UNIVERSITY OF VAASA

FACULTY OF BUSINESS STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

Daniel Lucas w100910

JOHT3052 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Final Assignment:

The Role of Learning Management Systems for Knowledge Transfer within a Knowledge-Intensive

Organization:

A Case Study of Butterfield & Robinson

Deadline: 30.5.2014

VAASA, 2014

2

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

Research Methodology of the Report ........................................................................................ 4

Outline of the Case Company and LMS .................................................................................... 5

Introduction of Case Company: Butterfield & Robinson ...................................................... 5

Problem identification at B&R .............................................................................................. 6

A Solution in the form of a Learning Management System .................................................. 7

Background of Moodle .......................................................................................................... 8

Moodle at B&R ...................................................................................................................... 9

Focus of LMS for Knowledge Management ....................................................................... 10

Literature Review with Case Study Examples: Moodle as a Strategic Knowledge Transfer IS

.................................................................................................................................................. 11

Knowledge Management in Organizations .......................................................................... 11

Explicit and Tacit Knowledge ............................................................................................. 12

Knowledge Transfer Process Model Overview ................................................................... 13

The Role of Information Technology and LMS as a tool for Knowledge Transfer ............ 14

IT-based Knowledge Creation and Externalization ‘Stickiness’ Issues .......................... 14

Knowledge Storage and Retrieval ................................................................................... 16

Knowledge Transfer......................................................................................................... 17

Knowledge Application ................................................................................................... 18

Overcoming Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer ................................................................ 19

Individual and Shared Knowledge ....................................................................................... 19

Socialization and Social Networks ...................................................................................... 20

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 21

References ................................................................................................................................ 23

Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 26

3

Introduction

The goal of all companies from multinational corporations (MNCs) down to small and

medium enterprises (SME’s) is to leverage their core competency into a competitive

advantage with which to thrive in the highly dynamic external international business

environment. In today’s increasingly knowledge-intensive world, this requires the ability to

both effectively and efficiently transfer valuable knowledge between employees in order to

solve problems, share best practices, and create innovations. Furthermore, it has been

proposed by Allee (2009) that knowledge is built upon a foundation of learning. As Kogut

and Zander (1992:384) famously stated that “the central competitive dimension of what firms

know how to do is to create and transfer knowledge efficiently within an organizational

context”; it follows that companies must manage their organizational learning via Learning

Management Systems (LMS) in order to optimize their Knowledge Management (KM).

With the rapid technological escalation in today’s world, the responsibility of Knowledge

Transfer (KT) within firms has been increasingly falling within the confines of the strategic

management of information systems as the key tool for locating a firm’s explicit knowledge

and enhancing it’s employees ability to share tacit knowledge. However, it is of utmost

importance for a firm to balance the implementation of IT systems with an understanding of

the factors influencing the human operators social interactions within those systems in order

to avoid failure (Chatti et al. 2007:408). If effectively built into LMS platforms, this begins to

bridge the gap between the organizational benefits associated with social networking media

such as the improved speed and quality of communication which can boost innovation

development and knowledge transfer efficiency (Heikkilä 2014B:10).

This issue is of particular importance to the case company in the high-end tourism industry,

Butterfield & Robinson (B&R), which at its heart (re: core competency) is providing in-depth

knowledge on par with that of the local people in the regions for each of their hiking and

biking guided-tours. The objective of this report is to analyze the strategic management of

knowledge transfer using Information Systems (IS) through an exploratory case study of the

knowledge-intensive organization B&R which recently implemented the LMS known as

Moodle. Although the Moodle platform was primarily developed for training purposes and

process / documentation standardization; a significant benefit identified of the system is its

4

support for the sharing of expert local knowledge between guides and the capture of this

valuable knowledge for the benefit of the firm.

The report begins with a review of the research methodology used in the development of this

report. Next, an outline is provided of the background of the case company, the problem

identified, and how a Learning Management System (LMS) was selected as the platform with

which to solve the problem. This is followed by a detailed review of Knowledge Transfer

(KT) literature which was conducted to analyze specific connections to the LMS

implemented in the case company. Finally, conclusions from the case are drawn and areas for

future research are outlined given the rapid pace of technological advancement in the field of

information systems for knowledge transfer.

Research Methodology of the Report

This research report is abductive and subjective in nature given the goal of developing theory

by “continuously moving between the empirical and model world” through the use of a case

study (Kontkanen 2014:11). The case study method was selected for its content richness with

which to identify if issues in the literature were encountered by an organization in the process

of implementing an LMS for KT. Data was gathered through triangulation where interview

responses were combined with company information available on the corporate website, as

well as administrator access being granted to the author to acquire firsthand experience with

B&R’s Moodle (NB. Reflected in the case analysis by the reference to “My ______”).

The research began with an initial interview of the Administration & Training Manager via

Instant Messaging (IM) and email to provide a base-level of information regarding the

implementation of a new IS at B&R. Then the existing overarching literature on knowledge

transfer and IS as a mechanism for KM was reviewed to determine applicable theory. Next,

access to the Moodle platform was provided which allowed a greater understanding of the

inner workings of the information system. This lead to another direction in the literature

review which resulted in further question development. At this stage, the primary in-depth

face-to-face interview with the system implementer was conducted in light of the researcher’s

existing understanding of the theory as well as initial case situation. Finally, the literature was

5

reviewed once more for further applicable theories which developed into final questions that

were answered via a brief closing interview over Skype.

