Presentation on theme: "Jan Pawlowski & Henri Pirkkalainen Global Information Systems group"— Presentation transcript:
1 Jan Pawlowski & Henri Pirkkalainen Global Information Systems group The use of social software for Knowledge Management in globally distributed settingsJan Pawlowski & Henri PirkkalainenGlobal Information Systems group
2 Global Information Systems Mission StatementCreating and validating new solutions for Information Systems in a global context - this includes the support of individuals and organizations to improve competitiveness, performance, and mutual understandingTopicsDesigning work and learning processes in globally distributed organizationsDesign & development methods for global information systemsCulture analysis and awarenessSupport tools for knowledge intensive processes in global organizationsICT4D: ICT for developmentE-Learning and knowledge management in global organizations
3 Global Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä The Team Denis KozlovKati ClementsJan M. PawlowskiHenri PirkkalainenPhilipp Holtkamp
4 Twitter feedback channel #GSKM12 You can provide feedback and ask questions regarding our part and the research topics through Twitter
5 Social Software for KM: Contents Knowledge Management in Global SettingsSocial Software – Vocabulary in IS field?Starting point for global inspection - BarriersFocus in KM – what has been studied and how?Towards unexplored research territories
6 What is common knowledge? A first questionWhat is common knowledge?
10 Related Concepts (modified, North, 1998) Competitiveness+ uniquenessCompetenceSkill+applying to new settings+useKnowledge+contextInformation+meaningData+syntaxSymbol
11 Definition: Knowledge Management “Knowledge management is defined as the management function responsible for the regular selection, implementation and evaluation of goal-oriented knowledge strategies that aim at improving an organization’s way of handling knowledge internal and external to the organization in order to improve organizational performance. The implementation of knowledge strategies comprises all person-oriented, organizational and technological instruments suitable to dynamically optimize the organization-wide level of competencies, education and ability to learn of the members of the organization as well as to develop collective intelligence.“ (Maier 2002)”Planned and ongoing management of activities and processes for leveraging knowledge to enhance competitiveness through better use and creation of individual and collective knowledge resources.” (CEN 2004)
12 Why is Knowledge a Global Success Factor? A first question…Why is Knowledge a Global Success Factor?
14 Business Process Management in a Networked Business R&DProcessingAMarketingR&DSalesMarketingMarketingProcessingBProductionSalesITServicesSalesITServicesMarketingMaterial FlowKnowledge/ Information / Data Flow
15 Some random questions… Decision questionsWhere to produce?How to build partnerships (joint ventures, contractors, …)Which systems to exchange knowledge?Operational questionsHow to process wood?When will the next shipment arrive?How to market the product in Japan?How to explain the concept and advantages of Finnish saunas?How to find the main problems of customers?Which are import and safety regulations?
16 This means… Knowledge is a key to global success Global KM managers need to understand the value chain and knowledge requirementsGlobal KM managers need to understand knowledge processes and cultureGlobal KM managers are the main hubs for smooth operations in production and service enterprisesWhich kind of IS support is promising or proven successful?
17 Summary Knowledge as a critical success factor Knowledge management to support businessesGlobal aspectsUnderstanding the contextProcess designSystems and tool supportCultural aspectsSocial Software as a promising tool to combine human- and technology-orientationWhich tools for which context?How to overcome cultural differences?How to embed tools?
19 (Wever, Mechant, Veevaete & Hauttekeete 2007) Social Software“Social Software enables an interactive way of collaboration, managing content and connecting to online networks with other people. It supports the desire of users to be pulled into groups in order to achieve their personal goals”(Wever, Mechant, Veevaete & Hauttekeete 2007)
20 Social Software 4 Cs of Social Software Cook, N. Enterprise 2.0: How Social Software Will Change the Future of Work, UK:Gover, 2008.
23 Groupware …Much older approach in the IS research Message systems Multiuser editorsGroup decision support systems (GDSSs)Computer conferencing systemsShared information spacesWorkflow management/coordination systems…Much older approach in the IS researchEllis, Gibbs & Rein 1991)Ellis C.A., Gibbs S.J. & Rein C.L Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM 34 (1), 39 – 58.
