Journal of Organizational Behavior10.pdf

7/29/2019 Journal of Organizational Behavior10.pdf

1/7

& Research Article

Applying Wikis to ManagingKnowledgeA Socio-TechnicalApproach

Miia Kosonen*,y and Aino Kiantoz

School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

As organizations are increasingly moving towards geographically dispersed and virtual formsof collaboration, knowledge sharing through social software such as wikis is widely acknowl-edged as an important area of research and practice. However, social software remains an under-investigated issue in the literature on knowledge management (KM), and there is a lack ofstudies demonstrating how organizations can successfully incorporate these technologies intotheir everyday operations. To bridge this gap, our paper examines a case of successful wikiimplementation. We claim that understanding the implementation of wikis requires a socio-technical perspective focusing on the organizational context and activity system in which theyare implemented rather than on their technological proficiency. Furthermore, we claim that theirimplementation brings about change in existing social systems, and results in new kinds of socialconstellations, interactions, and identities, which are manageable and controllable only to alimited extent. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

As organizations are increasingly moving towardsgeographically dispersed and virtual forms ofcollaboration, knowledge sharing through socialsoftware is widely acknowledged as an important

area of research and practice (Davies, 2004; Wagnerand Bolloju, 2005). Social software as such does notrefer to any particular set of tools; it is rather a choiceof design and use (cf. Wikipedia, 2007). In general,the term social incorporates forms of computer-mediated communication that allow people toconnect or collaborate through organizational orinterest-based communities. For instance, weblogs

and wikis facilitate personal learning and reflection,support group-level knowledge sharing, helppeople to locate knowledge, and serve as acommunity memory that is easily accessible anytime and anywhere.

However, social software remains an under-

investigated issue in knowledge management(KM). The influence of information and communi-cation technologies (ICTs) on knowledge sharingand creation has been approached mostly from theindividual perspective in terms of the role of ICT ineither lowering or heightening the cognitive barrierto sharing (e.g., Hendriks, 1999). Accordingly, ICTtools are mainly designed to support the acquisitionand retrieval of codified knowledge in order toimprove individual knowledge bases (Huysmanand Wulf, 2006). Less has been written on support-ing informal emergent knowledge sharing within

communities by means of novel collaboration tools.In this sense, weblogs and wikis deserve more

Knowledge and Process Management

Volume 16 Number 1 pp 2329 (2009)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/kpm.322

*Correspondence to: Miia Kosonen, School of Business, Lappeen-ranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851, Lappeen-ranta, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] StudentzProfessor

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


2/7

attention from both researchers and practitioners.According to Roll (2004), the unique value of thesetools resides in supporting a multitude of distrib-uted knowledge processes simultaneously. Due totheir flexibility and easiness of use, they also enablethe more fluid communication and collaborationpatterns that support the free exchange of knowl-edge.

Current research lacks practical examples of thesuccessful implementation of social software inorganizations, particularly in the corporate context.Our paper, which is based on qualitative data,presents a case from a large company in the ICTindustry that uses wikis for internal knowledgesharing and creation. We examine how internalwikis have been incorporated into the organization,and relate our findings to the broader discussion on

the socio-technical dimension of KM.The paper is organized as follows. First we

discuss KM and wikis. Then we explain themethodology of our empirical research, and presentour findings on the implementation of wikis in thecase organization. Finally, we discuss the widerimplications of our study and propose somepromising avenues for future research on socialsoftware.

THE USE OF WIKIS IN KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT

Knowledge is increasingly scattered both withinand across organizations, which creates newchallenges from the KM perspective. Swan et al.(2000, p. 1) define KM as consisting of anyprocesses and practices concerned with the creation,acquisition, capture, sharing and use of knowledge,skills and expertise. Two major approaches to KMhave been identified in the literature: the technicalview and the socio-technical view (Meso and Smith,2000; Pan and Scarbrough, 1998). The technical viewholds that supporting knowledge work is a matter

of employing an optimal combination of ICTs, suchas web browsers, group-ware, and documentmanagement. The socio-technical view, in contrast,highlights the interplay of technology with theorganizational context, and approaches organiz-ations as complex combinations of technology,organizational structures, and corporate culturesand communities.

