An investigation of emerging knowledge distribution means and their characterization
Licentiate Thesis October, 1999
Niclas Eberhagen
Department of Computer and Systems Sciences Stockholm University
Electrum 230, S-164 40 Kista
Sweden
Abstract
This work investigates emerging knowledge distribution means through a descriptive study. Despite the amount of attention that processes and structures for knowledge management has received within research during the last decade, little attention has been directed towards the actual means used for the distribution of knowledge by individuals. In this respect it is the aim of the study to contribute with knowledge regarding knowledge distribution means. The study consists of a survey of emerging electronically mediated distribution means followed with a characterization and analysis.
For the characterization and analysis a framework for interpretation of the different distribution means was created based on the constructs of organizational learning and the levels of knowledge system interpretation. Within the framework characteristics and concepts were identified and then used for the analysis of the knowledge distribution means. The characterization of the different knowledge
distribution means as such may be used as an instrument for evaluation since it generalizable to other means of knowledge distribution.
The results of the study show that knowledge distribution is not an isolated event. It takes place in larger context, such as organizational learning, since it touches upon other activities or phenomena such as knowledge acquisition, knowledge interpretation, and organizational memory. The concept of genre of knowledge distribution was found to be a viable concept to base exploration and
development of support for knowledge distribution. The investigated distribution means only partly support a model for knowledge representation that captures both the problem-solution as well as an understanding of their relationship. In this respect existing distribution means must be enhanced or new ones developed if we wish to endorse such a representational model.
Acknowledgements
I wish to give thanks to my supervisor Bengt G. Lundberg for his comments and support during the work with this thesis. I also wish to give thanks to Gösta Sundberg for his comments on an earlier draft of this thesis.
To my wife Sofia and daughter Melina I wish to send my warmest thoughts. Without their encouragement and faith in me this work would not have been possible.
Table of contents
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Background on the management of knowledge ... 1
1.2 Research aims ... 4
1.3 Definitions and limits of the thesis ... 4
1.4 Research method ... 5
1.5 Overview of content ... 8
2 Theoretical background on knowledge ... 9
2.1 Knowledge... 9
2.2 Knowledge and information ... 10
2.3 Knowledge creation and acquisition ... 11
2.4 Managing knowledge ... 11
2.5 Organizational memory ... 12
2.6 Organizational learning ... 13
3 Towards a framework for characterization ... 15
3.1 Constructs of organizational learning ... 15
3.2 Interpretive levels ... 17
3.3 The framework ... 18
4 Theoretical background for characterization ... 20
4.1 Media choice and use ... 20
4.1.1 Information richness theory ... 21
4.1.2 Social influence model ... 22
4.1.3 Social presence ... 23
4.1.4 Symbolic meaning ... 23
4.1.5 Critical mass theory ... 23
4.1.6 Interactivity ... 24
4.1.7 Bindingness ... 24
4.1.8 Adaptive structuration theory ... 24
4.1.9 Dimensions of communication media ... 25
4.2 Theories relating to structure and context for knowledge distribution ... 26
4.2.1 Genre of knowledge distribution ... 26
4.2.2 Communication contexts ... 27
4.2.3 Feedback in the communication process ... 29
4.2.4 Interactivity in the communication process ... 29
4.3 Theories on knowledge content and knowledge processes ... 30
4.3.1 Knowledge creation processes ... 30
4.3.2 Adopting and contributing knowledge ... 32
5 Identified characteristics within the framework ... 35
5.1 Concepts and theories within the framework ... 35
5.2 Characteristics of knowledge distribution ... 37
5.2.1 Characteristics at the technical level ... 38
5.2.2 Characteristics at the representational level ... 39
5.2.3 Characteristics at the knowledge level ... 40
6 Identified knowledge distribution means ... 42
6.1 FAQ ... 42
6.2 Success or failure stories ... 43
6.3 Step by step ... 44
6.4 Reviews ... 44
6.5 Subscriptions ... 45
6.6 Bulletin boards ... 45
6.7 Discussion groups ... 45
6.8 Hypertext documents and traditional manuals ... 46
7 Characterization and analysis of the distribution means ... 47
7.1 Characterization at the technical level ... 47
7.2 Characterization at the representational level ... 48
7.3 Characterization at the knowledge level ... 50
7.4 A model for knowledge representation ... 52
8 Conclusions, future research and final observations ... 54
8.1 Conclusions ... 54
8.2 Future research ... 55
8.3 Final observations ... 56
References ... 61
1 Introduction
Organizations of today has come to realize and recognize the strategic necessity of treating
knowledge, not as a commodity but as a resource needed to be managed and given support. It is not that knowledge, as a phenomenon, hasn't been important before. Knowledge and skills of the workers as a resource has always been important to the organization even if it has not received the same conscious attention as information.
Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney (1999) state that it wasn't until the 1990s that chief executives started talking about knowledge management. As the foundation of industrialized economies has shifted from natural resources to intellectual assets managers were compelled to examine the knowledge underlying their businesses and how that knowledge is used. At the same time, the rise of networked computers has made it possible to codify, store, and share knowledge more easily and cheaply than before.
