Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Jan Pawlowski & Henri Pirkkalainen Global Information Systems group

Similar presentations


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 settings Jan Pawlowski & Henri Pirkkalainen Global Information Systems group

2 Global Information Systems
Mission Statement Creating 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 understanding Topics Designing work and learning processes in globally distributed organizations Design & development methods for global information systems Culture analysis and awareness Support tools for knowledge intensive processes in global organizations ICT4D: ICT for development E-Learning and knowledge management in global organizations

3 Global Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä The Team
Denis Kozlov Kati Clements Jan M. Pawlowski Henri Pirkkalainen Philipp 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 Settings Social Software – Vocabulary in IS field? Starting point for global inspection - Barriers Focus in KM – what has been studied and how? Towards unexplored research territories

6 What is common knowledge?
A first question What is common knowledge?

7 Sauna: German instructions

8 Sauna: American instructions

9 Sauna: Finnish instructions

10 Related Concepts (modified, North, 1998)
Competitiveness + uniqueness Competence Skill +applying to new settings +use Knowledge +context Information +meaning Data +syntax Symbol

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?

13 Just a simple product?

14 Business Process Management in a Networked Business
R&D Processing A Marketing R&D Sales Marketing Marketing Processing B Production Sales IT Services Sales IT Services Marketing Material Flow Knowledge/ Information / Data Flow

15 Some random questions…
Decision questions Where to produce? How to build partnerships (joint ventures, contractors, …) Which systems to exchange knowledge? Operational questions How 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 requirements Global KM managers need to understand knowledge processes and culture Global KM managers are the main hubs for smooth operations in production and service enterprises Which kind of IS support is promising or proven successful?

17 Summary Knowledge as a critical success factor
Knowledge management to support businesses Global aspects Understanding the context Process design Systems and tool support Cultural aspects Social Software as a promising tool to combine human- and technology-orientation Which tools for which context? How to overcome cultural differences? How to embed tools?

18 Social Software?

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.

21 Intertwined terminologies!

22 Social Media (Zheng et al. 2010)

23 Groupware …Much older approach in the IS research Message systems
Multiuser editors Group decision support systems (GDSSs) Computer conferencing systems Shared information spaces Workflow management/coordination systems …Much older approach in the IS research Ellis, 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 tools Onyechi & Abeisinghe 2009 Refs to Social Media, Social Software, Groupware, Web 2.0…

25 Web 2.0 Often explained as the combination of methods and
techniques on which Social Media is based on Still 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 distribution Do we really understand how global KM works: Qualitative Research Understanding which influence factors and relations emerge in global settings For example: Barriers to KM (why and how) Relating and quantifying: Quantitative Research Understanding behavior in KM settings E.g. ISSM, TAM, KM Success Model What 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 people Can relate to social interaction and as an example to factors that hinder or challenge knowledge exchange Might relate to challenges and risks when adopting or using a specific technology Challenges set by diverse workers, hierarchies and cultural influences within an organization In many cases tied to a specific context Can 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 hierarchical Dependent on business process and project + Location, time, culture and language + “Knowledge Islands” = Organisation ‚als System‘ , Organisationsstrukturen Kommunikationsstrukturen Infrastrukturen Suprastrukturen/latente Strukturen Oberflächenphänomene durch tieferliegende Strukturen beeinflusst Kultur Defensive Routinen/Muster (Argyris/Schön) Tief im Kulturkern der Organisation verankert Mangelnde Kooperationsbereitschaft Wissen ist Macht Ressortzäune Bereichsmentalitäten Abteilungsdenken Wissensmanagement 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 barriers Barriers are a starting point to understand success factors within a specific context Relation from the paper + one maybe from Jan’s slides Geographical dispersion of individuals CSF “set meeting schedules and rules of engagement” “conduct periodic face-to-face meetings”

31 Success Factors Instruments
Context. Organization / Individuals Success Factors Instruments Holistic, integrated and standardized approach KM integrated within culture, coordination, and leadership Consider relationships and interdependencies Avoid 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 culture Supportive organizational culture Open and communicative atmosphere Supporting 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 responsibility Management support Top management to strategic knowledge goals, allocate sufficient budgets to the KM initiative Providing good example for the change of behavior A knowledge champion can act as a coordinator for management support as well as key speaker and motivator for the initiative.