According to the resource-based view, sustain-able competitiveness is based on the possession ofstrategic assets, which are valuable, rare, imper-fectly imitable and non-substitutable in nature

(Barney, 1991). In this context, the purely technol-ogy-centered approach to KM seems limited in its

ability to provide sustainable competitiveness forthe organization (Meso and Smith, 2000) becauseICTs are not rarethey are easily available andacquired from the market. Furthermore, in as far asthe outputs built through these technologies areexplicit and codified, they are easily imitated bycompetitors. Finally, there are various options foralmost all technological solutions, and the techno-logical tools of KM therefore do not satisfy the non-substitutability criterion for strategic assets either.

Within the socio-technical view of KM thecommunity-based approach has been consideredone of the most fruitful in terms of understandingknowledge sharing and creation (Brown andDuguid, 1991). Communities may be physical,mental, or virtual. Knowledge creation thusrequires negotiation among different social com-

munities, which may have distinctive norms,cultural values, and interests (Swan et al., 2000).

Kotlarsky and Oshri (2005) identify twoapproaches to knowledge sharing: transactivememory (implying knowledge about who knowswhat), and collective knowledge (invisible struc-tures or collective wisdom built on language,history, and shared meanings). When knowledge isembedded in the collective, sharing is enabledthrough collaborative mechanisms that facilitate theexchanging of ideas and stories, the providing ofinformation and expertise, and the debating of

issues that are relevant to the community (Waskoand Faraj, 2000). In conditions of distributedknowledge work, communities are supported bycollaborative and communicative technologies, i.e.,social software.

Knowledge work includes finding codified infor-mation, organizing personal information, makingsense of information, negotiating meanings, creat-ing new ideas, establishing and maintainingpersonal networks, and collaborating in commu-nities (Roll, 2004, see also Efimova, 2004). Theseprocesses are highly interrelated and often cannotbe separated. However, few KM tools exist that take

this interrelatedness into account; for instance,document management systems focus only onfinding information. The benefits of novel formsof social software, such as weblogs and wikis,include support for a multitude of knowledge-workprocesses. They combine communication andpersonal information management, make knowl-edge work more visible, and open up newopportunities for collaboration. As the benefits ofsuch tools directly accrue to the user, their use ispersonally rewarding and integrates well into thedaily patterns of work. (Roll, 2004).

In particular, wikis are server-based systems ofinterlinked Web pages that allow users to easily

24 M. Kosonen and A. KiantoDOI: 10.1002/kpm

RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management


3/7

create and edit content (Davies, 2004; Leuf andCunningham, 2001; Raman, 2006). According toWagner and Bolloju (2005), they allow people toengage in knowledge creation and sharing throughprocesses of collaborative editing. They representan open-source technology for knowledge content,focusing on the incremental creation and enhance-ment of knowledge, and multi-user participation.

Majchrzak et al. (2006) suggest that the benefits ofusing corporate wikis include an enhanced repu-tation, making work easier, and helping organiz-ations to improve their processes. However, thesebenefits are more likely to be accrued in conditionsin which novel solutions are called for rather than inthe context of routine tasks. In addition, users haveto trust in others abilities as contributors, i.e., to beable to identify credible sources of information.

Davies (2004) pinpoints three key factors in wikicollaboration: understanding the social and tech-nical aspects, which in turn promotes trust (in thetechnology, in the content, in the wiki communityand in the concept/form of collaboration ingeneral), and valueif it is to enable and maintaincollaborative communities the wiki tool must beperceived as valuable on the individual level.

Current literature suggests that champions arecritical for advancing acceptance of new technol-ogies in organizations and successfully implement-ing them (Beath, 1991; Lawless and Price, 1992).

Internal technology champions are individuals whopresent and promote an outside technology (e.g.,wikis) to their fellow organizational members, whoare potential users (Lawless and Price, 1992, P. 342).