Ever since the widespread usage of Internet as a means for communication was established, computers have come to be seen more as a tool for distributing, seeking and sharing, information and knowledge than just as a computing machine. The usage of electronic media, such as computers, for distributing knowledge has during the last decade been almost explosive, e.g. the growth in usage of the Internet for communication, thus giving rise to and enabling new knowledge distribution means. Electronic media have helped overcome time and space constraints when sharing knowledge between individuals separated by physical boundaries, and they have made it easier to record, store, search, and retrieve it.
The background to the increasing focus in organizations on knowledge and its management may be found in the work, going back as far as Drucker (1988) and Huber (1984, 1990), relating to the growth and development of the post-industrial society and its informational demands as well within the literature concerning organizational memory. Attention towards the need for methods and theories on knowledge management has been called for at different conferences (ICIS 1998) as well as within organization science literature (Wiig 1996 and Angus, Patel, and Harty 1998). Growing focus on knowledge has become apparent within the literature on organizational learning and organizational memory, e.g. Walsh and Ungson (1991) calling for methods on managing it.
The organizational processes and structures for managing and distributing knowledge have in the last decade been given a lot of attention. Walsh and Ungson (1991) as well as Ackerman and Halverson (1998) have explored the structures and content of organizational memories. Huber (1991) has explored the management of knowledge through the constructs of organizational learning. Stein and Zwass (1995) as well as Wijnhoven (1998) have explored the processes and management of
organizational memory. Goodman and Darr (1998) have explored the processes behind knowledge exchange. Despite the above research not much attention has been directed towards the actual means individuals use for knowledge exchange or distribution in promoting organizational learning. The technological aspects of the means for knowledge exchange, such as the media, have received a fair amount of attention, e.g. the review of technologies for knowledge management of Davenport and Prusak (1998). Swan, Scarbrough, and Preston (1999) point out the same and emphasize that the real issues to focus on are the people management issues and not just the technological ones. It is the aim of this work to contribute with knowledge regarding the means used by individuals for distributing knowledge through a descriptive study.
1.1 Background on the management of knowledge
In the post-industrial society organizations are expected to face a different world compared to that of today. Huber (1984) characterize the post-industrial society as experiencing greater levels of
knowledge, complexity, and turbulence, and that each of these will be increasing at a considerable rate. The amount of available information will grow and its absolute growth will increase. The increase of knowledge will lead to large increases in both specialization and diversity of technology, economy, and society. The high degree of diversity and specialization will lead to large increase in social interdependencies and thus escalate the level of complexity and its absolute growth. The increase in turbulence follows from the rapidity of events and increasing knowledge, causing many
technologies to be more effective and shorten the duration of the events, thus permitting more events per time unit.
Huber (1984) points out that communication technologies, such as e-mail system, voice mail systems, radio-phones, and computing technologies (mainly used for storing, retrieving, and processing information to derive new information) will increase in availability to the individuals and increase the efficiency of communication, making it timeliness. The cost of modern electronic media for
distributing knowledge has become increasingly lower and the media has become exponentially more available (both in terms of accessibility and usability). The time for distributing knowledge has become shorter, making it more or less instant. Knowledge, due to the electronic media has become more easily copied and searchable since indexing capabilities and search tools has become more efficient and easier to use. That the distribution of knowledge has overcome, due to the properties of the electronic media, both geographic boundaries as well as barriers of time is undeniable when one considers the Internet. Modern communication technologies will make available sources of
information, which were before external or unknown to the organization, and keep the information more up-to-date. Decision making in post-industrial organizations will be more frequent, faster, and complex thereby making the decision-task loads greater than before. This will put high demands on the acquisition and distribution of the available information.
According to Huber (1984) organizations will need to, more than before, scan the environment for information about the existence of problems and opportunities or for information to be used in the future, and probe the environment for information that is not routinely gathered. Organizations must also guard themselves against information overload, as the amount of available information will increase to the individual decision-maker. The increasing global competition within the post-industrial society between organization calls for rapid product and process innovation. Decision-making,
innovation, and information acquisition and distribution are processes, essential to the knowledge work and knowledge management, which will gain increased importance within the post-industrial organization when meeting the demands of post-industrial society and environment. The focus must be placed on design features that organizations can employ in order to make them more effective. Such design features may be technological support and procedures within the work practice, as defined by Alter (1992).
Huber (1984) stresses the importance to focus on the management of the decision-processes and on the designs for information and knowledge acquisition and distribution since information and knowledge will be required for the organization to survive.
Drucker (1988) points out that the organizational structure is changing, decreasing in numbers of organizational levels and becoming more decentralized. This leads to an increase in the information load and the decision-task load of management, demanding better managing of knowledge work processes.
Further theoretical background concerning the above-mentioned impacts of information technology on knowledge and information work can be found with Huber (1990) where he extends his ideas with respect to the use of advanced information technology. In a number of propositions he proposes that the information network in organizations will become flatter as computer-supported technologies will lead to more direct information distribution. Huber (1990) further states that if electronic media is available it will be used, which will spur the distribution of knowledge. The effect of this is that new ideas and innovations may be communicated and spread more rapidly through the organization and enable new ways of seeking and sharing knowledge.
Drucker (1994) states that the knowledge society will inevitably be far more competitive than any society we have yet known for the simple reason that with knowledge being universally accessible, there will be no excuses for non-performance. There will be no poor countries with respect to knowledge. There will only be ignorance. The same will be true for companies, industries, and organizations of all kinds.
