Research Issues in Knowledge Management and Social Media

The use of social software for Knowledge Management in

globally distributed settings

Jan Pawlowski & Henri PirkkalainenGlobal Information Systems group

Department of Computer Science and Information Systems

TJTSD66 Advanced Topics in Social Media

Global Information Systems

Mission StatementCreating and validating new solutions for Information Systems in a global context - this includes the support of individuals and organizations to improve competitiveness, performance, and mutual understanding

TopicsDesigning work and learning processes in globally distributed organizations Design & development methods for global information systems Culture analysis and awareness Support tools for knowledge intensive processes in global organizations ICT4D: ICT for development E-Learning and knowledge management in global organizations

Global Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä The Team

Kati Clements

Denis Kozlov

Jan M. Pawlowski

Philipp HoltkampHenri Pirkkalainen

Twitter feedback channel

#GSKM13

You can provide feedback and ask questions regarding our part and the research topics

through Twitter

Knowledge Management in Global Settings

Social Software – Vocabulary in IS field?

Starting point for global inspection - Barriers

Focus in KM – what has been studied and how?

Towards unexplored research territories

Social Software for KM: Contents

A first question

What is common knowledge?

Sauna: German instructions

Sauna: American instructions

Sauna: Finnish instructions

Related Concepts (modified, North, 1998)

Symbol

Data

Information

Knowledge

Skill

Competence

Competitiveness

+syntax

+meaning

+applying to new settings

+use

+context

+ uniqueness

Definition: Knowledge Management

“Knowledge management is defined as the management function responsible for the regular selection, implementation and evaluation of goal-oriented knowledge strategies that aim at improving an organization’s way of handling knowledge internal and external to the organization in order to improve organizational performance. The implementation of knowledge strategies comprises all person-oriented, organizational and technological instruments suitable to dynamically optimize the organization-wide level of competencies, education and ability to learn of the members of the organization as well as to develop collective intelligence.“ (Maier 2002)

”Planned and ongoing management of activities and processes for leveraging knowledge to enhance competitiveness through better use and creation of individual and collective knowledge resources.” (CEN 2004)

A first question…

Why is Knowledge a Global Success

Factor?

Just a simple product?

Business Process Management in a Networked Business

ProcessingB

Sales

IT Services

Management

R&D

Marketing

Material FlowKnowledge/ Information / Data Flow

Marketing

Marketing

Marketing

Sales

Sales

ProcessingA

R&D

IT Services

Production

Some random questions…

Decision questions– Where to produce?– How to build partnerships (joint ventures, contractors, …)– Which systems to exchange knowledge?

Operational questions– How to process wood?– When will the next shipment arrive?– How to market the product in Japan?– How to explain the concept and advantages of Finnish

saunas?– How to find the main problems of customers?– Which are import and safety regulations?

This means…

Knowledge is a key to global success

Global KM managers need to understand the value chain and knowledge requirements

Global KM managers need to understand knowledge processes and culture

Global KM managers are the main hubs for smooth operations in production and service enterprises

Which kind of IS support is promising or proven successful?

Summary

Knowledge as a critical success factor

Knowledge management to support businesses

Global aspects – Understanding the context– Process design– Systems and tool support– Cultural aspects

Social Software as a promising tool to combine human- and technology-orientation– Which tools for which context?– How to overcome cultural differences?– How to embed tools?

Social Software?

Social Software

“Social Software enables an interactive way of collaboration, managing content and connecting to online networks with other people. It supports the desire of users to be pulled into groups in

order to achieve their personal goals” (Wever, Mechant, Veevaete & Hauttekeete 2007)

Social Software

4 Cs of Social Software

Cook, N. Enterprise 2.0: How Social Software Will Change the Future of Work, UK:Gover, 2008.

Intertwined terminologies!

Social Media

(Zheng et al. 2010)

Groupware

Message systems

Multiuser editors

Group decision support systems (GDSSs)

Computer conferencing systems

Shared information spaces

Workflow management/coordination systems

…Much older approach in the IS research

Ellis, Gibbs & Rein 1991)

Ellis C.A., Gibbs S.J. & Rein C.L. 1991. Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM 34 (1), 39 – 58.

Collaboration tools

Onyechi & Abeisinghe 2009

Refs to Social Media, Social Software, Groupware, Web 2.0…

Web 2.0

Often explained as the combination of methods and techniques on which Social Media is based on

Still used in IT literacy

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

What do you focus on when addressing Social Software?

Research Trends for KM & SoSo

Constructive / Design-oriented research– Tools to improve knowledge exchange and distribution

Do we really understand how global KM works: Qualitative Research– Understanding which influence factors and relations emerge in

global settings– For example: Barriers to KM (why and how)

Relating and quantifying: Quantitative Research– Understanding behavior in KM settings– E.g. ISSM, TAM, KM Success Model

• What type of relations, how strong, cause-effect etc.• Applied for example in Social networking studies, also Web 2.0 focus

Barriers?

