Community Knowledge

http://communityknowledge.co.uk/KMIntro/part_a.html
PART A - WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT?
INTRODUCTION
More than 50% of the economies on our planet hae eoled from a pre!agricultural phase through
agricultural and industrial deelopment to the post!industrial present of the so!called "knowledge!#ased
economy". $ithin this knowledge!#ased economy% "knowledge" is hailed as the new asset and "intellectual
capital"% it is said% is deried from it.
&ut% what is knowledge' (nd% if we are capa#le of understanding its nature% how do we manage it as an
asset and use it to operate more effectiely in what is sometimes defined as the glo#al knowledge
marketplace'
)he study of knowledge and the management of it% is% in itself% a growth industry within knowledge!#ased
economies with more than *00 new #ooks on the su#+ect pu#lished within the last two years. (longside
these pu#lications there hae #een thousands of articles% periodicals and discussion papers produced on
many different aspects. ( cursory search of the Internet also reeals thousands of sites dedicated to this
area of study.
,espite the wide range of academic% organisational and +ournalistic interest% people within knowledge!
#ased organisations are #eginning to form a practical iew of knowledge management as something which
-is here to stay ! only .% considered it to #e a fad and /0% said it was transforming their organisations.-
0K1M2 /334: .05
In the creation of a knowledge!#ased organisation% considera#le reliance must #e placed on ision% #elief
and commitment. )o reflect this% we must design knowledge systems that users want to use if we are to
+ointly harness the power of people and technology.
6latter hierarchies% cross!functional teams% electronic groupware...all aim at improing communications
among different indiiduals and departments. It would seem that some sort of #alance needs to #e struck
#etween groupware and teamwork employing methodology with a high degree on integration and
fle7i#ility.
8rganisational memory compromises many important intangi#les such as culture% history% processes%
human memory and fact. )aken together% these components form the ne7t competitie adantage.
Knowledge systems need to e7ploit organisational memory in many dierse ways.
,aenport and 1rusak 0/3345 state that common sense should play a large part in #uilding a knowledge
system well% testing it and see who comes9 )he place to start is with high alue knowledge: #egin with a
focused pilot pro+ect and let demand drie additional initiaties and work on multiple fronts 0technology%
organisation and culture5 at once.
);< =;(>2I>2 8?2(>I@()I8>(A <>BI?8>M<>)
)he organisations of the .0
th
=entury tended to #e characterised #y the following features:
6unctional departments in single geographic locations.
3.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.% Monday to 6riday% working.
;ierarchical management structures with fi7ed roles.
<mphasis on intra!organisational working.
8rganisationally structured training and deelopment.
,iffering features are appearing in ./
st
=entury organisations:
2eographically distri#uted indiiduals with remote and mo#ile working.
( society which e7pects serices .C hours a day% D days a week.
6latter management structures% matri7 management% multi!tasking and pro+ect team #ased work.
2reater emphasis on partnership and alliances with other organisations.
1ersonally tailored training and deelopment for staff.
,ee ;ock% former =<8 of &arclaycard says:
E(nd if you really think deeply a#out it% you discoer that eery organisation and eery institution% without
e7ception% has no reality sae in your mind. ItFs not in #uildings. )hose are manifestations of it. ItFs not its
name% itFs not its logo% and itFs not some fictional piece of paper called a stock certificate. ItFs not money. It
is a mental concept around which people and resources gather in pursuit of common purposeG.
If ,ee ;ock is correct% people are% more and more% defining organisations. (s a result% their indiidual
knowledge is of immense alue to organisations. )his is often referred to as the Hintellectual capitalF of the
organisation. =learly% such changes in organisational structure hae implications for how information and
knowledge is managed.
DATA, INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE
,ata are facts% pictures or num#ers presented without a conte7t. Information is organised data presented in
conte7t. Knowledge is information in conte7t together with an understanding of how to use it.
>onaka and )akeuchi 0/3355 opened up a de#ate in the /330s on the nature and relationship of tacit and
e7plicit knowledge. )his is a de#ate you should make yourself familiar with. )hey argued that tacit
knowledge 0held personally #y an indiidual5 could #e made e7plicit 0that is transferred #etween
indiiduals and groups5 in either written or spoken form. 6urthermore% they #elieed that the relationship
#etween tacit and e7plicit knowledge was part of a cycle of knowledge creation called the @<=I
0@ocialisation% <7ternalisation% =om#ination and Internalisation5 process. Iou will find many
interpretations of the @<=I process on the $$$.
KNOWLEDGE & KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
)he meaning of knowledge within organisations has eoled to refer to something which differs from the
classic definitions of knowledge. Knowledge within organisations can #e defined as:
E)he information contained within the organisation a#out customers% products and serices which is
contained within peopleFs minds or filed in analogue or digital formatG
0K1M2% /33D5
)his definition of knowledge has led to the formulation of the following definition of Knowledge
Management:
E( systematic attempt to use knowledge within an organisation to improe oerall performance.G
0K1M2% /33D5
Many argue that while these definitions may hold true for priate sector organisations they are not easily
applied to pu#lic or oluntary sector organisations.
)he @ei#y Knowledge Institute 0@KI5 model of knowledge management is useful as it aligns strategic%
knowledge and I=) management through process.
)he model is diided into three domains% strategic management% I=) management and knowledge
management. )he three domains are linked #y processes with people% knowledge% skills and information at
the core of the process. )he model is drien #y peopleFs skills% knowledge and e7perience not #y I=) or
strategy. )he strategy is drawn from the knowledge of those inoled in the processes supported #y
technologies defined and designed to support the strategic deelopment of the organisation.
In large organisations% strategy% human resource and I=) management are freJuently located in different
departments. )he =ommunity and ;ousing ,irectorate of >ewcastle =ity =ouncil successfully used the
model to ensure that strategy% human resource and I=) management was dispersed across all #usiness
units. )his ensured that knowledge sharing took place closer to the point of serice deliery across the
,irectorate. 2iing indiiduals and groups new strategic% resource and technology management roles
inoled #oth indiidual and organiKational learning which assisted in considera#le team capacity #uilding.
,aenport and 1rusakFs one!third rule states that knowledge management pro+ects should #e one third
resource management% one third organisational culture and one third information technology. If you spend
more than one third on I=) they say it is a technology not a knowledge management pro+ect.
(11?8(=;<@ )8 K>8$A<,2< M(>(2<M<>)
)he deelopment of approaches to knowledge management within organisations is often referred to in
terms of waes:
)he first wae attempted to create meta!data#ases 0data#ases of data#ases5 which aimed to contain
high olumes of tacit knowledge.
)he second wae led to the in!depth e7amination of the relationship #etween tacit and e7plicit
knowledge.
)he third wae saw the emergence of communities of practice as tolls for sharing #oth e7plicit and
tacit knowledge #etween people sharing a similar area of e7pertise.
Knowledge management has its origins in four different disciplines that were relatiely independent until
the late /330Fs. )he #road discussion on the emerging knowledge society proided credi#ility for each of
them% emphasiKing the importance of the new rules of glo#al% networked% and knowledge!intensie
economy. <ach of the four different disciplines gained momentum from the perceied ongoing
transformation% indirectly amplifying each other.
)hese four disciplines of knowledge management can #e descri#ed as:
8rganisational information processing.
&usiness intelligence.
8rganisational cognition.
8rganisational deelopment.
)he first had its starting point in computer technology% the second in information serices% the third in
research on organisational innoation% learning% and sense!making and the fourth in #usiness strategy and
human resource management.
PART B - COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
INTRODUCTION
)his section introduces and e7amines the concept of communities of practice. =ommunities of 1ractice
0=o1s5 hae #ecome widely recognised as key knowledge sharing tools. )hey are particularly useful as a
means of increasing participation amongst people who share a domain 0an area of e7pertise5% such as%
data#ase deelopers% specialist tailors% pu# landlords. =o1s hae always e7isted informally #ut are more
and more #eing supported and structured within organisations.
=o1s operate #oth on!line and off!line and the most successful appear to #e those that can ary their mode
#y switching from one to the other as appropriate. Iou may hear this referred to as Hflip!flopF if you +oin a
discussion list on =o1s of which there are many. ( useful discussion list for this module which you should
take a look at is Knowledge&oard:
http://www.knowledge#oard.com
=o1s are also helpful in the process of reification where a#stract concepts are made HrealF through the use
of diagrams% illustrations% storytelling and metaphor.
