INTRODUCTIONManagers and academics have recognized knowledge as a key source of competitive advantage. Mekhilef et.

Al (2004) definesKNOWLEDGE- Knowledge is the contribution of data and information, to which is added expert opinion, skills and experiences, to result in a valuable asset which can be used to aid decision making. Knowledge may be explicit and/or tacit, individual and/or collective. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT- KM is the management of activities and processes for leveraging knowledge to enhance competitiveness through better use and creation of individual and collective knowledge resources. A knowledge-based perspective of the firm has emerged in the strategic management literature which has been built upon and extends the resourcebased theory of the firm initially promoted by Penrose (1959) and expanded by others . The knowledge-based perspective postulates that the services rendered by tangible resources depend on how they are combined and applied, which is in turn a function of the firm's know-how (i.e., knowledge). This knowledge is embedded in and carried through multiple entities including organization culture and identity, routines, policies, systems, and documents, as well as individual employees. Knowledge-based resources are usually difficult to imitate and socially complex, the knowledge based view of the firm posits that these knowledge assets may produce long-term sustainable competitive advantage. Information technologies may play an important role in effectuating the knowledge based view of the firm. Advanced information technologies (e.g., the Internet, intranets, extranets, browsers, data warehouses, data mining techniques, and software agents) can be used to systematize, enhance, and expedite large-scale intra- and inter-firm knowledge management. (Alavi and Leidner 1999) Davenport and Marchand suggest that: whilst knowledge management does involve information management, beyond that it has two distinctive tasks: to facilitate the creation of new knowledge and to manage the way people share and apply it (Davenport and Marchand, 1999, p. 2). In Nonaka et al.s (2000) unified model of dynamic knowledge creation, knowledge is described as dynamic, since it is created in social interactions amongst individuals and organizations. Knowledge is context specific, as it depends on a particular time and space. Without being put into context, it is just information, not knowledge. Information becomes knowledge when it is interpreted by individuals and given a context and anchored in the beliefs and commitments of individuals. Also Davenport et al., (1998,p. 43) come up with similar definitions of knowledge. Knowledge which is new to an organization has to either be invented internally, or acquired from external sources. There are two types of knowledge: explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge.

Nonaka et al.(2000) and other authors such as Kikoski and Kikoski (2004) describe explicit knowledge as what can be embodied in a code or a language and as a consequence it can be verbalized and communicated, processed, transmitted and stored relatively easily. It is public and most widely known and the conventional form of knowledge which can be found in books, journals and mass media such as newspapers, television internet etc. It is the sort of knowledge we are aware of using and it can be shared in the form of data, scientific formulae, manuals and such like. Patents are an ideal example of explicit knowledge in a business context. In contrast, tacit knowledge is personal and hard to formalise it is rooted in action, procedures, commitment, values and emotions etc. Tacit knowledge is the less familiar, unconventional form of knowledge. It is the knowledge of which we are not conscious. Tacit knowledge is not codified, it is not communicated in a language, it is acquired by sharing experiences, by observation and imitation (Kikoski and Kikoski, 2004; Hall and Andriani, 2002). Nonaka et al.(2000) describes Tacit knowledge is highly personal and hard to formalize and, therefore, difficult to communicate to others, and details his description that there are two dimensions of tacit knowledge: the first is the technical dimension which encompasses the know-how, the second is the cognitive dimension which consists of beliefs, ideas and values which we often take for granted .
Explicit knowledge is codified, and can be precisely and formally articulated is easy to codify, document, transfer, share, and communicate