32 Relation of concepts Pirkkalainen & 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 problems Remind unclear terminology. -closely related to group collaboration, knowledge sharing

35 Barriers Social Software Financial (resources, time)
Management/Coordination/support Technology fit Organizational culture Social Relational, 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 success Technical Availability, Interoperability, Functionality, Usability, conceptual, privacy/security, misuse Legal (IPR, copyright) Quality

36 KM Barriers (Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2012)

37 Common ways of categorization (if categorized at all)
KM barriers The bottleneck usually knowledge sharing Common ways of categorization (if categorized at all) Individual, organizational, technological (Riege 2005) Individual, social (Disterer 2001) (Individual: Loss of Power, Revelation, Uncertainty, Motivation Social: Language, Conflict avoidance, bureucracy and Hierarchy, Incoherent paradigms) Individual, social (Bures 2003)

38 Knowledge sharing barriers
Description Lack of interpersonal trust Level 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 sharing Managers 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 share Sharing 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 sharing Fear that sharing may reduce or jeopardise people’s job’s security or even employee’s corporate position “Knowledge is power” - Loss of Power through Sharing By providing knowledge to the colleague, the exclusivity of influence is reduced (Bures, 2003) Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2012

39 Global barriers …long traditions!

40 Global IS barriers Cultural and language distance
Description Cultural and language distance Do 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 distance Distributed collaboration (within a country or cross-border). Third most occurred barrier in Noll et al, (2010) analysis on collaboration barriers in GSD. Temporal distance Distributed collaboration (Time-zone differences). Second most occurred barrier in Noll et al, (2010) analysis on collaboration barriers in GSD. Lack of trust Geographic, temporal, and cultural distance have a significant impact on trust among globally distributed team members (Noll et al, 2010) Infrastructure In 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 field KM Observation, ethnographic approaches Relying on the rigor of the researcher The main authors often experts with long history in the field Experiences Documented best practices, policies Also combined approaches applying interviews and surveys within specific organizations Global factors Long traditions, identification turned to concrete context specific understanding Social Software Depending 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, technology In many cases generalizing the purpose of Social Software/media unnecessarily E.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/transfer Not to replace but to support? Are we discussing a specific service or 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
Documentation Customer engagement Interaction with stakeholders Different purposes for using SoSo Different tools for managing different things

47 Research trends III Analyzing the cultural, organizational, and individual context Identifying barriers and potential success factors Choosing and creating solutions (=interventions / methods) Aligned with strategies and processes Addressing barriers Involving all stakeholders Not overloading people Utilizing barrier-knowledge in KM processes

48 Social Software in KM activities and tasks
Not all tools are meant to support all knowledge steps/tasks Identifying Collection, modification, collaboration Annotation Sharing, awareness Knowledge Management Tasks creation, building, anticipation or generation acquisition, appropriation or adoption identification, capture, articulation or extraction collection, gathering or accumulation (legally) securing conversion organization, linking and embedding formalization storage refinement or development distribution, diffusion, transfer or sharing presentation or formatting application, deploying or exploiting review, revision or evolution of knowledge Source: (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
ID Category Process Description KM process Push Knowledge Pushing knowledge to relevant audiences (within the organization) Sub-processes / aspects Training of Social networking use Benefit workshop Good practice reporting Wiki entry Notification Objective To activate knowledge flow by sharing relevant information Identifying necessary channels to ensure awareness Constraints Informal / formal networks and communities Barrier: Lack of conceptual understanding Barrier: Technology fitness to task Barrier: Unwillingness to share Method Awareness building activities / training Relation of content and skill management GP reporting Systems Social networking service (internal) Wiki (closed) Actors Employee / staff member / knowledge carrier, IT support, manager Informal 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 purposes KM projects KM activities in general Choosing/evaluating technologies for KM Designing and developing technologies Who 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-knowledge KM activities & instruments Multiple 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-knowledge Knowledge management starter Potential case for recognizing and analyzing barriers Initiation of KM in an organization, potentiality, awareness, barriers and knowledge gaps

54 Support in selection of technologies
Recognizing the barriers crucial for decision process Differences in usage of Social Software (networking, collaborative work etc.) Criteria to evaluate against must be clear (needs) How do you identify Preferences, interoperability, security etc. Reacting vs. proacting Changing traditions and tools after the damage is done? Clear conceptual understanding before technologies are introduced to the organization?

55 Evaluating technologies
Different tools, different criteria Required skills, Usability, maintenance, cost, privacy, extensibility, functionality etc. Context-dependent Approaches vary from formal to informal Applied by an expert, consultant Applied by IT department, manager, assigned person/ group Here 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 distance Wide 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 activities Distributed teams (local to global, small vs massive) What type of challenges they face in their work How 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/competitors For 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.

58 Thank You

59 Contact Information Prof. Dr. Jan M. Pawlowski Skype: jan_m_pawlowski Office: Room 514.2 Telephone Henri Pirkkalainen Office: Room 511.1 Telephone


Download ppt "Jan Pawlowski & Henri Pirkkalainen Global Information Systems group"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google