,<6I>I>2 =8MML>I)I<@ 86 1?(=)I=<
E)hey are peers in the e7ecution of "real work". $hat holds them together is a common sense of purpose
and a real need to know
what each other knows. )here are many communities of practice within a single company% and most people
#elong to more than
one of them. E
Jon !eely "#own
E( community of practice is -a dierse group of people engaged in real work oer a significant period of
time during which they
#uild things% sole pro#lems% learn and inent...in short% they eole a practice that is highly skilled and
highly creatie.-
Ro$e#t "%ue#
EMore than a -community of learners%- a community of practice is also a -community that learns.- >ot
merely peers e7changing
ideas around the water cooler% sharing and #enefiting from each other"s e7pertise% #ut colleagues committed
to +ointly deelop
#etter practices.G
Geo#ge &o#
)he collectie purpose of a community% the goals and roles of the indiiduals in a community all influence
social interaction in the community. ;ence a community is defined #y sharing a common set of alues or
#eliefs. $ithin the social framework defined #y the communityFs purpose and policies% people strie to
satisfy their own needs. )hus the purpose% people and policies comprising a community determine what it
is like. <ach community is uniJue and there is no recipe for a successful community.
)he term communities of practice was first used #y Aae and $enger 0/33D5 in their work entitled
H@ituated AearningF where they argued that learning takes place #etween practitioners in a shared
HsituationF. In this work they also refer to the legitimacy of peripheral participation% that is% it is perfectly
legitimate for an indiidual to remain on the periphery of a learning community and participate at a low
leel as they see fit. Aegitimate peripheral participation% then can #e defined as follows:
EAearning iewed as situated actiity has its central defining characteristic a process that we call legitimate
peripheral participation. &y this we mean to draw attention to the point that learners ineita#ly participate
in communities of practitioners and that the mastery of knowledge and skills reJuires newcomers to moe
toward full participation in the socio!cultural practices of a community.G
)here are many definitions of communities of practice and three of them are at the top of this page. =o1s%
howeer% are differentiated from other groups #y si7 key characteristics% they:
@hare knowledge
Aearn together
=reate common practices
@hare mental models
;ae a common culture of information sharing
,isplay a sense of community which ena#les learning
=o1s usually take three forms% informal% supported and structured. Informal communities are not usually
acknowledged #y organisations and operate within and across organisations usually taking adantage of
e7isting networks. @upported communities are those acknowledged #y organisations #ut also use e7isting
networks. @tructured =o1s are esta#lished #y organisations% usually for a specific output and inole the
creation of new networks.
@tructural models of =o1s are usually diided into three elements:
Dom%in' )he area of e7pertise or specialism% for e7ample% midwifery% cafM management or repairing
photocopiers.
Community' )he people interested in deeloping the shared area of e7pertise% for e7ample% midwies
working in a rural area% cafM managers who also offer entertainment or photocopier repairers who repair the
same models.
&#%(ti(e' )he tools needed to share e7pertise% for e7ample% routines% stories or documents.
<ach area of the model is structurally dependent upon the other. (s the =o1 deelops% domain% community
and practice #egin to oerlap creating a critical mass of knowledge for the mem#ers of the =o1.
(ll organisations +ourney through differing stages of deelopment% =o1s are no different from other
organisational forms in this aspect.
$enger et al. 0.00.5 identify fie stages of deelopment of =o1s:
/. 1otential
.. =oalescing
*. Maturing
C. @tewarding
5. Aegacy
)he potential stage is a phase of discoery and preparation: the coalescing one of initiation and incu#ation:
maturing is a phase of focusing and e7panding: stewarding is characterised #y renewal and sustaina#ility
and legacy is a phase of letting go and remem#ering.
(t each stage the =o1 needs to ask itself key Juestions:
)* &otenti%l
(re the key topics defined' ;ae shared needs #een identified' ;ae appropriate networks #een found'
+* Co%le,(ing
Is the co!ordinator ready to take leadership' Is the case for action clear' ;ow do we link to mem#ers' (re
people connecting% helping each other% haing some success' (re we starting to share useful knowledge'
-* M%tu#ing
(re we deeloping an identity as a community' (re we focusing on deeloping a common practice' (re
we #ecoming isi#le'
(re we HgrowingF% if so% how'
.* !tew%#ding
(re we going through repetitie cycles of actiity' (re we gaining influence oer others' ,o we need a
change in leadership'
,o we need a change in mem#ership' (re we haing a mid!life crisis' ,o we need to rethink direction'
/* Leg%(y
Is there too little actiity' ;ae we outlied our usefulness' (re we still a resource' =an we proide a
source of inspiration and direction'
1A(=<% @1(=< N =I&<?@1(=<
)o place communities of practice in their correct conte7t% it is important to understand the relationship
#etween physical% mental and irtual space. )hese spaces define how groups form and people operate
within them. ( great deal of work was undertaken on the effect of in!groups and out!groups #y Iring Oanis
0/33.5 in the /3D0s who formulated the term HgroupthinkF to descri#e the ineffectieness of group decision!
making.
)he =oncise 87ford <nglish ,ictionary descri#es an in!group as Ean e7clusie group of people with a
shared interest or identityG and an out!group as Ethose who do not #elong to an in!groupG. @uch definitions
are useful as they imply that the in!group defines the out!group rather than the out!group defining the in!
group. In effect% the in!group has formed a #ond of community that e7cludes the out!group.
$enger% cutting across the specifics of in and out!groups% talks of community space. )he facilitators%
innoators and leaders occupy the core space. (ctie% interested indiiduals inha#it the actie space.
Interested indiiduals% who are not necessarily actie% occupy peripheral space and the transactional space
is where partnerships are forged. )his paradigm suggests the e7istence of four distinct community spaces
rather than in!groups and out!groups. It does not% howeer% e7plain how groups apparently moe% with ease%
from one space to another or alternatiely occupy seeral spaces simultaneously. 6or e7ample% indiiduals
may well occupy core space in one group% actie space in another and so on.
6rom the idea of human structures% 2offman 0/3535 deried the concept of Hdefensi#le spaceF% the cognitie
space #etween indiiduals where they form opinions and assumptions of others. In physical space we can
isi#ly assess peopleFs changing opinions through human interaction which is supported #y #ody language.
In cy#erspace% howeer% where #ody language can play a different part% defensi#le space #ecomes the space
of legitimate peripheral participation. ,iscourse and dialogue in cy#erspace can often iewed as
significantly more reflectie that that which takes place in physical space. ,ialogue in physical space
freJuently e7hi#iting more intuitie characteristics than those e7hi#ited in cy#erspace.
&y introducing the concept of HliminalF space% we can enisage how indiiduals might possi#ly +ourney
#etween the spaces outlined a#oe.
Aiminal space% an anthropological term% refers to the Hlim#oF which an indiidual inha#its while performing
a rite of passage #etween one space and another. ( physical e7ample of this space is the (#original
H$alka#outF where teenage a#origines must spend time alone suriing in the out#ack prior to acceptance
as an adult mem#er of the group. ( comparison can #e made here with the concept of a HlurkerF in an
electronic enironment. HAurkingF in an electronic enironment would #e considered a form of situated
learning #y Aae and $enger% and% as such a legitimate form of peripheral participation. (dding the
concept of liminal space to the paradigm creates a new dynamic% which does% at least% appear to go some
way towards illustrating how indiiduals and groups occupy seeral spaces simultaneously.
=astells 0/3435 argues that access to flows of information and resources is the key to participation in the
networked society. ;e refers to a su#tle interaction #etween physically co!located resources and
information!#ased resources. ;e calls this space Hthe space of flowsF.
=astells suggests a further dimension to group space. )he space of flows #eing the personal space which
indiiduals manipulate in and around the groups they populate. )hey create this space #y constructing
comple7 pro#lem!soling personalised social networks. )hese networks manipulate information and
resources on a personal leel through a comple7 we# of digital technologies and face!to!face interaction.
&ART C 0 NETWORK! & KNOWLEDGE !1ARING
INTROD2CTION
E)oday we increasingly recogniKe that nothing happens in isolation. Most eents and phenomena are
connected% caused #y% and interacting with a huge num#er of other pieces of a comple7 uniersal puKKle.
$e hae come to see that we lie in a small world% where eerything is linked to eerything else. $e are
witnessing a reolution in the making as scientists from all different disciplines discoer that comple7ity
has a strict architecture. $e hae come to grasp the importance of networks.G
"%#%$%,i 3+44-5' 6
In this Hsmall worldF 0&uchanan .00.5% indiiduals and groups are as likely to reach out around the glo#e
for knowledge as they are to isit their ne7t door neigh#our in search of information with more and more
people using the Internet to make knowledge!sharing connections 0(damic et al. .00*5.