Leonard-Barton (1995) points out that organizations that are successful innovators are those that build and manage knowledge effectively through such activities as developing shared problem-solving skills, experimenting, integrating knowledge across functional boundaries, and importing expertise from external sources.
The need for methods and theories for knowledge management has been answered by such authors as Walsh and Ungson (1991) who have pointed on the need for developing and using organizational memory means. Their concern lies with the contents of the memory, consisting of decisional stimulus and the organization's responses, and the management of the memory. They have identified different repositories wherein the organizational memory resides, such as individuals, culture, transformations, ecology, external archives. They note that it is only individuals within an organization that can hold the information about both the decision stimulus and the organization's response, either individually or inter-subjectively, as in the case of a common culture. Only individuals have the cognitive capability, by themselves or as a part of a social collectivity, to fully understand why a decision stimulus has arisen and given a specific response from the organization in the context of an organization's history.
This understanding comes from an analytical assessment of the relationships between the cause and effect (a decision stimulus and organizational response). The understanding fades with the passing of time and the passing between individuals. Therefore it becomes necessary to develop and use memory means that preserve, not only decision stimulus and the organization's response (the problem-solution pair) but also why it has occurred so that individuals in future situations may draw on these in guiding good behavior.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) also point out the need for organizational memory means that preserves the knowledge and history of stimulus and response by using the analogy of how clans function. Members of a bureaucracy or other similar organization that are engaged in transaction processes often yield high costs because of the need for equity between the parties involved. Members of a clan are more socially tied to each other and share a collective memory. Here there is no need for equity in a transaction process between parties because the individuals believe that they will be treated fairly in the long run. Organizational memory means that preserve the knowledge and history of previous transactions may support members in an organization in reducing transactional costs by keeping records of what has transpired before and why.
Wijnhoven (1998), drawing on Walsh and Ungson (1991), has tried to bridge the gap between theoretical conceptualizations of organizational memory and information systems by proposing methods for analysis of organizational memory contents, i.e. knowledge and information, and the analysis of organizational memory means, i.e. procedures and media. The methods aim for a better understanding of the design of organizational memory.
Stein and Zwass (1995) argue that the preservation of organizational memory has become increasingly more important to organizations as it is recognized that experiential knowledge is a key to
competitiveness. They stress that since the development and widespread availability of advanced information technologies, information systems has become a vital part of the organizational memory.
They have developed a model for an organizational memory information system, called OMIS, which is rooted in the constructs of organizational effectiveness. The framework offers four subsystems, resting on the foundations of mnemonic functions such as acquisition, retention, maintenance, search, and retrieval of information, which support activities leading to organizational effectiveness.
Goodman and Darr (1998) have studied the processes for distribution of knowledge and examined the role of computer aided systems (CAS) for enhancing organizational learning in distributed
environments. Goodman and Darr (1998) have studied how features of CAS enhance organizational learning in matching problems and solutions and how organizational context, defined in terms of characteristics of the problem and solutions such as complexity, can influence the role of CAS in organizational learning. Their theoretical framework has focused on the decision to contribute and adopt knowledge in distributed environments, taking a basis in organizational learning. Organizational
learning occurs when one unit acquires knowledge from another unit in the same organization or between different organizations.
Goodman and Darr (1998) have specifically studied the intersection between the features of CAS and inhibitors to contributing or adopting knowledge in the light of different organizational context variables. They have examined two cases of information environments for knowledge sharing. The study focused on how the intersection between CAS features and the decision to adopt and contribute enhance or inhibit knowledge sharing. A computer aided system for organizational learning is not only a system capable of bridging space and time such as e-mail, but also encompassing a memory device with indexing systems and search aids accessible and known to all members. The system should also have a mechanism by which all organizational members can dynamically share and update solutions.
Goodman and Darr (1998) concluded that the demands to build effective organizational learning processes in distributed environments are likely to accelerate rather than decline. They therefore advice both practitioners and researcher to concentrate on the core decisions of adopting and
contributing and the costs inherent in these decisions, design future CAS as to minimize these inherent costs, consider functional equivalent mechanisms independent of the CAS for reducing these cost, and recognize the importance of characterizing the problem-solution environment when designing any CAS. The work of Goodman and Darr (1998) will be further explored in a later chapter.
1.2 Research aims
As was stated earlier the organizational processes and structures for managing and distributing knowledge have in the last decade been given a lot of attention but little attention has been given towards the actual means used for the knowledge exchange or distribution. There are examples of systems that have been developed to support organizational memory and knowledge exchange.
Ackerman and Malone (1990) have developed an organizational memory system called "answer garden" that allows organizations to develop databases of commonly asked questions that grow organically as new questions arises and are answered. Another work of interest here is that of Sneiders (1999), which is very similar to the "answer garden" system. He has developed an evolving FAQ (frequently asked question) answering system that provides pre-stored answers to users' questions asked in ordinary language. Both of these systems address the mechanisms employed for distributing knowledge in the structured form of question-answer. However, there is still a lack of knowledge concerning what means individuals use for knowledge distribution and what characterize them as opposed to traditional ways of distributing knowledge. It is the aim of this research to make a survey of emerging knowledge distribution means and look on their characteristics through a descriptive study.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) have, as discussed before, explored the content of organizational memory.