Outline of the Case Company and LMS Introduction of Case Company: Butterfield & Robinson

Butterfield & Robinson (B&R) is a luxury hiking and biking company headquartered in

Canada with subsidiary offices in France and Italy and a network of local guides in every

corner of the world. Since 1966, they have operated global trips which combine comfort and

style with unique experiences which provide travellers with a true essence of the regions

explored (Butterfield 2014). B&R’s competitive advantage lies in having knowledgeable

guides in each trip region who have the ability to answer questions and provide “local”

knowledge which fully submerses the travellers in the essence of the people, culture, and

land. This has proven more difficult in the last decade as internet mobility increases travellers

access to regional information, making it even more important for guides to retain valuable

specialized knowledge of the region. To achieve the company’s competitive advantage they

place a strong emphasis on promoting an organizational culture focused on creativity and

entrepreneurship which proliferates every aspect of their operations. As such, B&R has

recently been developing two integrated information systems, Peak 15 and Moodle, with

which to manage the valuable knowledge of: 1) customer preferences and requirements

resulting in tailored customer service acquired over years of experience, and 2) local travel

destinations contained within the experiences of their guides and the best practices specific to

each region, respectively.

B&R trips can be viewed as the management of a variety of diverse projects where success is

dependent on highly specialized knowledge contained in individuals as well as processes.

This means that the organization needs a culture which promotes its intellectual assets as well

as has the IT systems in place which allow users to locate and retrieve applicable knowledge

when following procedures and making decisions (Karlsen & Gottschalk 2004:4). The

majority of the local regional knowledge is brought into the company through its network of

trip guides who are independent contractors (i.e. not B&R employees) hired to lead the

excursions as well as occasionally conduct trip planning research on new locations. B&R’s

fierce level of international competition, requires a focus on delivering on their core

competency of operating trips while achieving flexibility via their reliance on a network of

6

contractors (re: guides) who reinforce their value chain. Therefore, B&R acts as a

knowledge-intensive networked organization “where members need to be simultaneously

autonomous and interdependent” (Parent et al. 2007:89-90). This has led to an issue where

the case company needs to invest in information systems in order to acquire and manage the

knowledge contained within their network; particularly in situations where the company has

invested large financial sums in contractors to gather local travel information unique to a

specific region. Finally, this control must be accomplished without destroying the

organizational culture of creativity and entrepreneurship which has also in the past

paradoxically led to prior B&R contractors leaving the networked organization to create

competing firms (Grace & Butler 2005:63).

Problem identification at B&R

The implementation of Moodle at B&R developed out of a recent situation surrounding an

organizational restructuring which occurred when the company operated 20% more trips

than forecasted during the 2013 trip season. This led to difficulties in performing tasks on

time, errors being made, and an overall higher level of stress causing lowered organizational

morale. A consequence of which was select traveller feedback that the guides seemed

inexperienced in the regions in which they were supposed to be experts. This resulted in a full

job and task analysis to fix the identified issues from the previous year, primarily in the area

of implementing an IS for knowledge management. At first, the goal was to develop a portal

which could be used to host training modules; however, it quickly resulted in the discovery of

numerous additional benefits in utilizing a single platform for knowledge management.

The immediate need was identified that B&R must have an updated IS with which to provide

the guides access to the knowledge that they require both quickly and efficiently to ensure

that the prior year’s issues were not repeated. It was also assumed that the guides would be

strongly motivated by the implementation of such a tool given that the majority of their

compensation is from traveller tips; which are significantly influenced by the travellers

perception of the guide as an expert in the region (which is a factor of their level of local

knowledge). Despite the previously identified issue of providing contractors with valuable

knowledge which they could then remove from the company, the decision was made to

implement the IS given that the benefits of more knowledgeable guides and higher quality

7

trips far outweighed the risk of sharing valuable knowledge as long as the system was

monitored properly. The IS’s objectives were to: 1) ensure standards of policy and procedure

training for all guides resulting in socialization, 2) place the responsibility of regional

knowledge on guides by providing access to B&R’s knowledge repositories earlier, 3)

increase the self-sufficiency of guides through online access to all materials rather than the

prior method of mailing trip packages containing the knowledge, 4) enhance internal

collaboration within the guide network so that they could share best practices / regional

knowledge with each other to understand what worked and what didn’t on prior trips, and 5)

provide guides with greater insight into B&R’s offerings to cross-sell trips.

Prior to the IS implementation, the majority of knowledge transfer within B&R was person-

to-person involving individually held expert local knowledge and so a cultural as well as

technological process change was required to make the transition to one where everyone

records and shares their expert knowledge through codification into processes via

collaborative technology platforms (Lee & Lee 2000). Furthermore, it was discovered that

guides were using social media tools like Facebook to synchronously share information about

trips such as road conditions in order to heighten their collective awareness of the constantly

changing environments in which they were travelling. Prior to the new IS, the technology

being utilized was not only outdated but was also very difficult to access remotely using a

contractors personal devices during the trip. Therefore, achievement of B&R’s objectives

required an IS platform to deliver technological support for the four knowledge management

processes outlined by Alavi & Tiwana (2003:114): creation, storage and retrieval, transfer,

and application.

A Solution in the form of a Learning Management System

As far back as the 1980’s an argument has been made that organizational learning is the

cornerstone of leveraging knowledge held within employees (Zuboff 1988) and that the

ability to manage the learning process (e.g. in the form of a centralized training material

repository) is required for firms to succeed (Grace & Butler 2005:60). Although Learning

Management Systems (LMS) have their origins in education as e-learning arenas which fall

under the category of Virtual Learning Environments (VLE); in an organizational context

they have expanded beyond the applications associated with training and development to

8

encompass advanced tools that can be applied to knowledge management and its transfer

throughout a knowledge-intensive firm (Grace & Butler 2005). Despite arguments that LMS

are too content-centric, lack opportunities for informal learning and are not individualized

enough (Chatti et al. 2007:412); Grace & Butler (2005:59) had previously developed a

framework where LMS was utilized as “formal managed learning” supporting organizational

learning while also identifying that IS and knowledge management systems are also crucial

factors to support “informal unmanaged learning” (Appendix #1). However, it will be evident

throughout this report that an argument can be made that the constant evolution of LMS’s

such as Moodle are blurring the lines between formal learning (re: organizational learning via

training) and informal learning (re: knowledge management via social collaboration and

communication) by reaping the benefits of both learning types through technological

advancement.

