“Intranet 2.0 Based Knowledge Production”

Doris Riedl and Fritz Betz (2012). “Intranet 2.0 Based Knowledge Production”. In: eKNOW 2012, The Fourth International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management. Valencia, Spain: International Academy, Research and Industry Association (IARIA), pp. 1–6.
url: http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=eknow_20 12_1_10_60020

Abstract

The evolution of static intranets to dynamic web 2.0 based information systems is one way to provide space for the collaborative production of knowledge within an enterprise. Despite the fact that social software is now commonly provided for intra-company usage, this usage is below expectations in many cases. This paper, based on an exploratory case study in an international bank, shows the drawbacks as well as the drivers for the participative generation of knowledge using web 2.0 tools within an intranet. The findings, against the background of recent technology-oriented research, are three groups of possible barriers which are intertwined and therefore influence each other, namely organisational, cultural and technological barriers. Above all, the results of the case study suggest it is less meaningful to discuss if and how social software may or may not change organisations but to interpret the findings in a social science-based framework by taking the work of Boltanski & Chiapello and their understanding of the new forms of work organisation into consideration. This interpretation, while preliminary, suggests that employees using Web 2.0 software for knowledge production struggle with the ambiguity between the demands of these new forms of work and the existing, traditional organisational structures.

Review

Riedl and Betz, 2012: “Intranet 2.0 Based Knowledge Production” is an excellent paper on barriers commonly observed in Enterprise 2.0 implementation projects. The authors did only one case study, but their findings sound reasonable and also are in line with other research on the topic.

They start off by stating that many Enterprise 2.0 projects seem to fall short in usage and do not meet the expectations. The interesting turn in their paper is that they mainly focus on cultural and organisational barriers, and not so much on technology. It is also the only paper I read recently that refers to SLATES (Search, Links, Authorship, Tags, Extensons, Signal - see McAfee, 2006: “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration”) and FLATNESSES (Freeform, Links, Authorship, Tagging, Network-oriented, Extensions, Search, Social, Emergence, Signals - see Hinchcliffe, 2007: "The state of Enterprise 2.0"). With Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005: “The New Spirit of Capitalism” they argue that “a new network-based form of organisation came into existence” and continue that this “new form of work organisation is founded on employee initiative and work autonomy”. They explain that this new approach to work “means self-fulfillment as a strategy to mobilise labour”. I think this is an interesting point, that deservers further research. Just not here and now.

Following this general section, they briefly explain how they conducted their exploratory case study before they present their findings. They found three main categories of barriers: the organisational culture, the organisation itself, and the technology. They also map these categories to three layers of another theoretical model, developed by Pan and Scarborough in Pan and Scarborough, 1999: “Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory Case Study”: infrastructure, infostructure, infoculture. The most important barrier identified by Riedl and Betz is the “lack of alignment of the intranet 2.0 applications to the business process requirements”.

I think that this is a crucial point, and also one that shows the chances of modern collaboration tools. It was probably never easier and quicker to access knowledge sharing and knowledge management tools than today. But it is important to integrate these tools naturally in everyday processes, and not treat them as additional and isolated systems. Social business tools, as Enterprise 2.0 tools are sometimes called today, need to become an integrated part of operational business processes. This is perhaps one of the biggest challenges companies face today, and one that cannot be addressed by implementing a new system, but one that requires fundamental changes in the way business processes are designed and specified.

Riedl and Betz conclude by stating that “how the discrepancy between traditional ‘tayloristic’ organisations and the expected participation of the employees in the ‘Enterprise 2.0’ may be bridged” needs to be studied in more detail. They are right, even more as understanding this is important to create business processes that integrate knowledge tools seamlessly, increasing employee productivity rather than reducing it by adding another system they need to take care of.

References

Riedl and Betz, 2012: “Intranet 2.0 Based Knowledge Production”

Riedl, Doris and Fritz Betz (2012). “Intranet 2.0 Based Knowledge Production”. In: eKNOW 2012, The Fourth International Conference on Information, Process, and Knowledge Management. Valencia, Spain: International Academy, Research and Industry Association (IARIA), pp. 1–6.
url: http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=eknow_2012_1_10_60020.