Manuel =astells 0/33P5 was referring to the comple7ity of the network society in the mid!/330s. ;is work
offers a comprehensie grounding in the strengths and weaknesses of networked society. (t the same time
Aipnack and @tamps 0/33C5 had also realiKed the significance of the networked society to organisations and
#egan producing practical guidelines on organisational principles for networked organiKations.
2ien such comple7ity% how do we proide a platform for a networked community'
( starting point may #e to diide the actiities of indiiduals into fie distinct knowledge 0K5 domains% as
follows:
K)' Knowledge $orker 0the knowledge a worker uses to perform their daily tasks5:
K+: Knowledge >etworker 0the contacts that are relied upon for knowledge5:
K-' Knowledge!#ased 8rganisation 0the knowledge contained within the organisationFs structure and
culture5:
K.' Knowledge >etworker of >etworks 0the knowledge contained within partnerships5:
K/' Knowledge (rchitect 0the technologies that are relied upon for gathering knowledge% for e7ample%
conersations% email% te7t messaging etc.5.
(ny knowledge #ase would need to reflect these domains if it is to create a shared learning and
colla#oratie space. )his space would then act as a gathering place% a space for democratic engagement and
create a dialogue through which occupants of the space could progress on an indiidual and group #asis.
!I7 DEGREE! OF !E&ERATION
The number of connections within a network can be expressed as follows:
n8n9):+
In this eJuation% n is the num#er of nodes 0organiKations or indiiduals5 within the network. )his is
multiplied #y the num#er of nodes minus one as a node% clearly cannot #e connected to itself. )his is then
diided #y two as all other nodes cannot #e connected to themseles.
6ollowing this eJuation% in a network of *0 nodes% the total num#er of possi#le connections is C*5:
-48+;:+<.-/
=an knowledge #e managed gien such comple7ity' )he answer to this Juestion may #e no &L)
knowledge can #e accessed% created and shared effectiely if we know in what way we can use the
network.
8ne way of accessing knowledge within networks is through the use of si7 degrees of separation 0$atts
.00*5% that is% someone you know knows someone else and so on. In a short space of time you hae #uilt a
personalised network which reaches around the glo#e.
6or fun% take the e7ample of the @pice 2irls and Monica Aewinsky:
/. )he @pice 2irls were in @pice $orld with 2eorge $endt
.. 2eorge $endt was in =heers with )ed ,anson
*. )ed ,anson was married at MarthaFs Bineyard and &ill =linton attended
C. &ill =linton knows Monica Aewinsky
In this e7ample% there are only three degrees of separation.
);< @)?<>2); 86 $<(K )I<@
)he sociologist% Mark 2ranoetter 0/3D*5 undertook some research in &oston% Massachusetts during the
/3D0s in areas of high unemployment. ;e discoered that those who were most successful at gaining
employment were not those who used friends and relaties for employment opportunities #ut were the
people who could find out who knew who within networks. )his phenomenon has come to #e known as
H)he @trength of $eak )iesF.
,uring the /3P0s% howeer% the anthropologists% &arnes 0/3P35 and =lyde Mitchell 0/3P35 hinted at such
tendencies in their ethnographic studies.
>eertheless% it is a phenomenon which is ery familiar in the ./
st
century where managers rely heaily on
personalised networks. )hese are networks where key players hae relatiely few key contacts #ut use
them% in com#ination with arious technologies% to access others for knowledge. )he strength of weak ties
operates according to a law called H1ower Aaw ,istri#utionF.
1ower law distri#ution means that there are many nodes with few links at one end of the cure and few
hu#s with many links at the other end.
)hink of how this differs from a traditional &ell =ure'
Iou should >8) fall into the trap of #elieing the old adage Its no what you know its who you know in
relation to the strength of weak ties as it is a#out more than know who. ItFs a#out:
Know!who
Know!where
Know!how
&ART D 0 KNOWLEDGE TEC1NOLOGIE!
INTROD2CTION
1rior to the Internet% there were many technologies that supported two!way communications. $e had
telephones% we had the telegraph. $e were familiar with technological mediation of those kinds of
conersations. (lso% prior to the Internet% we had lots of technologies that supported one!way out#ound%
teleision% radio% newspapers. (nd% of course% we had the printing press.
@o although the Internet does good things for these preious patterns of communication% they"re patterns we
knew from #efore. )he last technology that had any real effect on the way people sat down and talked
together was the ta#le. )here was no technological mediation for group conersations. )he closest we got
was the conference call% which neer really worked.
$e"e had social software for C0 years at most% dated from the 1lato &ulletin &oard @ystem and we"e only
had /0 years or so of widespread aaila#ility% so we"re +ust finding out what works. $e"re still learning how
to make these kinds of things.
@oftware that supports group interaction is a fundamentally unsatisfying definition in many ways% #ecause
it doesn"t point to a specific class of technology. If you look at email% it o#iously supports social patterns%
#ut it can also support a #roadcast pattern. If I"m a spammer% I"m going to mail things out to a million
people% #ut they"re not going to #e talking to one another% and I"m not going to #e talking to them. @pam is
email% #ut it isn"t social. If I"m mailing you% and you"re mailing me #ack% we"re haing point!to!point and
two!way conersation% #ut not one that creates group dynamics. @o email doesn"t necessarily support social
or group patterns% although it can 0)iwana .00*5.
2roups operate in real!time% therefore% knowledge is created% captured and shared instantaneously 0@tough
et al .0005.
=an the knowledge created #e captured #y technology'
Iou cannot specify in adance what the group will do% and so you can"t su#stantiate in software eerything
you e7pect to hae happen.
=8AA(&8?()I>2 I> =I&<?@1(=<
Knowledge management is concerned with colla#orating% that is% the process of working +ointly with others
especially in an intellectual endeaour 0&oyd .00*#5.
=y#erspace% a term coined #y the science fiction writer% $illiam 2i#son 0/34C5% can #e descri#ed as the
impression of space and community formed #y computers% computer networks% and their users: the irtual
-world- that Internet users inha#it when they are on!line.
2roupware is technology designed to facilitate the work of groups. $hile traditional technologies such as
the telephone technically Jualify as groupware% the term is ordinarily used to refer to a specific class of
technologies relying on modern computer networks 0=i#orra /33P5.
;oweer% as ;oward ?heingold 0/33*5 states :
E)he technologyQhas the potential to #ring enormous leerage to ordinary citiKens at relatiely little
cost...&ut the technology...must #e used intelligently and deli#erately #y an informed population.G
)he significance of cy#erspace to those who wish to work colla#oratiely is that it is initially HformlessF
and HformsF can #e created to suit the needs of the colla#orators. )here are now many groupware or social
software tools aaila#le which can #e customised to the needs of the users. Iou should take time to
e7amine <tienne $engerFs surey of community technologies which you will find at:
http://www.ewenger.com/tech/inde7.htm
$hy should we use colla#oratie% knowledge!sharing technologies'
$e use them #ecause% they are:
(synchronous
6le7i#le
Informal
<conomic
)ime!saing
Multi!media
(nd% as such% they assist the knowledge!#ased organisation in its deelopment 0@kyrme /3335.
AI@)@ N ><$@2?8L1@
Aists are used to ena#le a group of people to keep in touch with each other easily using email. Aists allow
the same message to #e sent to all mem#ers at once. Messages on lists are freJuently archied.
Iou can find e7isting ones #y going to:
http:// www.lisKt.com
)here are more than /00%000 worldwide.
Aists consist of two email addresses. 8ne is the list serer and this is the address you send commands to.
)he second email address is for sending messages to people who are su#scri#ed to the list.
Most people on lists are HlurkersF. It is sometimes #est +ust to watch and not contri#ute for a while until you
get the HfeelF of the list.
Iou will #e a#le to send a message to the whole list or simply to the person who sent the message. Make
sure you know which is which9
)here is a whole #ody of HnetiJuetteF goerning this medium. @ee the ground rules at:
http://www.al#ion.com/netiJuette/
)here are four types of mailing list:
/. Lnmoderated: Ooining is automatic: anyone can post: instantly forwarded to all.
.. Moderated: <mail the list owner #efore #eing accepted onto the list.
*. 6ully Moderated: (ll email to the list is fully etted #efore distri#ution.