Background of Moodle

Moodle (acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) is an online

LMS platform which enables rich communication between all learners and teachers (Moodle

2014A). Started in 2003, Moodle has quickly spread globally in the past decade to over

64,000 organizations, in 235 countries and 100 languages with over 71 million users (Moodle

2014B). There are four basic functions of Moodle which can be utilized by organizations: 1)

store (info, files, databases, links), 2) communicate (forums, chatrooms, calendar, messaging,

RSS) 3) collaborate (wiki, blog, forum, workshop/lesson, social network), and 4) evaluate

(quiz, assignments, scales, choices, rating) (Lasic 2008). Moodle is differentiated from other

LMS platforms in that it is freeware committed to the Open Source Initiative meaning that

new community produced plug-ins are continuously being developed to ensure that the

platform is constantly evolving with the needs of its users. The system is often used in

organizations for training purposes as it has the ability to interact with a plethora of training

software offerings via SCORM (Chatti et al. 2007:410) as well as creates an asynchronous

training ground which breaks the distance confinements of in-person training. It can also be

integrated into existing infrastructure systems or act as the standalone primary infrastructure

IS with the assistance of approved Moodle-Certified partners who provide support, hosting,

project planning and implementation services (Webanywhereworkplace 2012).

9

In terms of pedagogy, Moodle has been developed with a philosophy of social

constructionism wherein “reality is reproduced by people acting on their interpretation and

their knowledge of it” and knowledge is transferred, developed and maintained in social

situations (Parent et al. 2007:83). Socially constructed reality has received support by KT

researchers (Spender 1996:60; Lee et al. 2007:513; Eskelinen et al. 2004:209) as well plays a

key role in the research ontology of subjectivism (Saunders et al. 2009:111). Moodle has also

demonstrated enhanced KM in firms via knowledge creation (i.e. wikis, forums, blogs, log

files, courses) and knowledge transfer (i.e. forums, wikis, resources, workshops, notes,

repositories, community hub) when its implementation is embedded within the organization’s

culture and practices (Berry 2009:33,37,38).

Moodle at B&R

Moodle was identified by B&R as a flexible system with which to combine social

collaboration with an easy format for dispersing information online, even to individuals who

are not tech savvy. As such, Moodle’s central access point via any web browser interface

enables it to be implemented as a backbone enterprise information portal with which to

transfer knowledge between both human and technological repositories, anywhere at anytime

(Alavi & Tiwana 2003:110). Given B&R’s utilization of contractors which rely on shadow IT

to access knowledge in the field (re: all forms of BYOD – Mac, PC, smartphones and tablets)

(Heikkilä 2014C:6), Moodle far surpasses B&R’s prior citrix-based system which was

difficult to install, run, and access on trip. This has been supported with a strong directive

from HQ that all guides should rely on Moodle for documents, policies, and procedures in

order to encourage utilization of the new systems by aligning processes and procedures with

management-backed IS (Lee & Lee 2007).

As Moodle’s open source nature provides a flexible, diverse, and highly customizable

platform; the expected result is a higher user acceptance of the IT system as previously

demonstrated with the development of firm-specific platforms that address the specific

knowledge management needs of the organization (Smale 2007B:2). Adoption of the system

for KM should also be enhanced given Moodle’s simplicity and ease of use in navigation for

administrators as well as users (Chatti et al. 2007:414). Finally, B&R selected the Moodle

system due to its ability to track individual user interactions within the system. This allows

10

the administrators to interpret usage such as how and when the system is being used. Also,

given the valuable local region and procedural knowledge contained within the system, the

organization can avoid the dark side of IS by identifying users who may be leaking

information from the system by downloading vast quantities of knowledge which isn’t

directly relevant to their role (Heikkilä 2014C:5).

Butterfield & Robinson’s online learning centre which runs on Moodle is called “The

Honorary University of Butterfield” aka The HUB. This name not only reflects the learning

aspect (re: training) side of the system through its association as a University, but it goes

further by positioning itself as the central piece of the network which connects everyone and

everything in B&R. The name is also highly aligned with the creativity of the organizational

culture in that it reflects the hub of a bike tire, the primary association that many guides make

with the firm. Although The HUB only went live in the last few months, it already has 80

participants and is currently undergoing a transformation as guides begin to familiarize

themselves with the system through accessing documents and sharing knowledge.

Focus of LMS for Knowledge Management

Although the focus of Butterfield & Robinson’s Moodle was originally as an LMS platform

developed as a source of learning for guide training purposes (Grace & Butler 2005); the

secondary benefits for the main users / stakeholders of the system quickly became evident in

the form of pushing knowledge to contractors (re: guides) internationally and assisting them

with sharing knowledge. Given that local regional knowledge contained within the

contractors (re: guides) was identified as one of the primary competitive advantages of B&R,

the remainder of this report will focus on analyzing The HUB as a knowledge management

system directed towards encouraging Knowledge Transfer (KT) between the guides and

within B&R’s networked organization. Throughout the report, guides will be treated in a

similar way as globally located subsidiaries each holding individual specialized knowledge

which needs to be shared both vertically (to HQ) as well as horizontally (to other guides).

Although language is an issue when investigating global phenomenon (English isn’t the

native tongue of a significant number of guides), it’s implications have been downplayed

given that all guides require excellent English communication skills due to B&R’s primary

travellers / customers being native-English speaking North Americans.

11

Literature Review with Case Study Examples: Moodle as a Strategic

Knowledge Transfer IS Knowledge Management in Organizations

How an organization manages its knowledge has been identified as playing a crucial role in

the development of its core competencies with which it remains competitive in the global

dynamic environment as proposed by Grant (1996) in the Knowledge-based view of the firm.

