Information Sharing and Knowledge Creation in Online Forums ...

Information Sharing and Knowledge Creation in Online Forums: The Case of the Greek Online Forum ‘DIALOGOI’ Kalotina Chalkiti Interdepartmental Course of Postgraduate Studies ‘Tourism, Planning Management and Policy’, University of the Aegean, Michalon 8, Chios GR-82100, Greece Marianna Sigala Department of Business Administration, University of the Aegean, Michalon 8, Chios GR-82100, Greece The information intensiveness of service firms coupled with the necessity to manage knowledge in the new economic era, render knowledge management initiatives critical for achieving competitive advantage. This case study identifies and analyses the social networking and knowledge creation capabilities and affordances of online forums to support tourism professionals. After reviewing the literature on knowledge creation, social networking and virtual communities, the case presents the social networking, information sharing, knowledge creation and idea generation capabilities of peer-to-peer virtual communities. The research methodology is explained, and the findings are presented. Finally, the practical implications are discussed and directions for future research are also provided. doi: 10.1080/13683500802316006 Keywords: idea generation, virtual forums, information sharing, knowledge creation, social networks

Introduction The information intensiveness of service firms coupled with the necessity to manage knowledge in the new economic era have rendered knowledge management initiatives as a critical business necessity for achieving competitive advantage. Internet advances not only mushroom the amount of information available, but they also afford new means and methods for information exchange, generation (i.e. web 2.0 applications), diffusion and creation (e.g. Sigala, 2003). Consequently, Internet applications are currently transforming the way people learn, communicate and create new knowledge (e.g. Sigala, 2003). The huge increase in the number of Internet forums, discussion boards and virtual discussion environments reflects the above-mentioned trends and challenges. And indeed, virtual environments are found in every countryspecific website, in any discipline and sector focusing on any professional and/or personal topic and interest. For example, news reporters share and create knowledge through an online discussion environment (Millen & Dray, 1999). Big Boards (http://www.big-boards.com) is a virtual environment 1368-3500/08/05 381-26 $20.00/0 CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM

# 2008 Taylor & Francis Vol. 11, No. 5, 2008

381

382

Current Issues in Tourism

integrating the discourse activity of numerous online environments with a database of 1933 message boards (http://www.big-boards.com/kw/peer-topeer/f/). A similar application is Topix (http://www.topix.net), an online news database that integrates numerous RSS feeds from diverse interest backgrounds and offers discourse opportunities for different topics to all its members (http://www.topix.net/forum/business/travel-tourism). Although very few studies on virtual communities exist within tourism literature (e.g. Braun & Hollick, 2006; Milne and Callahan, 2006), there are several research projects funded by governments with the aim of developing and supporting the creation of such virtual communities in order to enable knowledge exchange processes within tourism networks. For example, Krems research institute runs the SNF Project titled “online tourism community support” (http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/im/research/online_tourism_community_ support/). This project aims to analyse and develop virtual communities from an information and knowledge building approach, since such environments can foster knowledge creation in two ways namely, networking and information exchange. ActKM (Milne & Callahan, 2006) is another example of a project being developed in Australia. This research project demonstrated the social and learning value of a virtual discussion environment to all its members and the discourse opportunities that it offered them. Talk Tourism is another project partly financed by the European Union aiming to foster conversation amongst tourism-related practitioners (http://talktourism.ie/ forum/forumdisplay.php?s¼a43e28e8ecb832b43a85f7d2ab575996&f¼11). Other virtual forums within the tourism sector aiming to encourage discourse amongst their members include, the Guernsey Chamber (http://www.guernseychamber. com/Forum/Group47.aspx), the Libyan forum (http://www.libyanforum.com/ vb/forumdisplay.php?f¼7) and mytravel in India (http://www.mytravelindia. org/forums/). Although, the urgent business importance of virtual communities for creating and supporting knowledge management processes is reflected in professional practices, research on this topic has not followed the same pace and volume. The majority of studies in the tourism literature focus solely on online communities enabling learning processes for students, providing limited research insights in online environments designed specifically for peer interaction. In this vein, this article aims to study how online forums can support and facilitate information sharing, knowledge creation and learning processes amongst peers by using a case study perspective. Previous findings examining the use of online forums or communities have provided evidence of the affordances and the functionalities of online communities for supporting tourism networks (e.g. Milne and Callahan, 2006). This article expands this research field by providing in-depth qualitative data regarding the use and the role of an online community in building a Greek virtual tourism knowledge-based network. The analysis and presentation of the case study provides interesting findings regarding the specific contextual factors affecting knowledge management processes. This case is considered as a novelty for the Greek tourism industry, which was found and characterised as a difficult sector to foster knowledge exchanges (Sigala & Chalkiti, 2007a, b), and it analyses an online environment of tourism professionals

Information Sharing and Knowledge Creation in Online Forums

383

aiming to support and foster learning processes, and to create knowledge and metaknowledge (idea generation through the synthesising of knowledge) through the exchange of opinions, experiences, information, concerns and/or thoughts amongst members of the virtual community.

Theoretical Background Knowledge management Being an intangible and abstract resource, it is imperative that practitioners become fully capable in identifying, managing and leveraging knowledge. Since enterprises are knowledge intensive and the valuable (tacit) knowledge is held in employees’ minds, enterprises need a systematic and focused knowledge management approach to avoid knowledge hoarding, attrition, abandonment and to ensure that knowledge assets are appropriately exploited. Hence, the business importance of knowledge management (KM) – referred to as the conduit for knowledge acting as a passage towards the right person, the right activity at the right time – is evident. KM is about managing knowledge, however many authors have expanded on this generic definition by providing a variety of multidimensional definitions (e.g. Kakabadse et al., 2003) focusing both on KM at a macroeconomic level and at a value chain level (e.g. Wiig, 1997). KM is an ongoing process with a prime responsibility ‘to critically manage knowledge to meet existing needs, to identify new products or strategies, augment human resource management and achieve a number of other, highly targeted objectives’ (Quintas et al., 1997). In other words, KM is about ‘getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time and helping people share and put information into action in ways that strive to improve organizational performance’ (O’Dell and Jackson, 1998). Defining knowledge from a constructivist perspective, it is argued that all KM sub-processes begin with the collection, sharing, storing (or vice versa) and use of information (Table 1). It is argued that when information is used for a different purpose than the one it was initially used for, then, knowledge is produced. It is also important to highlight that knowledge is only valuable once it is related to a business problem, case or issue. Moreover, the more knowledge is applied and used, the greater business benefits that it yields. The double loop learning possibilities of knowledge management processes should also be highlighted (e.g. Argyris & Scho¨n, 1978). In other words, online virtual communities can further benefit peers through new knowledge acquisition, since the new knowledge generated from the online interactions processes can be fed back into the system and so, enable and foster second, third and subsequent circles of learning processes.

