Knowledge Management in Organizations
We adopt the knowledge management framework developed by Alavi and Leidner (2001), which is based on the view of organizations as knowledge systems that include four knowledge processes: creation, storage and retrieval, transfer, and application. With over 600 academic citations at the time of this writing, this framework has received considerable research support and remains valid in the current environment, though we incorporate refinements to the processes based on evolution of the knowledge management literature. In addition to the process view, we also adopt the view of practice, particularly in terms of Brown and Duguid’s communities of practice (1991) and networks of practice (2000).
Knowledge management processes
The knowledge-based view postulates that firms exist because it is difficult to generate, transfer, and apply all the required types of knowledge via markets. Thus, firms can be viewed as systems created for creating, storing and retrieving, transferring and sharing, and applying the knowledge required for development and delivery of products and/or services. Some authors (Sambamurthy and Subramani, 2005; Takeishi, 2001; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997) have considered the processes of knowledge creation, storage and retrieval, transfer, and application to be core and fundamental organizational capabilities. These processes, briefly described below, provide a target of opportunity for the application of Web 2.0 technologies for facilitating and enhancing organizational knowledge management.
Knowledge creation process
Knowledge creation refers to the development of ‘new’ organizational know-how and capability (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Nishiguchi, 2001). There are two approaches to organizational knowledge creation: (1) generating new knowledge inside the organization and (2) acquiring it from external sources. Knowledge originates within individuals or social systems (groups of individuals) (Alavi, 2000) and can take the form of a cycle of socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (Nonaka, 1994). Some organizations allocate dedicated resources to the knowledge creation process. A useful example is employee training and development programs that aim to generate knowledge at the individual level. Another example is the establishment of units or groups (e.g. research and development departments) for the purpose of creating new knowledge. At the individual level, knowledge is created through cognitive processes such as reflection and learning. Social systems (i.e. groups) generate knowledge through collaborative interactions and joint problem solving. Information technology (IT) can thus play a role in the knowledge creation process through its support of the individual’s access to existing knowledge sources as well as support of collaborative interactions among individuals.
Knowledge creation can be viewed as an activity that occurs inside the organization to generate new knowledge, whereas knowledge acquisition is focused on assimilating existing knowledge from outside the organization (Huber, 1991). The knowledge is ‘new’ to the organization and is appropriated to meet the firm’s knowledge requirements (von Krogh, Nonaka, and Aben, 2001). This differentiation can be important, as some organizations may, in fact, prefer externally-acquired knowledge to that which is internally generated (Menon and Pfeffer, 2003). Tasks involved in knowledge acquisition include searching for, sourcing, and grafting of knowledge (King, 2007).
Knowledge storage and retrieval process
Knowledge storage and retrieval refers to development of organizational memory (i.e. stocks of organizational knowledge) and the means for accessing its content. We can identify two types of organizational memory: internal and external. Internal memory refers to the stocks of knowledge that reside within the individual or groups of individuals in an organization. Internal organizational memory as defined here consists of individuals’ skills as well as the organizational culture (Walsh and Ungson, 1991). External memories contain codified and explicit organizational knowledge, and include formal policies and procedure, and manual and computer files. The development of external memory in organizations involves three key activities: (1) determining the knowledge content of the memory; (2) determining the sources of the content and specifying the means of collecting the targeted knowledge; and (3) developing the content of the external memory and specifying the means of accessing its content. Most IT initiatives for the creation of organizational memory have focused on the third activity, the development of the external and explicit knowledge stocks and mechanisms for retrieval of the contents.
Knowledge transfer and sharing process
While knowledge transfer and sharing have been used interchangeably, it is possible to differentiate the two concepts. Knowledge transfer takes a source-and-recipient view and can be defined as ‘the communication of knowledge from a source so that it is learned and applied by a recipient’ (Ko, Kirsch, and King, 2005: 62). The knowledge transfer process involves the transmission of knowledge from the initial location to where it is needed and is applied. Although the concept of knowledge transfer is simple, its execution in organizational settings is not. This is because organizations often do not know what they know, and often possess weak systems for locating and transmitting different forms of knowledge within their various locations (Huber, 1991). The lack of ability to transfer existing knowledge to the point of application is a key detriment to organizations’ realization of the full value of their knowledge assets (Argote and Ingram, 2000).
In contrast to the source-and-recipient view of knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing is more concerned with ‘the collective character of knowledge emerging from interaction and dialogue among individuals’ (Renzl, 2008: 207). While knowledge transfer involves purposeful communication of knowledge in a known dyad, knowledge sharing is less-focused on dissemination, often involving repositories or unknown recipients (King, 2007). As opposed to knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing involves trust and community interest (Wasko and Faraj, 2000), as well as politics and self-interest (Hayes, 2011), and hence knowledge sharing is the more socially-oriented term.
We can identify three modes of knowledge exchange in organizations: (1) exchange of knowledge between individuals; (2) exchange between individuals and knowledge repositories (e.g. downloading a report from a document repository, or developing a report and storing it in a document repository); and (3) exchange among existing knowledge repositories (e.g. using RSS feeds to transfer pre-specified knowledge items among existing knowledge repositories). The use of the term exchange is intentional, as each of these modes can take the form of knowledge transfer or sharing. Considering the various modes of knowledge transfer and sharing, we can identify two models of IT applications in this area: the network model and the knowledge stock model. The network model focuses on facilitating person-to-person sharing of knowledge via establishing digital links between them. The stock model, on the other hand, focuses on the electronic transfer of codified knowledge to, from, and between computerized knowledge repositories.