This is strongly aligned with the OECD’s 1996 report “The Knowledge-Based Economy”

which emphasized the importance of the diffusion of information within an organization

through the development of network societies where members can interactively share their

knowledge (OECD 1996:14). Furthermore, support for the social aspect of knowledge is

alluded to in Alavi & Tiwana’s (2003:104) statement that “effective knowledge management

in organizations involves a combination of technological and behavioural elements.”

There continue to be numerous debates effecting knowledge management. Such as whether to

view knowledge as an “object” that can be captured, a “process” that can be managed, or a

“capability” to be built (Liyanage et al. 2009:120) (Appendix #2). Additionally, knowledge

has been classified as “know what”, “know how”, “know why” and “know-whom” (Panahi

et al. 2013:379; Chatti et al. 2009:405). The scope of these arguments are beyond the

confines of this paper; however, it is important to note the various viewpoints and how they

influence an organizations choice of the optimal knowledge transfer mechanisms. For

example, in the case company it is evident that they view some knowledge as “objects” in the

form of documents that they can capture in repositories and push to guides, as well as other

knowledge that comes about through a “process” wherein guides collaborate to solve

problems or create best practices through sharing their unique experiences. This demonstrates

the contextual nature of knowledge.

This report has already highlighted a number of key terms in the prior sections such as

Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge Transfer (KT); however, before proceeding

with the literature analysis, it is important to further define knowledge terminology for the

purpose of clarity. This begins with the distinction being made between data, information,

knowledge, and expertise as described by Bender & Fish’s (2000) Knowledge Hierarchy

(Appendix #3). The most important factor to note in the hierarchy is that as the movement is

12

made from data to expertise, knowledge becomes less explicit and more tacit as it is

constructed on an individual level as well as within social groups. While Grant (1996)

proposed that specialized knowledge is individually held, Kogut and Zander (1992)

advocated that an organization’s reason for existing is to grow by recombining this

knowledge to learn new skills. Therefore, there is a need to increase the “flow” within ones

organization to achieve the benefits associated with knowledge.

Smale (2008:152) identified important terminological differences when discussing the

movement or “flow” of knowledge within an organization. Knowledge transfer (KT) is

viewed as a “distinct experience” (from Galbraith 1990:70), whereas knowledge diffusion is

a gradual process over time. Additionally, Liyanage et al. (2009:122) describes knowledge

sharing as a bilateral exchange between people at an individual level, which is the smallest

level of analysis in the area of knowledge transfer but one that is of crucial importance when

an organization aims to “create a knowledge sharing culture”.

Explicit and Tacit Knowledge

As with all academic writing on the subject of knowledge, a distinction must be made

between explicit knowledge which is codifiable and easily articulated (Koulopoulos &

Frappaol, 1999) and tacit knowledge which is “non-verbalised, intuitive and unarticulated

knowledge” (Polanyi 1962). Furthermore, some academics propose that knowledge falls on a

continuum based on the degree of tacitness (Ambrosini & Bowman 2001) (Appendix #4).

The unique characteristics of explicit and tacit knowledge has resulted in arguments

supporting the suitability of explicit KT via technological mechanisms, while information

communication technology (ICT) has been fiercely debated over the past decade as to its

ability to successfully transfer tacit knowledge (Roberts 2000:439; Griffith et al. 2003:271;

Chatti et al. 2009; Panahi et al. 2013:387). Roberts (2000:439) added to the critique when he

proposed that tacit KT would not be possible until the development of a “shared space” was

created in which users could virtually share a common social and cultural understanding

which is required to establish trust as long as it is supported by face-to-face meetings. This

argument has received support through the case analysis in that The HUB has become a

virtual learning environment which is based around a shared organizational culture.

Furthermore, socialization is enhanced when B&R’s guides meet face-to-face twice a year to

13

open the travel season with training in May and close the travel season to share experiences

in October. Roberts also proposed (2000:439) that “those who experience socialization from

a young age may be able to utilize ICTs as an effective substitute for face-to-face contact”;

which has proven true at B&R with younger guides adopting The HUB more rapidly.

Knowledge Transfer Process Model Overview

In the field of knowledge transfer, many academics have proposed frameworks or models to

describe the process with which knowledge moves from its source (re: sender/producer) to

the recipient (re: end user). All models begin with an understanding that the knowledge

holders in an organization must be identified prior to the transfer of their knowledge. At

B&R, the primary holders of valuable knowledge have been identified as the guides who

contain region-specific local knowledge. One KT model is Parent et al.’s (2009:88) system’s-

based dynamic knowledge transfer capacity model. This model states that once the pre-

existing conditions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘need’ have been identified (similar to Szulanski

1996:28), the authors argue that an organization requires four capacities with which to

manage their knowledge (Appendix #5). At B&R, The HUB matches the criteria as a

disseminative capacity tool in that it provides social and technological infrastructure which

enhances networking and leads to the development of “iterative mechanisms to facilitate a

large diffusion of knowledge” (Parent et al. 2007:88).

The most frequently cited and instrumental model in the field has been Szulanski’s (1996:28-

29) four stage knowledge transfer process: initiation implementation ramp-up

integration. Although a strongly supported and proven model, the model chosen as the

primary analysis tool in this report is Liyanage et al.’s (2009:126) KT process model based

on communication and translation theories (Appendix #6). This model has been selected for

its all encompassing framework which includes: Szulanski’s (1996) four stage transfer

process and ‘stickiness’ factors, Nonaka & Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge creation modes of

KT, as well as networking theory which has come to the forefront of international business in

the last two decades.