Tacit and explicit knowledge are complementary, which means both types of knowledge are essential to knowledge creation. Explicit knowledge without tacit insight quickly loses its meaning. Knowledge is created through interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge and not from either tacit or explicit knowledge alone. Competitive advantage will only be gained if companies value their tacit knowledge, as explicit knowledge can be known by others as well. Tacit knowledge creates the learning curve for others to follow and provides competitive advantage for future successful companies (Kikoski and Kikoski, 2004). EVOLUTION OF TACIT KNOWLEDGE Nonaka et al. (2000) developed the spiral model of knowledge: new knowledge always begins with the individual, e.g. a brilliant researcher has an insight that leads to a new patent, or a shop-floor worker draws on years of experience to come up with a process innovation. In each case, an individuals personal knowledge is transformed into organizational knowledge, which expands through the organization and is valuable to the company as a whole. Through these interactions an organization creates a knowledge process, called knowledge conversion. According to Nonaka et al. (2000) there are four modes of knowledge conversion: 1. Socialisation (from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge);

2. Externalisation (from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge); 3. Combination (from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge); and 4. Internalisation (from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge). These four modes of knowledge conversion form a spiral, the SECI process (see Figure 1).(Diag- siedler.pdf) Knowledge created through this spiral process can trigger a new spiral of knowledge creation, expanding horizontally and vertically across organizations. This interactive spiral process takes place both intra- and inter-organizationally. A climate of openness and trust amongst organization members is the basic condition that allows tacit knowledge to be created, shared and used in the innovation process. Sharing tacit knowledge will be more successful in informal settings than in formal ones. Therefore, it is important for the management of organizations to cultivate a commitment to motivate the creation of tacit knowledge, and to create an atmosphere in which organization members in an organization feel safe in sharing their knowledge. The evolution of knowledge management and Web 2.0 According to Kuhlen (2003), the understanding of knowledge management has undergone a paradigm shift from a static, knowledge-warehouse approach towards a more dynamic communication-based or network approach. Similarly, Hazlett et al. (2005) maintain that the literature in knowledge management has moved away from focusing on the explicit dimensions of knowledge (i.e. the computational paradigm) to the tacit dimension of knowledge (i.e. the organic paradigm). The latter paradigm, unlike the former one, Hazlett et al. (2005) argue, is a dynamic, people-centric approach that takes into account cultural problems and motivational issues in knowledge sharing. The term Web 2.0 was officially coined by OReilly Media in 2004 (OReilly, 2005). It refers to a perceived second generation of community-driven web services such as social networking sites, blogs, wikis, etc. which facilitate a more socially connected web where everyone is able to communicate, participate, collaborate and add to and edit the information space (Anderson, 2007; Ankolekar et al., 2008; Pachler and Daly, 2009; Rollett et al., 2007). Given the aforementioned characteristics, Web 2.0 has also been commonly referred to as the social web. Participation is a key feature of Web 2.0 which is structured around open programming interface that allows any user to freely create, assemble, organize (tag), locate and share content (Boulos and Wheeler, 2007). Web 2.0s participatory nature is best exemplified in Wikipedia where people work collaboratively to input, produce and update knowledge as opposed to the traditional encyclopaedias where the information is static and predetermined. The interactivity of blogs compared to personal web sites is another example of Web 2.0s participatory nature which stands in sharp contrast to the access-control in applications commonly used in organizations. In the following section, the application of Web 2.0 in the enterprise will be discussed.