If social software is to be used for KM purposes ithas to match the organizational culture andcommunication climate; organizations should valueopen-minded and nonhierarchical idea exchange.The organizational environment also affects knowl-edge sharing through the level of task interdepen-dence, employee autonomy and perceived peersupport, for example: autonomous workers per-ceive greater utility in searching for knowledge and

identifying innovative work patterns than employ-ees who are monitored and receive detaileddirections from managers, and thus lack self-efficacy (Cabrera et al., 2006; Jarvenpaa and Staples,2000). Kling and Lamb (1999) note that supportingIT infrastructures are often understood merely interms of the physical architectures of systems andnetworks. Nevertheless, the hidden costs ofcomputing are also significant enablers of social-software implementation.

Finally, the informal organization, unplannedand emerging from personal friendships and

needs, greatly influences organizational behavior(Tannenbaum, 1966). Informal networks can cut

across formal organizational charts, and at bestfunction as significant channels of knowledgesharing and creation and thereby enhance workand the attainment of the organizations goals.However, informal groupings can also inhibit andsabotage organizational success, such as by inhibit-ing information flows or transferring informationthat is negative to the firm (Krackhardt and Hanson,1993). Informal networks may be more important interms of knowledge sharing, feedback and thequality of results than formal networks (Lin, 1971).

METHODOLOGY

Case studies are well suited to preliminary,exploratory types of research and in areas in which

the existing theory is inadequate (Eisenhardt, 1989).In particular, the literature on the implementationand use of social software in organizations hastypically adopted a fairly managerial approach byoffering guidelines on how to apply weblogs orwikis, for example. We thus chose the case study asour research method and focused on the experi-ences of applying and developing wikis inside anengineering organization from the ICT industry.The organization is considered to be one of the mostsuccessful within its industry, and is globally seenas a forerunner in developing new communication

technologies. In our understanding, it has been afruitful breeding ground for applying social soft-ware in the corporate contextas one intervieweeput it, engineers by their very nature want toexperiment with novel technologies.

We chose an information-rich case, a type ofsingle case that provides various opportunities forlearning about the phenomenon (Patton, 1990).Given the scarcity of academic studies in the area ofsocial software, wikis seem to be a phenomenon towhich there is no easy access in the business context.This could also reflect their newness in corporateuse. Hence we also provide a revelatory case (Tellis,

1997).Our case study draws on multiple sources of

evidence: no single piece of evidence could beconsidered to provide a comprehensive perspectiveon the phenomenon under study. In order toillustrate the implementation of wikis in practicewe conducted two group interviews, the first inMarch 2006 and the second in October 2006, withfour representatives of a large ICT company. Fourinterviewees participated in the first interviewround, which was organized as a telephoneconference, and three in the second, which was

conducted face-to-face. Both interviews lastedbetween one-and-a-half and 2 hours. They were

Applying Wikis to Managing Knowledge 25DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE


4/7

tape-recorded and transcribed, which resulted in atotal textual dataset of 41 pages. We also engaged inadditional informal conversations with the infor-mants, and employed company-internal presen-tation materials concerning the use of wikis. Theinterviewed people were the corporate championsrelated to the implementation process. Hence, wefocused on a non-dominant group of individuals inthe organization, and allowed them to tell theirstories (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003). The inter-viewer directed the inquiry in the group interviews,but in a rather unstructured fashion. This interviewtype was chosen because it is considered a goodmeans of helping the respondents to recall specificevents, as well as the shared experiences related tothem (Fontana and Frey, 2000).

We analyzed the interview data using ATLAS.ti,

which is software tailored to qualitative dataanalysis. We coded the data inductively and thensorted it into categories based on regularities thatoccurred. Hence, the sorting was done by formulat-ing the themes based on our main research question,in other words concerning the factors explaining theincorporation of wikis into the organization. Thisstrategy enabled us to find the relevant parts of thedata that required further analysis (Auerbach andSilverstein, 2003). The accuracy and value of thecoding and the interpretations were ensured bymeans of data triangulation. We used multiple

sources of evidence and established a chain ofevidence with ATLAS.ti in order to increase thevalidity of the study (Yin, 2003).