24 Collaboration toolsOnyechi & Abeisinghe 2009Refs to Social Media, Social Software, Groupware, Web 2.0…
25 Web 2.0 Often explained as the combination of methods and techniques on whichSocial Media is based onStill used in IT literacy
26 What do you focus on when addressing Social Software?
27 Research Trends I Constructive / Design-oriented research Tools to improve knowledge exchange and distributionDo we really understand how global KM works: Qualitative ResearchUnderstanding which influence factors and relations emerge in global settingsFor example: Barriers to KM (why and how)Relating and quantifying: Quantitative ResearchUnderstanding behavior in KM settingsE.g. ISSM, TAM, KM Success ModelWhat type of relations, how strong, cause-effect etc.Applied for example in Social networking studies, also Web 2.0 focus
28 Barriers?Discussed from the viewpoint of an individual or group of peopleCan relate to social interaction and as an example to factors that hinder or challenge knowledge exchangeMight relate to challenges and risks when adopting or using a specific technologyChallenges set by diverse workers, hierarchies and cultural influences within an organizationIn many cases tied to a specific contextCan be presented as a wider concept “cultural distance”…or as a question that is formed from the problem, “How to reward contribution?”…
29 Barriers + + = Organizational and hierarchicalDependent on business process and project+Location, time, cultureand language+“Knowledge Islands”=Organisation ‚als System‘ ,OrganisationsstrukturenKommunikationsstrukturenInfrastrukturenSuprastrukturen/latente StrukturenOberflächenphänomene durch tieferliegende Strukturen beeinflusstKulturDefensive Routinen/Muster (Argyris/Schön)Tief im Kulturkern der Organisation verankertMangelnde KooperationsbereitschaftWissen ist MachtRessortzäuneBereichsmentalitätenAbteilungsdenkenWissensmanagement als kommunikativer Prozess
30 Success factors - barriers Critical Success Factors (CSF)The relation between a barrier and success factor not always clear…not always counter balanced in a way that overcoming a barrier means a success…not all success factors can be derived from barriersBarriers are a starting point to understand success factors within a specific contextRelation from the paper + one maybe from Jan’s slidesGeographical dispersion of individualsCSF“set meeting schedules and rules of engagement”“conduct periodic face-to-face meetings”
31 Success Factors Instruments Context. Organization / IndividualsSuccess FactorsInstrumentsHolistic, integrated and standardized approachKM integrated within culture, coordination, and leadershipConsider relationships and interdependenciesAvoid isolated solutions, e. g., different, incompatible communication systems, no standards, different knowledge processes,Knowledge processes and ICT platforms for KM should be standardized throughout the organization and integrated with the existing business processes.Knowledge-oriented cultureSupportive organizational cultureOpen and communicative atmosphereSupporting a knowledge-oriented culture through e. g., communication of success stories and best practices, through the acceptance of errors a s well as promoting individual responsibilityManagement supportTop management to strategic knowledge goals, allocate sufficient budgets to the KM initiativeProviding good example for the change of behaviorA knowledge champion can act as a coordinator for management support as well as key speaker and motivator for the initiative.