Enterprise 2.0: key characteristics and benefits Organizations have realized that Web 2.0 technologies could be leveraged for business advantage and have thus become interested in replicating the outcomes of Web 2.0 inside their own enterprises. This gave birth to the concept of Enterprise 2.0 which is basically the application of Web 2.0 technology within the organizations (Kainy, 2007; Semple, 2007). McAfee (2006b) found that when companies make Web 2.0 technologies widely available, the only two groups that quickly start using them are techies and newbies. He defines newbies as the new entrants to the workforce such as recent graduates who find it natural to socialize, collaborate, and find what they are looking for through the various technological platforms available. Techies, on the other hand, are defined as IT staff and other technically-astute employees across the company who are the natural early adopters and advanced users of new technologies (McAfee, 2006b). There are many organizations that already implement WEB 2.0 applications and tools. The most outstanding organizations implementing Enterprise 2.0 are IBM and Motorola (Scarff, 2006). Motorola, for example, holds 2,000 WIKI sites and 2,700 Blogs. Analysts do not agree how much Enterprise 2.0 is hype or phenomena. Even in organizations that state that they use WEB 2.0 applications and tools, it is not really understood what the actual adoption level is. One may assume that the level is not very high. Young employees use these applications more than elders (Carswell, 2007); it is adopted more in the field than in headquarters; Organizations add it to the set of tools, but most usage is not production, rather it is a playground or a specific use by pioneers. According to Hinchcliffe, as from 2007 there is a change in trends: Its clear that the conventional wisdom is beginning to shift from the wait-and-see of 2006 to the beginning of the adoption cycle in earnest this year (Hinchcliffe, 2007b). Yet we should remember that assimilation of both tools and concepts takes time. Assimilation of tools will be much faster and easier than assimilation of concept. Therefore both the negativists, Gartner and King speaking of hype, and the optimists, speaking about penetration and usage of WEB 2.0 tools in organizations, are right. Assimilation of concept will be driven by several factors: Habit of use. The more used, on the level of tools, the easier it is to accept, on the level of concept. Internet trends success of WEB 2.0. Knowledge management trends in organizations, which for years are gradually but steadily assimilating the sharing concepts. Knowledge management 2.0: managing the knowledge in light of WEB 2.0 Existence Knowledge management will be hereby compared to WEB 2.0 in four aspects: 1. Conceptual. 2. Principles. 3. Functional abilities of tools and applications. 4. Organizational culture.

Web 2.0 from a Knowledge Management perspective The concept ofWeb 2.0 [OR05] is often referred to as an umbrella term, used to explicitly express the framework of ideas and technology it creates .An essential part of the Web 2.0 is user contributed content and knowledge creation. The user contributed content is collaboratively annotated (e.g. by tags), shared in social network platforms and collaboratively improved (e.g. in wikis) harnessing the collective intelligence of the individual users (wisdom of the crowds [OR05]) and leveraging network effects [And07, OR05]. The knowledge managed within Web 2.0 applications lies in content contributed by the users. This knowledge is published, enriched, shared, communicated and combined. From a KM point of view, the essential aspects of Web 2.0 can be summarised into six processes. These six processes where derived from an extensive analysis of related work in the field of Web 2.0 [SSK+08] that has been conducted earlier. For each process, representative examples of Web 2.0 applications are provided and its relation to the processes of traditional KM is identified. 1 . In knowledge syndication, users publish their opinions, experience and knowledge to a broad community of recipients (mass media). The recipients can randomly access the information or subscribe to it. The knowledge producer is typically known to the recipients. Web 2.0 applications that support knowledge syndication are blogs, podcasts and news feeds. With respect to the traditional KM processes, knowledge syndication mainly deals with knowledge transfer, i.e. making pieces of knowledge of a person or organisation explicit and providing it to other persons and organisations. 2. The process of collaborative knowledge creation deals with joined creation of explicit knowledge resources, e.g. text or hypertext documents. In contrast to the knowledge syndication (where the authors of the knowledge are known to the consumers), this is typically not the case in collaborative knowledge creation. The group of users collaboratively creating the knowledge can be an open community such as the Internet users or closed such as a specific division of a company. A Web 2.0 application for collaborative knowledge creation is the use of wikis1 in organisations and its collaborative creation of articles. Collaborative creation of knowledge mainly deals with the creation of (new) knowledge or at least making implicit knowledge explicit. Secondary purposes are storage/retrieval of the knowledge and the transfer of knowledge to other people and organisations. 3. The process of collaborative knowledge exchange deals with solving a problem an individual has by exploiting the wisdom of others. A description of the problem is made available to an open or closed group of users. The users can give hints, make suggestions how to solve the problem, give concrete solution directions and discuss about them. All feedback, hints, answers, and solutions provided are visible to all users of the community. Examples of Web 2.0 applications that provide for collaborative knowledge exchange are discussion forums and question and answering systems. The collaborative knowledge ex-change process focuses on knowledge transfer and knowledge application. The transfer of knowledge takes place by users providing their contribution to the problem solving process.