14

The Role of Information Technology and LMS as a tool for Knowledge Transfer

As the focus of this report is to understand B&R’s LMS platform The HUB as a IS tool in the

knowledge transfer process; knowledge management theory which utilizes IT tools (Alavi &

Tiwana 2003) and software support systems (Lindvall et al. 2003) is a significant factor in the

analysis. First and foremost, by means of Lindvall et al.’s (2003:139) KM architecture model

(Appendix #7), they propose that “a complete software system for KM should support all

transformations and components of the knowledge conversion cycle” (2003:138). Although

The HUB isn’t a complete software system in this regard, it does contain many of the crucial

knowledge management processes identified which overlap with Alavi & Tiwana’s

(2003:114) categorization of IT tools for the support of KM processes (Appendix #8). Alavi

& Tiwana’s (2003:114) KM processes also broadly reflect the main stages outlined in

Liyanage et al.’s (2007:126) KT process model described earlier. This report will continue by

discussing the way in which The HUB addresses knowledge management as supported by IT

(and ICT) tools outlined by each of Alavi & Tiwana’s (2003) four KM processes of:

creation, storage and retrieval, transfer, and application.

IT-based Knowledge Creation and Externalization ‘Stickiness’ Issues

A discussion of knowledge creation isn’t possible without first mentioning Nonaka &

Takeuchi’s (1995:71) knowledge spiral (aka SECI model) consisting of: socialization,

externalization, combination, and internalization. Given that The HUB is a software platform

in which users must codify their tacit knowledge to an explicit form in order to share it, the

externalization aspect of the SECI model will be the primary focus of analysis. However, as

online networking is gaining prominence, a discussion will follow later which highlights the

importance of tacit to tacit knowledge creation via socialization. As enhanced decision

making and innovation creation is the overarching goal of KM; internalization of explicit to

tacit knowledge and the combination of explicit to explicit knowledge will be discussed in the

application process section.

Knowledge creation within The HUB is possible via the e-learning tools and collaboration

support systems. The e-learning management system dimension of The HUB is an important

knowledge creation tool contained within each user’s “My Courses” profile (Alavi &

Tiwana’s 2003:105; Lindvall et al. 2003:148). Moodle provides integration with B&R’s

15

existing training software (Articulate Storyline) in order to push training knowledge to the

guides with the objective of building the skills which they require. The HUB’s training

courses are a one-directional transference of policies and procedures which have been

codified by HQ from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge via the process of documentation

which are pushed to the guides regardless of their location. Transfer of this type of explicit

knowledge is a central focus of the LMS platform through codifying tacit knowledge into a

sharable and searchable format as well as creating training tools to provide standardized

process and procedure operational guidelines. Knowledge creation is also possible via the

collaboration support systems’ forums, blogs, and hotlinks contained within the “My

references” section of The HUB as they can be utilized to facilitate user interactions in

solving problems (Alavi & Tiwana’s 2003:109; Lindvall et al. 2003:142).

Individuals holding tacit expert knowledge can acquired power associated with controlling

valuable knowledge that others don’t have (Chatti et al 2007:414). While sharing this

intangible knowledge via externalizing their knowledge into “organizationally accessible

repositories” enhances the organizations view of them as valuable central network

contributors (Tsai 2001); contradictorily, in the externalization conversion process from tacit

to explicit knowledge via IT systems, the individual loses the benefit of retaining that

knowledge and thusly will be less motivated to share (Griffith et al. 2003:280). Furthermore,

similar to Liyanage’s et al.’s (2009) intrinsic and extrinsic influence factors for KT; Szulanski

(1996) empirically proved that knowledge transfer would be more ‘sticky’ (re: difficult)

when: 1) the knowledge had causal ambiguity, 2) the knowledge recipient lacked absorptive

capacity, and 3) the transfer context contained an arduous relationship. Although Szulanski

found no support for motivation as a stickiness factor, in an empirical study to research

employee willingness to share knowledge, support was found for Burgess’s (2005)

hypothesis that the perceived credit (‘extrinsic rewards’) provided by an organization were

positively correlated with employee’s exhibiting increased sharing behaviour.

In the case company, the more knowledgeable that guides are regarding the area in which

they are guiding is directly linked to the local area valuable knowledge that customers

perceive they have, resulting in higher tips. This should create a motivation to learn more, but

can also be negatively associated with the fact that knowledge is power and so they are less

16

motivated to share (i.e. receiver openness while sender KT stickiness) (Chatti et al.

2007:414). For example, a guide may have local contacts (e.g. restaurant owner) that they

have developed a relationship with over the years which provides high quality service.

Although they can easily transfer the explicit knowledge about where to go (re:

recommendations), they cannot as easily transfer the tacit knowledge and value contained

within the relationship. Furthermore, they may not desire to transfer this to other guides as

their tips are directly tied to the unique knowledge and trip experience that they provide.

Knowledge Storage and Retrieval

One of the primary goals of The HUB is to act as one centralized knowledge repository

which is able to locate captured knowledge from outside of the organization as well as

disseminate knowledge within the organization through bringing together all knowledge into

a single access point to reduce the search process (Alavi & Tiwana’s 2003:108). This has

been an instrumental benefit of The HUB for knowledge management given that it assists

guides with transferring their individually held “local region” knowledge back to the

company (HQ) via documentation through trip reports and debriefings which codify their

tacit experiences into explicit knowledge so that it can be collected, analyzed and shared on

The HUB. As guides convert their knowledge from tacit to explicit via technological

communication tools (i.e. The HUB), the result for the entire networked organization will be

enhanced access and the ability to search for relevant knowledge (Griffith et al. 2003:271).

Within the “My References” section of The HUB are wiki’s, documents and hotlinks which

aid user’s in finding the most relevant and up-to-date documents and contents related to all

aspects of the business, thereby increasing the explicit KT speed and efficiency (Lindvall et

al. 2003:140). Prior to the centralization of knowledge, multiple separate inefficient tools

were located with various office staff which required guides to contact the office and receive

printed documents which could quickly become outdated. It is important to note that training

is required to reduce the difficulty for guide to understand the feature-rich centralized system

as well as the develop the skills with which they can compose a report or classify a document

and locate it within the system (Chatti et al. 2007:409).

