2017 Book SocialKnowledgeManagementInAct

Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning 3
Remko Helms
Jocelyn Cranefield
Jurriaan van Reijsen Editors
Social
Knowledge
Management
in Action
Applications and Challenges
Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning
Volume 3
Series editors
Ettore Bolisani, Padova, Italy
Meliha Handzic, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11850
Remko Helms • Jocelyn Cranefield •
Jurriaan van Reijsen
Editors
Social Knowledge
Management in Action
Applications and Challenges
Editors
Remko Helms Jocelyn Cranefield
Faculty of Management, Science School of Information Management
and Technology Victoria University of Wellington
Open University Lambton Quay, Pipitea Campus,
Heerlen, The Netherlands New Zealand
Jurriaan van Reijsen

The Courseware Company
Utrecht, The Netherlands
ISSN 2199-8663 ISSN 2199-8671 (electronic)

Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning
ISBN 978-3-319-45131-2 ISBN 978-3-319-45133-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45133-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017930806
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
It is a pleasure to announce the publication of the third volume of the book series on
“Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning” that was launched in 2015
with the factive contribution of our colleagues and friends of the International
Association for Knowledge Management (IAKM). The book series recalls the
main mission of our Association: to support the development of Knowledge
Management (KM) as a scientific discipline. Research and practice often branch
off in multiple directions, and no clear consensus on concepts and methods has
emerged so far. Scientists and professionals involved in KM need to develop “core”
theories, common approaches, and standard languages that can help us see the
problem of managing knowledge under the same shared perspective. We also need
to explore emerging new interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary ideas and align
them with the foundation. The way to reach a credible agreement on what we are
doing and to set a common ground for our future work calls for a capability to
discuss, exchange, and even contrast our positions freely and openly.
We need a place where we can do this in a rigorous, but, at the same time,
friendly atmosphere, and this book series is an integral part of this mission. What
inspires it is not the acceptance to a particular “school of thought” or “ideological”
position, as sometimes happens even in the scientific world. Rather, what inspires it
is a vision of KM as a “playground” where there is a lot to research, discover, and
innovate; where curiosity, dialogue, and openness to disagreements are the key
ingredients.
With the same scrupulousness of scientific publications, but with a broader scope
and more relaxed constraints than those that may characterize other editorial
channels, the series puts an emphasis on free discussions of new theories, methods,
and approaches; on visions of the future and advances in the field; on critical
reviews of recent or past empirical evidence; and on formulating ideas for new
practical methods or applications. It aims to offer a constantly updated reference to
researchers, practitioners, and also students involved in the field of KM and its
application.
After the first inaugural volume, Advances in Knowledge Management:
Celebrating Twenty Years of Research and Practice (edited by Ettore Bolisani
and Meliha Handzic), whose goal was to assess the “state of KM” as a discipline,
volumes two and three address two major differing approaches to KM: technology-
v
vi Foreword
based codification and human-based personalization. In particular, the second

volume, Corporate Knowledge Discovery and Organizational Learning (edited
by András Gábor and Andrea Kő), had a more specific and applicative content: it
provided an interesting perspective on how it is possible to extract, organize, share,
and preserve the knowledge embedded in organizational processes in order to
enrich the organizational memory in a systematic and controlled way, to support
employees to easily acquire their job role-specific knowledge, and to help govern
and plan the investments in human capital.
Now, this third volume Social Knowledge Management in Action (edited by
Remko Helms, Jocelyn Cranefield, and Jurriaan van Reijsen) aims to provide an
overview of new and innovative applications of social media for KM, as well as the
associated challenges, risks, and issues. The book contains eight chapters, grouped
into three parts. After an overview of conceptual and strategic research on the use of
social media in KM, the book particularly focuses on social and behavioural
impacts of social media, which pose new challenges to companies and
organizations willing to explore and exploit their use to support knowledge workers
and KM processes. The final part extends the analysis to the broader context of
social impacts of new media on KM processes that go beyond the boundaries of the
single organization.
The book provides not only updated and sound theoretical reference but also
food for thought deriving from the analysis of experiences “on the ground”. We are
sure it will open fresh perspectives on an issue—that of the actual use of social
media for KM and organizational learning—which is still much debated not only
among academicians but also in companies.
International Association for Knowledge Management www.iakm.net.
Padova, Italy Ettore Bolisani

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina Meliha Handzic
Contents
Social Media and Knowledge Management: A Perfect Couple . . . . . . . . 1

Remko Helms, Jocelyn Cranefield, and Jurriaan van Reijsen
Part I Enterprise Social Networks for Knowledge Management:

Conceptual Foundations
Enterprise Social Networks: Platforms for Enabling
and Understanding Knowledge Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Janine Hacker
Transformation of Knowledge Sharing Motivations in the Presence
of Social Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Mohammadbashir Sedighi and Mohammad T. Isaai
Part II Managing the Implementation of KM: Identifying What Works

A Comparative Analysis of Social Information and Communication
Systems for Supporting Potential Absorptive Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Everist Limaj and Edward W.N. Bernroider
Web 2.0 Applications for Knowledge Management in Small
and Micro Firms: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Ettore Bolisani and Enrico Scarso
Web 2.0 and Personal Knowledge Management: A Framework
of Skills for Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Rouhollah Fathizargaran and Jocelyn Cranefield
Part III Frontiers for Social Knowledge Management

Dimensions of User Behavior in Enterprise Social Networks . . . . . . . . . 125
Janine Hacker, Rebecca Bernsmann, and Kai Riemer
Design and Implementation of Socially Driven Knowledge
Management Systems for Revitalizing Endangered Languages . . . . . . . 147
Asfahaan Mirza and David Sundaram
vii
List of Contributors
Edward W.N. Bernroider Institute for Information Management and Control

(IMAC), Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria
Rebecca Bernsmann Institute of Information Systems, Friedrich-Alexander-
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
Ettore Bolisani DTG, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Jocelyn Cranefield School of Information Management, Victoria University of
Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
Rouhollah Fathizargaran School of Information Management, Victoria Univer-
sity of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
Janine Hacker Institute of Information Systems, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität
Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
Remko Helms Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Open Univer-
sity, Heerlen, The Netherlands
Mohammad T. Isaai Graduate School of Management and Economics, Sharif
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Everist Limaj Institute for Information Management and Control (IMAC),
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria
Asfahaan Mirza Department of Information Systems and Operations Manage-
ment, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Jurriaan van Reijsen The Courseware Company, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Kai Riemer The University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney,
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Enrico Scarso DTG, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
ix
x List of Contributors
Mohammadbashir Sedighi Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management,

Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
David Sundaram Department of Information Systems and Operations Manage-
ment, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
List of Abbreviations
AC Absorptive capacity
AHP Analytical hierarchy process
BYOD Bring your own device
CEO Chief executive officer
CRM Customer relationship management
CSN Corporate social networking (sites)
CSV Comma-separated values
ESM Enterprise social media
ESN(s) Enterprise social network(s)
EU European Union
HTML Hypertext Markup Language
ICT Information and communication technology
IT Information technology
KM Knowledge management
KMS Knowledge management system
PAC Potential absorptive capacity
PIM Personal information management
PKM Personal knowledge management
Q&A Questions and answers
RAC Realized absorptive capacity
SaaS Software as a service
SICS Social information and communication systems
SKM Social knowledge management
SKMS Social knowledge management systems
SME(s) Small to medium enterprises
SNA Social network analysis
SNS Social networking site
SQL Structured query language
xi
Social Media and Knowledge Management:
A Perfect Couple
Remko Helms, Jocelyn Cranefield, and Jurriaan van Reijsen
1 Introduction
With the emergence of Social Media there is a revival going on in Knowledge

Management that is bringing new and exciting research directions along with
it. The combination of Social Media and Knowledge Management is referred to
as Social Knowledge Management and is the main theme of this book. Social Media
emerged in the early 2000s, with platforms such as Wikipedia and SixDregrees.
com, and “employ mobile and web-based technologies to create highly interactive
platforms via which individuals and communities share, co-create, discuss, and
modify user-generated content” (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre,
2011). Knowledge management and social media seem to be made for each other
because social media platforms support sharing, co-creation and discussion which
are key knowledge processes (von Krogh, 2012). Furthermore, the platforms are
easy to use and they are available as software-as-a-service (SaaS), so there is no
need for implementing and maintaining them. Initially, these technologies were
mainly used by individuals that stayed in touch with their friends, for example, via
Facebook; or shared their passion and expertise about fashion on their weblog. But
due to a trend that is known as ‘consumerization of IT’, these kinds of technologies
R. Helms (*)
Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands
e-mail: remko.helms@ou.nl
J. Cranefield
School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
e-mail: Jocelyn.Cranefield@vuw.ac.nz
J. van Reijsen
The Courseware Company, Utrecht, The Netherlands
e-mail: vanreijsen@courseware.nl
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

R. Helms et al. (eds.), Social Knowledge Management in Action, Knowledge
Management and Organizational Learning 3, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45133-6_1
2 R. Helms et al.
were also suddenly introduced into organizations (Niehaves, K€offer, & Ortbach,
2012). For example, employees can easily start a discussion group on Yammer to
serve their need for sharing knowledge and they can do this without assistance of
the organization’s IT department. The unique features of social media that co-
incide with the central knowledge processes and the bottom-up adoption of these
technologies, are in our view key ingredients for a revival of knowledge manage-
ment in organizations. To better understand this let us look back, in fast forward
mode, at how knowledge management evolved over time.
2 Emergence of Knowledge Management Discipline
Knowledge Management is something that organizations have been doing since the
first organizations started to emerge (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). A famous
Dutch example in this respect is how the Dutch East India Company codified and
protected knowledge. In the 1600s, the Dutch were very successful in spice trade
with the East (Indonesia amongst other countries) and the organization controlling
this trade was the Dutch East India Company. For a safe and fast passage to the
East, knowledge of the best routes was essential, so the Dutch East India Company
documented this knowledge on maps. The company was well-known for high
quality maps indicating coasts, harbors, tide tables, ocean streams and other useful
information. These maps were considered intellectual property by the company and
were therefore not shared with its rivals, such as the British and the Portuguese
(De VOC site, n.d.). Officers on the ships were even instructed to destroy the maps
in the event of the ship being attacked by rivals. This practice by the Dutch East
India Company can be considered as a form of knowledge management, although
the term did not yet exist.
Some centuries later, the term knowledge management was introduced for such
practices. The emergence of knowledge management can be related to two impor-
tant trends: the rise of the knowledge-based perspective of the firm (Grant, 1996)
and developments in computer and network technology (Hansen et al., 1999) in the
early 1990s. The knowledge-based perspective is the successor of the resource-
based view of the firm (Barney, 1991) and acknowledges that knowledge is the
most important resource of organizations for value creation. This gave rise to the
idea that practices and methods were needed to manage and protect that knowledge.
On the other hand, computer and network technology made it possible to codify
knowledge and quickly disseminate it through the organization because computers
were connected to each other in a network. The practices and methods to manage
knowledge processes became known as knowledge management, while the com-
puter and network technology supporting knowledge management were referred to
as knowledge management systems (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Social Media and Knowledge Management: A Perfect Couple 3
3 Struggling to Keep Knowledge Management

on the Strategic Agenda
Since the 1990s, organizations have been implementing knowledge management

practices, methods and techniques in order to enable and support knowledge
processes including the creation, acquisition, storage, sharing and application of
knowledge (Heisig, 2009). After a rapid early uptake in the 1990s, it seems that
organizations lost interest in knowledge management in the period that followed. A
possible explanation is that traditional knowledge management implementations
are expensive and do not always meet expectations (Chua & Lam, 2005; Malhotra,
2005). This is illustrated by research from Huysman and de Wit (2004) who
describe how knowledge management implementations fail when organizations
get into the ICT, management or local learning trap. They claim that this is a
typical problem of ‘first wave’ knowledge management that is focused on the so
called codification approach (Hansen et al., 1999). In this approach the focus is on
knowledge as an object that needs to be stored and managed (Alavi & Leidner,
2001). Huysman and de Wit (2004) argue that organizations can overcome the
problems of ‘first wave’ knowledge management by combining the codification
approach with a socialization approach and taking a more bottom-up oriented
adoption approach towards knowledge management that they call ‘second wave’
knowledge management. The socialization approach acknowledges that knowledge
is embodied in people, i.e. tacit knowledge, and is inherently difficult to codify
(Hansen et al., 1999; Polanyi, 1967). This approach aims at connecting people, thus
enabling them to share their tacit knowledge with others through social interaction.
Classic examples of knowledge management practices that rely on socialization are
communities of practice and knowledge networks (Back et al., 2005; Helms &
Buysrogge, 2006; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Furthermore, the bottom-up approach
suggests that knowledge management practices should not be enforced on employees
by management, and rather that employees should be empowered and enabled to
manage their own knowledge (Huysman & de Wit, 2004).
4 Social Media Is Re-energizing Knowledge Management
Social media technologies seem to be a perfect match with the focus on socializa-
tion and the bottom-up approach in second wave knowledge management. Two
core concepts underlying social media technology are communities and network-
ing; concepts that are also central in the socialization approach to knowledge
management. Furthermore, these technologies support a bottom-up approach to-
wards knowledge management in organizations. Initially used privately by individ-
ual users to connect and interact with friends and family, these technologies soon
entered the workplace due to trends such as Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and
the consumerization of IT (Niehaves et al., 2012). Now, anyone with a smartphone
or tablet can start a group on Yammer or Google Groups, and invite colleagues to
discuss work-related matters. Such bottom-up initiatives for knowledge sharing
4 R. Helms et al.
characterize the potential of social media to support knowledge management in

organizations. However, social media technology is not just one technology but a
mix of different technologies including social networking, wikis, (micro)blogs,
social bookmarking and media sharing platforms (Bebensee, Helms, & Spruit,
2011). Each technology has its own distinctive characteristics and can support
knowledge management in different ways (Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, & Azad, 2013).
4.1 Social Networking
Social networking technologies are the most well-known social media. Today,
Facebook is by far the largest social network with more than 1.6 billion active
monthly users (Facebook, n.d.); more than the population of China, the world’s
most populous country. On social network sites, users can build a profile, connect to
others and keep their friends updated using posts (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). These
tools support people in establishing and maintaining online relationships with each
other. Some social networks have a specific focus, such as LinkedIn, which aims at
establishing and maintaining professional relationships. The resulting social fabric
is often referred to as the social capital of employees (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). In a
knowledge management context, profiles on social networks can be used to docu-
ment one’s skills and experiences. The relations form a network that enables
employees to find others with relevant expertise. Therefore, a social network can
function as an expertise locator (Maybury, 2002; Rivera-pelayo et al., 2013). This
function is further strengthened by the fact that users can also post messages, which
enables them to share and discuss ideas but also to respond to questions. These
messages help in building a reputation online that confirms the expertise of a
person. However, the content on social networks is highly volatile and not well-
structured. Hence, it is difficult to search and find past discussions for example.
4.2 Blogging
Blogs (weblogs) provide users with a platform to publish their ideas and stories
directly online to a worldwide audience (Du & Wagner, 2006). Others can comment
on these blog posts directly or link to a particular blog post from their own blog.
Blogs are used for both private and business purposes. Examples include tech blogs
that report on the latest technology and fashion blogs that follow fashion trends.
Starting a blog is relatively easy: a user can sign up with a platform such as
WordPress, set up a blog in minutes and start sharing stories with the outside
world. In contrast to social networks, blogs allow users to share longer pieces of
content, including opinions, new ideas, experiences and findings. Furthermore,
people blogging on the same topic can respond to each other’s content and link to
other blogs, thus creating an online community of people with the same interest.
Therefore, blogs are also useful in supporting knowledge creation and developing
shared practices inside the organization (Kaiser, Kansy, Mueller-Seitz, & Ringlstetter,
2009). The connected blogs, together with the people and procedures that update this
knowledge, can be seen as constituting a transactive memory system (Nevo, Benbasat,
& Wand, 2012; Wegner, 1987).
4.3 Wikis
Wikis have become famous through Wikipedia, the best-known wiki in the world.
A wiki consists of a number of hyperlinked text documents. A powerful feature of
wikis is that they allow users to collaboratively work on documents and to provide
feedback on new content and changes made by others (Wagner, 2004). A key aspect
of their success lies in the fact that wikis rely on the wisdom of the crowd rather
than on the wisdom of a single expert (Niederer & van Dijck, 2010). Wikis can be
used for different purposes and while Wikipedia is a user-generated and managed
encyclopedia, it can be used for many different purposes. In an organizational
context a wiki can, for example, be used to document and improve work processes
(Majchrzak, Wagner, & Yates, 2006). People can collaboratively work on process
descriptions and when processes change, these process descriptions can be easily
changed and peer reviewed by colleagues. Furthermore, people who are unfamiliar
with the processes can consult the wiki to learn about them. Wikis can also be used
to codify and share critical knowledge in the organization. Software companies are,
for example, using wikis to store and share knowledge about the products they
develop, such as architectural decisions and technical issues (Bibbo, Sprehe,
Michelich, & Lee, 2010; Paasivaara & Lassenius, 2014). Furthermore, a wiki is
not necessarily restricted to the organizational boundaries. It is also possible to open
up the wiki to the outside world and to truly harness the benefits of the wisdom of
the crowd. Take, for example, the idea of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003),
which states that the organization should leverage knowledge from outside the
organization to be more innovative. A possible risk is the claimed inaccuracy of
wisdom of the crowd (Chai, Potdar, & Dillon, 2009). Wikis rely on peer-review
mechanisms that should remove or correct faulty content, but if this malfunctions, it
could lead to unreliable knowledge contributions.
4.4 Social Bookmarking
Social bookmarking systems enable users to attach keywords (i.e. tags) to resources
that they post (Doerfel, Jäschke, & Stumme, 2016), such as links to a web browser,
documents, photos, videos and even tweets on Twitter (i.e. hashtags). Sharing of
these resources amongst a wider group of users enables users to find resources
based on the tags that they are interested in. For example, one user may bookmark
Google.com as ‘search engine’ and another may bookmark AllTheWeb.com as
‘search engine’. By exploring the ‘search engine’ tag, users can discover search
engines that were previously unknown to them. Social bookmarking can support
knowledge sharing in organizations but perhaps more significantly, it also supports
6 R. Helms et al.
knowledge discovery. Through social bookmarking, users might find interesting

resources from people who are not in their direct personal network, hence spurring
new ideas and innovation (Gray, 2011). Like other social media, social bookmarking
began as publicly available tools geared at individual use, then later found its way into
the organization. This is demonstrated by Dogear and NBC Universal (Bibbo et al.,
2010; Millen, Feinberg, & Kerr, 2006), which have employed social bookmarking for
internal knowledge sharing, expertise location and support of communities of practice
(Millen et al., 2006).
4.5 Media Sharing
Media sharing platforms focus on sharing media of a particular type, such as video
(e.g. YouTube) or pictures (e.g. Instagram or Pinterest). Widely known for their use
in entertainment and marketing, these platform can also be used for knowledge
sharing, as exhibited by the myriad of “How to . . .” videos that are posted online.
For example, a ‘how to’ video about extending the memory of a laptop1 allows an
experienced user to demonstrate how to replace memory to novice users who want
to learn how to do this. Similarly in the corporate domain, YouTube has been used
to share knowledge. For example, software engineers use YouTube clips to explain
their code to each other (MacLeod, Storey, & Bergen, 2015). Users can react to
such videos by posting comments on the videos, resulting in online discussions
which may result in new, improved videos. Furthermore, video and picture sharing
can also be used for problem-solving purposes. Imagine a service technician for
copying machines. When the technician encounters an unknown problem with a
machine, he or she can make a video or take a picture and share it with fellow
technicians. They might have encountered the problem before and can offer a
solution to the problem at hand.
Yet another application of YouTube in organizations is for internal training
purposes, for example, videos may be used to teach trainees about the organization
or how to manage a project. These examples demonstrate that media sharing can
support knowledge management in various ways, varying from knowledge sharing
to problem-solving and learning. These tools can be more powerful than traditional
text-based tool, because, as the famous saying goes, a picture can tell more than a
thousand words. Furthermore, anyone can take pictures and videos anywhere, since
modern smartphones and tablets have functionality supporting this.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼L7FvZ-JduRM.
5 Beyond the Codification and Socialization Approach
The above discussion on social media tools shows how these tools can be used to
support different knowledge processes, such as knowledge creation and knowledge
sharing. We began by saying that these technologies typically support the sociali-
zation approach to managing knowledge, aiming at connecting people and supporting
discussion, collaboration and knowledge sharing. However, at the same time, they
support the codification approach, because both content and interaction history is
digitally captured by social media. Hence, social media are also valuable knowledge
repositories that store knowledge for later re-use; for example, the videos stored on
YouTube and the knowledge captured in a wiki. In order to support knowledge
retrieval, it is important that these tools provide easy access to stored content.
Furthermore, the digital traces and content of users on social media also offer an
opportunity to generate new knowledge and insights by applying data mining
techniques (Behrendt, Richter, & Riemer, 2014). One such application is to recom-
mend content and people to users of an organizational wiki (Leonardi, Huysman, &
Steinfield, 2013). An algorithm can be used to find pages that are often consulted
together; for example, pages X and Y. As a result, users who are consulting page X
are sent a recommendation to also consult page Y. Another application of social
media is to identify communities of interest in the organization based on the
connections and interactions between users of social network sites. Clustering
algorithms can be used here to find groups of people that have more connections to
each other than to others in the network (Zygmunt, Brodka, Kazienko, & Kozlak,
2012). Analyzing the groupings can reveal unidentified communities of interest in the
organization. Applying social network analysis can also provide information on the
central people in the network (i.e. potential experts) and the boundary spanners in
organizations (Helms, 2007). Additionally, text mining can be applied to the
messages between people using the social network site. Classification techniques
can reveal what people are talking about, providing insight into the topics discussed
(e.g. leisure or business) and also into how the site is used (e.g. information sharing or
problem solving). Last, but not least, text mining and classification can be applied to
networks with which technicians are collaboratively solving problems. Analyzing
these text messages might reveal that certain problems always occur at particular
places and/or contexts.
5.1 Digital Traces on Social Media a Source of Knowledge
This use of data is also referred to as a new approach for knowledge management
called the ‘sensor’ approach (Newell, 2014). It is based on implicit knowledge
sharing rather than explicit knowledge sharing because it uses the digital trails that
are left behind when people are using social media. These users do not intentionally
leave these trails because their main goal is to solve an immediate problem or to
share information. However, in the process, implicit knowledge is generated that is
of value for exploration. This implicit knowledge includes not only who is talking
8 R. Helms et al.
to whom and about what, but also information about the device that is being used
and the location where it is used. It is believed that this sensor approach provides
new opportunities for knowledge management and complements the codification
and socialization approaches (Newell, 2014). The sensor approach coincides with
the current big data trend and turns the data that is generated by users on social
media in useful insights and knowledge.
5.2 Introducing the Crowd to Organizational Knowledge

Management
A further development in knowledge management that has been driven by social

media is the so-called ‘crowd’ approach to managing knowledge (Newell, 2014).
This is based on employing the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ discussed above in relation-
ship to wikis. Social media are not necessarily used within an organization. The fact
that they are web-based and easy to use makes it possible to extend their use to
people outside the organization. This enables organizations to leverage the knowl-
edge of people outside company borders (von Krogh, 2012), such as experts at other
organization (for example, universities), users of the organization’s products and
services, and outsiders who could be not be otherwise identified. With this new
approach come two fundamental challenges that have been identified by von Krogh
(2012). The first is the problem of knowledge spill-over outside the organization’s
boundaries. Traditionally, organizations have protected their knowledge since it is a
valuable resource that can provide competitive advantage. When using social
media, there is a risk that proprietary knowledge could be spilled-over because it
is accidentally shared with those outside the organization. A second, complemen-
tary, problem is the risk of watering down the organization’s proprietary knowl-
edge. This problem emerges because social media make it very easy to consult
knowledge outside the organizational boundary. Hence, employees might overlook
proprietary knowledge from organizational knowledge repositories and instead use
knowledge from publicly available resources that are also available to the competi-
tion. Worse still, unreliable knowledge may find its way into the organizational
knowledge repositories. Either way, this has potential to undermine the strategic
position of the organization.
5.3 Complementary Approaches to Knowledge Management
We stress that the four approaches to knowledge management that we have discussed—
codification, socialization, sensor and crowd—should be not considered as separate
choices, but as complementary approaches that have potential to mutually strengthen
each other, whether used to support an organization’s business strategy or to address a
societal knowledge issue. The social media technologies available in the early twenty-
first century offer a range of diverse solutions to support these knowledge management
approaches, with many more solutions yet to be discovered. Of course, social media is
no silver bullet, and its relatively recent arrival presents new challenges that must be
considered before organizations can successfully apply the new knowledge manage-
ment approaches.
6 Social Knowledge Management in Action: Book Overview
This book aims to support organizations and scholars alike by providing an over-
view of new and innovative applications of social media for knowledge manage-
ment and reporting on the facilitators of success, as well as the challenges, risks and
issues that need to be tackled in applying social media in organizational contexts.
The first section of the book (Chaps. 2 and 3) present the current state of
understanding about enterprise social networks (ESNs), with a focus on how they
can support knowledge management and the nature of potential benefits for
organizations. In Chap. 2, Enterprise Social Networks (ESNs) as platforms for
Enabling and Understanding Knowledge Work, Janine Hacker provides a summary
of the foundations underlying social knowledge management, identifying two
major ways in which ESNs provide a potential source of value for managing knowl-
edge work in contemporary organizations: Hacker reminds us that any attempt to
manage knowledge must begin by considering the meaning of what constitutes knowl-
edge. Whereas many traditional knowledge management approaches are based on the
“possession view” of knowledge, social knowledge management originates from an
alternative, “practice-oriented” perspective that views knowledge as being based in the
doing of work and the accompanying social relationships. The consequent knowledge
management focus arising from this perspective is on managing knowledge work—
managing the doing of knowledge rather than the having of knowledge. According to
this practice-oriented view, ESNs provide potent value to organizations in two key
ways: (1) they can help develop enabling contexts and (2) they can contribute to a better
understanding of knowledge processes.
In Chap. 3, Mohammadbashir Sedighi and Mohammad T. Isaai consider the
deeper, motivational reasons that lead to knowledge sharing benefits when knowl-
edge management is based on enterprise social media. Based on an analysis of prior
research, they elicit a rich understanding the reasons why ESNs can make a
transformational, positive difference to knowledge sharing. They argue that that
three essential properties of ESM systems—their entirety, visibility and informal-
ity—support certain perceived benefits of knowledge sharing while diminishing
other perceived costs, thus significantly influencing employees’ motivation for
knowledge sharing, which leads to sustained participation. The authors combine
their insights into an model to explain the impact of knowledge sharing behaviors.
Translating an organizational vision for an information system into a real-world
success is a perennial challenge for managers and researchers alike. History has
shown that regardless of the technology involved, there is no ready-made success
formula, and that multiple interwoven issues are involved. Delivering on the
promise of enterprise social KM is unlikely to prove an exception. The implemen-
tation of social networking in the enterprise presents both novel and familiar challenges:
10 R. Helms et al.
Key questions that face mangers include, what kind of Web 2.0 tools are suitable for
which knowledge management purposes?, How should Web 2.0 be implemented? (Is a
bottom-up or a top-down approach more suitable?); and what skills do knowledge
workers need to effectively integrate Web 2.0 tools into their day-to-day work in the
organization? The ways in which these practical concerns are addressed will inevitably
impact on the outcome of ESN knowledge management efforts. The central section of
the book (Chaps. 4–6) presents research that aims to address such practical questions,
and draws implications for organizations, managers, and researchers.
In Chap. 4 Everist Limaj and Edward Bernroider report on an exploratory study
in which they investigate which kind of social information and communication
systems (SICS) are most suitable for supporting each of two key stages of knowl-
edge transfer: knowledge acquisition and knowledge assimilation. Based on their
findings, arising from pair-wise tool comparisons by experts, they draw conclusions
about the relative importance of different tools for developing an organization’s
potential absorptive capacity.
Chapters 5 and 6 feature field-based research into enterprise social network
implementations, considering issues to do with leadership of SKM implementation
and the skills required for knowledge workers to make effective use of social KM
systems. In Chap. 5, Ettore Bolisani and Enrico Scarso consider the issues associated
with top-down versus bottom-up implementation and the resulting dichotomy facing
managers. Their focus is the implementation approach for Web 2.0 in small and micro
firms and leadership issues.
Chapter 6 explores the skills that are required at an individual level to integrate
the use of Web 2.0 effectively into personal knowledge work within an organiza-
tion. Rouhollah Fathizargaran and Jocelyn Cranefield present research into the
implications of Web 2.0 for Personal Knowledge Management. Based on interviews
with professionals in a multinational software engineering company they propose a
framework of eight skills for PKM effectiveness in the context of Web 2.0 use.
The final two chapters of the book move the reader into new frontiers to explore
the larger potential of social knowledge management for organizations and society.
Both chapters propose visions for ways in which social media-based tools could be
formally exploited to create beneficial insights and knowledge.
In Chap. 7, Janine Hacker, Rebecca Bernsmann and Kai Riemer explore metrics
and dimensions of user behaviour in Enterprise Social Networks. The study builds
upon earlier work in measuring offline and online social networks and contributes
by looking at how Social Networks in specifically the Enterprise context could be
analysed, using both absolute and relative and both quantitative and qualitative
metrics. The authors underscore the great value of ESN analysis to boost such
organizational practices as staffing decisions, performance management and ESN
adoption and usage.
The final chapter of the book moves beyond an organizational focus to consider
the potential for social knowledge management at a societal level. Its focus is the
advancement and preservation of knowledge relating to endangered languages.
Using a design science approach, and the case of authors Asfahaan Mirza and
David Sundaram propose a solution based on SKM-based crowd-sourcing. Their
proposed design is based on the case of Te Reo Māori (the indigenous language of
New Zealand). Mirza and Sundaram’s work, illustrating the benefits a specific
application of the crowd-based approach to knowledge management (Newell,
2014), suggests that there may be significant untapped potential for gaining benefits
from social knowledge management at levels that lie well beyond the scope of the
organization.
7 A Bright Future Ahead
While the chapters in this book provide an overview of contemporary research of

the application of social media in the field of knowledge management, the books by
no means claims to provide an answer to all contemporary challenges in the field of
Social Knowledge Management. This emergent area still holds much future prom-
ise for exploration and we note that each of the book chapters provides suggestions
for future research in the area. Hence, this book is merely marking the start of the
research journey in this promising field. As editors, we hope that this book provides
a combination of inspiration and insights for both researchers and practitioners.
Researchers are encouraged to continue research in this field, following up the
suggestions for further research and embarking on further new directions. Practitioners
are encouraged to combine critical and creative judgement with agility, building on the
lessons reported on in this book while continuing to experiment with social media. We
also encourage practioners to share these experiences with each other and with
researchers. In particular, the crowdsourcing and sensor approaches are still emergent,
and represent largely unchartered research territory. Therefore, we hope to welcome
interesting research in these areas in future conferences and journals.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge manage-
ment systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
Back, A., Von Krogh, G., Seufert, A., Enkel, E., Raimann, J., Vassiliadis, S., et al. (2005). Putting
knowledge networks into action: Methodology, development, maintenance. Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Manage-
ment, 17(1), 99–120.
Bebensee, T., Helms, R. W., & Spruit, M. (2011). Exploring Web 2.0 applications as a mean of
bolstering up knowledge management. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1),
1–9.
Behrendt, S., Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2014). Conceptualisation of digital traces for the
identification of informal networks in enterprise social networks. In Proceedings of the 25th
Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–10). Auckland, New Zealand.
Bibbo, D., Sprehe, E., Michelich, J., & Lee, Y. E. (2010). Employing Wiki as a Collaborative
Information Repository in a Media and Entertainment Company: The NBC Universal Case. In
ICIS 2010 Proceedings (p. Paper 244).
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
12 R. Helms et al.
Chai, K., Potdar, V., & Dillon, T. (2009). Content quality assessment related frameworks for social
media. In O. Gervasi, D. Taniar, B. Murgante, A. Laganà, Y. Mun, & M. L. Gavrilova (Eds.),
Computational science and its applications—ICCSA 2009 (pp. 791–805). Heidelberg: Springer.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3),
35–41.
Chua, A., & Lam, W. (2005). Why KM projects fail: A multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(3), 6–17.
De VOC site. (n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2016, from http://www.vocsite.nl/geschiedenis/navigatie.
html.
Doerfel, S., Jäschke, R., & Stumme, G. (2016). The role of cores in recommender benchmarking
for social bookmarking systems. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology
(TIST), 7(4), 1–33.
Du, H. S., & Wagner, C. (2006). Weblog success: Exploring the role of technology. International
Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(9), 789–798.
Facebook. (n.d.). Facebook Stats. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from http://newsroom.fb.com/com
pany-info/.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17, 109–122.
Gray, P. H. (2011). Innovation impacts of using social bookmarking systems. MIS Quarterly, 35
(3), 629–643.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?
Harvard Business Review, 77, 106–116.
Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management—comparing 160 KM frameworks
around the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 4–31.
Helms, R. W. (2007). Redesigning communities of practice using knowledge network analysis. In
A. S. Kazi, L. Wohlfart, & P. Wolf (Eds.), Hands-on knowledge co-creation and sharing:
Practical methods and techniques (pp. 251–274). Stuttgart: Knowledgeboard.
Helms, R. W., & Buysrogge, C. M. (2006). Application of knowledge network analysis to identify
knowledge sharing bottlenecks at an engineering firm. In J. Ljungberg & M. Andersson (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems. G€ oteborg: European
Conference on Information Systems.
Huysman, M., & de Wit, D. (2004). Practices of managing knowledge sharing: Towards a second
wave of knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(2), 81–92.
Kaiser, S., Kansy, S., Mueller-Seitz, G., & Ringlstetter, M. (2009). Weblogs for organizational
knowledge sharing and creation: A comparative case study. Knowledge Management Research
& Practice, 7(2), 120–130.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54
(3), 241–251.
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition, history,
and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 19(1), 1–19.
MacLeod, L., Storey, M.-A., & Bergen, A. (2015). Code, camera, action!: How software
developers document and share program knowledge using YouTube. In 2015 IEEE 23rd
International Conference on Program Comprehension (pp. 104–114). IEEE Press.
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013). The contradictory influence of social
media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Corporate wiki users: Results of a survey. In
Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis WikiSym 06 (pp. 99–104).
Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational business
processes: Getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(1), 7–28.
Maybury, M. (2002). Knowledge on demand: Knowledge and expert discovery. Journal of Univer-
sal Computer Science, 8(5), 491–505.
Millen, D. R., Feinberg, J., & Kerr, B. (2006). Dogear: Social bookmarking in the enterprise. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 111–120).
ACM Digital Library.
Nevo, D., Benbasat, I., & Wand, Y. (2012). Understanding technology support for organizational
transactive memory: Requirements, application, and customization. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 28(4), 69–98.
Newell, S. (2014). Managing knowledge and managing knowledge work: What we know and what
the future holds. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 1–17.
Niederer, S., & van Dijck, J. (2010). Wisdom of the crowd or technicity of content? Wikipedia as a
sociotechnical system. New Media & Society, 12, 1368–1387.
Niehaves, B., K€offer, S., & Ortbach, K. (2012). IT consumerization—a theory and practice review.
In Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) (Vol. Paper 18, pp. 1–9).
Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2014). Communities of practice in a large distributed agile
software development organization—case ericsson. Information and Software Technology, 56,
1556–1577.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Doubleday.
Rivera-pelayo, V., Braun, S., Riss, U. V., Witschel, H. F., Hu, B., Witschel, H., et al. (2013).
Building expert recommenders from email-based personal social networks. In T. Öyzer,
J. Rokne, G. Wagner, & A. H. P. Reuser (Eds.), The influence of technology on social network
analysis and mining (Vol. 6, pp. 129–156). New York: Springer.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.
von Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a
strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(2), 154–164.
Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group
collaboration. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 265–289.
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind.
In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208).
New York: Springer.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard
Business Review, 78(1), 139–146.
Zygmunt, A., Brodka, P., Kazienko, P., & Kozlak, J. (2012). Key person analysis in social
communities within the blogosphere. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(4), 577–597.
Part I
Enterprise Social Networks for Knowledge
Management: Conceptual Foundations
Enterprise Social Networks: Platforms
for Enabling and Understanding
Knowledge Work?
Janine Hacker
1 Introduction
“Knowledge cannot be managed, only enabled”. This quote by von Krogh (2012)
challenges the underlying assumptions of many attempts to manage knowledge in
the organizational practice. It also challenges the perspective on knowledge that is
taken up, explicitly or implicitly, in much of the scientific literature dealing with
knowledge and the management of the same (Newell, Robertson, Scarbrough, &
Swan, 2009).
Thus, before attempting to manage knowledge using certain techniques and
tools, one should come to an understanding of what knowledge is. In this regard,
the literature distinguishes between the possession perspective and the practice
perspective (Cook & Brown, 1999). In the past, knowledge management initiatives
in organizations mostly adopted the possession perspective and applied a codifica-
tion strategy that focused on capturing and storing explicit knowledge, e.g. in
databases (Hansen, 1999). However, if knowledge is understood as a resource
that is socially constructed and embedded in the organizational practice, this
strategy cannot be of success. Indeed, knowledge-intensive work and knowledge
sharing mainly happen in informal organizational structures that coexist next to the
organizational chart and reporting chains (Allen, James, & Gamlen, 2007).
Adopting a knowledge-in-practice perspective puts the core of traditional knowl-
edge management into question. If much of an organization’s knowledge is embed-
ded in social relationships — what exactly do knowledge managers manage? If
knowledge is socially situated within people’s relationships, if it is contextual and
bound to individuals — can knowledge be transferred or stored at all? The narrow
focus, i.e. the negligence of the social context, of many attempts to manage
J. Hacker (*)
Institute of Information Systems, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen,
Germany
e-mail: janine.hacker@fau.de

18 J. Hacker
organizational may be one reason for knowledge management initiatives to fail

(Newell et al., 2009). Addressing this issue, the knowledge-in practice view
emphasizes the importance of communities and networks in reinforcing knowledge
sharing and network-centric mechanism in promoting the knowledge flow (Brown &
Duguid, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Rather than managing knowledge, the practice
perspective suggests the management of knowledge work which includes, amongst
others, the stimulation, enhancement, and understanding of knowledge work.
More and more organizations use Enterprise Social Networks (ESN) to support
collaboration and knowledge sharing. The users of these platform engage in
knowledge-intensive actions such as discussing, asking questions, giving advice,
and sharing content (Riemer & Scifleet, 2012). Doing so, they leave a number of
digital traces stored in the back end of the ESN (Behrendt, Richter, & Riemer,
2014a). Their interactions form a new layer of organizational relationships beside
the existing formal and informal structures. Using a knowledge-in-practice lens, the
emerging patterns of ESN relationships reflect the creation, development and
distribution of organizational knowledge. Against this background, this chapter
addresses the following research question: How can ESN support the management
of knowledge work?
This chapter is organized as follows: Informing the theoretical background of the
chapter, Sect. 2 introduces and compares the two different perspectives on knowl-
edge. Next, the literature review process is described. Following a definition and
overview of ESN, Sect. 5 consolidates findings of the literature as to how ESN can
develop enabling contexts for knowledge work and help understand knowledge
work, i.e. knowledge practices and processes. The final sections summarize the
chapter’s main points and suggest areas for future research.
2 Perspectives on Knowledge and Implications

for Knowledge Management
The following sections describe and contrast the two perspectives on knowledge.
As shown in Fig. 1, the conceptualization of knowledge is suggested to influence
the focus of the knowledge management strategy and research respectively (Alavi
& Leidner, 2001). Depending on the understanding of knowledge, particular
knowledge management processes will be emphasized. Also, the research design
used to study knowledge will vary depending on the knowledge conceptualization.
In this regard, the next sections focus on the implications for organizational
knowledge management rather than knowledge management research.
2.1 Possession Perspective: Knowledge as an Object
According to the epistemology of possession, knowledge is considered as an object,

that is a personal property, belonging to an individual knower (Alavi & Leidner,
2001; Newell et al., 2009). Individuals are considered to have knowledge that they
Enterprise Social Networks: Platforms for Enabling and Understanding. . . 19
Knowledge
Focus of knowledge
management activities
management strategy
and processes
Conceptualization of
knowledge
Implications for the

Focus of knowledge study of knowledge and
management research knowledge management
processes
Fig. 1 Implications of the perspective on knowledge (own illustration)
use based on their own subjective experiences. In accordance with the thing-like
conceptualization of knowledge (Brown & Duguid, 2001), “knowers” are referred
to as knowledge carriers or knowledge bearers.
Adopting the possession perspective, knowledge is commonly distinguished into
explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit or codified knowledge can be transmitted in
formal and systematic language, i.e. through documents (Nonaka, 1994). On the
contrary, tacit knowledge is acquired through personal experience and is difficult to
formalize and to communicate. Tacit knowledge is often referred to as “know-how”
that resides in people’s heads, in practical skills, and actions. As these practical
skills, such as riding a bike or swimming, are hard to articulate, people are said to
“know more than they can tell” (Polanyi, 1958). It needs to be noted, however, that
the sharp distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge may be due to a
misinterpretation of Polanyi’s original work. In this regard, several authors
(e.g. Brown & Duguid, 2001; Cook & Brown, 1999; Orlikowski, 2002) find that
Polanyi did not differentiate between two kinds of knowledge but rather argued all
knowledge to have a tacit component (Polanyi, 1958).
Adopting the possession perspective, organizational knowledge management
considers knowledge as a resource that should be managed and accumulated like
other (tangible) organizational resources. Knowledge “is seen as something (that
resides predominantly in people’s heads) that can be extracted, codified, stored, and
transferred in order to improve the information processing capability of the organi-
zation” (Swan, 2004, p. 275). Due to the fact that much of an organization’s
knowledge is tacit, the focus is on converting the tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge in order to make it accessible to a broader circle of people. Knowledge
is hence thought to be transferable to other people who do not need to have the same
experiences as the person who communicates the knowledge to them. This knowl-
edge management strategy is also referred to as “codification strategy” (Hansen,
1999). Knowledge management processes then include the identification, capture,
use, transfer, creation, and acquisition of knowledge. These activities are supported
by different types of IT applications, that e.g. enable the codification and storage of
knowledge.
20 J. Hacker
2.2 Practice Perspective: Knowledge as a Practice
Drawing on earlier work on communities of practice and situated learning (Lave &
Wenger, 1991), a second stream of research has adopted a process or practice
perspectives to conceptualize (organizational) knowledge. According to the prac-
tice perspective, knowledge is created and negotiated through social interactions
between individuals who act knowledgeably (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Cook &
Brown, 1999; Orlikowski, 2002). Thus, knowledge emerges from the organiza-
tional practice and cannot be separated from this practice. Indeed, knowledge is
continuously (re)produced when people and their tools work together. Adopting a
practice vocabulary, the literature refers to knowing rather than knowledge. The
progressive tense on the one hand indicates a continuing action, i.e. something that
is currently happening. On the other hand, it suggests people’s actions, i.e. what
they do, and what they know to be interwoven (Newell et al., 2009).
Contrary to the possession perspective, people are not seen as knowledge
carriers who have knowledge but as actors who do knowledge. As such, they are
mediators who actively produce and translate knowledge within the organizational
practice. Knowledge is considered as continuously emerging since the actions of
people can lead to different results, even if they base their actions on the same
information. In this regard, information is understood as some form of codified and
“organized data” (Newell et al., 2009), e.g. a process chart or guideline. Compared
to the possession perspective that might consider this piece of information as
explicit knowledge, according to the practice perspective, this document only
becomes knowledge once it is used and applied in practice by an individual.
According to Newell et al. (2009), knowledge can be described as equivocal,
dynamic, and context-dependent. Further, compared to the possession perspective,
knowledge is not seen as valuable in itself but only adds value when it is linked to
actions and applied for specific purposes (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Swan, 2004).
Knowledge management grounding in the practice perspective places emphasis
on the social and relational nature of knowledge (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Lave &
Wenger, 1991). It aims at managing knowledge work rather than knowledge
(Newell et al., 2009). As a result, knowledge management processes do not seek
to convert tacit into explicit knowledge, but focus on the creation, sharing and
negotiation of knowledge within communities and the translation of knowledge
across groups and contexts (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Newell, 2014; Newell et al.,
2009). For instance, the personalization strategy (Hansen, 1999) highlights the
importance of the dialogue between people and hence, the sharing of knowledge
directly from person-to-person. Information technology supports the management
of knowledge work, e.g. by providing platforms for sharing and exchanging knowl-
edge or finding people.
Table 1 summarizes and contrasts core aspects of the two perspectives.
According to the framework by Newell et al. (2009) and Newell (2014), knowl-
edge management adopting a practice perspective should be based on the three
dimensions of knowledge work:
Table 1. Comparison of knowledge perspectives