McAfee, 2006: “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration”

McAfee, Andrew (2006). “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration”. In: MIT Sloan Management Review 47.3, pp. 21–28. url: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/2006-spring/47306/enterprise-the-dawn-of-emergent-collaboration/.

Hinchcliffe, 2007: "The state of Enterprise 2.0"

Hinchcliffe, Dion (2007). The state of Enterprise 2.0.
url: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hinchcliffe/the-state-of-enterprise-20/143 (visited on 06/10/2012).

Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005: “The New Spirit of Capitalism”

Boltanski, L. and E. Chiapello (2005). “The New Spirit of Capitalism”. In: International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 18.3, pp. 161–188.
url: http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3w3742162608651/.

Pan and Scarborough, 1999: “Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory Case Study”

Pan, Shan L. and Harry Scarborough (1999). “Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory Case Study”. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 11.3, pp. 359– 374. url: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095373299107401.

“Dynamic Knowledge Mapping: A Visualization Approach for Knowledge Management Systems”

T. Heide and L. Lis (2012). “Dynamic Knowledge Mapping: A Visualization Approach for Knowledge Management Systems”. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sci- ence (HICSS). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 4001–4010

Abstract

Visualizing the contents of knowledge management systems allows for better com- prehensibility of the knowledge base, gives a condensed overview, and provides entry points to particular knowledge items. In this context, two different visualization approaches have been proposed in the literature. On the one hand, algorithm-based approaches have been introduced, which are capable of automated generation of reproducible visualizations. On the other hand, visualizations such as knowledge maps have to be created individually by domain experts. In this paper, we propose a combined approach of dynamic knowledge mapping, which is based on a manual creation of the underlying context (e.g., the metaphor) of the visualization. The particular knowledge items, however, are mapped onto this background automatically in response to changes in the knowledge base. Thus, our approach benefits from the use of a challenging graphical context while allowing for an automated generation of visualizations.

Review

Heide and Lis, 2012: “Dynamic Knowledge Mapping: A Visualization Approach for Knowledge Management Systems” sounded to me like a very interesting paper. Unfortunately I had to realize, that it is by far not as interesting as expected. The general idea is good, but what the authors came up with can only be seen as a very first step. Relying on an image of the knowledge map that cannot be edited through the tool that is used to enrich the knowledge map with dynamically updated information is not more than a fairly simple proof of concept. The example they refer to, Hybride Wertschöpfung 3.0, http://forschungslandkarte-hybridewertschoepfung.de/en/show/KnowledgeMapHW, shows that they did not put much effort into user experience, interface design and usability. In my opinion key aspects of visualization.

I was keen on getting to know more about yourResearchPortal.com, the solution they extended with their tool. They mention in the paper that it is based on Drupal - Open Source CMS, but I failed to find any detailed background information about this solution. As the paper is no theoretical exploration, but features a basic and working implementation based on an open source solution, I hoped to find the source code, some documentation and a demo site online. But I could not find anything.

To end this comment with a positive note, now something not directly linked to the paper. If you think knowledge maps are an interesting topic, I would recommend you to take a look at the iMapping tool (iMapping — zoomable big maps for personal knowledge management). This tool is based on the doctoral thesis Haller, 2011: “User Interfaces for Personal Knowledge Management with Semantic Technologies” where you can find detailed information about the concepts implemented by this tool.

I like the idea and tested the iMapping tool some time ago. Back then it was already a powerful program with a promising approach to improve personal knowledge management.

References

Heide and Lis, 2012: “Dynamic Knowledge Mapping: A Visualization Approach for Knowledge Management Systems”

Heide, T. and L. Lis (2012). “Dynamic Knowledge Mapping: A Visualization Approach for Knowledge Management Systems”. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 4001–4010.