17

Knowledge Transfer

The HUB’s potential as a KT tool is reliant on its acceptance as both an enterprise

information portal and communication support system (Alavi & Tiwana’s 2003:109; Lindvall

et al. 2003:144). The “My References” section of The HUB contains a “Guiding 2014”

subsection which acts as a portal that houses everything required for a guide to run a trip as

well as connect to both HQ and other guides while in the field. Included in the portal are:

helpful announcements, reference materials (checklists), guiding document lists (e.g. post-trip

forms), as well as an open communication tool called “Guiding life” which contains an open

forum and wikis where guides are free to share helpful tips regarding cities of which they

have extensive knowledge.

Tacit knowledge requires social interaction in order to be shared (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995)

and so face-to-face meetings are optimal; however, media richness is enhancing the ability

for tacit knowledge sharing via synchronous communication tools such as instant messaging

(IM) (Panahi et al. 2013:387). The objective was that the Guides could use the wiki’s and IM

communication tools available in The HUB to quickly share knowledge about locations in

real-time whereas before the guides were using an external social media network (Facebook)

to share knowledge which wasn’t then being captured by the organization. This is an example

of the LMS supporting “informal or unmanaged learning” (Grace & Butler 2005:60), which

goes beyond the initial goals of supporting “formal managed learning within the

organization” via training. Although asynchronous communication tools, guide insight during

The HUB development phase led to the addition of wikis and forums to provide a fluid

workspace compared to other sections of The HUB which would remain more stable (e.g.

policy documents).

A subsection of “My References” called “Regional Information for Guides” also contains

valuable proprietary B&R knowledge compiled throughout the year on all trips that the

company operates. While this knowledge provides the very essence of a B&R trip and

therefore is of strategic value to the guides, it also represents a security threat of possible

knowledge leak to competitors. Travel knowledge is B&R’s core business, and as such there

is a lot of risk with providing access to contractors (travel guides) who have no direct tie to

B&R and as such are a potential threat of taking the regional information located on The

18

HUB for their own use and starting their own company. Although an initial concern, the

value added of having the guides get access to this info was weighed more heavily than the

risk. However, the company can track all downloads and time spent on Moodle to monitor for

suspicious behaviour.

An imitatability issue with knowledge transfer to competing firms external of B&R’s

networked organization is an problem that must be further addressed because once valuable

knowledge becomes codified within The HUB, it becomes easily transferrable. This is of

benefit to the organization but can also lead to knowledge-leak as knowledge contained

solely within a “technological tool reservoirs” are the easiest format to transfer and one which

competitors could potentially utilize (Argote & Ingram 2000:158). Therefore, the real value

of the knowledge embedded within The HUB platform is derived not only from the explicit

knowledge embedded within, but rather with the tacit knowledge of the users (guides) in how

to: create, combine, search, transfer, and utilize the knowledge that gets created in the system.

This is supported by Argote & Ingram’s (2000:150) proposition that “interactions among

people, tasks, and tools are least likely to fit a new context and hence are the most difficult to

transfer.” This is why there is a high level of importance in developing a system which is

based on socialization to continue the sharing of knowledge from which the firm will benefit.

Only once users develop trust and have internalized the value associated with the HUB, will

it become a core competitive advantage that will attain rarity and inimitability.

Knowledge Application

The value associated with utilizing an LMS platform such as The HUB as a tool for

knowledge management derives directly from the ability of the knowledge transferred to be

applied by users in future situations. In this way, The HUB fulfils both the role of an expert

system as well as a decision support system. The “My Profile” section of The HUB allows

users to quickly find people (e.g. view staff, positions, names, contact details) with whom

they can communicate to answer questions or share knowledge. This is supported by the “My

Badges” section where guides receive certification badges indicating skills achieved through

completing courses. Both of these sections aid knowledge seekers in finding experts in

various areas to address the issue of “knowing-whom” (Panahi 2013:379; Chatti et al.

2007:405).

19

Although it has been advocated that managing the transfer of knowledge within a company is

of strategic importance, the outcomes in terms of applicability of these transfers have yet to

be discussed. The most frequently-cited benefits associated with KT are enhanced problem

solving (Parent et al. 2007), best practice sharing (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Szulanski

1996), and promoting innovation through facilitating collaboration and networking (Liyanage

2007:122). All of which result in supporting organizational decision making. Furthermore,

the following are general benefits of IS for organizations: efficient and cheaper

communication throughout the network (internally and externally) with tighter coordination

and decentralization leading to improved decision making (Heikkilä 2014A:19-20).

Application of newly acquired knowledge for optimal decision making in the field occurs

through the internalization process as individual knowledge is created during the transition

from explicit to tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995:71). At B&R, guides must be

able to read the explicitly codified document prepared by trip planners, and then internalize

the knowledge so that they can answer questions and improve their decision making during

trips. Furthermore, given that guides are located all over the world, utilizing a single virtual

information system (re: The HUB) provides the opportunity for standardized training and

sharing of knowledge (vertically in both directions as well as horizontally) without the need

for expensive transportation costs associated with personal meetings. However, this leads to

some limitations regarding the knowledge that can be transferred using virtual systems due to

the loss of knowledge during codification and raises questions as to the degree to which

experiential tacit knowledge sharing is possible via ICT.