Knowledge as an object Knowledge as a practice
Knowledge Knowledge is an object that is held Knowing is constructed and
by individuals who apply it based on negotiated through social
their own subjective experiences. It interactions. It is equivocal,
is a resource that can be dynamic and contextual. It emerges
accumulated, captured and in practice and cannot be separated
transferred from this practice
Actors Individuals are considered as Individuals are seen as mediators
knowledge carriers who have that translate knowledge and act
knowledge knowledgeably
Focus of Conversion of tacit into explicit Managing knowledge work
knowledge knowledge to enable reuse of
management knowledge
strategy
Knowledge Extraction, codification, storing, and Support knowledge sharing, build
management transfer networks, enable knowledge
tasks translation, analyze knowledge
processes
Role of IT Applications supporting the IT is considered as an active
codification, storing, distribution and participant in knowledge work
reuse of knowledge
Authors e.g. Nonaka (1994) e.g. Brown and Duguid (2001);
Orlikowski (2002)
• Develop enabling contexts: This dimension focuses on the development of an

environment to support knowledge work. For instance, the organizational culture
and structure, as well as reward systems and potential opportunities for collabo-
ration and coordination should be taken into consideration. Influencing these
aspects, the preconditions for knowledge work are created.
• Understand knowledge processes: Organizations need to understand how knowl-
edge is shared, integrated, translated and transformed. The second dimension is
closely related to studying knowledge which means “looking at the varied ways in
which actors in particular social situations understand and make sense of where
they are and what they are doing” (Newell et al., 2009, p. 6). Practices or actions
and the context in which they occur should hence be analyzed to understand
knowledge (McIver, Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, & Ramachandran, 2012).
• Use knowledge for specific purposes: Knowledge should be deployed to com-
plete specific tasks to meet certain goals.
In summary, knowledge, or rather knowledge work, is managed by aligning

context, knowledge processes and purpose (Newell, 2014; Newell et al., 2009).
Activities in managing knowledge work e.g. include the creation of opportunities
for collaboration, the building of social networks to connect people, the analysis of
knowledge practices as well as securing that knowledge is used purposefully. Infor-
mation Technology is considered as an active participant within these processes.
22 J. Hacker
3 Methodology
This chapter examines how ESN can support the management of knowledge work.
Adopting the framework by Newell et al. (2009) and Newell (2014), it focuses on
how ESN, on the one hand, support the development of enabling contexts and on the
other hand help understand knowledge processes. The third dimension (use knowl-
edge for specific purposes) is not considered here since it is mostly related to
knowledge governance and the overall strategy of a company which is beyond
the scope of this chapter. Figure 2 illustrates the considered dimensions of manag-
ing knowledge work as shaded in grey.
The above research question is answered based on a review of the literature
(Webster & Watson, 2002) covering the topic ESN.1 In this regard, the literature
review focuses on studies published in major information systems journals and
conferences according to the Association for Information Systems (AIS, 2011) and
the rating of the German Academic Association for Business Research (VHB,
2015). The searched databases include the DBLP Computer Science Bibliography,
the AIS eLibrary, the ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, EBSCO host, and
Springer Link. Within the literature search, multiple search terms and combinations
of them were considered. Exemplary search terms include microblogging, enter-
prise social network, corporate social network(ing), enterprise social media, social
software, knowledge, and knowledge management. Considering that early adopters
of ESN introduced their platforms in the years of 2006 and 2007 (Richter & Riemer,
2009), the time period for the literature review comprises the years 2005–2015.
The initial search process resulted in 191 publications. In the following,
publications not explicitly focusing on ESN and knowledge management, as well
as publications without original content and publications of less than four pages were
excluded. This selection process led to a final number of 33 publications. The selected
papers were read in detail and assigned to the considered dimensions of the frame-
work by Newell et al. (2009) and Newell (2014). Within these two top categories, the
papers were coded according to (1) how ESN can help develop enabling contexts and
(2) the types of knowledge processes identifiably on ESN. As to the development of
enabling contexts, these codes include context awareness, situation awareness,
relationship building, common background, and organizational culture (cf. Sect.
5.1). Concerning the second dimension, the creation of new knowledge, information
sharing, problem solving, knowledge negotiation, knowledge integration, knowledge
translation, networking, informal networks, and network roles could be identified as
knowledge processes (cf. Sect. 5.2). Following an overview of ESN in Sect. 4, the
findings of the literature analysis are presented in Sect. 5.
1
The results of the literature review presented in this chapter focus on ESN and knowledge
management. Please refer to Viol and Hess (2016) for a comprehensive overview of the literature
review process and findings regarding information systems research on ESN in general.
Fig. 2 Addressed
dimensions of managing
knowledge work (own Know-
ledge
illustration) proces-
ses
Enab-
ling
context
Purpose
4 Enterprise Social Networks
In recent years, companies have started to use internal online social networks,
i.e. ESN, well-known examples of which include IBM Connections, Jive or Yam-
mer (Gartner, 2013). ESN can be defined as web-based Intranet platforms that rely
on Web 2.0 technology and are implemented behind the firewall of an organization
(Kügler, Smolnik, & Kane, 2015b; Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfield, 2013). They
allow users (1) to communicate with other users in private, to participate in groups
or send messages to everyone in the organization (Leonardi et al., 2013), (2) to
explicitly connect with other users via features like “Following” or implicitly
through interactions on the same content (Behrendt, Richter, & Trier, 2014b;
Leonardi et al., 2013), (3) to react to contributions by other users (Behrendt et al.,
2014b), (4) to present information about themselves (Behrendt et al., 2014b) and
(5) to access the profile information and contributions created by others (Leonardi
et al., 2013). The communicative actions of users on the ESN lead to visible traces
that persist over time (Leonardi et al., 2013).
Early adopters of ESN, e.g. IBM, Accenture Ltd. and the SAP AG launched their
internal SNS in the years of 2006 and 2007 (Richter & Riemer, 2009). In the
following years, more and more companies started to use ESN to improve knowl-
edge sharing and collaboration amongst their employees. In 2013, 79% of the large
companies and 67% of the small and medium sized companies in the German
Internet & Telecommunications sector used an ESN (BITKOM, 2013). According
to a report by Forrester Research (Koplowitz, 2014), a consolidation of the market
can be observed regarding the employed ESN platforms. The platforms IBM
Connections, Jive and Microsoft Office 365 have become the dominant solutions.
Moreover, the offering of different ESN vendors in terms of functionality has been
converging while the applications still differ regarding their integration possibilities
and analytics features (Koplowitz, 2014). Table 2 gives an overview of the features
generally provided by ESN (Drakos, Mann, & Gotta, 2014; Koplowitz, 2014;
Kurzlechner, 2011) organized according to the categories of ESN functionality as
defined by Richter (2010).
24 J. Hacker
Table 2. Overview and description of ESN features (adopted from Hacker, Bodendorf, & Lorenz,
2016)
Category of ESN
ESN feature Description functionality
User profile Entering, maintaining and displaying of personal Identity
information (name, contact details, position etc.), management
e.g. by creating a profile page
Following Following colleagues to see their activities and status Relationship
updates management
Activity stream Accessing updates from colleagues/followed topics, Network
integration of a newsfeed awareness
Search Searching the content stored in the ESN, e.g. searching (Expert) search
for people or topics
Community/ Creation of and participation in public or restricted Exchange
group groups. Groups are used to e.g. coordinate tasks in
capabilities project teams or to discuss matters of interest of a
subset of a company’s staff. Groups feature discussion
threads, content sharing, and content storing etc.
Discussion Starting of discussions using status updates in the ESN
thread main stream, participation in discussions by replying
on a user’s post
Content liking/ Possibility to react on a user’s post by clicking on the
rating/sharing “Like Button”, by rating a user’s contribution or by
sharing a file or update by another user with one’s own
network
Tagging Mentioning of other users or topics in messages,
e.g. comments or status updates
Bookmarks Saving, organizing and sharing of bookmarked
content, e.g. conversations or (external) websites
File sharing Uploading and sharing of files such as reports
Blog Creation of a blog to share or store information, e.g. to
keep everyone informed within a project group
Wiki Use of a wiki to collaboratively create content with
other users or to store information such as meeting
minutes
Social analytics Provision of recommendations of colleagues a user Context
may want to add to their network, e.g. users with awareness
similar interests
Export Possibility to export data stored in the back end of the Supporting
possibilities ESN features
Integration Integration with other enterprise applications,
possibilities provision of interfaces
Features such as the user profile, activity stream and group capabilities are
provided in the ESN front end. Using these features and interacting on the ESN,
employees leave digital traces which are stored in the back end of the ESN
(Behrendt et al., 2014a). This data is then e.g. used for social analytics targeted at
ESN users or to generate statistics and reports for community managers and
platform administrators. According to Behrendt et al. (2014a) the accumulated ESN

data can be structured along the dimensions Who, How, When, Where, What and
Whom:
• Who: Describes the ESN user, based on e.g. a distinct user ID as well as details of
the user profile, such as age, gender, department, and location.
• How/When/Where: How indicates the kind of activity performed, e.g. the crea-
tion of a note. When refers to the point in time an activity was performed and can
be identified based on the timestamp of the activity. Where indicates the place of
the activity, e.g. as to whether the update was posted to the main stream or within
a group.
• What: Describes the type of information object that results from the user activity.
Exemplary content types include status updates, blog posts, wiki entries, and
attachments.
• To whom: Indicates the target of an activity. For instance, (direct) comments on a
user’s status messages are targeted to the creator of the status message.
Relationships between users can be inferred based other activities, such as
common thread participation or group membership, too.
5 Using Enterprise Social Networks to Manage

Knowledge Work
The following sections present selected works dealing with how ESN on the one
hand support the development of enabling contexts and on the other hand help
understand knowledge processes.
5.1 Developing an Enabling Context
According to Newell et al. (2009), organizations need to develop enabling contexts,

i.e. structures, opportunities for collaborative forms of work and coordination,
reward and recognition systems and career opportunities that support knowledge
work. In this regard, ESN can particularly contribute to the creation and strengthening
of opportunities for collaboration. Indeed, most organizations introduce ESN in order
to create and reinforce a suitable context for knowledge work. Knowledge manage-
ment related goals of introducing ESN include, amongst others, enabling efficient
employee communication while avoiding information overload, efficient knowledge
sharing, better access to experts, the achievement of a more participatory and open
corporate culture, and increasing awareness and transparency in terms of organiza-
tional knowledge (Richter, Stocker, Müller, & Avram, 2011).
However, ESN cannot become a silver bullet for reaching these goals if certain
preconditions are not met. In fact, ESN initiatives often fail before they can help
develop an enabling context for knowledge work. The reasons for the failure of
ESN initiatives have been found to be due to e.g. a misalignment between the
26 J. Hacker
organizational climate and the underlying principles of social software. Trust and
collaboration norms, for instance, influence ESN usage (Kügler, Lübbert, &
Smolnik, 2015a) and should be reinforced to make ESN work (von Krogh, 2012).
Several studies highlight the need for a requirements analysis, e.g. to identify
suitable ESN use cases (Viol & Lüdecke, 2015), and careful planning of the
implementation phase (Bala, Massey, Rajanayakam, & Hsieh, 2015). The
perceptions about the ESN should be aligned with its actual scope across the
different levels of the organizations Figueroa and Cranefield (2012). Furthermore,
members of the company’s top management should support (von Krogh, 2012) and
ideally exemplify the benefits of the platform to the employees through using the
ESN themselves.
Provided that an organization is successful in implementing the ESN and
achieving a critical mass of users, ESN are particularly feasible to support the
development of enabling contexts within the following dimensions:
• Context awareness: ESN make previously invisible communication visible and

persistent for everyone in the organization. This “communication visibility” can
help improve people’s awareness of “who knows what” and “who knows whom”
in the organization. As a result, organizational knowledge transparency is
improved and experts can be accessed more quickly (Leonardi, 2014).
• Situation awareness: Through the use of status updates, co-workers become
more aware of what others are working on and which work-related problems
they may face. Situation awareness can help improve coordination, e.g. through
the delegation of tasks if a deadline needs to be met or the arrangement of ad-hoc
meetings to discuss a problem (Meyer & Dibbern, 2010). This can be particu-
larly beneficial for distributed teams who have less opportunities for personal
meetings (Seebach, Beck, & Pahlke, 2011).
• Relationship building: ESN enable the building of new relationships as well the
fostering of existing connections. This, in turn, opens up new possibilities for
collaboration (DiMicco, Geyer, Millen et al., 2009; DiMicco, Millen, Geyer
et al., 2008; Richter & Riemer, 2009; Riemer & Scifleet, 2012). Moreover, ESN
allow people to build up and leverage social capital, in order to e.g. receive
(more) responses from other users (Pahlke, 2012).
• Common background: As a social software, ESN platforms facilitate
conversations and informal talk among users. According to Riemer and Scifleet
(2012), actions related to discussions and sharing updates lead to the emergence
of a shared background and trust among the platform users. This, in turn, is
considered as an important prerequisite for knowledge work (Riemer & Scifleet,
2012) and team collaboration (Merz, Seeber, & Maier, 2015).
• Organizational culture: According to a study by Stieglitz, Riemer, and Meske
(2014), a company’s formal hierarchy is less relevant in an ESN setting. While a
certain level of fit between the organizational culture and the ESN needs to exist
for the ESN to be adopted in the first place (see above), an ESN may then be able
to foster broader information diffusion and a more bottom-up organizational
culture, which might benefit knowledge work.
Table 3. ESN as an enabler of knowledge work

Supported
aspect Applicable ESN features Description
Context Activity stream, content liking/ The activity stream enables users to keep
awareness rating/sharing, social analytics current of the communications in the
organization. The liking or sharing of
contents posted by co-workers may
indicate them to be experts regarding
specific topics. The knowing of “who
knows what” is further enhanced through
social analytics features
Situation Activity stream, community/ Being confronted with updates in the
awareness group capabilities, discussion activity stream, coworkers learn about
thread, tagging each other’s current tasks. Group spaces
enable discussions of issues and
coordination within e.g. a project team
Relationship Following, social analytics Following enables the maintenance of
building existing contacts, i.e. with previously
known co-workers. New contacts may be
due to common participation in a
discussion thread or based on
recommendations provided through
social analytics features, for instance
Common Activity stream, discussion Taking part in and following discussions
background thread, content liking/rating/ enables the platform users to learn about
sharing and understand the opinion of their
co-workers on what is happening in the
organization
Organizational Activity stream, discussion Irrespective of the role in the formal
culture thread, content liking/rating/ organizational structure, every registered
sharing user has access to information posted to
the platform’s main stream, can
participate in discussions and like or rate
the available contents
Table 3 describes how specific ESN features support the development of

enabling contexts within the addressed dimensions.
Beyond the addressed aspects, ESN’s have been found to be very flexible (von
Krogh, 2012), i.e. they are appropriated according to the characteristics of the
organizational context. Thus, different usage patterns will emerge in different
organizations (Riemer, Altenhofen, & Richter, 2011). This also implies that
ESN’s can help develop enabling contexts in accordance with the organizational
setting, e.g. by placing more or less emphasis on particular features.
28 J. Hacker
5.2 Understanding Knowledge Processes
Besides developing enabling contexts, understanding the processes and practices

through which knowledge is shared, integrated, translated and transformed is an
important dimension of managing knowledge work (Newell et al., 2009). Since the
practice perspective considers knowledge as embedded in a company’s social
structures, i.e. within employee actions and interactions, these structures and
actions should be considered when seeking to understand knowledge work.
However, one obstacle to understanding knowledge processes clearly lies in the
very nature of these processes. Besides being intangible, knowledge practices are
often performed within the informal structures of an organization. These informal
structures, i.e. informal organizational networks, are emergent and exist beside an
organization’s formal organizational chart. While informal organizational
structures are highly efficient for knowledge work, they are difficult to detect and
therefore, difficult to understand and manage (Cross & Prusak, 2002). Prior
research has identified informal connections by considering advice seeking and
trust relationships between employees. Often without explicitly taking up a practice
perspective, these researchers consider knowledge as embedded in activities that
employees perform in their day-to-day interactions, e.g. tackling work-related
problems. Informal organizational structures are mostly identified based on surveys
that include questions such as “Who do you turn to for help if you experience
problems at work?” (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002a). Depending on the focus of
the questionnaire, different kinds of networks can be identified, such as communi-
cation, information, or problem-solving networks (Cross, Nohria, & Parker, 2002b;
de Toni & Nonino, 2010). Once the social network data has been collected, social
network analysis metrics are calculated to characterize the network and identify key
players, such as central connectors and boundary spanners, in the network (Cross &
Prusak, 2002).
Extending organizational social network analysis, Helms and Buijsrogge (2005)
developed an approach called knowledge network analysis. This approach
identifies knowledge flows by surveying employees from whom they receive
knowledge (push network) and who they turn to for knowledge (pull network).
The following analysis differentiates between roles such as knowledge creators,
knowledge sharers and knowledge users. Visualized in a knowledge network graph,
knowledge creators will have many outgoing links as they provide others with
knowledge. Acting as intermediaries, knowledge sharers have both ingoing and
outgoing links. Knowledge users can be recognized by having ingoing links only.
Both organizational social network analysis and knowledge network analysis
involve a significant manual effort to capture and prepare the social network data.
The manual data collection is not feasible to analyze large datasets (Fischbach,
Schoder, & Gloor, 2008). More recent approaches therefore rely on electronic
interactions, e.g. based on e-mails sent between employees (van Reijsen et al.,
2009) or sociometric sensors (Gloor et al., 2012), to automate the data capturing
process.
Drawing on these ideas, the analysis of digital traces stored in the ESN back-end
holds great promise for the detection of knowledge flows in order to better under-
stand knowledge processes and the involved actors. Against this backdrop, the
question arises how ESN, and particularly the analysis of ESN data, can help
identify, characterize and understand knowledge processes.
As for now, ESN research has analyzed knowledge-intensive practices mostly
relying on qualitative approaches, e.g. by performing a genre analysis of the status
updates posted to the ESN platform (e.g. Riemer & Scifleet, 2012). Thus, the
following (partly overlapping) knowledge practices could be identified:
• Creation of new knowledge: This process is understood as the initiation of

knowledge. Practices related to the generation of ideas as well as online brain-
storming and crowdsourcing have been recognized on ESN (Richter & Riemer,
2013; Riemer & Scifleet, 2012; Riemer et al., 2011).
• Information sharing: Employees use ESN to share professional as well as
personal information (DiMicco et al., 2008, 2009). Also, information is shared
when notifying others about events or providing input via the adding of
attachments, such as links or documents, to posts (Richter & Riemer, 2013;
Riemer & Scifleet, 2012; Riemer et al., 2011).
• Problem solving: Problem-solving on ESN includes activities related to seeking
advice, e.g. by asking a question, and giving advice, e.g. by replying to an
information request. Advice-seeking occurs as information-seeking, solution-
seeking, and people-seeking (Thom et al., 2011), e.g. to find experts (Richter &
Riemer, 2009; Seebach et al., 2011). Thus, problem-solving can be considered as
a practice aiming at the harnessing of existing knowledge (Pahlke, 2012; Riemer
& Scifleet, 2012).
• Knowledge negotiation: This process is connected to the ongoing reproduction
of knowledge within the structures of the ESN. Users negotiate knowledge by
discussing the content posted by another user, e.g. a statement made within a
status update (Richter & Riemer, 2013). Also, knowledge negotiation takes
place when gathering opinions, e.g. regarding an idea or created document,
and receiving feedback from other users (Seebach et al., 2011). ESN features
such as the editing of content posted by others enable users to build on each
other’s contributions, to recombine content and to co-author documents (von
Krogh, 2012; Wagner, Vollmar, & Wagner, 2014).
• Knowledge integration: The integration of knowledge implies consolidating
and organizing knowledge. Closely related to, or as a result of, discussions, users
may provide information to clarify an issue (Riemer et al., 2011). For instance,
this information could explain how a certain activity should or should not be
performed in the future (Seebach et al., 2011). If tagged with a keyword or stored
within a repository on the ESN (Riemer et al., 2011), this information will be
easier to retrieve and be helpful to other users.
• Knowledge translation: This process refers to the application of knowledge
within a different context where it may take a different meaning. Steinfield, van
Osch, and Zhao (2015) found users to engage in boundary spanning,
30 J. Hacker
i.e. communicating with external sources of information. While vertical bound-

ary spanning involves user activities to create a favorable impression amongst
senior managers, horizontal boundary spanning is performed through cross-team
coordination, to e.g. prepare a decision, as well as by scanning the external team
environment for knowledge and expertise. Knowledge translation could also
occur due to sharing information within another context, e.g. by sharing a best
practice of one team in the group of another one.
• Networking: As stated above, employees use ESN to create new connections as
well as to maintain existing relationships (Kügler & Smolnik, 2014). This
“social use” of the platform, including informal talk, opens opportunities for
other knowledge practices, e.g. identifying experts. Due to its importance, it is
recognized as a process on its own.
Besides the qualitative analyses, only few studies used ESN data to characterize
user interactions and users based on quantitative approaches. For instance,
Behrendt et al. (2014a) conceptualized digital traces to identify and analyze infor-
mal networks. Further topics that are addressed include relationship discovery
(Burns & Friedman, 2012; Perer et al., 2013), the analysis of the users’ question
and answer behavior (Thom et al., 2011; Burns & Kotval, 2013), structural
properties of networks of messages (Chelmis & Prasanna, 2013) as well as expert
mining and expertise location (Guy et al., 2013).
Beyond analyzing user actions and interactions, it is necessary to understand the
different types of actors involved in these processes. In this regard, Berger, Klier,
Klier, and Probst (2014) investigate the structural characteristics of value adding
users in ESN. These are defined as users who contribute and communicate their
knowledge in the ESN thus helping other users to work more successfully and
efficiently. Combining qualitative text analysis and social network analysis, they
find that key users are well-connected in both the social and activity graph. In a case
study, Trier and Richter (2015) identify discourse drivers, who primarily dissemi-
nate topics, and information retrievers, who are interesting in finding and using
information, as two mutually interdependent actor roles.
Table 4 describes how different knowledge practices are reflected within the
features of ESN platforms.
In conclusion, the analysis of ESN data generated through use of the above
features appears promising in order to identify and understand another layer within
the web of organizational knowledge networks—the one that emerges on ESN. As a
major part of ESN interactions is relevant in the context of knowledge work, the
analysis of this data may provide valuable insights regarding the knowing embedded
within this organizational context. These insights can help managers to e.g. monitor
knowledge sharing in the organization, to identify important communities, or to
assess the health of the ESN community as a whole.
Table 4. Knowledge processes on ESN

Knowledge
practice Applicable ESN features Description
Creation of Discussion thread Discussion threads enable the initiation and
new advancement of e.g. new ideas
knowledge
Information Discussion thread, tagging, file Discussion threads enable the broadcasting
sharing sharing, blog, wiki of information to everyone in the
organization as well as sharing information
with particular others by tagging them.
Status updates may contain links or other
files. Blogs and wikis facilitate the sharing of
more complex information
Problem Discussion thread, search, Users can post questions to the platform to
solving tagging receive help from their co-workers. They
may also search for experts or tag users with
specific expertise in their question
Knowledge Discussion thread, content The main stream enables all users to
negotiation liking/rating/sharing, blog, exchange opinions and to reproduce
wiki organizational knowledge. Blogs and wikis
facilitate the collaborative editing of content
Knowledge Discussion thread, blog, wiki Knowledge may be integrated towards the
integration end of a conversation on the platform and
stored as a blog post or wiki entry
Knowledge Search, community/group Knowledge is applied in a different context
translation capabilities, content liking/ when shared within the group of another
rating/sharing project team or department, for instance.
Searching the external team environment for
expertise is considered as one form of
boundary spanning
Networking Following, discussion thread Employees use the platform to connect with
existing and new contacts
Informal Export functionalities Informal networks can be detected by
networks analyzing e.g. the communication
relationships between users
Network Export functionalities The identification of distinct communication
roles patters may facilitate the discovery of
network roles
6 Conclusion
Adopting the practice perspective of knowledge, this chapter has given an overview
of the literature on ESN and knowledge management. It suggests that ESN can
support the management of knowledge work by helping to develop enabling contexts
as well as contribute to a better understanding of knowledge processes. Figure 3
depicts the identified aspects.
32 J. Hacker
Identification of Discovery of
informal networks network roles
Information
Creation of sharing
Networking
new knowledge
Knowledge
negotiation
Problem
solving Knowledge
Know- translation
Relationship ledge Knowledge
building proces- integration
Common
Situation ses
background
awareness
Context
Enab-
awareness
Organizational ling
culture context
Purpose
Fig. 3 Enterprise social networks as platforms for managing knowledge work (own illustration)
As shown in Fig. 3, ESN can help develop enabling contexts by increasing

situation and context awareness. They further support the creation of a common
background and trust, and enable employees to create new and maintain existing
relationships.
The knowledge processes that can be observed on ESN and the aspects contribu-
tion to the development of enabling contexts are interdependent. Clearly, all aspects
contributing to an enabling context require a certain level of ESN usage. On the other
hand, the context aspects are suggested to reinforce the knowledge practices
performed on the platform. As explained in Sect. 5.2, these include the creation of
new knowledge, information sharing, problem solving, knowledge negotiation,
knowledge integration, knowledge translation, networking, informal networks, and
network roles. The knowledge practices are suggested to depend on and reinforce
each other. For instance, networking activities may increase the chances to solve
work-related problems and foster knowledge translation. The sharing of information
may trigger discussions and lead to the creation of new knowledge. Following up a
discussion, a few users may write up a guideline and contribute to the integration of
knowledge. Showing evidence for all these knowledge practices, ESN can indeed be
recognized as platforms for knowledge-in-action. Analyzing ESN data can thus
support the understanding of knowledge processes and may be feasible to contribute
to a better understanding of knowledge work.
ESN have several advantages over more traditional knowledge management
tools, such as corporate yellow pages or wikis. Like ESN, corporate yellow pages
provide user profiles with information on an employee’s contact details and areas of
expertise (Richter, 2010). However, since employees need to manually update this
information, they can only refer to “explicit” expertise that they themselves are
aware of. They might not be fully aware of e.g. certain soft skills, experiences, or
(informal) relationships unless this unconscious knowledge is triggered, e.g. via an
information request that reaches them on an ESN platform. Moreover, on ESN,
people do not have to search for people with specific skills anymore since they
already know what the others are doing, due to being connected (Richter & Koch,
2008). Wikis, on the other hand, enable the collaborative editing of content and
hence, a negotiation and reproduction of organizational knowledge. However, they
involve a significant effort by, in many cases, a small number of editors who create
most of the wiki’s content. As such, wikis often suffer from a lack of user adoption
(Holtzblatt, Damianos, & Weiss, 2010). In comparison, ESN provide a more
dynamic environment for knowledge negotiation. Status updates may contain
short questions that can be answered with a couple of short responses. The barrier
to participate in ESN may be lower. Possibly attracting a larger user base than
e.g. wikis, one may also be able to come to a more comprehensive picture in terms
of organizational knowledge processes and the involved actors through the analysis
of ESN data as compared to data generated on wikis. Finally, ESN may be better
able to support the management of knowledge work than more traditional knowl-
edge management tools since they integrate previously independent tools. The
strong focus on discussions, information sharing and interaction may facilitate
improvements in organizational knowledge transparency and context awareness
that can hardly be achieved with traditional tools.
7 Future Work
As to the model shown in Fig. 3, future research could consider more closely the
relationships among the enabling contexts and the identified knowledge processes.
The question of how ESN can support the use of knowledge for specific purposes,
which was not covered in this chapter, could also be addressed by future research.
In this regard, researchers could investigate how to ensure the fit between an ESN
and a company’s overall knowledge management strategy. Further, ESN data
analytics is an important field for future research. The qualitative analyses
performed in prior works have laid important groundwork as to how employees
appropriate and use ESN. Future quantitative analyses may enable the investigation
of larger datasets and lead to more general conclusions on the nature of knowledge
processes on ESN. For instance, a more detailed understanding of the knowledge
processes, their interrelationships, and the roles that ESN users assume, is required.
In this regard, the operationalization of the knowledge processes through suitable
metrics is a necessary step.
Knowledge cannot be managed, only enabled. This chapter suggests ESN
platforms to be feasible to enable knowledge. It moreover proposes ESN to be
able to contribute to the understanding and management of knowledge work. The
results of this chapter are hoped to inspire the dialogue between research and
practice and inform future investigations in the field of ESN.
34 J. Hacker
References
AIS. (2011). Senior Scholars’ Basket of Journals. http://aisnet.org/?SeniorScholarBasket.
Retrieved April 27, 2016.
ment systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136.
Allen, J., James, A. D., & Gamlen, P. (2007). Formal versus informal knowledge networks in
R&D: A case study using social network analysis. R&D Management, 37, 179–196.
Bala, H., Massey, A. P., Rajanayakam, J., & Hsieh, C. J. (2015). Challenges and outcomes of
enterprise social media implementation: Insights from Cummins, Inc. In Proceedings of the
48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1839–1848). IEEE.
Behrendt, S., Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2014a). Conceptualisation of digital traces for the
Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Auckland, New Zealand.
Behrendt, S., Richter, A., & Trier, M. (2014b). Mixed methods analysis of enterprise social
networks. Computer Networks, 75, 560–577.
Berger, K., Klier, J., Klier, M., & Probst, F. (2014). A review of information systems research on
online social networks. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 35,
145–172.
BITKOM. (2013). Einsatz und Potenziale von Social Business für ITK-Unternehmen. http://www.
bitkom.org/files/documents/Studie_SocialBusiness_Potenziale.pdf. Retrieved April 28, 2015.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective.
Organization Science, 12, 198–213.
Burns, M. J., & Friedman, B. (2012). A multidimensional approach to characterizing and
visualizing latent relationships in enterprise social networks. Bell Labs Technical Journal,
17, 201–217.
Burns, M. J., & Kotval, X. P. (2013). Questions about questions: Investigating how knowledge
workers ask and answer questions. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 17, 43–61.
Chelmis, C., & Prasanna, V. K. (2013). An empirical analysis of microblogging behavior in the
enterprise. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3, 611–633.
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between
organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10, 381–400.
Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make organizations go—or stop effectiveness.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002a). Making invisible work visible: Using social
network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44,
25–47.
Cross, R., Nohria, N., & Parker, A. (2002b). Six myths about informal networks-and how to
overcome them. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43, 67–75.
de Toni, A. F., & Nonino, F. (2010). The key roles in the informal organization: A network
analysis perspective. The Learning Organization, 17, 86–103.
DiMicco, J. M., Geyer, W., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., & Brownholtz, B. (2009). People
sensemaking and relationship building on an enterprise social network site. Proceedings of
the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI.
DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Geyer, W., Dugan, C., Brownholtz, B., & Muller, M. (2008).
Motivations for social networking at work. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 711–720). New York: ACM.
Drakos, N., Mann, J., & Gotta, M. (2014). Magic quadrant for social software in the workplace. In
Gartner Inc. http://www.gartner.com/technology/reprints.do?id¼1-20TBOV4&ct¼140903&
st¼sb. Retrieved August 31, 2015.
Figueroa, J., & Cranefield, J. (2012). Creating and sharing knowledge through a corporate social
networking site: The impact of employees’ perceptions on effectiveness. In Proceedings of the
16th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Fischbach, K., Schoder, D., & Gloor, P. A. (2008). Analyse informeller Kommunikationsnetzwerke
am Beispiel einer Fallstudie. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 51, 164–174.
Gartner. (2013). Gartner says 80 percent of social business efforts will not achieve intended
benefits through 2015. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2319215. Retrieved August
31, 2015.
Gloor, P. A., Grippa, F., Putzke, J., Lassenius, C., Fuehres, H., Fischbach, K., et al. (2012).
Measuring social capital in creative teams through sociometric sensors. International Journal
of Organisational Design and Engineering, 2, 380.
Guy, I., Avraham, U., Carmel, D., Ur, S., Jacovi, M., & Ronen, I. (2013). Mining expertise and
interests from social media. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide
Web (pp. 515–526). Geneva, Switzerland: International World Wide Web Conferences
Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland.
Hacker, J., Bodendorf, F., & Lorenz, P. (2016). A framework to analyze enterprise social network
data. In M. Atzmueller, S. Oussena & T. Roth-Berghofer (Eds.), Enterprise big data engineer-
ing, analytics, and management (pp. 84–107). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0293-7.
ch006.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge
across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82.
Helms, R., & Buijsrogge, K. (2005). Knowledge network analysis: A technique to analyze
knowledge management bottlenecks in organizations. In 16th International Workshop on
Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’05) (pp. 410–414). Copenhagen: IEEE.
Holtzblatt, L. J., Damianos, L. E., & Weiss, D. (2010). Factors impeding Wiki use in the
enterprise. In Proceedings of the 28th of the International Conference Extended Abstracts on
Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI EA ’10 (p. 4661). New York: ACM Press.
Koplowitz, R. (2014). The Forrester wave: Enterprise social platforms, Q2 2014. http://public.dhe.
ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/lo/en/lol14021usen/LOL14021USEN.PDF. Retrieved April
27, 2016.
Kügler, M., & Smolnik, S. (2014). Uncovering the phenomenon of employees’ enterprise social
software use in the post-acceptance stage—proposing a use typology. In Proceedings of the
22nd European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Kügler, M., Lübbert, C., & Smolnik, S. (2015a). Organizational climate’s role in enterprise social
software usage: An empirical assessment. In O. Thomas & F. Teuteberg (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 12th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 811–826). Osnabrück,
Germany.
Kügler, M., Smolnik, S., & Kane, G. (2015b). What’s in IT for employees? Understanding the
relationship between use and performance in enterprise social software. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 24, 90–112.
Kurzlechner, W. (2011). Social software: IBM, Microsoft und Jive im Vergleich. In CIO Mag.
http://www.cio.de/a/ibm-microsoft-und-jive-im-vergleich,2298192. Retrieved April 28, 2015.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. C. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leonardi, P. M. (2014). Social media, knowledge sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of
communication visibility. Information Systems Research, 25, 796–816.
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. W. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition,
history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 1–19.
McIver, D., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Ramachandran, I. (2012). Integrating
knowledge and knowing: A framework for understanding knowledge-in-practice. Human
Resource Management Review, 22, 86–99.
Merz, A. B., Seeber, I., & Maier, R. (2015). Social meets structure: Revealing team collaboration
activities and effects in enterprise social networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd European
Conference on Information Systems, Münster, Germany.
36 J. Hacker
Meyer, P., & Dibbern, J. (2010). An exploratory study about microblogging acceptance at work. In
Proceedings of the 16th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Lima, Peru.
Newell, S. (2014). Managing knowledge and managing knowledge work: What we know and what
the future holds. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 1–17.
Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2009). Managing knowledge work and
innovation (2 ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,
5, 14–37.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed
organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249–273.
Pahlke, I. (2012). Leveraging social capital in the virtual work environment—knowledge
exchange through social media platforms. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference
on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain.
Perer, A., Guy, I., Uziel, E., Ronen, I., & Jacovi, M. (2013). The longitudinal use of SaNDVis:
Visual social network analytics in the enterprise. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and
Computer Graphics, 19, 1095–1108.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Richter, A. (2010). Der Einsatz von Social Networking Services in Unternehmen. Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
Richter, A., & Koch, M. (2008). Functions of social networking services. In Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (pp. 87–98). Carry-le-rouet,
France.
Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2009). Corporate social networking sites—modes of use and appropri-
ation through co-evolution. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Informa-
tion Systems, Melbourne, Australia.
Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2013). The contextual nature of enterprise social networking: A multi
case study comparison. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information
Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Richter, A., Stocker, A., Müller, S., & Avram, G. (2011). Knowledge management goals
revisited—a cross-sectional analysis of social software adoption in corporate environments.
In Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney,
Australia.
Riemer, K., & Scifleet, P. (2012). Enterprise social networking in knowledge-intensive work
practices: A case study in a professional service firm. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian
Conference on Information Systems, Geelong, Australia.
Riemer, K., Altenhofen, A., & Richter, A. (2011). What are you doing?—Enterprise
microblogging as context building. In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on
Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland.
Seebach, C., Beck, R., & Pahlke, I. (2011). Situation awareness through social collaboration
platforms in distributed work environments. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Confer-
ence on Information Systems, Shanghai, China.
Steinfield, C. W., van Osch, W., & Zhao, Y. (2015). Intra-organizational boundary spanning: A
machine learning approach. In Proceedings of the 21rst Americas Conference on Information
Systems, Puerto Rico.
Stieglitz, S., Riemer, K., & Meske, C. (2014). Hierarchy or activity? The role of formal and
informal influence in eliciting responses from enterprise social networks. In Proceedings of the
22nd European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Swan, J. (2004). Knowledge management in action? In C. Holsapple (Ed.), Handbook on knowl-
edge management 1 SE—14 (pp. 271–296). Heidelberg: Springer.
Thom, J., Helsley, S. Y., Matthews, T. L., Daly, E. M., & Millen, D. R. (2011). What are you
working on? Status message Q&A in an enterprise SNS. In S. Bødker, N. O. Bouvin, & V.
Wulf et al. (Eds.), ECSCW 2011: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 313–332). Springer: London. Retrieved September 24–28,
2011.
Trier, M., & Richter, A. (2015). The deep structure of organizational online networking—an actor-
oriented case study. Information Systems Journal, 25, 465–488.
van Reijsen, J., Helms, R., Jackson, T., Vleugel, A., & Sara, T. (2009). Mining E-mail to leverage
knowledge networks in organizations. In E. Bolisani & E. Scarso (Eds.), Proceedings of the
10th European Conference on Knowledge Management and Evaluation, Vicenza, Italy.
VHB. (2015). VHB-JOURQUAL 3: Teilrating Wirtschaftsinformatik. http://vhbonline.org/en/
service/jourqual/vhb-jourqual-3/teilrating-wi/. Retrieved September 17, 2015.
Viol, J., & Hess, J. (2016). Information systems research on enterprise social networks—a state-of-
the-art analysis. In V. Nissen, D. Stelzer, S. Straßburger, & D. Fischer (Eds.), Multikonferenz
Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI) 2016—Band I (pp. 351–362). Ilmenau: Universitätsverlag
Ilmenau.
Viol, J., & Lüdecke, M. (2015). Welche Use Cases eignen sich für die Umsetzung in einem
Enterprise Social Network? Eine Fallstudie bei der N-ERGIE Aktiengesellschaft. In T. K€ ohler,
N. Kahnwald & E. Schoop (Eds.), Proceedings of 8. proWM Conference/18. GeNeMe—
Workshop. (pp. 225–236). Dresden: TUDpress.
Viol, J., Bodendorf, F., & Lorenz, P. (2016). A framework to analyze enterprise social network
data. In Enterprise big data engineering, analytics, and management. IGI Global (in press).
strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21, 154–164.
Wagner, D., Vollmar, G., & Wagner, H.-T. (2014). The impact of information technology on
knowledge creation. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27, 31–44.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26, 13–23.
Transformation of Knowledge Sharing
Motivations in the Presence of Social Media
Mohammadbashir Sedighi and Mohammad T. Isaai
1 Introduction
The literature of knowledge management (KM) was mainly developed in the last
decades of the twentieth century, focusing primarily on the ability to process
information and data (Nieves & Osorio, 2013). Several approaches have been
identified to improve knowledge sharing within companies, which today are more
distributed. Indeed, many present-day large firms are networked and need a KM
technology to improve participation and facilitate knowledge flows between inter-
dependent groups. In contrast to the first wave of KM which highlighted the role of
IT, the second wave of KM has substantially changed KM mechanisms in the first
decades of the twenty-first century, placing more emphasis on social interactions
among participants, in which KM designers have a peripheral role in creating
opportunities for participation (Huysman & Wit, 2004). Certainly, knowledge
exchange is not limited to explicit knowledge, and social interactions are regarded
as a more efficient mechanism than conventional KM approaches for sharing and
creating tacit knowledge in organizations (Brzozowski, Sandholm, & Hogg, 2009;
Sedighi, van Splunter, Zand, & Brazier, 2015).
The limited success of conventional KM systems created an incentive to use
social media technologies as a potential solution for the challenge of participation in
KM. Social media have significantly transformed the opportunities and dynamics of
knowledge exchange within organizations, providing an infrastructure that promotes
unconstrained communications by eliminating limitations of time and space.
M. Sedighi (*)
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands
e-mail: M.Sedighi@tudelft.nl
M.T. Isaai
Graduate School of Management and Economics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: isaai@sharif.edu

