet - Sharing and Exchanging Knowledge in Networked Environments (Premier Reference Source) - IGI GL PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building The Knowledge Society On The Internet - Sharing and Exchanging Knowledge in Networked Environments (Premier Reference Source) - IGI GL PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building The Knowledge Society On The Internet - Sharing and Exchanging Knowledge in Networked Environments (Premier Reference Source) - IGI GL PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building the Knowledge

Society on the Internet:

InformatIon scIence reference

Published in the United States of America by

and in the United Kingdom by

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-59904-816-1 (hbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-59904-818-5 (ebook)

1. Knowledge management. 2. Computer networks. 3. Information networks. I. Bolisani, Ettore, 1963-

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

Chandra S. Amaravadi Deogratias Harorimana

Derek Asoh Donald Hislop

Antonio Badia Tracy A. Hurley

Marco Bettoni Barbara Igel

Violina Ratcheva Andrew Wenn

Ulrich Remus Gunilla Widén-Wulff

Jennifer D. E. Thomas Hans Weigand

Mariana Van Der Walt Barbara Zannol

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. xiv

Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 358

About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 396

Index ................................................................................................................................................ 403

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. xiv

To systematise the conceptual backgrounds of Knowledge Management as a branch of management,

This study examines knowledge exchange in a worldwide, extra-organizational, Usenet-based elec-

Compilation of References .............................................................................................................. 358

About the Contributors ................................................................................................................... 396

Index ................................................................................................................................................ 403

Knowledge management for the Knowledge society

Knowledge exchanges in networKed environments

aims of the booK and audience

structure of the booK and contributions

Seeking a Shared Conceptual Space for Research and Practice

b. Knowledge Exchanges in Networks

d. Application Fields and Research Methods

e. Quantitative or Qualitative Models?

open issues and future research directions

King, W. R. (2006). Knowledge transfer. In D. G. Schwatz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge manage-

introduction maintain this advantage for long-term develop-

current approaches to approach 1: objective

Figure 1. Objective knowledge sharing

Figure 2. Knowledge conversion (sharing) process

by anybody in the organization if authorized by approach 2: the distinction

Figure 3. Knowledge sharing defined in social interactions

Figure 4. An iterative knowledge-sharing process embedded in social interactions

derstanding of employees’ knowledge-sharing Meanwhile, by making sense of (agreeing or

Zucker (1977) discusses the importance of The importance of perceived trustworthiness

implications When talking about the importance of learn-

Lawler, E. E. III (2000). Rewarding excellence. socialization. Academy of Management Journal,

Tsoukas, C. & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational additional reading

introduction majority of employees working, within various

through “personal formal” or “personal informal” comprehensive overview of different perspectives

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice:

introduction This chapter aims to make the human and

Dimension Characteristic relating to KM Trust Knowledge Sharing

“The organisational structure in Germany is guidelines for successful

Figure 1. Technology-enabled knowledge sharing approach

Values, beliefs and

Step Description Expected Benefits

R2adj .27 .24