C. (nnounce: Messages are sent from the list owner% which are #roadcast to all list mem#ers.
)he strengths of lists:
Keep up!to!date on topics of shared interest
@hare lessons learnt and #est practice
&uild up personal contacts
Lseful for longtitudinal focus groups
?emote researchers can work in close colla#oration
)he weaknesses of list:
>o #ody language% intonation or accent
>etiJuette: 1rotocols: @houting: @pamming: 6laming: (cronyms N @mileys
>ewsgroups are pu#lic discussion areas% freJuently distri#uted internationally% using the Lsenet system.
)he strengths of newsgroups:
@hare what you know. Aearn what you don"t.
Many in num#er: P0%000R su#+ects coered.
)he weaknesses of newsgroups:
,ifficult to esta#lish through Lsenet and the Hcall for otesF system
8ften poor in Juality
INSTANT MESSAGING
)here are fie main Instant Messaging 0&oyd .00*a5 packages:
Internet ?elay =hat http://www.mirc.com
I=S http://www.icJ.com
(8A Instant Messenger http://www.aol.com
M@> Messenger http://messenger.msn.com/
Iahoo Messenger http://messenger.yahoo.com
)he strengths of Instant Messaging are:
Bery rich source of first!hand up!to!the!minute information
Lseful in emergency and high risk situations
<asy to set up
;ae many add!on features including:! white#oards% +oint surfing and file sharing
)he weaknesses of Instant Messaging are:
>eed to #e on!line
<asily a#used and disrupted as some indiiduals seem to think it is fun to do this
BI?)L(A M<<)I>2 1A(=<@
( Birtual Meeting is a way of holding a discussion on an Intranet or through the Internet.
)he strengths of irtual meeting places:
&uild team and capacity for organisational change.
&reak down organisational #arriers.
<sta#lish new% non!hierarchical% ways of working.
)he weaknesses of irtual meeting places:
@ome organisational cultures will find them alienating.
8ut!dated management systems consider them disruptie.
BI?)L(A =8>6<?<>=I>2
Birtual conferencing is a form of group discussion that uses te7t messages stored on a computer as a
communication medium. It can also include arious types of real!time% or synchronous% communication%
such as chat rooms% oice!#ased teleconferencing% or ideo conferencing.
Knowledge#oard 0http://www.knowledge#oard.com5 is a form of irtual conferencing. Iou may also want
to take a look at:
)he Meta >etwork: http://www.tmn.com
=aucus @ystems: http://www.caucus.com
)he strengths of irtual conferencing:
=losely replicates a HrealF conference.
1roides a familiar platform for new electronic networkers.
@ome freeware packages aaila#le.
)he weaknesses of irtual conferencing:
>eed to spend considera#le time on!line.
>eed to hae high leel of groupware skills.
>eed programming access to a serer.
VIDEO CONFERENCING
Bideo conferencing is a discussion #etween two or more groups of people who are in different places #ut
can see and hear each other using electronic communications. 1ictures and sound are carried #y the
telecommunication network and such conferences can take place across the world.
)he strengths of ideo conferencing:
Lseful in communicating isual data.
$orks well in one!to!many situations.
)he weaknesses of ideo conferencing:
;igh Juality is still e7pensie.
1eople are often intimidated #y their own image.
=8MML>I)I )<=;>8A82I<@
( num#er of organisations are moing toward the community of practice area #y e7panding on their #asic
software facilities. @ome may een claim they already hae all it takes. @till% the market is in an early
phase% with many products focusing on one or more aspects of the whole picture. (t this point% it is more
productie to assume that no one is really there and that ideal systems will arise from com#inations and
conergence in the market as it matures.
)he most common on!line facilities that communities of practice can use include:
( home page to assert their e7istence and descri#e their domain and actiities.
( conersation space for on!line discussions of a ariety of topics.
( facility for floating Juestions to the community or a su#set of the community.
( directory of mem#ership with some information a#out their areas of e7pertise in the domain.
In some cases% a shared workspace for synchronous electronic colla#oration% discussion% or
meeting.
( document repository.
T( search engine good enough for them to retriee things they need from their knowledge #ase.
=ommunity management tools% mostly for the coordinator #ut sometimes also for the community
at large% including the a#ility to know who is participating actiely% which documents are
downloaded% how much traffic there is% which documents need updating% etc.
)he a#ility to spawn su#!communities% su#groups% and pro+ect teams.
6urthermore% a technological platform for communities of practice should ideally #e:
<asy to learn and use #ecause communities of practice are usually not peopleFs main +o#.
<asily integrated with the other software that mem#ers of the community are using for their
regular work so that participation in the community reJuires as few e7tra steps as possi#le.
>ot too e7pensie. If it reJuires a lot of inestment up front% potentially useful communities will
not #e a#le to take adantage of the platform. Indeed% many communities start with only a partial
understanding of the alue they will proide eentually.
&ART E 0 KNOWLEDGE A2DITING
INTROD2CTION
E)he knowledge audit 0K!(udit5 is a systematic and scientific e7amination and ealuation of the e7plicit
and tacit knowledge resources in the company. )he K!(udit inestigates and analyses the current
knowledge!enironment and culminates% in a diagnostic and prognostic report on the current corporate
Hknowledge healthF. )he report proides eidence as to whether corporate knowledge alue potential is
#eing ma7imised. In this respect the K!(udit measures the risk and opportunities faced #y the organisation
with respect to corporate knowledge.G
,r. (nn ;ylton
)he first stage in adopting a knowledge strategy is performing an audit of e7isting data% information and
knowledge contained within the organiKation.
)his section will coer four main areas of the knowledge audit:
)he aims and o#+ecties of the audit.
)he key tasks inoled.
1rocess mapping.
)he audit outcomes.
(IM@ N 8&O<=)IB<@
)here are three #road aims of a knowledge audit:
Aeeraging the organisation"s knowledge.
=reating new knowledge or promoting innoation.
Increasing colla#oration and hence enhancing the skill leel of employees.
)he o#+ecties of a knowledge audit are:
/. @tudy and deelop a deeper understanding of e7isting communities 0groups that share resources% proide
support and show reciprocity5 content 0forms and com#inations of words% images and pictures5 and
conersations 0e7changes of sentiments% o#serations% opinions% or ideas5.
.. Identify opportunities to add alue to current communities% content and conersations.
*. ,eelop a knowledge management strategy that deliers on the identified opportunities.
Most commonly% knowledge audits result in the following outcomes:
,eelopment of a knowledge repository:
6orming and nurturing communities of practice.
;oweer% there are many others to e7plore.
K<I )(@K@
It is possi#le to separate a knowledge audit into seen key tasks:
/. =reate a data% information and knowledge systems data#ase: )his inoles creating an inter!relational
data#ase 0possi#ly using M@ (ccess or 8racle5 with ta#les for:
each section of the organisation:
data% information and knowledge repositories
types of communication% such as% face!to!face% analogue and digital systems.
.. Identify areas of organisational Juick gain: )his can #e used as a way of demonstrating to key players
that you are committed to high leels of achieement in the short as well as the medium and long!term.
*. 1erform process mapping: It is important to HmapF key processes as well as key players within the
organiKation. )here are a num#er of software tools that can #e used for such mapping including M@ 1ro+ect
and M@ Bisio. It is possi#le to take mapping a stage further #y using UMA image maps to illustrate
processes oer Intranets% Internets and e7tranets.
C. 8rganise focus groups: )he composition of such groups needs to #e #alanced #etween differing leels of
seniority% front/#ack office and differing locations. 6ocus groups are an important means of keeping on
track. $ell!#alanced focus groups can #e used again oer time.
5. ,esign and pilot knowledge needs surey: )he importance of a pilot pro+ect is that it sets an achiea#le
o#+ect in the foreseea#le future% say% si7 to twele months. @enior managers are often ery keen on pilots
as% if they fail to work% resources used are limited and lessons learnt can #e recorded Juickly.
P. 8rganise feed#ack session: )his is particularly important where you hae a pro+ect steering group for the
audit. )his steering group% through its inolement with the strategy% will feel empowered and capa#le of
enthusing and empowering others. (n effectie steering group should consist of:
=hair: (n operational ,irector
?epresentaties: 8ne from each @ection
Suality Minutes: ?otate #etween mem#ers
?egular Meetings: Monthly and ad hoc
<mail Aist: ,iscussion Aist for core% actie and peripheral mem#ers
Intranet 1resence: )racking progress
Monitoring and <aluation 1rocedures: Internal consultant
D. ,raft strategy: )his should demonstrate key findings% #e well analysed and the data should #e arrayed in
an accessi#le format.