40 M. Sedighi and M.T. Isaai
Enterprise social media (ESM) use web 2.0 technologies to promote free interactions
through network connections (McAfee, 2009). Academic studies conflate use of the
term “social media” with the term “social network” to describe collaborative
organizational systems that use web 2.0 technologies within organizations
(Behrendt, Richter, & Trier, 2014; Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfield, 2013). “Enter-
prise social media” (ESM) have been defined as integrated contemporary platforms
that support employees to “(1) communicate messages with specific coworkers or
broadcast messages to everyone in the organization; (2) explicitly indicate or
implicitly reveal particular coworkers as communication partners; (3) post, edit,
and sort text and files linked to themselves or others; and (4) view the messages,
connections, text, and files communicated, posted, edited and sorted by anyone else
in the organization at any time of their choosing” (Leonardi et al., 2013, p. 2). ESM
can be used for knowledge exchange within companies. Although traditional
technologies such as e-mail allow users to communicate with other employees,
integrated ESM combine all four parts of the definition above.
An integrated ESM system includes various social media platforms such as
weblogs, wikis, social networking platforms, social networks of practices, micro
blogs, social bookmarking, and social tagging tools (Behrendt et al., 2014; Kane,
Alavi, Labianca, & Borgatti, 2014; Liu & Rau, 2014). These technologies have
unique impacts on organizational communications by facilitate interactions among
employees by providing social media tools in desktop computers, tablets, or smart
phones at a time and place that are convenient to them (Li & Ma, 2014). Companies
that are using social media technologies have greatly increased in number in recent
years. Overby (2012) showed that four out of five firms in 2012 were using social
media technologies to facilitate participation and knowledge sharing. Besides,
Gartner Company predicted that 50% of large enterprises would be using ESM
platforms by 2016 (Stamford, 2013). These studies bring us to the central question
of this chapter: What incentives induce participants to engage in knowledge
exchange in the organizational social media environment?
Several studies in the KM literature have considered the motivations for knowl-
edge sharing (Chang & Chuang, 2011; Hau, Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2013; Hsu & Lin,
2008; Javernick-Will, 2011). Moreover, research shows that promoting motivations
for sustainable participation is an important challenge for many organizations
(Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006). Social media technologies have transformed KM,
not least by their impact on knowledge sharing motivations. ESM provide sustain-
able participation environments by addressing accurate motivation to post
documents, status, and knowledge within firms. These platforms have reduced
conventional KM systems barriers such as centralized, formal, and intermittent
communications, thanks to social media technologies that support continuous
communication, dynamic participation, and emergent connections’ structure
(Faraj & Johnson, 2011; Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, & Azad, 2013). Employees may
become more highly motivated to participate in ESM as a result of both better
perceived benefits and lower perceived costs (Liu & Rau, 2014).
Although firms are increasingly experimenting with ESM as the means of
improving participation in knowledge sharing, motivation in ESM environments
Transformation of Knowledge Sharing Motivations in the Presence of Social Media 41
is not yet well understood. In order to explore the role of social media in knowledge
exchange, this chapter reviews studies on the properties of social media
technologies that have a bearing on the perceived benefits and costs of knowledge
sharing and thus influence participation through ESM. First, we explore the litera-
ture on social media technologies for knowledge exchange within organizations.
Second, we clarify different motivations and barriers of knowledge exchange in
organizations. Third, we explore the entirety, visibility, and informality (EVI)
properties of social media technologies. Finally, we use EVI model to explain
how benefits and costs are influenced by ESM platforms attributes.
2 Knowledge Sharing Through ESM
Knowledge sharing is a vital mechanism that supports organizational innovation

and organizational competitive advantage (Jackson, Chuang, Harden, & Jiang,
2006). Knowledge sharing between employees and across teams allows firms to
exploit and capitalize on knowledge-based resources (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005).
Research has shown that the knowledge sharing process has a positive effect by
reducing production costs, improving efficiency, faster completion of new product
development projects, firm innovation capabilities, and enhancing work quality
(Haas, 2006; Lin, 2007a; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009; Wang & Noe,
2010).
Individual knowledge sharing in organizations is defined as individual behaviors
in which an employee voluntarily provides other employees of the firm with access
to his or her knowledge and experience (Cyr & Choo, 2010). Knowledge sharing is
largely voluntary and volitional, and one focus of past research has been on the
individual’s willingness and propensity to share knowledge. Increasing research on
the social perspective of knowledge sharing has been conducted recently as part of
the second wave of KM (Huysman & Wit, 2004). Organizational knowledge
exchange is affected by the social nature of the knowledge sharing process (van
den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). This social process generates a paradigm of KM in
which participants often feel the need for socialization in situations where this
would help others work better, with more professionalism, and with more
satisfaction.
Lately, companies have been using social media technologies to connect and
share organizational knowledge by linking participants and knowledge content
(Fulk & Yuan, 2013). Such systems improve participation by supporting flexibility,
adaptability, and boundary-spanning features in enterprise social media platforms.
Ellison found that organizational social media platforms improve the KM process
by (1) creating a public or semi-public profile for each participant in a bounded
system, (2) enunciating a list of other knowledge creators with their knowledge
connections, and (3) concatenating knowledge content within the system (Ellison,
2007). Organizational social media platforms enable participants to easily create,
share, and assess knowledge by attaching participants to knowledge contents in
decentralized networks (Faraj & Azad, 2012). Integrated ESM include wikis,
Table 1 Popular ESM technologies in organizations

ESM technology Description Source
Social network sites A social network site is a web-based service (Boyd & Ellison,
supports participants to (1) build a public or semi- 2007)
public profile pages in a bounded system,
(2) articulate a list of other users with whom they
share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their
lists of connections and those made by others
within the system
Wikis A wiki is an electronic collaborative platform that (Kane, 2011)
supports peer production. Participants can add,
change, remove, and edit content. It can be used to
assemble a knowledge resource for a specific
professional subject
Blogs A blog is a self-publishing tool that helps (Hsu & Lin,
participants keep track of their own content. 2008)
Bloggers can subscribe blogs, remark on content,
share links, and post comments in a collaborative
environment
Electronic network An ENoP is an organizational self-organized (Wasko,
of practices (ENoP) computer-mediated communication technology Teigland, &
where participants share their knowledge about Faraj, 2009)
practice or common interests
tagging systems, social bookmarking systems, blogs, and social media sites (Fulk &
Yuan, 2013). Social media platforms empower participants to design public profile
and knowledge links in a transparent KM platform within organizations that
directly address knowledge needs. Moreover, ESM support knowledge sharing
for common interests and offer a social-based platform for participants to cooperate
with one another, socialize, and share ideas (Chen, 2013). Knowledge sharing
through ESM is thus a form of generalized social exchange where more than two
employees participate in a unique process and gain benefits from participation in
networks (Cook, Cheshire, Rice, & Nakagawa, 2013).
Thus, ESM facilitate knowledge sharing by eliminating barriers to interactions
between participants. Thanks to ESM, participants are enabled to make their
opinions, perceptions, and knowledge public within organizations, which is impos-
sible using conventional KM technologies. This helps participants to find internal
experts who have common interests or the same problems (Treem, Dailey, Pierce,
& Leonardi, 2015).
Integrated ESM systems include various communication and exchange systems
to support online and distributed collaborations for specific organizational functions
(Behrendt et al., 2014; Zyl, 2009). Table 1 summarizes the more popular ESM
systems used within organizations for online collaboration and knowledge sharing,
mentioning some important tools that can serve as a starting point for investigating
other ESM technologies.
3 Perceived Benefits and Costs of Knowledge Management
Both researchers and practitioners are interested in better understanding the factors
that predict members’ participation in the KM process. Motivation is a key deter-
minant of participation behaviors and the main trigger for knowledge exchange
(Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Participation has been found to be related to a spectrum of
motivations, such as individual satisfaction, reciprocal knowledge gains from the
networks, reputation, and personal and professional advancement (Lin, 2007a).
Social exchange theory has been used in KM studies to explain how participants
perceive the benefits and costs of knowledge sharing in making decisions (Blau,
1964). Knowledge sharing propensity depends greatly on the participants’ cost-
benefit analysis that compares the expected benefits with the expected costs (Cyr &
Choo, 2010). From a socioeconomic viewpoint, knowledge exchange will occur if
the expected perceived benefits are equal to or exceed the expected perceived costs
(Hall, 2001).
Motivations can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Intrinsic motivation is a cluster of motives that represents self-rewarding
incentives, while extrinsic motivation is a cluster of incentives to do something
for a set of external rewards, regulations, and sanctions. For instance, participants
can be satisfied by intrinsic rewards such as enhancing knowledge self-efficacy or
confidence in their ability for creating and sharing valuable knowledge. Collective
reputations and recognition in network environments and generalized reciprocity
are two main examples of extrinsic motivations. The KM literature largely
emphasizes incentives that are psychosocial and intangible. This is consistent
with social exchange theory, which postulates that employees engage in the knowl-
edge sharing process based on an expectation that it will lead in some way to social
rewards (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). The participant’s perception about contribution
costs is another part of his or her individual assessment of the complex
interdependencies of knowledge exchange. The hidden cost elements such as
reputational risk have a negative influence on the employee’s knowledge sharing
behaviors. Time, mental effort, and the risks of losing power are further costs of
knowledge exchange. Inevitably, participants do not share knowledge if the cost of
so doing outweighs the expected benefits. Thus, the higher the perceived costs, the
less willing participants are to share knowledge voluntarily.
4 Methodology
This study undertakes a narrative review of the literature to link conceptual

attributes in a theoretical framework. First, the major attributes of social media
platforms identified by practical and theoretical studies have been determined by a
systematic review of enterprise social media literature, using the content analysis
method. Next, selected attributes of ESM technologies have been investigated and
set out in relation to the perceived benefits and costs of knowledge sharing. Finally,
a theoretical model has been evolved to illuminate the attributes of ESM that
influence willingness to participate in the light of benefits and costs.
Fig. 1 Search results in Psychology Human resource

different subject areas 5% 4%
Economics,
Econometrics and
Finance
9%
Management,
knowledge
Management
38%
Computer Science
20%
Social Sciences
24%
To explore the attributes of social media platforms, key words (“enterprise social
media”, “enterprise social network” and their variations) were searched in reliable
scientific databases such as Emerald, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and
ScienceDirect, without time or geographical restrictions. Studies were selected
from academic journals, and chapter books in knowledge management, business
management, human resource development, and information systems. Studies
published in working papers and conference proceedings were excluded from our
research review scope. Overall 66 articles were found for the content analysis, of
which fifty-five (54 articles and one book chapter) were connected to our research
methodology scope. All selected documents were published in academic journals
and chapter books since 2007 to early 2015. Figure 1 represents the analyzed search
results by subject area. Although a number of attributes of ESM were identified in
the selected studies, the focus of this study was on identifying the subset of
attributes which address participants’ benefits and costs. Initial reviews revealed
that 27% of the selected articles directly addressed ESM attributes in relation to
participants’ behaviors and these were chosen for the final assessment phase. All
attributes were identified based on the authors’ investigation on the selected articles
with discussion and consensus. The purpose of this study was not to argue in detail
the level of importance or accuracy of these attributes, but rather to classify the
main attributes that are promoted by ESM to increase participants’ perceived
benefits or diminish participants’ perceived costs of knowledge sharing.
5 Social Media Attributes
Social media platforms constitute new environments for knowledge sharing, and
hence promote new aspects of KM motivation. It is important to understand the
characteristics of social media that determine how participants perceive the benefits
Table 2 ESM attributes that influence participants’ perceptions of benefits and costs
ESM
attributes Description Source
Entirety Developing entire integrated (Paul Jones, Martin Beckinsale,
communication channels, communication Durkin, McGowan, & McKeown,
intervals, professional data and their 2013)
expertise in ESM
Visibility Ensuring transparent communications (Ellison, Gibbs, & Weber, 2014;
between ESM members to make them Leonardi, 2014; Majchrzak et al.,
aware of available content and people 2013)
expertise
Informality Creating an informal communication (Leonardi et al., 2013)
environment for unstructured, unplanned,
and brief conversations among participants
in ESM
and costs of knowledge sharing and how they therefore behave. Although social
media use numerous techniques to improve user engagement, this section focuses
on those aspects that have the potential to promote perceived benefits and diminish
perceived costs. Content analysis of relevant studies reveals three such attributes of
social media technologies within organizations. These are entirety, visibility, and
informality. Details of these attributes are presented in Table 2.
The entirety, visibility, and informality aspects of ESM clearly have an impact
on knowledge sharing behaviors. This study develops an “EVI” model, which
illuminates these three properties of social media (see Fig. 2). Although visibility,
informality, and entirety are interrelated in ESM platforms, the nature and scope of
their interrelation are beyond the scope of this chapter.
5.1 Entirety
Social media in organizations use Web 2.0 technologies to develop online collabo-
ration, participation, and sharing of participant-generated content. The entirety can
be defined as an aspect of ESM, which develops emergent connections, by different
communication channels, synchronous and asynchronous communication tools for
sharing different types of knowledge contents and experts’ information. Indeed,
ESM support individual interactions by suggesting presumptive relationships and
promoting communications to restructure potential links into weak and strong links
(Zyl, 2009). As can be seen in Fig. 3, the entirety aspect of ESM includes three
different dimensions: communication channels, communication intervals, and com-
munication natures.
Different types of communication channels, structured in integrated social
media platforms, are developed by ESM to support two-way conversations in
organizations (Ellison, 2007; Zyl, 2009). Table 3 illustrates these different commu-
nication channels.
Fig. 2 EVI model
Visibility
Perceived
benefits and
costs
Entirety Informality
Fig. 3 Entirety dimensions
Entity of
communication in
ESNs
Communication
Natures
Table 3 Communication Communication channels Features of ESM

channels in ESM platforms
One-on-one Instant messaging/online chats
One-to-few/one-to-many Blogs/web pages
Few-to-few/many-to-many ENoP/wikis
This entirety attribute supports users’ participation by giving them the autonomy
to choose appropriate communication channels for sharing knowledge. ESM pro-
vide opportunities for sharing knowledge by means of different types of formats
and structures, such as images, instant messages, clips, worksheets, and
presentations. Integration of different types of communication features into one
Synchronous Asynchronous
Social media tools

Video conferencing Document libraries
Online chats Wikis
Telephone Instant messaging Discussion forums E-mail
White boarding Blogs Surveys and polls

Audio conferencing
Web books
Meetings
Databases
Fig. 4 Synchronous and asynchronous communication technologies
entire communication system empowers participants to select the right channels for
sharing valuable knowledge content.
The second dimension of the entirety aspect emphasizes the intervals between
communications within ESM. Social media platforms prepare different synchro-
nous and asynchronous communication tools for connecting participants at regular
or irregular intervals. Traditional synchronous communications systems (such as
telephone calls and face-to-face meetings) are limited by time and location,
whereas asynchronous traditional communications system (such as e-mail) are
often overloaded (Reinke & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014). ESM use the dynamic
participation approach by integrating synchronous and asynchronous
communications in a unique platform to reduce disruptive communication (Faraj
& Johnson, 2011). Asynchronous communication systems (such as blogs and wikis)
and synchronous communication systems (such as online chats and instant messag-
ing) facilitate knowledge sharing and reduce barriers to participation. Figure 4
illustrates the various synchronous and asynchronous communication tools. The
area of overlap between the circles shows tools that are available on social media.
The third dimension of the entirety attribute concerns the nature of communica-
tion through social media technologies. ESM provide a platform that integrates
social connection data and expertise data (Fulk & Yuan, 2013). This combination
helps participants to find not only knowledge content but also internal experts. ESM
support ad-hoc social network formation by bringing together several participants
with diverse expertise and interests. Social interactions play an important role in
constructing social capital between participants that can facilitate knowledge shar-
ing within an organization (Chang & Chuang, 2011). Indeed, participants can
improve the quality, scope, and efficiency of organizational knowledge exchange
with strong social interactions. Social interactions can be supported by interper-
sonal trust among participants, which can improve the intensity, quantity, and
quality of the knowledge sharing (Hau et al., 2013). Conversely, knowledge
exchange also helps preserve social relations.
5.2 Visibility
Using Web 2.0 technologies within an organization improves the transparency of

communications between employees. These technologies empower participants to
make their knowledge, behaviors, favorites, and connections visible to other users
(Treem & Leonardi, 2012). The visibility aspect is construed as a property of the
ESM that enable members to observe profiles, contents, activities and connections.
Though, participants have autonomy to delineate their visibility in ESM. Transpar-
ent systems help participants to find knowledge contents and experts, thus saving
time. In conventional and centralized KM systems, visibility is limited, whereas
ESM tend to let knowledge networks grow in a transparent manner. Moreover,
participants have the autonomy to control the visibility of their knowledge content
and their profile information (Aris & Shneiderman, 2007). Visibility includes
transparency of knowledge content, priority of interesting topics, users’ expertise,
and personal information. ESM also empower users to create open or closed
communities for common interests where participants can share their knowledge
and communicate in secure areas.
Transparent platforms for knowledge sharing offer visibility for both
participants’ behaviors and knowledge content, which can create critical
advantages for the KM process (Zyl, 2009). Conventional KM systems such as
e-mail or knowledge repositories transfer knowledge between participants, but have
no mechanisms by which to make visible knowledge connections and participants’
behaviors (Leonardi, 2014). The visibility of communications permits potential
knowledge recipients to receive content, even after the knowledge senders have
signed off the ESM (Treem, 2014). Table 4 summarizes social media technologies
and features that can improve the visibility of communications.
Several studies have emphasized that users’ participation is improved by the
visibility of interactions through enterprise social media. Thom-Santelli, Muller,
and Millen (2008) reported on 33 interviews in a large corporation, which showed
that the visibility of the tagging system supported users in the sharing of ideas and
opinions. Moreover, Farrell, Kellogg, and Thomas (2008) argued that visibility of
the blogs, wikis, social tagging systems, and social networking websites in firms
can improve interpersonal trust between participants. Another study showed that
use of ESM features such as mutual content profiling and mutual viewing of profiles
positively impact participants’ emotional closeness and can improve content
recommendations and also participants’ contributions (Wu, DiMicco, & Millen,
2010). Furthermore, Leonardi (2014) showed that communication visibility in ESM
can improve participants’ knowledge of “who knows what and who knows whom”
within companies.
5.3 Informality
The informality aspect is identified as a property of ESM that enables unofficial,

unstructured, intimate, and brief conversations between members. Informal
Table 4 Social media features supporting visibility of knowledge sharing

ESM systems Features supporting visibility Sources
Social network sites • Status knowledge updates (Treem &
• Representing knowledge connections Leonardi, 2012)
• Knowledge content map (Chen, 2013)
• Knowledge workers’ profiles (experiences (Fulk & Yuan,
and interests) 2013)
• Visible rating and reviews of knowledge
objects and comments
• Visible comments on knowledge content
Wikis • Display content and user profiles (Treem &
• History of knowledge editing Leonardi, 2012)
• Notification of knowledge changing (Majchrzak et al.,
2013)
Blogs • Knowledge workers’ profiles (experiences (Chai, Das, & Rao,
and interests) 2011)
• Knowledge publishing consisting of text, (Treem &
video, or audio Leonardi, 2012)
• Visible comments on knowledge content
Electronic network of • Representing knowledge connections (Wasko et al.,
practices • Experts’ profiles (experiences and interests) 2009)
• Visible rating of experiences by knowledge
recipients
• Visible comments on knowledge contents
communication technologies such as online forums, blogs, and wikis play impor-
tant roles in collaboration, sharing knowledge, and organizational innovation
(Wagner & Bolloju, 2004). Some social theories suggest ways of increasing the
level of informal communications in organizations. For instance, the media richness
theory advocates using richer formal and informal communication systems to
handle transfer of information in computer mediated systems. This is supported
by new technologies such as Web 2.0, which facilitates the sharing of resources in
an enriched environment and the categorizing of data in an informal folksonomy.
Folksonomy is a context-based mechanism and language that allows users to
engage in social interactions, share personal experiences, and organize them in
their own way (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012).
Thanks to the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies, KM systems have evolved
from formal systems to informal systems for supporting informal communications
(Davison, Ou, & Martinsons, 2013). Contemporary KM systems foster
environments in which participants are able to send more personal feedback and
comments in informal language in order to acquire genuine and valuable experience
and knowledge. The increasing popularity of ESM for knowledge sharing has
stimulated new investments in the features that improve informal communications.
Table 5 summarizes the social media technologies and features that support infor-
mal conversations in organizations.
Table 5 Social media features supporting informality of knowledge sharing

ESM systems Features supporting informality Sources
Social network sites • Real-time text transmission (Treem &
• Informal comments on knowledge content Leonardi, 2012)
• Informal notifications message for new knowledge (Chen, 2013)
contents or new comments (Fulk & Yuan,
• Using informal emoticons feature for preparing 2013)
information/feedback
Wikis • Informal notifications of new knowledge content (Treem &
• Informal discussion page for consensus about Leonardi, 2012)
knowledge (Majchrzak
• Informal notification of knowledge changes et al., 2013)
Blogs • Informal communication through blogs (Chai et al.,
• Informal notifications of new knowledge content 2011)
• Using informal emoticons feature for preparing (Treem &
information Leonardi, 2012)
• Informal notification of knowledge changes
Electronic network • Using informal emoticons feature for preparing (Wasko et al.,
of practices information 2009)
• Informal notification of knowledge changes
Specific types of characteristics in social network content, such as lack of

punctuation, loss of formatting, colloquialisms, typos, or emoticons, are evidence
of the informal nature of ESM. Other informal features such as votes and
recommendations have been designed to combine social connections with informa-
tion sharing and the transfer of valuable experience. The informal nature of social
connections and information sharing can reduce the cost of codification. In sum-
mary, ESM encourage real-time informal and social communication better than
other KM systems.
6 Perceived Benefits and Costs of ESM
ESM promote two-way communications within organizations. Employees’

motivations to participate in KM systems, being related to personal outcome
expectations, have been identified as a major challenge at organizational level
(Chiu et al., 2006). Both knowledge seekers and contributors need to be motivated
to participate in ESM platforms. The use of ESM platforms can reduce some of the
participants’ costs while also providing them with benefits.
6.1 Entirety and Perceived Benefits and Costs
The entirety aspect of social media influences participants’ perceived benefits in

various ways. Studies show that different communication channels offer
individuals the opportunity to send their knowledge or comments to specific
organizational audiences (Thom-Santelli et al., 2008). Moreover, wiki pages as an

open-source communication environment use the wisdom of the crowd to solve
users’ problems. Providing an entire knowledge exchange platform thus facilitates
selective knowledge sharing between trusted members at less cost than that of a
conventional knowledge repository (Fulk & Yuan, 2013).
Social media spaces also enhance perceived benefits by integrating social and
knowledge relations in an entire networked system. Participants feel a greater sense
of commitment and belonging to the firm when they use social networks to
communicate (Leidner, Koch, & Gonzalez, 2010). Lack of effective organizational
commitment has been identified as a main perceived cost of voluntary knowledge
sharing (Casimir, Lee, & Loon, 2012). Commitment is powered by values within
knowledge networks. Values are ingrained beliefs acquired through upbringing,
personal experiences, and cultural groups, and ESM help participants to act in
accordance with their values. Wu et al. (2010) found that mutual viewing of profiles
in ESM significantly improves trust, emotional closeness, and a sense of belonging,
which improves network performance. Moreover, a range of synchronous and
asynchronous tools in ESM facilitate sustainable and flexible knowledge accumu-
lation (Lin, 2007b), improving the density of the network and allowing users to
combine different types of interactions to increase sociability, social control, and
social interaction throughout the organizational network (Matzat, 2010).
6.2 Visibility and Perceived Benefits and Costs
The visibility of ESM promotes participants’ perceived benefits, providing a trans-

parent platform for knowledge exchange and enhancing recognition within
organizations (Kane et al., 2014). Participants gain social recognition by sharing
knowledge in ESM, and lack of a recognition system discourages employees’
sustainable contribution (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Peer-recognition systems pro-
mote knowledge sharing behaviors, from which participants derive reputational
benefits (Javernick-Will, 2011; Kumaraswamy & Chitale, 2012). Recognition of
users’ contributions and expertise can stimulate their participation in expert teams
such as ENoP. This is also consistent with social exchange theory, which holds that
participants engage in knowledge exchange in the expectation of receiving social
rewards (Paroutis & Al Saleh, 2009). A social reward may take several forms, such
as status, number of “likes”, and positive feedback. For instance, Danis and Singer
(2008) found that participants can enhance their reputation in organizational wiki
pages in industrial research organizations. Further, Brzozowski et al. (2009) showed
that the number of comments is a visible factor that has a positive relationship with
the quantity of knowledge sharing, whereas the number of bloggers visiting is an
invisible factor that has no effect on the quantity of publishing.
The visibility of ESM also promotes generalized reciprocity within
organizations by offering several environments such as wikis and blogs to support
collective knowledge. ESM participants expect to receive knowledge in future, not
only from fellow employees who have access to the same sources as they do, but
also from networks that reflect generalized reciprocity (Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
Kosonen and Kianto (2009) observed that participants are stimulated to contribute
in visible ESM because visible systems eliminate individual restrictions by making
opportunities for all members to share their ideas and reducing participants’ search
costs. Also, the visibility of ESM reduces free-riding costs by creating a transparent
platform for all participants and, hence, reducing fraudulent behavior (Fulk &
Yuan, 2013).
The ability to track colleagues’ activities and achievements through ESM also
encourages people to contribute actively to knowledge exchange. Visible
comments, feedback, and incentives systems enable employees to see coworkers’
activities, what feedback they have received and from whom, and, in some cases,
how much they earn. A practical study shows that users of ESM monitor and
compare their performance relative to colleagues, which visibility allows them to
do (Farzan et al., 2008). In addition, participants have the autonomy to control their
visibility in order to reduce the risk of acquiring a bad reputation. Sometimes new
knowledge seekers ask questions anonymously or using a pseudonym to overcome
their fear of starting a discussion (Lee, Choi, Kim, & Lee, 2014). ESM can handle
these social anxieties and help users to overcome them.
6.3 Informality and Perceived Benefits and Costs
Informal online communications through ESM reduce the costs of knowledge

codification for employees (Majchrzak et al., 2013). For instance, Yammer,
Tibbr, Zincro, and JIVE foster informal environments in which participants can
pose the question, “Does anyone know how to use a specific technical module for
calculating project risks?” Such informal questions can get several answers from
different points of view, customized for knowledge seekers (Fulk & Yuan, 2013).
Informal communications thus help participants to better express problems, seek
solutions, and create customized knowledge, which reduces the perceived costs of
obtaining appropriate solutions for personal work goals.
ESM are also structured to support widespread informal conversations, even
between participants who are not familiar with one another (Zhao & Rosson, 2009).
The informal nature of this communication reduces the social barriers that are
erected by organizational structure and boundaries between business units. Such
communication can create knowledge relationships between colleagues from dif-
ferent organizational departments, which may assist participants in receiving new
knowledge from different perspectives, as well as discovering new collaboration
opportunities. For example, Zhao and Rosson (2009) conducted several semi-
structured interviews with micro bloggers in a large IT company and found that
the informal nature of communications in ESM maintained participation and
relationships by increasing social exchanges and promoting interpersonal trust,
without which knowledge exchange is unlikely to occur (Chang & Chuang,
2011). Truthful communications between participants develop norms, obligations,
and collective goals (Chow & Chan, 2008). Moreover, costs incurred by receiving
Table 6 Summary table

EVI model’s dimensions Impacts on participants’ perceived benefits and costs
Entirety • Selecting relevant knowledge recipients
• Supporting wisdom of crowds
• Promoting trust through network of participants
• Supporting organizational commitments
• Improving emotional closeness between participants
• Providing flexible (time and space) communications
Visibility • Supporting peer-recognition systems
• Structuring social rewards
• Promoting generalized reciprocity
• Reducing free-riding costs
• Reducing search costs
Informality • Reducing codification costs
•Reducing bad reputation costs
• Reducing social barrier costs
• Promoting interpersonal trust
• Reducing low-quality knowledge risks
low-quality knowledge also decrease, because knowledge possessors are more

willing to share valuable knowledge with recipients.
To sum up, the visibility, informality, and entirety of ESM improve some
members’ perceived benefits and diminish some perceived costs. Indeed, ESM
create appropriate environments for knowledge exchange by breaking down
barriers and by enhancing the motivation of participants. Table 6 represents sum-
mary of the EVI model’s dimensions impacts on participants’ perceived benefits
and costs.
7 Discussion and Conclusion
Our purpose in this chapter was to clarify how social media can affect participants’
perceived benefits and costs of ESM. Studies in the literature indicate that three
aspects of ESM, namely entirety, visibility, and informality (EVI), increase these
perceived benefits and reduce the costs, thereby encouraging sustainable participa-
tion. This study explored in detail the effects of these three aspects. Sustained
participation is a crucial issue for companies to implement a successful KM process
and keep their competitive advantage in the market. The growing use of ESM
technologies has brought calls for understanding why participants use these
systems, how they influence motivation, and how they can break down barriers to
knowledge exchange in organizations.
ESM technologies as an entire system are able to maximize participation in the
organization by presenting different communication channels, intervals, and
natures. As these systems mature and are more widely implemented, opportunities
for communication promote knowledge exchange because members have the

means to select a trusted group of knowledge recipients. Furthermore, integrating
knowledge exchange technologies can help ESM designers develop and refine
appropriate technologies.
Visibility in the context of knowledge sharing behavior consists of the visibility
of knowledge content and of the connections that mutually foster knowledge
exchange. A communal knowledge repository is supported by the phenomenon of
the wisdom of the crowd, facilitated by tools such as the wiki page. Moreover,
visibility entails the capacity to recognize experts’ positions in knowledge
networks. Informal interactions foster the exchange of customized knowledge
aligned with knowledge seekers’ needs and with their own individual scopes,
lenses, and perspectives for documenting expertise. Thus, knowledge sharing is a
dynamic process that is formed and reconstructed by participants’ interpretations.
In summary, organizational social media significantly influence motivation for
knowledge sharing. All knowledge management systems both benefit from and are
enhanced by the motivations of participants; specifically by making participants’
behaviors more visible, creating opportunities for informal interactions, and
integrating all knowledge communication technologies in a unique system. More-
over, social media platforms can offer several features that can influence other
knowledge sharing factors, although the EVI model does not have the scope to
encompass all the attributes that can influence knowledge sharing through
organizations. Fulk and Yuan’s article (Fulk & Yuan, 2013) contains more
in-depth information about EVI. The present chapter presents a model of social
media aspects that it is hoped will stimulate KM designers and researchers to take
greater account of features of ESM that can affect perceived benefits and costs.
This study suggests potential opportunities for future research. One such oppor-
tunity would be to explore the interrelations between different attributes of ESM
and their effects. A comprehensive framework might be developed to show how
ESM attributes form or influence other aspects of networks. Second, this study has
developed a literature-based conceptual model of ESM attributes. Future work is
needed to test this conceptual model in various organizational contexts, in order to
extend our understanding of how ESM attributes shift knowledge sharing behaviors
within organizations.
References
Aris, A., & Shneiderman, B. (2007). Designing semantic substrates for visual network exploration.
Information Visualization, 6(4), 281–300.
Behrendt, S., Richter, A., & Trier, M. (2014). Mixed methods analysis of enterprise social
networks. Computer Networks, 75, 560–577.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Brzozowski, M. J., Sandholm, T., & Hogg, T. (2009). Effects of feedback and peer pressure on
contributions to enterprise social media. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International
Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 61–70). ACM.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–735.
Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment and
cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740–753.
Chai, S., Das, S., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Factors affecting bloggers’ knowledge sharing: An
investigation across gender. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3), 309–342.
Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S.-S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge
sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & Management, 48(1), 9–18.
Chen, R. (2013). Member use of social networking sites—an empirical examination. Decision
Support Systems, 54(3), 1219–1227.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support
Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888.
Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational
knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), 458–465.
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. New York:
Springer.
Cyr, S., & Choo, C. W. (2010). The individual and social dynamics of knowledge sharing: An
exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 66(6), 824–846.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-
regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The
Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.
Danis, C., & Singer, D. A. (2008). Wiki instance in the enterprise: Opportunities, concerns and
reality. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work (pp. 495–504). ACM.
Davison, R. M., Ou, C. X., & Martinsons, M. G. (2013). Information technology to support
informal knowledge sharing. Information Systems Journal, 23(1), 89–109.
Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L., & Weber, M. S. (2014). The use of enterprise social network sites for
knowledge sharing in distributed organizations the role of organizational affordances. Ameri-
can Behavioral Scientist 0002764214540510.
Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In
Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 237–258).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Faraj, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2011). Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organiza-
tion Science, 22(6), 1464–1480.
Farrell, R. G., Kellogg, W. A., & Thomas, J. C. (2008). The participatory web and the socially
resilient enterprise. In Proceedings of CSCW, IBM TJ Watson Research Center.
Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., & Brownholtz, E. A. (2008).
Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 563–572). ACM.
Fulk, J., & Yuan, Y. C. (2013). Location, motivation, and social capitalization via enterprise social
networking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 20–37.
Haas, M. R. (2006). Knowledge gathering, team capabilities, and project performance in chal-
lenging work environments. Management Science, 52(8), 1170–1184. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.
0530.
Hall, H. (2001). Social exchange for knowledge exchange. Paper presented at the Managing
knowledge: Conversations and critiques, Leicester.
Hsu, C.-L., & Lin, J. C.-C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance,
social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45(1), 65–74.
Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y.-G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and
social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International
Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356–366.
Huysman, M., & Wit, D. D. (2004). Practices of managing knowledge sharing: Towards a second
wave of knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(2), 81–92.
Jackson, S. E., Chuang, C.-H., Harden, E. E., & Jiang, Y. (2006). Toward developing human
resource management systems for knowledge-intensive teamwork. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 25, 27–70.
Javernick-Will, A. (2011). Motivating knowledge sharing in engineering and construction
organizations: Power of social motivations. Journal of Management in Engineering, 28(2),
193–202.
Kane, G. C. (2011). A multimethod study of information quality in wiki collaboration. ACM
Transactions on Management Information Systems, 2(1), 4.
Kane, G. C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2014). What’s different about social media
networks? A framework and research agenda. Mis Quarterly, 38(1), 275–304.
Kosonen, M., & Kianto, A. (2009). Applying wikis to managing knowledge—a socio-technical
approach. Knowledge and Process Management, 16(1), 23–29.
Kumaraswamy, K. S. N., & Chitale, C. (2012). Collaborative knowledge sharing strategy to
enhance organizational learning. Journal of Management Development, 31(3), 308–322.
Lee, H., Choi, J., Kim, K. K., & Lee, A. R. (2014). Impact of anonymity on information sharing
through internal psychological processes: A case of south korean online communities. Journal
of Global Information Management, 22(3), 57–77.
Leidner, D., Koch, H., & Gonzalez, E. (2010). Assimilating generation Y IT new hires into
USAA’s workforce: The role of an enterprise 2.0 system. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4),
229–242.
communication visibility. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796–816.
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition,
history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1–19.
Li, S. M., & Ma, W. W. (2014). Exploring interpersonal relationship and growth need strength on
knowledge sharing in social media. In Hybrid learning theory and practice (pp. 288–299).
New York: Springer.
Lin, C.-P. (2007a). To share or not to share: Modeling tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators and
antecedents. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 411–428.
Lin, H.-F. (2007b). The role of online and offline features in sustaining virtual communities: An
empirical study. Internet Research, 17(2), 119–138.
Liu, J., & Rau, P.-L. P. (2014). Impact of self-construal on choice of enterprise social media for
knowledge sharing. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(7),
1077–1089.
media affordances on online knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer Mediated Communica-
tion, 19(1), 38–55.
Matzat, U. (2010). Reducing problems of sociability in online communities: Integrating online
communication with offline interaction. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1170–1193.
McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New collaborative tools for your organization’s toughest
challenges. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535.
Nieves, J., & Osorio, J. (2013). The role of social networks in knowledge creation. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 11(1), 62–77.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms.
Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.
Overby, E. (2012). Migrating processes from physical to virtual environments: Process
virtualization theory. In Information systems theory (pp. 107–124). Springer.
Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A. (2009). Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0
technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 52–63.
Paul Jones, P. G. P., Martin Beckinsale, D., Durkin, M., McGowan, P., & McKeown, N. (2013).
Exploring social media adoption in small to medium-sized enterprises in Ireland. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(4), 716–734.
Reinke, K., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). When email use gets out of control: Understanding
the relationship between personality and email overload and their impact on burnout and work
engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 502–509.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Sedighi, M., van Splunter, S., Zand, F., & Brazier, F. (2015). Evaluating critical success factors
model of knowledge management: An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Interna-
tional Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(3), 17–36.
Stamford, C. (2013). Gartner says 80 percent of social business efforts will not achieve intended
benefits through 2015. Gartner. http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2319215.
Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M. J., & Millen, D. R. (2008). Social tagging roles: Publishers,
evangelists, leaders. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput-
ing Systems (pp. 1041–1044). ACM.
Treem, J. W. (2014). Social media as technologies of accountability explaining resistance to
implementation within organizations. American Behavioral Scientist 0002764214540506.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the
affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook,
36, 143–189.
Treem, J. W., Dailey, S. L., Pierce, C. S., & Leonardi, P. M. (2015). Bringing technological frames
to work: How previous experience with social media shapes the technology’s meaning in an
organization. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 396–422.
van den Hooff, B., & Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and engi-
neering approaches. Information & Management, 46(1), 1–8.
Wagner, C., & Bolloju, N. (2004). Supporting knowledge management in organizations with
conversational technologies: Discussion forums, weblogs, and wikis. Journal of Database
Management, 16(2), i–viii.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
Human Resource Management Review, 20, 115–131.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.
Wasko, M. M., Teigland, R., & Faraj, S. (2009). The provision of online public goods: Examining
social structure in an electronic network of practice. Decision Support Systems, 47(3),
254–265.
Wu, A., DiMicco, J. M., & Millen, D. R. (2010). Detecting professional versus personal closeness
using an enterprise social network site. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1955–1964). ACM.
Zhao, D., & Rosson, M. B. (2009). How and why people Twitter: The role that micro-blogging
plays in informal communication at work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International
Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 243–252). ACM.
Zyl, A. S. V. (2009). The impact of social networking 2.0 on organisations. The Electronic
Library, 27(6), 906–918.
Part II
Managing the Implementation of KM:
Identifying What Works
A Comparative Analysis of Social
Information and Communication Systems
for Supporting Potential Absorptive
Capacity
Everist Limaj and Edward W.N. Bernroider
1 Introduction
As organizations face intense competition, globalization and demand for constant

innovation, the effective acquisition and assimilation of external information, and
its subsequent exploitation, is considered to be crucial for organizational success
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Whilst knowledge is regularly considered the primary
intangible resource that creates competitive advantage (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003),
managers find it difficult to provide the right technical infrastructure and levels of
support for knowledge acquisition and assimilation processes. These two knowl-
edge processing stages generate an important dynamic capability associated with
exploratory learning (Auguste, Jashapara, & Bernroider, 2010) known as potential
absorptive capacity (AC). Zahra and George (2002) have proposed a two-tier
construct of AC, where potential absorptive capacity (PAC) is the first dimension
dealing with an organisational capacity to acquire and assimilate external informa-
tion. The second dimension is named realised absorptive capacity (RAC) and refers
to transforming the knowledge acquired and assimilated, before applying it in
business routines to gain business level value. The companies which are capable
of elevating these knowledge dimensions stand a better chance of comprehending
the consequences of the changes in their surroundings and are better fitted than
competitors to respond faster to them (Sinkula, 1994).
IS research has only begun to recognize the importance of social information and
communication systems (SICS) in the development and maintenance of an
organization’s unit potential absorptive capacity (Limaj, Bernroider, & Choudrie,
2016; Roberts, Galluch, Dinger, & Grover, 2012). Here we extend the definition of
social information systems introduced by Schlagwein, Schoder, and Fischbach
E. Limaj (*) • E.W.N. Bernroider

Institute for Information Management and Control (IMAC), Vienna University of Economics and
Business, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: everist.limaj@wu.ac.at; edward.bernroider@wu.ac.at

62 E. Limaj and E.W.N. Bernroider
(2011) by adding the communication aspects of these systems. Accordingly, we

refer to SICS as information and communication systems based on social
technologies and open collaboration. The more comprehensive term SICS covers
a broader selection of tools. These tools are characterized by various features,
which in combination with different user needs build up SICS affordances
(Treem & Leonardi, 2012). These affordances are realized in the relationship
between the SICS and the human agent (Hutchby, 2001). Being able to appreciate
the value of SICS affordances, in particular with regard to different organizational
units and contexts, is essential for understanding sources of innovation and how
knowledge can be assimilated to generate business-level benefits. Previous studies
suggested that SICS affordances support networking efforts (Wilson et al., 2011)
which in turn allow managers to exploit the properties of relationships and leverage
expertise when needed (Cross, Parker, & Borgatti, 2000). A recent survey showed
that increasing speed of access to knowledge, reducing communication costs, and
increasing speed of access to internal experts are the top three benefits from the use
of SICS that remain consistent over time (Bughin, Byers, & Chui, 2011).
As the IT shift into the Web 2.0 environment has become a reality (Wilson et al.,
2011), we intend to consider the relative importance of SICS in terms of supporting
different knowledge processing stages within the scope of PAC by answering the
following two research questions: (a) How do experts with different roles value the
importance of different SICS in comparative terms for knowledge acquisition and
assimilation for their organizational unit? (b) Can we interpret the resulting
priorities using the concept of technology affordances in this context? By
explaining which SICS support which stages of potential absorptive capacity
best, we seek to contribute to both IS research and AC theory. By using an
affordance lens to discuss the importance ratings, we seek to not only provide
more clarity of the underlying learning processes but also develop grounds for
successive theory-testing case studies. Moreover, by discussing how SICS facilitate
knowledge acquisition and assimilation, we seek to assist managers who are
considering implementing SICS.
The methodology is a literature review followed by the application of an
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1991, 1994) to systematically investi-
gate the relative preferences of four experts with different roles when it comes to
using different SICS in their organizational environment. The main goal of the
AHP, which is based on the theoretical foundations provided by the PAC concept, is
to shed light on PAC as an important organizational capability. Acquisition and
Assimilation are seen as organizational learning processes that, in line with current
literature (Zahra & George, 2002), serve as criteria feeding PAC. The next section
reviews relevant literature on absorptive capacity, gives an affordance view of
SICS, and elaborates social interaction and adoption of SICS. It is followed by an
explanation of the development of the research model and a description of the
applied research methodology. The fourth section illustrates data collection and
analysis. The fifth section discusses the results of the study using an affordance lens
and provides study limitations, and we outline conclusions in the final section.
A Comparative Analysis of Social Information and Communication Systems for. . . 63
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Absorptive Capacity as Key Learning Capability
Organizations increasingly leverage their learning and innovation capabilities by

tapping into external knowledge sources (Chesbrough, 2003). At the same time, it is
widely accepted that crucial knowledge is often hard to obtain through external
sources (Argote, 1999), fostering the need to create knowledge internally (Nonaka,
1994). Yet, with regard to both types of knowledge sourcing, the capacity to absorb
external knowledge has become essential. This has been widely recognized in the
management literature (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994; Van
Den Bosch, Van Wijk, & Volberda, 2003; Zahra & George, 2002). The term
absorptive capacity (AC) was initially coined by Cohen and Levinthal (1990) and
it refers to organizations’ ability to recognize the value of new information, assimi-
late it, and apply it to commercial ends. In later work, Zahra and George (2002) and
others (Lane, Koka, & Pathak, 2006; Todorova & Durisin, 2007) offer, to some
extent, distinct reconceptualizations of AC. After considering each model, we
decided to use the four-stage model proposed by Zahra and George (2002) as it
distinguishes between potential and realized AC and is in line with the study’s focus
on knowledge processing. Zahra and George (2002) define AC as a set of organiza-
tional routines and processes which allow firms to acquire, assimilate, transform,
and exploit knowledge to produce a dynamic organizational capability. Accord-
ingly, PAC comprises knowledge acquisition and assimilation capabilities of the
firm, and RAC is a function of the related organizational transformation and
exploitation capabilities (see Fig. 1).
The role of acquisition and assimilation capabilities is particularly appealing in
the context of this study. Three elements affect the quality of a firm’s acquisition
capability, namely, intensity, speed and direction (Zahra & George, 2002). The
more effort firms put into recognizing and understanding what new knowledge
outside the firm is valuable for its operations (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), the faster
they build acquisition capabilities. Assimilation capabilities, on the other hand,
develop as a consequence of intense, repeated possibilities to share information by
means of increasing social interaction and establishing similar goals and
expectations between exchange partners (Yli-Renko, Autio, & Sapienza, 2001).
Scholars have argued that factors such as similar cognitive structures (Bower &
Hilgard, 1981), cultural conflict avoidance (Limaj & Bernroider, 2014), common
skills (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998), and a common strategy (Barkema & Vermeulen,
Fig. 1 Key theoretical concepts