Importance of Knowledge and Knowledge Management It is widely recognised that in today’s turbulent and sophisticated business environment, knowledge can be a critical competitive asset substantially supporting and fostering the environmental adaptation of enterprises and their survival and enhanced performance. Many other authors (e.g. Bohn, 1994; Boisot, 1998, Mertins et al., 2000; Ruhanen & Cooper, 2003a, b;

384


Table 1 Constructs to analyse discourse activity Research construct

Measurement of construct

Discourse activity Participation of the administrator (research in Yes, No e-teaching environments has demonstrated the significance of the administrators’/ moderators’ role in scaffolding and fostering the online discourse e.g. by providing summaries and/or additional questions Initiator of the discourse

Administrator or members

Nature and type of the posts (comments) determined by its information content

An enquiry, provision of secondary data, a suggestion, a summary, a new perspective, a critique

Response attitude of posts (the authors believed it would be useful to report on the response attitude of messages. The idea was that a thread comprising positive response attitudes (e.g. constantly agreeing with previous posts and so on) as opposed to negative response attitude (e.g. disagreeing with posts and posting contradictory perceptions and so on) would inhibit the generation of new ideas or knowledge

Positive or Negative

Discourse triggers (initiating and sustaining a Questions, Administrator Summary discussion among strangers is extremely difficult and discourse triggers such questions or the administrators’ input by summarising previous posts and focusing for example on important information can sustain online conversation) Discourse output (the discourse outputs were Suggestions, information exchange quantified in the development of suggestions by the virtual community members, denoting new ideas and information exchange amongst members) Knowledge creation SECI Model

Tacit to tacit Tacit to explicit Explicit to explicit Explicit to tacit

Social network analysis Network size

Number of actors

Reciprocal relationships

Number of directed relationships

Network density

Level of connection between members

Spender & Grant, 1996) have stressed the strategic role of knowledge resources by providing evidence of the impact of knowledge on increased performance, streamlined and seamless transactions, product innovation and business


385

learning. Knowledge resources become even more superior strategic assets, because by being mainly tacit (intangible), they cannot be easily copied and substituted. Indeed, according to the resource-based view, tacit knowledge is very crucial in enhancing business performance, as it creates business value in a unique, inimitable and non-transferable way. Similarly, research does not only advocate the strategic role of knowledge assets but also their operational benefits. For example, many studies have focused on investigating and demonstrating the role and impact of KM in supporting different business processes and functions, such as developing management processes to build and maintain good quality customer relations whereby enhancing customer lifetime value (e.g. Salomann et al., 2005), enhancing the performance of supply chains (e.g. Hult et al., 2006) and fostering organisational learning and continuous improvement (e.g. Ruhanen & Cooper, 2003a, b; Senge, 1990). In the tourism context, researchers also highlight the necessity for developing KM-oriented business initiatives by referring to knowledge and information as the key determinants for achieving business success (Olsen & Connolly, 2000) and creating a sustainable competitive advantage by promoting service quality, supporting timely decision-making and eliminating duplication of both efforts and knowledge in destination management (e.g. Bouncken & Pyo, 2002). Nevertheless, tourism professionals’ awareness regarding knowledge and its management is at infant steps (Sigala & Chalkiti, 2007), while Stamboulis and Skayiannis (2003) argue that the factor contributing to the research stagnation in the KM field is the poor knowledge exchange linkages between the tourism industry and academia. Even though a variety of studies exist regarding KM initiatives in tourism (Ruhanen & Cooper, 2003a, b) it was Moutinho et al. (1996) who focused on expert systems; Klenosky and Gitelson (1998) focused on travel agents destination recommendation and counselling; Ritchie and Ritchie (2002) on destination marketing information system; for example, Boucken and Pyo (2002); Ruhanen and Cooper (2003a, b) provided general reviews of knowledge management in tourism; Carson and Adams (2004) on tourist information centres; Gamble et al. (2000) on the intermediaries sector; Boucken and Pyo (2002) on hotel management; Pechlaner et al. (2002) on cross-border destination systems; Kahle (2002) on the process of transfer in tourism), research examining the applicability of knowledge management processes in peer-to-peer online tourism communities to facilitate learning and knowledge building capabilities has been limited. This lack of research and awareness of the importance of knowledge are very critical for the tourism sector. Tourism is a service industry characterised by several challenges including, intense competition, market and supply fragmentation, increased labour turnover, discerning and less-loyal customers. Unawareness of the business value of KM from professionals is critical, as it can lead to hoarding, abandonment and attrition. For example, although hotel service processes provide numerous customer-touch points whereby hotel staff can gather guests’ intelligence, this customer knowledge (e.g. Caddy et al., 2001; Du Plessis, 2005; Tiwana, 1999, 2000) can be lost (the employee might not recognise it as important and subsequently fail to codify it for transferring and sharing it), get distorted (the employee might misinterpret it)

386


or become staff’s property (which the employee can internalise for enhancing his intellectual capital and-or sell it to a competitor). Other studies have also stressed the incapability of hotels to gather information and exploit tacit knowledge (Olsen and Connolly, 2000; Sigala & Chalkiti, 2007) due to their legacy technological systems, hierarchical organisational culture and internal marketing practices, such as lack of staff motivation and empowerment. Finally, studies also highlight the importance and necessity to externalise and utilise tacit knowledge for increasing performance. For example, Koskinen and Vanharanta (2002) and Lubit (2001) argued that exploitation of tacit knowledge offers tourism enterprises capabilities of an inimitable nature and great business value, while it diminishes the chances of knowledge attrition or abandonment. In this vein, Cooper (2006) argues that there is still need for further research regarding the micro-level business use of knowledge stocks and their sharing flows within tourism networks as well as their impact on organisations’ performance. Findings of few available studies demonstrate the great commercial and scientific potential and benefits of virtual communities for both enterprises and researchers. For example, Bukowitz and Williams (2000) address the limited availability of explicit knowledge in tourism enterprises, as the former accounts for only 10% of the total organisational knowledge. The remaining represents tacit knowledge residing with employees’ minds, thus literally allowing the employees to tamper with the enterprises’ largest knowledge data, that is knowledge of great value addition, competitive and innovative (Cooper, 2006); coupled with the increased labour turnover (and so, the increased likelihood of knowledge abandonment) and the unawareness about knowledge assets characterising the majority of tourism enterprises, the need and importance to practice knowledge management becomes even more critical (Campbell, 2003; Dev & Olsen, 2000). Furthermore, Ruhanen and Cooper (2003a, b) stress the need for tourism enterprises to adopt KM initiatives as the only mean available to transform tourism research and intellectual property into capabilities. Similarly, Hjalager (2002) advocated that KM enables tourism destinations and enterprises to boost innovation and to get differentiated (Cooper, 2006). Moreover, Collins et al. (2003) added that due to the industry’s fragmentation, its ever changing standards, and incontrollable competition, enterprises should focus solely on knowledge as the only competitive source for achieving differentiation and gaining competitive advantage (Braun & Hollick, 2006). Finally, there are many success stories of online communities from the business world that offer a pragmatic insight into the beneficial influence of KM in tourism. For example, Ritz-Carlton and Marriott Hotels have developed their own virtual communities for enabling staff interactions and knowledge exchanges. Analytically, the former uses virtual communities for allowing knowledge sharing amongst staff and supporting the provision of personalised and customised experiences to their guests, while the latter has developed a knowledge-based CRM programme (titled By Request) that enables customer and process knowledge, residing with their personnel, to be shared and stored (Anonymous, 2005; Sigala, 2005) across all hotels and staff.