The knowledge application happens when the user who stated the problem applies the suggested solution direction. 4. In the knowledge and meta-knowledge sharing process, users share their knowledge with a group of other users or an organisation. The sharing can be within a closed or open community. Users possess the knowledge they contribute and sharing typically comes in combination with creation and sharing of meta-knowledge. Meta-knowledge are descriptions of the pieces of knowledge, i.e. it is knowledge about knowledge. Typically tags are used as meta-knowledge. Although knowledge is also shared through systems such as wikis in form of the collaboratively written articles (see above), the main difference to collaborative knowledge creation is that the users still possess the knowledge they contributed. Meta-knowledge in wikis are, for example, different categories of articles such as definitions, how-tos, guidelines and business profiles. The process differs from knowledge syndication insofar as it is typically not about a one to (very) many relationship as with, e.g. mass media. Web 2.0 applications that allow for knowledge and meta-knowledge sharing are content sharing systems like Flickr2 and YouTube3. The knowledge and meta-knowledge sharing process mainly refers to the knowledge transfer process defined in Section 2. It provides insights into the knowledge of other users, which can be then consumed and acquired. In contrast to the collaborative knowledge exchange, application of knowledge is not in the (primary) interest of knowledge sharing systems. Rather, the purpose is to make the knowledge available and provide for a longer term storage and retrieval. 5. In the social networking process, users typically provide some personal information such as interests and affiliation(s) and share it with the community. In addition, the users can explicitly state that there is a connection between themselves and other users (contacts). These connections can be of different kinds such as friends, collaborators, or university mates. Social networking applications such as Facebook4 typically focus on end users. There are platforms targeting the profession user like Xing5 and members of specific organisations like emergency response personnel such as Sahana6. Considering social networking with respect to the traditional processes of KM defined in the main relation can be seen with knowledge storage and retrieval (finding persons I am interested in). It also supports the creation of knowledge (the social network itself). Another, secondary, purpose of social networking is the transfer of knowledge. 6. Finally, the knowledge orchestration process implements the combination of different open infrastructures and thus merging different resources of knowledge to create a new service and to provide better insights into the knowledge. It can be used for better exploring knowledge and its combinations; often achieved with maps, timelines or diagrams. Web 2.0 applications making use of knowledge orchestration are typically called mashups,providing a (predefined) combination of different knowledge sources. The process of knowledge orchestration allows for knowledge creation through combination of existing resources. The goal of this combination is knowledge transfer and knowledge application. Transfer of knowledge means that by accumulating the knowledge and presenting it

through different visualisations, it can be perceived and acquired. Aligning Knowledge Management and Web 2.0 Processes Seemingly, the six processes identified for Web 2.0 applications have a correlation to the four core processes of traditional KM. The matrix depicted in Figure 1 shows this correlation. The x-axis shows the four traditional KM processes and the y-axis depicts the six Web 2.0 processes. Given this matrix, the majority of Web 2.0 support for traditional KM lies on the knowledge transfer. Here, we find all Web 2.0 applications introduced. The process of knowledge creation and knowledge storage and retrieval are supported by fewer Web 2.0 applications. Both can be facilitated by wikis and social networking applications. While Knowledge creation is additionally supported by knowledge orchestration, knowledge storage and retrieval can be improved by knowledge and metaknowledge sharing. Finally, Web 2.0 methods can give only minor support for knowledge application by methods of collaborative knowledge exchange and knowledge orchestration. Although not all processes of traditional KM are equally supported by Web 2.0 applications, one can conclude that indeed KM can benefit from the Web 2.0. Involving Web 2.0 brings in interesting and aspects for KM in professional organisations such as in the case of emergency response. Enterprise 2.0 Andrew McAfee, the Harvard professor credited with coining the term, defines Enterprise 2.0 as the use of emergent social software platforms within companies or between companies and their partners or customers. Put more simply, it means the use of an entire suite of emergent technologieswikis, blogs, tagging, and social networking toolsboth within and beyond the four walls of an enterprise. Implication of web 2.0 in context of Knowledge Sharing and Management Sharing and managing knowledge is one of the most obvious uses for E2.0 technologies. Today, most corporate knowledge is shared through e-mail and corporate intranets: E-mail is essentially bilateral and sequential. Intranets have some merit as bulletin boards but they tend to be run by a small communications team that has to guess what information is relevant to colleagues and how to prioritize it. By definition, the information posted tends to be static. By contrast, tools such as blogs and wikis enable many team members to contribute to a knowledge pool. Moreover, because the information does not have to be structured up front, but rather evolves in accordance with the demands placed upon it, a collaborative document produced using wiki software would likely be more efficient and more relevant. IBM operates dozens of wikis within its enterprise to foster everything from internal project collaboration to software development. It is also taking part in an experimental project, the Community Patent Initiative, with others including Microsoft, General Electric, and HP. This initiative uses the wisdom of crowds to