1998), enhance knowledge assimilation. The efficiency of a firm’s assimilation

processes affects how successful the firm is at applying the new knowledge to create
value (Camisón & Forés, 2010; Lane et al., 2006).
In order to better understand how the use of SICS can support AC, we need a
short reflection on the two main dimensions of knowledge (tacit and explicit) and
related knowledge management strategies. Tacit knowledge, first coined from
Polanyi (1966), represents internalized knowledge, such as speaking a foreign
language or accomplishing a particular task. It is hard to encode and communicate,
and makes knowledge transfer difficult. It is mostly specific to the organizational
context; therefore it is an important source of competitive advantage. The acquisi-
tion of tacit knowledge happens through experience, such as observation, imitation,
and practice. Explicit knowledge on the other side represents knowledge that is held
in a form that can more easily be transferred to others, such as knowledge encoded
in databases (Montazemi, Pittaway, Saremi, & Wei, 2012). In this context, tacit
knowledge is considered an idea-based form of knowledge, and explicit knowledge
is considered an evidence-based form of knowledge (Auguste et al., 2010). Usually,
explicit knowledge becomes useful when tacit knowledge enables its members to
use it (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
While recognizing the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge,
organizations attempting to manage knowledge commonly pursue two strategies.
Codifying and storing knowledge in databases with the purpose of making it
available for further usage is referred to as a codification strategy, while sharing
knowledge through person-to-person interaction is referred to as a personalization
strategy (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). It has been suggested that face-to-face
interaction and verbal conversation (Non-IT) are often more efficient in sharing and
transferring tacit knowledge, while IT is more useful for the transmission of explicit
knowledge and information (Egbu & Botterill, 2002). Most of the current knowl-
edge management practices try to capture, leverage, retain, codify, store, sort, link,
transfer and share explicit knowledge (Hey, 2004). The following examples refer to
companies with interactive learning environments and illustrate practices of
transforming and sharing (externally acquired and internally existing) knowledge.
For instance, IBM and the Xerox Corporation transform explicit knowledge avail-
able in databases into usable formats that are easily accessed and enable the creation
of new tacit knowledge (Smith, 2001). By sharing knowledge, consultants at IBM
were able to reduce proposal writing time from an average of 200 to 30 h (McCune,
1999). In 2005 the Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein investment bank introduced
three SICS (a messaging software, a blog and a wiki) that enable its members to
search for and navigate through explicit knowledge relevant to their tasks (Mcafee,
2006).
While these examples demonstrate benefits that can be gained from knowledge
management strategies, organizations should develop and measure AC as the under-
lying foundation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Nonaka, 1994). As it is an intangible
and hard to imitate resource, this is in most cases very difficult to achieve, but
promises sustainable rewards for an organization (Jimenez-Barrionuevo, Garcia-
Morales, & Molina, 2011). In particular, effective communications processes and
information flows which drive knowledge transfer in organizations are hard to

achieve, not in the least due to the complexity and requirements of technical infra-
structure. As a consequence, organizations regularly do not know what they know
(Huber, 1991). Prior research has suggested four factors that influence the transfer of
new knowledge between units of a multi-national corporation, which are: (1) the
PAC of the receiving unit, (2) the existence of transmission channels in the form of
social capital, (3) willingness of the receiving unit to acquire knowledge, and
(4) willingness of the source to share knowledge (Montazemi et al., 2012). In this
study, we seek to focus on the first point, the development of PAC from a technical
perspective. While IT in general plays a critical role for a firm to develop and sustain
AC (Roberts et al., 2012), the IT solutions needed to support acquisition and
assimilation processes may require the mobilization of knowledge in various
forms, from simple to complex and rich, highlighting the likely need to require
different technologies (such as SICS) within a firm for an effective support of PAC
(Limaj et al., 2016).
2.2 An Affordance View of SICS
Conceptualizing the relationship between the use of information systems and tech-
nological capability through “affordances” has become increasingly prominent in
contemporary IS literature (Argyris & Monu, 2015; Harindranath, Bernroider, &
Kamel, 2015; Treem & Leonardi, 2012; Volkoff & Strong, 2013). Here we offer an
affordance view of SICS, which we use, in a later section, to interpret and discuss the
results of our study. As such, the theoretical affordance concept in this study is
merely used to reflect on the study results but is not part of the AHP-study per se. The
idea of affordances appeared first in ecological psychology to explain how species
orient themselves to the object in the environment with respect to the possibilities for
action, and that particular affordances of an object may be different for different
species (Gibson, 1979). Similarly, a technology affordance refers to an action
potential; specifically, to what an individual or organization with a particular
purpose can do with the technology or information system (Majchrzak & Markus,
2012). In our context, we refer to SICS and the organization unit in this relationship.
For instance, the marketing unit of an organization may use Facebook to post content
on their latest products to inform their followers and customers, while a social media
unit may use Facebook to evaluate the impressions of comments among other
metrics. In addition, depending on the need of organizational units, Facebook also
affords to communicate through direct messages, participate and share ideas (such as
through Facebook pages) or discuss projects in Facebook groups. However, the
experiences of unit members influence their ability to utilize the technology, poten-
tially creating even richer forms of communication (Carlson & George, 2004).
We propose that an affordance view is particularly relevant to explain the
importance of SICS for knowledge processing because the richness of features of
SICS can trigger usage in various different ways. Treem and Leonardi (2012)
categorized various features in four SICS affordances used in organizational
settings that could influence organizational processes of socialization and knowl-

edge sharing. First, visibility affords SICS users to make their work, knowledge,
preferences, and network connections that were previously hard to notice, visible to
other members in the organization. For example, the posts of members on a
corporate social network appearing on the wall or newsfeed of the organization
allows other members to locate contributions easily (Leonardi, 2014). Second,
editability affords SICS users to craft and recraft a communicative act for long
enough before sending it to others. Third, persistence affords SICS users to view a
past communication in the same form as the original display at any time in the
future. For example, an E-mail offers both editability and high persistence to users
by giving them time to craft their messages prior to sending but also enabling them
to store and search through their old messages. On the other hand, SICS such as
Web Conferencing offer low persistence because conversations are bound in time
and no record of interaction exists between peers (Treem & Leonardi, 2012).
Fourth, associations afford SICS users to create social ties by connecting to other
persons (such as following someone on Twitter or friending on Facebook), or allow
users to relate to content (such as a wiki or blog contribution or the bookmarking of
an article).
2.3 Social Interaction and Adoption of SICS
Social interactions seem to be of paramount importance when it comes to informa-

tion retrieval and mediation of these interactions with typical phases of information
seeking as part of PAC (Hecker & Wolff, 2009). Particularly essential is social
interaction in the “information-pooling” process. The decision to seek information
from someone is affected by knowing what the other person knows and having
timely access to that person (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). Because organizational units
favor information that is shared over information that is unshared, members’
preferences are shaped by how frequently information is discussed (Gardner,
Gino, & Staats, 2012). Internally organizations use SICS to connect employees,
simplify mass collaboration and improve communication (DiMicco et al., 2008). It
is suggested that efficient communication within a unit is the starting point to build
a capability for knowledge integration. This fosters relational resources (based on
the “sum of history” covering current and past relations between users) that further
improve knowledge integration capabilities. Adopting SICS which are designed for
such social interactions can be considered a valuable support for organizational
units that seek to develop PAC.
The low adoption complexity and technological advantages of SICS have
allowed for their wide diffusion in business practice (Kim, Lee, & Lee, 2011). In
2011, a McKinsey global study concerned about how organizations deploy SICS
reported that the business use of these platforms has increased steadily since 2008
(Bughin et al., 2011). For instance, in Germany 47% of all companies use SICS
(Arns, 2012). Similarly, in the US, each of the Fortune 500 companies has adopted
on average more than one SICS (Culnan, Mchugh, & Zubillaga, 2010). McAfee
Table 1 Considered social information and communication systems (SICS)

SICS Definition Supporting reference
Wiki A freely expandable collection of interlinked (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001)
web pages, a hypertext system for storing and
modifying information—a database, where
each page is easily edited by any user
Blog A frequently updated website consisting of (Bruns & Jacobs, 2006;
chronologically dated entries presented in Kelleher & Miller, 2006)
reverse order
E-mail A web-based system that facilitates written (Adams, Todd, & Nelson,
information exchange and storage 1993; Whittaker & Sinder,
1996)
Corporate A collection of social networks, among which (Sena & Sena, 2008)
social employees and other corporate constitutes may
network interact through their own, individual profiles
RSS A web content syndication format that enables (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001;
aggregating information from many different Richardson, 2005)
internet sources such as E-mail, blogs, wikis,
Usenet groups, news feeds, etc.
Mashup A system that combines existing resources, be (Hoyer et al., 2008; Leuf &
it content, data or application functionality, Cunningham, 2001)
empowering users to create and adapt
individual information centric and situational
applications
Social A user-defined taxonomy system that allows (Noll & Meinel, 2007)
bookmark saving bookmarks to a public website and
tagging them with keywords
Web A system that enable users to meet together (Suduc, Bizoi, & Filip, 2009)
conferencing virtually and share between them discussion,
documents, meetings or complex data
(2006) explains that the use of these systems is voluntary rather than obligatory,
enabling users to find creative ways to perform many tasks. This is important since
a firm’s flexibility in terms of IT infrastructure and IT assimilation positively affects
absorptive capacity (Liua et al., 2013). While the adoption of SICS is forecast to
continue rising for years, it is even suggested that they could create entirely new
organizational processes and capabilities allowing for breakthrough performance
(Bughin et al., 2011). Table 1 provides a list of common SICS considered in this
study. In line with our SICS definition, we also included E-mail systems, consider-
ing that they afford simple communication and the creation of social networks (Bird
et al., 2006).
3 Research Model
The whole AC construct is hierarchical (Wetzels, Odekerken-Schr€oder, & Oppen,

2009), multi-level and trans-disciplinary (Van Den Bosch et al., 2003) and consists
of latent factors (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998). Based on Zahra and George (2002),
AC can be further decomposed into two 1st order constructs (PAC and RAC) as
shown in Fig. 2. This study focuses on PAC only. PAC includes knowledge
acquisition and assimilation as two distinct knowledge processing stages and in
our context were operationalized as follows. In terms of knowledge acquisition we
refer to the organizational unit’s ability to identify and gather external knowledge
(Flatten et al., 2011; Jimenez-Barrionuevo et al., 2011; Zahra & George, 2002). In
relating to knowledge assimilation, we refer to the organizational unit’s ability to
distribute knowledge throughout the organization (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1998;
Lu, Leung, & Koch, 2006; Schreiber & Carley, 2008; Szulanski, 1996).
Conceptually, these two stages link with either identification and accumulation or
distribution, which can be semantically more clearly interpreted and supported by
SICS when compared to the two RAC stages. RAC, in broader terms, deals with the
organizational transformation and subsequent exploitation of knowledge, which can
result in improved organizational capabilities, e.g. related to processes, services or
products. Thus, operationalizing and measuring transformation and exploitation
poses a very different challenge given the complex nature and different scopes of
these concepts. To ensure internal validity, we therefore decided to focus on PAC
only.
Having defined the main AC structure in Fig. 2, we can now transform it into an
AHP hierarchy model to include the considered SICS (see Fig. 3). The analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) is used to derive a preference profile for each of the
considered SICS (Saaty, 1991), which is a common method to comparatively assess
the importance weightings of tools. The AHP process is composed of four stages
(Tummala & Wan, 1994). First, the evaluation problem is structured. Second, the
assessment is conducted, which may result in incomplete information (Bernroider,
Maier, & Stix, 2010). Third, the aggregation is calculated. Fourth, the problem is
analyzed. Our goal is to identify which SICS should be selected to best support PAC
at which stages. Therefore, we seek to find out which SICS best supports knowledge
acquisition (1st phase of PAC) and knowledge assimilation (2nd phase of PAC).
The goal is placed on level 1 and by definition has a priority of 1.000 (Saaty, 1991).
The criteria that comprise PAC are placed on level 2 and have the default priority of
.500. The alternatives (which are the SICS) are placed on level 3.
4 Data Collection and Analysis
Having established the AHP goal model, we were able to conduct the exploratory
study which involved pairwise comparisons of SICS for acquiring knowledge (1st
phase of PAC) and assimilating knowledge (2nd phase of PAC). Data collection
followed a three-stage process followed by data analysis, which is described below.
Fig. 2 Model to measure AC constructs and focus of study (PAC)
Fig. 3 AHP goal model of SICS support for PAC
Within the pre-data collection stage, we identified four experts to engage into
pair-wise comparisons of SICS on level 3 of the AHP hierarchy (see Fig. 3). The
experts were purposefully chosen with a strong professional background related to
knowledge management and SICS, and from different organizational units and
contexts, as we sought to identify distinct roles to capture a wide range of purposes.
In the end, we were able to collect data from a project manager, a service manager,
a researcher, and a web engineer affiliated with different organizational units as
presented in Table 3 (see Appendix). All the experts were from the same geographic
location, namely from Austria; two members were from the same organization and
the other two members were from different organizations. It was made clear that
participating in this study was strictly voluntary and that identities would remain
anonymous.
With regard to the collection stage, we firstly contacted all four experts to
explain the purpose and theoretical context of the study. To limit potential
misconceptions or misinterpretations, experts were carefully instructed to ensure
a common understanding about the concepts of knowledge acquisition and assimi-
lation. Then, we explained the annotated questionnaire as an instrument to guide the
experts in their evaluation task. Three illustrative examples were provided to
explain the procedure. Next, the experts were asked to evaluate the importance of
SICS when compared with one another, in relation to each PAC phase and their own
organizational environment, using the Saaty’s original 9-point rating scale (Saaty,
1991). Thus, the attributable relative priority values included 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 which
correspond respectively to equally important, moderately important, strongly
important, very strongly important and extremely important. The intermediate
values could also be used to improve precision. The four expert assessments resulted
in four fully completed data sets with regard to the AHP hierarchy. Each dataset
consisted of two square 8 8 comparison matrices from each expert. We only asked
for completing the relative assessments on level 3 of the AHP goal hierarchy and
assumed an equal importance for the two sub-phases of PAC. Therefore, the two
phases of PAC were given same priority weights; this means that both acquiring and
assimilating capacities were considered equally important (50% weighting) when it
comes to support potential absorptive capacity. Since the nature of SICS is such that
they essentially support group work and they have little value used alone (from one
individual), we assume that not only the experts (respondents) but also their working
peers in their organizational environment used SICS. In other words, the view
provided reflects how differently the experts assessed the value of SICS for their
organizational unit.
Next, we analyzed the data and estimated response quality to advise follow-up
data collection. We firstly applied consistency checks as the analysis of priorities
with Saaty’s Eigenvector method to calculate the according weight profiles only
makes sense if consistent or near consistent matrices can be gained from the experts
(Saaty, 1991, 1994). Saaty (1991) has proposed a consistency index (CI) related to
the Eigenvalue method:
λmaxn
CI ¼ : ð1Þ
n1
where λmax ¼ maximal Eigenvalue
and n ¼ number of SICS being compared (8)
The consistency ratio (CR), the ratio of CI and RI, is given by:
CI
CR ¼ ð2Þ
RI
where RI is the random index (1.41 for n ¼ 8).
For each matrix, based on the outcome of the CR, it was decided whether the
judgment for the matrix needed to be revised. If CR <10%, then the matrix can be
considered as having an acceptable consistency. For three matrices the consistency
was not acceptable. Therefore, we applied the root mean square deviation method
(Saaty, 1991) and allowed the experts to revise their judgments for the row with the
largest value. This procedure was repeated until all the matrices showed a CR below
10%. We then identified the Eigenvector belonging to the maximal Eigenvalue
(λmax) for each matrix following Saaty’s Eigenvector method. Table 4 in the
Appendix shows these intermediate values for each expert role and PAC stage.
Web Engineer Wiki

Blog
Researcher RSS
Mashup
Service Manager Social Bookmark
E-mail
Project Leader Web Conference
CSN
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fig. 4 AHP priority vectors for Knowledge Acquisition within PAC
Wiki
Web Engineer
Blog
Researcher RSS
Mashup
Service Manager Social Bookmark
E-mail
Project Leader Web Conference
CSN
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fig. 5 AHP priority vectors for Knowledge Assimilation within PAC
Table 2 Relative priorities of SICS support for knowledge processing

Knowledge acquisition Knowledge assimilation Potential absorptive capacity
1. Wiki 27.45% 1. E-mail 19.00% 1. Wiki 22.93%
2. Web 16.72% 2. Wiki 18.64% 2. Web 16.16%
conferencing conferencing
3. Blog 14.94% 3. Web 15.64% 3. E-mail 14.69%
conferencing
4. RSS 12.85% 4. Blog 11.94% 4. Blog 13.40%
5. E-mail 10.15% 5. RSS 10.95% 5. RSS 11.88%
6. CSN 8.12% 6. CSN 10.33% 6. CSN 9.25%
7. Mashup 5.17% 7. Mashup 7.86% 7. Mashup 6.55%
8. Social 4.61% 8. Social 5.64% 8. Social 5.14%
bookmark bookmark bookmark
Note: percentages represent the geometric means over all four judgements
The normalized eigenvector represents the resulting local priority vector for each of
the eight tables (2 for each expert). The eight local priority vectors with regard to
the eight considered SICS are displayed in Figs. 4 and 5 for each dimension of PAC.
Finally, we aggregated the four expert judgments per PAC dimension into a
single representative judgment for the entire group, using the geographic mean
approach as instructed by Saaty (1987, 2008). The final step was to synthesize the
local priorities (Stage 1 and Stage 2 of PAC) in order to determine the global
priority (PAC). These three priority weights are given in Table 2. These results
show the relative importance of SICS for knowledge acquisition and knowledge
assimilation in the context of PAC.
5 Discussion
In this section we will discuss our main findings for each main dimension of PAC
(see Table 2) followed by elaborations on the limitations along with research
propositions for future work before we conclude the article. Our results confirm
the need for a more differentiated view of the importance of SICS, which seems to
be dependent on the context and purpose related to PAC. In the following
paragraphs, we discuss communalities and differences in terms of the relevance
of SICS for each PAC phase. We use the theoretical lens of technology affordances
to interpret these findings from the viewpoint of the specific organizational units
represented by the four experts.
5.1 Knowledge Acquisition
In terms of external knowledge acquisition to support PAC, the results show that
Wikis are clearly leading the list of SICS across organizational units with an overall
relative importance weighting of 27.55%. Wikis afford the collection and access of
explicit expert knowledge on certain topics from several users on a single platform,
while making this knowledge readily accessible for all platform members (Buhse &
Stammer, 2008). They support the specific requirements arising when
collaborative information seeking activities are triggered by organizational infor-
mation needs (Reddy & Spence, 2008). Further, the results point to the importance
of Web Conferencing (16.72%), Blogs (14.92%) and RSS (12.85%) as organiza-
tional units take account for acquiring external knowledge. When it comes to
different organizational units, the data indicate varying priorities. The web engineer
noted that Wikis, Blogs and RSS were most important for his organizational unit in
terms of external knowledge acquisition (see Fig. 4). In theoretical terms, these
three SICS rate uniformly high on their ability to offer the four affordances
(visibility, editability, persistence and association) mentioned above. Wikis and
Blogs allow for creating a personal profile, displaying text and graphics, and
notifying when changes are made, thereby affording the needed visibility in web
engineering (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). RSS, in particular afford high association,
as they can be configured to grab Wikis and Blogs and alert the user when a certain
web page updates. Visibility and association enable organizational members to
manage their external connections in terms of choosing the information that they
want to acquire, and thereby identify external expertise. Wikis and blogs also afford
editability by allowing posting and revising asynchronous text-based entries, and
stimulate people to present better content and convert tacit to explicit knowledge.
An IBM study showed that engaging in blog discussions pushes people to correctly
articulate their work experiences because they want to appear competent (Huh
et al., 2007). In turn, they are then seen from others as trusted information sources.
The project leader on the other hand, distinctively viewed Web Conferencing as
being most important for acquiring external knowledge for his organizational unit
(see Fig. 4). Web Conferencing affords continuous, bound in time, exchange of
communication with improved coordination and rapid feedback enabling tacit
knowledge capture (Egbu & Botterill, 2002).
5.2 Knowledge Assimilation
In terms of knowledge assimilation to support PAC, the results show that across
organizational units the relative differences between SICS are smaller
(in comparison to the first PAC stage). In fact, while E-mail systems (19%) are
most important, they are closely followed by Wikis (18.64%) and, lagging a little
behind, by Web Conferencing systems (15.64%). E-mail systems, a highly ranked
solution for nearly all experts (see Fig. 5), afford editability and persistence
(as discussed above), and likewise so do Wikis. Editability gives organizational
units greater control in terms of how their content is viewed by others resulting in
enhanced collaboration and creating better products faster (Danis & Singer, 2008).
For example, service managers (who rated E-mails as most important for their
organizational unit) will likely use the constructive feedback they receive through
E-mails to identify improvement points of their services. In the same way, the
project leader (who rated Wikis as second most important for his organizational
unit) may use the information posted from his unit members in a Wiki-based project
to keep track of work-in-progress. Further, Wiki posts allow members to associate
links or to give creative feedbacks in form of comments. These comments may
stimulate other unit members to provide additional insights facilitating the assimila-
tion of knowledge. This mechanism also encourages members to post more content,
since not only the content, but also the members who post, receive attention and are
well-received by others (Kane et al., 2011). However, the project leader viewed Web
Conferencing as the top SICS for his organizational unit even for assimilating
knowledge (see Fig. 5). Web Conferencing enables immediate feedback and offers
an elevated communication experience by displaying in real time (with audio and
image) the reactions of counterparts. On the other hand, the researcher valued
Mashups as being most important for his organizational unit to assimilate knowl-
edge. Mashups can support scientific workflows by affording researchers to connect
various information resources through different platforms (Cramer, Rost, &
Holmquist, 2011).
5.3 Future Work and Limitations
Consistently lower ranked SICS for knowledge acquisition and knowledge assimi-
lation are CSN, Mashups, and Social Bookmarks. Considering the increasing trends
of organizations implementing CSN (Richter, 2009), this result raises a new ques-
tion: How well are organizations selecting and adopting SICS, and what affects the
organizational benefits gained from these systems? McAfee (2006) suggested that
the effective use of SICS needs organizational complements. Future research could
consider which organizational factors in conjunction with specific SICS influence
their value in terms of mediation or moderation for the organization. Besides, future
research may address the following limitations of this study.
First, the collected data for this study only allows for indicative insights and
reflects expert views on the relative suitability of SICS for their organizational unit.
Hence, findings cannot be generalized to a wider population. Second, the model
proposed has been limited to the consideration of the PAC construct only and PAC
results were calculated based on the assumption that acquisition and assimilation
dimensions are equally important for PAC. This aggregation should therefore be
interpreted with caution. As both knowledge acquisition and assimilation have
different requirements, trade-off effects may hide very useful SICS in the overall
assessment. Also, to give a more comprehensive view of how SICS improve
knowledge processing, future research could investigate a larger model including
realized absorptive capacity. However, realized absorptive capacity is considered a
difficult concept to quantify and has a much larger scope (Wang & Ahmed, 2007).
Third, our methodological approach did not allow for testing the actual level of
shared use of SICS affordances in the considered organizational units. Instead of
approximating importance via AHP, future research could test the level of shared use
or the task technology fit with regard to AC based on a survey approach. Future work
could also focus on developing more accurate measurement models for capturing the
role of technology for AC, in particular in the context of SICS.
6 Concluding Remarks
The established use and increasing popularity of social information and communi-
cation systems (SICS) in organizations (Bughin & Chui, 2010; Jaokar & Sharma,
2010; Kisselburgh, Spafford, & Vorvoreanu, 2010) justifies inquiry about the impact
and significance that such technologies have to support knowledge processing. For
this purpose, this exploratory study presents new evidence about the relative impor-
tance of SICS for developing Potential Absorptive Capacity (PAC) in different
organizational environments. As most previous studies focused on one technology
at a time when examining SICS in the area of collaboration and knowledge manage-
ment (Wilson et al., 2011), we engage in a comparative view of such systems by
implementing an Analytic Hierarchy Model (AHP) and thereby highlight which
SICS were considered most important to support knowledge acquisition and assimi-
lation within PAC. In relation to four assessed organizational units, we linked our
findings with the concept of technology affordances to discuss how these SICS can
be used. This study therefore offers valuable insights with regard to which SICS or
mixes thereof may most effectively help to develop PAC in organizational contexts.
In particular, it was shown that SICS that focus on explicit (codified) knowledge
(Wikis, E-mail) complemented by tacit knowledge exchange mechanisms (Web
Conferencing) are most important for supporting both PAC stages. However, not
every SICS seems to fit any case as their priority levels differ across organizational
units and PAC stages.
Appendix See Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3 Expert affiliations to organizational units and sectors

Expert role Organization unit Sector
Project leader Service Network Telecommunication
Service manager Operation Telecommunication
Researcher University Institute Academic
Web engineer IT Development Consulting Services
Table 4 Eigenvalues, consistency indices, random indices and consistency ratios

PAC dimension Role/variable n λmax CI RI CR
1. Acquisition Project manager 8 8.595 0.085 1.41 0.060
Service manager 8 8.879 0.125 1.41 0.089
Researcher 8 8.728 0.104 1.41 0.073
Web engineer 8 8.486 0.069 1.41 0.049
2. Assimilation Project manager 8 8.955 0.136 1.41 0.096
Service manager 8 8.475 0.067 1.41 0.048
Researcher 8 8.937 0.133 1.41 0.095
Web engineer 8 8.930 0.132 1.41 0.094
References
Adams, D. A., Todd, P. A., & Nelson, R. R. (1993). A comparative evaluation of the impact of
electronic and voice mail on organizational communication. Information & Management
Review, 24(1), 9–21.
Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge.
Boston: Kluwer.
Argyris, Y. A., & Monu, K. (2015). Corporate use of social media: Technology affordance and
external stakeholder relations. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Com-
merce, 25(2), 140–168.
Arns, T. (2012). Social Media in deutschen Unternehmen. Retrieved September 1, 2015, from
https://www.bitkom.org/files/documents/Social_Media_in_deutschen_Unternehmen.pdf.
Auguste, M., Jashapara, A., & Bernroider, E. W. N. (2010). Exploring the perceived influence of
new knowledge on absorptive capacity in a public sector organization. Paper presented at the
Operations Research 52 (OR52). University of London, Royal Holloway, UK.
Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1998). International expansion through start-up or acquisition:
A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 7–26.
Bernroider, E. W. N., Maier, K., & Stix, V. (2010). Incomplete information within relative
pairwise comparisons as utilized by the AHP. Lecture Notes in Business Information
Processing, 57, 39–50.
Bird, C., Gourley, A., Devanbu, P., Gertz, M., & Swaminathan, A. (2006). Mining email social
networks. In MSR ’06 Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Mining Software
Repositories (pp. 137–143), Shanghai, China, 22–23 May 2006.
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social
networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
Bower, G., & Hilgard, E. (1981). Theories of learning. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Bruns, A., & Jacobs, J. (2006). Introduction. In A. Bruns & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Uses of blogs
(pp. 1–9). New York: Peter Lang.
Bughin, J., & Chui, M. (2010). The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday.
McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 3–8.
Bughin, J., Byers, A. H., & Chui, M. (2011). How social technologies are extending the organiza-
tion. New York: McKinsey Global Institute.
Buhse, W., & Stammer, S. (2008). Enterprise 2.0—the art of letting go. Bloomington, IN, USA:
Iuniverse Star.
Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity. New insights for its conceptu-
alization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 707–715.
Carlson, J. R., & George, J. F. (2004). Media appropriateness in the conduct and discovery of
deceptive communication: The relative influence of richness and synchronicity. Group Deci-
sion and Negotiation, 13(2), 191–210.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Cramer, H., Rost, M., & Holmquist, L. E. (2011). Services as materials: Using mashups for
research. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Research in the Large
(pp. 9–12). New York: ACM.
Cross, R., Parker, A., & Borgatti, S. (2000). A bird’s-eye view: Using social network analysis to
improve knowledge creation and sharing. Knowledge Directions, 2(1), 48–61.
Culnan, M. J., Mchugh, P. J., & Zubillaga, J. I. (2010). How large US companies can use twitter
and other social media to gain business value. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 243–259.
Danis, C., & Singer, D. (2008). A wiki instance in the enterprise: Opportunities, concerns and
reality. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(pp. 495–504). New York: ACM.
DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Geyer, W. & Dugan, C. (2008). Research on the use of social
software in the workplace. In CSCW’08 workshop Social Networking in Organizations. San
Diego, CA, USA: ACM.
Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1998). From organizational learning to the learning organiza-
tion. Management Learning, 29(1), 5–20.
Egbu, C. O., & Botterill, K. (2002). Information technologies for knowledge management: Their
usage and effectiveness. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 7(Special Issue
ICT for Knowledge Management in Construction), 125–137.
Flatten, T. C., Engelen, A., Zahra, S. A., & Brettel, M. (2011). A measure of absorptive capacity:
Scale development and validation. European Management Journal, 29(2), 98–116.
Gardner, H. K., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams:
Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 998–1022.
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.
Harindranath, G., Bernroider, E. W. N., & Kamel, S. (2015). Social media and social transforma-
tion movements: The role of affordances and platforms. Twenty-Third European Conference
on Information Systems (ECIS). Münster, Germany.
Hecker, M., & Wolff, C. (2009). Towards social information seeking and interaction on the web.
In Proceedings of 11. Internationales Symposium f€ ur Informationswissenschaft (pp. 235–241).
Boizenburg: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.
Hey, J. (2004). The data, information, knowledge, wisdom chain: The metaphorical link. Retrieved
December 20, 2012, from http://www.dataschemata.com/uploads/7/4/8/7/7487334/dikwchain.
pdf.
Hoyer, V., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Janner, T. & Schroth, C. (2008). Enterprise mashups: Design
principles towards the long tail of user needs. IEEE International Conference on Services
Computing (SCC), 2, 6001–6602.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
Huh, J., Jones, L., Erickson, T., Kellogg, W. A., Bellamy, R. K. E. & Thomas, J. C. (2007).
BlogCentral: The role of internal blogs at work. In Proceedings of CHI ’07 Extended Abstracts
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2113–2116). San Jose, CA, USA: ACM.
Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.
Jaokar, A., & Sharma, C. (2010). Mobile VoIP—approaching the tripping point. Retrieved
February 10, 2013, from http://www.futuretext.com/downloads/mobile_voip.pdf.
Jimenez-Barrionuevo, M. M., Garcia-Morales, V. J., & Molina, L. M. (2011). Validation of an
instrument to measure absorptive capacity. Technovation, 31(5–6), 190–202.
Kane, G. C., Azad, B., Majchrzak, A., & Faraj, S. (2011). The paradoxical influence of social
media affordances on intellectual capital creation. Paper presented at the Academy of Man-
agement Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational
strategies and relational outcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11,
395–414.
Kim, H. D., Lee, I., & Lee, C. K. (2011). Building Web 2.0 enterprises: A study of small and
medium enterprises in the United States. International Small Business Journal, 29, 1–19.
Kisselburgh, L., Spafford, E., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2010). Web 2.0: A complex balancing act.
McAfee White Papers, 4, 2–13.
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal,
19, 461–477.
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical
review and rejuvenation of the construct. The Academy of Management Review, 31(4),
833–863.
Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional
constructs. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741–755.
communication visibility. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796–816.
Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. Amsterdam:
Addison-Wesley Longman.
Limaj, E., Bernroider, E. W. N., & Choudrie, J. (2016). The impact of social information system
governance, utilization, and capabilities on absorptive capacity and innovation: A case of
Austrian SMEs. Information & Management, 53(3), 380–397.
Limaj, E., & Bernroider, E. W. N. (2014). Cultural conflicts and knowledge sharing: An explor-
atory analysis of Sino-Austrian projects. In L. Mola, A. Carugati, A. Kokkinaki, et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy.
Liu, H., Ke, W., Wei, K. K., & Hua, Z. (2013). The impact of IT capabilities on firm performance:
The mediating roles of absorptive capacity and supply chain agility. Decision Support Systems,
54(3), 1452–1462.
Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual,
interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 15–41.
Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2012). Technology affordances and constraints in management
information systems (MIS). In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 1–5).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mcafee, A. (2006). Mastering the three words of information technology. Harvard Business
Review, 84(11), 141–149.
McCune, J. C. (1999). Thirst for knowledge. Management Review, 88(4), 10–12.
Montazemi, A. R., Pittaway, J. J., Saremi, H. Q., & Wei, Y. (2012). Factors of stickiness in
transfers of know-how between MNC units. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(1),
31–57.
Noll, M. G., & Meinel, C. (2007). Web search personalization via social bookmarking and tagging.
In A. KaE (Ed.), The semantic web (pp. 367–380). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,
5(1), 14–37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creation theory revisited: Knowledge creation
as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–10.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Reddy, M. C., & Spence, P. R. (2008). Collaborative information seeking: A field study of a
multidisciplinary patient care team. Information Processing & Management, 44(1), 242–255.
Richardson, W. (2005). The ABCs of RSS. Technology & Learning, 25(10), 20–24.
Richter, A. (2009). Corporate social networking sites—modes of use and appropriate through
co-evolution. Proceedings of ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information
Science. Melbourne.
Roberts, N., Galluch, P. S., Dinger, M., & Grover, V. (2012). Absorptive capacity and information
systems research: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 36(2),
625–648.
Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math
Modelling, 9(3–5), 161–176.
Saaty, T. L. (1991). The analytic hierarchy process. Philadelphia, PA, USA: The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania.
Saaty, T. L. (1994). Analytical planning: The organization of systems: The analytical hierarchy
process series (Vol. 4). Philadelphia, PA, USA: RWS Publication.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of
Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
Schlagwein, D., Schoder, D., & Fischbach, K. (2011). Social information systems: Review,
framework, and research agenda. International Conference on Information Systems. Shanghai.
Schreiber, C., & Carley, K. (2008). Network leadership: Leading for learning and adaptability. In
M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Part 1: Conceptual foundations (pp. 185–224). Charlotte,
NC: IAP Publications.
Sena, J., & Sena, M. (2008). Corporate social networking. Issues in Information Systems, 9(2),
227–231.
Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market. Information Processing and Organizational Learning Journal of
Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.
Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of
Suduc, A.-M., Bizoi, M., & Filip, F. G. (2009). Exploring multimedia web conferencing.
Informatica Economică, 13(3), 5–17.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice
within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter 96 Special Issue), 27–43.
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy
of Management Review, 32(3), 774–786.
Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the
affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook,
36, 143–189.
Tummala, V. R. M., & Wan, Y. M. (1994). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in practice: A survey
of applications and recent developments. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Scientific
Computing, 3(1), 1–38.
Van Den Bosch, F., Van Wijk, R., & Volberda, H. (2003). Absorptive capacity: Antecedents,
models and outcomes. ERIM Report Series Reference No. ERS-2003-035-STR.
Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated
organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schr€ oder, G., & Oppen, C. V. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly,
33(1), 177–195.
Whittaker, S., & Sinder, C. (1996). Email overload: Exploring personal information management
of email. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
ACM (pp. 276–283). Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Wilson, D. W., Lin, X., Longstreet, P. & Sarker, S. (2011). Web 2.0: A definition, literature
review, and directions for future research. Proceedings of the 17th Americas Conference on
Information Systems (AMCIS). Detroit, USA.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and
knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22
(6–7), 587–613.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and
extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
Web 2.0 Applications for Knowledge
Management in Small and Micro Firms:
Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Approach
Ettore Bolisani and Enrico Scarso
1 Introduction
New web 2.0 technologies are having a deep impact on knowledge management
(KM) (Levy, 2009; von Krogh, 2012). Many observers agree that, thanks to the
advancements in the so-called social media, KM systems and practices are speeding
up their evolution from a centralized/hierarchical model to new implementations
based on collaborative sharing (Mujadi et al., 2006). Some studies suggest that the
characteristics of social media make them particularly suitable for small
enterprises, such as: flexibility in contents and knowledge domains; cost efficiency,
especially due to availability of open source components; openness and easy
connection with other systems; enabled social environment and free interactions
between users; and substantially anti-hierarchical nature (Borchardt, 2013;
Dotsika & Patrick, 2013; Meske & Stieglitz, 2013).
In spite of this, studies that analyze the adoption of web technologies by smaller
firms are still scarce; furthermore, findings from investigations into large companies
cannot be generalized to smaller businesses (Palacios-Marqués, Soto-Acosta, &
Merigó, 2015). Hence, there is the need to improve our understanding about the use
of web 2.0 by this category of companies. Specifically, some points should be
clarified: how should a web 2.0 application for KM be introduced in a small firm?
Should it be planned by the top management in accordance to the strategies of the
company, or should it emerge almost spontaneously from bottom-level users?
This chapter develops this topic by comparing and contrasting two possible
approaches to web 2.0 implementation: a “top-down” approach, where the applica-
tion strictly adheres to the top management visions and decisions, and a “bottom-up”
approach, where the system gradually develops thanks to the initiative that comes
from the user-level. Especially, it considers this issue in relation to the context of
E. Bolisani • E. Scarso (*)

DTG, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
e-mail: ettore.bolisani@unipd.it; enrico.scarso@unipd.it

82 E. Bolisani and E. Scarso
small businesses that, as recalled, are a potentially relevant field of application of

these technologies.
After discussing and contrasting the two approaches and their pros and cons in
general, the chapter provides real-life case study evidence of the implementation of
a web 2.0 KM system by a small computer services company and, more precisely, a
wiki system to manage knowledge sharing as a support of service delivery. Wiki
technologies are one of the most popular web 2.0 applications, and therefore
represent a paradigmatic example. The study underlines that, due to the nature
itself of social media and of the kind of knowledge that they help to share, it is vital
for their successful implementation that they fit the real needs of end-users.
Therefore, a bottom-up approach (where the specific requirements of the system
and of the underlying KM processes are derived from the actual user needs) can be
more appropriate than a top-down approach (where users, processes and
technologies are conceived and planned in advance based on a “model” of what
the company should be), especially in the case of a small company.
There is an important clarification to make. Several studies of KM in SME’s
consider all these companies as a homogenous group (Migdadi, 2009; Wei Chong,
Choy Chong, & Chew Gan, 2011; Wong & Aspinwall, 2005). However, in our
opinion, it is advisable to clearly distinguish between micro, small and medium-
sized firms. According to the official classification of the European Commission
(2003) a micro firm has less than 10 employees, while a small firm has less than
50 employees, and a medium-sized one less than 250. Similar classifications are
used in other areas.
Our assumption is that the approach to KM adopted by a company that has, for
example, 10 or 20 employees can’t be the same as that applied in a company with
100–200 workers: the two categories clearly differ in terms of resources that can be
assigned to KM as well as in terms of managerial approaches. Furthermore, keeping
into account that in many areas of the world micro and small firms cover the large
majority of SMEs (for example, in the EU countries, micro firms stand for 92.4%
and small companies for 6.4% of all SMEs—Muller, Gagliardi, Caliandro, Bohn, &
Klitou, 2014), these small entities deserve a special attention in research, and in the
KM field as well.
The chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 deals with the emergence of new
web 2.0 KM tools and their potential for small and micro businesses. Section 3
compares the characteristics of the two approaches to implementation of a web 2.0
KM system (i.e. top-down and bottom-up approach), and outlines their pros and
cons. Section 4 illustrates the case study, while Sect. 5 discusses the main empirical
findings. Section 6 draws some general conclusions and pinpoints the potential
implications for research and practice.
Web 2.0 Applications for Knowledge Management in Small and Micro Firms: Top. . . 83
2 KM 2.0 and New Web Tools
The family of web 2.0 tools includes a number of systems and applications that are
today very popular not only in the business context but also (and maybe even more
significantly) among the general public. Although their invention and design were
made outside the KM field, these applications are deemed to have important
functionalities for KM (Levy, 2009). Table 1 provides some well-known examples
of web 2.0 tools and their potential usefulness for KM.
Recent studies underline that web 2.0 technologies are deeply affecting the way
KM can be approached (Gardner, 2013; Levy, 2009; Majchrzak, Wagner, & Yates,
2013; von Krogh, 2012) and are facilitating a shift from a “traditional” model of KM
(based on hierarchical processes, centralized plan, and systematic control of KM
activities and tools) to a new one, more oriented towards collaborative sharing and
flexible learning processes (Mujadi et al., 2006). In this respect, Levy (2009) affirms
that social media are close to an “ideal principle” that would characterize KM, i.e. free
sharing of knowledge, information, and data. The wave of change brought to KM by
web 2.0 technologies has induced scholars to coin terms as “KM 2.0” (Levy, 2009;
Razmerita & Kirchner, 2011) or “conversational KM” (Gonzalez-Reinhart, 2005;
Kiniti & Standing, 2013; Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, & Azad, 2013; Wagner, 2004). In
a conversational knowledge creation, people generate and share knowledge through
dialog, with questions and answers (Hester, 2010).
The advancements in web 2.0 technologies can show a new way to overcome the
typical dichotomy that has always marked KM practice and that refers to a contrast
between the so-called technology-based and human-based views of KM (Greiner,
B€ohmann, & Krcmar, 2007). In the technology-based view, any practice or process
of KM is seen as dependent on the use of highly efficient and structured information
systems, i.e. large databases with well-formed classifications, powerful search
engines, and structured communication systems. The technology-based view
assumes that it is possible to build a model of knowledge and its handling processes
in advance, and to configure KM systems and practices accordingly; hence, KM
should mainly consist of managing explicit knowledge components. This idea of
KM has been challenged by the human-based view that emphasizes the importance
of tacit knowledge, mutual learning and interaction between human beings. This
view assumes that the problems of KM can’t be simply resolved by means of
technology but, rather, there is the need for organizational practices that help the
people to create, share and exploit knowledge.
Now, the advent of new web 2.0 technologies, thanks to their “social” characteristics,
can give the opportunity to re-combine the two mentioned views (Jalonen, 2014). In
other words, these technologies are deemed able to integrate the operational efficiency
of ICT with the flexibility of human-based practices. The new features of social media
and their importance for KM can be summarized as follows.
Web-based platform and service: different functions and knowledge repositories
can be provided by the same system, which make their use easy and allow a more
effective integration of knowledge contents.
Table 1 Web 2.0 tools and their potential for KM