387

Information Sharing and Knowledge Creation Knowledge creation has always been difficult to understand, especially when many believe it just exists and it cannot be created. There has been a great deal of work on how knowledge is created but the most frequently cited has been that of Nonaka et al. (1996) and the Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation (SECI) model. Through the model, knowledge is created via information sharing through a spiral process which begins with an individual externalising his/her tacit knowledge that is converted and enhanced through the process of socialisation (exchange tacit knowledge), externalisation (convert tacit knowledge to explicit), combination (share explicit knowledge) and internalisation (convert explicit to tacit knowledge). Although the SECI model has been criticised for its validity (Gourlay, 2003), it is the most frequently used model to pictorially illustrate the knowledge creation process. Nonaka et al.’s (1996) perception is that the same knowledge, part of someone’s knowing, can be externalised and internalised by someone else, who in turn can augment the former’s knowledge with his experience or other attributes and then classify it as new knowledge for himself. Our understanding of the SECI model is that it refers to the continuous transformation and dissemination of the same knowledge and does not refer to the application of knowledge for yielding new knowledge. Hence, although the SECI model is considered to be the most user friendly and comprehensive knowledge creation process, the authors regard it as a knowledge transfer tool (tacit vs. explicit). However, the concept of the SECI model coupled with the criticism it has received, do not explain the process of knowledge creation but focus on the combinatorial transformation of knowledge (e.g. tacit to explicit). Therefore, we turn to constructivism and social constructivism in search for more robust literature findings on knowledge creation and the processes enabling knowledge creation. The concepts of constructivism and social constructivism explain the importance of social interactions for KM activities. Constructivism argues that knowledge is created by learners as they attempt to draw meaning from their experiences (e.g. Driscoll, 2000) thus a posteriori, while social constructivism complements the former by adding the social factor to the equation. According to the latter, knowledge is produced from the social interaction of individuals with learning being a collaborative action fostered in social groups, as justified in the findings section.

Virtual Discussion Communities Indisputably, technological advances coupled with the fast pace of both our private and business lives, have led to critical changes in the way people interact, communicate and learn. Interaction, communication and learning have shifted from being face-to-face and traditional classroom-oriented to being asynchronous, ‘click’ based and animation oriented virtual processes. The advances of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), and specifically of Internet tools such as e-mail, texts, chats or forums (e.g. Woo and Reeves, 2007), offer unique opportunities for peer interaction and communication on any topic or issue that also overcome any time and/or geographical restriction (e.g. Sigala, 2004a, b, 2005).

388


Although learning and discussions used to be carried out on a synchronous one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many location fixed basis, ICTs have introduced asynchronous communication at any place, any time and at any member’s pace (e.g. Spiceland & Hawkins, 2002) that is also found as more motivational than communicational through traditional environments (Bransford, 2000, in Wijekumar & Spielvogel, 2006). The majority of the published research about inter-organisational information exchange and learning identifies virtual/online communities as the actual locations fostering learning activities. According to Rheingold (1993: 5) these are ‘social aggregations that emerge from the net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace’. Virtual and geographical proximity, sharing of similar interests, free of participation restrictions in discourse sessions can significantly impact on information sharing and learning (Milne & Callahan, 2006), while Samburn (1999) described virtual communities as ‘water coolers, offering information, mentoring, friendship and humour’ offering invaluable features (in Milne & Callahan, 2006) for supporting online dialogues and knowledge exchanges and they are difficult to develop and maintain during business hours. Gretzel and Fesenmaier (2004) refer to them as knowledge-based communities aiming is to create value through communication and collaboration among its members. Finally, Morrison et al. (2004: 198) found such networks specifically attuned to the needs of the tourism industry and defined them as . . . a set of formal, co-operative relationships between organisations and individuals to achieve a particular purpose with in tourism sector that may result in qualitative and/or quantitative benefits of a learning and exchange, business activity, and/or community nature relative to building profitable tourism destinations’. Surely, technology sceptics may find this new mode of communication and learning unorthodox, simply because the human inputs offered in face-toface discourse and learning/teaching sessions cannot be replaced by an impersonal technological medium. In this vein, Streatfield and Wilson (1999, in Davenport et al., 1996) drew the attention towards the incapability of managing knowledge within communities of practice due to the internal – person dependent characteristics of knowledge. Hence, they advocated that virtual communities have limited usefulness in knowledge creation and may be solely afforded for supporting ‘knowledge awareness’. According to Garrison (2003), e-communication in discussion boards is hybrid in the sense that it offers a blended or both verbal and written communication, since messages appear both as formal and informal, and the participant has any time needed to compose, change or reflect on the posting before making it available in the public (Ho & Swan, 2007). Similarly, Henri and Pudelko (2003) argue in favour of the learning implications of e-communications because of their social context, goals, evolutionary aspects and the learning activities carried out within the community (Milne & Callahan, 2006). Asynchronous communication offers opportunities for community building and encourage thoughtful discussions which explicate critical thinking skills of individuals (Blignaut & Trollip, 2003, in Wijekumar & Spielvogel, 2006) as people have


389

more time to think, obtain information and feedback, build up arguments and reflect on previous contributions (Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001, in Fullick, 2006; Wijekumar & Spielvogel, 2006). Teachers’ or administrators find it much easier to organise and coordinate a virtual class or discussion session eliminating disturbing parameters such as disinterested individuals (Bartholomew et al., 2004, in Fullick, 2006); and finally, according to Tuomi (2002) Internetbased technologies allow knowledge sharing to take place in a shorter time span and at a cheaper rate, thus enabling the leverage of significant amounts of knowledge (Van Baalen et al., 2005). Reviewing the scant tourism literature in online communities, it is obvious that the issues of online information sharing, knowledge and learning have been significantly under researched. This is surprising specifically when information is the lifeblood of tourism (Poon, 1993) and technological advances have radically reengineered communication, social knowledge construction and learning within the tourism sector. Davenport & Prusak’s (2000) research in online communities provided evidence that although such environments do not offer opportunities of complete knowledge creation, certain types of knowledge can be developed through the individual members’ processes of observing, arching and managing discourse. In reviewing the Illinois Tourism Network, Gretzel and Fesenmaier (2004) found that access to such networks does not necessarily lead to knowledge creation within organisations; instead, networks can trigger social relationships which empower individuals and create a conducive ground for knowledge creation. And Morrison et al. (2004) identified the major benefits enjoyed by such networks and summarised them into three categories, namely: learning and exchange, business activities and communities. Braun and Hollick (2006) argued that online tourism learning networks of regional agents and institutions support collaborative learning and enable members to achieve a competitive advantage (Florida, 2002) in the sense that tourism operators can become more knowledgeable, thus more powerful and professional in their business practices. At a macro level, networks can enhance the competitiveness of whole destinations, as they allow and foster the dissemination of best practices and of numerous information and knowledge resources amongst its members without even requiring professionals to travel and leave the physical location of their business environment (Braun and Hollick, 2006). Overall, the adoption and use of such environments enable discussion and collaborative learning in a flexible manner providing several learning benefits to tourism professionals (Sigala, 2002, 2007). Despite the benefits of online communities for tourism firms, their adoption is limited (e.g. Gretzel & Fesenmaier, 2004). Increased labour turnover, the industry’s multinational and cultural nature, and the dynamic nature and changes of the tourism environment (Christou, 1999; Sigala, 2004, 2005), the limited technology familiarity, awareness and skills of tourism enterprises further inhibits them from using online communities and Internet-based communication tools (Gretzel & Fesenmaier, 2001a; Yuan et al., 2003, in Gretzel and Fesenmaier, 2004). Other factors influencing tourism firms to adopt and use virtual communities include: firms’ dependency on structure and leadership; the existence or not of an entrusting culture; existence or lack of resources, members’ engagement and commitment to learning and inter-organisational

390


learning (Augustyn & Knowles, 2000; Halme, 2001; Morrison, 1994, 1996; Morrison et al., 2004).