help the understaffed U.S. Patent Office review applications and ensure that only truly worthwhile inventions get 20 years of near-monopoly protection. Companies were slower to pick up on the new phenomenon of tagging. Honeywell, an industrial conglomerate, is among the first to introduce a tagging capability behind its firewall. The aim, says Rich Hoeg, a senior Honeywell manager and blogger, is to allow engineers to perform knowledge discovery, research, and sharing across the miles, even if they dont know each other. Several companies are using both blogs and wikis to broadcast knowledge to an internal audience, to specific clients, and to the public at large. The Western States Intelligence Network has adopted wikis to help assemble crime-fighting information in one place. In the past, this sort of information was shared via e-mail, and vital intelligence often would fall through the cracks. THE ENTERPRISE 2.0 ADAPTATION / benefits In a survey conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit and sponsored by KPMG International, corporate executives across a range of industries agreed that adapting consumer-based Web 2.0 tools for commercial use has the potential to transform businesses. This Enterprise 2.0 adaptation could offer benefits in several important areas: Fostering collaboration. Many Web 2.0 technologies connect people in ways that make it easier to collaborate. Targeting such connections could lead to increased knowledge sharing between highly skilled workers, refining the information available to them. By tapping into the collective wisdom of the group, this type of collaboration could lead to better decisions and aid in problem solving. Innovation. The openness of Web 2.0 holds out the prospect of breaking down the research and development (R&D) silo and allowing a broader range of collaborators to participate. Traditionally a secretive function, R&D could be transformed by Web 2.0 into something more inclusive and eclectic, engendering new possibilities for creation and discovery throughout the enterprise. Enhanced productivity. Enabling employees to do moreand do it more efficientlyhas always been a fundamental business goal. Web 2.0 has the potential to create network effects that leverage the productive power of the group, improving both the quantity and the quality of work. Because of these potential benefits, some companies are moving quickly to embrace Web 2.0. But others see challenges and barriers that must be addressed before their organizations can realize the new technologies full potential. They see security risks and governance issues as paramount, particularly the development of security policies specifically tailored to Web 2.0. On a more basic level, some are unsure how