Overcoming Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer Individual and Shared Knowledge

Within B&R’s networked organization, all guides are silo’s of individually held highly

specialized tacit regional knowledge of great value to the firm (Grant 1996). As has been

previously stated, this tacit knowledge is difficult to transfer especially via technology as it

requires a great deal of communication. However, as guides have been recruited for similar

personality traits and skill sets, they also possess a transactive memory which is a shared

system of meanings, stocks of knowledge (Kogut & Zander 1992:388), coding schemes

(1992:390), retrieving knowledge available to the group (Griffith et al. 2003:277) and

experiences which can be leveraged to facilitate the tacit knowledge transfer process within

20

the network. It has been shown that connections are more likely to form between people who

are more similar to one another, known as ‘homophily’, such as the case in B&R where

guides share similar behavioural attributes (Smale 2007A:19-20). Therefore, to enhance tacit

knowledge transfer, a focus should be on building socialization within the guide network in

order to develop a more unified transactive memory.

Socialization and Social Networks

An initial belief behind The HUB was that the more people begin to share, the more that they

will be excited to share, especially as the system develops into an enculturalization tool (via

common training) which Spender (1996) has associated with the ability to transfer individual

tacit knowledge within teams. This is supported by Kogut & Zander (1992:383) in that

building on existing social relationships can lead to firm growth. The socialization process

was also identified by Nonaka (1994) as the primary method of transferring tacit to tacit

knowledge within a company via on-the-job training and direct observation. The Network

Model of IT applications also supports this theory by “facilitating person-to-person transfer

of knowledge via electronic communication channels” (Alavi & Tiwana 2003:109). As such,

The HUB performs an ICT knowledge sharing role via wiki’s and IM which create a

previously unavailable organic line of communication throughout the guide network and not

just vertically between HQ and individual guides. Developing stronger connections in the

form of a social network between these independent guides provides the organization with

the ability to acquire new capabilities (Argote & Ingram 2000) and build learning

communities (Chatti et al. 2007:406).

In order to achieve an optimal LMS-based knowledge management system, Chatti et al.

(2007:411) advocate focusing on the following seven critical factors: 1) knowledge

networking and community building (i.e. enhancing know-who), 2) user-centric focus (i.e.

‘Me-learning’), 3) distributed learning (i.e. outside of the classroom), 4) bottom-up (i.e.

sharing instead of controlling knowledge), 5) knowledge-pull (i.e. individuals choose the

knowledge that meets their needs), 6) adoption (i.e. systems must be simple and useful), and

7) knowledge sharing culture and trust (i.e. promote collaboration and relationship

development).

21

The HUB meets all of these criteria; however it can be taken a step further by encouraging

the most active users to develop a community of practice (CoP). Within The HUB, users

should collaborate with the common goal of solving a problem or creating innovations

around which they have informally organized themselves to communicate with other

passionate experts (Parent et al. 2007:83). Griffith et al. (2003:276) proposes that in virtual

teams, an individual’s membership in a relevant CoP will positively affect the transition of

potential team knowledge to useable knowledge.

Furthermore, the literature has highlighted that the strategic role of IS in KM is driving

beyond what is now capable with today’s Moodle platform to a focus on social network

building as a means of sharing tacit knowledge (Chatti et al. 2007; Panahi et al 2013).

However, as an open-source platform, Moodle can always grow to incorporate these elements

in the future to continually bridge the gap between ICT and face-to-face communications in

organizational knowledge transfer.

Conclusions

In today’s highly competitive international business world where knowledge management is

playing an increasing important role; firms must strategically manage their information

systems in order to harness the valuable knowledge contained within their organizational

network. In the past, this meant a focus on building multiple databases with which to store

codified explicit knowledge. However, due to the rapid advancements in technology,

organizations are coming closer than ever in replicating face-to-face human interaction

through the application of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs). One such

technology is Learning Management Systems (LMS) such as Moodle which form a ‘shared

space’ alluded to by Roberts (2000:439) wherein the members of an organization’s network

can form social connections and achieve a level of tacit knowledge transfer unlike previously

imaginable.

As the case study of Butterfield & Robinson’s implementation of Moodle for the purpose of

knowledge transfer indicated, it is possible to achieve both explicit as well as tacit knowledge

sharing as long as the information system is highly customized to the firm and it is embedded

within a corporate culture that emphasizes open sharing and collaboration between

22

knowledge holding users. Although only recently implemented, The HUB has a lot of

potential given that B&R is only currently using 25% of Moodle’s capabilities. In the future,

The HUB will continue to play an instrumental role in: the socialization of new and existing

employees through e-learning programs who are geographically distant, training suppliers in

B&R’s values and standards, and opening deeper lines of communication across-borders and

silos within B&R’s network.

It has been recognized throughout the literature review that the future of e-learning via

platforms such as Moodle are shifting towards combining LMS with “knowledge networking

and social software” (Chatti et al. 2007). This is demonstrated in the ICT movement towards

pure networking with the goal of sharing tacit knowledge through the use of closely

integrated organizational networks, such as Enterprise Social Networks (e.g. Yammer). This

is based on the proliferation of Web 2.0-based Social Webtools (e.g. Wikis, SNS, blogs,

videopostings, social tagging) for collaboration, communication and transferring tacit

knowledge (Panahi et al 2013). B&R has already begun to capitalize on some of these trends

thru the hash tag #mybnr where guides can post and share photo’s from around the world

(Tagboard 2014). Future research is now required to empirically analyze the effectiveness of

social web platforms in sharing tacit knowledge within an organization. As the history of

business has proven throughout the ages, organizations will always be driven to exploiting

(and trying to manage) cutting edge technological advancements with the objective of

acquiring an advantage over their competition.

23

References

Alavi, M. & Tiwana, A. (2003). Knowledge Management: The Information Technology Dimension.

Mark Easterby-Smith and Marjorie Lyles (Editors), Organizational Learning, Blackwell Press,

London, 103-120

Allee, V. (1999). Knowledge or Learning, Published in Leverage, March.

Ambrosini, V. & C. Bowman, (2001). Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization.