Methodology Given the importance of knowledge management in the tourism industry, and the affordability of virtual communities to support and facilitate the development and sharing of knowledge, this article aims to analyse a case study of an online Greek tourism network to illustrate and provide in-depth qualitative insights about the knowledge creation processes of an online community called DIALOGOI. Case study description This article examines the case of a Greek online community called ‘DIALOGOI’ (the English translation of the word is dialogues) launched on the 13 November 2006. The idea of creating a virtual environment for fostering in-depth discussions amongst peers of the Greek tourism industry was derived from the Committee of Ideas and Actions (spawned from the Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises). This virtual community was perceived as a novel idea for the Greek Tourism industry offering a unifying and virtual environment whereby any individual related to tourism (practitioner, academic, guest, student and so on) could express his/her opinion, ideas, know-how, best practices, news and any tourism-related topic (national or international) that they wish to discuss with other members. The creation of ‘DIALOGOI’ represents the first ever online forum available in Greece, it was welcomed and regarded as an innovation for the Greek Tourism industry especially because national networks (e.g. Greek National Tourism Organisation, The Hellenic Association of Travel Agents and so on) have yet to offer similar virtual environments for the promotion of knowledge sharing and exchange. The Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises (with more than 400 members) is one of the largest Greek tourism professional networks and the only one to offer an online discussion environment as a tool for enabling all practitioners, academics or students of the Greek tourism industry to engage in, un-discriminatory and subscription-free online discussion environment for collaboratively augmenting their knowledge, experience, and practice new knowledge. Sample design and targeting According to Yin (1993), case studies are needed when researching complex and contemporary social phenomena which cannot be isolated or studied under experimental conditions. The case of ‘DIALOGOI’ can be classified as a contemporary social phenomenon. It deals with information sharing and knowledge creation within a virtual environment of tourism peers. In other words, DIALOGOI represented a real-life social event in which behaviours could be manipulated only through a scaffolded approach and for which little previous empirical research and relative knowledge already existed (Bonoma, 1985, in Tax & Stuart, 1997). Moreover, in exploring online learning communities, Lee and Bowman (2002) argued that a small sample size is


391

appropriate (Ho & Swan, 2007). The aim was to carry out a qualitative in-depth analysis of ‘DIALOGOI’ without any intentions for generalisation, but with an aim to achieve a deep insight into the dynamics and processes undertaken for sharing information and creating knowledge (e.g. Darke et al., 1998, in Ramesh et al., 1999). Design of the research instruments and data collection techniques Primary data were collected using two separate data collection techniques, namely: participant observation and an e-mail survey. For analysing the discourse activity and determining its knowledge creation and social networking capabilities, we used the SECI model and generic social networking quantitative measures. We assessed the knowledge creation capabilities by using the SECI MODEL, the perceptions of the users with similar approaches used for evaluating educational online discussion forums (e.g. Sigala, 2004a, b) and basic concepts of social network analysis (e.g. network size, directed ties – reciprocal relationships) for exploring the nature and type of social networks developed amongst members participating in the online discussions. To that end, the discussion threads and the generated posts were used as the units of analysis of this study. Table 1 outlines the constructs used for examining the above mentioned. Moreover, a questionnaire was used for gathering data on the users’ perceptions and experience with the virtual environment. Questionnaires were distributed electronically while for boosting the response rate, a reminder e-mail was sent two weeks after the initial e-mail. The questionnaires included 16 questions and required no more than 10 minutes to be completed. Unfortunately, the survey took place in May, a rather critical period for Greek tourism since May marks the official beginning of the Greek tourist season; only 28 usable questionnaires were received out of 146 forum’s members. For developing the questionnaire, studies on e-learning and e-teaching were reviewed and the factors-variables that they examined were also adapted for this study (e.g. Sigala, 2004a, b). Questions included whether participants were involved, or had previously been involved, in other peer-to-peer virtual communities, the reasons for which they had joined DIALOGOI, their expectations and outcomes from their forum participation, and their perceptions about the factors that inhibit their forum participation.

SETE and DIALOGOI System Design and Development Literature has shown that the majority of virtual networks are enabled and supported by information distribution mechanisms, a common communication platform and an appropriate technological infrastructure. Virtual networks also follow a generic system design structured around three major building blocks of functions, namely: provision of market intelligence, fostering of knowledge building and implementation, and supporting tools for collaboration in online communities (Gretzel & Fesemaier, 2004). The Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises offers similar capabilities through its webpage that also connects to the peer-to-peer community of DIALOGOI. Figure 1 summarises the three capabilities of the DIALOGOI forum, as they have been identified by Gretzel and Fesenmaier (2004).

392


Figure 1 SETE tourism network: System components Source: Adapted from Gretzel and Fesenmaier, 2004

Market intelligence For extending the provision of market intelligence, DIALOGOI offer linkages to several national and international networks. From a national perspective, members can obtain information on exhibitions (7 links), education (18 links to higher educational institutions), research (5 links), travel (18 links), governmental organisations (27 links), cultural organisations (11 links), ministries (18 links) and networks or enterprises offering news and information on tourism (23 links). From an international perspective, members can obtain information on national tourism organisations (37 links), exhibitions (11 links), research (4 links), accommodation (15 links), travel (21 links), governmental organisations/bodies (38 links), information services (11 links) and publications (5 links). Furthermore, the forum provides recent national tourism news alerts for supporting members’ awareness. Knowledge building and implementation The network offers a great selection of online sources and material from a variety of researchers (Greek and International), international tourism networks (e.g. World Tourism Organisation, UNWTO) and consulting companies (e.g. KPMG, Deloitte). Furthermore, it offers market reports and statistics from organisations such as Mintel, E-business watch etc. The majority of the literature is available to non-members at no extra charge, while some selected publications are only available to subscribed members. Apart from the available literature, the innovative activity of the Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises was the creation of the Committee of Ideas and Actions. The purpose of the network was to combine the talent, enthusiasm, ambitions and aspirations of its youngest members (approximately younger than 45 years of age) and support an ongoing dialogue for facilitating information sharing and knowledge generation through the exchange of opinions,