Hybride Wertschöpfung 3.0,
http://forschungslandkarte-hybridewertschoepfung.de/en/show/KnowledgeMapHW

European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS) (2010). Hybride Wertschöpfung 3.0. url: http://forschungslandkarte-hybridewertschoepfung.de/en/show/KnowledgeMapHW (visited on 06/04/2012).

yourResearchPortal.com

Becker, Prof. Dr. Jörg (2011). yourResearchPortal.com.
url: http://www.yourResearchPortal.com/ (visited on 06/03/2012).

Drupal - Open Source CMS

Buytaert, Dries and Drupal contributors (2012). Drupal - Open Source CMS.
url: http://drupal.org (visited on 06/04/2012).

iMapping — zoomable big maps for personal knowledge management

Florian Simon und Henning Sperr Gbr. iMapping — zoomable big maps for personal knowledge management. url: http://imapping.info/ (visited on 06/03/2012).

Haller, 2011: “User Interfaces for Personal Knowledge Management with Semantic Technologies”

Haller, Heiko (2011). “User Interfaces for Personal Knowledge Management with Semantic Technologies”. PhD thesis. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT).
url: http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/1000024007.

“How Can Knowledge Management Support Competence-Based Learning? Towards a Research Agenda”

M. Hertlein and S. Smolnik (2012). “How Can Knowledge Management Support Competence-Based Learning? Towards a Research Agenda”. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). IEEE. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 3661– 3668

Abstract

Competence-based learning (CBL) appropriate approach to systematically develop dwindling human resources. The close interrelation between the knowledge and competence concepts suggests the conjoint development of knowledge management (KM) and CBL. We specifically focus on the question of how KM can support CBL processes. This article describes the potential synergies, as well as KM instruments that can facilitate the implementation of CBL. In conclusion, we introduce our current research projects and propose a research agenda that address the raised research question.

Review

In Hertlein and Smolnik, 2012: “How Can Knowledge Management Support Competence-Based Learning? Towards a Research Agenda”, the authors make the point that competence-based learning should be integrated into knowledge management systems. They do not describe the knowledge management system architecture they refer to in detail. In my opinion, the paper falls short of enabling the reader to understand the framework and their integration approach properly.

Despite that, I am happy that I read the paper, because it introduced me to the concept of competence-based learning, “an approach to improve the effectiveness of educational processes by improving the personalization and flexibility of learning”. The authors focus on this topic, because they think education and learning will be getting more important in times of “demographic change” where the workforce is getting older and fewer young professionals enter the job market.

I think they are right when they state that “systematic development of human resources will be a dominant competitive factor for knowledge-intensive organizations”. Besides this more general statement, they also offer some insight from a more practical point of view, when they mention that “knowledge management instruments like communities of practice and competence profiles” are “important instruments to support employees’ development”.

For further research on this topic, I will not so much focus on their integration approach, but more on the interesting concept of competence-based learning in general.

References

Hertlein and Smolnik, 2012: “How Can Knowledge Management Support Competence-Based Learning? Towards a Research Agenda”

Hertlein, M. and S. Smolnik (2012). “How Can Knowledge Management Support Competence-Based Learning? Towards a Research Agenda”. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). IEEE. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 3661–3668.

“Social Media as a Driver for New Rhetorical Practices in Organisations”

Joao (John) Baptista and Robert D. Galliers (2012). “Social Media as a Driver for New Rhetorical Practices in Organisations”. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 3540–3549

Abstract

Social media adoption within organisations enables wider employee participation in corporate communication and rhetoric. We study the impact of social media on rhetorical practices inside organisations, namely how social media reshapes senior management communication. We study the online communication environments of eight organisations and identify two contrasting approaches in dealing with social media adoption: the closed and open model. In the closed model, organisations maintain central control and their communication platforms remain mainly one- way. In the open model, organisations develop and foster two-way interaction. The study finds that in the “open model”, governance and culture of the organisation changes in order to address the shift in control and tension between top-down and bottom-up communication. Our key contribution is in rethinking rhetorical practices in the context of modern open and fluid online communication environments in organisations rhetorical diffusion - and characterising the changes in governance and culture that enable this transition internal ambidexterity.