to measure the benefits of Web 2.0 while others are struggling to understand what Web 2.0 even has to do with their businesses. To date, Web 2.0 as a tool for the enterprise may seem more promise than reality. Yet as this survey shows, many organizations (and in fact whole industries) are taking steps to ensure that their stance on Web 2.0 will be very different two years from now. Challenges to Adoption of E2.0 Tools Like many group applications, E2.0 tools will face a variety of barriers in the corporationranging from people and processes to the actual tools. While security is often cited as a key concern, another real risk is not that wikis or blogs will reveal too much information, but rather too little. Social networking requires a high volume of active participants and regular postings. Many wikis and blogs in the wider world fail due to lack of interest. Just as damaging are institutional cultures or norms that work against sharing information, either because of concerns about confidentiality or because of hierarchical structures. It is telling that it was the most senior and the most junior officers who were in favor of Intellipedia at the Defense Intelligence Agency, while the bureaucrats in the middle were resistant. One of the reasons for their concern, as Harvards Weinberger pointed out, is that intelligence analysts are graded on the basis of their report writing. If you cant tell who edited the wiki or who added the key fact that pointed to a terror cell, then how do you allocate credit? Nor is the concern about information sharing trivial. Of course, in organizations such as Americas various intelligence agencies, if the information falls into the wrong hands the results could be catastrophic. Companies, too, are right to be concerned about possible leaching of confidential information to employees who could move to a rival. And it would be naive to assume that employees do not understand that knowledge is power. What incentive is there for a seasoned saleswoman, for example, to share her best contacts with a rookie colleague, and thereby give away her competitive advantage? Then there are the cultural and legal issues. While the United States enjoys wide freedom of speech under the constitution, many other countries take a much less tolerant view. And if free comment is allowed in a corporate blog or wiki, the company has to be alert to the dangers of remarks that may be libelous or infringe employee rights laws (e.g., bullying or sexual or racial harassment). Moreover, how can employees be certain that blogs or wikis are not merely the latest corporate fad? A politically savvy employee might want to hold back before indulging in something that may prove to be short-lived in popularity and acceptability but long-lived in the corporate database. Finally, there is the challenge of how new technologies interact with legacy systems; to be useful, they should be searchable throughout the company. However, companies are often divided according to business unit or country, so managers

need to ensure that the IT project is appropriately staffed and has adequate resources. A basic problem faced in implementing web 2.0 technologies in organisations is that some managers fail to see the relevance of Web 2.0. according to a survey undertaken the most serious hurdle to adoption is the fundamental lack of understanding about how Web 2.0 relates to their businesses. If the benefits of Web 2.0 are not clear (and measurable), achieving buy-in among senior management will be problematic. KEY FINDINGS According to a survey conducted by KPMG internationalCompanies are confident that Web 2.0 will eventually deliver business benefits. - This is especially true in the areas of innovation, efficiency, and customer development. Fully 75 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that Web 2.0 will foster innovation at their organizations as employees use it to communicate and share ideas. Indeed, 86 percent agree or strongly agree that Web 2.0 will help their companies share knowledge more efficiently. More generally, 69 percent agree or strongly agree Web 2.0 has enabled or will enable employees to work more efficiently. (KPMG.PDF)

Implementation of Web 2.0 governance structures varies by industry, with some industries indicating they are already there and others planning to make significant changes in the next two years.IT/technology companies: most tech companies are already there and those that are not will be soon. Financial services: Like IT companies, financial-sector organizations seem well aware of the risks of Web 2.0 and have taken steps to head them off. Consumer goods: one quarter of this sector have Web 2.0 policies aimed at protecting digital content. Telecommunications: two third companies plan to have policies in place in two years. Entertainment, media, and publishing: Like telecommunications, this sector is behind the curve. But plans are in place to tighten security related to Web 2.0 applications. Similar figures are noted for the governmental/public sector.

CONCLUSION Yet proponents of Web 2.0 say it is only by permitting greater transparency, and by fostering greater collaboration and knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries, that companies can reap the benefits of tomorrows emerging technologies. Given that Web 2.0 holds the potential for increased productivity, more effective collaboration, and enhanced problem-solving capacity, it seems likely that

many companies will want to at least try to incorporate Web 2.0 into their businesses. The challenge will be to do so in a way that delivers maximum benefits while protecting the enterprise and its assets. EXTRA IMP SLIDESHARE LINK- http://www.scribd.com/doc/50504269/Case-Study-MITEnterprise-2-0 http://blogs.oracle.com/enterprise20/2010/02/realizing_the_benefits_of_ente.ht ml http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hinchcliffe/using-web-20-to-reinvent-yourbusiness-for-the-economic-downturn/223