RESULTS

Wiki adoption in the organization evolved from thebottom up, starting as an informal trial to match theneeds of one software-development project situatedon two different geographical sites. On the basis ofhis experience the focal employee, or corporatechampion, became interested in wikis. The devel-

opment work was thus driven by his willingness toexperiment with them, and his ability to perceivetheir value. The risks were low because the tool wasfreely available and easy to launch. In general,successful champions emerge informally, promotethe novelty with conviction, persistence and energy,and are willing even to risk their position andreputation to ensure the noveltys success within theorganization. Our case thus demonstrates thecrucial role of a committed champion with thesecharacteristics. It should also be noted that, in thiscase, wikis were brought to the organization by the

champion without proper authorization, and theywere disseminated further without formal accep-

tance or projection. Thus the process could becharacterized as voluntary and even risky. Here thestrong conviction and motivation of the initialchampion was a decisive factor.

There were no official frames for doing such work. Itwas more like a non-verbal contract that Im allowed tobe less productive. . .

An important milestone in spreading wiki useoutside of the pilot project was the offering of socialsupport by peers and colleagues. In particular, thefirst internal customers to adopt the internal wikiencouraged the development as they immediatelysaw the benefits of the system. The developer, inturn, gave informational support to the emerginguser community by providing simple how-to-doguidelines for those interested in the subject. He was

also able to react quickly to feedback and developthe wiki system to better match users needs. Thishas affected the success of internal wikis, but thelarge number of users has also had its reverse side: itis slower, more difficult and more costly to makechanges as the user base grows and users are lockedinto the current system.

It started out as a minor need, or a very specific needin project documentation. As we were able to solve theproblem, we then noted that this would be nice for avariety of uses in our organization. Now its a de-factotool with over 7,000 users.

We [as customers] could just send an email, that wewould like to have this kind of feature, and in one hourit was all done. The system advanced during its use,and it was quite utopian, how well it really worked.

We shouldnt try to make everyone use wikis. The neteffect to the firm can be negative. Its more importantto have the right tool and maximized productivity.

Our case thus illustrates the fact that bothtechnical and social support are critical for thedissemination of wikis. This was realized as the

champion exercised an important role in providingsupport for the novel users of wikis. Our results alsodemonstrate that their implementation is anongoing social process, characterized by continuousincremental adaptations, rather than a one-shot act.The ability to continuously adjust the technology tothe specific organizational context in which it isused seems to be an important success factor in theimplementation of wikis, just as it is in the adoptionof any other external technologies (Leonard-Barton,1995).

Following the above findings, our results also

underline the role of informal social networks insuccessful implementation. It has been estimated




5/7

that up to 70% of all communication withinorganizations takes place through the grapevine,i.e., informal, uncontrollably spreading rumors orgossip (Crampton et al., 1998). In our case too, theinitial interest in trying out wikis was spreadthrough face-to-face conversations between thechampion and colleagues who were sitting on thesame floor of the office building.

Much of a large organization is based on informalnetworks. Your work cant be limited inside one unit,

you must know the right people you can ask whennecessary.

Based on our case, one of the success factors wasinternal branding and productization. The focalemployee developed the wiki system to functionallyresemble the corporate intranet. This, in turn,

lowered the cognitive barrier to its adoption. Asthe use of wikis spread, the non-rational bases ofthinking about how people were using the system inpractice became more visible. Easiness of use andflexibility are naturally important, but even morethan that the adoption relies on what the tool seemsto be and feels like. When the interface and layoutwere made consistent with the organizationsintranet, the number of users radically increased.This implies that the sensual, aesthetic dimensionsof social technologies should also be given con-scious attention.

We did nothing else but changed the layout; what itlooked like and how people felt about it, and suddenlyit had much more credibility, people were attached tothe system.