393

experiences, thoughts and concerns. Apart from interacting virtually, the Committee of Ideas and Actions, also meets on a yearly basis to discuss the latest changes and advances and to compile together propositions (regarding the improvement of the networks’ function and/or the functioning of the whole tourism industry) that are then presented and submitted to the executive board of directors of the Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises. Collaboration and community For facilitating collaboration and the nurturing of a community spirit, the network organises annual conferences (opportunity for the members to get together, interact and attend inspiring presentations provided by international tourism physiognomies either from the academic community or practitioners) and a variety of tourism related activities. DIALOGOI offer an online platform for the asynchronous discourse of everyone related with the Greek tourism industry (e.g. enterprises, academics, students, governmental bodies etc.) and for enabling information dissemination, and knowledge creation through collaborative learning. SETE’s members’ reaction to this innovative discourse approach reflected a warm welcome. Some of the members’ comments include: Quoting Einstein: Knowledge is experience. Everything else is just information, what the mind can conceive, the mind can achieve. Quoting Henry Miller: One’s destination is never a place but rather a new way of looking at things, listen to the quite voice of experience, you can get everything you want in life, if you will just help enough other people get what they want, If you fail to prepare, prepare to fail. These comments re-addressed the gap in the Greek tourism industry (no other Greek tourism network offers a similar solution to support the participation of both members and non-members of SETE to interact and exchange knowledge irrespective of their physical proximity and time restrictions. Platform design and functionality The online community follows a standard platform design and offers a standardised menu and functions similar to the majority of other non-tourism related Greek online forums (e.g. www.phorums.gr). A variety of services are offered, namely search (a search service that searches all posted messages with the use of a specific keyword), members’ list (offers an aggregative members list which shows their full names, their personal email address, their home address, the date they registered and the number of posts they have made), profile (the members have the opportunity to update their personal profile which is viewable by the rest of the community), e-mail service (the members are offered a personal email service for managing their private communication with other members of the community), forum statistics (provides a total count of all available posts in the forum, greets the newest forum member and notifies whether other members are online at the same present time, and the date and time). Apart from following a standardised template, the forum is user friendly while sections, topics and the menu differentiate with different shades of blue and silver.

394


The discussions taking place on DIALOGOI revolve around a variety of topics (e.g. outsourcing, marketing, HRM, knowledge management, crisis management) and sectors (e.g. hotels, travel agents, MICE, alternative tourism, education). To foster and enable effective discourse, each topic is structured in two major sections: (a) announcements (this area hosted all announcements related to the topic e.g. conferences, forums etc.); and (b) members’ opinions (this area allowed every member to comment on the moderators’ posts or post a subject related to the topic themselves). For example, through this structure, members could comment on the actions of the Greek Ministry of Tourism and express their opinions, their concerns, their experience and knowledge coupled with useful information concerning interesting events related to the discussion.

Findings Forum participants The virtual community had a total of 146 members when this investigation was conducted. There was an over-representation of relatively young (under 50 years of age) members, which may also reflect a greater level of users’ comfort with ICT use in general. Members were dispersed all over Greece with the majority of them being located in mainland Greece and Southern Greece. In terms of respondents’ education, the majority of them held undergraduate and postgraduate titles, while some were PhD holders as well. Due to their educational status, discourse between members had the potential to be of a high quality and level. Moreover, considering the professional background and context of the members (suppliers, education, accommodation and travel agents or tour operators), there was a good range of professions and areas of expertise that in turn allowed the discussion threads to be rather diverse, interesting and multi-disciplined. Finally, the members occupied either a managerial or operational staff positions, thus making potential discourse interesting especially when views and opinions could be voiced from different hierarchical levels. The detailed demographics and characteristics of the community’s members are shown in Table 2. Discourse activity The three discussion threads were analysed according to their content, the participation of various members, and the relationships between ideas formed as the discussion evolved. All three discussions were triggered and initiated from announcements or news’ alerts usually posted by the administrator. Even though only few members of the community participated, information in the form of personal views and experiences’ was exchanged, assisting member’s learning and awareness, since all participants came from different commercial and geographic environments (hospitality, research institution, governmental body, mainland Greece and Aegean islands) and so, their different and new perspectives for the members were exchanged. The discourse activity analysed through the threads represented personal views stemming mainly from work experience of the members. These were considered to be externalised tacit knowledge, read and enhanced by others who first internalised it and then enhanced it by adding their own comments and


395

Table 2 Members’ demographics Age

Gender Geographic location

,20: 2

Male: 71

Mainland Greece: 72

Education High School: 3

Commercial sector MICE: 5

Occupational level Management: 78

21 –30: 39 Female: Northern 50 Greece: 17

Undergraduate: Education: 10 55

Consultants: 18

31 –40: 53

Southern Greece: 17

Postgraduate: 49

Press: 6

Employees: 25

41 –50: 20

Aegean Islands: 15

PhD: 10

Marketing: 6

Vocational Education: 2

Hotels/ Accommodation : 37

51þ: 7

Travel Agents – Tour Operators: 11 Air Travel: 2 Consultants: 7 Governmental organisations: 5 Suppliers: 12 Hospitality: 14 Other: 6

views. The intervention of the administrator, by summarising key points and/ or elaborating on posted messages, aimed to minimise repetitions and guide the discussion in problem identification and the formulation of suggestions (ideas, experience). In other words, the administrator aimed to facilitate dialogue development through scaffolding or mediating discussions. The first discussion topic (Case 1) about the Ministry of Tourism was initiated by disseminating news excerpts where two members of the national parliament and specifically from the opposition party argued that the website of the Greek Ministry of Tourism did not play a significant role in destination promotion. Members of DIALOGOI commented that, although the site had been operating for a number of years ‘simple’ issues such as search engine optimisation did not seem to have been considered when designing and maintaining the Ministry’s website. Members commented on the users’ difficulty to trace the website from a simple Google search. It was suggested that the Ministry ought to cooperate with educational institutions in order to bridge the gap between academia and industry, and to gain scientific information on issues such as search engine optimisation and website design.

396


In terms of knowledge creation, out of 15 posts (Table 3) only one posting reflected tacit knowledge. The posting addressed academic knowledge which more than likely has been obtained from an educational institution or from self-learning. Although this knowledge type does not refer to tacit knowledge, we assume that in order to disseminate, the bearer of such knowledge first needs to internalise and understand it. Moreover, this posting was enhanced by other members’ perspectives and personal experiences, which in turn can be considered as tacit knowledge. The administrator played a critical role in scaffolding the discussion by summarising externalised information into a comprehensive form and omitting repetitions, by providing short posting with the key points, perspectives and ideas addressed in previous discussions. Therefore, this thread covers the following stages of the SECI Model: Socialisation, Externalisation and Combination.