Journal of Management Studies, (38)6: 811-829

Argote, Linda, & Paul Ingram (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in

Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 150-169

Bender, S. & Fish, A. (2000). Transfer of knowledge and the retention of expertise: the continuing

need for global assignments. Knowledge Management, 4(2): 125-37

Berry, Miles (2009). Knowledge Management in Moodle. [online] Available from:

<http://www.slideshare.net/mgberry/moodle-and-knowledge-management> [Accessed on 10 May

2014]

Burgess, D. (2005). What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit?

Journal of Business Communication, 42(4): 324-48

Butterfield (2014). Since 1966. [online] Available from: <http://www.butterfield.com/about/since-

1966/> [Accessed on 1 May 2014]

Chatti, M.A., M. Jarke, & Frosch-Wilke, D. (2007) The future of e-learning: a shift to knowledge

networking and social software, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, 3(4/5): 404–420

Eskelinen, Jussi, Aki Kokkinen, Minna Koskinen, & Pasi Tyrväinen (2004). Comparing the

Applicability of Two Learning Theories for Knowledge Transfer in Information System

Implementation Training. Proceedings – IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning

Technologies. DOI: 10.1109/ICALT.2004.1357404, p.206-2010

Galbraith, C.S. (1990). Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high tech firms. California

Management Review, 32(4): 56-70

Grace, Audrey & Tom Butler (2005). Beyond knowledge management: Introducing learning

management systems. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7(1): 53-70

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal,

17:109-122

Griffith, Terri L., John E. Sawyer, & Margaret A. Neale (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams:

Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly,

27(2): 265-287

Heikkilä, Jukka-Pekka (2014A). Lecture 1: Strategic Management of Information Systems. University

of Vaasa: JOHT3052

Heikkilä, Jukka-Pekka (2014B). Lecture 3: Social media. University of Vaasa: JOHT3052

Heikkilä, Jukka-Pekka (2014C). Lecture 5: The dark side of technology. University of Vaasa:

JOHT3052

24

Karlsen, Jan Terje, & Petter Gottschalk (2004). Factors affecting knowledge transfer in IT projects.

Engineering Management Journal, 16(1) 3-10

Kogut, B., & U. Zander, (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication

of technology. Organization Science, 3: 383-97

Kontkanen, Minnie (2014). Lecture 4: Research Design. University of Vaasa: INTB3002

Koulopoulos, T. & C. Frappaolo, (1999). Smart Things to Know about Knowledge Management.

Capstone, Dover, NH.

Lasic, Tomaz (2008). What is Moodle explained with Lego. [online] Available from:

http://www.slideshare.net/moodlefan/what-is-moodle-explained-with-lego-presentation> [Accessed

on 2 May 2014]

Lee, Zoonky & Jinyoul Lee (2000). An ERP implementation case study from a knowledge

transfer perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 15: 281-288

Lee, Sang M., Zoonky Lee, & Jinyoul Lee. (2007). Knowledge transfer in work practice: Adoption

and use of integrated information systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(4): 501-518

Lindvall, M., I. Rus, & S. S. Sinha (2003). Software systems support for knowledge management.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5): 137-150

Liyanage, Champika, Taha Elhag, Tabarak Ballal & Qiuping Li (2009). Knowledge communication

and translation – a knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3): 118-131

Moodle (2014A). About Moodle FAQ. [online] Available from:

<http://docs.moodle.org/27/en/About_Moodle_FAQ> [Accessed on 5 May 2014]

Moodle (2014B) Stats. [online] Available from: <https://moodle.org/stats/> [Accessed on 15 May

2014]

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,

5(1): 14-37

Nonaka, I. & H. Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1996). The Knowledge-Based Economy.

OECD: Paris, France

Panahi, S., J. Watson, & H. Partridge (2013). Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3): 379-397

Parent, R., M. Roy, & D. St-Jacques (2007). A systems-based dynamic knowledge transfer capacity

model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6): 81-93

Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-critical Philosophy. Harper Torchbooks,

New York, NY.

Roberts, Joanne (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and

communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,

12(4): 429-443

25

Saunders, M., P. Lewis and A. Thornhill (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. 5th edition.

Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Smale, Adam (2007A). Theme 5: ‘Stickiness factor (v) – The Source-Recipient Relationship

(individual level). University of Vaasa: JOHT3017

Smale, Adam (2007B). Theme 8: Technology-based Mechanisms of Knowledge Transfer. University

of Vaasa: JOHT3017

Smale, Adam (2008). Global HRM integration: a knowledge transfer perspective. Personnel Review,

37(2): 145-164

Spender, J. C. (1996). Making Knowledge The Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm. Strategic

Management Journa,.17: 45-62

Szulanski, Gabriel (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice

within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17:27-43

Tagboard (2014). #mybnr. [online] Available from: <https://tagboard.com/mybnr> [Accessed on 25

May 2014]

Tsai, Wenpin (2001). Knowledge Transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network

position and absorptive capacity of business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of

Management Journal, 44(5): 996-1004.

Webanywhereworkplace (2012). Moodle training solutions for businesses. [online] Available from:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QeKBA5NmyM> [Accessed on 25 April 2014]

Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic

Books.

26

Appendix Appendix #1) “Learning in Organizations – Framework Incorporating LMS”

(Grace & Butler 2005:59)

27

Appendix #2) “Knowledge perspectives and their implications” (Liyanage et al.

2009:121)

Appendix #3)“Knowledge Hierarchy” (Bender & Fish 2000)

Appendix #4) “Degree of tacitness” (Ambrosini & Bowman 2001)

28

Appendix #5) “The dynamic knowledge transfer capacity model” (Parent et al.

2007:88)

29

Appendix #6) “Knowledge transfer – a process model” (Liyanage et al.’s

2009:126)

Appendix #7) “KM architecture model” (Lindvall et al.’s 2003:139)

30

Appendix #8) “Information technology tools for support of KM processes”

(Alavi & Tiwana 2003:114)