Discussed from the viewpoint of an individual or group of people

Can relate to social interaction and as an example to factors that hinder or challenge knowledge exchange

Might relate to challenges and risks when adopting or using a specific technology

Challenges set by diverse workers, hierarchies and cultural influences within an organization

In many cases tied to a specific context

Can be presented as a wider concept “cultural distance” …or as a question that is formed from the problem,

“How to reward contribution?”…

Barriers

“Knowledge Islands”

=

Dependent on businessprocess and project

+

Location, time, culture and language

+

Organizationaland hierarchical

Success factors - barriers

Critical Success Factors (CSF)

The relation between a barrier and success factor not always clear

…not always counter balanced in a way that overcoming a barrier means a success

…not all success factors can be derived from barriers

Barriers are a starting point to understand success factors within a specific context

Geographical dispersion of individualsCSF

“set meeting schedules and rules of engagement” “conduct periodic face-to-face meetings”

Success FactorsHolistic, integrated and standardized approach– KM integrated within culture, coordination, and leadership – Consider relationships and interdependencies – Avoid isolated solutions, e. g., different, incompatible communication systems, no

standards, different knowledge processes,– Knowledge processes and ICT platforms for KM should be standardized

throughout the organization and integrated with the existing business processes.

Knowledge-oriented culture– Supportive organizational culture – Open and communicative atmosphere – Supporting a knowledge-oriented culture through e. g., communication of success

stories and best practices, through the acceptance of errors a s well as promoting individual responsibility

Management support – Top management to strategic knowledge goals, allocate sufficient budgets to the

KM initiative– Providing good example for the change of behavior – A knowledge champion can act as a coordinator for management support as well

as key speaker and motivator for the initiative.

Instruments

Context. Organization / Individuals

Relation of concepts – GSKM(Global Social Knowledge Management)

Pawlowski & Pirkkalainen 2012

Organization

al barrie

rs

Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2013

Organization

al barrie

rs


Social

barriers


T e c h ni c al

b ar ri er s


C ul tu ra l b ar ri er s


Methodology to capture barriersDifferent approaches depending on the discipline and maturity of the field

KM

Observation, ethnographic approachesRelying on the rigor of the researcher

The main authors often experts with long history in the field

ExperiencesDocumented best practices, policies

Also combined approaches applying interviews and surveys within specific organizations

Global factors

Long traditions, identification turned to concrete context specific understanding

Social Software

Depending what is analyzed (adoption, influencing factors for sharing, usability etc.)

Expert interviews, surveys, lab testing etc.

Research trend II - Merging research orientations and disciplines

Research results – Part IPublished in ECIS 2011

Studying influencing factors for Researchers’ sharing intentions in Social Networking sites. Focus on sharing research and educational information.

Kalb, Hendrik; Pirkkalainen, Henri; Pawlowski, Jan; and Schoop, Eric, "SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES AS A FACILITATOR FOR SCIENTISTS’ SHARING ACTIVITIES" (2011). ECIS 2011 Proceedings. Paper 267. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/267

Examined our suggested hypotheses in a quantitative analysis

Model: Extending TAM towards knowledge sharing. Influence factors of:-reputation-anticipated mutual benefit-self-efficacy-enjoy helping-internal personal computing support-external computing support-management support

Hypothesized based on existing literature

Social Networking Services for research and education

Folie 40

Research results – Part ISurvey: 54 eligible responses

Data analysis was conducted using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach and the SmartPLS software. PLS is a structural equation modeling technique (SEM) – well fitting to confirmatory research

Results:Expected reputation through sharing activities is an important predictor of the intention

the perceived usefulness of an SNS influences the intention to share informationTo influence the usefulness in our context we found as antecedents the anticipated reciprocal relationships through knowledge sharing in the system, the perceived ease of use of the system and management support….and Influence of enjoy helping on the intention to share educational resources in a SNS

Not significant: internal and external support, we can not find support for the hypotheses H5a and H5b, which propose a positive influence of self-efficacy on sharing behavior.

Kalb, Hendrik; Pirkkalainen, Henri; Pawlowski, Jan; and Schoop, Eric, "SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES AS A FACILITATOR FOR SCIENTISTS’ SHARING ACTIVITIES" (2011). ECIS 2011 Proceedings. Paper 267. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/267

Research results – Part IICurrently studied

Studying barrier significance for using OER portals.

Contextualization of the previously presented barriers with OER focus

Step1: Literature researchStep2: Narrowing the focus and studying barriersStep3: Mapping identified barriers to KM activities and interventionsStep4: Studying changes over time. Deeper investigation on implications and reasons behind

Example OER Social Software


Combining engagement activities (focus group) with the survey instrument.