Table 3 Case 1, Ministry of Greek Tourism Demographics Number of participants

6

Number of posts

15

Number of viewings/ readings

2488

Administrator participation

Yes

Discourse life cycle

11 January 2007–14 March 2007

Participants location

Mainland Greece, Crete, North Aegean Islands

Discourse activity Discourse initiator

Administration (news excerpt, question)

Comment type

Enquiry, Secondary data, Suggestion, Summary, Perspective

Response attitude

Positive

Discourse triggers

Question (8 postings), Administrator summary (2 postings)

Outcome

Suggestions (denoting idea generation) Information exchange

Knowledge creation

Explicit knowledge – 4 postings (e.g. secondary data, summary) Tacit knowledge – 1 posting (e.g. perspective, experience, academic knowledge) Other – 10 postings (summaries, questions)


Number of actors – 7

Reciprocity

Number of directed ties – 6 (actors: 3 –5, 3 –4, 3 –2, 5-adminsitrator) Number of reciprocal ties – 2 (actors 3–5, 3–4)

Network density

Level of actor connection – all actors were well connected with each other while others were least (e.g. 2, 4)


397

Figure 2 Case 1: Network

Table 4 Case 2 employee training methods Demographics Number of participants

3

Number of posts

8


1522


Yes


5 December 2007 to 08 March 2007


Mainland Greece, North Aegean Islands


Administration (News excerpt, Question)

Comment type

Summary, perspective, suggestion, enquiry, experience

Response attitude

Positive

Discourse Triggers

Question (2), Administrator summary (2)

Outcome

Suggestions (denoting idea generation) Collection of experiences (could be classed as a knowledge output) Information Exchange

Knowledge creation

Explicit knowledge – 1 posting Tacit knowledge – 3 postings (as in Case 1) Other – 4 postings (questions, summaries)



Reciprocity

Number of directed ties – 10 Number of reciprocal relationships – 6

Network density

Level of actor connection – all actors are connected with each other with more than 2 postings

398


The second discussion topic (Case 2, Table 4) concerned training methods focusing on storytelling. This training method initiated the discussion between the members who commented on the training methods they have experienced themselves and the methods used by their employers. It was interesting to read the views of two members belonging to the academic community. The outcome of this thread and online discussion was a summary of all ideas and useful training methods (such as mentoring, case studies, storytelling and business games) addressing their features, key benefits and implementation tips. This re-packaged knowledge was made available for all enterprises and professionals to use. From a total of 8 postings, 3 referred to tacit knowledge (as in Case 1, experiences, academic knowledge, perspectives/opinions), 1 to explicit knowledge (media excerpts) and 4 covered summaries and questions. As in Case 1, this thread satisfies the Socialisation, Externalisation and Combination knowledge creation stages of the SECI Model. Explicit knowledge triggers the frequent externalisation (via postings) of tacit knowledge embodied in perspectives/opinions or experiences while the administrator groups and summarises explicated knowledge to assist members and their discussion. The third discussion topic (Case 3, Table 5) commented on the changes the Greek tourism sector ought to undertake. The thread was initiated by member who shared his perspective and suggestions for future action. The discussion continued amongst 6 members in total who shared and exchanged various ideas for improving the Greek tourism sector (e.g. development of SMEs clusters, of broadband infrastructure and so on). The administrator’s input enhanced the discussion by summarising key ideas (which minimised the time members had to devote for reading all previous posts) and triggering the discussion by posting additional questions. Out of 17 postings, 7 referred to perspectives/opinions, academic knowledge and experience; 2 to explicit knowledge (news excerpts) and 8 to questions and summaries. Perspectives/opinions, academic knowledge and experience, as commented in Case 1, can refer to tacit knowledge. Although academic knowledge is

Figure 3 Case 2: Network 2


399

Table 5 Case 3, Greek tourism: changes needed Demographics Number of participants

6

Number of posts

15


472


Yes


2 November 2006 to 19 December 2006


Mainland Greece, North Aegean Islands


Member (perspective, question)

Comment type

Perspective, suggestions, experience, literature findings, enquiry, summary, suggestion

Response attitude

Negative

Discourse Triggers

Question (3), administrator summary (2)

Outcome

Information exchange, suggestions

Knowledge creation

Explicit knowledge – 2 postings Tacit knowledge – 7 Other – 8



Reciprocity

Number of directed ties – 10 Number of reciprocal ties – 2

Network density

Level of connection between actors – although the majority of the actors are connected to each, there are strong ties between actors 2–1 and 3-administrator, while 2 actors are not connected to all other actors (e.g. 4, 1)

explicit, the learner needs to internalise it before being able to comment on and reform his perspective and opinion; however experiences are informed from daily actions and explicit knowledge and represent the know how of people, that in most cases is deeply ingrained in ones mind and hence difficult to externalise. Therefore, this thread covers Socialisation, Externalisation and Combination stages of the SECI Model. Through the interaction and externalisation of perspectives/opinions, experiences and academic knowledge, tacit knowledge triggers tacit knowledge. Moreover, news excerpts or other secondary data, triggered the externalisation (via postings) of tacit knowledge (once tacit knowledge is externalised, it becomes explicit knowledge for the rest of thread members). Finally, the administrator combined the externalised information and summarised it in a meaningful and holistic posting to assist the discussion and inform in an efficient way the discourse members.

400


Figure 4 Case 3: Network 2

Social networking capabilities of Threads Investigating the social networking capabilities of the virtual community, the social networks of the threads illustrate the social interactions between the discourse participants. For the purposes of data analysis, directed ties were classed as reciprocal when they explicitly addressed one another by quoting the members username and when direct answers or comments were posted in response to the other member’s comment. In the first case, the network of a size of 6 members discussed about the ‘Ministry of Greek Tourism’ (Network 1). Although the network size was small (6 participants) we observed 2 sets of reciprocal ties between Members 3 – 5 and 3 – 4 (actors with no physical proximity and no previous knowledge of each other). Both sets of reciprocal ties yielded suggestions embodied in ideas (idea generation) after secondary information, summaries and questions had been posted. Through continuous and directed postings (members posting directed messages to other members by referring to their username) the social network showed that strong (based on frequency) relationships emerged between members 3 –5 and 3 – 4, relationships which might continue to exist in other contexts outside the virtual community. Network 2 and 3 illustrated the social interactions between the 3 and 6 members, respectively, who participated in the discussion threads titled ‘Ministry of Greek Tourism’ and ‘Greek Tourism: Changes Needed’. Although the networks were of moderate size (3 and 6 participants), as in Network 1 we observed reciprocal ties between all members (actors with no physical proximity and no previous knowledge of each other) yielding suggestions formulating form of new ideas (i.e. idea generation after secondary information, summaries and questions had been posted and read). Finally, both social networks show strong (based on frequency) relationships emerging between members, relationships that might continue to exist in other contexts outside the virtual community. Findings of users’ perceptions and experiences from online discussions Despite the few responses to the questionnaire, findings did offer insights into the operations and proceedings of the virtual community. Approximately 50% of participants had experienced similar environments while the rest had


401

not; most accessed the community either once a month or once a week (Fridays and Mondays were the most common days); and DIALOGOI was accessed both from home and work. Obtaining information and creating social networks were considered as the most important drivers and motivators for members to access and use the community. Respondents reported that discourse activity was facilitated by their participation in asynchronous communication and the various teasers or triggers posted by the administrator. On the contrary, respondents claimed that their online interaction was hindered by the lack of real-time interactions, lack of time to structure and write their arguments and the fact that there was no anonymity. Respondents also noted that they benefited from their participation in the community since the online exchange of knowledge can enhance and transform their personal opinions, augment their knowledge through the sharing and collection of information, identify colleagues and potential collaborators, identify and read about cutting-edge tourism topics, exchange thoughts and experiences, rethink and challenge their personal opinions, obtain scientific knowledge, receive constructive criticism on opinions and thoughts and understand the theoretical background of various topics. These findings reflect other literature findings such as Loader (1998) who argued that such communication networks offer opportunities ‘for seeking advice, challenging orthodoxy, meeting new minds and constructing ones own sense of self’ (Milne & Callahan, 2006: 109). Members expressed their intention to recommend the community to others, because communication was important, members could obtain constructive criticism and information as well as create and participate in social networks. Finally, the members suggested the maintenance and enhancement of the role of the administrator as well as the involvement of more moderators’ specialising in different topics and fields, being able to lead different discussion threads. Respondents also highlighted the need for the moderators to have a dynamic role, since their intervention and trigger of dialogue with new topics and threads sustained their interest and enhanced their attraction to the virtual forum.