Web 2.0 tool General functions Popular examples Potential for KM
Blog Personal diary with Blogger Flexible way to share
multimedia functions; knowledge contents
allow comments by informally; easy
others, fast access to interaction
pages, and notification to
“followers”
Wiki Flexible dictionary of Wikipedia Allows to organize and
contents with an easy-to- connect elements of
look-into structure knowledge in a light
structured way that allows
personal descriptions;
facilitates learning
processes and consensus
about different users
RSS Automatic alert system NetNewsWire, Helps to keep the people
regarding new content Flipboard updated about any
inserted in repositories, relevant knowledge
websites, etc. content produced
Shared High capacity folders and MS Exchange, Easy sharing of contents
repositories multimedia databases; SharePoint, of all types; facilitate
and content sometimes (but not Google Drive (and collaborative work, and
management always) editing functions, connected co-creation of knowledge
systems notification systems, applications) content
calendar and planning
Tagging Self-compiled Tabbles Allows bottom-up
(folksonomy) classification of content classification of
knowledge content, that is
nearer to “actual user
perceptions”
Multimedia Shared databases of YouTube, Easy sharing of
repositories multimedia content, with Dailymotion multimedia content,
built-in readers, tagging allowing media-rich
functions, and comment- knowledge exchanges
in systems
Profiling Repository of profiles of LinkedIn Allows finding “who
system peoples, organizations, knows what” in and
etc. across organizations
Social Platform integrating and Facebook Integrates different
networking improving different web services in a single
service 2.0 services for allowing platform, for rich social
social relationships of experience of KM
people who share similar processes
interests, activities, or
real-life connections
Active participation: knowledge contents are “user-generated” with no or loose

central control; this facilitates personal initiative, interaction, and informal knowl-
edge exchange by users.
Flexibility: knowledge contents become more open, more flexible in terms of

formats and subjects, and more adaptable to the specific needs of the individual
users.
Perpetual beta; mix and remix of contents: the term “perpetual beta”, well
known in computer science, refers to the possibility to create, experiment, evaluate
and share contents with others, in a continuous trial-and-error process; it becomes
possible, for the single user, to revise and add to the contents of the others. This can
improve the learning capability of both individuals and the entire organization.
Social environment: communications and knowledge exchanges can occur
independently from formal connections between people, can overcome hierarchical
or organizational barriers, and can exploit informal languages that, in some cases,
allow more comfortable interactions between people.
All the previous features explain why web 2.0 applications have often been
designated as the “next generation” KM systems, and are deemed able to overcome
the limitations of traditional IT-based systems (Hasan & Pfaff, 2006). For simplicity’s
sake, in the following pages, we will refer to web 2.0 applications for KM by using the
terms web 2.0 KM applications, tools or systems.
A paradigmatic example of web 2.0 KM tool is represented by wiki systems.
Thanks to its unique features, the wiki technology is one of the main enablers of the
new vision of KM (Majchrzak et al., 2013). In particular, wikis have been proposed
as a way to effectively address the problem of managing tacit knowledge in
organizations by promoting a more collaborative approach (Sousa, Aparicio, &
Costa, 2010; Standing & Kiniti, 2011).
As KM tool, wikis are deemed to provide several benefits. In particular, Grace
(2009) signals that wikis offer the following advantages: (a) they are easy to use;
(b) they serve as a central and coherent repository of information; (c) they provide
tracking and revision functions; (d) they promote collaboration between organizations;
(e) they limit the negative effects of information overload produced, for instance, by
e-mails; and (f) they contribute to the building of a trustworthy culture.
Some scholars affirm that the use of wikis is becoming relevant for small
companies (Meske & Stieglitz, 2013; Stieglitz & Dang-Xuan, 2011), especially
because these systems seem to be more aligned with the usual way of working of
such firms: in fact, in SMEs, people are less reluctant to share their work. Further-
more, the availability of wiki open source software is particularly advantageous for
small companies which often have to struggle with limited financial resources
(Lykourentzou, Dagka, Papadaki, Lepouras, & Vassilakis, 2012).
3 Implementing Web 2.0 KM Tools
The great opportunities offered to business companies by web 2.0 KM tools have led
scholars to extensively analyze the potential aspects that might impact on the
successful introduction of these systems in organizations. Generally speaking, the
main aim of these studies is to develop some guidelines that can be usefully followed
when implementing a new web 2.0 application.
In particular, many scholars have analyzed the factors that can influence the
successful introduction and use of a wiki system to support KM inside a company.
Although wikis are just one of the applications that can be employed for KM, they
are probably the most widely adopted type of social media (Andriole, 2010; Meske
& Stieglitz, 2013; Milovanović, Minović, Štavljani, Savkovi, & Starčević, 2012).
Therefore, their analysis provides useful insights for other web 2.0 KM tools.
From the available literature, a quite composite picture emerges. First of all, many
are the factors that may affect the successful adoption of a wiki system, and they
include: (a) having a clear knowledge strategy and a suitable organizational culture
(Kiniti & Standing, 2013); (b) motivating (and rewarding) users and obtaining their
commitment (Meloche, Hasan, Wills, Pfaff, & Qi, 2009); (c) having an integrated
technical infrastructure and especially, a connection with e-mail (Meloche et al.,
2009); (d) getting the senior management support (Kiniti & Standing, 2013);
(e) making the system open and easy to use (Meloche et al., 2009); (f) showing
connections between content and people, and integrating the wiki into established
work practices (Almeida & Rocha, 2011); (g) focusing on people (Almeida & Rocha,
2011); (h) providing an initial structure, e.g. templates and guidelines (Almeida &
Rocha, 2011); (i) having “wiki champions” and leading by examples (Almeida &
Rocha, 2011); (j) providing technical support (Mühleisen, Schneider, Witschel, &
Gutknecht, 2013).
The extant literature emphasizes some factors that seem to be specifically crucial in
the case of SMEs, namely (Borchardt, 2013; Dotsika & Patrick, 2013; Meske &
Stieglitz, 2013; Soto-Acosta, Perez-Gonzalez, & Popa, 2014; Stieglitz & Dang-Xuan,
2011): (a) clear, measurable and short term goals/benefits; (b) attitude towards social
media by company owners; (c) appropriate organizational structure; (d) sufficient IT
expertise of employees.
As can be noticed, the successful introduction and use of web 2.0 KM tools are
influenced by both technical and non-technical factors. Especially the latter should
not be underestimated: as well underlined by Baxter and Connolly (2014), the
barriers that hinder the introduction of web 2.0 KM systems are mainly organiza-
tional, cultural and societal, and this can be particularly challenging in the case of
small companies. This is why the capability to fit the actual user needs, to support
their learning processes, to respect their individual attitudes and behaviors, and to
strengthen their KM processes become essential.
There are divergent opinions about the approach that a company should adopt to
implement a web 2.0 KM system. In particular, a debated issue is whether its
implementation should follow a top-down or a bottom-up approach.
Scholars who use these terms often give their meaning for granted. Indeed,
although they can be intuitive and of common use in managerial language, it is
necessary to define exactly what we mean by top-down and bottom-up approach.
Basically, in a top-down approach, all the decisions about the new web 2.0 KM
tool, its adoption, configuration and way of using are taken by the top management.
This is consistent with the idea that top management can and must have a strict
control over the organizational knowledge; consequently, they must set the goals of
the adoption of web 2.0 KM tools, in line with the overall strategic direction of the
company. This implies a pre-defined and clear vision about knowledge and KM
processes in the company, as well as about the strategic goals assigned to KM. In a
top-down approach, the ultimate users of the KM system, at any level of the organi-
zation, will therefore simply use it in the way that is prescribed by the top manage-
ment. This could require an adaptation of their knowledge-related practices to the way
the system works.
Conversely, a bottom-up approach implies that the employment and configura-
tion of web 2.0 KM tools are strictly dependent on the real needs of the users:
namely, the cognitive processes they perform, the way they interact with one
another, and their real learning processes. A bottom-up approach takes the view
that valuable organizational knowledge should be shared by users in a sort of social
community, and not controlled by the management. In accordance with this per-
spective, the introduction of new web 2.0 KM tools can be the result of initiatives
implemented by individual workers to meet their specific working needs.
As mentioned, there is no consensus about which approach is more effective in
the case of web 2.0 KM tools. For instance, Pfaff and Hasan (2011) affirm that a
bottom-up approach contributes to the success of a wiki, while Standing and Kiniti
(2011) maintain the opposite case. Both statements are based on a case-study
analysis of public and private organizations, examined in their process of imple-
mentation of a wiki system for KM purposes. A balanced position is that of Cook
(2008), who stresses that both approaches can have their specific advantages and
disadvantages (Table 2), and concludes that there is no best way to proceed.
Empirical evidence shows that small companies follow both approaches. A recent
survey of 64 SMEs using social media reveals a top-down process in 36% of cases, a
bottom-up process in 14% of cases, and a mix of both approaches in the remaining
50% (Meske & Stieglitz, 2013).
A previous investigation (Zeiller & Schauer, 2011) consisting of six case studies
of social media use in SMEs, shows that, in four of the examined cases, a top-down
approach dominates. According to these scholars, this is due to the fact that SMEs
often lack a critical mass of users that can start grassroots initiatives, and in small
companies the leading role of the top management (or the owner) dominates the
daily business and day-by-day operations. However, is this always true? And more
Table 2 Advantages and disadvantages of bottom-up and top-down approaches (from: Cook,
2008)
Bottom-up Top-down
Advantages Encourages a collaborative culture Messages to staff can be controlled
Peer recommendation more Enforces the use of strategically
credible important systems
The most useful systems actually Essential when difficult use of software
get used (high investment/training requirement)
Disadvantages Behaviors may develop that suit the Often falls on deaf ears
individual rather than the company
Adoption happens at its own pace Requires constant reinforcement from
superiors
generally: are there situations where the one or the other approach can be more
effective? Here, there is the need for further investigations of the distinctive
features of the two approaches and their real pros and cons in the case of web 2.0
KM tools in SMEs.
4 Case Study
4.1 Research Questions and Method
This study compares the two mentioned approaches to social media implementation
for KM in the case of a small company. The main research questions are as follows
• What can be the potential advantages and disadvantages of these approaches in

the implementation of a web 2.0 KM tool?
• What lessons can be drawn for KM?
To address these questions, the case of an Italian small computer services

provider—Infonet Solutions—was investigated. In its recent history, the company
has attempted to use social media applications for managing knowledge sharing
processes that are essential in service delivery and customer support. In different
times, it is possible to find both a top-down and a bottom-up approach: this gives the
opportunity to contrast the two approaches and their compared effectiveness.
We used the case study methodology given the descriptive and exploratory nature
of the research, and the complexity of the investigated issue (Leedy & Omrod, 2005).
In particular, this can be seen as a revelatory case in Yin’s terminology (Yin, 2003)
since it offers the opportunity for investigating poorly analyzed aspects. The case has
been elaborated by using information provided by various people in the company, and
from documental sources that have been collected over several years. In particular,
relevant information was gathered through six interviews to various company
members between November 2013 and April 2014: the CEO (two interviews), the
system developers (two interviews), and two key users working in different
departments (the commercial and the after-sales support).
Interviews were based on semi-structured checklists, by leaving respondents
to provide not only factual data but also their opinions and feelings. The focus
changed slightly from an interviewee to another: the CEO was asked to explain the
position of the company about KM and social media; systems developers were
requested to provide details about design options and implementation problems;
and key users were asked to clarify the perceived usefulness and difficulties in the
use of the system. All interviews lasted around 45 min, were recorded, transcribed
and analyzed. The information collected by means of interviews was integrated by
a documental analysis of company papers, website, and system screenshots. As
regards the generalization of the findings, the idea is not to draw conclusions of
general validity, but rather to derive useful implications for KM especially in
SMEs, as well as to provide suggestions for further analysis or implementation in
similar situations.
The company was selected for two main reasons. First, it is a firm where knowledge
is the main competitive asset that must be strategically managed. Second, it was
possible to have direct access to relevant information thanks to the active support of
the CEO. The direct contact with people involved in the project revealed aspects that
are often difficult to discover by an external observer.
4.2 The Company
Infonet Solutions is a small ICT services company located in the North East of Italy. It
has 30 employees and five external collaborators, and an annual turnover of about five
million Euros. Infonet provides high-level custom-made solutions to optimize the ICT
platforms of clients, which are mostly medium-sized organizations belonging to differ-
ent sectors. Customers are all located in Northern Italy, especially in the Eastern part.
The delivered services include: cloud computing, data center, virtualization, and busi-
ness continuity. The company was founded some decades ago, and it has experienced a
progressive change and growth. It is currently organized into five main Departments:
Management, Accounting, Sales/Marketing, Support and Delivery. The last two are the
technical heart of the company: the first one deals with the design and implementation
of new ICT solutions, while the second manages technical assistance and maintenance
of installed systems.
Infonet is a dynamic organization that has undergone a huge evolution in the last
decade. Until 2003, it was a typical small private company, exclusively run by its
owners, who had little managerial competence. It worked on a job-order basis, and
delivered installation services of computer infrastructures. At that time, the com-
pany counted only 12 people including the owners. For the company to grow, it was
necessary to hire people with more managerial competence; so, an outside manager
was entrusted as Chief Executive Officer. Since then, the company has begun to
improve the supporting services, i.e. the management of systems installed at cus-
tomer site for the years of operation. At the same time, the company also started
improving the marketing activity, to expand its market to North-western Italy.
4.3 KM Needs in Service Delivery
To better understand the KM needs of Infonet, it is useful to consider the nature of its
business. Small computer services providers often occupy an intermediate position
between external sources of knowledge and local recipients. They operate as interfaces
and mediators between the more tacit and specific knowledge buried in the daily
practice of client firms, and the more generic knowledge which is available in the
economic environment as a whole (Bolisani, Paiola, & Scarso, 2011; Scarso &
Bolisani, 2012). They are containers and dynamic sources of “quasi-generic knowl-
edge” extracted from repeated interactions with customers and other actors, including
the producers of new scientific knowledge (i.e. universities, research labs, technology
suppliers, etc.). Hence, the management of external knowledge is a particularly crucial
issue for a company of this kind, and especially the knowledge pertaining to business
relationships with customers.
As any firm that supplies project-based technical solutions, Infonet usually
resorts to a sequenced project activity that typically involves the following steps:
• first contacts with a customer;

• preliminary analysis, requirement identification;
• feasibility study, formulation of a business proposal;
• negotiation, contract;
• technical development;
• release, test, and implementation;
• post-sale assistance.
Three issues should be underlined here. First, the whole delivery process can
take a long time: the lifecycle of an ICT infrastructure lasts several years, and may
end with another project to replace or renovate the installed system. During this
period, the provider ensures the proper operation of the infrastructure. Second, as
clearly illustrated in Fig. 1, the various phases involve different people, with
different capabilities and skills, and belonging to different departments. Third, the
successful service delivery requires a deep involvement of customers during the
different phases: knowledge is also derived from and exchanged with clients.
To sum up, the entire process calls for effective knowledge flows coming from
and going to customers, and involving different parts of the internal organization.
Infonet staff involved

Infonet Client
in each phase
Problem formulation
Sales force
Reaction to client's
Information and knowledge interchanges
formulation of problem
Agreement on shared
problem definition
Agreement on shared
problem definition
Interaction around Interaction around
features of problem features of problem
Technical committee
Formulation of
solution Delivery of
solution
Delivery Implementation
Delivery team of solution of solution
Ongoing support -
Support team "afterservice"
Information and knowledge exchanges Information and knowledge exchanges

between the various units between Infonet and its client
Fig. 1 Different phases of service delivery at Infonet

All this requires an appropriate management of knowledge exchanges, both with

clients and inside the company.
Especially, successful delivery and post-sale assistance require that all the involved
employees have a quick and good understanding of the system that is installed at the
customer’s site. This is not as simple as it may seem, given the long duration of the
project and the various actors involved. For instance, an employee who is called to
assist a customer (e.g. in case of system breakdown or other maintenance tasks) needs
to handle both explicit components of knowledge (system configurations, network
structures, functioning details) and tacit components (e.g. specific explanations of the
reasons for some particular configuration) that have been collected or produced by
others: typically, the employee who carries on the post-sale assistance is generally not
the one that designed, installed or sold the system. Similarly, sales agents who want to
propose a new contract to old or new clients may need to exploit the knowledge of
previous projects and their characteristics. Again, this knowledge consists of both
explicit components (i.e. technical data) and tacit ones (perceptions of user needs,
value of a particular system, etc.). Since knowledge required to effectively manage the
business and deliver the services is crucial, it has to be managed in the best possible
way. Particularly, the company has to face some crucial challenges due to the
following issues:
(a) duration: due to the potentially long relationship with clients it is necessary to
find a way to store the knowledge collected or created in a project. A sort of
long-term organizational memory is requested;
(b) easiness: especially in a small service provider like Infonet, employees can’t be
burdened with heavy tasks related to KM (i.e. inserting, retrieving or classifying
contents). KM processes must be easy to perform without adding too much effort
to the daily business of the people. Similarly, since a small provider can’t invest
much money and human resources in the KM system, its implementation should
be as simple and inexpensive as possible;
(c) multiple actors: many people must share elements of knowledge pertaining to
a project, client, system, or installation. These include not only the technical
people (who design the system) but also the customer support department (that
provides maintenance services) and sales forces (that sell new systems to old
or new clients). Remarkably, all these people have different perceptions and
make different use of even the same element of knowledge. In addition, their
way of working can change based on the experience they make and on what
they learn on the ground;
(d) multiple roles: the company’s employees who are involved in selling or deliver-
ing services can be both sources and users of knowledge, alternatively. Their
interaction is important, and, rather than through the hierarchical lines, it must
occur in a sort of social community where informal communications are mixed
with formal exchanges;
(e) involvement of clients: the clients are essential sources of knowledge. Their
needs, requests, and problems have to be assimilated by the service provider,
and represent the basis of new services and solutions provided. In addition,
clients and their needs can change, and indeed, a core capability of a small
services provider like Infonet is to adapt to the changing needs of clients in a
highly flexible way;
(f) multiple knowledge: knowledge that Infonet people must share is a mix of
technical knowledge (i.e. technical aspects of the installed solutions) and com-
mercial knowledge (namely business requirements and other features of the
client), which complicates its management.
Consequently, for a KM system to be effective for Infonet, there are some

requirements that must be satisfied:
– flexibility: the system must be able to manage the heterogeneity of exchanged

knowledge, users, KM needs and working practices; also, it must manage changes
over time;
– socialization: essential knowledge has to be easily accessed and shared by all
relevant users, mostly in a free way;
– user-friendliness: employees have to access and use the KM system quickly and
easily;
– long-term memorization: considering the long duration of relationships with
customers, the KM system must store and classify knowledge contents in a
way that facilitates retrieval in future times;
– cost: considering that the company can’t invest much in KM, the KM system has
to be inexpensive.
4.4 Path Towards Social Media KM
In the first years of activity, when Infonet was just re-selling ICT systems, the need of
a KM system didn’t emerge clearly. There was no particular feeling that
documenting and keeping track of the work being done was necessary: the informa-
tion contained in product catalogues was considered sufficient. A few years later,
the company began to sell complete services of design, delivery and maintenance of
ICT systems. The business radically changed from spot commercial transactions to
partnerships with customers. Relationships with clients typically start with a con-
sulting activity, continue with delivery of the solutions, and next with customer
support. So, executives realized that it was important to store pieces of knowledge
about the installed systems to facilitate the interactions between the clients, the
delivery people (those that design and install the system) and the support people
(who perform the post sales activity).
At that time, the awareness of the KM problem was low. So, the approach of the
company can be defined as “naı̈ve” or unreflected. Employees were just asked to
compile a written report for each installed system, called “libretto di impianto”
(book of the system). So, this simple and intuitive paper archive was substantially
an unstructured approach to KM. As the CEO affirmed “There was no prior
knowledge of KM, or in other words, we didn’t have an expert on KM in the
company. KM implementation has been a sort of experiential process. Even the

‘libretto di impianto’ was designed by one of the executives, simply reflecting on the
information that might have been useful to write in it. . . . It was the growth of our
business that made us reflect on the fact that we need to manage a huge amount of
knowledge properly”.
The first significant step towards a KM system was made in around 2003, when
the importance to manage and share technical knowledge about installations was
becoming more and more evident. At that time, a top-down approach was adopted.
In particular, it was decided to use a particular technology supporting the KM
system, with the idea that this technology would fit the needs of the company
(as perceived by the management) and the knowledge flows would adapt to that
technological model.
The company so decided to implement and use Microsoft Exchange Server to
store details about any new installation. Public folders were used to share emails and
attachments that the internal staff and the clients exchanged regarding installations.
To avoid that everyone was free to write and manage their own e-mails as they
preferred (which would have made it practically impossible to locate the needed
information), the company decided to give some rules, in particular: the users should
use a predefined set of subjects for their e-mail, and a particular format or kind of
content for the specific circumstances of communication. In principle, this was per-
ceived to be important, because, as one of the executives involved in the development
of the KM system affirmed “A problem arises when you make huge efforts to store your
data, but these efforts are not paid back by an effective retrieval of information. So, the
risk is that the people simply quit using the system”.
The application of these rules, however, didn’t have significant results. In the
practice, employees continued to write emails as they were accustomed in relation to
their way of working. This was confirmed by the system developers “In Microsoft
Exchange, the people can continue to do what they want in their email folders”. This
led to inconsistent classifications, confusion, and difficult retrieval of stored contents.
It was assumed that the cause of inconsistencies and ineffective KM processes was
the technology. So, it was decided to change the kind of KM software. The company
adopted Owl Intranet Engine, a Content Management Systems with an internal
database. This choice was inspired by the consideration that Owl was a web-based
tool which allowed to access data more easily from different points. Indeed, as stated
by the system developers “Since the actual users of knowledge were not the ‘internal’
staff (i.e. people that work in the company offices) but the technicians who carried out
the installations materially, at the client’s site, most of the key knowledge was
collected on the ground, by those who do the work with clients, and so they needed
to share the right knowledge at any time”. The decision to adopt this system was a first
attempt to meet the actual KM needs of the real users. In other words, the approach
shifted away from a purely top-down logic, where the system is ideated at the top level
and later imposed to the users. It was also decided that the KM process would reflect
the people’s way of working more appropriately. Here, two stages in the KM process
were identified: a first phase of knowledge collection, where people wrote notes in a
free way, and a second of elaboration of the collected knowledge, for making it usable
by others. So, technicians would keep a record of the intervention they had made for a
customer in a free format; only later, this knowledge would be revised and stored in a
more structured format.
Again, however, the adoption of a rigid technology eventually imposed a specific
way of working. In the end, the method by which Owl indexed topics resulted in
searches with often unsatisfactory results. In addition, documents could be of
different kinds (texts, datasheets, images, zip or pdf files, webpage links, etc.) and
it was difficult to integrate all of them in a common classification framework. Again,
the approach of adopting a technology that prefigures the model of the KM processes
to be performed by users proved to be ineffective, as underlined by the systems
developers: “Soon we started experiencing the same problems of Microsoft
Exchange folders, because we had not made any real change in the organizational
process. We just adopted some rules to make knowledge storage and retrieval a little
easier. But we didn’t consider the problem of the actual personal way the people
read and write contents”.
These first experiments showed that designing a KM system based on a
top-down approach, where the KM technology and the overlying KM model are
decided in advance and the actual flows of knowledge are later adapted to them,
may result to be ineffective. This is especially true in the case of a small company,
for a question of resources. In this regard, the system developers affirmed:
“Regardless of the particular technology you adopt, you must use it in the real
life situation that characterizes your company. Maybe we could have imposed the
use of the system to everybody, with strict rules of usage. But we decided that this
would have required a too high effort, with uncertain results”.
Therefore, the company considered other approaches. First, to improve flexi-
bility, they decided to focus on systems that allowed dynamic templates for
uploading information contents, document revisions, process workflows, and so
on. After some tests, the company eventually adopted a wiki system, seen as a freer
and user friendly platform. Also, wikis retained all the content that were uploaded, even
in the case they were unstructured. Some logical order was preserved so that content
was retrievable and usable for the daily work, but this order came from the practical use
and was not prefigured. Furthermore, the logics of operation and content management
could be decided in a shared manner, and was modifiable dynamically. Another
important point was that open source software (MediaWiki) was available.
The wiki was designed in 2009 by two members of the Support Department and
was configured by reflecting on the knowledge content that are “really” needed by
the different people that collaborate in a project and interact with a client and on its
usability. According to a survey among employees, the introduction of the wiki was
successful and the instrument is now one of the main sources of knowledge for
them. For this reason, while the first version was totally devoted to the technical
staff, in 2013, there was a request to extend it to the commercial staff.
In the implementation of the wiki as a KM tool, a key role was played by two
members of the Support Department. In this regard, it should be recalled that the need
to collect and store knowledge about clients and their installations originated from
this Department, because their members had to resolve maintenance requests from
clients and hence they needed knowledge about the systems that other people had
previously installed. The two promoters of the KM system configured the software,
provided the taxonomies, created the initial templates, added the needed functionalities,
and so on. In doing this, they were helped by the fact that they were involved in the daily
business of the company and, therefore, they had the sensibility to capture the essential
requirements and problems of the KM processes. Even today, despite their direct
actions in KM, the two promoters carry on their usual business.
This means that currently, there is no one who is formally in charge of the KM
system: no knowledge manager, no chief knowledge officer, etc. There isn’t even a
“supervisor” that controls those that upload new contents: the control of the
contents that are inserted in the wiki are left to the “community of users” as is
typical of wiki systems. There is only a person that occasionally checks the content,
but only for assessing their readability in the eye of an inexperienced person. We
can even say that there was no explicit mandate by the top management: as the CEO
confirmed “The project was carried on by the operative people in substantial
autonomy, with a lot of personal initiative”.
5 Discussion
The history of the introduction of a web 2.0 KM system at Infonet highlights interest-
ing points that deserve to be discussed. The case shows different approaches adopted
by the same company in different circumstances.
Initially, being more and more aware that there was a “problem of KM”, the
company attempted to adopt what can be defined a top-down approach. Based on
an idea of how the knowledge should be managed for delivering services, a
technology was adopted with the assumption that employees would have to adapt
their ways of working to that technology and exploit it efficiently. Rules were given
to fix the way knowledge contents should have been collected, stored and retrieved.
This approach proved to be ineffective. Indeed, what the company needed was a
“social” approach to KM. People have to share knowledge, but not in a pre-determined
way and with rigid processes. Both explicit and tacit contents have to be shared. KM
tools have to be flexible to fit the changing circumstances of application.
The introduction of the wiki was done by means of a different approach,
i.e. bottom-up. The KM solution came from the daily experience on the ground
and not from a pre-defined idea of what the company should do. The adopted wiki
technology was more flexible and it allowed the people to choose what has to be
shared, when, and how. Emerging KM needs came from the ground and this made
the system more user-friendly and, therefore, more effective for the daily business.
Changes and improvements were possible: even the goals of the system have
gradually but significantly modified over time (from a system that was targeted
mainly to the technical areas, to one devoted also to the commercial staff—and
maybe others in the future).
Therefore, the adoption of the wiki is not a consequence of a planned strategy, but a
solution that has emerged along the way. As well underlined by one of the promoters of
its introduction, the approach followed in the development of the system was
contingent.
Another important point was the availability of the free open source software
MediaWiki. High license costs of proprietary software would have been detrimen-
tal. In addition, investing in expensive software would have resulted in a sort of
“compulsory adoption”: after spending big money, the company wouldn’t have let
the users test and experiment the system freely, nor find their own ways to use the
system and implement their KM processes.
6 Conclusion
The case study helps to underline some important points related to the adoption of
“social” KM systems and the implications for small businesses.
(a) No pre-defined model of KM processes: the implementation of a social KM system

doesn’t necessarily require a model of all the knowledge processes in advance
(i.e. the way the people share their knowledge, the kind of knowledge treated, etc.);
actually, this can be even detrimental, because it forces to implement a KM
solution without considering the actual needs of users.
(b) Adaptability and capability to change over time: in addition, the approach
adopted in the case of the wiki system is mainly based on a trial-and-error
mechanism and has a characteristic of flexibility. This is useful, given that the
capability to change over time and adapt to unexpected or emerging needs is
essential: a company can’t predict all the situations that will characterize the
business in the future.
(c) Easier management of tacit knowledge: the adopted web 2.0 KM system can
make it easy to handle tacit components of knowledge (like e.g. perceptions
about clients’ needs, personal evaluations and comments about a new solution,
etc.), which may have great importance, especially in the case of small
companies. Contributors are allowed greater freedom because the purpose
was to satisfy knowledge needs emerging from the ground.
In short, the experience of the company shows that the implementation of a social
KM system is compatible with a bottom-up approach to KM, namely:
– KM needs coming from the ground;

– KM processes designed progressively to fit the needs of employees and at the
same time to exploit the KM technologies effectively;
– flexibility to processes and kinds of knowledge; also to future changes;
– trial-and-error approach (where experimentation is possible and less costly) and

learning-by-doing processes which give the opportunity to discover new ways to
solve KM problems effectively.
6.1 Implications for Research and Practice
The study suggests that it may be important to analyze the approaches to KM

implementation that are not based on a deliberate plan or designed in advance based
on a pre-defined vision of the company, i.e. the situations where KM solutions
emerge from the ground and directly fit the actual business needs of employees. As
the case-study shows, this can be particularly appropriated for both web 2.0 KM
systems and small businesses: web 2.0 KM systems, because these tools are
designed to allow flexibility, openness and freedom of use; small businesses, because
in these companies, flexibility, learning-by-doing, and the capability to involve
employees who work on the ground can be more effective than an approach that
aims to govern KM from the top.
Future research should investigate how things change in case of medium-sized
companies. It is arguable, in fact, that over a certain dimension a totally uncon-
trolled bottom-up approach can cause a proliferation of un-coordinated initiatives
which can result in an inefficient management of the company knowledge.
It must be, however, be noticed that our analysis doesn’t necessarily mean that a
top-down approach to web 2.0 KM tool is always unsuitable, especially for small
companies. The conclusion is just that a bottom-up approach may be effective, at
least in some circumstances. This provides useful food for thought for executives
willing to promote KM initiatives in their companies. Particularly, this implies that
they should be able to stimulate a proactive behavior by their employees (e.g. by
being more tolerant of errors) in order to be in the forefront in the management of
the company’s cognitive resources. At the same time, they should coordinate the
different initiatives so that no conflicts between them will arise.
References
Almeida, F. L. F., & Rocha, R. M. (2011). Introduction of a wiki in an enterprise: Motives and
challenges. Journal of Systems Integration, 2(4), 46–53.
Andriole, S. J. (2010). Business impact of Web 2.0 technologies. Communications of the ACM, 53
(12), 67–79.
Baxter, G. J., & Connolly, T. M. (2014). Implementing Web 2.0 tools in organisations: Feasibility
of a systematic approach. The Learning Organization, 21(1), 6–25.
Bolisani, E., Paiola, M., & Scarso, E. (2011). KM issues in KIBS companies. In Proceedings of the
12th European Conference on Knowledge Management, (pp. 107–114). Passau.
Borchardt, U. (2013). Towards value-oriented use of social media for knowledge management in
SME. In A. Fred, J. L. G. Dietz, K. Liu, & J. Filipe (Eds.), Knowledge discovery, knowledge
engineering and knowledge management (pp. 323–336). Heidelberg: Springer.
Cook, N. (2008). Enterprise 2.0: How social software will change the future of work. Aldershot:
Gower Publishing Ltd.
Dotsika, F., & Patrick, K. (2013). Collaborative KM for SMEs: A framework evaluation study.
Information Technology & People, 26(4), 368–382.
European Commission. (2003). The new SME definition. Brussel: User guide and model declaration.
Gardner, B. (2013). Making sense of enterprise 2.0. Vine, 43(2), 149–160.
Gonzalez-Reinhart, J. (2005). Wiki and the Wiki way: Beyond a knowledge management solution.
Information Systems Research Center.
Grace, T. P. L. (2009). Wikis as a knowledge management tool. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment, 13(4), 64–74.
Greiner, M. E., B€ohmann, T., & Krcmar, H. (2007). A strategy for knowledge management. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 11(6), 3–15.
Hasan, H., & Pfaff, C. C. (2006). The Wiki: An environment to revolutionise employees’
interaction with corporate knowledge. In Proceedings of the 18th Australia Conference on
Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments (pp. 377–381).
ACM.
Hester, A. J. (2010). Increasing collaborative knowledge management in your organization:
Characteristics of Wiki Technology and Wiki users. In SIGMIS-CPR ’10 (pp. 158–164). Vancouver.
Jalonen, H. (2014). A framework for dealing with fundamental knowledge problems through
social media. Vine, 44(4), 558–578.
Kiniti, S., & Standing, C. (2013). Wikis as knowledge management systems: Issues and
challenges. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 15(2), 189–201.
Leedy, P. D., & Omrod, J. P. (2005). Practical research—planning and design (8th ed.). Upper
Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 13(1), 120–134.
Lykourentzou, I., Dagka, F., Papadaki, K., Lepouras, G., & Vassilakis, G. (2012). Wikis in
enterprise settings: A survey. Enterprise Information Systems, 6(1), 1–53.
Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2013). The impact of shaping on knowledge reuse for
organizational improvement with Wikis. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 455–469.
media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Meloche, J. A., Hasan, H. M., Wills, D., Pfaff, C., & Qi, Y. (2009). Co-creating corporate
knowledge with a Wiki. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 33–50.
Meske, C., & Stieglitz, S. (2013). Adoption and use of social media in small and medium-sized
enterprises. In F. Harmsen & H. Proper (Eds.), Practice-driven research on enterprise trans-
formation (pp. 61–75). Berlin: Springer.
Migdadi, M. (2009). Knowledge management enablers and outcomes in the small-and-medium
sized enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(6), 840–858.
Milovanović, M., Minović, M., Štavljani, V., Savkovi, M., & Starčević, D. (2012). Wiki as a
corporate learning tool: Case study for software development company. Behaviour & Infor-
mation Technology, 31(8), 767–777.
Mühleisen, B., Schneider, C., Witschel, H. F., & Gutknecht, C. (2013). Success factors of
enterprise 2.0. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Knowledge Manage-
ment and Knowledge Technologies, Graz, September 4–6.
Mujadi, H., Takeda, H., Shakya, A., Kawamoto, S., Kobayashi, S., Fujiyama, A., et al. (2006).
Semantic Wiki as a lightweight knowledge management system. In Proceedings of Semantic
Web—Aswc (pp. 65–71).
Muller, P., Gagliardi, D., Caliandro, C., Bohn, N. U., & Klitou, D. (2014). Annual report on
European SMEs 2013/2014—a partial and fragile recovery. European Commission, July.
Palacios-Marqués, D., Soto-Acosta, P., & Merigó, J. M. (2015). Analyzing the effects of technological,
organizational and competition factors on Web knowledge exchange in SMEs. Telematics and
Informatics, 32(1), 23–32.
Pfaff, C. C., & Hasan, H. H. (2011). Wiki-based knowledge management systems for more
democratic organizations. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 52(2), 73–82.
Razmerita, L., & Kirchner, K. (2011). How Wikis can be used to manage knowledge in SMEs: A
case study. Business Information Review, 28(3), 175–178.
Scarso, E., & Bolisani, E. (2012). Trust in knowledge exchanges between service providers and
clients: A multiple case study of KIBS. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 10(1),
16–26.
Soto-Acosta, P., Perez-Gonzalez, P., & Popa, S. (2014). Determinants of Web 2.0 technologies for
knowledge sharing in SMEs. Service Business, 8(3), 425–438.
Sousa, F., Aparicio, M., & Costa, C. J. (2010). Organizational Wiki as a knowledge management
tool. In Proceedings of SIGDOC, San Carlos, Brazil, September 27–29.
Standing, C., & Kiniti, S. (2011). How can organizations use Wiki for innovations? Technovation,
31(7), 287–295.
Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2011). Adoption and use of corporate Wikis in German small and
medium-sized enterprises. In AMCIS 2011 Proceedings, Detroit, August 4–7.
Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group
collaboration. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 265–289.
Wei Chong, C., Choy Chong, S., & Chew Gan, G. (2011). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer
needs among small and medium enterprises. Library Review, 60(1), 37–52.
Wong, K. Y., & Aspinwall, E. (2005). An empirical study of the important factors for knowledge-
management adoption in the SME sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 64–82.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Zeiller, M., & Schauer, B. (2011). Adoption, motivation and success factors of social media for
team collaboration in SMEs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowl-
edge Management and Knowledge Technologies ACM, Graz, Austria. September 7–9.
Web 2.0 and Personal Knowledge
Management: A Framework of Skills
for Effectiveness
Rouhollah Fathizargaran and Jocelyn Cranefield
1 Introduction
Unlike the majority of knowledge management literature, which focuses on organiza-

tional concerns, the area of personal knowledge management (PKM) is focused on the
issue of how individual workers find and determine relevant new information, knowl-
edge, experiences and learnings amidst constantly changing environments (Pauleen,
2009, p. 222). PKM encompasses the way which individuals apply knowledge
processes in work activities (Frand & Hixon, 1999; Wright, 2005).
The origin of scholarly interest in PKM can be traced to Drucker’s (1968)
concept of the knowledge worker (Pauleen, 2009); a post-industrial age profes-
sional whose work involves the application, synthesis and creation of knowledge as
the primary source of organizational value. At the turn of the century Drucker
(1999a) predicted that the key challenge for managers in the twenty-first century
would be to dramatically increase the productivity of knowledge workers. The same
year, the first “glimmerings” of an emerging new Internet paradigm, “Web 2.0”,
were noted in an article by DiNucci (1999, p. 32), while Frand and Hixon (1999)
proposed the need for managing personal knowledge: The latter authors highlighted
a series of fundamental changes in the information landscape: a reduction in the
cost of information production and distribution, a huge increase in the number of
content producers, a dramatic decline in formal editorial review processes, and a
shift in the responsibility for evaluation of content from professionals to individual
users.
Since then, the rapid evolution and proliferation of Web 2.0 tools and social
media, and their manifestation in Enterprise equivalents (Enterprise 2.0), has
further transformed the landscape for knowledge workers. What were once optional
emerging technologies are now increasingly used both within and outside of
R. Fathizargaran (*) • J. Cranefield

School of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
e-mail: Rohola.fathi@yahoo.com; Jocelyn.Cranefield@vuw.ac.nz

102 R. Fathizargaran and J. Cranefield
organizational boundaries. In McKinsey’s fourth annual survey of Web 2.0 use in

the enterprise, two thirds of 3,249 executives surveyed reported using Web 2.0 in
their organizations (Bughin & Chui, 2010). The survey identified significant
increases in enterprise use of social technologies (40%) and blogs (38%), while
two-thirds of executives from companies using Web 2.0 reported an intention to
increase investment in this technology, compared with 50% in 2009 (Bughin &
Chui, 2010, pp. 2–3). Today’s workers therefore are more likely to be faced with
expectations from their managers and peers to use such tools, and/or they may feel
compelled to use these tools as a result of changes in the culture of organizational
communication, such as a decline in the use of email. This issue, together with a
continuing increase in the quantity of available information, makes it important to
understand the implications of Web 2.0 tools for the management of personal
knowledge. What benefits and challenges do Web 2.0 tools present for knowledge
workers? And what skills are needed for effective PKM with these tools?
We undertook to answer these questions in an exploratory case study conducted
with six workers (three middle managers and three developers) from the software
industry. Our report on the study begins with a brief review of the literature into
PKM and the use of Web 2.0 for knowledge management. We then outline the study
context and methodology before reporting the results and discussing their
implications.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Personal Knowledge Management
Interest in personal knowledge management (PKM) can be seen as being underpinned

by a number of interconnected issues: (1) the fundamental recognition that human
knowledge would become a key source of productivity in the emerging knowledge
economy (Drucker, 1993, 1999a, 1999b; Powell & Snellman, 2004), (2) the conse-
quent reliance by organizations on knowledge workers to supply this productivity
(Drucker, 1999a, 1999b), (3) the exponential growth in information and knowledge,
catalyzed by the Internet and advances in computer processing and storage capacity
(Frand & Hixon, 1999), and (4) the resulting problems that are faced by individuals in
managing knowledge amidst this situation of information overload (Eppler & Mengis,
2004; Jefferson, 2006).
PKM is related to the concept of personal information management (PIM);
however, it goes beyond PIM’s concerns with organizing and managing content to
consider the ability of workers to use information to create new knowledge to inform
decision-making and problem-solving (Razmerita, Kirchner, & Sudzina, 2009).
Frand and Hixon (1999) first proposed PKM (in an educational setting) as “a
conceptual framework to organize and integrate information that we, as individuals,
feel is important so that it becomes part of our personal knowledge base.” The PKM
literature has evolved to be centered around a concern with increasing the effective-
ness of individuals in work environments (Pauleen, 2009; Wright, 2005) with a focus
Web 2.0 and Personal Knowledge Management: A Framework of Skills for. . . 103
placed on “the need for constant renewal of knowledge for constantly changing
environments” (Pauleen, 2009, p. 222). It is concerned with supporting individuals
in better managing their knowledge processes, interactions, collaborations and
knowledge exchanges with others (Razmerita et al., 2009). However, the body of
literature is small and PKM is not a well-investigated concept (Pauleen, 2009;
Razmerita et al., 2009).
We highlight two main streams of PKM studies: The first is concerned with
improving PKM solutions—how to design and use information systems to better
support knowledge workers. As early as 1945, Vannevar Bush, USA Director of
Scientific Research, expressed concern with the explosion of scientific information
and proposed the hypothetical memex to capture and organize an individual’s
thoughts and sources (Davies, 2011). Later recognition of information overload as
a widespread contemporary issue has resulted in the creation of frameworks, models
and/or tools to address information overload (Alvarado, Teevan, Ackerman, &
Karger, 2003), support personalization, contextualization and customization
(Hicks & Tochtermann, 2001; Razmerita, 2005), share knowledge (e.g. Kim &
Kim, 2006) and store and retrieve personal knowledge (Davies et al., 2006).
A second stream of work is based around understanding the practices and skills
that knowledge workers need to organize information and ideas, improve learning
and problem-solving, and manage their personal knowledge (Agnihotri & Troutt,
2009; Avery, Brooks, Brown, Dorsey, & O’Conner, 2001; Efimova, 2004; Frand &
Hixon, 1999). Building on work by Dorsey (2000), Avery et al. (2001) outline a set
of seven PKM skills that provide the necessary foundations for knowledge work:
(1) retrieving information; (2) evaluating information; (3) organizing information,
(4) collaborating around information, (5) analyzing information; (6) presenting
information, and (7) securing information. Wright (2005) proposes a PKM frame-
work based on cognitive problem-solving competencies, information competencies,
social competencies, learning competencies and influenced by factors arising from
the individual, social and organizational context. What these studies have in com-
mon is the view that to be a successful knowledge worker requires the cultivation
and use of specialist skills, competencies and practices.
Avery et al. (2001) emphasize the importance of both the practice of PKM skills
and technology integration. Building on this theme a subset of literature considers
PKM skills in relationship to technology use (e.g. Agnihotri & Troutt, 2009;
Efimova, 2004; Razmerita et al., 2009). In the context of weblogs, Efimova (2004)
identifies specialized KM practices that help in making sense of information,
negotiating meaning, creating new ideas, developing networks, and engaging in
collaboration and community activities. This line of research takes the view that
skills associated with tool use are an important contributor to PKM. Avery et al.
(2001) PKM skills framework is drawn on by Agnihotri and Troutt’s (2009) and
combined with task-technology fit theory (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995) to propose
a task-technology fit model for the effective use of technology in PKM by knowl-
edge workers. The model incorporates PKM skills, technology tools, user context
and skills-tool fit. Agnihotri and Troutt (2009) argue that PKM depends increasingly
on skills-tools fit and that technology must therefore be effectively used in PKM
work.
2.2 Web 2.0 and Knowledge Management
In recent years a number of authors have noted the potential of Web 2.0
technologies for supporting organizational KM (Balim & Dogerlioglu, 2011;
Pachler & Daly, 2009; Paroutis & Al Saleh, 2009; Razmerita et al., 2009;
Schneckenberg, 2009). KM literature has long emphasized the need for
organizations to transfer tacit knowledge through socialization (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998; Nonaka, 1998; Nonaka & Takaeuchi, 1995). Unlike codification-
based KM systems, Web 2.0 is seen as conducive to socialization. Web 2.0 tools are
easy to use, intuitive, and enabling in that they allow the user to be both creator and
consumer (Schneckenberg, 2009). They are also open and low cost (von Krogh,
2012), and provide differing levels of support for knowledge creation, codification,
sharing, collaboration and organization (Razmerita et al., 2009). These tools are not
only changing the way in which workers interact but also the way in which workers
deal with knowledge (Bebensee, Helms, & Spruit, 2012). Kirchner, Razmerita, and
Nabeth (2009) go so far as to argue that “Web 2.0 has reinvented the concept of
Knowledge Management towards a vision aiming at facilitating interaction, coop-
eration and knowledge exchange of individuals, groups and communities” (p. 15).
The literature also suggests a wide range of potential benefits of using Web 2.0 at
the individual level. These include improving communication (Pachler & Daly,
2009; Paroutis & Al Saleh, 2009; Razmerita et al., 2009); improving collaboration
(Balim & Dogerlioglu, 2011; Razmerita et al., 2009; knowledge sharing (Burley,
Savion, Peterson, Lotrecchiano, & Nia, 2009; Schneckenberg, 2009), fostering
innovation (Benlian & Hess, 2008; Ribiere & Tuggle, 2009); supporting creation
and codification of information (Chui, Miller, & Roberts, 2009; Razmerita et al.,
2009) and facilitating the organization of information (Avery et al., 2001;
Razmerita et al., 2009; Tredinnick, 2006). A 2012 survey of 288 working adults
(Ajjan, Hartshorne, & Buechler, 2012) found that the use of Web 2.0 applications
had positive impacts on knowledge creation, sharing, and retention. The literature
also highlights a number of challenges associated with using Web 2.0 technologies
(Balim & Dogerlioglu, 2011; Paroutis & Al Saleh, 2009; Razmerita et al., 2009)
including security concerns, inaccurate and inappropriate information, and lack of
participation. Razmerita et al. (2009) argue that Web 2.0 tools may actually be
disruptive owing to their fragmentation: time spent using these tools may reduce
productivity. This suggests that the way in which tools are integrated into knowl-
edge work is likely to be critical.
The potential importance of Web 2.0 tools in PKM has been detailed in two
conceptual papers: Kirchner et al. (2009) classify Web 2.0 tools according to their
functionalities and role in PKM (versus collective KM), while Razmerita et al.
(2009) conduct a comparison of the features of Web 2.0 and traditional PKM tools
(such as calendar, chat, diary, to-do-list). They argue that Web 2.0 more strongly
supports collaboration than traditional tools, providing support for knowledge
creation, codification, sharing and organization. However, there has been little
naturalistic research focused on the juncture of PKM and Web 2.0. We therefore
have limited understanding of how knowledge workers go about realizing the
potential and addressing the challenges presented by the utilization of these tools.
In summary, although a number of studies consider the benefits and challenges
of Web 2.0 technologies for organizational KM, there is little research that explores
the challenges and benefits of using Web 2.0 tools at the individual level; in
particular, there is little field-based research to complement and back up early
conceptual work in this area. Agnihotri and Troutt (2009) have argued for the
importance of using technology effectively in PKM practices. There is a need for a
richer understanding of what skills workers use to manage information and knowl-
edge when using these technologies, and how the challenges and benefits of using
Web 2.0 technologies are addressed by individuals. Our exploratory study was
motivated by this gap. It set out to answer the following questions; (1) what are the
benefits and challenges of using Web 2.0 technologies for PKM? and (2) What
PKM skills can enable the realization of the benefits and help in the reduction of the
challenges?
3 Study Setting and Method
We elected to conduct our study in the setting of software industry for two reasons:
First, the literature has previously highlighted this industry as a setting where KM is
a significant concern. (A systematic literature review by Bjørnson and Dingsøyr
(2008) identified 68 studies that tested KM theory, methods or tools in a software
engineering setting.) Software engineering is seen as a knowledge-intensive activ-
ity (Bjørnson & Dingsøy) and is concerned with developing and managing intellec-
tual capital (Rus & Lindvall, 2002). Individual workers in this industry are therefore
important knowledge bearers (Rus & Lindvall, 2002), which signals the relevance
of PKM. Second, we felt that the ease of use of Web 2.0 technologies likely to be
experienced by workers in this industry would allow us to engage with users who
had good familiarity with these tools and their functionality, and therefore allow us
to explore higher level issues relating to their use for PKM.
This study was based in the interpretivist tradition and used qualitative methods.
This approach is seen as appropriate when there is little prior research on a topic and
one seeks to understand issues from the viewpoint of study participants (Hennink,
Hutter, & Bailey, 2011; Myers, 1997). Study participants were six experienced
professionals employed by multinational software engineering companies: three
software developers (José, Viraj and Ali) and three middle managers (Emma,
Hamid and Adam). Studies of PKM do not appear to have considered middle
managers, despite the fact that these workers typically play key roles in promoting
organizational knowledge management (Choi & Lee, 2002; Nonaka & Takaeuchi,
1995). We included both roles so as to explore the benefits and challenges of Web 2.0
technologies from two perspectives within the software engineering, a knowledge-