1?8=<@@ M(11I>2
1rocess mapping is a simple e7ercise. It helps an organisation to know where to start making improements
that will hae the #iggest impact. ( good definition of a process descri#es it as a series of connected steps
or actions to achiee an outcome. ( process has the following characteristics:
/. ( starting and end point.
.. ( purpose or aim for the outcome.
*. ?ules goerning the standard or Juality of inputs throughout the process.
C. It is usually linked to other processes.
5. It can #e simple and short% or comple7 and long.
1rocess mapping is one of the most powerful ways for multi!disciplinary teams to understand the real
pro#lems from the indiidualFs perspectie% and to identify opportunities for improement.
( map will gie you:
/. ( key starting!point to any improement pro+ect% large or small.
.. )he opportunity to #ring together multi!disciplinary teams from primary% secondary% and tertiary
organisational leels to create a culture of ownership% responsi#ility and accounta#ility
*. (n oeriew of the complete process V helping staff to understand% often for the first time% how
complicated the systems can #e.
C. (n aid to help plan effectiely where to test ideas for improements that are likely to hae the most
impact on the pro+ect aims
5. &rilliant ideas V especially from staff who don"t normally hae the opportunity to contri#ute to serice
organisation% #ut who really know how things work
P. (n eent that is interactie% that gets people inoled and talking
D. (n end product V the map V which is easy to understand and highly isual 1rocess mapping is also easy%
creatie and fun.
8L)=8M<@
)he outcome of a knowledge audit tends to #e marked #y the production of a document. )his document
should #e made aaila#le in #oth hard and soft copy. It should #e accessi#le #oth as a dynamic Intranet site
and interactie =, ?8M.
&elow is an e7ample of the format of such a document produced as a result of a knowledge audit within a
Aocal (uthority ,irectorate.
!e(tion One' Te D%t%, In=o#m%tion %nd Knowledge Rel%tion,i>
,ata only #ecomes information when it is placed in appropriate conte7t. )he ,iision gathers much data
that is not always placed in an appropriate conte7t and su#seJuently lacks Juality in terms of information.
Knowledge is not shared effectiely and contri#utes to poor Juality information. @ystems need to #e
created which allow for the effectie placing of a data in an appropriate conte7t and the sharing of
knowledge that adds alue to that information.
!e(tion Two' 2nde#,t%nding Communitie, & Communitie, o= &#%(ti(e
If we are to understand e7isting and future knowledge networks we can use the concept of community as a
unit for analysing the e7change of data% information and knowledge.
( community can #e defined as any group of people with a shared set of alues or #eliefs.
=ommunities within the ,iision can #e diided into:!
<7ternal: ( range of su#sets of Inactie =itiKens 7 (ctie =itiKens 7 =ommunity (ctiists
Internal: @taff 7 @ection 7 =orporate 7 1olicy 7 8perational
Management: @enior% Middle% Ounior
=ommunities learn from e7perience and in communities of practice.
( community of practice is a dierse group of people engaged in real work oer a significant period of time
during which they #uild things% sole pro#lems% learn and inent...in short% they eole a practice that is
highly skilled and highly creatie.
!e(tion T#ee' Knowledge Audit
,ata% Information and Knowledge are shared in three phases of actiity each containing a cycle of three
further actiities:!
/. 6ormatting: (nalogue% ,igital% Intellectual
.. >etworking: Information <7change% =ommunication% =olla#oration
*. Aearning: (ction% <motion. Knowledge
!e(tion Fou#' Metodology
( methodology to compile a user!defined Knowledge Management >etwork 0KM>5 might inole the
following:!
Initial Key @takeholder Meeting: 8utline of <7ercise
&est Balue 1erformance Indicators
(n 8eriew of $hat is (aila#le and (ppropriate
Identification of (reas of HSuick 2ainF
@ocial >etwork (nalysis
6ocus 2roups of =ommunities of 1ractice
@tructured @urey of Information% Knowledge and @kills >eeds
6eed#ack of ,raft 1roposal to Key @takeholder 2roup
!e(tion Fi?e' Te W%y Fo#w%#d
,raft 1roposal for ,iscussion
6inal ,raft for Implementation
!e(tion !i@' Re,ou#(e Im>li(%tion,
6inancial
;uman
)echnological
&ART F 0T1E METRIC! OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
INTROD2CTION
;ow do we measure the performance of knowledge management' )he answer is with great difficulty9 In
this section% we will e7amine four different methods of measuring performance:
?eturn on Inestment
&alanced @corecard
@ureys
6uKKy Aogic
,ue to the comple7ity of knowledge management% those that hae attempted to measure performance hae
tried and tested systems which are #oth fle7i#le and ro#ust% Juantitatie and Jualitatie% soft and hard.
I&M hae #een pioneers in the measurement of KM. )he Knowledge and 8rganiKational 1erformance
6orum 0K8165% a multi!client consortium run #y the I&M =orporation from /333 through .00*% focused on
adancing how organiKations derie alue from inestments in knowledge% learning and human capital.
Initially chartered as the Institute for Knowledge Management 0IKM5 and then known as the Institute for
Knowledge!&ased 8rganiKations 0IK85% the program conducted pragmatic% field!#ased research on topics
such as social capital% social network analysis% communities of practice% the role of knowledge in strategic
alliances% and colla#oratie enironments.
More than P0 highly respected organiKations from a dierse set of industries and the pu#lic sector
participated during the consortium"s fie!year history.
?<)L?> 8> I>B<@)M<>) 0?oI5
Measuring performance #y ?oI is usually the preferred option of priate sector organiKations as an attempt
to appraise the alue of KM to profit margins.
It can #e Juite successful measuring how leels of inestment support oerall #usiness strategy% as such% it
attempts to monitor the resources deployed in I=)s and people.
;oweer% the Juestion still remains: ;ow do you measure the ?oI in knowledge itself'
&elow are two case of how ?oI has #een successful in monitoring KM performance.
ERN!T & AO2NG
&#o>o,ition' 6aster reenue growth lower costs.
A>>#o%(: =o1s% KM managers% content management.
Re,ult,: )en!fold increase in reenue with only fie!fold increase in employees.
KRI!&A KREME DO2G1N2T!
&#o>o,ition' 1roide enterprise portal used #y employees% franchisees% and store managers.
A>>#o%(' &uying enterprise portal software cheaper than #uilding it.
Re,ult,' 6aster sharing of financial% ordering and supply chain information with store managers. ?educed
ordering errors. ( ehicle for communicating marketing standards.
In the pu#lic sector% particularly amongst goernmental and Juasi!goernmental organiKations% 1rince.
0http://www.prince..com/whatisp..htmlWintro5 methodology is now the standard for measuring
performance. )his template!#ased methodology is supported #y the use of Microsoft 1ro+ect and Bisio to
process map and monitor performance.
"ALANCED !CORECARD
( new approach to strategic management was deeloped in the early /330"s #y ,rs. ?o#ert Kaplan
0;arard &usiness @chool5 and ,aid >orton. )hey named this system the "#alanced scorecard".
?ecogniKing some of the weaknesses and agueness of preious management approaches% the #alanced
scorecard approach proides a clear prescription as to what companies should measure in order to "#alance"
the financial perspectie.
)he #alanced scorecard is a management system 0not only a measurement system5 that ena#les
organiKations to clarify their ision and strategy and translate them into action. It proides feed#ack around
#oth the internal #usiness processes and e7ternal outcomes in order to continuously improe strategic
performance and results. $hen fully deployed% the #alanced scorecard transforms strategic planning from
an academic e7ercise into the nere center of an enterprise.
Kaplan and >orton descri#e the innoation of the #alanced scorecard as follows:
"The balanced scorecard retains traditional financial measures. But financial measures tell the story of
past events, an adeuate story for industrial age companies for which investments in long!term capabilities
and customer relationships were not critical for success. These financial measures are inadeuate,
however, for guiding and evaluating the "ourney that information age companies must make to create
future value through investment in customers, suppliers, employees, processes, technology, and
innovation."
)he #alanced scorecard suggests that we iew the organiKation from four perspecties% and to deelop
metrics% collect data and analyKe it relatie to each of these perspecties:
/. )he Aearning and 2rowth 1erspectie
.. )he &usiness 1rocess 1erspectie
*. )he =ustomer 1erspectie
C. )he 6inancial 1erspectie
/. )he Aearning and growth perspectie
)his perspectie includes employee training and corporate cultural attitudes related to #oth indiidual and
corporate self!improement. In a knowledge!worker organiKation% people !! the only repository of
knowledge !! are the main resource. In the current climate of rapid technological change% it is #ecoming
necessary for knowledge workers to #e in a continuous learning mode. 2oernment agencies often find
themseles una#le to hire new technical workers and at the same time is showing a decline in training of
e7isting employees. )his is a leading indicator of "#rain drain" that must #e reersed. Metrics can #e put into
place to guide managers in focusing training funds where they can help the most. In any case% learning and
growth constitute the essential foundation for success of any knowledge!worker organiKation.