They have pointed on the need for not only to store and make available knowledge about the decision stimulus and the response of the organization, but also the understanding of why the stimulus has arisen in the context of the organization's history. This implies a model for knowledge representation that captures both the cause (problem) and the effect (solution), as well as the understanding of the relationship between them. Effective means for knowledge distribution should therefore support this model for representing the knowledge. In this respect it is also interesting to analyze the emerging knowledge distribution means according to how they support this model.
Through our study we will do the following:
• make a survey of emerging knowledge distribution means; and
• analyze the characteristics of these knowledge distribution means.
1.3 Definitions and limits of the thesis
Before going any further there is a need for making clear what we mean by different terms used throughout this study. We use the term distribution to define a process of either sharing something, adopting something, or both as in exchanging something, in our case knowledge. The term emerging is
indeed troublesome and rather vague. It means that a new "thing" has come forth, been born, or had its existence enabled. It also means that an existing "thing" is experiencing a rise in its usage or
distribution. Wijnhoven (1998) defines organizational memory means as the procedures and media used for effectively interacting with the organizational memory. Following this view we define a knowledge distribution means as being concerned with:
the media for the distribution of the knowledge; the structure, form or language that the knowledge is represented in; and processes or procedures for its management and creation.
The aim of the study is to make a survey of and to characterize different emerging knowledge distribution means. This is a descriptive study and it does not aim to find a set of prescriptions or norms for choosing the best way to distribute knowledge under specific conditions, even though the results from the study could be used for this very purpose. The study will yield three primary results.
The first result is the survey of different emerging knowledge distribution means, yielding a list of computer mediated distribution means that individuals use, thus showing us what these may be. Then, there is the definition we use for identifying them. The definition of the term knowledge distribution means is an important part of the result since it not only outlines the object of study but also helps us to raise questions and identify issues that we may want to explore. The definition may also be used for identifying other distribution means or similar phenomena than those we have identified here. In order to analyze and characterize these distribution means we created a conceptual framework, based on existing theories, for the identification of relevant issues and characteristics. This framework or model is the second result and it may be used when analyzing or exploring other means for distribution or other similar phenomena. The framework could also be used, within academic perspective, for creating theories or test hypotheses related to questions of usage of different knowledge distribution means or similar phenomena. The third result is the actual analysis or characterization of the different knowledge distribution means. The characterization may be used, in an academic perspective, for the development of methods for better and effective knowledge distribution and raise further issues in need of exploration. Within an industrial perspective the characterization may be used to reveal potentials for support and effective management of knowledge distribution means.
The most obvious limitation in this investigation concerns the area or objects of investigation, i.e. the knowledge distribution means. The study is limited to knowledge distribution means that are
computer-supported, although other types of media, such as paper may very well support some of the identified knowledge distribution means. This limitation is consciously made on our part. The focus on computer mediated distribution is made since it is there we have experienced the greatest development during the last years and had the greatest impact on how individuals use these technologies as
described in a previous section. It is there that most of knowledge distribution means have been most emerging in their usage, seen their greatest rise in the consciousness of individuals, and had their broad usage enabled.
The second limitation concerns the choice of theories used for the characterization. There exist a wealth of literature concerning different aspects why and how people communicate and distribute information. The aim in identifying relevant literature for characterizing the means has not been towards making a thorough literature survey but to pick out relevant and central theories related to issues concerning the distribution of knowledge, as will be discussed in chapter 4.
1.4 Research method
Following the work of Galliers (1992) and Weick (1984), Cavaye (1996) distinguishes between the terms research strategy and research method. She defines research strategy as a way of going about one's research in making it operational, embodying a particular style and different methods. Research method is defined as a way to systemize observation, describing ways of collecting evidence and indicating the type of tools and techniques to be used during the data collection. Here we have also distinguished between strategy and the method that we used in conducting the research. We begin by defining our research strategy and then we follow up with a discussion of the process used in our research.
Research within the scientific field of information systems exhibits a plethora of research strategies, epistemological foundations of deriving knowledge, methods and tools for gathering, interpreting and reporting findings pertaining to the research undertaken. However, there exists no cohesive basis from which to launch research within this field. Visala (1991) notes that information systems research is mostly fragmented and mostly uncoordinated, and that cumulative research traditions are rare. The field is divided into a set of schools and trends, which have not always made explicit their basic assumptions. The field of information systems research seems to be caught in a pre-paradigmatic state as noted by Culnan (1987). Keen (1991) goes as far as stating that the field of information systems research is a self-defined community rather than a field or discipline.
The questions raised and the phenomena or objects that are targeted for study help in laying the foundation of the research strategy and choosing a research approach. They determine to a great extent also which methods, techniques, and tools to employ for gathering, processing and presenting data and results. What determines fruitful research, in terms of defining appropriate objects or phenomena for study and questions to raise concerning these, is the paradigm of the scientific field (Kuhn 1970). The established paradigm states what good science (normal science) is and defines the field of research.
The choice of research strategy or approach is as much a personal style, as Keen (1991) puts it, as it is the unintentional choice due to the socialization into the research tradition that the researcher has gone through, from a junior researcher working on the dissertation to the matured and well established senior researcher (Orlikowski 1991).