Recommendations and Conclusions When trying to relate findings with Nonaka et al.’s (1996) SECI model, it becomes evident that only three stages of knowledge management are carried out in DIALOGOI: socialisation (members externalise their experience and knowledge in the discussion thread); externalisation (the members articulate their tacit knowledge – work experience, skills and so on – in an explicit form) and combination (the administrator combines the externalised information and knowledge and groups it in a meaningful and holistic posting). There are insufficient findings to support that knowledge management activities related to the fourth stage of the SECI model (internalisation) are carried out. Internalisation (demands the internalisation and transformation of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge) could not be examined by simply studying and observing the online interactions, and so, the study’s findings on knowledge creation are insufficient. To study the latter, one has to conduct a longitudinal investigation as well as examine the behaviour of the members within their organisational context. Thus, a longitudinal study could be implemented in

402


order to track the development of discussion topics, and to interview participants to establish how they used the ideas generated and shared through the online forum. An interesting finding however is related to the fact that all threads lead to the creation of additional ideas and suggestions. These ideas could be applied by professionals and can potentially lead to new or improved business processes. Therefore, one should study the impact of these three discussion topics through a longitudinal study and an application context whereby the newly formed knowledge may be applied. It has also become clear that all three discussions managed to facilitate the transition from information sharing to idea generation via the individual increase of awareness of all participants. From a social network perspective, even though all three discussions were carried out between people who, although have tourism as their common denominator, had limited physical or commercial proximity, and reciprocal relationships emerged. We observed that discussions progressed especially when members acknowledged the posts and comments of other members. In most cases new responses were initiated after their previous post had been acknowledged. Moreover, the ongoing acknowledging of posts led to increased information sharing through experiences, perspectives or critique and enabled idea generation through the creation and provision of suggestions. Therefore, we could agree with Loader’s (1998) perspective that ‘entirely new notions of social action, based not upon proximity and shared physical experience but rather on remote networks of common perceptions may begin to emerge and challenge social structures’ (Milne & Callahan, 2006: 109). Such electronic peer-to-peer environments that connect professionals with similar aspirations and thoughts contribute to the reformation of their social perspectives. Our study corroborates previous findings on the necessity to have individuals administering and moderating online conversations. By summarising and instigating responses through question posting, administrators contribute to a discourse friendly context. From users’ perspectives, it is evident that potential users register in such environments in order to benefit from constructive criticism, extend their commercial social network and get informed about national and international tourism developments and trends. Although the benefits of asynchronous communication coupled with the existence and intervention of an administrator were considered to facilitate the discourse activity, the need to devote time to build an argument, the anonymity of the users and the inability to communicate in real time were found to inhibit members’ participation in online discussions. According to the users’ experience, members would recommend to others to register in the online forum, while members also insisted on the need to have one or many moderators for leading and monitoring the online discussions. Moreover, respondents’ also highlighted the need to frequently update and change the structure of discussion threads and topics, especially because tourism is a very dynamic industry.

Summary and Directions for Future Research The authors attempted to illustrate how information sharing, knowledge creation and learning took place in a peer-to-peer virtual tourism environment.


403

Even though the forum of ‘DIALOGOI’ is still in its early stages of development (12 months of operation), huge progress has been made. Despite tourism’s importance to the Greek economy, the tourism sector has only recently begun to focus on strategic development issues while it has only begun to adopt and deploy Information and Communication Technologies for long-term planning practices. A virtual community that fosters information sharing, knowledge creation and learning in a long-term perspective may serve an important role in externalising and disseminating information amongst the sector. Moreover, due to the diverse nature and the geographical dispersion of Greek Tourism firms, coupled with the dynamic nature and service intensity of tourism, having technological platforms to connect and integrate tourism demand and tourism supply and enable peer learning are imperative for the tourism industry. The authors hope to continue observing and researching ‘DIALOGOI’ while deepen research from a longitudinal perspective since issues such as knowledge creation and learning take place in depth of time. DIALOGOI are currently undertaking a series of modifications to support discourse initiatives. The peer community is changing its look and feel by incorporating a journalistic approach. The community will offer a separate webpage (connected to it) acting as a daily virtual newspaper but adopting an active voice to reporting in the sense of publishing news/information which automatically feeds into the topic section of DIALOGOI. Therefore, DIALOGOI will ensure a daily update of discussion topics, triggering the users’ attention and allowing them to comment on different topical news items, exchange information and generate new ideas. Finally, future research could look into the adoption of the idea generated. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Mr Alexandro Angelopoulo (President of the Council of Ideas and Actions (SID) of the Greek Association of Tourism Enterprises (SETE) and Executive Director of Aldemar Hotels and Spa, for granting us administrator rights and access to the peer-to-peer community of DIALOGOI. Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Kalotina Chalkiti, Interdepartmental Course of Postgraduate Studies ‘Tourism, Planning Management and Policy’, University of the Aegean, Michalon 8, Chios GR-82100, Greece ([email protected]). References Anonymous (2005) A problem shared: Following in the footsteps of Marriott and RitzCarlton. Strategic Direction 21 (5), 15–17. Argyris, C. and Scho¨n, D. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Augustyn, M. and Knowles, T. (2000) Performance of tourism partnerships: A focus on York. Tourism Management 21 (4), 341–351. Bohn, R. (1994) Measuring and managing technological knowledge. Sloan Management Review 36 (1), 61–73.

404


Boisot, M.H. (1998) Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. Boucken, R. and Pyo, S. (2002) Knowledge Management in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry. New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press. Braun, P. and Hollick, M. (2006) Tourism skills delivery: Sharing tourism knowledge online. Education and Training 48 (8&9), 693–703. Bukowitz, W.R. and Williams, R.L. (2000) The Knowledge Management Fieldbook (Revised edn). London: Prentice-Hall. Caddy, I. Guthrie and Petty, R.J. (2001) Managing orphan knowledge: Current Australasian best practice. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 (4), 384–397. Campbell, A.J. (2003) Creating customer knowledge competence: Managing customer relationship management programs strategically. Industrial Marketing Management 32 (5), 375–383. Christou, E. (1999) Hospitality management education in Greece: Overview and qualitative assessment. Tourism Management 20 (6), 683–691. Cook, S. and Yannow, D. (1993) Culture and organisational learning. Journal of Management Enquiry 2 (4), 373–390. Cooper, C. (2006) Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1), 47–64. Davenport, T., Jarvenpaa, S. and Beers, M. (1996) Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan Management Review 37 (4), 53–65. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000) Working Knowledge. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press. Davis, S. and Botkin, J. (1994) The coming of knowledge-based business. Harvard Business Review September, 165–170. Driscoll, M.P. (2000) Psychology of Learning for Instruction (2nd edn). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Du Plessis, M. (2005) Drivers of knowledge management in the corporate environment. International Journal of Information Management 25, 193–202. Fullick, P. (2006) Synchronous web based communication using text as a means of enhancing discussion among school students. Campus-Wide Information Systems 23 (3), 159–170. Gamble, P., Chalder, M. and Stone, M. (2001) Customer knowledge management in the travel industry. Journal of Vacation Marketing 7 (1), 83–91. Garrison, D.R. (2003) Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne and J.C. Moore (eds) Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction. Volume 4 in the Sloan C Series, Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Gourlay, S.N. (2003) The SECI model of knowledge creation: Some empirical shortcomings. In F. McGrath and D. Remenyi (eds) Fourth European Conference on Knowledge Management (pp. 377–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gretzel, U. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2004) Implementing a knowledge-based tourism marketing information system: The Illinois Tourism Network. International Journal of Information Technology and Tourism 6 (4), 245–255. Halme, M. (2001) Learning for sustainable development in tourism networks. Business Strategy and the Environment 10 (2), 100–114. Henri, F. and Pudelko, B. (2003) Understanding and analysing activity and learning in virtual communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19 (4), 474–487. Hjalager, A.-M. (2002) Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management 23 (5), 465–474. Ho, C.H. and Swan, K. (2007) Evaluating online conversation in an asynchronous learning environment: An application of Grice’s cooperative principle. Internet and Higher Education 10 (1), 3–14. Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Calantone, R.J. (2006) Knowledge as a strategic resource in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 24 (5), 458–475. Kakabadse, N., Kakabadse, A. and Kouzmin, A. (2003) Reviewing the knowledge management literature: Towards a taxonomy. Journal of Knowledge Management 7 (4), 75–91.