intensive industry. The aim was to gain rich insights rather than to build statistically
representative generalizations. To recruit participants, we conducted snowball sam-
pling via a professional network in the software industry. All six participants had more
than 5 years of experience working for the multinational software development
companies that employed them. (The participants who volunteered for the study
were employed by four medium-to-large sized software organizations, operating in
at least five countries. These organizations are not the focus of our study.)
We collected data via face-to-face semi-structured interviews. This allowed the
lead researcher (the first author) to discuss issues and explore details from the
viewpoints of interviewees. Participants were asked to outline benefits and challenges
of using Web 2.0 technologies for PKM, with a focus on using Web 2.0 tools in their
work, and asked to discuss how they addressed these issues. They were not prompted
or provided with a list of Web 2.0 tools but were instead invited to discuss Web 2.0
tools that they used regularly. (The responses therefore reflect their understandings of
tools that fit the Web 2.0 category.) After transcribing interviews, transcripts were sent
to participants for checking. Two participants were contacted by phone to provide
clarification about comments they had made.
We combined deductive and inductive strategies to analyze data (see Hennink
et al., 2011). First, data were coded by the first author using an inductive coding
process technique (Thomas, 2006). Provisional themes and categories relating to
PKM skills and the challenges and benefits of Web 2.0 were developed from
multiple readings of the raw data and displayed in tables. This round of analysis
was sensitized by our awareness of the KM and PKM literature. In the deductive
analysis, we used the PKM skills framework by Avery et al. (2001) as a lens. In a
review of PKM models Cheong and Tsui (2011) describe Avery et al. framework as
comprehensive in its combination of information management and knowledge
sharing skills, and influential in PKM research (p. 18). We chose this framework
owing to its focus on the generic challenges of personal inquiry and problem
solving and its conceptualization as a basis for technology integration in PKM.
We saw it as suitable given our concern with the use of Web 2.0 technology.
The data analysis was an iterative, recursive process (see Hennink et al., 2011)
involving discussions between researchers, merging and revisiting of codes, and
returns to the data. During the late stages of analysis, three participants were asked
to comment and expand on emerging themes and their relationships. This helped us
to further understand participants’ views on the skills, benefits and challenges
involved, and the relationships between these categories. Our final round of analysis
focused on exploring and understanding perceptions about the relationship between
PKM skills and the challenges and benefits of Web 2.0 use. We coded the interview
data to identify relationships between reported Web 2.0 activities, the skills
involved, and the benefits and challenges reported. From this we developed a
tentative model to explain how the application of different PKM skills helped to
promote the benefits and ameliorate the challenges attributed to Web 2.0
technologies. The scope of the study did not extend to testing or validating this
model.
4 Findings
The use of Web 2.0 technologies was considered by participants to have improved
their performance through improved access to information and knowledge,
improved collaboration, better communication with colleagues and managers,
increased knowledge sharing, and increased ease in the organization of information.
The five key reported benefits were time saving, timeliness of information, improved
ability to locate knowledge holders, improved collaboration, and improved commu-
nication across hierarchical barriers. We also identified five key perceived
challenges to personal knowledge work arising from Web 2.0 tools: unreliable
information quality, unequal participation, lack of knowledge about the nature of
technologies, security risk, and fragmentation of information and tool use.
The benefits noted above were largely attributed by study participants to three
enabling features of Web 2.0 technologies; their ease of use, the ease of organizing
information they provide, and their information pull orientation (the ability to
subscribe to alerts and follow contributors or themes). However, analysis of data
revealed that a number of PKM skillsets were being used with fluency to facilitate
these benefits and help ameliorate the above-mentioned challenges. We identified
eight PKM skills. We found that, while the PKM skills of Avery et al. (2001)
remained relevant in the context of Web 2.0 use, the enabling characteristics of
Web 2.0 (noted above) appear to have minimized the level of skill required (and/or
changed the nature of these skills) in several traditionally important PKM areas—
organizing information, retrieving information, and presenting information. Our
model combines analyzing and evaluating information into a single skillset to
reflect their entanglement in the work of Web 2.0 quality appraisal. Two additional
PKM skillsets emerged from our analysis as being critical in the context of Web 2.0
use: creating and curating information and controlling time use. An overview of
these results is shown in Fig. 1. (A diagram showing the many-to-many relationship
between PKM skills and Web 2.0 benefits and challenges appears after the findings
in Fig. 2).
We now present these findings in detail. First, we outline the Web 2.0
technologies used by participants and the perceived impact of using Web 2.0
technologies on individual performance. We report on three key enabling features
of the technologies that were seen by participants as driving these performance
improvements. We then describe the perceived benefits and challenges of Web 2.0,
as reported by our participants. Following this, we outline in depth the PKM skills
that they employed to help address these benefits and challenges. We conclude with
a discussion and propose a tentative extended PKM skills framework to help
understand the impact of PKM skills on individual performance in the context of
Web 2.0 use.
All of the participants reported frequent use of Web 2.0 tools in relationship to
their knowledge needs. Table 1 summarizes this use.
All six participants reported using wikis for knowledge sharing, while five reported
using Enterprise Social Networks (ESNs)—Yammer (3) and Flowr (2) for collaborating
and knowledge sharing with their co-workers. The three middle managers used a larger
Benefits Challenges
Time saving Unreliable information quality
Timeliness Unequal participation
Ability to locate knowledge holder Lack of knowledge about nature of technology
Collaboration Security risk
Cross-hierarchical communication Fragmentation
Technological Features Benefits

Ease of use of technologies Retrieving information
Ease of organizing information Analysing and evaluating information
Information-pull orientation
Organizing information
Presenting information
Collaborating around information
Creating and curating information
Controlling time
Fig. 1 Overview of findings
Challenges PKM Skills Benefits
Retrieving
information
Unreliable
Analysing and Time saving
information quality
evaluating
information
Organizing
information
Security risk Timeliness
Collaborating
around information
Unequal participation Ability to locate

Presenting
knowledge holders
information
Creating and
Lack of knowledge
curating information
about nature of Collaboration
technology
Securing
information
Communication
Fragmentation across hierarchical
Controlling time
barriers
Fig. 2 Proposed PKM skills (based on Avery et al., 2001) and their impacts
range of Web 2.0 tools, including Blogs, Facebook, Google +, LinkedIn and Twitter,
reflecting their involvement in work such as brand, customer and partner management.
The software developers also reported using external Web 2.0 tools for professional use
(most commonly LinkedIn) outside their organization’s firewalls, as well as for personal
use (the latter is not shown in Table 1).
Table 1 Participants’ use of Web 2.0
Internal tools External tools
Participant Wiki Yammer Flowr Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Google+
José SD/Org A ✓ ✓ ✓
Viraj SD, Org A ✓ ✓ ✓
Hamid MM, Org B ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Emma MM, Org C ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Adam MM, Org C ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ali SD, Org D ✓ ✓ ✓
MM middle manager, SD software developer
Web 2.0 and Personal Knowledge Management: A Framework of Skills for. . .
109
4.1 Benefits of Web 2.0
Time Saving
Saving time in the seeking and acquiring of knowledge was reported by all six
participants as being a key personal benefit arising from their use of Web 2.0 tools.
Notably, wikis and ESNs were seen as making it easier and faster to find relevant
information in comparison to traditional systems. For example, José (a developer)
explained that the wiki saved him time by providing just-in-time training-related
material, while Emma (a middle manager) noted that “rather than having to wade
through structures [of] CRM or document management systems. . . [getting] infor-
mation is shorter and quicker [and] we can communicate much more quickly”.
Time saving was strongly associated with the technology and seen almost as an
inherent property of the Web 2.0 tools.
Timeliness of Information
Web 2.0 tools were also credited by four of the study participants as having
improved personal effectiveness through generating information timeliness. Both
developers and middle managers reported benefits from gaining continual access to
information that was relevant to their knowledge needs in real time. (This benefit is
related to the time saving benefit outlined above but is more focused around the
timely arrival of unsolicited relevant information from Web 2.0 tools). As Emma
(a middle manager) explained, “Nobody in our company ever finds anything out a
day after it happens. They find it out within 10 min”.
Ability to Locate Knowledge Holders

Two middle managers and two software developers reported valuing the ability that
Web 2.0 tools provided to locate the knowledge holder, the team or individual who
had the know-how to help solve a problem. José explained that this was useful
because his company’s Wiki was “like a recipe” in that no one put truly “precious”
knowledge on it. Another developer (Ali) described how he would “go back to the
person” by following the signature to find the content originator. There was,
however, some tension between the views of the software developers and those of
the middle managers regarding this benefit: While the developers placed a premium
on being able to identify the ‘right’ person to talk to, one middle manager described
one-on-one discussions as a potentially time-wasting exercise: “[If] they come to
you in person or ring you [rather than using the wiki], that question and the answer
you are giving is a piece of information that could be used by somebody else. Your
information may be missing because it is not documented online” (Hamid). This
may reflect a difficulty on the part of the middle managers in separating out their
personal views from the perspective of their leadership roles, but may also highlight
the potential of personal and organizational KM needs to be in conflict.
Improved Collaboration
Web 2.0 tools were seen by all the participants as improving the way in which they
and their colleagues worked collaboratively with information. Both developers and
middle managers described how the ability to collaboratively update and correct
pages improved their personal performance. They emphasized the usefulness of
being able to use internal tools such as Yammer and Wiki to update out of date or
incorrect material that had been created by others, and of having their colleagues do
likewise with material they had supplied. This benefit to collaboration can be seen as
enabled by the principle of democratization that is inherent in the Web 2.0 paradigm.
As one software developer noted, “the most important difference [between Web 2.0
and traditional tools] is that everyone can edit information”.
Improved Cross-Hierarchical Communication

Three middle managers and one software developer noted that with new Web 2.0
channels they could more easily communicate with colleagues and managers from
across organizational divisions. Internal Web 2.0 tools were seen as beneficial for
sharing knowledge across silos and hierarchical barriers. (For security reasons
external Web 2.0 were not used for this purpose). Participants said they found
using ESNs (Wiki and Yammer) especially useful for removing traditional barriers.
One middle manager noted how, with the use of Web 2.0, “I started seeing people
come closer to the company . . . they can communicate with their managerial team
even though the managerial level is hard for everyone to see in person” (Adam).
The open nature of Web 2.0 was seen as helping workers, regardless of role or rank,
to participate more readily in knowledge sharing and decision-making.
4.2 Challenges of the Use of Web 2.0
Unreliable Information Quality

All six participants expressed concern about a lack of reliable information quality
associated with Web 2.0 technologies. The main explanation for this was that “people
supposedly should go and update what they put there [on the wiki] when the situation
changes, but that doesn’t happen often, so the information gets quickly outdated”
(Hamid). Inaccurate information was seen as both misleading and time-wasting.
Furthermore, useful information may even disappear: Emma expressed concern
with Twitter’s retention period. One middle manager also noted that people may
post inappropriate information via Web 2.0. Having to monitor and deal with this (and
needing to take disciplinary action) was an unwelcome diversion from more
productive work.
Unequal Participation
Inequality of participation is commonly associated with online settings. A key
challenge was the fact that work colleagues did not participate equally on Web
2.0 platforms. Some people were seen as being unavailable when they were needed,
reducing productivity and motivation and thereby undermining the collaborative
potential of Web 2.0. Emma felt that Yammer was seen by work colleagues as a
“take it or leave it thing”, unlike email, which was associated with expectations of
reciprocity: “If you send email to someone it goes to his inbox and he believes that
this email is for him and he must read it. But social networking is broader like a
magazine—if you forget it doesn’t matter for you.” Software developers saw
unequal participation as being reinforced by poor incentives, which further reduced
motivation: “If you put good thing on Wiki, your boss. . .will say thank you, but
there is no pay rise. . .. If you do more things [on the wiki] you need to answer more
questions [but] there is no motivation” (José). A middle manager also acknowl-
edged, “people are going to do what is measured by top management. If top
management doesn’t care. . . they aren’t going to share information”.
Lack of Knowledge About the Nature of Web 2.0 Technologies

Two of the three software developers felt that managers in their organizations did
not fully understand the varying nature of Web 2.0 technologies and their fit with
particular tasks, resulting in ‘incorrect’ expectations. One of them noted that, “for
some reason—I don’t know why—[some] people compare Wiki with social net-
working sites. They constantly compare it and say we don’t need social networking,
because we have a Wiki.” The other developer (who worked for a different
company) expressed concern about an executive’s lack of knowledge about exter-
nal Web 2.0 technologies. He noted that employers blocked access to Facebook and
Google+, owing to a mistaken belief that employees would use social networking
only for leisure reasons: “I think they made the wrong decision. Facebook was a
way of communicating with customers [so we knew] ... our limitations, what we
need [to do] to make our products better.”
Security Risk
Software developers and middle managers alike acknowledged security risks associated
with external Web 2.0 platforms, notably social media. There were also concerns with
respect to official, internal organizational Web 2.0 systems. One developer explained
that he had observed many instances of information theft whilst working in the industry,
including instances of competitors’ design plans arriving via email. As a result, software
developers did not contribute or expect to find knowledge about design issues that
mattered on wikis (plans were stored in a secure system). On the other hand, placing
procedural information on corporate wikis was seen as low risk. External Web 2.0
engagement was governed by restrictive access rules and firewalls, in most cases
making these channels unavailable to software developers in their workplace.
Fragmentation of Information and Platform Use

The fragmentation of unstructured information across Web 2.0 tools was seen as
increasing the challenge and complexity of managing information. Ali noted,
“Each Web 2.0 tool has its own way of editing and its own framework for how to
add and edit information”. Furthermore, using a Web 2.0 channel may not negate
the need to use traditional channels. For example, email was used to direct attention
to a wiki page. A developer noted, “if you have any [new] information you have to
put it on wiki pages. . . [and then] you need to send an email to say, I have this
knowledge and I put it in a certain page in the wiki”.
We now outline the eight PKM skills identified in our analysis of data and to
explain how these skills helped participants to realize the benefits and reduce the
challenges that they attributed to Web 2.0 technologies.
4.3 PKM Skills for Addressing Benefits and Challenges
Retrieving Information
The participants in this study all had a high level of mastery in retrieving informa-
tion. Analysis of data revealed not only that they had expertise in the retrieval of
explicit information across multiple platforms, but also that they skillfully
interwove explicit searches with social information retrieval activities. The ability
to find explicit information was seen as a natural, non-remarkable part of their
work. One manager noted, “Most of our staff are software developers, so they are
very good at finding information”. A developer explained that the quality of
retrieved material was dependent on the quality of the code (Boolean terminology)
he put into Web 2.0 search engines. A typical strategy involved locating the
relevant wiki page before narrowing the search: “It is important to know the right
place to look”. This reflects an understanding of how context affects search results.
Participants also reported having an understanding of the search capabilities of
different Web 2.0 tools.
The developers interwove explicit search strategies with a social search
approach, moving fluidly and with frequency between codified and social informa-
tion sources. For example, José explained how he used a social search strategy as a
shortcut: “I don’t search on the Wiki. I look to the people and the people let me
know where the Wiki page is”. The activity of retrieving information from a Web
2.0 source was often embedded in a larger series of activities that was required to
find truly useful knowledge. José described how he would go about finding out how
fix a mouse: “I will go to my friend John and say, ‘How can I fix the ball of the
mouse?’ He will tell me it’s on the wiki. That is all he tells me. Then I go to the wiki
and then go to the team who make the mouse and then they will tell me to go to [the
section of the wiki about] the ball of the mouse and get all the information without
wasting time” (José, software developer).
The social approach to finding information extended beyond the organization to
peers in software development networks: Emma noted, “We have developers
working on a problem and they don’t know how to use some database query and
they might use any of those [Web 2.0] tools to ask the Internet how to do it—not
necessarily ask their colleagues”.
In combination, the information retrieval skills helped facilitate the timesaving
and timeliness benefits of Web 2.0 (strong search skills plus social shortcuts
reduced time required to searching in and across tools). Participants’ combination
of different search tools and repertoires, and their fluid and effortless movement
between, can also be seen as militating against the fragmentation of information
sources and platforms.
Analyzing and Evaluating Information

Analyzing information addresses “the challenge of extracting meaning out of data
and information and results in knowledge” (Avery et al., 2001, p. 32). Software
engineering is a knowledge-intensive profession involving considerable analysis,
but participants did not describe using significant analytical skills when dealing
with Web 2.0 technologies. However, they all emphasized how they needed to
make continual judgments pertaining to the quality of Web 2.0 information—its
currency, accuracy and credibility. Making these judgments required a combination
of evaluative and analytical skills: It was necessary to critically scrutinize Web 2.0
information and its social and informational context in order to determine its
currency and reliability. The analytical and evaluative skills in this task were
interlinked and used simultaneously. We therefore combined two of Avery et al.
(2001) PKM skills—analyzing information and evaluating information—in one
category, analyzing and evaluating information.
Viraj (a software developer) reported a lesson he had learned about the need to
take a critical approach to internal Web 2.0 content: “Once, I extracted some
information from our wiki and I showed it to my manager. He completely rejected
that information and told me not everything in the Wikis or Blogs is correct . . . and
you need to compare it with other sources to make sure it is. . .right”. A commonly
used shortcut when ascertaining quality was looking for a proxy—a sign that other
users had found the information useful, such as links, references or positive
feedback. The reputation of the source linking to the information under scrutiny
was also taken into account: “As well as [looking for] references to the [wiki] page,
[I look to see] if you have got a credible page referring to Blog page or wiki page.
[If there is] that means they have done some research before linking that piece of
information—the single source of authoritativeness is the credibility of the person
who wrote that” (Hamid). Before acting on information, developers often com-
pared the information with other internal and/or external sources, typically using
Google search.
When screening externally generated Web 2.0 content, softer evaluation skills
also came into play. Emma, middle manager, explained how if Web 2.0 material
had a “broadcast-like” quality she would question the quality of information (this
perceived importance of authenticity is discussed further below in the section on
presenting information). Another reported soft skill was the ability to interpret
categories created by others. Analyzing and evaluating information helped militate
against the impact of unreliable information quality and security risk. It contributed
to time saving by screening out poor quality material.
Organizing Information
All participants reported organizing information to facilitate the finding and refin-
ing of information by themselves and others. These activities were often simply
described—e.g. “finding the right place” to place information—but they involved
application of interpretive schema to pattern-match and integrate information into
existing organizational and personal meaning structures. Organizing was also
understood as a responsibility: “In email I organize personal things, but in the Wiki
[I need to] organize information for everyone, for the whole team or the whole
organization”.
One developer explained the complexity involved in organizing information:
“There is no. . .clear path for a person using a particular web technology, given that
each of these technologies could have five different tools it is really hard to save or
add [something]. Every single time someone puts something on Yammer that is to do
with a competitor, [they] must tag it in this way, so it is actually a big challenge”.
Participants reported using bookmarking, favorites, tagging and RSS feeds to
organize information and facilitate re-finding it. Perhaps surprisingly, few expressed
concern about information being in the “wrong place”: Instead, they saw it as their
job to find the right place—whether they were creating or retrieving information.
This suggests a higher level of satisfaction with colleagues’ organizing skills than
with their curatorial practice.
Emma, a middle manager—described building a personal information reposi-
tory, emailing items to herself in order to facilitate the re-finding of information:
“[I] just do whatever I can to retain links to our information that we find. . . . It is
easy to grab some information and save it for later.” It is well known that re-finding
information can be challenging time-consuming and frustrating (Elsweiler, Baillie,
& Ruthven, 2011) but this instance appears to reflect a particularly high effort to
protect against PKM loss.
Middle managers bundled up information into frequent use self-service
packages—selecting material that they expected to be regularly called on—to put
on their company’s wiki. Hamid (MM) used a wiki to provide an on-boarding
package and meeting agendas, which freed up his time for their other work. Emma
had created an area for new staff in Yammer.
Organizing skills helped reduce the impact of fragmentation and was linked to
the benefits of timesaving and timeliness: The time involved was seen as small in
comparison to benefits. “Instead of telling my friends and telling them one by
one. . . I [just] refer them to the wiki page and it saves me lots of time” (Viraj,
developer). The benefit was more significant for middle managers. Hamid noted, “I
spent a week putting together an on-boarding package for new employees on our
wiki [then] in the course of the year I on-boarded about 30 people. . . Instead of
setting a week [aside] for each of them. . .I just referred to [that] documentation.
After that I hardly received any question(s). . .”.
Collaborating Around Information

Participants saw it as their responsibility to collaborate around Web 2.0 informa-
tion. Although originators were expected to keep their information current, the
reality was that it this was a collective responsibility: “When someone writes
something which is not quite right. . .someone else comes in and amends it”
(Adam). Participants described a welcoming approach to being corrected by others:
José noted, “I am a developer and testers test what I have developed and I . . .
explain to them, okay. . . see my page, then when they see something is wrong, they
can fix my mistake. . .it is collaborative and it saves me a lot of time”.
Two developers outlined how they needed to make real-time changes to Web 2.0
information in front of a live audience so as to accommodate their feedback. The
ability to revise information instantly in response to the feedback of others is a
performative skill that overlaps with the creating and curating information skills
category.
Collaborating around information contributed significantly to information time-
liness and time saving. It also appeared to help ameliorate the issue of unreliable
information quality. One middle manager said he was less worried about inaccurate
information than in the past because ESNs provide an opportunity to quickly fix
mistakes and collaboratively come to a conclusion about issues: “If anything
inaccurate does get on one of these internal tools, it usually gets corrected pretty
quickly by someone in the company”.
Presenting Information
Avery et al. (2001) PKM skill of presenting information concerns the skills involved
in presenting information to one’s audience. The availability of Web 2.0 templates
has reduced the need for design skills, but Avery et al. emphasis is more on rhetorical
skills and message crafting. The rhetorical attribute that our participants valued most
highly in social Web 2.0 settings was use of a conversational, personal style
communication that created a sense of authenticity. Emma noted that she was critical
of information that was “too scripted” for social settings. If the information she
found on public social networks lacked a conversational dimension she deemed it be
of “low quality” (by implication, the information originator was unreliable). Com-
municating in an authentic, personal way facilitated the building of trust and so
helped facilitate collaboration and reduce hierarchical and structural barriers. One
CEO was reportedly using video blogs to communicate with staff, which had
resulted in people feeling closer to the company. One participant reported the
value of sharing snapshots of day-to-day experience to build closeness
(e.g. something interesting encountered over dinner): “We have eight different
offices in the world so we [all] try to share something about ourselves. . . it is for
all of us to break down barriers”.
In contrast, all the participants appeared to take for granted their ability (and that
of others) to communicate satisfactorily on a wiki. Although the quality of infor-
mation and its contextual location were regularly mentioned, the way in which
information was presented on the wiki was not discussed. This was surprising.
Participants’ apparent low level of concern with information presentation may
reflect a forgiving attitude linked with the fact that content creators can be readily
identified and asked for clarification, and/or the fact that wiki-based information
can be easily changed. (One developer noted, “because we are a software engi-
neering company it is easy for [us] to edit wiki, because they all have the basic
knowledge of HTML.”). It may also reflect the temporal nature of Web 2.0 infor-
mation and the fact that the value of wikis was conceived in terms of time saving:
the skills involved in creating and curating information were seen as more impor-
tant than those involved in presentation.
Creating and Curating Information

The use of Web 2.0 tools, and the dispersion of authorship within organizations, had
created a strong need for skills in creating and curating information. Taking a
curatorial role—caring for information and keeping it up to date in a proactive
and responsive manner—was seen as vital by all participants.
This skill of creating and curating was strongly linked with realizing time-
related benefits (time saving and timeliness) and decreasing the unreliability of
information quality. We propose it as a key PKM skill-set. However, as previously
noted, all of the study participants emphasized the frequent problems they faced to
do with inaccurate and out-of-date information in Web 2.0 settings. While this can
be seen as a natural (and mathematically likely) outcome of the Web 2.0 informa-
tion explosion, one source of this problem appears to have been lack of curatorial
attention and/or buy-in. Having a compatible organizational culture and value
system was necessary in order to maximize the application of information curating
skills. One developer outlined how he worked to model good curatorial practice to
others: “I normally refer to the person who edited that page and hint to him that his
information is incorrect or there is more new information available that can
complete that page”. Likewise, as a middle manager noted, governance systems
were required to tackle this issue.
Securing Information
Avery et al. (2001) see information security skills are a critical aspect of PKM in
electronic networks. These skills include password management, appreciation of
intellectual property issues, backup, and archiving and the use of encryption (p. 33).
Owing to the setting for our study being the software engineering industry,
participants undertook these practices routinely and did not see them as skills per
se. They reported using passwords for certain wiki pages, managing tiered privacy
settings in Google + and Facebook, and using password management tools to
generate and save highly secure passwords.
Securing Web 2.0 information was facilitated by the need to follow clear-cut
organizational rules and by firewalls that prevented accessing of external sites.
However, one participant noted that the industry is also characterized by a strong
tradition of sharing information amongst developers and that this extends to stolen
information. This required the application of PKM skills in two respects: First, the
software developers needed to make judgments about what it was safe to share and
not share on internal wikis. (José reported that nobody in his company ever shared
“precious” industrial knowledge such as code in internal Web 2.0 contexts: “We
put information which is important for our competitors into another tool which is
not Web 2.0”.) Second, skills relating to ethical judgment and an understanding of
intellectual property are required in order to consider how to react to the circulation
of stolen third party information amongst global professional social networks.
(We did not explore the latter issue with participants.) The exercise of these fine-
grained skills of judgment can be seen as reducing security and legal risks.
Controlling Time
Time control is not part of Avery et al. model but was proposed as a PKM skill by
Hyams (2000; cited by Agnihotri & Troutt, 2009). Controlling the time spent using
Web 2.0 tools was a critical PKM skill that helped participants counter the challenge
created by the fragmentation of information across multiple platforms. The fact that
all our participants reported time savings despite managing their knowledge-related
activities across a high number of information settings and sources suggests that they
had developed fluency in effectively allocating information-related time.
In addition to using RSS feeds and alerts to pull relevant information to them,
participants reported using personalized strategies to actively minimize the present
and/or future time burden involved in finding information across a fragmented
information landscape. José always asked a colleague where to look before
embarking on a wiki search. Emma, on the other hand, expended effort in making
valuable material easier to re-find, creating a store of information she might want to
return to in future (this may reflect her role as a decision-maker, but may also be
linked to her prior work as an information professional). Owing to the interpretive
nature of this study we did not endeavor to ascertain the level of benefit gained in
relationship to these timesaving strategies, but this is an important area of study.
Self-control in ICT connectivity is known to impact on individual productivity
(Al-Dabbagh, Sylvester, & Scornavacca, 2014).
5 Conclusion
In this study, individuals’ use of Web 2.0 technologies was found to have resulted in
a number of personal productivity improvements in knowledge work in the context
of the software industry. Although many of these benefits were attributed to Web
2.0 technologies by participants, our analysis revealed that the benefits arose from a
combination of the enabling attributes of Web 2.0 and the active application of set
of eight PKM skills: retrieving information, analyzing and evaluating information,
organizing information, collaborating around information, presenting information,
creating and curating information, securing information, and controlling time.
These PKM skillsets were employed on an ongoing basis by study participants,
and were deeply interwoven into their day-to-day work, being strongly tacit in
nature.
Our model adapts and extends Avery et al. seven-skill PKM framework into a
framework of eight PKM skills that foster personal effectiveness in Web 2.0
settings. We found that some of the PKM skills proposed by Avery et al. (2001)
were of altered importance in the context of Web 2.0 use. Notably, the enabling
characteristics of Web 2.0 (outlined earlier) appear to have reduced the level of skill
required (and/or changed the nature of skills) in three traditionally important PKM
skill areas: organizing information, retrieving information, and presenting informa-
tion. Our model combines Avery et al. skills analyzing information and evaluating
information into a single skillset. This reflects our findings (outlined earlier) about
the entanglement of these skills in the work of Web 2.0 quality appraisal. Our data
provided no grounds for retaining the analyzing information category as a stand-
alone category. (This is interesting and it is possible that it is related to the highly
analytical nature of software development—it is possible that softer analytical skills
were not recognized as such by participants). Notably, our model adds two new
PKM skillsets that emerged from our analysis as being critical in the context of Web
2.0 use: these are creating and curating information and controlling time use.
Based on our analysis of the relationship between the eight PKM skills and the
reported benefits and challenges of Web 2.0 tools, we tentatively propose an
extended framework of PKM skills that explains how PKM skills promote individ-
ual performance in the context of Web 2.0 tool use. Figure 2 summarizes how
knowledge workers in this study used diverse PKM skills to militate against the
perceived challenges and realize the perceived benefits of Web 2.0. This model
illustrates a complex relationship between skills and their impact on Web 2.0 value,
suggesting that diverse PKM skills must be exercised in combination in order to
deliver optimum value from these technologies. The proposed many-to-many
relationships in the model are complex and have not been tested, but could form
the basis for future investigation. Future research could explore whether different
work contexts and/or roles are associated with different perceptions about benefits
and challenges, and whether PKM skillsets and their combinations should be tuned
accordingly.
Our study findings can be seen as supportive of Agnihotri and Troutt’s (2009)
proposition that the optimal utilization of tools for PKM depends on “how well
knowledge workers and other users assimilate the PKM skills and technology in
their KM behaviors” (p. 339). However, our proposed model moves beyond the
notion of fit to provide an explanation of how and why the eight PKM skills are
important in the study setting: It emphasizes the active role that PKM skills may
play in promoting benefit realization and reducing challenges of Web 2.0 use.
Our inclusion of middle managers in the study added richness by eliciting an
understanding of the differential ways in which Web 2.0 tools and associated PKM
skills were used by workers at two different levels in the software industry. We also
acknowledge that this was also a limitation in such a small study. Nonetheless, our
limited data set suggests that the nature of Web 2.0 software use, the nature of
challenges, and the variety of PKM skills required may be sufficiently different at
managerial level to warrant a dedicated investigation into the individual Web 2.0
work of managers. Furthermore, we found that managers had more difficulty than
software developers in expressing views about their personal knowledge. It was
typical for these participants to switch in between a personal and organizational
stance during interview. This has methodological implications for data gathering
and analysis.
We acknowledge that the setting of our study, the software industry, influenced
our findings, as is characteristic of case research: The nature of Web 2.0 challenges
and benefits that we identified, the PKM skills and the way in which they were
applied were all bound up with the study setting. As is typical of case research in the
interpretive tradition, the results cannot be simplistically generalized to other
settings. The study also reflects the participants’ conceptualizations of Web 2.0
tools: The use of open ended questions makes it possible that participants may not
have mentioned some collaborative tools of potential relevance, such as social
Q&A systems, SCRUM tools and social incident management systems.
This study is nonetheless valuable in illustrating the hidden dimension of
individual knowledge work that may be bound up with the use of Web 2.0
technologies in work settings, and the fact that diverse PKM skillsets are involved.
We suggest that PKM skills should be taken into account in the design of profes-
sional development, peer support and reward systems when implementing Web 2.0-
based KM as an organizational strategy. A finding of note is the fact that managers
placed more emphasis on the use of Web 2.0 systems to replace processes that
previously had a face-to-face dimension, creating an expansion in explicit knowl-
edge in Web 2.0 systems. On the other hand, software developers emphasized the
need to complement and counterpoint Web 2.0 and with conversations and sociali-
zation in their day-to-day knowledge work. Furthermore, two software developers
from two different organizations expressed concerns about management under-
standing of the nature of Web 2.0 technologies. This difference in the differential
framing of Web 2.0 technologies for KM is reminiscent of the familiar codification-
socialization dichotomy in KM. It may indicate a tension between the needs of
managers and those of workers whose roles are more strongly dedicated to knowl-
edge creation. The above items are noted with caution as areas of potential interest
for future research: owing to the small size of our study and participant pool we
cannot draw definite conclusions relating to role.
Finally, we note that this study is also of value in illuminating the challenges
individuals face in using Web 2.0 is knowledge work, and the limits of individual
PKM skills in alleviating these challenges. As well as supporting and rewarding
individual skills development, supporting organizational systems in relationship to
culture, rewards and processes are needed in order to help knowledge workers
realize individual productivity benefits through Web 2.0 use.
References
Agnihotri, R., & Troutt, D. M. (2009). The effective use of technology in personal knowledge
management: A framework of skills, tools and user context. Online Information Review, 33(2),
329–342.
Ajjan, H., Hartshorne, R., & Buechler, S. (2012). Investigating Web 2.0 application impacts on
knowledge workers’ decisions and performance. Information Resources Management Journal,
25(4), 65–83.
Al-Dabbagh, B., Sylvester, A., & Scornavacca, E. (2014). To connect or disconnect–that is the
question: ICT self-discipline in the 21st century workplace. ACIS.
Alvarado, C., Teevan, J., Ackerman, M. S., & Karger, D. (2003). Surviving the information
explosion: How people find their electronic information. MIT Lab. http://haystack.csail.mit.
edu/papers/alvarado.aim03.pdf.
Avery, S., Brooks, R., Brown, J., Dorsey, P., & O’Conner, M. (2001). Personal knowledge manage-
ment: Framework for integration and partnership. ASCUE 2001 Conference Proceedings, North
Myrtle Beach, SC. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://fits.depauw.edu/ascue/proceedings/2001/

avery.html.
Balim, B., & Dogerlioglu, O. (2011). Usage of Web 2.0 tools for ubiquitous enterprises. The
Journal of American Academy of Business, 17(1), 202–208.
Bebensee, T., Helms, R., & Spruit, M. (2012). Exploring Web 2.0 applications as a mean of
bolstering up knowledge management. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
9(1), 1–9. Available online at www.ejkm.com.
Benlian, A., & Hess, T. (2008). Supporting global software development with Web 2.0
Technologies-insights from and empirical study. AMCIS 2008 Proceedings (p. 294).
Bjørnson, F. O., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Knowledge management in software engineering: A
systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used. Information and
Software Technology, 50(11), 1055–1068.
Bughin, J., & Chui, M. (2010). The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday.
McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 3–8.
Burley, D., Savion, S., Peterson, M., Lotrecchiano, G., & Nia, K. N. (2009). Knowledge integration
through synthetic worlds. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 40
(1), 71–82.
Cheong, R. K., & Tsui, E. (2011). From skills and competencies to outcome-based collaborative
work: Tracking a decade’s development of personal knowledge management (PKM) models.
Knowledge and Process Management, 18(3), 175–193.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2002). Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge creation
process. Expert Systems with Applications, 23(3), 173–187.
Chui, M., Miller, A., & Roberts, R. (2009). Six ways to make web 2.0 work. The McKinsey
Quarterly. Business Technology, 1–7.
Davenport, H. T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davies, S. (2011). Still building the memex. Communications of the ACM, 54(2), 80–88.
Davies, S., Allen, S., Raphaelson, J., Meng, E., Engleman, J., King, R., et al. (2006). Popcorn: The
personal knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive
Systems (pp. 150–159). ACIS.
DiNucci, D. (1999). Design & new media: Fragmented future. Print, 53(4), 32–35.
Dorsey, P. A. (2000). Personal knowledge management: Educational framework for global
business. Decatur, IL: Millikin University Tabor School of Business.
Drucker, P. F. (1968). The age of discontinuity. New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.
Drucker, P. F. (1999a). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Man-
agement Review, 41(2), 79–94.
Drucker, P. F. (1999b). Management challenges for the 21st century. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemenn/
Elsevier.
Efimova, L. (2004). Discovering the iceberg of knowledge work: A weblog case. Paper presented
at the Fifth European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities,
Boston. Retrieved March 17–19, from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~tkennedy/Courses/
2P26/Efimova2004.pdf.
Elsweiler, D., Baillie, M., & Ruthven, I. (2011). What makes re-finding information difficult? A
study of email re-finding. In Advances in information retrieval (pp. 568–579). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature
from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Informa-
tion Society, 20(5), 325–344.
Frand, J., & Hixon, C. (1999). Personal knowledge management: Who, what, why, when, where,
how? Working paper. http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.frand/researcher/speeches/
PKM.htm.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. R. (1995). Task-technology-fit and individual performance. MIS
Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.
Hennink, M. M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. London: Sage.
Hicks, D. L., & Tochtermann, K. (2001). Personal digital libraries and knowledge management.
Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7(7), 550–565.
Hyams R. (2000). 10 Skills of personal knowledge management.
Jefferson, T. L. (2006). Taking it personally: Personal knowledge management. VINE, 36(1),
35–37.
Kim, D. H., & Kim, S. J. (2006). Framework for collaborative knowledge sharing and recommen-
dation based on taxonomic partial reputations. Knowledge Science, Engineering and Manage-
ment, 4092, 190–201.
Kirchner, K., Razmerita, L., & Nabeth, T. (2009). Personal and collective knowledge management
in the Web 2.0: Two faces of knowledge management. In 9th International Conference on
Innovative Internet Community Systems (pp. 15–26). Jena, Germany. http://cs.emis.de/LNI/
Proceedings/Proceedings148/5.pdf.
Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 241–242.
Nonaka, I. (1998). The knowledge-creating company Harvard business review on knowledge
management. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Nonaka, I., & Takaeuchi, N. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pachler, N., & Daly, C. (2009). Narrative and learning with Web 2.0 technologies: Towards a
research agenda. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 6–18.
Paroutis, S., & Al Saleh, A. (2009). Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(2), 52–63.
Pauleen, D. (2009). Personal knowledge management. Putting the “person” back into the knowl-
edge equation. Online Information Review, 33(2), 221–224.
Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30,
199–220.
Razmerita, L. (2005). User modeling and personalization of knowledge management systems. In
S. Y. Chen & G. D. Magoulas (Eds.), Adaptable and adaptive hypermedia. Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Publishing.
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Sudzina, F. (2009). Personal knowledge management: The role of
Web 2.0 tools for managing knowledge at individual and organizational levels. Online Informa-
tion Review, 33(6), 1021–1039.
Ribiere, M. V., & Tuggle, D. F. (2009). Fostering innovation with KM 2.0. The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 40(1), 90–101.
Rus, I., & Lindvall, M. (2002). Guest editors’ introduction: Knowledge management in software
engineering. IEEE Software, 3, 26–38.
Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Web 2.0 and the empowerment of knowledge workers. Journal of
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.
American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.
Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and business. Business Information Review, 23(4), 228–234.
Wright, K. (2005). Personal knowledge management: Supporting individual knowledge worker
performance. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(3), 156–165.
Part III
Frontiers for Social Knowledge Management
Dimensions of User Behavior in Enterprise
Social Networks
Janine Hacker, Rebecca Bernsmann, and Kai Riemer
1 Introduction
Knowledge-intensive work is often conducted in informal organizational structures

(Allen, James, & Gamlen, 2007; Brown & Duguid, 2001a) that sit alongside the
organizational chart and formal work procedures. As employees draw on their
personal relationships to collaborate and tackle work-related problems, much of
an organization’s knowledge is embedded in informal structures, which are neither
fully known to a company’s management nor to the individuals involved. While
often highly effective, such practices raise certain managerial questions regarding
the identification and development of critical knowledge resources.
Besides traditional methods, such as knowledge mapping or process analysis
(Eppler, 2001; Lehner, 2014), approaches drawing on social network analysis
promise to help identifying informal social networks by considering advice-seeking
and trust relationships among employees (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993). Yet, these
methods traditionally involve significant manual effort, are often unreliable due to
employing survey data and are not applicable to large populations (Fischbach,
Schoder, & Gloor, 2008). As a result, knowledge identification remains a challeng-
ing task to the extent that many organizations do not “know what they know”
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p. 17).
In recent years, companies have started to use so-called Enterprise Social
Networks (ESN) in order to improve knowledge sharing and collaboration among
employees (McAfee, 2006). Well-known examples are IBM Connections, Jive or
J. Hacker (*) • R. Bernsmann

Institute of Information Systems, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen,
Germany
e-mail: janine.hacker@fau.de; rebecca.bernsmann@fau.de
K. Riemer
The University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
e-mail: kai.riemer@sydney.edu.au