Kaplan and >orton emphasiKe that "learning" is more than "training": it also includes things like mentors and
tutors within the organiKation% as well as that ease of communication among workers that allows them to
readily get help on a pro#lem when it is needed. It also includes technological tools: what the &aldrige
criteria call -high performance work systems.- 8ne of these% the Intranet% will #e e7amined in detail later in
this document.
+* Te $u,ine,, >#o(e,, >e#,>e(ti?e
)his perspectie refers to internal #usiness processes. Metrics #ased on this perspectie allow the managers
to know how well their #usiness is running% and whether its products and serices conform to customer
reJuirements 0the mission5. )hese metrics hae to #e carefully designed #y those who know these
processes most intimately: with our uniJue missions these are not something that can #e deeloped #y
outside consultants. In addition to the strategic management process% two kinds of #usiness processes may
#e identified: a5 mission!oriented processes% and #5 support processes. Mission!oriented processes are the
special functions of goernment offices% and many uniJue pro#lems are encountered in these processes.
)he support processes are more repetitie in nature% and hence easier to measure and #enchmark using
generic metrics.
-* Te (u,tome# >e#,>e(ti?e
?ecent management philosophy has shown an increasing realiKation of the importance of customer focus
and customer satisfaction in any #usiness. )hese are leading indicators: if customers are not satisfied% they
will eentually find other suppliers that will meet their needs. 1oor performance from this perspectie is
thus a leading indicator of future decline% een though the current financial picture may look good.
In deeloping metrics for satisfaction% customers should #e analyKed in terms of kinds of customers and the
kinds of processes for which we are proiding a product or serice to those customer groups.
.* Te =in%n(i%l >e#,>e(ti?e
?ecent management philosophy has shown an increasing realiKation of the importance of customer focus
and customer satisfaction in any #usiness. )hese are leading indicators: if customers are not satisfied% they
will eentually find other suppliers that will meet their needs. 1oor performance from this perspectie is
thus a leading indicator of future decline% een though the current financial picture may look good.
In deeloping metrics for satisfaction% customers should #e analyKed in terms of kinds of customers and the
kinds of processes for which we are proiding a product or serice to those customer groups.
!2RBEA!
@urey research is one of the most important areas of measurement in applied social research. )he #road
area of surey research encompasses any measurement procedures that inole asking Juestions of
respondents. ( -surey- can #e anything from a short paper!and!pencil feed#ack form to an intensie one!
on!one in!depth interiew.
@ureys can #e diided into two #road categories: the Cue,tionn%i#e and the inte#?iew. Suestionnaires are
usually paper!and!pencil instruments that the respondent completes. Interiews are completed #y the
interiewer #ased on the respondent says. @ometimes% it"s hard to tell the difference #etween a
Juestionnaire and an interiew. 6or instance% some people think that Juestionnaires always ask short
closed!ended Juestions while interiews always ask #road open!ended ones. &ut you will see
Juestionnaires with open!ended Juestions 0although they do tend to #e shorter than in interiews5 and there
will often #e a series of closed!ended Juestions asked in an interiew.
@urey research has changed dramatically in the last ten years. $e hae automated telephone sureys that
use random dialing methods. )here are computeriKed kiosks in pu#lic places that allows people to ask for
input. ( whole new ariation of group interiew has eoled as focus group methodology. Increasingly%
surey research is tightly integrated with the deliery of serice. Iour hotel room has a surey on the desk.
Iour waiter presents a short customer satisfaction surey with your check. Iou get a call for an interiew
seeral days after your last call to a computer company for technical assistance. Iou"re asked to complete a
short surey when you isit a we# site.
Most sureys of knowledge!#ased initiaties tend to ask a series of Juestions #ased upon aspects of
knowledge management% such as% innoation or leadership. In these sureys% respondents are usually asked
to rate their response on a numeric scale of / to 5.
F2DDA LOGIC
As the complexity of a system increases, it becomes more difficult and eventually impossible to
make a precise statement about its behavior, eventually arriving at a point of complexity where
the fuzzy logic method born in humans is the only way to get at the problem.
(Lotfi A. Zadeh, Universit of !alifornia, "erkele#
A fu$$ perception is an assessment of a phsical condition that is not measured with precision,
but is assi%ned an intuitive value. &n fact, the fu$$ lo%ic people assert everthin% in the universe
is a little fu$$, no matter how %ood our measurin% e'uipment is.
(hen humans are the basis for an analsis, we must have a wa to assi%n some rational value to
intuitive assessments of individual elements of a fu$$ set. (e must translate from human
fu$$iness to numbers that can be used b a computer. (e do this b assi%nin% assessment of
conditions a value from $ero to ).*. +or ,how hot the room is, the human mi%ht rate it at .- if the
temperature were below free$in%, and the human mi%ht rate the room at .., or even ).*, if it is a
hot da in summer with the air conditioner off. /ou can see these perceptions are fu$$, 0ust
intuitive assessments, not precisel measured facts.
" makin% fu$$ evaluations, with $ero at the bottom of the scale and ).* at the top, we have a
basis for analsis rules for the fu$$ lo%ic method, and we can accomplish our analsis or control
pro0ect. The results seem to turn out well for complex sstems or sstems where human
experience is the onl base from which to proceed, certainl better than doin% nothin% at all,
which is where we would be if unwillin% to proceed with fu$$ rules.
&elow is a fuKKy logic test designed to measure the performance of communities of practice.
=8MML>I)I<@ 86 1?(=)I=<: @<A6 (@@<@@M<>) )<@)
,o people in your organisation share a mental model of its aims and o#+ecties'
#ossibly $.%& #robably $.& 'efinitely ( )ot at *ll $
,oes your organisation possess appropriate mechanisms for sharing knowledge collectiely'
#ossibly $.%& #robably $.& 'efinitely ( )ot at *ll $
Is there a sense of community within the organisation'
#ossibly $.%& #robably $.& 'efinitely ( )ot at *ll $
,oes the organisation ena#le indiidual and collectie learning'
#ossibly $.%& #robably $.& 'efinitely ( )ot at *ll $
,oes your organisation share common practices across functions'
#ossibly $.%& #robably $.& 'efinitely ( )ot at *ll $
;as your organisation created a culture of information and knowledge sharing'
#ossibly $.%& #robably $.& 'efinitely ( )ot at *ll $
A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESOURCES
Adamic, L.A., "uukkokten, 1. 2 Adar, 3. (-**4# A Social etwork !aught in
the "eb at http:55firstmonda.or%5issues5issue6785adamic
Ahmed, 9. :. et Al. (3ds.# (-**-# #earning $hrough %nowledge &anagement
'xford: "utterworth;<einemann
Albert, =. 2 "radle, :. ()..># &anaging %nowledge( )xperts, Agencies and
'rganisations !ambrid%e: Universit 9ress
Allee, ?. ()..>#$he %nowledge )volution( )xpanding 'rganisational
*ntelligence London: "utterworth <einemann
Alpert, @. ().6A# +erformance and +aralysis( $he 'rganisational !ontext of
the American ,esearch -niversity Bournal of <i%her 3ducation , ?ol.A8, Co.4, Da5Bune ).6A.
