Implications for Enterprise 2.0 and Knowledge Management

Even though E2.0 is still a relatively new technology, many anticipate that it will lead to a significant shift in the nature and form of knowledge sharing (McAfee, 2006). This enthusiasm was captured most emphatically by Thomas Davenport (2008) who stated:

Proponents claim that E2.0 technologies are easy to use due to everyone’s familiarity with posting to and reviewing social networks, blogs, and wikis. McAfee (2006) also claims they benefit from relatively low set up costs as there is no need for sophisticated development tools or network infrastructures, nor is there a need for database administrators or designers (Whelen, 2007; Warr, 2008). Proponents such as McAfee (2006), based in part on the above, claim that this can allow for the potential for new knowledge sharing practices to emerge. These opportunities derive from its bottom-up orientation which McAfee (2006) claims allows for employees being better able to shape the nature and style of their contributions than was previously possible (Gilchrist, 2007). McAfee (2006) further claims that this allows employees to feel freer to express their thoughts, views, and knowledge on company-wide wikis and blogs than they did on company discussion databases, for example. Overall, advocates of E2.0 technologies claim that they more readily lend themselves to becoming a part of everyday work and, thus, are more representative of what people are doing, and who they are doing it with. Further, by tagging, users are more likely to categorize contributions that are related to what they are doing and, thus, result in more meaningful search requests and retrievals (McAfee, 2006; Whelen, 2007).

Viewed more critically, and in relation to the case specific literature already reviewed, such claims are technologically deterministic. Further, while the use of Web 2.0 technologies may provide some of the benefits claimed, the use of such technologies in the form of E2.0 within a specific organizational setting will vary greatly. What is lacking is the location of such claims within specific organizational contexts. If we take Orlikowski’s (2002) relatively successful case study of the intranet in Kappa, then we may imagine that E2.0 technologies would offer similar and/or new possibilities for knowledge sharing as the current intranet system does. However, this possibility would derive primarily from the strong identity, the reward scheme, and the fact that knowledge sharing takes place within a specific domain of knowing (Orlikowski, 2002). In Compound UK, one would not anticipate E2.0 technologies necessarily bringing about much change due to the specific nature of their socio-political context (Hayes and Walsham, 2001). Why would knowledge sharing between professional domains in Compound UK be any more beneficial with E2.0 technology than groupware applications? Why would non careerist reps feel more included and thereby post their views on E2.0? Why wouldn’t ambitious reps not write blogs and compose wikis to show to their senior managers they are working hard and in the ways advocated? Why would a wiki or a blog allow for views not to be homogenized? Clearly all of this is conjecture, but it seems hard to see how E2.0 technologies per se could result in significantly different use than the groupware and intranet applications already in place. To counter such technologically deterministic accounts what will be fascinating is the publication of a number of in-depth case studies that explore the possibilities of such technologies in different socio-political contexts. Only then will we better understand if, how, and to what extent E2.0 represents old wine in new bottles.