What have guided the development of our research strategy are the issues and objects, or phenomena, targeted for research. The first aim of our research, to make a survey of emerging knowledge
distribution means, implies an explorative research approach. Patel and Davidson (1991) states that most research and research strategies may be classified according to how much is known in advance of the problem area before the research commences, ranging from uncharted territory to established theories. An explorative research aims to gather as much knowledge as possible about a specific problem area by shedding light to as many aspects of the problem area as possible. Since this kind of research aims to establish knowledge that may lead to further studies, creativity and potential for innovation are important characteristics of the methods employed in this strategy. Usually several techniques for gathering information or data are used. Therefore we find that an explorative research approach is appropriate for the identification of these means since little is known in advance of what these may be. We must determine their environment or setting as to establish where to look for them.
This narrows the definition of what these means are. Then we must define the criteria used for selecting them.
The second aim of our research, to analyze the characteristics of these knowledge distribution means, implies a descriptive research approach for characterizing the means. A descriptive research is appropriate, according to Patel and Davidson (1991), when the problem area is somewhat known and there exists a need to systematize the knowledge in the form of descriptive models. Descriptions made may concern relationships of past tense or present tense. In a descriptive research strategy the methods used concentrate on a subset of the aspects of the phenomena under study. The descriptions of these aspects aim to be as detailed and thorough as possible. Here a description of each aspect by itself or a description of the relationship between the aspects may be appropriate. However, we also apply a conceptual research approach since in order to do the characterization we must create a framework within which we may analyze the means and on which to base the identification of relevant characteristics.
This type of investigation and characterization has its methodological predecessors. Other researchers have made similar types of surveys and characterizations. Conklin (1987) made a survey of different hypertext applications and characterized them according to a number of specific features. This offered a model by which the different hypertext application could be evaluated against each other or towards a specific norm. Rudström (1995) has made a similar type of survey and characterization regarding applications of machine learning.
In order to investigate the emerging knowledge distribution means we have first established the setting or the context for them. Since individuals distribute knowledge in order to enhance or promote
learning, either individual or organizational, we defined the setting to be within an organizational learning context and the means we wished to study were reduced to those that distribute knowledge within that context.
The definition of knowledge distribution means was also narrowed or sharpened to those that are computer mediated. This was done since computer mediated distribution and communication has become ever more important to organizations, therefore pending greater attention than other forms of distribution. In order to launch the investigation of computer mediated knowledge distribution means we narrowed the area for the investigation to the distribution means that can be found through the Internet. The Internet as a medium for communication or distribution has become overly popular and has had a tremendous impact in society and organizations. The technological platform of Internet has in many organizations been incorporated into the existing technological platforms of communication and distribution as Intranets, and has in some cases become the dominating ones, e.g. Internet-based organizations such as Bokus.Com and CNET. Therefore the distribution means that can be found through the Internet are representative of those that are used within organizations.
During the investigation we selected knowledge distribution means according to two criteria. First they should be general types and yet distinct, those that resembled each other too much were reduced to the most representative one of them. The means should exhibit unique features or distribute knowledge in a distinct manner. Their degree of generality was also a factor that was taken into consideration. Second they should show some degree of popularity, promise, or usage, we didn't want to select any that only had a marginal usage. This was accomplished by investigating organizations, such as CNET, and companies, such as the Microsoft ® Corporation, that used the Internet for distributing knowledge. During the investigation the means were selected according to how many references they had, how great their availability was, or how widespread their usage was in terms of volume or audience. This produced a list of seven distinct types of knowledge distribution means, which is presented in chapter 6.
After the investigation we continued with the construction a conceptual framework for identifying the characteristics that we used for characterizing the distribution means. Since the setting of the
knowledge distribution means was established to be that of organizational learning we turned to Huber (1991) and his model of organizational learning constructs. Each of these constructs for organizational learning is interpretable from different levels. Here we used a model of interpretive levels of
knowledge systems (Lundberg 1999) to analyze the different constructs of organizational learning.
The foundation of the framework is presented and elaborated on in chapter 3.
Within the framework we then identified different theories and concepts related to the different constructs of organizational learning and the levels of interpretation, although we remained mostly focused on the knowledge distribution. The aim here was not to make a comprehensive literature overview but to identify what we perceived to be relevant issues concerning knowledge distribution.
This was made through a literature study on different aspects of knowledge distribution that has been published during recent years. Relevant issues were selected based on the importance and attention that had been given them by other researchers, e.g. Huber (1991), Walsh and Ungson (1991), and Fulk and Boyd (1991).
Based on the theoretical framework we then identified characteristics (or features) from the concepts and theories related to knowledge distribution and the interpretive levels, and discussed possible interpretations of them. These characteristics are presented in chapter 5. We then grouped the characteristics according to the three levels of interpretation and constructed three models of the knowledge distribution means. These then became a three level view of the knowledge distribution means that we used for the analysis and characterization. These views are presented in chapter 7.
1.5 Overview of content
Here we will give a brief outline of what will be discussed and presented in the rest of the thesis.
In chapter 2, following this chapter, we approach the concept of knowledge through a literature study in order to define it and differentiate it from the concept of information. We go on discussing and presenting other aspects or activities related to the distribution of knowledge such as creation and acquisition of knowledge (where does it come from?), managing of knowledge (how to handle it?), organizational memory (where is it located or stored?), and finally organizational learning (why distribute it?).