It was not about explicit rules for setting the contentof sites, but more about making it look more officialand acceptable.

In addition, in terms of marketing wikis intern-ally, much of the success has been due to positiverecommendations and word-of-mouth, e.g., byagitators and internal hubs. According to the

developers, the best way to market them seems tobe through trial and practice. As a result, they haveorganically spread across the organization.

Only drug dealers and IT people have users. . . Itsdifficult to attract people unless they see the concretebenefits, and feel that the system has true value. Then

you dont actually need to sell anything.

Kling and Lamb (1999) argue that too oftenchampions and sponsors of new technologiesbelieve that other employees will naturally seethe benefits of adoption, and do not pay enough

attention to explaining what these benefits are.However, people need good reasons to change their

work-related practices and are likely to adoptchanges, for example to start using wikis, only ifthey see the direct benefits for their work (see alsoDavies, 2004). It could further be argued that the keyto successfully implementing wikis (or any techno-logical knowledge-management tools for that mat-ter) lies in understanding the identities of theorganizational actors and the ways in which theyconduct their day-to-day work. As Spender (2007,P. 16) notes, We can be surprised how readilypeople change when they believe changes willenhance their power and identity. If organizationalactors perceive wikis to be something that enablesthem to do their work more efficiently andeffectively, and to improve their chances ofconducting meaningful and inspiring tasks, thenthey will be more willing to start using them.

According to our findings, once people try them andfind them useful, they will be motivated to continueto use them and there will be less need for furtherinternal marketing.

It is in the nature of social software to adjust to theneeds of the surrounding organization: the usercommunity determines both the structure and thecontent. Initiating and sustaining such collaborationrequires a supportive organizational culture, inwhich people are trusted and encouraged tocontribute. In other words, the tool must fit thecontext: wikis as such do not guarantee positive

outcomes related to knowledge sharing andcreation. Furthermore, not all wiki experimentswill succeed, nor do they need to. Matching userneeds and having a supportive culture seem to bethe key facets in bridging the chasm of death andattracting a critical mass of users to form acommunity.

The interviewees described the close connectionbetween open-source ideology and informal col-laboration tools such as wikis: in both contextspeople freely reveal what they know and want toshare their contributions with others.

Wikis are uncontrolled, informal tools, and they donot suit highly official tasks.

When using email, people express power relationsand hide information: who gets to know what, who isincluded and who is excluded. Wikis and weblogs areanalogous to open source, where everything can beshared freely.

However, the culture of openness has its limits,and many employees feel uncomfortable about theirrights and responsibilities. For instance, not everypiece of information can be freely revealed in the

firm environment, no matter how easy and flexiblethat would be. This causes much uncertainty among




6/7

people: Can I publish this? Who could do that? Itis relatively easy to implement practical guidelineson implementing social software, but it is muchmore difficult to give guidance and encouragementon how to use it, particularly in the corporatecontext.

Our case thus demonstrates the importance of theorganizational culture in the implementation ofwikis. A culture that supports knowledge sharingand collaboration enables organizational actors toderive the best benefits from social software. Animportant cultural factor also seems to be theacceptance of mistakes and occasional failures, asthese necessarily happen in an open collaborativeenvironment. Previous studies have emphasizedthe necessity of such cultures for collaborativeinnovation (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001). As users

themselves take the role of focal players in theknowledge sharing and utilization processes,organizational structures gradually become flatterand more horizontal.

DISCUSSION

Novel solutions for improving connectivity andenhancing communication are called for among andacross organizations. Wikis represent easy-to-adopt

open-source technology that facilitates collabor-ation, particularly in conditions of distributedknowledge work. Taking the interplay of theorganizational context and technology as a theor-etical point of departure, this study examined theconditions leading to the successful incorporation ofwikis into the corporate context. Our resultsdemonstrate the importance of both social andtechnological aspects of implementation. In particu-lar, we illustrated the roles of corporate champions,internal branding and the related aesthetic dimen-sions, a supportive organizational cultures, andinformal social networks.