Amidon, @. D. ()..># *nnovation Strategy for the %nowledge )conomy
London: "utterworth <einemann
Ar%ris, !. ()...# 'n 'rganisational #earning 1xford: "lackwell
Ar%ris, !. 2 =chon, @.A. ().>6# 'rganisational #earning( A $heory of Action
+erspective Eeadin%, DA: Addison;(esle
"elbin, E.D. ()..6# $he !oming Shape of 'rganisation 1xford: "utterworth;
<einemann
"elbin, E.D. (-***# .eyond the $eam 1xford: "utterworth;<einemann
"ell, @. ().>8# $he !oming of +ost/*ndustrial Society Cew /ork: "asic "ooks
"loor, @. ().64# "ittgenstein( A Social theory of %nowledge London:
DacDillan
"otkin, B. 2 =eele, !. $he %nowledge &anagement &anifesto :nowled%e
Dana%ement Eeview ?olume 4 &ssue 8 pp. )8;-)
"ourdieu, 9. ().>># An 'utline of a $heory of +ractice !ambrid%e:
!ambrid%e Universit 9ress
"od, =. (-**4# 0et ,eal at
http:55www.darwinma%.com5read5*F*)*45realtime.html
"od, =. (-**4# Are you ,eady for Social SoftwareG at
http:55www.darwinma%.com5read5*A*)*45social.html
"rookin%, A. +. ()...# !orporate &emory( Strategies for %nowledge
&anagement London: Thomson
"rown, @. ()..># !ybertrends London: 9en%uin
"rown, B. =. 2 @u%uid 9. ()..)# 'rganisational #earning and !ommunities of
+ractice( $owards a -nified 1iew of "orking, learning and *nnovation 1r%ani$ation =cience, -
pp. F*;A>
"rown, B. =. 2 @u%uid 9. ()..A# $he Social #ife of 2ocuments Eelease ).*
pp. );)-
"rown, B. =. 2 @u%uid 9. ()..6# 'rganizing %nowledge !alifornia
Dana%ement Eeview, ?ol F*, Co.4
"rown, B. =. 2 @u%uid 9. (-***# $he Social #ife of *nformation <arvard:
"usiness =chool 9ress
"rown, B. =. 2 @u%uid 9. (-**-# &ysteries of the ,egion( %nowledge
2ynamics in Silicon 1alley
!abrera, A. et Al. $he %ey ,ole of 'rganisational !ulture in a &ulti/System
1iew of $echnology/2riven !hange ?olume -) Cumber 4 pp-FA;-8)
!astells, D. ()..8# $he ,ise of the etwork Society 1xford: "lackwell
!astells, D. ()..># $he +ower of *dentity 1xford: "lackwell
!astells, D. ()..6# )nd of &illenium 1xford: "lackwell
!hen, <.T. 2 Eossi, 9.<. (3ds.# ()..-# $heory/2riven )valuation in Analyzing
+olicies and +rograms (estport, !T: Hreenwood 9ublishin% Hroup
!iborra, !. U. 3d.()..8# 0roupware and $eamwork !ambrid%e:Universit
9ress
!oates, T. (-**4# 2iscussion and !itation in the .logosphere at
http:55www.plasticba%.or%5archives5-**45*A5discussion7and7citation7in7the7blo%osphere.shtml
!ollison, !. 2 9arcell, H. (-**)# #earning to 3ly( +ractical #essons from one
of the "orld4s #eading %nowledge !ompanies 1xford: !apstone
!omputer =ciences !orporation (-**-# +irst <and: An &nterview with Bohn
=eel "rown at http:55www.csc.com5aboutus5cscworld5summer*-5howdoesknowled%e.shtml
!resswell, B. (. ()..F# ,esearch 2esign( 5uantitative and 5ualitative
Approaches London: =a%e
@avenport, T. <.2 9rusak, L. ()..6# "orking %nowledge( 6ow 'rganisations
&anage "hat $hey %now <arvard: "usiness =chool 9ress
@epartment of Transport, 3nvironment and the Ee%ions (-***# #ocal
0overnment Act 7888 London: <D=1
@espres, !. 2 !hauvel, @. (-***# %nowledge 6orizons( $he +resent 9
+romise of %nowledge &anagement 1xford: "utterworth;<einemann
@uff, B. ()..8# !ollaborative !omputing, 0roupware and %nowledge
&nformation Dana%ement and !omputer =ecurit F5-5)..8 pp.4.;F)
+estin%er, L. ().AF# A $heory of Social !omparison +rocesses <uman
Eelations ?ol. > pp. ))>;)F*
+ischer, !. =. ()..-# America !alling( A Social 6istory of the $elephone
to:;<8 "erkele, !A: Universit of !alifornia 9ress
+lnn, =. B. A. (-**)# $he ,ecords !ontinuum &odel in !ontext and its
*mplications for Archival +ractice Bournal of the =ociet of Archivists ?ol. -- Co.) pp. >.;.4
Hoffman, 3. ().A.# $he +resentation of Self in )veryday #ife London:
9en%uin
Hon%la, 9. and Ei$$uto, !.E. (-**)# )volving !ommunities of +ractice( *.&
0lobal Services )xperience &"D =stems Bournal ?olume F*, Co.F pp. 6F-;68-
Hranovetter, D.=. ().>4# $he Strength of "eak $ies American Bournal of
=ociolo%, ?olume >6, &ssue 8 (Da ).>4# pp. )48*;)46*
Hranovetter, D.=. ().>8# etwork Sampling( Some 3irst Steps American
Bournal of =ociolo%, ?olume 6), &ssue 8 (Da, ).>8# pp.)-6>;)4*4
Hrossman, (. ()..6# et.wars Cew /ork: Universit 9ress
Hrunwald, T. ()..># &aking the etwork London: U:!1
<arrson, =. ()..6# =apanese $echnology and *nnovation &anagement(
3rom %now 6ow to %now "ho London: 3dward 3l%ar
<ildreth, 9., :imble, !. 2 (ri%ht. 9. (-***# !ommunities of +ractice in the
2istributed *nternational )nvironment Bournal of :nowled%e Dana%ement ?ol.F Co.) pp. ->;46
<ilt$, =. 2 Turoff, D. ().>6# $he etwork ation "oston: D&T 9ress
<od%kinson, H.9. 2 =parrow, 9.E. (-**-# $he !ompetent 'rganisation
"ucks: 1U9
<offman, D. (-**4# $ransformation by 2esign( An *nterview with 2ee 6ock at
http:55www.wie.or%50--5hockintro.asp
Banis, &.L., ()..-# 0roupthink( +sychological Studies of +olicy 2ecisions 9
3iascoes "oston: <ou%hton Difflin
Banis, &.L. ().>-# 1ictims of 0roupthink "oston: <ou%hton Difflin
Baaskelainen, 9. 2 =avolainen (-**4# !ompetency in etwork -se as a
,esource for !itizenship( *mplications for the 2igital 2ivide &nformation Eesearch ?ol. 6 Co.4
April -**4
Bohannesen, B. et Al. (-**)# &anagement of $acit %nowledge( $he
*mportance of $acit %nowledge, the 2anger of *nformation $echnology and "hat to 2o About *t
?olume -) Cumber ) pp. 4;-*
Bordan, :., <auser, B. 2 +oster, =. $he Augmented Social etwork( .uilding
*dentity and $rust into the ext/0eneration *nternet at
http:55collaborator.planetwork.net5linktank7whitepaper5A=C-**4;*A;)A.pdf
Bor%ensen, @.L. ().6.# +articipant 'bservation( A &ethodology for 6uman
Studies London: =a%e
:arash, E. ()..A# 0roupware and 'rganisational #earning London: =a%e
:ell, :. ()..F# 'ut of !ontrol "oston: D&T 9ress
:ell, :. ()..6# ew ,ules for the ew )conomy "oston: D&T 9ress
:irk, B. 2 Diller, D.L. ().68# ,eliability and 1alidity in 5ualitative ,esearch
London: =a%e
:olb, @. ().6F# )xperiential #earning( )xperience as the Source of #earning
and 2evelopment Cew /ork: 9rentice <all
:9DH ()..># %nowledge &anagment London: :9DH
:ro%h, H. ?., &chi0o, :. 2 Conaka, &. (-***# )nabling %nowledge !reation(
6ow to -nlock the &ystery of $acit %nowledge and ,elease the +ower of *nnovation 1xford:
Universit 9ress
Lace, 9. (-**)# Support +artnerships( !ollaboration in Action London: @avid
+ulton
Lave, B. ().66# !ognition in +ractice !ambrid%e: !ambrid%e Universit 9ress
Lave, B. 2 (en%er, 3. ()..># Situated #earning( #egitimate +eripheral
+articipation !ambrid%e: !ambrid%e Universit 9ress
Leonard;"arton, @. ()..6# "ellsprings of %nowledge( .uilding and
Sustaining the Source of *nnovation <arvard: "usiness =chool 9ress
Lesser, 3.L. and =torck, B. (-***# !ommunities of +ractice and
'rganisational +erfomance &"D =stems Bournal, ?olume F*, Co. F, pp. 64);6F)
Lawle, 3.L. $he Sociology of !ulture in !omputer/&ediated !ommunication(
An *nitial )xploration at http:55www.itcs.com5elawle5bourdieu.html
Liebowit$, B. 2 !hen, /. (-**)# 2eveloping %nowledge/Sharing +roficencies
:nowled%e Dana%ement Eeview ?olume 4 &ssue 8 pp. )-;)A
Little, =., Iuintas, 9. 2 Ea, T. (3ds# (-**)# &anaging %nowledge( An
)ssential ,eader London: =a%e
Lipnack, B. 2 =tamps, B. ()..F# $he Age of the etwork( 'rganising
+rinciples for the 7:
st
!entury Cew /ork: Bohn (ile 2 =ons
Lipnack, B. 2 =tamps, B. ()..># 1irtual $eams( ,eaching Across Space, $ime
and 'rganisations with $echnology Cew /ork: Bohn (ile 2 =ons
Loader, ". @. (3d.# ()..6# !yberspace 2ivide London: Eoutled%e
Daxwell, B. A. ()..8# 5ualitative ,esearch 2esign( An *nteractive Approach
London: =a%e
Dun$, 9. ().6A# 'ur %nowledge of the 0rowth of %nowledge London:
Eoutled%e 2 :e%an 9aul
Cardi, ". and (hittaker, =. (-**-# $he ,ole of 3ace/to/3ace !ommunication
in 2istributed "ork in <inds, 9. and :iesler, =, (3ds.#, @istributed work, 64;))-. !ambrid%e, DA,
D&T 9ress.