In chapter 3 we lay the foundation for constructing a framework in which we will identify concepts and characteristics drawing on the work of Huber (1991) concerning the constructs of organizational learning and the different levels for interpreting or analyzing knowledge systems.
In chapter 4 we present theoretical approaches in characterizing the different knowledge distribution means. We present theories and concepts related to media choice and use for distributing knowledge, the concept of genre (Yates and Orlikowski (1992), communication contexts, knowledge
transformation processes (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), and knowledge exchange (Goodman and Darr 1998).
In chapter 5 we start analyzing the framework in order to identify features and characteristics that we will use for characterizing the knowledge distribution means. We start with an examination of the concepts that are related to the framework and proceed to examine the different levels of interpretation of the knowledge distribution.
In chapter 6 we present the results from the explorative investigation of different emerging knowledge distribution means and we describe each of the identified distribution means.
In chapter 7 we proceed to analyze and characterize the different means for knowledge distribution by relating them to identified features and characteristics from the framework by examining each level of interpretation thus producing three views of characterizing the knowledge distribution means.
In chapter 8 we present and discuss the conclusions we have drawn based on the findings from the study and finish by pointing upon future research directions.
2 Theoretical background on knowledge
The purpose of this chapter is to make clear what we mean by different concepts and aspects relating to knowledge that we use throughout this thesis. There is a need to define what we mean with knowledge. It is a central concept to our work and therefore pending a definition, especially in
relationship to the concept of information (which sometimes is used interchangeable with knowledge).
This is necessary since we later make use of characteristics of knowledge in our characterization.
Throughout the work we make references to activities and processes of creation, acquisition and management of knowledge. Therefore they too need to be given an overview and proper attention. We also make references to the concept organizational memory as the locus where the distributed
knowledge resides and what enables and enhances knowledge distribution (in a time perspective) and organizational learning. Therefor we will discuss and define it here. Since we aim to investigate knowledge distribution means within an organizational learning context (a driving force behind knowledge distribution and exchange) it is only natural that we also here make clear what organizational learning is all about.
2.1 Knowledge
What knowledge is and is not has been debated since the time of the old Greeks. When we think of what knowledge is we somehow intuitively think of it as that which is known (the sum or range of what has been discovered, perceived and inferred) or that it has something to do with learning the facts about objects in the world about us. That it is processed information that enables us to act, to know how something works, and etc.
There exist many common definitions of knowledge, for example: "that part of a person's information which is in accord with established facts" (Dictionary of Psychological Terms, English-English, 1958, p.385). Other definitions regard knowledge as process, the act of knowing, for example: "the state of knowing" (American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, 1975, p.725).
Wiig (1996) defines knowledge as the insights, understanding, and practical know-how that we all possess. Knowledge is the fundamental resource that allows us to function intelligently. Over time, considerable knowledge is also transformed to other manifestations such as books, technology, practices and traditions, within organizations of all kind and in society in general. These
transformations result in cumulated expertise and, when used appropriately, increased effectiveness.
Knowledge is one, if not the, principal factor that makes personal, organizational, and societal intelligent behavior possible.
According to Baskerville (1998) knowledge is a characteristic of the living mind. A person must interpret and internalize it. It becomes embedded in human routines and norms. Alter (1996) states further that knowledge is a combination of instincts, ideas, rules, and procedures that guide actions and decisions. People need knowledge to use information effectively.
Wijnhoven (1998) sees knowledge as a collection of concrete experiences, or a set of abstract
conceptualizations. Concrete experiences consist of stories, feelings, data, and opinions about what has been observed. Abstract models may be science (containing laws, theorems, and procedures accepted as valid knowledge) or judgment (containing workable knowledge in the form of policy-rules, probabilities, and heuristics). Science is public and accepted knowledge, whereas judgment is
uncertain, often private and untested knowledge. According to this definition knowledge encompasses both know-how and know-why.
Knowledge can be viewed in respect to two dimensions: the epistemological dimension, i.e.
knowledge is either tacit or explicit; and the ontological dimension, the social interactive dimension (ideas/knowledge is created with the individual and interaction holds grave importance).
From the epistemological perspective, knowledge is linked to beliefs: "In knowledge, a belief is linked to the fact believed; without this linkage there may be true belief but there will not be knowledge" (R.
Nozick. Philosophical Explanations, 1981, p.81). Nonaka (1994) endorse the same epistemological view of knowledge but adds that it is "justified true beliefs" and thereby recognizing not only the absolute, static and non-human nature of knowledge but also recognize it as a dynamic processes in which the individuals strive to justify personal believes.
Information (or knowledge) can be viewed in both a syntactic and a semantic aspect. The syntactic aspect deals with the amount of information. Here one may refer to the work of Shannon and Weaver (1949). The semantic aspect deals with the meaning or content of information. Here one may well refer the infological equation of Langefors (1973), defining information as a function of the data observed, background knowledge of the observer and amount of time for observation, i.e. I = i(D,B,dt) and D = i-1(I,B,dt).
Brookes (1980) regards knowledge as a structure of concepts linked in their relations and information as a small part of such a structure. The knowledge structure can be subjective or objective. Brookes (1980) express this relationship by what he calls the fundamental equation: K(S) + dI = (S + dS), where K(S) = the knowledge structure, dI = the increment of information, and S= the effect of the modification.