Based on our findings, we emphasize that theimplementation of virtual collaboration toolsrequires actively and mindfully taking the socialcontext and community into account, otherwise thepotential of ICTs to support the social processes ofknowledge sharing and creation may be comprom-ised. Also according to Zack and McKenney (1995),the strategic advantage derived from the use of ICTis considered to result from having the appropriatesocial context, norms, politics, reward systems, andleadership to take advantage of the technology, andnot simply from implementing communication

technologies. In other words, it is not the technologythat brings people together, but the existing social

capital (Cohen and Prusak, 2001; Huysman andWulf, 2006).

Overall, our results thus demonstrate the import-ance of adopting a socio-technical approachtowards KM. We further argue that if an organiz-ation is to enjoy sustained benefits it should realizethat there is more to KM than the implementationand use of technological solutions. When success-fully embedded in communities, collaborativetechnologies go beyond the formal, codified basesof knowledge. Social software falls within the socio-technical dimension of KM by interlinking informaldiscussions through which communities are main-tained, and the supporting technology. Thus iforganizations want to create sustainable valuethrough knowledge, they should not limit theirknowledge-management activities merely to uncri-

tically acquiring the latest available technologicalsolutions, or judge the suitability of a giventechnological tool on the basis of its technologicalsophistication and effectiveness. Instead, theyshould opt for a more comprehensive approach,which takes into account both the technologies andthe social environment in which they are to beutilized. If an organization is to successfully imple-ment wikis and to do so in a manner that enhancesits value-creation capabilities, it should consciouslysynchronize the technological possibilities theyoffer with the practical, context-dependent realities

it is facing and the social patterns through which itsday-to-day work is conducted. Thereby socialsoftware can provide it with an additional sourceof sustained competitive advantage.

In our research we have focused on the criticalelements involved in incorporating wikis into thecorporate context. However, the actual knowledge-sharing and creation patterns that evolve throughthe use of wikis and weblogs remains an open fieldfor further studies. Another interesting avenue ofresearch in KM would be to re-examine and developthe theoretical perspective we label as the socio-technical dimension. We have observed that one

aspect that strongly influenced the success of theimplementation of wikis was what they looked andfelt like. On the more general level of organizationalstudies, a novel strand of research examining theaesthetic experiences of the corporate landscape hasemerged in recent years (e.g., Gagliardi, 1996), butthe aesthetic dimension has so far been largelyneglected in the area of KM. This offers a useful andinteresting avenue for future research.

REFERENCES

Auerbach C, Silverstein L. 2003.An Introduction to Coding andAnalysis, Qualitative Data. University Press: New York.




7/7

Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitiveadvantage. Journal of Management 17: 99120.

Beath C. 1991. Supporting the information technologychampion. MIS Quarterly 1991: 355372.

Brown JS, Duguid P. 1991. Organizational learning and

communities of practice. Organization Science2

(1): 4057.Cabrera A, Collins WC, Salgado JF. 2006. Determinants ofindividual engagement in knowledge sharing. Inter-national Journal of Human Resource Management 17(2):245264.

Cohen D, Prusak L. 2001. In Good Company: How SocialCapital Makes Organizations Work. Harvard BusinessSchool Press: Boston.

Crampton S, Hodge J, Mishra J. 1998. The informal com-munication network: factors influencing grapevineactivity. Public Personnel Management 27(4): 569584.

Davies J. 2004. Wiki Brainstorming and Problems with WikiBased Collaboration. University of York. http://users.cs.york.ac.uk/kimble/teaching/students/Jonathan_Davies/wiki_collaboration_and_brainstorming.pdf [2

July 2007]Efimova L. 2004. Discovering the iceberg of knowledgework: a weblog case. A paper submitted to the 5thConference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, andCapabilities (OLKC). http://doc.telin.nl/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-34786 [10 April 2007]

Eisenhardt K. 1989. Building theories from case studyresearch. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532550.

Fontana A, Frey J. 2000. From structured questions tonegotiated text. In Handbook of Qualitative Research,Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds). Sage: ThousandOaks, CA; 645672.