126 J. Hacker et al.
Yammer (Gartner, 2013). ESN provide features such as user profiles, message
streams, search options and different communication channels (Koch, Richter, &
Schlosser, 2007; Richter, 2010). Compared to public and open social networking
sites, e.g. Facebook or LinkedIn, ESN are closed applications only accessible to a
company’s employees. Prior ESN research identified use practices such as input
generation, information sharing and problem-solving by analyzing conversations
on ESN (Richter & Riemer, 2013; Thom et al., 2011) and points to a high relevance
of ESN in the context of knowledge-intensive work (Riemer & Scifleet, 2012;
Schneckenberg, 2009).
The overarching goal of this research project is to analyze ESN data to support
knowledge identification. We take as our starting point the observation that ESN
users create, share and translate organizational knowledge by engaging in
knowledge-intensive interactions on the platform. As a result of such interactions,
knowledge becomes embedded in the relationships emerging between the platform
users. Shaping this knowledge through their interactions, the platform users them-
selves act as proxies for the embedded organizational knowledge. Thus, we suggest
that the discovery of knowledge management-related roles in ESN bears the
potential to support knowledge identification more generally.
Given the typical size of ESNs, both in terms of number of users and messages
sent, in order to be able to identify certain typical ESN actor roles, it seems
necessary to characterize ESN user behavior in a quantitative way, that is by
using suitable metrics. Since ESN are used in professional settings, ESN metrics
should capture knowledge management-related interactions, specifically related to
advice-seeking and advice-giving or participating in discussions. Studies on roles in
public online social settings suggest that social roles can be conceptualized with a
combination of metrics that describe a user’s structural position, as well as their
participation behavior (Gleave, Welser, Lento, & Smith, 2009; Welser, Gleave,
Fisher, & Smith, 2007). Such metrics then reflect different dimensions of user
behavior that are referred to as behavioral patterns. Against this backdrop the
question we seek to investigate is: Which behavioral dimensions, however, emerge
in the context of ESN?
In prior work on this topic, we developed 16 metrics to conceptualize the
behavior of users of an Australian professional services firm’s ESN and identified
four dimensions of ESN user behavior: contribution & networking, information
provision, contact dispersion and invisible usage (Viol, Bernsmann, & Riemer,
2015). Following up these initial analyses in this chapter, we report on an extended
set of metrics that capture additional aspects of ESN user behavior, such as the
extent to which users interact with users from other service lines, locations or levels
of hierarchy and metrics charactering a user’s activity in groups. By employing
factor analysis, we unearthed a total of nine dimensions of ESN user behavior:
social dispersion, engagement, focus, information sharing, discussing, information
seeking, response time, receiving information, and tagging.
With this study, we contribute to the emerging research stream on ESN data
analytics by laying groundwork for the conceptualization of user behaviors and role
discovery in ESN settings. While prior work derived a theory of ESN usage based
Dimensions of User Behavior in Enterprise Social Networks 127
on a qualitative research design (Richter & Riemer, 2013), we discovered distinct

dimensions of ESN user behavior using a quantitative approach. As such, being
able to characterize and identify ESN user interactions quantitatively facilitates the
analysis of larger datasets. A better understanding of ESN user behavior can help
assess and improve the health of an ESN community. Moreover, while ESN
reinforce collaboration and knowledge sharing, their potential to support knowl-
edge identification has not yet been investigated. Determining knowledge actor
roles in an organization is an essential step in identifying knowledge loss risks and
to create strategies for their mitigation.
2 Background and Related Work
Considering knowledge as embedded in organizational structure (Brown & Duguid,

2001b; McIver, Lengnick-Hall, Lengnick-Hall, & Ramachandran, 2012), this study
places emphasis on the social and communicative aspects of knowledge work
(Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). As such, knowledge is understood as situated
in interactions, such as discussing a work-related problem, between employees.
Due to these interactions, webs of informal linkages between employees emerge in
organizations. Whereas formal social networks are typically prescribed by manage-
ment and represent the organizational structure of a corporation, informal social
networks are based on social interactions (Allen et al., 2007).
ESN emerge as a highly relevant technology in the context of knowledge-
intensive work. For instance, Riemer and Scifleet (2012) found that ESN were
used (1) to build common ground based on discussions and the sharing of updates,
(2) to provide input through the sharing of information, (3) to create new knowledge
as well as (4) to harness existing knowledge through activities related to problem-
solving and advice. As such, interactions on ESN add another layer to the web of
organizational linkages.
Organization science researchers have sought to distinguish and describe differ-
ent types of actors in “offline” settings, mainly considering the structural
embeddedness of individuals in using concepts and methods from the Social
Network Analysis (SNA) domain (e.g., Parise, Cross, & Davenport, 2006). On
the other hand, social roles have been studied in online settings also. In this context,
social roles can be identified by their “structural signature”, which includes an
individual’s structural position in the online community as well as behavioral
patterns (Gleave et al., 2009). Adopting this conceptualization, we consider user
behavior to comprise a user’s participation behavior, that is the extent to which a
user engages in different activities on the ESN, as well as a user’s structural position
in the social network emerging as a result of such activity.
In the following, we provide background information on SNA because it is the
key method to describe an individual’s structural network position. We then give an
overview of selected approaches and methods used to characterize knowledge
management-related interactions in organizational “offline” settings, as well as
user behavior in online settings. Finally, we introduce a set of relevant metrics to

describe behaviors of knowledge actors in ESN.
2.1 Social Network Analysis
A social network “consists of a finite set or sets of actors and the relation or relations
defined on them” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 20). The transfer of immaterial or
material resources, such as information and knowledge between nodes, i.e. actors,
happens along relational ties (called edges) that can be directed or undirected. In a
directed network an arrow pointing from person A to person B would mean that
person A asked person B for advice. Undirected relationships between employees,
that is a line without arrows, merely show that A and B are associated in some way,
e.g. they work in the same department.
SNA offers readily developed measures to describe formal and informal
networks. The most common measures to characterize individual nodes in the
network include degree centrality, betweenness centrality and closeness centrality
(Freeman, 1978). Degree centrality considers the number of connections of an
individual actor with in-degree and out-degree determining the number of incoming
or outgoing links in directed networks. Betweenness centrality measures the num-
ber of times a node acts as a bridge along the shortest path between two other nodes.
Closeness centrality focuses on how close an actor is to all other actors in the
network.
2.2 Characterizing Knowledge Management-Related

Interactions in Organizations
In the past decade, a number of studies have analyzed informal social networks in
organizations, among them studies investigating the social aspects of knowledge
sharing and development (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2001a; Cross, Parker, Prusak,
& Borgatti, 2001b), forms of knowledge exchange in R&D teams (Allen et al.,
2007) or detecting influential members in organizations (Cross & Prusak, 2002).
These studies have in common that they use SNA metrics in order to systemati-
cally identify knowledge and knowledge flows within organizations (Chan &
Liebowitz, 2006). In doing so, the data that is used to reconstruct the social network
graph is collected from employees through questionnaires. For instance, employees
are asked to indicate who they usually ask for advice when they experience work-
related problems. Depending on the kind of the questionnaire, different types of
network graphs can be constructed, visualizing communication, information, or
problem-solving networks (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002; De Toni & Nonino,
2010). The edges in those social network graphs reflect knowledge interactions,
e.g. interactions related to problem-solving or information exchange, between
employees.
Extending organizational SNA, Helms and Buijsrogge (2005, 2006) developed a

deliberate approach called knowledge network analysis. Helms and Buijsrogge
(2005) differentiate between the roles of knowledge creators, knowledge sharers
and knowledge users. Accordingly, the edges between the nodes in the knowledge
network graph reflect the providing of others with knowledge, sharing or
distributing knowledge, and using knowledge obtained from others.
Organizational SNA as well as knowledge network analysis operationalize
knowledge based on specific interactions between individuals. In doing so,
behaviors such as problem-solving, advice-giving, advice-seeking and providing
knowledge are of particular interest in identifying organizational knowledge flows.
At a more abstract level, these behaviors might be labelled as seeking information,
sending information, and receiving information. As a result of these (inter)actions,
individuals will occupy a certain network position, and thus, exhibit a certain level
of connectedness. Individuals with prominent structural characteristics, such as a
high in-degree centrality, are then attributed a certain role in the organization.
While organizational SNA and knowledge network analysis enable the identifi-
cation and characterization of knowledge management-related interactions, the
manual collection of the underlying social network data is time-consuming, may
be biased and cannot be applied to the analysis of large datasets (Fischbach et al.,
2008). Since knowledge actions such as information-seeking, advice-giving and
problem-solving have all been identified on ESN platforms (Richter & Riemer,
2013), the analysis of readily available ESN data may thus facilitate the identifica-
tion of behaviors relevant to a knowledge management context.
2.3 Characterizing User Behavior in Online Settings
Whereas the data collection in online settings requires less manual effort than in
“offline” settings, the creating and interpretation of the resulting network graph and
associated metrics are more challenging. For instance, the mere existence of a link
between two users does not allow for conclusions about the quality and strength of
the relationship (Gilbert & Karahalios, 2009).
Generally, behavioral patterns of users in online settings can be characterized
through a combination of firstly structural cues (describing their position in the
network) and secondly behavioral cues (reflecting their participation behavior)
(Gleave et al., 2009; Welser et al., 2007). According to Probst, Grosswiele, and
Pfleger (2013), dimensions of user behavior include “who one is”, “what one
knows”, “who one knows” and “how active one is”. By way of example, Table 1
shows dimensions employed to characterize user behavior in different types of
online communities.
We are able to consolidate the user behavioral dimensions that prior work
identified by studying different online communities into the following set of
dimensions:
Table 1 Dimensions of user behavior in online settings

Authors Platform Considered user behavioral dimensions
Viegas and Smith (2004) Usenet Conversational concentration,
(newsgroups) frequency of participation
Welser et al. (2007) Usenet Answer-related behavior, neighbors’
(newsgroups) degree, local network structure
Chan, Hayes, and Daly (2010)/ Boards.ie Structural features, persistence
Angeletou, Rowe, and Alani (discussion forum) features, popularity features,
(2011) initialization features
Hansen, Shneiderman, and CSS-D (email list) Question asking, replying
Smith (2010)
Rowe, Fernandez, Angeletou, SAP Community Focus dispersion, engagement,
and Alani (2013) Network (online contribution, initiation, content quality
forum) and popularity
Burns and Kotval (2013) Engage (ESN) Question asking, replying
Holtzblatt, Drury, and Weiss Enterprise social Level of contribution, regularity of
(2013) media platform logging in
Füller, Hutter, Hautz, and Innovation Commenting behavior, contribution
Matzler (2014) community behavior, quality of contribution
• Regularity of logging in (Holtzblatt et al., 2013): The extent to which a user logs
onto the platform on a regular basis, e.g. once per day.
• Frequency of participation (Holtzblatt et al., 2013; Viegas & Smith, 2004): The
extent to which a user (generally) participates in the platform, e.g. by initiating
or replying to a conversation.
• Initialization (Angeletou et al., 2011; Chan et al., 2010; Rowe et al., 2013): The
degree to which a user initiates new conversation threads.
• Asking questions (Burns & Kotval, 2013; Hansen et al., 2010): The extent to
which a user uses the platform to ask questions, i.e. to seek information.
• Answering (Burns & Kotval, 2013; Füller et al., 2014; Hansen et al., 2010; Rowe
et al., 2013; Welser et al., 2007): The degree to which a user replies to existing
conversation threads.
• Focus dispersion (Angeletou et al., 2011; Chan et al., 2010; Rowe et al., 2013;
Viegas & Smith, 2004): The extent to which a user participates across different
conversations/forums/groups.
• Engagement (Rowe et al., 2013): The extent to which a user interacts with
different community members.
• Popularity (Angeletou et al., 2011; Chan et al., 2010; Füller et al., 2014; Rowe
et al., 2013): The extent to which a user receives answers from other users.
• Content quality (Füller et al., 2014; Rowe et al., 2013): The degree to which the
information posted by a user is useful to others.
• Network structure (Angeletou et al., 2011; Chan et al., 2010; Welser et al.,
2007): The position of a user in the social network graph.
While a few dimensions, such as focus dispersion, answering, and initialization,

are found in a number of different studies, there appears to be no set of universally
agreed behavioral dimensions (Rowe et al., 2013). According to Rowe et al. (2013),
user behavior emerges according to the specific context of the observed online
community and it is up to the community analyst to establish suitable metrics and
features to measure user behavior.
Based on the above, Table 2 provides an overview of metrics used to character-
ize the behavior of individuals, both of employees performing knowledge
interactions in offline settings and users engaging in online social spaces. As
such, social network metrics, such as degree centrality, closeness centrality,
betweenness centrality, are employed to describe individuals in both offline and
online settings. Moreover, user activities in online settings are commonly
Table 2 Metrics characterizing individual behavior in offline and online settings

Metrics employed to characterize individual user
Reference behavior
Offline Helms and Buijsrogge (2006) In-degree, out-degree, out-degree centrality, power
setting Parise et al. (2006); Parise, In-degree centrality, betweenness centrality
Cross, and Davenport (2005)
De Toni and Nonino (2010) Degree centrality, in-degree, out-degree,
betweenness, closeness
Online Viegas and Smith (2004) Number of active days, average number of posts
setting per thread, total number of posts, number of
initiated threads, number of threads contributed to
Welser et al. (2007) Number of initiated threads, number of replies per
thread, in-degree, out-degree, degree distribution in
an individual’s neighborhood
Chan et al. (2010) In-degree, out-degree, reciprocity, number of posts
per thread, in-degree percentage, percentage of
posts replied to, percentage of threads initiated
Angeletou et al. (2011) In-degree ratio, posts replied ratio, thread initiation
ratio, bi-directional threads ratio, bi-directional
neighbors ratio, average posts per thread, standard
deviation of posts per thread
Hansen et al. (2010) In-degree, out-degree, average degree of
neighbors, clustering coefficient, eigenvector
Rowe and Alani (2012); Number of forums contributed to/total number of
Rowe et al. (2013) forums, number of users replied to/total number
users, number of users received replies from/total
number users, set of thread replies authored/total
set of replies, set of thread starters authored/set of
thread starters authored by all users, average points
per post awarded to a user/set of posts authored
Burns and Kotval (2013) Degree, weighted degree, clustering coefficient,
number of posted questions, number of replies to
questions, number of questions asked/number of
questions answered
Füller et al. (2014) Out-degree centrality, in-degree centrality, number
of designs or ideas, quality of designs or ideas, type
of comment
characterized with measures such as number of initiated threads, number of replies

per thread, number of initiated threads replied to, number of received replies, and
number of users replied to. More specific metrics capture the number of questions
asked, the number of questions answered, as well as the number of points or likes
received by a user. Finally, to enable a comparison between different users, these
metrics are often put in relation to a reference value, for instance, number of initial
messages created/total number of initial messages.
3 Data Analysis
Given their professional application context, use patterns on ESN might differ from
those in public online social spaces (Richter & Riemer, 2009). As such, the
investigation of behavioral dimensions required the development of new metrics
that cover aspects specifically relevant to ESN. As pictured in Fig. 1, our data
analysis approach involved three steps.
The first step, metrics development, comprised the design of new and the
implementation of existing metrics from the literature as reported above
(Table 2). In this regard, we created new metrics according to the features of the
case company’s ESN platform, such as number of messages with attachments,
which might not necessarily have been used in prior studies performed in public
online social spaces. We also designed new metrics covering the specifics of
corporate settings, such as percentage of replies sent to users with other job
titles/service lines/locations to measure the extent to which a user communicates
with a diverse set of people. Furthermore, we implemented metrics identified from
prior work (Table 2), such as SNA measures. Considering the degree to which the
metrics provide unique information, as well as certain specific requirements of the
factor analysis, we selected a subset of the developed metrics in step 2 of the
process. Next, we conducted a factor analysis to unearth correlations among the
developed metrics in the case company’s user population. The goal was to find out
if these correlations can be explained by some underlying factors, that is distinct
behavioral dimensions that can then be interpreted and compared with the
dimensions previously identified in public online social spaces.
Fig. 1 Steps of the data

analysis Metrics Metrics
Factor analysis
development selection
Characterisation of Discovery of
user behaviour behavioural dimensions
3.1 Case and Dataset
This study was carried out in cooperation with the Australian partnership of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. At the time of the study Deloitte Australia had 6000
employees located in 14 offices in Australia who provide audit, economics, finan-
cial advisory, human capital, tax and technology services.
The ESN used by Deloitte is a browser-based platform that offers a company-
wide newsfeed, allows users to create a profile, features public and private groups,
the sharing of updates and files, as well as communicating with others by
commenting on their updates or the writing of private messages. Replies to other
users’ messages are displayed chronologically below the original message and
grouped together in a thread-like structure. It is possible to reply to any of the
previous posts in a thread at any point in time. Public groups can be viewed and
joined by all network members whereas private groups are only visible to invited
group members. In 2008, nine employees started to use the ESN writing
66 messages. Subsequently, the ESN attracted between 1500 and 2000 new users
every year.
The dataset analyzed in this research spans a one-year period (1 July
2012–30 June 2013). It includes 61,945 messages that were posted by 3176 users,
from a total base of 6235 registered users. Message and user-related data was
exported from the back end of the ESN and provided as a .csv file. The messages
file includes messages posted in the main ESN message stream, private messages
between individual users, as well as messages exchanged in private and public
groups. Based on different IDs, the messages file allows for the identification of the
messages belonging to one thread, recipients of replies, and the author of each
message. It also contains information as to whether a message was posted in the
main stream, in a private conversation or in a public or private group, and indicates
if the message had an attachment. For privacy reasons, Deloitte did not provide any
message contents or file attachments. However, the company extracted and
provided certain meta information, such as the number of words and characters in
each message, tagged users or topics, as well as information on the appearance of
different question words, such as “how” or “why”, and words indicating users
praising and thanking each other, such as “well done” or “thanks”. A separate
dataset contains user information from a user’s profile page, such as job title and
geographic location. Moreover, for a subset of additional user information was
obtained from Deloitte’s HR system, such as gender, nationality, and tenure.
3.2 Metrics Development
Based on prior works, this study assumes knowledge-intensive communication to

account for a major part of the overall volume of messages (e.g. Riemer & Scifleet,
2012). Quantifying user behavior on the ESN, the developed metrics are thus
suggested to characterize mainly knowledge (inter)actions.
Having obtained the data as a .csv file, it was imported into a MySQL database to
calculate basic metrics using SQL statements. These basic metrics comprise abso-
lute metrics and average metrics describing the activities of individual ESN users,
as well as social network metrics characterizing each user’s structural position. In
accordance with prior work and befitting the available data, we developed metrics
describing many different aspects of user activity in order to capture a broad range
of potential behavioral dimensions.
Absolute metrics include the number of replies created by a user, the number of
initial messages created or the number of messages with attachments posted, for
instance. Moreover, we used the extracted keywords, e.g. “thanks”, “well done”,
question words and question marks, to identify thank-you messages, praise
messages and questions (Burns & Kotval, 2013). Hence, we were able to implement
content-related absolute metrics such as the number of thanks messages or the
number of questions created by a user.
Moreover, we derived average metrics to compare information related to specific
objects, such as threads or messages, across the ESN user base. Hence, average
metrics include average number of replies created by a user per thread or average
number of replies received by a user per thread created. Average metrics also
characterize the user communication in terms of message length, e.g. average
number of words per message created, and speed, determining e.g. average time
to send a first reply and average time to receive a first reply. Furthermore, temporal
concentration measures the extent to which a user continuously posts messages on
the ESN.
Besides absolute and average metrics, social network metrics were calculated
for so-called “reply relationships” (who replied to whom), using the statistical tool
R (R Core Team, 2015) and its igraph package (Csardi & Nepusz, 2006). These
include closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, and clustering coefficient, for
instance.
Using basic metrics, we created intrapersonal metrics (Friemel, 2008), i.e. ratios
relating the basic metrics to each other that facilitate the comparison of specific
activities across all users. The ratios include, for instance, number of replies
created/messages created and number of thanks messages created/number of
replies created.
3.3 Metric Selection
Generally, the quality of results from a factor analysis hinges on the quality of the
data being used (Backhaus, Erichson, Plinke, & Weiber, 2011, p. 336). To be
considered in our analysis only those metrics (that is, variables for the factor
analysis) were selected that fulfilled the following requirements:
1. A metric had to be relevant and reflect unique information (Backhaus et al.,

2011, p. 330) to be included: Due to this criterion, we excluded basic metrics and
ratios that are mutually dependent. The number of messages created, for
instance, can be calculated based on other absolute metrics, i.e. number of initial
messages and number of replies. To avoid redundancies among the metrics, we
only considered the number of messages created in our analysis. As a result,
45 variables reflecting unique information were identified.
2. The values calculated for a certain metric had to show a sufficient variance
across the ESN users (Schendera, 2010, p. 293): In our analysis, the variance of a
metric was considered too low if more than 33% of the users have the same value
for a certain variable. Applying this criterion, we excluded 10 of the 45 metrics.
3. Metrics had to be correlated (Backhaus et al., 2011, p. 333): Since the metrics
were not normally distributed, we created a correlation matrix using Spearman’s
rank correlation coefficient (Sachs, 1978, p. 308–3012). The resulting correla-
tion matrix showed high correlations between the metrics indicating the
variables to be qualified for building factors. We further calculated the Kaiser’s
MSA value for the correlation matrix and each individual variable. While a
Kaiser’s MSA value of ~0.7 for the correlation matrix indicated most of the
variables to be suitable for the factor analysis, the individual MSA values for two
metrics were below 0.5, which means they were not suitable for building factors
(Backhaus et al., 2011, p. 336). Having excluded these two metrics, we further
performed an outlier analysis to identify metrics that show a low squared
correlation (Schendera, 2010, p. 295) with other metrics below 0.2 (Gries,
2013, p. 147). As a result, we excluded a further three metrics.
As shown in Table 3, 30 variables out of 45 initial variables were considered as

relevant and qualified for the factor analysis. All metrics shown in Table 3 refer to
messages created by individual ESN users.
3.4 Factor Analysis
In order to be included in our analysis, users were required to have written an

average number of at least two messages per month, i.e. a minimum of 24 messages
within the entire study period. This ensured that each user included in the sample
actively participated in the ESN and displayed a communication volume feasible to
identify behavioral patterns. Moreover, the condition ensured the metrics to have a
certain level of variance (cf. metrics selection) across the user base. As a result, a
total of 555 ESN users were included in the subsequent analysis.
Factor analyses with principal axing factoring (PAF) extraction were conducted
using the R package psych (Revelle, 2015) to detect correlation patterns in the
metrics (Table 3). The aim was to use the patterns to identify latent constructs that
could be interpreted as behavioral dimensions.
When conducting a factor analysis, technically, as many factors as variables can
be extracted (Schendera, 2010, p. 268). As this would not serve the purpose of
building interpretable dimensions it is up to the analyst to decide on a specific
number of factors. A common approach is to only consider the factors with an
eigenvalue greater than 1, which means that the factor explains more variance than
Table 3 Metrics characterizing ESN user behavior

Metric name Description
V1 Closeness centrality Average distance from a given starting node to all
other nodes in the network
V2 Betweenness centrality Number of times a user acts as a “bridge” along
the shortest path between two other users
V3 Clustering coefficient Indicates the degree to which the neighbors of a
node are linked together
V4 #messages created Counts the number of messages created
V5 Avg. #repliesa created per threadb Determines the average number of replies created
(contributed to) per thread contributed to
V6 #first replies created/#replies Compares the number of first replies created with
created the number of replies created
V7 #last replies created/#replies Compares the number of last replies created with
created the number of replies created
V8 #initial messagesc created/ Measures the proportion of initial messages
#messages created created in relation to the number of messages
created
V9 #threads created/#initial messages Determines the proportion of initial messages that
created yielded at least one reply
V10 Avg. #replies received per thread Determines the average number of replies
(created) received per thread created
V11 #messages created in groups/ Measures the proportion of messages created in
#messages created groups in relation to the number of messages
created
V12 #private groups contributed Measures the proportion of private groups
to/#groups contributed to contributed to in relation to the number of groups
contributed to
V13 #replies sent to users in other Determines the proportion of replies sent to users
service lines/#replies created in other service lines in relation to the number of
replies created
V14 #replies received from users in Determines the proportion of replies received
other service lines/#replies from users in other service lines in relation to the
received number of replies received
V15 #replies sent to users with other job Determines the proportion of replies sent to users
titles/#replies created with other job titles in relation to the number of
replies created
V16 #replies received from users with Determines the proportion of replies received
other job titles/#replies received from users with other job titles in relation to the
number of replies received
V17 #replies sent to users in other Determines the proportion of replies sent to users
locations/#replies created in other locations in relation to the number of
replies created
V18 #replies received from users in Determines the proportion of replies received
other locations/#replies received from users in other locations in relation to the
number of replies received
V19 #thanksd messages created/ Compares the number of thanks messages created
#replies created with the number of replies created
(continued)
Table 3 (continued)
Metric name Description
V20 #questionse created/#initial Compares the number of questions created with
messages created the number of initial messages created
V21 #person tags sent/#messages Compares the number of persons tagged in
created messages with the number of messages created
V22 #person tags received/#replies Compares the number of times a user has been
received tagged with the number of replies received
V23 #messages with attachments Determines the proportion of messages with
created/#messages created attachment created in relation to the number of
messages created
V24 Avg. #words per message created Determines the average number of words per
message created
V25 Avg. #words per question created Determines the average number of words per
question created
V26 Avg. time to create a first reply to Determines the average time to create a first reply
an initial message to an initial message
V27 Avg. time to create a first reply to Determines the average time to create a first reply
question to a question
V28 Avg. time to receive a first reply to Determines the average time to receive a first
an initial message created reply to an initial message
V29 Avg. time to receive a first reply to Determines the average time to receive a first
a question created reply to a question
V30 Temporal concentration of Determines the extent to which a user
creating messages continuously creates messages
a
A reply is a message directed to another message. Replies can be written to answer (undirected)
initial messages as well as to comment on messages that were sent in reply to another message
(reply to a reply)
b
A thread refers to an initial message that received one or several replies
c
An initial message is a status update posted by a user that may or may not result in a thread
d
A message is a thanks message if it contains “thanks”, “thank you” etc
e
A message is a question if it is an initial message which contains a question word and a question
mark
one variable (Backhaus et al., 2011, p. 359). In our case, nine factors have an
eigenvalue greater than 1 and together explain 54% of the variance of the original
metrics. With a percentage of 87%, the selected factors replicate the correlation
matrix of the shared variance of the metrics (where the metrics’ unique variance is
excluded) reasonably well. The relatively low explained variance of the original
dataset of 54% is due to the fact that many metrics, as intended (cf. metrics
selection), do measure unique aspects of user behavior. For this reason, many
metrics do not correlate highly with all other metrics.
Each of the nine extracted factors represents a behavioral dimension. To facili-
tate the unambiguous assignment of a variable to one factor (Hildebrandt et al.,
2015, p. 52), the nine factors were rotated. An oblique rotation with the Geomin
method was conducted with the help of the R package GPArotation (Bernaards &
Jennrich, 2005). In the literature, the threshold for assigning a variable to a factor
varies between 0.3 and 0.6 (Schendera, 2010, p. 214). In our analysis, we used a
threshold of 0.3 to assign the variables to the factors. Except for V22 (#person tags
received/#replies received), which is independent of the nine factors, all variables
could be assigned to one of the nine factors (Table 4). The variables V1 (closeness),
V3 (clustering coefficient) and V20 (#questions created/#initial messages created)
load on two factors.
3.5 Results
The factors shown in Table 4 are numbered according to their significance. As such,
factor 1 is the most important factor, explaining 13% of the variance. The fields
shaded in dark grey distinguish variables with positive factor loadings on the
respective factor. Negative factor loadings are marked in light grey.
We are then able to interpret the resulting factors:
• Factor 1 (Social dispersion): The first factor is driven by high positive loadings
of V13-V18 which indicate the extent to which a user communicates across
service lines, levels of hierarchy and location. As such, factor 1 reflects the
tendency of a user to communicate with diverse sets of other users.
• Factor 2 (Engagement): The second factor is driven positively by the social
network metrics closeness centrality (V1) and betweenness centrality (V2) as
well as by the number of messages created (V4). It is further driven negatively
by the clustering coefficient (V3) and the temporal concentration of creating
messages (V30). Factor 2 hence reflects high levels of (continuous) engagement
in the ESN, which in turn correlates with a central and “brokering” position.
• Factor 3 (Focus): The third factor comprises negative factor loadings for
closeness centrality (V1) and the clustering coefficient (V3). It is driven posi-
tively by the percentage of messages created in groups in general (V11) and in
private groups in particular (V12). The factor thus reflects the communication
with a bounded subset of ESN users, which may indicate a topical focus of
a user.
• Factor 4 (Information sharing): The fourth factor comprises the highest
positive loadings of the percentage of initial messages created (V8) and the
percentage of messages with attachments (V23). The factor is driven negatively
by the percentage of threads created (V9). Due to the combination of initial
messages that do not necessarily receive a reply and attachments, we assume that
these initial messages inform other users about something, such as events.
• Factor 5 (Discussing): The fifth factor is influenced by variables indicating the
position of messages in a thread. It is driven positively by creating (V5) and
receiving (V10) replies in threads and driven negatively by the percentage of first
(V6) and last replies (V7). This factor thus reflects a tendency of a user to
participate in (the middle of) discussions.
Table 4 Pattern matrix
Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Eigenvalue 4.0 2.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.8
% of variance explained 13% 9% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3%
Cumulative % of variance 13% 22% 28% 34% 39% 44% 48% 52% 54%
V1 0.01 0.54 -0.68 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.10
V2 0.08 0.78 -0.04 -0.07 -0.03 0.06 -0.07 0.08 0.13
V3 0.01 -0.71 -0.54 0.17 -0.16 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.07
V4 -0.07 0.87 0.02 0.08 0.01 -0.04 0.12 -0.03 -0.02
V5 -0.03 0.20 0.05 -0.03 0.78 0.02 -0.04 0.02 -0.01
V6 -0.01 0.21 0.27 -0.04 -0.61 0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03
V7 -0.03 0.04 0.27 0.10 -0.51 0.00 -0.29 0.08 0.02
V8 -0.02 -0.04 0.14 0.86 -0.05 0.06 -0.08 0.06 -0.01
V9 -0.06 0.04 0.03 -0.48 0.04 0.13 -0.02 0.19 0.24
V10 0.04 0.13 -0.02 0.00 0.39 -0.02 0.10 0.36 0.14
V11 -0.02 -0.01 0.68 0.15 -0.03 0.08 0.05 -0.17 0.02
V12 -0.03 0.03 0.38 0.01 -0.09 0.03 0.26 0.05 0.14
V13 0.82 0.08 -0.05 -0.01 -0.03 0.00 -0.08 0.11 -0.04
V14 0.80 0.06 -0.06 0.06 0.03 -0.01 -0.13 0.14 -0.04
V15 0.81 -0.05 0.29 -0.09 -0.05 -0.03 0.13 -0.02 0.13
V16 0.81 -0.04 0.29 0.07 0.05 -0.04 0.13 0.02 0.15
V17 0.82 0.02 -0.01 -0.13 -0.05 0.12 0.02 -0.06 -0.03
V18 0.83 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.05 0.15 -0.05 -0.07 -0.04
V19 0.07 -0.17 0.25 0.27 -0.03 0.01 -0.05 0.31 0.15
V20 -0.01 -0.03 -0.13 -0.23 0.09 0.37 0.01 0.38 0.05
V21 -0.01 0.04 -0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 -0.13 -0.01 0.70
V22 0.02 -0.18 -0.02 -0.22 -0.23 -0.03 0.02 -0.28 0.28
V23 -0.04 0.07 -0.07 0.58 0.14 0.00 0.03 -0.12 0.12
V24 0.06 -0.14 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.64 -0.13 -0.06 -0.07
V25 -0.02 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.82 0.08 0.04 0.05
V26 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.57 0.03 -0.06
V27 0.02 -0.06 0.00 -0.06 0.08 0.04 0.50 0.04 0.01
V28 -0.02 -0.23 0.00 -0.09 0.01 -0.07 0.32 0.45 -0.05
V29 -0.01 0.03 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 0.21 0.28 0.48 -0.03
V30 -0.07 -0.43 0.06 -0.19 0.23 0.02 -0.25 0.09 -0.05
• Factor 6 (Information seeking): The sixth factor comprises the percentage of

questions (V20) as well as variables indicating the length of messages (V24) and
questions (V25). The writing of long questions is assumed to reflect information-
seeking behavior.
• Factor 7 (Response time): The seventh factor can be explained by high
manifestations of variables related to response time, i.e. the delay in sending
(V26-27) and receiving replies (V28). Factor 7 reflects the time to send or
receive a response, which is correlated.
• Factor 8 (Receiving information): The eighth factor is influenced positively by
variables indicating the delay in receiving replies (V28), especially replies to
questions (V29). It is moreover driven positively by the percentage of created
questions (V20) and created thanks messages (V19). This combination of
variables reflects successful information-seeking, i.e. the (fast) reception of
information as answer to a request.
• Factor 9 (Tagging): Only comprising the percentage of person tags sent (V21),
factor 9 can be considered as a weak factor (Schendera, 2010, p. 214). As V22
(#person tags received/#replies received), this variable is not very related to the
other variables.
4 Discussion
We have identified and applied 30 metrics that characterize the behavior of users of
an Australian professional services firm’s ESN. Based on an exploratory factor
analysis, we unearthed nine underlying dimensions of ESN user behavior. Compar-
ing the results of this chapter with the dimensions discovered in our prior analyses
(cf. Viol et al., 2015), we find engagement (factor 2) to be reflected in the dimension
contribution & networking. Information sharing (factor 4) is similar to our previ-
ously identified dimension information provision. While the factor contact disper-
sion is driven by variables that measure the numbers of unique users a user replied
to and received replies from, the factor social dispersion discovered in this chapter
is based on more detailed metrics describing the extent to which a user interacts
with diverse sets of users. At the same time, we do not find evidence for the
previously identified dimension invisible usage since the metrics loading on this
factor, i.e. number of received thanks messages and praise messages respectively,
had to be dropped in the metrics selection step.
When comparing our findings with prior results in the literature, the factors
identified in our analysis bear similarity to previously discovered behavioral
dimensions (Table 1). Factor 1 (social dispersion) is similar to engagement
(Rowe et al., 2013). The second factor (engagement) describes the level of network
activity and structural embeddedness and hence, reflects frequency of participation
(Holtzblatt et al., 2013; Viegas & Smith, 2004) and network structure (Angeletou
et al., 2011; Chan et al., 2010; Welser et al., 2007). Factor 3 (focus) reflects
dimensions related to focus dispersion (e.g. Chan et al., 2010; Viegas & Smith,
2004). While the fourth factor (information sharing) comprises elements of
initialization (Angeletou et al., 2011; Rowe et al., 2013), factor 5 (discussing) partly
reflects popularity (e.g. Rowe et al., 2013) as in receiving replies at the level of the
thread and answering (e.g. Burns & Kotval, 2013; Hansen et al., 2010). Information
seeking (factor 6) is related to initialization (e.g. Angeletou et al., 2011; Rowe et al.,
2013) and asking questions (Burns & Kotval, 2013; Hansen et al., 2010). We are
moreover able to extend the dimensions identified in public online social spaces by
the behavioral dimensions reflected in factor 7 (response time), 8 (receiving infor-
mation), and 9 (tagging). Even though these factors only explain a small proportion
of the overall variance, they reflect individual behavioral dimensions that might be
more relevant in internally used social software than in public online social spaces.
Our exploratory factor analysis reveals important information about ESN user
behavior. The fact that our top 6 factors are similar to behavioral dimensions
previously identified in public online settings indicates the metrics generated
based on ESN to facilitate the discovery of distinct and valid behavioral patterns.
Beyond the similarities with behavioral dimensions found in public online social
spaces, the identified factors reflect several aspects of ESN usage identified by
Richter and Riemer (2013), related to discussion and opinion, event notification,
input generation, and problem-solving. Hence, it seems possible to discover distinct
behavioral dimensions without having to qualitatively analyze the content of
messages posted to the network.
5 Research Outlook and Implications for Practice
In future research, we aim to apply cluster analysis to further discover behavioral

patterns that indicate ESN knowledge actor roles based on the developed metrics.
The user roles are suggested to reflect a user’s tendency to engage in particular
(inter)actions on the ESN, such as focusing on the initiation of new conversations,
participating in discussions, connecting different users, or helping others to solve
work-related problems. The concept of knowledge management-related roles on
ESN has practical implications for decision-making at the intersection between
knowledge management and human resources management. We suggest the fol-
lowing exemplary use cases:
• Knowledge identification: As stated above, many organizations lack an over-

view of who knows what and which knowledge is missing in the organization
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p. 17). Trying to resolve this issue, attempts to
manage knowledge typically focus on the capture and storage of what employees
know (e.g. Hansen et al., 1999). However, due to the complexity of contempo-
rary work contexts, knowledge becomes more and more embedded in the
specific context of an organization and thus ever more difficult to capture
(Schneckenberg, 2009). Also, employees tend to draw on their social networks
rather than using organizational knowledge repositories when seeking a particu-
lar piece of information (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; von Krogh, 2012). By
providing a record of such knowledge-intensive interactions between
employees, data from ESN can be analyzed to discover knowledge management-

related roles, which facilitates an alternative way to discover organizational
knowledge. While this approach does not show where to find a particular
document, i.e. an information object, it points to individuals who might not
only be able to provide the necessary information but also provide the informa-
tion seeker with additional context. As such, the identification of critical human
resources is also an important prerequisite for targeted knowledge retention
efforts.
• Staffing decisions: ESN user roles may help identify employees who initiate,
develop, share, and translate organizational knowledge. This information can be
of interest when forming a new team that needs a certain mix of people
(e.g. Perer et al., 2011). Also, it could be helpful for the organization of project
meetings. For instance, people initiating new ideas and discussions might be
invaluable during brainstorming sessions at the beginning of a project but less so
when planning the concrete project tasks and milestones. Furthermore, a notion
of ESN user roles might usefully inform decisions as to who should replace a
departing employee. Considering an employee’s role on the ESN could be
helpful to identify a successor with a certain level of connectedness in the
organization.
• Performance management: The analysis of the record of activities of ESN
users facilitates the identification of behaviors that are difficult to track and to
measure otherwise. For instance, certain users might often answer the requests of
other users and help them quickly resolve work-related problems. Other users
might provide co-workers with valuable information that help them work more
efficiently or generate new ideas (e.g. Cross & Prusak, 2002; Grant, 2013). These
behaviors are assumed to be desirable from the point of view of the organization
as a whole since they are likely to benefit people across different teams and
departments. As such, desirable behaviors could be included as additional
dimensions in an employee’s performance rating. Indeed, this could reinforce
organizational knowledge sharing and help improve the overall performance of
an organization.
• ESN adoption and usage: Many organizations using ESN face issues in terms
of platform adoption and usage (e.g. Bala, Massey, Rajanayakam, & Hsieh,
2015). These issues might be due the employees not realizing the benefits of the
platform or employees not knowing how to participate in the platform. A notion
of ESN user roles would enable active and inactive users to understand the role
that they occupy or could potentially occupy in the ESN. This includes an
understanding of which behaviors are connected with different roles. As such,
knowing one’s own role could enable self-reflection and benchmarking. A
notion of roles could also enable coaching and mentoring between different
roles. For instance, individuals who successfully use the ESN to obtain informa-
tion could advise other users whose questions tend to be ignored on how to
receive more answers.
Future research might develop additional use cases for the application of an ESN
knowledge actor role typology in practice and evaluate the feasibility and utility of
the use cases in cooperation with practitioners. Future research should also look
into the ethical implications of performing ESN analytics at the level of individuals
in organizations. There is a need for recommendations as to how such analytics can
be done while respecting the privacy and confidentiality of individual employees.
6 Conclusion
The very nature of knowledge, decentralized organizational structures and increas-

ing levels of complexity in contemporary work contexts make it difficult for
organizations to achieve knowledge transparency. We offer the analysis of ESN
data as a way to identify behavioral dimensions and user roles for the purpose of
identifying knowledge embedded in the organizational practice.
The contributions of our research project are threefold: Firstly, we combine
concepts and methods of organization science and social media research and
transfer these to an ESN context. Grounded in these two fields, our study leads to
a better understanding of knowledge management-related user behavior and roles in
ESN—and hence address a gap in the current literature (Trier & Richter, 2015).
Secondly, we contribute to the emerging field of ESN analytics by deriving metrics
to quantitatively describe and analyse ESN user behavior. Thirdly, we lay the
groundwork for a novel approach to knowledge identification. While many
companies are introducing or are about to introduce ESN to reinforce knowledge
sharing and collaboration, we suggest the record of knowledge interactions stored
in the ESN back end to be suitable to inform decision-making at the intersection
between knowledge management and human resources management. Thus, the
results of this research project could help run knowledge management-related
processes, e.g. knowledge identification efforts, in a more targeted and
effective way.
It was not our intent to generalize beyond our case population, given that we
operate on one case only. Rather, we derive behavioral dimensions and generalize
in a theoretical sense, given the knowledge-intensive context of our case company.
However, this study has limitations due to the criteria employed when selecting
suitable metrics for the factor analysis. As a result of these criteria, the factor
analysis was performed using a reduced set of metrics and based on a relatively
small sample of active users who had written at least 24 messages in the study
period. While the application of these criteria was necessary from a statistical point
of view, we had to drop a relatively high number of metrics that could have been
relevant in terms of further behavioral dimensions. In this regard, a dataset provided
by another company might allow for keeping a higher number of metrics in the
factor analysis. Also, it would facilitate a comparison of the identified behavioral
dimensions with results from other contexts.
References
Allen, J., James, A. D., & Gamlen, P. (2007). Formal versus informal knowledge networks in
R&D: A case study using social network analysis. R&D Management, 37, 179–196.
Angeletou, S., Rowe, M., & Alani, H. (2011). Modelling and analysis of user behaviour in online
communities. In L. Aroyo, C. Welty, H. Alani, et al. (Eds.), The semantic web—ISWC 2011
(pp. 35–50). Heidelberg: Springer.
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2011). Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine
anwendungsorientierte Einf€ uhrung (13 ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
Bala, H., Massey, A. P., Rajanayakam, J., & Hsieh, C. J. (2015). Challenges and outcomes of
enterprise social media implementation: insights from cummins, Inc. In 2015 48th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1839–1848). IEEE.
Behrendt, S., Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2014). Conceptualisation of digital traces for the
Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Auckland, New Zealand.
Bernaards, C. A., & Jennrich, R. I. (2005). Gradient projection algorithms and software for
arbitrary rotation criteria in factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
65, 676–696.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001a). Structure and spontaneity: Knowledge and organization. In
I. Nonaka & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Managing industrial knowledge: Creation transfer and
utilization (pp. 44–67). London: SAGE Publications.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001b). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective.
Organization Science, 12, 198–213.
Burns, M. J., & Kotval, X. P. (2013). Questions about questions: Investigating how knowledge
workers ask and answer questions. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 17, 43–61.
Chan, K., & Liebowitz, J. (2006). The synergy of social network analysis and knowledge mapping:
A case study. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 7, 19–35.
Chan, J., Hayes, C., & Daly, E. (2010). Decomposing discussion forums and boards using user
roles. In W. W. Cohen & S. Gosling (Eds.), International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and
Social Media 2010. (pp. 215–218). The AAAI Press.
Core Team, R. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.r-project.org/.
Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make organizations go—or stop effectiveness.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2001a). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice
network. Social Networks, 23, 215–235.
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001b). Knowing what we know: Supporting
knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 100–120.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social
network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44,
25–47.
Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research.
International Journal of Complex Systems 1695.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
De Toni, A. F., & Nonino, F. (2010). The key roles in the informal organization: A network
analysis perspective. The Learning Organization, 17, 86–103.
Eppler, M. J. (2001). Making knowledge visible through intranet knowledge maps: Concepts,
elements, cases. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Maui, HI.
Fischbach, K., Schoder, D., & Gloor, P. A. (2008). Analyse informeller
Kommunikationsnetzwerke am Beispiel einer Fallstudie. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 51, 164–174.
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1,