Nonaka (1994) further states that the informal way of thinking of knowledge is that it is processed information that enables us to act; to know how something works; and etc. Within the perspective of Information Systems field the interest lies in how to express or represent knowledge, distribute the knowledge or information, and how to create knowledge (through innovation, i.e. defining and creating a problem and developing knowledge in order to solve the problem).
We adhere to the definitions of Wijnhoven (1998) and Nonaka (1994) stating that knowledge is justified true beliefs of tacit or explicit nature and that may it be viewed as both know-how and know- why.
2.2 Knowledge and information
Many definitions of knowledge seem to be interchangeable with the definition of information and many use the word information and knowledge almost synonymously. Therefore there is a need to reflect a bit on the difference between the two. Machlup (1983) defines information as a flow of messages or meanings that might add to, restructure or change knowledge. Dretske (1981) elaborates further by stating that information is that commodity capable of yielding knowledge and what information a signal carries is what we can learn from it. Dretske (1981) goes on by stating that knowledge is identified with the information-produced belief, but the information a person receives is relative to what he or she already knows about the possibilities of the source.
Nonaka (1994) sums it up by stating that information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is created and organized by the very flow of information, anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder. Further, that knowledge is related to human action as it is directly guiding it. Information is a necessary medium or material for initiating and formalizing knowledge and can be viewed from syntactic and semantic perspectives. Syntactic aspects of information can be best described by the work done by Shannon and Weaver (1949) concerning the amount of information with regard to its meaning or value.
Dretske (1981) points out that a genuine theory of information would be a theory about the content of our messages, not a theory about the form in which this content is embodied. The semantic aspects of information should be more relevant as it focuses on the conveyed meaning, i.e. seen from a semantic point of view information means literally that it contains new meaning. Thus the semantic aspect of information is indeed appropriate to study as it deals with the conveyed meaning so important in the knowledge creation out of the chaotic and equivocal state of information.
2.3 Knowledge creation and acquisition
How then is knowledge created? Where does it come from and how is it acquired?
How knowledge is acquired has something to do with the process of gathering and learning. Levitt and March (1988) define the process of knowledge acquisition within organizations as the gathering and placing of knowledge into memory stores. Wijnhoven (1998) defines the following adoption
mechanism: learning from direct experience, where trial and error experiences are recorded; learning from experiences of others, demanding that a search process exists in order to locate the desired knowledge, however taking over knowledge derived from the experience of others may pose a problem since the acquired knowledge has no universal validity; and learning through transactions of knowledge, memory content is acquired through a purchasing process, the desired knowledge's value must be measured somehow in order to buy it and the payment may be other memory content, services, etc.
Nonaka (1994) states that there are three dimensions tied to the individual with respect to the knowledge creation process: the intention or the values; degree of autonomy, self-motivation, or liberty; and degree of fluctuation, interaction, change, contradictions, or anomalies (c.f. Kuhn's work concerning the paradigm and revolution, 1970). In an ontological dimension it is only individuals or group of individuals that can create knowledge.
Knowledge is created through the act of transmission or conversion. Knowledge made explicit is knowledge that has been brought forth and represented in one form or another as opposed to tacit knowledge. Knowledge is thus created through the act of transmitting/converting it to/from tacit/explicit form. Here Nonaka (1994) contributes with a model of knowledge transmission or conversion, taking its basis on the distinction Polyani (1958) makes between tacit and explicit knowledge.
This creates four possible knowledge creation processes, se figure 2.1: 1) tacit to tacit, i.e.
socialization, without language as in an apprenticeship relation ("on the job training"); 2) tacit to explicit, i.e. externalization of knowledge, representing the knowledge in an external formal form, codifying and sharing it; 3) explicit to explicit, i.e. combinations such as formal meetings, telephone calls, or computer processing systems; and 4) explicit to tacit, i.e. internalization, the process of learning, assimilating external knowledge to the internal knowledge structure.
To
Tacit Explicit
Tacit 1) Socialization 4) Externalization From
Explicit 3) Internalization 2) Combination
Figure 2.1. Knowledge transformations (Nonaka 1994, p.19).
According to Nonaka (1994) there is a need within the socialization process to create an arena for interchange of knowledge. With respect to the management of organizational knowledge creation he proposes that within the arena one should strive for creative chaos, redundancy of information and requisite variety. The knowledge creation process that we have touched on here will be explored further in a later chapter.
2.4 Managing knowledge
Knowledge management is concerned with the representation and processing of knowledge by humans, machines, organization, and societies. However knowledge management is not only about managing the processes that includes knowledge work but also the managing of methods for these
processes. It is also at a higher/academic level concerned with the methods for managing the knowledge management methods themselves.
Zwass (1998) states that knowledge management is the employment of organizational methods, procedures, and information systems, used to collect the knowledge and experience of the members of the organization and to bring them to bear on present problems and opportunities. Whereas Laudon and Laudon (1996) views knowledge management as the process of systematically and actively managing and leveraging the stores of knowledge in an organization.
Angus and Patel (1998) brings us a four-process view of what knowledge management is about, stating that it consists of four major processes: gathering (including activities such as data entry, OCR and scanning, voice input, pulling information from various sources and searching for information to include), organizing (including activities such as cataloging, indexing, filtering, and linking), refining (including activities such as contextualizing, collaborating, compacting, projecting and mining), and disseminating (including activities such as sharing, alerting, and pushing). One might suspect that they use the concept of information and knowledge interchangeable since none of the above mentioned activities are specific for knowledge work but applicable to information work in general.