405

Klenosky, D.B and Gitelson, R. (1998) Travel agents’ destination recommendations. Annals of Tourism Research 25 (3), 661–674. Koskinen, K. and Vanharanta, H. (2002) The role of tacit knowledge in innovation processes of small technology companies. International Journal of Production Economics 80 (1), 57–64. Loader, B.D. (1998) Cyberspace divide: Equality, agency and policy in the information society. In B. Loader (ed.) Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency and Policy in the Information Society (pp. 3–16). New York and London: Routledge. Lubit, R. (2001) Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to sustainable competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics 29 (3), 164–178. Mertins, K., Heisig, P. and Vorbeck, J. (2000) KM Best Practices in Europe. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Millen, D.R. and Droy, S. (1999) Information Sharing in an Online Community of Journalists. Proceedings of Esprit i3 Workshop: Ethnography Studies in Real and Virtual Environments: Inhabited Information Spaces and Connected Communities, January 25–26, Edinburgh, UK. Milne, P. and Callahan, S.D. (2006) ActKM: The story of a community. Journal of Knowledge Management 10 (1), 108–118. Morrison, A. (1994) Marketing strategic alliances: The small hotel firm. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 6 (3), 25–30. Morrison, A. (1996) Small firm strategic marketing alliances, IAHMS Spring Symposium, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds. Morrison, A. (1998) Small firm co-operative marketing in a peripheral tourism region. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10 (5), 191–197. Morrison, A., Lynch, P.A. and Johns, N. (2004) International tourism networks. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 16 (3), 198–204. Moutinho, L., Rita, P. and Curry, B. (1996) Expert Systems in Tourism Marketing. New York: Routledge. Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K. and Senoo, D. (1996) From information processing to knowledge creation: A paradigm shift in business management. Technology in Society 18 (2), 203–218. O’Dell, C. and Jackson Grayson, C. (1998) If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of International Knowledge and Best Practice. New York: The Free Press. Olsen, M.D. and Connolly, D.J. (2000) Experience-based travel: How technology is changing the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly February, 30–40. Oslo Manual (2005) Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd edn). Organisation for economic co-operation and development statistical office of the European Communities. Pechlaner, H., Abfalter, D. and Raich, F. (2002) Cross-border destination management systems in the Alpine region – the role of knowledge networks on the example of AlpNet. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism 3 (3&4), 89–107. Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology, and Competitive Strategies. Wallingford: Cab International. Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997) Knowledge management: A strategic agenda. Long Range Planning 30 (3), 385–391. Ramesh, B. and Tiwana, A. (1999) Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams. Decision Support Systems 27 (2), 213–235. Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Ruhanen, L. and Cooper, C. (2003a) Developing a knowledge management approach to tourism research. Tedqual (pp. 9–13). Geneva: A World Trade Organization Themis Publication. Ruhanen, L. and Cooper, C. (2003b) The Use of Strategic Visioning to Enhance Local Tourism Planning in Periphery Communities. Proceedings of the Taking Tourism to the Limits Conference, December 8–11, Hamilton, New Zealand: The University of Waikato.

406


Salomann, H., Dous, M., Kolbe, L. and Brenner, W. (2005) Rejuvenating customer management. European Management Journal 23 (4), 392–403. Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organisation. New York: Doubleday. Sigala, M. (2004a) Investigating the factors determining e-learning effectiveness in tourism and hospitality education. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 16 (2), 11–21. Sigala, M. (2004b) Collaborative supply chain management in the airline sector: The role of Global Distribution Systems (GDS). Advances in Hospitality and Leisure 1 (1), 103–121. Sigala, M. (2005a) Integrating customer relationship management in hotel operations: Managerial and operational implications. International Journal of Hospitality Management 24 (3), 391–413. Sigala, M. (2007) New Product Development Processes in Tourism Clusters: A Knowledge Management Approach. Proceedings at the Annual International Council for Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education (I-CHRIE) Convention ‘Hospitality and Tourism Education as Big as Texas’, July 25–29, Dallas, Texas, USA. Sigala, M. and Chalkiti, K. (2007a) Improving performance through tacit knowledge externalization and utilization: Preliminary findings from Greek hotels. International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management 56 (5&6), 456–483. Sigala, M. and Chalkiti, K. (2007b) New service development: Preliminary findings on process development and assessment from the Greek hotels. Advances in Hospitality and Leisure 3 (1), 131–153. Spender, J.C. and Grant, R.M. (1996) Knowledge and the firm: An overview. Strategic Management Journal 17 (1), 3–9. Spiceland, J. and Hawkins, C. (2002) The impact on learning of an asynchronous active learning course format. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6 (1), 68–75. Stamboulis, Y. and Skayannis, P. (2003) Innovation strategies and technology for experience based tourism. Tourism Management 24 (1), 35–43. Streatfield, D. and Wilson, T.D. (1999) Deconstructing knowledge management. Aslib Proceedings 51 (3), 67–71. Tax, S. and Stuart, I. (1997) Designing and implementing news services: The challenges of integrating service systems. Journal of Retailing 73 (1), 105–134. Tiwana, A. (2000) The Essential Guide to Knowledge Management. London: Prentice Hall. Van Baalen, P.J., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M. and Van Heck, E. (2005) Knowledge Sharing in an Emerging Network of. Practice: The Role of a Knowledge Portal, ERIM Report (Series Reference No. ERS-2005-003-LIS). Wiig, K.M. (1997) Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications 13 (1), 1–14. Wijekumar, K. and Spielvogel, J. (2006) Intelligent discussion boards: Promoting deep conversations in asynchronous discussion boards through synchronous support. Campus-wide Information Systems 23 (3), 221–232. Woo, Y. and Reeves, T. (2007) Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education 10 (1), 15–25. Yin, R. (1993) Applications of Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.