Running teacher workshops across Europe- Presenting OER portals for teachers, running a scenario,

discussing SWOT, change enablers- Filling the survey on-site or online

1176 eligible responses from 20 countries

Extending current OER research to Social Software (portal focus) to understand most significant challenges.

Data analysis in progress… Variance analysis (One-way ANOVA) depicts the significance of barriers dependent on the nationality of the stakeholders.


Example difference between countries: availability of resources in own languageSignificant barrier: Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia…Not significant: Romania, Spain, Netherlands, Finland..

Social Software in Knowledge Management

Individuals, process/culture, technology

In many cases generalizing the purpose of Social Software/media unnecessarily

E.g. “social media is essentially a social networking site, with subscribing”

Support of Social Software for different levels of KM: Knowledge evolution, knowledge use/reuse, knowledge sharing/transfer

Not to replace but to support?

Are we discussing a specific service

or about the web in general?

Collaboration

Awareness

Documentation

Customer engagement

Interaction with stakeholders

…

Social Software in KM

Research trends III

Analyzing the cultural, organizational, and individual context

Identifying barriers and potential success factors

Choosing and creating solutions (=interventions / methods)– Aligned with strategies and processes– Addressing barriers– Involving all stakeholders– Not overloading people

Utilizing barrier-knowledge in KM processes

Social Software in KM activities and tasks

Not all tools are meant to support all knowledge steps/tasks

Identifying

Collection, modification, collaboration

Annotation

Sharing, awareness

Knowledge Management Tasks creation, building, anticipation or

generation acquisition, appropriation or

adoption identification, capture, articulation or

extraction collection, gathering or accumulation (legally) securing conversion organization, linking and embedding formalization storage refinement or development distribution, diffusion, transfer or

sharing presentation or formatting application, deploying or exploiting review, revision or evolution of

knowledge

Source: (Maier, 2004)

From barriers to tools…Tool category

Purpose Key End user Functionality

KM Activities & processes Main Barriers

Blogging tools Communication -Post writings -Comment on writings -Share writing (external/internal) -Evaluate writings -Extend with plugins / integrate to other systems -RSS (alerts)

-Active & passive exchange of professional information (Fiedler & Welpe 2011). -Acquire / capture / create, Apply/share/transfer. Incentive for (Reuse/innovate/evolve/transform), alerting (Avram 2006) -Knowledge Evolution (Zheng & Zheng 2010) -Idea-generation and problem- solving (Zhang 2010) -Externalization, combination (Chatti et al, 2007) -Creation, codification, sharing, collaboration, organization (Razmerita 2009)

Organizational, Cultural, Social Organizational (Zhang 2010), Fitness to task (Thom-Santelli 2010) Cognitive (Kim 2008)

Micro-blogging tools

Connection / awareness.

-Post micro writings -Comment / share / evaluate micro writings -Share material / Information via micro writings -Manage profile (notifications (RSS), privacy) -Follow other users -Send direct messages

-Retrieve knowledge for use (Zheng & Zheng 2010), -Enhancing information sharing (easy to identify information updates), building common ground, sustaining connectedness among colleagues, supporting informal communication (Zhao & Rosson 2009) -Alerting, informing users of changes (Levy 2009; Avram 2006) -Socialization, combination (Chatti et al, 2007)

Organizational, Social Fitness to task (Thom-Santelli 2010), Social (trust) (Zhao & Rosson 2009)


From barriers to tools…






Supporting processesSocial Software

Maier & Remus (2003) Implementing process-oriented knowledge management strategies

KM activities & instrumentsBarrier-knowledge

Maier & Remus (2003) Implementing process-oriented knowledge management strategies

Focus points for research

Ranging from smaller to large research activities

Distributed teams (local to global, small vs massive)– What type of challenges they face in their work– How could Social Software support / how should it be

integrated to the working activities / how to ensure adoption / how could it bridge the gap to other communities or collaborators/competitors

• For example analyzing where do the collaborators or relevant stakeholders interact (European projects one perfect example).

– Setting clear Social Software policy that differentiates between internal/external work, customer relations etc.

– …

Thank You

Contact Information

Prof. Dr. Jan M. [email protected]: jan_m_pawlowskiOffice: Room 514.2Telephone +358 14 260 2596http://users.jyu.fi/~japawlow

Henri [email protected]: Room 511.1Telephone +358 400247684

http://users.jyu.fi/~japawlow

ReadingsZheng, Y., Li, L., & Zheng, F. (2010). Social Media Support for Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management and Service Science, pp. 1-4. dpi: 10.1109/ICMSS.2010.5576725 [IEEE Xplore at Nelli]

Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134. [Nelli e-journals]

Pawlowski, J.M., Pirkkalainen, H. (2012): Global Social Knowledge Management: The Future of Knowledge Management Across Borders? Proc. of European Conference on Knowledge Management, June 2012, Spain. Retrieved from: http://users.jyu.fi/~japawlow/Global%20Social%20Knowledge%20Management_ECKM2012_citation.pdf