2.5 Organizational memory
Organizational memories come into existence more from evolution than from design because organizations need a variety of information, skills, and knowledge (Weick 1979). Stein and Zwass (1995) define organizational memory as the means by which knowledge from the past exerts influence on present organizational activities. This memory preserves the experience the firm has accumulated in delivering its products and services to the marketplace. Thanks to this memory the firm can
continue its operations in the face of employee turnover. This is due to the fact that memory is retained not only in the minds of the firm's employees but also in the firm's structure that casts these employees into appropriate roles, in the business processes of the firm (e.g. order processing), and in the
corporate culture ("this is the way we treat the customers around here"). Elements of the
organizational memory have more and more come to reside in the software, the data and knowledge bases of companies' information systems.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) define organizational memory as stored information from an organization's history that can be brought to bear on present decisions. This information is stored as a consequence of implementing decisions to which they refer, by individual recollections, and through shared
interpretations. The information can be considered as both the decision stimulus and the organization's response that is preserved in particular storage bins (problem-solution "catalogues") and that has behavioral consequences when retrieved.
The content of an organization's memory can limit the organization's perspective and alternatives, or can expand the visible options when shared and integrated. Organizational memory can be used to both develop and answer questions. The ways in which memory is structured and stored will affect its accessibility and usefulness. Walsh and Ungson (1991) identify three critical elements to an
understanding of organizational memory: the retention structure of memory, i.e. the locus of organizational memory; the processes by which the contents of organizational memory are
manipulated, acquired, stored, and retrieved; and the ways in which the use of organizational memory affects group processes, organizational outcomes, and performance.
Wijnhoven (1998) defines the content of organizational memory as knowledge and information that can be applied in operational activities, the know-how; and knowledge and information that gives the theoretical, conceptual, and background understanding of know-how called know-why. Both know- how and know-why are familiar from the earlier definitions of knowledge and constitutes the operational memory. Wijnhoven (1998) further defines the content of organizational memory to include knowledge and information about value and quality of existing skills, asset capabilities, and information, affecting the need for improving and changing existing know-how and know-why (i.e.
meta-memory), and knowledge and information that are important for retrieving and using operational memory and meta-memory (i.e. memory information).
Wijnhoven (1998) defines the means for organizational memory as both the processes and media for processing. According to Stein and Zwass (1995) the processes for managing organizational memory are acquisition (the input), retention (the storage), search or retrieval, and maintenance or update.
Wijnhoven (1998) adds yet another process and that is the dissemination when considering modern network environments.
According to Walsh and Ungson (1991) the central component of organizational memory is
information about critical decisions made and problems solved. The information may include issues that trigger an event, how the situation was handled, and the consequences of an organizational response. Walsh and Ungson (1991) identify six different storage facilities or retention bins,
constituting the organizational memory, which this information is usually distributed across. The first is individuals, containing experiences, professional skills, evaluation criteria and results, explanation of procedures, decision rules, personal ethics and beliefs, performance criteria, individual routines, and formal records. The second is culture such as inhibiting language, symbols, stories, frameworks, personal networks, schemes, external communications, cultural routines, and norms base. The third is transformations such as tasks, experiencing process knowledge, standard operation procedures, agendas, technology, and patents. The fourth is structure such as organizational structures, job descriptions, patterns, titles, role labels, social structure, formal structure, and communication structure. The fifth is the ecology within the organization such as physical layout of workplace and building architecture. The sixth is external archives such as client and market characteristics, competition profiles, list of knowledgeable people and organizations, technology of competitors, former employees, observers, news media, and regulatory bodies. Electronic repositories for organizational memory need to draw from each of these facilities and needs to store a diverse set of information. Here readers are referred to Walsh and Ungson (1991) for a further discussion on storage requirements for the different storage facilities. According to Walsh and Ungson (1991) knowledge about the decision stimulus can be retrieved from only two of the bins: individuals and culture.
Wijnhoven (1998) also include systems such as planning and decision systems, process control systems, GroupWare, computer aided design systems, knowledge-based systems, and administrative systems, as one media where organizational memory is embedded.
Walsh and Ungson (1991) point at three roles that organizational memory serves: an informational role, a control role through reducing transaction costs by focusing on relevant options, and a political role through the dependence and influence on actions of others. Memory acts to frame a new situation.
Decisions made within such a framework are likely to be more effective and will meet less resistance than those considered without reference to organizational memory.
Levitt and March (1988) conclude with that not everything will or can be recorded in the organizational memory. There will always be a good deal of experiences remaining unrecorded because the costs are just too great.
2.6 Organizational learning
When discussing knowledge distribution within organization one must reflect on the purpose of the distribution. There is always the purpose of individual learning, e.g. the matching of solutions to problems, but within an organizational context knowledge distribution organization-wide is about the learning of the organization as a whole.
There exist many definitions of organizational learning. Argyris (1993) talks about organizational learning as a process of detecting and correcting errors. Huber (1991) states that an organization learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed. He bases organizational learning on four related constructs: knowledge acquisition, obtaining knowledge;
information distribution, sharing information that leads to new information; information interpretation,