Review

Baptista and Galliers, 2012: “Social Media as a Driver for New Rhetorical Practices in Organisations” is a very interesting paper. Not least because it sets off with a reference to the good old greek, Aristotle and Roberts, 1954: "The Rhetoric", stating that Aristotelian rhetoric was first of all a one-way communication. They focus on this topic, because “rhetoric plays a key role in organisational change”. In contrast to the speeches in Greek and Roman times, in organisations today multi-directional communication is on the rise, or even the norm. Rhetoric in organisations is an important tool, because “rhetoric shapes employee behaviour by creating language and frames of reference”. Following that, they put the manager in the position of the “rhetor”. This makes sense, because “managers spend most of their time communicating”.

Besides Aristotle, the authors also refer to more recent works about communication and rhetoric. Most notably perhaps the references to Searle, 1969: "Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language" and Austin, 1962: "How to do things with words". Both sources sound quite interesting and promising, probably good reads if you want to dive deeper into the mysteries of communication. For a quick overview, Wikipedia contributors, 2012: "Speech act — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia" and Wikipedia contributors, 2012: "J. L. Austin: How to Do Things With Words — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia" should be good resources.

Now, how does modern technology, Enterprise 2.0-like tools, influence internal communications? For the managers, they make it “easier to access and use multiple perspectives” and thus can be a valuable resource for new insights. As a result “blogs, wikis and other user driven services improve the ability of rhetors to emphasise context by developing a better sense of the feelings and views of the audience, so they can adapt arguments accordingly”. An important finding is that “digital rhetoric requires different strategies and techniques than traditional rhetorical methods”.

Baptista and Galliers divided the organisations they analysed into two main groups. There are organisations where publishing rights on the intranet are very much restricted with a focus on central control. These organisations are grouped under the term “closed model”. Organisations supporting and fostering open participation and less control follow an “open model” approach.

It is interesting that in those companies following the “open model”, supporting more unrestricted communication, “senior managers were more active in requesting direct feedback from employees”. The findings indicate that open communication fosters constructive dialogue and debate, while restricting internal communication is perceives by some as a lack of trust in employees.

After all, this study confirms that Enterprise 2.0 tools drive “multi-directional communication across levels and areas”, what the authors call “rhetorical diffusion”. In my opinion, this paper shows, even though it is actually limited to the internal communications function, that these modern tools change information flows and also interaction patterns within organisations.

References

Baptista and Galliers, 2012: “Social Media as a Driver for New Rhetorical Practices in Organisations”

Baptista, Joao (John) and Robert D. Galliers (2012). “Social Media as a Driver for New Rhetorical Practices in Organisations”. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 3540–3549.

Aristotle and Roberts, 1954: "The Rhetoric"

Aristotle and W. Rhys Roberts (1954). The Rhetoric. Modern Library New York.

Searle, 1969: "Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language"

Searle, John R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.

Austin, 1962: "How to do things with words"

Austin, John L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wikipedia contributors, 2012: "Speech act — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia"

Wikipedia contributors (2012). Speech act — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. url: http: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speech_act&oldid=490518368 (visited on 06/03/2012).

Wikipedia contributors, 2012: "J. L. Austin: How to Do Things With Words — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia"

Wikipedia contributors (2012). J. L. Austin: How to Do Things With Words — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. url: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._L. _Austin&oldid=495269437 (visited on 06/03/2012).

“Decision 2.0: An Exploratory Case Study”

Ahmed Elragal and Ola El-Telbany (2012). “Decision 2.0: An Exploratory Case Study”. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 432–443

Abstract

The emergence of the Enterprise 2.0 technologies indicates that they can provide value to different types of users and potentially different types of value. Many published research explored what these E2.0 tools and applications can offer to organizations, such as collaboration platforms, social networking and user-created content, enhancing their productivity and management among employees. However, little research was devoted to study the effect these tools and applications have on the decision making process. Decision 2.0 has received little attention in literature, especially from the standpoint of making use of the “crowd”. Therefore, this paper focuses on this research gap with a case study in an attempt to elucidate and extract knowledge to answer this question “How does decision 2.0 make use of the crowd to support the traditional decision making process and hence add value to organizations through collaboration and collective intelligence?”