32 Relation of conceptsPirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2012
33 Barriers Social Software … 119 barriers from the literature Don’t go too deeply on the first lecture.(Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2012)… 119 barriers from the literature
34 Barriers Social Software Very much discussed at the moment Same barriers discussed under different terminology(Social Software, Social Media etc.)Related to knowledge sharing, group collaboration etc.Higher Education, Business and IT, B2B…At the moment trying to recognize relevant barriers. No clear context-aware understanding of the biggest problemsRemind unclear terminology.-closely related to group collaboration, knowledge sharing
35 Barriers Social Software Financial (resources, time) Management/Coordination/supportTechnology fitOrganizational cultureSocialRelational, knowledge sharing, skills, cognitive, background, preferences-if we understand the technological and conceptual barriers related to SoSo, and their relation to KM and business barriers, better changes to successTechnicalAvailability, Interoperability, Functionality, Usability, conceptual, privacy/security, misuseLegal (IPR, copyright)Quality
37 Common ways of categorization (if categorized at all) KM barriersThe bottleneck usually knowledge sharingCommon ways of categorization (if categorized at all)Individual, organizational, technological (Riege 2005)Individual, social (Disterer 2001)(Individual: Loss of Power, Revelation, Uncertainty, MotivationSocial: Language, Conflict avoidance, bureucracy and Hierarchy, Incoherent paradigms)Individual, social (Bures 2003)
38 Knowledge sharing barriers DescriptionLack of interpersonal trustLevel of trust in a company, between its sub-units, and its employees seems to have a direct influence on the communication flow and thus the amount of knowledge sharing (Riege, 2005)Lack of opportunities for sharing (resources, time, networks, infrastructures)Appropriate infrastructure and resources to facilitate sharing practices within and between functional areas is the basis of a successful KM (Schlegelmilch and Chini, 2003)How to reward contribution and encourage information sharingManagers many have to force people to transform their organisation into knowledge-embracing cultures. No matter which reward and recognition system is chosen (Riege, 2005)Lack of motivation to shareSharing only if it’s important to their work, if they feel encouraged to share and learn, or if they wish to support a certain colleague (Wheatley, 2000)Fear of harming his or her image if sharingFear that sharing may reduce or jeopardise people’s job’s security or even employee’s corporate position“Knowledge is power” - Loss of Power through SharingBy providing knowledge to the colleague, the exclusivity of influence is reduced (Bures, 2003)Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2012
40 Global IS barriers Cultural and language distance DescriptionCultural and language distanceDo the collaborators share the same language, skills as well as cultural norms, corporate culture, interpretations etc. Most occurred barrier in Noll et al, (2010) analysis on collaboration barriers in GSD.Geographical distanceDistributed collaboration (within a country or cross-border). Third most occurred barrier in Noll et al, (2010) analysis on collaboration barriers in GSD.Temporal distanceDistributed collaboration (Time-zone differences). Second most occurred barrier in Noll et al, (2010) analysis on collaboration barriers in GSD.Lack of trustGeographic, temporal, and cultural distance have a significant impact on trust among globally distributed team members (Noll et al, 2010)InfrastructureIn distributed collaboration teams and employees must rely on technology to support the communication (Noll et al, 2010)Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2012
41 Methodology to capture barriers Different approaches depending on the discipline and maturity of the fieldKMObservation, ethnographic approachesRelying on the rigor of the researcherThe main authors often experts with long history in the fieldExperiencesDocumented best practices, policiesAlso combined approaches applying interviews and surveys within specific organizationsGlobal factorsLong traditions, identification turned to concrete context specific understandingSocial SoftwareDepending what is analyzed (adoption, influencing factors for sharing, usability etc.)Expert interviews, surveys, lab testing etc.Research trend II - Merging research orientations and disciplines
42 Social Software in Knowledge Management Individuals, process/culture, technologyIn many cases generalizing the purpose of Social Software/media unnecessarilyE.g. “social media is essentially a social networking site, with subscribing”Support of Social Software for different levels of KM:Knowledge evolution, knowledge use/reuse, knowledge sharing/transferNot to replace but to support?Are we discussing a specific serviceor about the web in general?
43 Social Software in Knowledge Management “it’s the interaction with customers that social media provides”
44 Social Software in Knowledge Management Social networking as awareness support for Knowledge Management (Groth 2002)Important to know that SoSo and KM aren’t that far apart. Similar concepts and roots in KM.-Collaborative technologies, awareness tools etc.-groupware
45 Web 2.0 Social Software in KM Often discussed as Web 2.0 in organizations “enterprise 2.0”.Web 2.0 a synonym but also a larger “fuzzy” concept“Web as a platform” “basis for social media” The research is linked to Enterprise 2.0
46 Enterprise 2.0 Social Software in KM Collaboration Awareness DocumentationCustomer engagementInteraction with stakeholders…Different purposes for using SoSoDifferent tools for managing different things
47 Research trends IIIAnalyzing the cultural, organizational, and individual contextIdentifying barriers and potential success factorsChoosing and creating solutions (=interventions / methods)Aligned with strategies and processesAddressing barriersInvolving all stakeholdersNot overloading peopleUtilizing barrier-knowledge in KM processes
48 Social Software in KM activities and tasks Not all tools are meant to support all knowledge steps/tasksIdentifyingCollection, modification, collaborationAnnotationSharing, awarenessKnowledge Management Taskscreation, building, anticipation or generationacquisition, appropriation or adoptionidentification, capture, articulation or extractioncollection, gathering or accumulation(legally) securingconversionorganization, linking and embeddingformalizationstoragerefinement or developmentdistribution, diffusion, transfer or sharingpresentation or formattingapplication, deploying or exploitingreview, revision or evolution of knowledgeSource: (Maier, 2004)But remember, bundling functionalities is possible but to some degree not fully elaborated phenomena.Bundling services happens everywhere now. Think of Facebook or social networking tools in general, think of Wiki tools etc.Embedding services to some base infrastucture is much easier than say 5 years ago. Thanks to Open Source, open development, standards, general practices such as XML etc.