Gagliardi P. 1996. Exploring the aesthetic side of organ-izational life. In Handbook of Organization Studies, CleggS, Hardy C, Nord W (eds). Sage: London; 565580.

Hendriks P. 1999. Why share knowledge? The influence ofICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowl-edge and Process Management 6(2): 91100.

Huysman M, Wulf V. 2006. IT to support knowledgesharing in communities: towards a social capitalanalysis. Journal of Information Technology 21: 4051.

Jarvenpaa S, Staples SD. 2000. The use of collaborativeelectronic media for information sharing: an explora-tory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic Infor-mation Systems 9: 129154.

Kling R, Lamb R. 1999. IT and organizational change indigital economies. A socio-technical approach. Compu-ters and Society 1999: 1725.

Kotlarsky J, Oshri I. 2005. Social ties, knowledge sharingand successful collaboration in globally distributed

system development projects. European Journal of Infor-mation Systems 14: 3748.

Krackhardt D, Hanson J. 1993. Informal networks: thecompany. Harvard Business Review 1993: 104111.

Lawless M, Price L. 1992. An agency perspective on newtechnology champions. Organization Science 3(3): 342355.

Leonard-Barton D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Buildingand Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. HarvardBusiness School Press: Boston.

Leuf B, Cunningham W. 2001. The Wiki Way. Quick Col-laboration on the Web. Addison-Wesley: Boston.

Lin N. 1971. The Study of Human Communication. Boobs-Merril: New York.

Majchrzak A, Wagner C, Yates D. 2006. Corporate wiki

users: results of a survey. Proceedings of the 2006 Inter-national Symposium on Wikis. http://www.wikisym.org/ws2006/proceedings/p99.pdf [28 June 2007]

Meso P, Smith R. 2000. A resource-based view of organ-izational knowledge management systems. Journal ofKnowledge Management 4(3): 224234.

Pan S, Scarbrough H. 1998. A socio-technical view ofknowledge-sharing at Buckman laboratories. Journalof Knowledge Management 2(1): 5566.

Patton M. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and ResearchMethods. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.

Raman M. 2006. Wiki technology as a free collaborativetool within an organizational setting. Information Sys-tems Management Fall 2006. 23(4): 5966.

Roll M. 2004. Distributed KM improving knowledge

workers productivity and organisational knowledgesharing with weblog-based personal publishing. TheEuropean Conference on Weblogs, Vienna, 56 July 2004.http://www.roell.net/publikationen/distributedkm.shtml [10 September 2006].

Spender JC. 2007. Data, meaning and practice: how theknowledge-based view can clarify technologysrelationship with organizations. International Journalof Technology Management 38(1/2): 178196.

Swan J, Newell S, Robertson M. 2000. Limits of IT-drivenknowledge management initiatives for interactive inno-vation processes: towards a community-basedapproach. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences. http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2000/0493/01/

04931013.pdf [28 May 2007].Tannenbaum A. 1966. Social Psychology of the Work Organ-ization. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont.

Tellis W. 1997. Application of case study methodology.The Qualitative Report 3(3). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html [20 October 2004].

Yin R. 2003. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage:Thousand Oaks, CA.

Wagner C, Bolloju N. 2005. Supporting knowledge man-agement in organizations with conversational technol-ogies: discussion forums, weblogs, and wikis. Journal ofDatabase Management 16(2): IVIII.

Wasko M, Faraj S. 2000. It is what one does: why peopleparticipate and help others in electronic communities ofpractice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9: 155

173.Weick K, Sutcliffe K. 2001. Managing the unexpected. assur-

ing high performance in an age of complexity. Wiley: SanFrancisco.

Wikipedia. 2007. Social Software. http://en.wikipe-dia.org/wiki/Social_software [28 June 2007].

Zack M, McKenney J. 1995. Social context and interactionin ongoing computer-supported management groups.Organization Science 6(4): 394422.



Journal of Organizational Behavior10.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Organizational Behavior10.pdf