Review

After reading Elragal and El-Telbany, 2012: “Decision 2.0: An Exploratory Case Study”, I was a bit disappointed. I hoped to read something more specific, like a concept for collaborative decision making, focusing on using Enterprise 2.0 tools within organizations to improve organizational decision making processes.

The theoretical part of this paper is in general well written and an interesting read. Most notable is perhaps the reference to Herbert Simon’s decision making model. Simon, 1979: “Rational decision making in business organizations” seems to me to be a good starting point for exploring rational decision making further. For more information about Herbert Simon’s approach to rational decision making, Wikipedia contributors and Sun, 2012: "Administrative Behavior — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia" and Michalek, 2003: "Herbert Simon Collection" seem to be reasonable resources.

The case study then describes a situation where customers, “the crowd”, were enabled to provide input for decision making. Much like any social media campaign that involves a poll as feedback channel. In the case study, involving the customer and thus using the “wisdom of the crowd” finally changed the decision anticipated by the management and ultimately “positively impacted all the brands’ major key performance indicators”. That is a good point to make, just perhaps a bit obvious.

Altogether, the paper is an interesting read if you are interested in business management, marketing and social media, but not so much if you are interested in knowledge management and Enterprise 2.0.

References

Elragal and El-Telbany, 2012: “Decision 2.0: An Exploratory Case Study”

Elragal, Ahmed and Ola El-Telbany (2012). “Decision 2.0: An Exploratory Case Study”. In: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 432–443.

Simon, 1979: “Rational decision making in business organizations”

Simon, H.A. (1979). “Rational decision making in business organizations”. In: The American economic review 69.4, pp. 493–513.

Wikipedia contributors and Sun, 2012: "Administrative Behavior — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia"

Wikipedia contributors and Richard KP Sun (2012). Administrative Behavior — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. url: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administ rative_Behavior&oldid=493987241 (visited on 27 May 2012).

Michalek, 2003: "Herbert Simon Collection"

Michalek, Gabrielle V. (2003). Herbert Simon Collection. url: http://diva.library.cmu.edu/Simon/ (visited on 27 May 2012).

An Introduction

Recently some friends told me about an idea they had. Basically, they wanted to read more scientific papers and decided to set up a blog where they could post comments on the papers they read. So they started paper.kennt-wayne.de.

This sounded like a good plan to me, and I joined them and started reading and commenting.

However, I decided to publish my comments, or reviews, or whatever you want to call these strongly opinionated summaries not there, but on my own little platform.

My plan is to publish one post a week. Sometimes posts could be longer and more elaborated, sometimes shorter and less sophisticated. But I will always stick to a basic structure, starting with a full citation including a link to the free or non-free paper. Followed by an "Abstract" section with the paper's abstract, copied from the paper, probably with emphasis by me. My actual contribution to this whole thing will be labeled "Review" and include my very personal comments, considerations, ideas, and anything else that I want to mention in relation to this paper. The final section will be optional and contain further "References" as full citations, when I mention additional resources in my review. If I notice that this structure doesn't work, I might change it.

If you agree or disagree with my comments, please feel free to leave a note. I am happy to discuss about the papers and my comments, as that is the purpose of this project: reading and discussing papers to achieve a better understanding and gain new insights into the world of Enterprise 2.0 and what I view as loosely or closely related to it.

If you wonder what Enterprise 2.0 is, here is the definition from Wikipedia: "Enterprise 2.0 aims to help employees, customers and suppliers collaborate, share, and organize information via Web 2.0 technologies." This term was coined by Andrew McAfee in 2006. Recently some people began talking about enterprise social software or even social business when they refer to Enterprise 2.0 solutions. I decided to stay with the term Enterprise 2.0 for now.

In addition to reviewing papers here, I also keep a list of bookmarks at d.me/goetz/enterprise2.0. If you don't like my comments, perhaps you can at least find something interesting there.

To get in touch you could send an email to goetz@buerkle.org, find me on Google+ via goetz.buerkle.org/+, or on Twitter as @goetzb.