49 Social Software Supporting processes Can support various stages -some applications to identify, some to share, etc.Related to barrier knowledge explained later.Maier & Remus (2003) Implementing process-oriented knowledge management strategies
50 Process: Push Knowledge IDCategoryProcessDescriptionKM processPush KnowledgePushing knowledge to relevant audiences (within the organization)Sub-processes/ aspectsTraining of Social networking useBenefit workshopGood practice reportingWiki entryNotificationObjectiveTo activate knowledge flow by sharing relevant informationIdentifying necessary channels to ensure awarenessConstraintsInformal / formal networks and communitiesBarrier: Lack of conceptual understandingBarrier: Technology fitness to taskBarrier: Unwillingness to shareMethodAwareness building activities / trainingRelation of content and skill managementGP reportingSystemsSocial networking service (internal)Wiki (closed)ActorsEmployee / staff member / knowledge carrier, IT support, managerInformal networks are getting more visible. If communities are bundled to knowledge networks, the advantages of peripherally orga- nized communities can be combined with the advantages of centrally organized approaches, such as content management (Bach, 2000, p. 81). By defining roles and responsibilities within knowledge networks, communities can be closely linked to business processes.Directory and skill management. Skill management is based on expert directories that are maintained by the process ‘knowledge documentation,’ how- ever, not only the storing of information about pro- fessionals is of interest. In addition, knowledge profiles should be managed and assessed in such a way that a skill management is able to contribute to the planning of measures.
51 From barriers to decisions Utilizing barrier-knowledge for different purposesKM projectsKM activities in generalChoosing/evaluating technologies for KMDesigning and developing technologiesWho takes actions on these? Roles and responsibilities?Different models and approaches where can be utilized-KM & PM (different phases)-Designing systems for KM-selecting systems for KM (show evaluation strategies (thesis, WS papers etc))
52 KM activities & instruments Barrier-knowledgeKM activities & instrumentsMultiple entry points depending on what do you want to focus on (improving the process, application of technologies, communication channels, communication flow etc.)Maier & Remus (2003) Implementing process-oriented knowledge management strategies
53 Knowledge management starter Barrier-knowledgeKnowledge management starterPotential case for recognizing and analyzing barriersInitiation of KM in an organization, potentiality, awareness, barriers and knowledge gaps
54 Support in selection of technologies Recognizing the barriers crucial for decision processDifferences in usage of Social Software (networking, collaborative work etc.)Criteria to evaluate against must be clear (needs)How do you identifyPreferences, interoperability, security etc.Reacting vs. proactingChanging traditions and tools after the damage is done?Clear conceptual understanding before technologies are introduced to the organization?
55 Evaluating technologies Different tools, different criteriaRequired skills, Usability, maintenance, cost, privacy, extensibility, functionality etc.Context-dependentApproaches vary from formal to informalApplied by an expert, consultantApplied by IT department, manager,assigned person/ groupHere from thesis and other evaluation frameworks
56 Creating technologies What are the needs? Could existing tools be utilized? Any software packages (open source) available? How to integrate to existing systems…How to ensure that users are part of the design process?Key users, preferences, cultural distanceWide variety of aspects /influences to be taken in to account. Recognizing barriers crucial for the analysis
57 Focus points for research Ranging from smaller to large research activitiesDistributed teams (local to global, small vs massive)What type of challenges they face in their workHow could Social Software support / how should it be integrated to the working activities / how to ensure adoption / how could it bridge the gap to other communities or collaborators/competitorsFor example analyzing where do the collaborators or relevant stakeholders interact (European projects one perfect example).Setting clear Social Software policy that differentiates between internal/external work, customer relations etc.