Ce%roponte, C. ()..8# .eing 2igital Cew /ork: !oronet
1lesen, :. 2 Ders D.@. ()...# $rying to *mprove !ommunication and
!ollaboration with *nformation $echnology( An Action ,esearch +ro>ect which 3ailed &nformation
Technolo% and 9eople ?ol. )- Co.F )... pp.4)>;44-
9etrides, L.A. 2 Codine, T.E. (-**4# %nowledge &anagement in )ducation(
2efining the #andscape The &nstitute for the =tud of :nowled%e Dana%ement in 3ducation
Darch -**4
9reece, B. (-***# 'n/line !ommunities( 2esigning -sability, Supporting
Sociability London: Bohn (ile 2 =ons
9rusak, L. (3d.# ()..# %nowledge in 'rganisations 1xford: "utterworth
<einemann
9utnam, E. @. (-**# .owling Alone( $he !ollapse and ,evival of American
!ommunity Cew /ork: =imon 2 =chuster
Eeed, @.9. (-**4# $hat Sneaky )xponential ? .eyond &etcalfe4s #aw to the
+ower of !ommunity .uilding at http:55www.reed.com59apers5H+C5reedslaw.html
Ehein%old, <. ()..4# $he 1irtual !ommunity "oston: D&T 9ress
Eu%%les, E.L. (3d.# ()..8# %nowledge &anagement $ools London:
"utterworth <einemann
=allet, B. (-**4# =ust 6ow 'pen must an 'pen etwork be for an 'pen
etwork to be #abeled @'pen@A at http:55firstmonda.or%5issues5issue6745sallet5
=andar, Z 2 Eavet$, B.E. (3ds.# ()..># !yberfutures( !ulture and +olitics in
the *nformation Society London: 9luto 9ress
=axenian, A. ()..F# ,egional Advantage( !ulture and !ompetition in Silicon
1alley and ,oute :7B London: <arvard Universit
=chon, @.A. ()..)# $he ,eflective +ractitioner( 6ow +rofessionals $hink in
Action London: "asic "ooks
=en%e, 9.D. ()..*# $he 3ifth 2iscipline Cew /ork: !urrenc @oubleda
=en%e, 9.D. et Al. ()..># $he 3ifth 2iscipline 3ieldbook London: Cicholas
"reale
=chut$, A. ().>)# !ollected +apers **( Studies in Social $heory The <a%ue:
Dartinus Ci0hoff
=hirk, !. (-**-# !ommunities, Audiences and Scale at
http:55shirk.com5writin%s5communit5communit7scale.html
=krme, @. B. ()...# %nowledge etworking( !reating the !ollaborative
)nterprise 1xford: "utterworth <einemann
=mith, 3.A. (-**)# $he ,ole of $acit and )xplicit %nowledge in the "orkplace
Bournal of :nowled%e Dana%ement, ?olume A, Co. F pp. 4));4-)
=nowden, @. (-***# !ynefin( A Sense of $ime and Space, $he Social
)cology of %nowledge &anagement in @espres, !. and !hauvel @. (-***# %nowledge 6orizons(
$he +resent and +romise of %nowledge &anagement London: "utterworth;<einemann
=nowden, @. (-**-# !omplex Acts of %nowing( +aradox and 2escriptive Self/
Awareness Bournal of :nowled%e Dana%ement ?olume 8 Cumber - -**- pp.)**;)))
=tou%h, =., 3om, =. 2 "uckenmer, B. (-***# 1irtual $eaming( A Strategy for
&oving your 'rganisation into the ew &ilennium &ndustrial Dana%ement and @ata =stems
)**56 -*** pp.4>*;4>6
=unstein, !.=, (-**4# $he #aw of 0roup +olarization at
http:55www.law.uchica%o.ed59ublications5(orkin%5index.html
=veib, :. 3. ()..>#$he ew 'rganisational "ealth( &anaging and
&easuring %nowledge/.ased Assets London: "erret;:oehler
Tiwana, A. (-**4# Affinity to *nfinity in +eer/to/+eer %nowledge +latforms
!ommunications of the A!D, Da -**4, ?ol.F8, Co.A
Turkle, =. ()..8# #ife on the Screen Cew /ork: 9hoenix
Upward, +. (-***# &odelling the !ontinuum as +aradigm Shift in
,ecordkeeping and archiving +rocesses/A +ersonal ,eflection Eecords Dana%ement Bournal
?ol.)* Co.4 pp. ))A;)4.
(atts, @.B. (-**4# Six 2egrees( $he Science of a !onnected Age London:
Corton
(asserman, =. 2 +aust, :. ()..F# Social etwork Analysis( &ethods and
Applications!ambrid%e: !ambrid%e Universit 9ress
(ellman, ". ().6-# Studying +ersonal !ommunities in Darsden, 9.?. and
Lin, C. (3ds# ().6-# Social Structure and etwork Analysis =a%e: London
(ellman, ". ()..># An )lectronic 0roup is 1irtually a Social etwork in
:eisler, =. (3d.# ()..># !ulture of the *nternet <illsdale, CB: Lawrence 3rlbaum pp. )>.;-*A
(ellman, ". and Hulia, D. ()...# et Surfers 2on4t ,ide Alone( 1irtual
!ommunities as !ommunities in (ellman, ". (3d.# ()...# etworks in the 0lobal 1illage
"oulder, !1: (estview
(ellman, ". (-**)# +hysical +lace and !yberplace( $he ,ise of +ersonalised
etworking &nternational Bournal of Urban and Ee%ional Eesearch -A.
(ellman, ". (-**)# !omputer etworks as Social etworks =cience ?ol. -.4
pp. -*4);-*4F
(ellman, ". (-**-# 2esigning the *nternet for a etworked Society( #ittle
.oxes, 0localisation and etworked *ndividualism !ommunications of the A!D
(ellman, "., "oase, B. and !hen (. (-**-# $he etworked ature of
!ommunity( 'nline and 'ffline &T2=ociet, ?olume ), &ssue ), pp. )A);)8A
(en%er, 3. ()..6# !ommunities of +ractice !ambrid%e: Universit 9ress
(en%er, 3. (-***# !ommunities of +ractice( $he Structure of %nowledge
Sharing in @espres, !. and !hauvel @. (-***# %nowledge 6orizons( $he +resent and +romise of
%nowledge &anagement London: "utterworth;<einemann
(en%er, 3. et Al. (-**-# !ultivating !ommunities of +ractice "oston, Dass.:
<arvard "usiness =chool 9ress
(exler, D.C. (-**)# $he "ho, "hat and "hy of %nowledge &apping Bournal
of :nowled%e Dana%ement ?olume A Co.4 pp. -F.;-84
(hittle, @. ". ()..># !yberspace( $he 6uman 2imension London: (.<.
+reeman 9ress
(hitworth, A. (-**)# $he "eb +age as !ave +ainting &nternational Bournal of
&nformation Dana%ement ?olume 4 Cumber F pp. 4)>;4-*
(hte, (.+. ().>4# Street !orner Society London: Universit of !hica%o
9ress
/en, @.!. ()..8# 0roupware( A Strategic Analysis and *mplementation
*ndustrial &anagement 9 2ata Systems ..5- )... pp.8F;>*