215–239.
Friemel, T. N. (2008). Netzwerkanalytische Methoden zur Identifizierung von
Kommunikationsrollen. In C. Stegbauer (Ed.), Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie
(pp. 179–190). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Füller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., & Matzler, K. (2014). User roles and contributions in innovation-
contest communities. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31, 273–308.
Gartner. (2013). Magic quadrant for social software in the workplace. https://www.jivesoftware.
com/discover-jive/analyst-reports/gartner-magic-quadrant/.
Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. In ACM Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 211–220). ACM Press.
Gleave, E., Welser, H., Lento, T. M., & Smith, M. A. (2009). A Conceptual and operational
definition of “Social Role” in online community. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Confer-
ence on System Sciences (pp. 1–11). IEEE.
Grant, A. (2013). In the company of givers and takers. Harvard Business Review, 91, 90–97.
Gries, S. T. (2013). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2010). Visualizing threaded conversation
networks: Mining message boards and email lists for actionable insights. In A. An,
P. Lingras, S. Petty, & R. Huang (Eds.), Active media technology (pp. 47–62). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Helms, R., & Buijsrogge, K. (2005). Knowledge network analysis: A technique to analyze
knowledge management bottlenecks in organizations. In 16th International Workshop on
Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’05) (pp. 410–414). Copenhagen: IEEE.
Helms, R., & Buijsrogge, K. (2006). Application of knowledge network analysis to identify
knowledge sharing bottlenecks at an engineering firm. In Proceedings of the 14th European
Conference on Information Systems, G€ oteborg, Sweden.
Hildebrandt, A., Jäckle, S., Wolf, F., & Heindl, A. (2015). Methodologie, Methoden,
Forschungsdesign. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-
18993-2.
Holtzblatt, L., Drury, J., & Weiss, D. (2013). Evaluating the uses and benefits of an enterprise
social media platform. Journal of Social Media and Organ, 1, 1–21.
Koch, M., Richter, A., & Schlosser, A. (2007). Produkte zum IT-gestützten social networking in
unternehmen. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 49, 448–455.
Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the charts.
strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21, 154–164.
Lehner, F. (2014). Wissensmanagement. München: Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG.
McAfee, A. P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. MIT Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 47, 21–28.
McIver, D., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Ramachandran, I. (2012). Integrating
knowledge and knowing: A framework for understanding knowledge-in-practice. Human
Resource Management Review, 22, 86–99.
Newk-Fon Hey Tow, W., Venable, J., & Dell, P. (2012). How organisations know what they know:
A survey of knowledge identification methods among Australian organisations. In Proceedings
of the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Geelong, Australia.
Parise, S., Cross, R., & Davenport, T. H. (2006). Strategies for preventing a knowledge-loss crisis.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, 31–38.
Parise, S., Cross, R., & Davenport, T. H. (2005). It’s not what but who you know: How organiza-
tional network analysis can help address knowledge loss crises. Retrieved April 27, 2016, from
http://www.robcross.org/pdf/roundtable/lost_knowledge.pdf.
Perer, A., Guy, I., Uziel, E., Ronen, I. & Jacovi, M. (2011). Visual social network analytics for
relationship discovery in the enterprise. In VAST 2011—IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics
Science and Technology 2011, Proceedings (pp. 71–79). IEEE.
Probst, F., Grosswiele, L., & Pfleger, R. (2013). Who will lead and who will follow: Identifikation
einflussreicher Nutzer in Online Social Networks. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 55, 175–192.
Revelle, W. (2015). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research.
Retrieved April 27, 2016, from http://cran.r-project.org/package¼psych.
Richter, A. (2010). Der Einsatz von Social Networking Services in Unternehmen. Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
Richter, A, & Riemer, K. (2009). Corporate social networking sites—modes of use and appropri-
ation through co-evolution. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Informa-
tion Systems, Melbourne, Australia.
Richter, A., & Riemer, K. (2013). The contextual nature of enterprise social networking: A multi
case study comparison. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information
Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Riemer, K., & Scifleet, P. (2012). Enterprise social networking in knowledge-intensive work
practices: A case study in a professional service firm. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian
Conference on Information Systems, Geelong, Australia.
Rowe, M., & Alani, H. (2012). What makes communities tick? Community health analysis using
role compositions. In Proceedings—2012 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Privacy,
Security, Risk and Trust and 2012 ASE/IEEE International Conference on Social Computing,
SocialCom/PASSAT 2012 (pp. 267–276). IEEE.
Rowe, M., Fernandez, M., Angeletou, S., & Alani, H. (2013). Community analysis through
semantic rules and role composition derivation. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents
on the World Wide Web, 18, 31–47.
Sachs, L. (1978). Angewandte Statistik. Statistische Methoden und ihre Anwendungen.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Schendera, C. F. (2010). Clusteranalyse mit SPSS. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Web 2.0 and the empowerment of the knowledge worker. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13, 509–520.
Thom, J., Helsley, S., Matthews, T. L., Daly, E. M., & Millen, D. R. (2011). What are you working
on? Statusmessage Q&A in an enterprise SNS. In S. Bødker, N. O. Bouvin, V. Wulf, et al.
(Eds.), ECSCW2011: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (pp. 313–332). London: Springer.
Trier, M., & Richter, A. (2015). The deep structure of organizational online networking—an actor-
oriented case study. Information Systems Journal, 25, 465–488.
Viegas, F. B., & Smith, M. (2004). Newsgroup Crowds and AuthorLines: Visualizing the activity
of individuals in conversational cyberspaces. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI.
Viol, J., Bernsmann, R., & Riemer, K. (2015). Behavioural dimensions for discovering knowledge
actor roles utilising enterprise social network metrics. In Proceedings of the 26th Australasian
Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, Australia.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Welser, H. T., Gleave, E., Fisher, D., & Smith, M. A. (2007). Visualizing the signatures of social
roles in online discussion groups finding social roles in online discussion. Journal of Social
Structure, 8, 1–32.
Design and Implementation of Socially
Driven Knowledge Management Systems
for Revitalizing Endangered Languages
Asfahaan Mirza and David Sundaram
1 Background
Many linguists estimate that, if nothing is done, half of the 7000 plus languages
spoken today could disappear by the end of this century (Romaine, 2007). Krauss
(1992) suggests that only 600 or so languages may survive because they have
relatively large numbers of speakers (more than 100,000). Currently, languages
are disappearing at an alarming rate; Crystal (2002) estimated that an average of
one language every 2 weeks may disappear over the next 100 years. Harmon and
Loh (2010) suggest that many estimates for language endangerment are influenced
by Michael E. Krauss’s seminal 1992 language paper, as he estimated that 90% of
the worlds’ languages would disappear or become irreversibly moribund by 2100
(Krauss, 1992). Moribund languages are those languages that are spoken only by
adults who do not teach them to the next generation. However, Nettle and Romaine
(2000) and Crystal (2002) have a more optimistic estimate, that only 50% will be
extinct.
Revitalization of an endangered language first and foremost involves capturing,
curating and storing various language artifacts such as words, phrases, songs,
idioms, stories and dialects for future retrieval. This is followed by internalization
through dissemination and learning of the language. Two approaches that have the
potential to address these requirements in a complementary manner are knowledge
management (KM) and social media.
Knowledge management systems (KMS) facilitate key processes: creating, retriev-
ing, transferring, and applying knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). In the past decade,
significant developments in information technology have given birth to social media
platforms that allow one person to communicate with hundreds or even thousands at a
A. Mirza • D. Sundaram (*)

Department of Information Systems and Operations Management, University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
e-mail: asfahaan@mirzabros.com; d.sundaram@auckland.ac.nz

148 A. Mirza and D. Sundaram
time (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). A robust KMS is vital for the storage of the above
mentioned language artifacts and social networks are essential for capturing, curating
and disseminating the knowledge artifacts. Thus leveraging social media with KMS
(SKMS) would significantly assist in designing and implementing a system to help
revitalize endangered languages. The following sections introduce the key areas of
interest: language revitalization, social media and knowledge management.
1.1 Language Revitalization
In the linguistic community, the term dead or extinct language is commonly used to refer
to languages that have no living speakers. Leonard (2008) argues that the use of this
word is incorrect. Once a biological species becomes extinct it cannot return. But for
extinct languages, there is still hope that they can be revived. Leonard (2008) calls them
sleeping languages, as they can be awakened if some part of the population relearns the
language from documentation. Language revitalization is also referred to as Reversing
Language Shift (RLS) (Fishman, 1991). Language shift is the process by which an
individual or community language shifts from one language (generally their indigenous
language) to another language. Taking essential measures to counter language shift is
known as fostering language maintenance and/or language revitalization (Dwyer,
2011).
The linguistic diversity is an important part of human diversity. Language defines a
culture, through which people communicate. It is something which cannot be translated
or replaced by another language. Many endangered languages are oral cultures with
stories, songs, and histories passed on to younger generations without any written forms
(National Geographic, 2013). The loss of a language is a loss of a whole culture and
knowledge system including environmental, philosophical, music, oral literacy, medi-
cal, cultural practices and artistic skills (Hinton & Hale, 2001). Davenport and Prusak
(1998) state that knowledge exists within people, as part and parcel of human complex-
ity and unpredictability. In the subsequent section we explore the fundamentals of social
media and knowledge management systems.
1.2 Social Media
Social media refers to an interaction among individuals and groups where the parti-
cipants are involved in the creation, sharing and exchange of information, ideas and
data in a virtual community as well as networks. The role played by individuals
communicating in the past was not dynamic; the consumer audience and communica-
tor were distinct groups. At present the consumers actively create, publish, produce
and broadcast in the autonomous form that a platform facilitates (Lewis, 2010).
Social media relies on defining characteristics of interactions mediated by online
channels that have become a key tool to reach individuals and masses separated by
geographical and ideological divides (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Matthews, 2010).
Consequently, social media is profiled as the optimal tool to apply in modern
Design and Implementation of Socially Driven Knowledge Management Systems. . . 149
communications and interactions where private characteristics are used as critical

variables. Conversely, social media can be a source of miscommunication that may
hurt the society or individuals. Slander, for instance, is potentially harmful; a
common feature that impinges on the democratization and uncensored nature of
social media communication (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011).
The key strength of social media is in its interactivity and simplicity to generate
content. Having defined social media, we will now move on to discuss the key
aspects of knowledge management.
1.3 Knowledge Management
Knowledge consists of the tacit and explicit actionable capabilities required to reason
and deal intelligently and effectively with situations (Wiig, 2006). Knowledge can be:
personal, shared among people, embedded in artifacts, or be part of an organization’s
or society’s makeup and culture. Information is converted to knowledge once it is
processed by people in their minds, and knowledge becomes information once it is
stored in the form of text, graphics, words, or other symbolic forms (Alavi & Leidner,
2001). People are society’s basic knowledge agents.
Knowledge Management (KM) is defined as creating value by leveraging intangi-
ble assets (Setiawan Assegaff & Dahlan, 2013). KM is underpinned by the manage-
ment of interaction among knowledge agents and information (Hansen, Nohria, &
Tierney, 1999). Knowledge is incremental upon usage, is virtually inexhaustible and is
acquired through social means by leveraging the management process through infor-
mation technology (Sharratt & Usoro, 2003). Knowledge Management Systems
(KMS) are used to support the creation, transfer, and application of knowledge in
organizations and communities (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Moreover, according to
Qwaider (2011), KMS facilitate key processes and paradigms that collude towards
creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and utilizing of knowledge, skills or expertise.
While social media is used to create content, it is rarely integrated into the
different facets of KMS. In the following section, we discuss the advantages of
applying social media through KMS at a societal level.
1.4 Leveraging Social Media for Knowledge Management
The core purpose of integrating social media with KMS (SKMS) is to leverage active
audiences (communities/society) which create, publish, produce and broadcast content
(knowledge in this regard) over a platform. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) proposed the
SECI process of creating knowledge through the conversion of tacit into explicit
knowledge. The four distinct modes of knowledge conversion and the evolving spiral
movement of knowledge through the SECI process are Socialization, Externalization,
Combination and Internalization. Information technology frameworks aid in the cap-
ture, refinement, retrieval and distribution of knowledge by employing the SECI model
as an optimized protocol (Nonaka, Takeuchi, & Umemoto, 1996). SKMS can facilitate
connectivity of communities beyond geographical and cultural barriers, as well as

presentation of knowledge in an understandable way bound by timeliness, security
and integrity (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Hansen et al., 1999).
Communities geared for leveraging SKMS are segmented based on purpose and
type of knowledge to be created and subsequently shared. Societal integration is
developed through the commonality of ideas and proponents made possible by
superseding geographical and ideological barriers in a social media environment
(Ellison, Lampe, & Steinfield, 2009). Consequently, ideas can be pooled together for
the common good of society. Moreover information disbursement to the masses is
made easier and more effective (Baruah, 2012).
Furthermore, the orientation of social media platforms according to type of
content (knowledge) complements such user-specific sharing practices by availing
the community of knowledge circumventing specific knowledge areas (Lewis, 2010;
Matthews, 2010). For example, Delicious and Digg are bookmark-oriented while
Vimeo and YouTube are video based, and Facebook and Twitter are post oriented.
This aggregation of community and platform orientation within social media plays a
central role in knowledge management.
While social media is used to exchange information and ideas in virtual communities
and networks, KMS in the past have predominately been used in an organizational
context. The focus of this research is on leveraging the strengths of social media and
KMS to preserve, curate, transmit, discover and revitalize endangered languages at a
societal level (Fig. 1). During the project we included endangered language stakeholders
and native language speakers as advisors.
Further to our discussion on the potential of SKMS for endangered languages, the
rest of the chapter develops as follows: In Sect. 2 we explore strengths and weaknesses
of existing approaches and systems for revitalizing endangered languages. Subse-
quently, Sect. 3 discusses the design artifacts of SKMS to preserve and revitalize
endangered languages. Section 4 explains the implementation of SKMS to revitalize,
use, develop, and transmit the indigenous language of Te Reo Māori for future
generations, followed by conclusion.
Fig. 1 Research focus—

SKMS for endangered
languages
Social Media
SKMS for Endangered Languages
Knowledge
Endangered
Management
Languages
Systems
2 Existing Systems for Revitalizing Endangered Languages
To revitalize a language, mere knowledge documentation is not sufficient. It is

necessary to adopt or develop techniques for disseminating it to the community
(Goodfellow, 2009). Doing this is highly dependent on teaching and facilitating the
usage of the language, especially among digital natives (Yang & Rau, 2005).
However, if a language has potential to disappear (i.e. when few children and
young adults speak the language), it is critical to create a knowledge repository.
Today the world is witnessing a tremendous increase in the adoption of social
media and ubiquitous devices (UD). These devices include advanced functionality
beyond making phone calls and sending text messages. Most UD have basic function-
ality like: high quality image capture, audio-video recording and streaming, e-mail,
and Internet access. These capabilities can be exploited to capture knowledge snippets
as close to the source as possible. For example, users can be empowered to capture and
share their high-quality audio video recording of their endangered language within a
system. If a holistic socially driven approach is employed among the indigenous
population, then the workload of language revitalization is distributed.
There are two foundational streams of research that underpin this work, namely
knowledge management and language revitalization. To support these two streams,
we have used the seminal articles by Alavi and Leidner (2001) and Hinton and Hale
(2001) respectively. Qwaider (2011) demonstrates how ubiquitous technology can
be leveraged for language preservation and learning. Figure 2 illustrates the synthesized
model of socially driven KMS processes for language revitalization that leverages
concepts from Alavi and Leidner (2001), Hinton and Hale (2001) and Qwaider (2011).
The key processes for socially driven KMS for language revitalization include:
(1) Capture anytime anywhere in multiple formats including text, image, audio, and
video; (2) Curate information by distributed content governance to ensure knowledge
integrity; (3) Access knowledge base without any geographical boundaries; (4) Share
information instantly and remotely; (5) Collaborate with the wider society to engage in
common objectives, and (6) Apply by learning and using the knowledge.
Most endangered languages currently lack presence in digital and social spaces.
Currently there are limited endangered language revitalization systems available.
Fig. 2 Socially driven KMS

Access Share
processes for language
revitalization
Curate Collaborate
Capture
Language Apply
Revitalization
152
Table 1 Existing systems available for revitalizing endangered languages

Functionality
Capture Capture Capture Curation User Audio Dialect Progress Leader Social
Systems audio video images process feedback playback Learning Dictionary Translator support tracking Assessments Gamification board media
DIXEL N N N N N Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N
Mobile
Duolingo Y N N N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y
Go Vocab N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y
Hika N N N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N N
Explorer
iPhraseBook N N N N N Y Y N Y N Y N N N N
MindSnacks N N N N N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N
Ma Iwaidja Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N
Memo Cards N N N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
Spanish 24/7 N N N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N
Touch N N N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N
Trainer
Spanish! N N N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N
myLanguage N N N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N N N
Pro
Tusaalanga Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N
A. Mirza and D. Sundaram
These systems do not allow individuals or communities to holistically carry out key
SKMS processes such as capturing, sharing, accessing and multiple user collabora-
tion. Table 1 synthesizes the existing systems available for language preservation and
learning. It is evident that none of the systems support a holistic knowledge capture
and refinement process. The systems are mainly focused on language learning of
documented words and phrases with audio playback (e.g. Go Vocab, Hika Explorer,
Duo Lingo). Only two systems allow data capture but do not facilitate any form of
curation (e.g. Ma!iwaidja, Duo Lingo). Few systems support limited social media
integration or user interaction. Additionally, none of the systems facilitate support for
multiple dialects and socially driven curation processes for user-documented infor-
mation (e.g. Google Endangered Voices). Moreover, current systems do not allow
seamless integration between one another. Hence, we propose designing an integrated
system that supports key processes of language revitalization.
In summary, current systems support different aspects of language revitalization in a
siloed manner, with isolated repositories of words, poetry, and imagery, that does not
lend itself to holistic governance, discovery and usage. This lack of integration could
contribute ultimately to the death of a language since there is no context to understand,
discover and learn the endangered language. Consequently, in the next section we
propose the design of SKMS that provides a socially driven approach to knowledge
acquisition/capture, knowledge refinement/curating, sharing and retrieval of an
endangered language by its speakers.
3 Design of SKMS for Endangered Languages
Language plays an important role in every aspect and interaction in our everyday
lives. It is the primary root that allows communication among people in various
forms such as in person, writing, over the phone, chatting on the Internet, Facebook,
etc. McCarthy (1933) defines language as a medium by which higher intellectual
processes are revealed. It is an essential means of social communication and is one of
the outstanding systems of habits which distinguish man from animals. Languages
are very complex as they employ grammatical and semantic groupings, such as noun
and verb, present and past tense, which are used to express complex meanings
(Deacon, 1998). The proposed design of SKMS for Endangered Languages focuses
on the key aspects related to saving endangered languages rather than focusing on
the richness and complexity of ‘knowledge’ associated within a language. Never-
theless, the system will cater for words, phrases, poems, idioms, and stories;
including synonyms and multiple dialects.
Design science research (DSR) methodology and guidelines are adopted to
develop concepts, models, processes, framework and architecture of SKMS for
revitalizing endangered languages (Baskerville, 2008; Hevner, March, Park, &
Ram, 2004; Nunamaker & Chen, 1990; Nunamaker, Chen, & Purdin, 1990). The
guidelines assist in the iterative process of designing various artifacts to address
practical problems (Hevner et al., 2004; Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, &
Chatterjee, 2007).
CREATE REFINE RETRIEVE SHARE
Capture words, phrases, Curate captured Discover Share knowledge

idioms, stories and songs records – approve, and learn words, through social networks
as text, audio, image or reject or modify phrases, idioms, to prompt use of
video in different dialects stories and songs language
Fig. 3 Holistic SKMS approach for endangered language revitalization
The SKMS for endangered languages will support three crucial processes: (1) Knowl-
edge acquisition/capture—to capture words, phrases, poems, idioms, and stories as text,
audio, images, and video in multiple dialects through crowd-sourcing mechanisms;
(2) Knowledge refinement/curation—to filter and approve captured content through
leveraging the wisdom of the crowd, and (3) Sharing and retrieval of knowledge
contextually using ubiquitous smart devices—to encourage the use of endangered
languages in daily life.
3.1 Concept
This research employs a model of holistic, socially driven KMS to revitalize endangered
languages, as illustrated in Fig. 3. This model is a synthesis of concepts from knowledge
management and language revitalization literature (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Hinton &
Hale, 2001; Nonaka et al., 1996; Romaine, 2007). It has four key stages: create, refine,
retrieve and share. The create stage involves allowing communities to create/capture
words, phrases, idioms, stories and songs in multiple formats including text, image and
video. The refine stage involves a crowd-sourced panel of language experts moderating
and refining the captured data. The retrieve stage will facilitate the wider society to
retrieve knowledge from the dynamic repository. Lastly, the share stage enables
knowledge to be disseminated through social media among the community to help
promote the use of language.
3.2 Use Case
To help design SKMS for endangered languages, a high-level use case model
shown in Fig. 4 presents a graphical overview of the key functions (use cases)
provided by each of the systems (SKMS mobile application, SKMS web server and
Google Play). It also describes the relationships/interdependencies between the
actors and the proposed system. Each user of the proposed SKMS mobile applica-
tion will have role-based access (standard user, expert and editor/moderator).
Fig. 4 Use case models of the SKMS
3.3 Framework
The generic design elements that make up the Framework of SKMS for endangered
languages are depicted in Fig. 5. These elements will help promote reuse of artifacts
for multiple endangered languages. The artifacts are key outputs of design science
research (Hevner et al., 2004; Nunamaker et al., 1990). The first six layers of the
SKMS framework are generic and well understood in research. However, applying
this to language revitalization is novel.
Ninety percent of the artifacts, including concepts, models, processes, frame-
work, architecture and system, are independent of the language. This will reduce
overheads and time taken to implement a similar instance for other endangered
languages.
Only language specific changes will be required for the system user interfaces.
Implementing and validating the system in multiple languages will assist in identifying
any implications associated with cross-language implementation. This will be an itera-
tive process to refine the artifacts.
Fig. 5 SKMS Framework for revitalizing endangered languages
Fig. 6 Governance process
3.4 Process
The key asset of the SKMS is the knowledge it contains. To maintain the data quality
of the SKMS, we need to maintain the state of each record. Each record within the
system has multiple states, depicted as rectangles in Fig. 6. The initial state of a
record is Captured. The record is considered Curated when two or more experts
approve it. Until the second expert validates it, the record is still private to the
contributor and available to the expert for curation. Once approved it becomes
Discoverable to the wider audience, or it is defined as a Rejected record.
In the subsequent section, we will discuss the implementation of the SKMS
concepts, use cases, framework, and process proposed herein.
4 Implementation of SKMS for Endangered Languages
In this section we will describe the prototypical implementation of a socially driven

KMS to revitalize Te Reo Māori.
The SKMS is built for mobile devices and we have named it as “Save Lingo”.
Save Lingo extends upon fundamentals from Social Media (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010; Kietzmann et al., 2011) and KMS (Alavi & Leidner, 2001) to create a highly
interactive platform through which individuals and communities share, co-create,
and modify user-generated content. Save Lingo will help increase societal engage-
ment to give birth to a living knowledge base for the dissemination and revitaliza-
tion of indigenous knowledge, values and culture.
Te Reo Māori (Māori language) is the native language of the Māori population in
New Zealand. Before the European settlers arrived (1800s), Māori was the only
spoken language of New Zealand. The dramatic decline of Māori speakers was
observed in the 1980s, when less than 20% of Māori population were fluent enough
to be classified as native speakers (Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2012). Since
1987 Te Reo has been an official language of New Zealand. Despite 30 years of
Māori language revitalization initiatives, the language continues to be in an endangered
state (Rewi & Rawinia, 2011) and English continues to be the default language for
many Māori. This is confirmed by a recent census: the number of Māori speakers has
declined further since 2003 (Statistics New Zealand, 2013).
Language revitalization efforts are focused on introducing the language into
everyday situations and broadening the cultural base of speakers. Hence, the proposed
SKMS (Save Lingo) could play a vital role in revitalizing endangered languages. The
implementation is built on the design artifacts described in the previous section. The
SKMS is built explicitly using a hands-off architecture that simultaneously empowers
the community to adapt and configure the system to their requirements. This section
describes and discusses key areas of the SKMS, which are (1) Knowledge Worker/
User personalization and registration, (2) Knowledge Acquisition/Capture to facilitate
creating content in various formats, (3) Knowledge Refinement/Curation for content
governance to support and administer the growth and evolution of their knowledge
repository, (4) Knowledge Retrieval/Discovery by the wider community to retrieve
data from the repository, (5) Knowledge Sharing/Transmission to encourage use of
language within the society, (6) Social Gamification to enhance user engagement and
competition for the benefit of the language and lastly (7) Adoption Challenges that
could be encountered when implementing SKMS for revitalizing endangered languages.
4.1 Knowledge Worker/User Personalization
Social media has become a trusted platform for maintaining relationships between
friends, family, colleagues and communities at large. Each person creates their
personalized digital identities to communicate their views with freedom on a
social media platform (Begay, 2013). The Save Lingo app builds on social media
fundamentals (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), offering users the chance to upload their
own photo/avatar, select their tribe and dialect, location, and/or link their account with
their Google+ profile. The viral nature of social networks will help promote the
endangered language within the networks. The registration process and personalization
workflow is discussed below.
When a user first opens Save Lingo app, he/she will be prompted with a login
screen, as shown in Fig. 7: [1]. The user has the ability to seamlessly authenticate and
sign in using their Google+ username and password as shown in Fig. 7: [2], instead of
creating a new username and password. This also allows users to control the informa-
tion they want to share with Save Lingo app and control what activities should be
shared among their Google+ social networks. Once the user is authenticated they will
be taken to Fig. 7: [3] Register New User screen, which will be prepopulated with
information retrieved from their Google+ profile (First Name, Last Name, Profile
Image, and Location) to minimize data entry. If the user does not have an existing
Google+ account, they will select “Register User”, which will open Fig. 7: [3] Register
New User screen.
Figure 7: [3] Register New User screen gathers information about the user
including first name, last name, profile image, tribe (Fig. 7: [4]), email, nearest
location (Fig. 7: [5]), role, and password. The user will select Submit Now to
register their account. Once the user successfully logs into the system, the user
views the logged in view as shown in Fig. 7: [6]. The main menu shown in Fig. 7:
Fig. 7 User registration and personalization workflow

[6] provides easy navigation to key modules including discover, capture, curate, my
records, my bookmarks, my profile, leaderboard, achievements, sync and logout.
The user personalization aspects within Save Lingo app will enable knowledge
workers to personalize their identity, growing relationships and reputation within
the community. We will now discuss the workflow of knowledge acquisition in
multiple formats, including text, image, audio, and video using Save Lingo app.
4.2 Knowledge Acquisition/Capture
Documenting and translating a language can be challenging and expensive (Gippert,

Himmelmann, & Mosel, 2006). The approach taken complements the language
documentation techniques and formats described by Johnson (2004) and Gippert
et al. (2006). The deployment of Save Lingo app on ubiquitous devices enables data
capture anytime anywhere, not only reducing costs but also empowering people of
different tribes, dialects ages and gender to collectively contribute towards preserv-
ing their language. The internalization of newly captured explicit knowledge into the
wider community’s tacit knowledge can be difficult. However, creating necessary
learning components will enable individuals to learn by using the language in
daily life.
Knowledge acquisition initiates the holistic socially driven approach towards
revitalizing endangered languages as illustrated in Fig. 3. In the “Capture” area as
shown in Fig. 8, the user will have the ability to capture knowledge about their
language and culture as words, phrases, idioms, stories and songs in multiple
formats including text, image and video.
Firstly, the user selects the type of content they want to capture: word, phrase,
story, song or idiom; for example “Word” as shown in Fig. 8: [1]. Once the
selection is made, the category list is displayed as shown in Fig. 8: [2]. Selecting
the most appropriate category is important to ensure easy retrieval of records. The
Fig. 8 Knowledge acquisition/capture workflow

Capture Word screen (Fig. 8: [3]) allows the user to enter the Māori word and
English word as textual inputs and select an appropriate Dialect. Similar input fields
are displayed for entering phrases and idioms. However, for story and song,
additional input fields are displayed to allow the user to add larger amounts of
textual content.
Save Lingo app facilitates knowledge acquisition in multimedia formats, leveraging
media capabilities of ubiquitous devices. For instance, the user can attach an image (see:
Fig. 8: [4]) using their camera or select an existing image from their device gallery. The
user has the ability to record their voice or an existing audio file on their device. The Play
button allows the user to review their content prior to submission. Furthermore, the user
has the facility to capture video or provide a direct URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of
the video. Once the data has been captured, the user can either select Submit Now for
immediate submission or Submit Later to locally store the record.
In summary, knowledge acquisition is not merely for the sake of preserving a
language, but also to help empower and educate the language users. Prior to dissem-
inating the knowledge, we need to ensure knowledge is curated. This is discussed in the
next section.
4.3 Knowledge Refinement/Curation
Content governance is vital in the context of endangered languages, to ensure the

authenticity of the knowledge repository. The implemented governance structure
aims to tackle issues related to KMS maintenance: balancing additional workload
and ensuring accurate content Hahn and Subramani (2000). The governance is
facilitated in the “Curate” area as shown in Fig. 9. The users with expert or editor
role will have the ability to moderate words, phrases, idioms, stories and songs,
including image, audio and video created by standard users. The Curate tab in
Fig. 9: [1] displays the number of records that need to be curated.
Firstly, the moderator has to select the type of record they want to curate, for
example Phrases in the examples shown in Fig. 9: [1]. On selection, the list of
records pending moderation is displayed (Fig. 9: [2]). Below each record, icons
(audio, image, video, synonyms) are displayed to indicate the related records that
need to be curated. Once the record is selected, the detailed view of the captured
content is displayed, as shown in Fig. 9: [3].
The moderator can approve, reject or modify each record. If Modify is selected,
Modify popup appears (Fig. 9: [4]), allowing the user to refine the record prior to
approving it. If Reject is selected, Reject Confirmation as shown in Fig. 9: [5] appears,
prompting the user to enter the reason for rejecting the record. If Approve is selected,
Approval Confirmation popup (Fig. 9: [6]) appears to ensure the record is accurate.
The business rules for dissemination of records are based on the Fig. 6 state transitions
of records within SKMS.
The process of content governance is an ongoing effort to ensure authenticity of
the knowledge captured. Save Lingo app enables this task to be distributed among
Fig. 9 Knowledge/refinement/curation workflow
language experts in the society. We will now explore how the wider community
accesses the curated records from Save Lingo app.
4.4 Knowledge Retrieval/Discovery
Knowledge captured and curated socially can be retrieved using the Discover tab as
shown in Fig. 10: [1]. Save Lingo app facilitates the wider community to access and
learn their language anytime anywhere. This complements the existing knowledge
retrieval process described by Alavi and Leidner (2001). The user can choose the
type of content (e.g. “Phrases” as shown in Fig. 10: [1]) followed by the category
that they want to explore (Fig. 10: [2]). On selection, lists of phrases are displayed
as shown in Fig. 10: [3]. Below each record, a number of associated synonyms,
audio, images, videos and likes are displayed to indicate social activity. Once the
record is selected, the detailed view is shown (Fig. 10: [4]).
The action bar highlighted in Fig. 10: [5] allows user to Bookmark, Share, Like
or Play the record. Numbers of likes indicate the popularity and quality of the
record based on social feedback. Moreover, it is a method to acknowledge the
contributor’s effort to help revitalize the language. The textual content appears in
Māori first, followed by English translation as shown in Fig. 10: [6]. Images are a
powerful means of expression and communication. Languages are not just the
words that are spoken but are also the cultural heritage embedded within. Curated
images are displayed in a slideshow control as shown in Fig. 10: [7], adding context
to the textual information.
Fig. 10 Knowledge retrieval/discovery workflow
The knowledge contributor’s authorship is acknowledged by displaying their profile

(name, avatar, tribe, region and dialect) below each record they contributed as shown in
Fig. 10: [8]. The associated records such as synonyms, audio recordings, images, and
videos are accessible by their respective tabs as shown in Fig. 10: [9–12]. Additionally,
the user has the ability to capture related content within the detailed view. Subsequent to
knowledge retrieval; the user has the ability to share knowledge among the society.
4.5 Knowledge Sharing/Transmission
One of the fundamental processes in knowledge management is to share/transfer

knowledge among the network of users. This is built on knowledge sharing fund-
amentals highlighted by Sharratt and Usoro (2003). Save Lingo app enables users to
share via popular social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter or other
compatible 3rd party applications as shown in Fig. 11. Sharing knowledge among the
community helps promote the use of language.
Sharing knowledge via mainstream social media platforms will help promote
awareness of the language and the Save Lingo app within the wider social network.
However, not all audiences may be interested, which is generally the case for
Fig. 11 Knowledge sharing/transmission workflow
content available on social media platforms. Wider social network users can sign up
and contribute to the language by accessing the Save Lingo app.
4.6 Knowledge Management Through Social Gamification
One might have the most beautiful and functional system in the world but it is
totally useless if it doesn’t get used, doesn’t engage with users, or if it is not usable.
We believe that gamification is a way to attract people, especially digital natives, to
start using the system. Of even more importance is to hold their engagement so that
they continue to use the system.
Gamification is defined as “the process of game-thinking and game mechanics to
engage users and solve problems” (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). In contrast to
traditional language revitalization systems, we have taken a different approach by
weaving gamification throughout all processes of Save Lingo app: capture, curate,
discover and share. The gamification features will help improve social engagement
among users. Moreover, this addresses the problems raised by Hahn and Subramani
(2000) of providing motivation and incentives for users to continue maintaining
the SKMS.
Gamification features are implemented using Google Play Game Services (Google,
2015). The user receives points when they contribute towards the knowledge manage-
ment of the system. These points are totaled to calculate their leaderboard score and
award achievement badges.
Fig. 12 Leaderboard and achievements
If new record submitted ¼ 5 points

If synonym or image or audio or video added ¼ 2 points
If content is approved or rejected ¼ 2 points
If content is modified/corrected ¼ 5 points
The leaderboard shown in Fig. 12: [2], helps drive user engagement by allowing
users to compare their scores (contributions) with their social network. Moreover, it
allows them to see their public ranking among the wider community. The users are
awarded achievement badges on reaching a certain milestone as shown in Fig. 12:
[3]. The achievements can be configured in the Google Play Developer console
panel. Achievements are created to encourage users to experiment with key features
of the app, for example, capturing a word or an image. Incremental achievements
are given when the user makes gradual progress towards earning the achievement
over a longer period of time; for example, capturing 20 records into the repository.
4.7 Adoption Challenges
There are practical challenges to implementing SKMS for revitalizing endangered

languages. A key challenge could be the demographics associated with endangered
languages, which tend to be statistically skewed towards older adults. However for
Te Reo Māori, 49.6% who could hold a conversation in Te Reo Māori are below
30 years and 50.4% are over 30 years (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). Balanced
distribution between the various age groups can support the uptake of SKMS for Te
Reo Māori. On the other hand, for many other endangered languages, the group that
is most knowledgeable about the language may be the same group that is less likely
to use social media. This could potentially lead to an adoption problem, if not used
by elderly knowledgeable speakers.
In summary, we have discussed the key areas within the implementation of socially
driven KMS for revitalizing endangered languages. The prototype, Save Lingo app
was implemented to help revitalize Te Reo Māori. The solution enables communities
to take advantage of social media and KMS to preserve, curate, discover, transmit and
revitalize endangered languages.
5 Conclusion
In conclusion, the rapid disappearance of vital knowledge and culture embedded within
each language, as well as the limitation of current systems and approaches, motivated
the primary objective to design and implement a SKMS for endangered languages. We
propose a new type of knowledge management system that is driven and supported by
social media. We apply the concept of SKMS for the capturing, curating, accessing,
sharing, collaborating and ultimately revitalizing of endangered languages. We delve
into such SKMS and show how social media can be used to support key facets and
processes of knowledge management. The three crucial processes that are supported
include: (1) Knowledge acquisition/capture through crowd-sourcing mechanisms;
(2) Knowledge refinement/curation through leveraging the wisdom of the crowd;
(3) Sharing and retrieval of knowledge contextually using ubiquitous smart devices,
and (4) Knowledge management through social gamification.
More specifically, we began by looking at the strengths of social media and
knowledge management systems. Subsequently we reviewed representative lan-
guage preservation and learning systems. Based on these we proposed socially
driven knowledge management concepts, models, processes and frameworks to
help preserve and revitalize endangered languages. We further go on to describe the
implementation of the proposed concepts, models, processes and frameworks in the
context of Te Reo Māori, an endangered language.
We have included endangered language stakeholders and native language speakers
as advisors. Moreover, we have presented this research to the Māori Language Com-
mission of New Zealand with positive and useful feedback. Initial pilot testing of
functionality, usability, response, performance and supportability, has been conducted
through a number of iterations. We are in the process of conducting wider evaluation to
gather empirical evidence for the effectiveness of SKMS for Te Reo Māori and other
endangered languages.
Save Lingo’s framework, architecture, functionality and implementation is easily
portable and can support the revitalization of other endangered languages. Indeed,
the system can also support the cultural preservation of mainstream languages.
These conceptual and system artifacts could potentially lead to a fundamental shift
in how communities could use socially driven knowledge management systems to
revitalize, use, develop, and transmit their native language to future generations.
Nevertheless, we believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg and that SKMS has the
potential to transform the way we work, play and live.
References
ment systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136.
Assegaff, S., Che Hussin, A. R., & Dahlan, H. M. (2013). Knowledge management system as
enabler for knowledge management practices in virtual communities. IJCSI International
Journal of Computer Science Issues, 10(1), 685–688.
Baruah, T. D. (2012). Effectiveness of social media as a tool of communication and its potential for
technology enabled connections: A micro level study. International Journal of Scientific and
Research Publications, 2, 5.
Baskerville, R. (2008). What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems, 17,
441–443.
Begay, W. R. (2013). Mobile apps and indigenous language learning: New developments in the
field of indigenous language revitalization. Thesis, The University of Arizona. Retrieved from
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/293746#.
Crystal, D. (2002). Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Deacon, T. W. (1998). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain.
New York: WW Norton & Company.
Dwyer, A. M. (2011). Tools and techniques for endangered-language assessment and revitalization.
Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Steinfield, C. (2009). Social network sites and society: Current trends
and future possibilities. Interactions, 16, 6–9.
Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance
to threatened language.
Gippert, J., Himmelmann, N. P., & Mosel, U. (2006). Essentials of language documentation.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Goodfellow, A. M. (2009). Speaking of endangered languages: Issues in revitalization. Newcastle
upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Google. (2015). Google play game services—Google developers. https://developers.google.com/
games/services/. Retrieved January 18, 2015.
Hahn, J., & Subramani, M. R. (2000). A framework of knowledge management systems: Issues
and challenges for theory and practice. In Proceedings of the Twenty First International
Conference on Information Systems (pp. 302–312). Association for Information Systems.
Harmon, D., & Loh, J. (2010). The index of linguistic diversity: A new quantitative measure of
trends in the status of the world’s languages.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems
research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 75–105.
Hinton, L., & Hale, K. L. (2001). The green book of language revitalization in practice. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Johnson, H. (2004). Language documentation and archiving, or how to build a better corpus.
Language Documentation and Description, 2, 1–13.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54,
241–251. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005.
Krauss, M. (1992). The world’s languages in crisis. Language (Baltim), 68, 4–10.
Leonard, W. Y. (2008). When is an “extinct language” not extinct. In Sustaining linguistic
diversity: Endangered and minority languages and language varieties (pp. 23–33).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lewis, M., & Simons, G. (2010). Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue
Roumaine de Linguistique, 55(2), 103–120. Retrieved from http://www-01.sil.org/~simonsg/
local/RRL-02-2010-Lewis.pdf.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion
mix. Business Horizons, 52, 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002.
Matthews, L. (2010). Social media and the evolution of corporate communications. Elon Journal
of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 1, 17–23.
McCarthy, D. (1933). Language development. In A handbook of child psychology (2nd rev. ed.,
Vol. 1, pp. 329–373). New York, NY: Russell & Russell/Atheneum Publishers.
Ministry for Culture and Heritage. (2012). History of the Maori language—Te Wiki o Te Reo
Maori. Retrieved May 11, 2013, from http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/maori-language-
week/history-of-the-maori-language.
National Geographic. (2013). Enduring voices project—National Geographic. Retrieved July
29, 2013, from http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/enduring-voices/.
Nettle, D., & Romaine, S. (2000). Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., & Umemoto, K. (1996). A theory of organizational knowledge creation.
International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 833–845.
Nunamaker, J. F. Jr., & Chen, M. (1990). Systems development in information systems research.
In System Sciences, 1990, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International
Conference on IEEE (pp. 631–640).
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. M. (1990). Systems development in information
systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3, 89–106.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research
methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems,
24, 45–77.
Qwaider, W. Q. (2011). Integrated of knowledge management and E-learning system. Interna-
tional Journal of Hybrid Information Technology, 4, 59–70.
Rewi, P., & Rawinia, H. (2011). He rito whakakı̄nga whārua: Language value and development in
communities|Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga. In Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga. Retrieved June
20, 2015, from http://www.maramatanga.co.nz/project/he-rito-whakak%C4%ABnga-wh%
C4%81rua-language-value-and-development-communities.
Romaine, S. (2007). Preserving endangered languages. Lang Linguist Compass, 1, 115–132.
Sharratt, M., & Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of
practice. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 1, 187–196.
Statistics New Zealand. (2013). 2013 Census QuickStats about Māori—Statistics New Zealand.
Wiig, K. M. (2006). Societal knowledge management in the globalised economy. International
Journal of Advanced Media and Communication, 1, 172–192.
Yang, M. C., & Rau, D. V. (2005). An integrated framework for archiving, processing and
developing learning materials for an endangered aboriginal language in Taiwan. In V. Rau
& M. Florey (Eds.), 1st Symposium on Asian Language Resources Network (ALRN). Jeju
Island, Korea.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechan-
ics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.

2017 Book SocialKnowledgeManagementInAct

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

2017 Book SocialKnowledgeManagementInAct

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning 3

Jurriaan van Reijsen

ISSN 2199-8663 ISSN 2199-8671 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017930806

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

based codification and human-based personalization. In particular, the second

Padova, Italy Ettore Bolisani

Social Media and Knowledge Management: A Perfect Couple . . . . . . . . 1

Part I Enterprise Social Networks for Knowledge Management:

Part II Managing the Implementation of KM: Identifying What Works

Part III Frontiers for Social Knowledge Management

Edward W.N. Bernroider Institute for Information Management and Control

Mohammadbashir Sedighi Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management,

Remko Helms, Jocelyn Cranefield, and Jurriaan van Reijsen

With the emergence of Social Media there is a revival going on in Knowledge

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

2 Emergence of Knowledge Management Discipline

3 Struggling to Keep Knowledge Management

Since the 1990s, organizations have been implementing knowledge management

4 Social Media Is Re-energizing Knowledge Management

characterize the potential of social media to support knowledge management in

4.1 Social Networking

4.4 Social Bookmarking

knowledge discovery. Through social bookmarking, users might find interesting

4.5 Media Sharing

5 Beyond the Codification and Socialization Approach

5.1 Digital Traces on Social Media a Source of Knowledge

5.2 Introducing the Crowd to Organizational Knowledge

A further development in knowledge management that has been driven by social

5.3 Complementary Approaches to Knowledge Management

6 Social Knowledge Management in Action: Book Overview

7 A Bright Future Ahead

While the chapters in this book provide an overview of contemporary research of

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017 17

organizational may be one reason for knowledge management initiatives to fail

2 Perspectives on Knowledge and Implications

2.1 Possession Perspective: Knowledge as an Object

According to the epistemology of possession, knowledge is considered as an object,

Implications for the

Fig. 1 Implications of the perspective on knowledge (own illustration)

2.2 Practice Perspective: Knowledge as a Practice

Table 1. Comparison of knowledge perspectives

• Develop enabling contexts: This dimension focuses on the development of an

In summary, knowledge, or rather knowledge work, is managed by aligning

4 Enterprise Social Networks

platform administrators. According to Behrendt et al. (2014a) the accumulated ESN

5 Using Enterprise Social Networks to Manage

5.1 Developing an Enabling Context

According to Newell et al. (2009), organizations need to develop enabling contexts,

• Context awareness: ESN make previously invisible communication visible and

Table 3. ESN as an enabler of knowledge work

Table 3 describes how specific ESN features support the development of

5.2 Understanding Knowledge Processes

Besides developing enabling contexts, understanding the processes and practices

• Creation of new knowledge: This process is understood as the initiation of

i.e. communicating with external sources of information. While vertical bound-

Table 4. Knowledge processes on ESN

As shown in Fig. 3, ESN can help develop enabling contexts by increasing

Mohammadbashir Sedighi and Mohammad T. Isaai

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017 39

2 Knowledge Sharing Through ESM