Knowledge application process
Knowledge application refers to the use of knowledge for decision making, problem solving, and coordination by individuals and groups in organizations. Knowledge in and of itself does not produce organizational value. Its application for taking effective action does. On the other hand, absorption and application of ‘new’ knowledge by individuals is complex. For example, work in the area of individual cognition and knowledge structures has demonstrated that, in most cases, individuals in organizational settings enact cognitive processes (problem solving and decision making) with little attention and by invoking only pre-existing knowledge and cognitive ‘routines’ (Gioia and Pool, 1984). While this tendency leads to a reduction in cognitive load and is therefore an effective strategy for dealing with individual cognitive limitations, it creates a barrier to the search for and application of new knowledge in organizations. Thus, IT tools that facilitate knowledge application can potentially lead to significant organizational value.
We contend that Web 2.0 technologies provide a platform for enhancing organizational knowledge management by providing a ‘field’ for support of the timing, scope, depth, dynamics, and efficiency of the underlying knowledge management processes described here. In the next section, we provide a complement to the process view through the lens of practice.
Knowledge management practice
Brown and Duguid (1991) argue that work practice must be examined and understood in context, as abstractions of it distort and obscure its true form. Therefore, knowledge can be best understood by examining how it is used in practice (Brown and Duguid, 2001). The idea of knowledge management practice is not, however, antithetical to knowledge management process, as both are focused on linking sources of knowledge to deepen and widen knowledge flows within organizations (Alavi and Leidner, 1999).
Communities of practice
Communities of practice are individuals sharing common interests and the desire to learn from and contribute to a community with their knowledge and experiences (Lave and Wenger, 1991). They are characterized by their knowledge-sharing orientation, self-organizing nature, self-selective membership, and value proposition grounded in knowledge exchange (Smith and McKeen, 2002). In essence, they are an organizational expression of individuals’ need to interact naturally with others who share their common understanding of practice (Plaskoff, 2003).
The process of internalizing explicit knowledge can be arduous for an individual, therefore mechanisms to assist this process should develop in organizations. Reflecting this need, some benefits of communities of practice include: decreasing the learning curve (as they allow new members to find experts and discover firm rules); reducing rework (as they encourage finding artifacts, their developers and their context); and increasing innovation (by leveraging weak ties, building safe environments to test new ideas, and generating common interests) (Lesser and Storck, 2001).
Reflecting their self-organizing and regulating nature, communities of practice tend to fail when mandated or forced (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). However, the benefits for encouraging them are substantial, as organizational learning is greatly enhanced by providing individuals with access to relevant communities of practice (Brown and Duguid, 1991). One of the primary methods to cultivate communities of practice is to provide the infrastructure required to support them (Wenger and Snyder, 2000). Within communities of practice, features of work practice include narration, which adds meaning to sparse corporate direction and accumulates knowledge; collaboration, which supports groups assembling to face difficult problems; and social construction, which develops a community identity and shared situational understanding (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Tools to support communities of practice should, therefore, provide support to these features.
As memberships in communities of practice are self-selected, they are based on interest and not solely expertise (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). This greatly widens the participation base in comparison to the development of expert systems (Lado and Zhang, 1998). Therefore, a significant challenge and opportunity for knowledge management is the use of peers in place of experts in the evaluation and refinement of knowledge (King, 2007). Cho, Chung, King, and Shunn (2008) demonstrated that multiple peers can, in fact, be more effective than experts in refining knowledge that will be used by their other peers. Again, tools supporting these communities should reflect the value of the knowledge of individual community members.
Networks of practice
Brown and Duguid (2000) identify communities of practice as being tightly-knit where face-to-face communication is the norm. In contrast, networks of practice can be conceived as geographically-dispersed but interest-linked individuals who share practice but do not necessarily meet face-to-face (Brown and Duguid, 2001). While both have shared practice at their core, communities of practice and networks of practice can be seen to exist at different points on a continuum of strength of ties, where the former are stronger than the latter (Wasko and Teigland, 2004). The weak ties in networks of practice are very important for exposure to new ideas which can lead to knowledge creation (Robertson, Swan, and Newell, 1996).
By definition, networks of practice rely on digital links to establish self-organizing, open activity systems focused on a shared practice (Wasko and Faraj, 2005: 37) and common interest. This definition leads to differentiation of networks of practice from other structural arrangements (e.g. project teams) in four key areas (Wasko and Teigland, 2004). First, self-organization and voluntary participation allow for a range of activities, in contrast to expected participation in work groups or teams. Second, open participation means any individual may use or contribute to the network, which is different from other social structures where membership is limited. Third, as an activity system focused on shared practice, the value of the network is in the exchange of knowledge through mutual interaction, which can be contrasted with static document repositories or databases. Fourth, the primary use of digital links means members of the network are unlikely to know one another well, which is differentiated from close knit communities of practice. Networks of practice are important to this discussion as they represent an environment in which Web 2.0 technologies are applied for support of knowledge management practice.
In the next section, we provide an overview of key Web 2.0 technologies, describe their role in support of organizational knowledge management processes and practice, and demonstrate their applications through case examples.