Mobilizing Intellectual Bandwidth in a Distributed Virtual ... - IEEE Xplore

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

Mobilizing Intellectual Bandwidth in a Distributed Virtual Organization: The Missing Links Ҙ

Sajda Qureshi Department of Information Systems and Quantitative Analysis College of Information Systems &Technology University of Nebraska Omaha [email protected]

Arthur de Leeuw Valeriusstraat 241 B, 1075 GA, Amsterdam [email protected]

Abstract The rise of distributed collaborative environments has brought about new opportunities for bringing together the experience and skills of geographically dispersed employees towards joint goals. However, the extent to which collaborative technologies can be used to mobilise distributed knowledge and skills remains illusive. The Intellectual Bandwidth model posits that an organization’s potential to create value is determined by its intellectual assets and collaboration capabilities. While this is a powerful assertion, and has been demonstrated theoretically, the link between the mobilisation of intellectual resources through collaborative technologies has yet to be linked in practise. This paper investigates the use of collaborative technologies in a distributed organization and provides insight into the processes that enable intellectual bandwidth to be mobilised. Its contribution lies in uncovering the missing links between collaboration and the use of knowledge resources to create value.

1. Introduction Organizations increasingly see their intellectual assets as strategic resources that can be harnessed and managed effectively to achieve competitive advantage and to survive. An organisation’s intellectual assets consist of the knowledge held in the minds of its members, embodied in its procedures and processes, and stored in its digital and non-digital media that could be useful for achieving its strategic ends (Zack 1999). Intellectual assets are also seen to be the sum of everything people in an organization know that gives it a competitive edge (Stewart 1997). With its strategic intellectual resources, an organization can minimise its costs, create innovative products, improve production procedures, improve quality, respond to dynamic market conditions, and improve customer service. At the same time, effective performance and growth of knowledge intensive organizations requires integrating and sharing knowledge that is otherwise highly distributed (Zack 1999). Therein lies a challenge. Distributed knowledge is often

personalized, residing in isolated pockets and communities within and outside of the organization. Qureshi and Keen (2005) suggest that while an organization’s intellectual capital may be its most valuable asset, it may also be its least-accessible resource. Many organizations have a tradition of hoarding knowledge. This creates an obstacle that prevents knowledge management efforts from being a complete success (Hibbard and Carrillo 1998). Further, Vance (1997) suggests that the reason information and knowledge may not be easily transferred from the holder to the person needing it may be because much of it is tacit, ingrained in the holder’s mind, but difficult to articulate. A key to creating value from intellectual capital is the ability to activate knowledge, bringing it out into the collaborative arena (Qureshi and Keen 2005). Collaboration among experts enables knowledge to be activated. Nunamaker et al. (2001) and Qureshi et al. (2002) suggest that an organization’s potential to create value through its intellectual capital is bounded by the extent to which its knowledge resources can be made accessible, and. to the extent that its members can collaborate to bring that knowledge to bear on the task at hand. Tallon et al. (2000) add that there are critical business activities within a firm’s value system that affect its ability to create value. These include aspects of production, logistics, sales, marketing, customer service, and administrative support often illustrated within the context of a value chain. All these activities require collaboration between people and units for the organization to be able to harness the intellectual resources contained in its diverse and dispersed activities. Huber (1991) suggests a collection of activities for managing knowledge: knowledge acquisition and assimilation, dissemination and sharing, and utilization. Alavi and Leidner (1999) identify an emerging line of information systems referred to as Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) that target professional and managerial activities by focusing on creating, gathering, organizing and disseminating an organization's "knowledge" as opposed to "information" or "data". Schultze and Leidner (2002) add that collaborative technologies as well as knowledge bases,

0-7695-2507-5/06/$20.00 (C) 2006 IEEE

1

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

repositories and search engines can be seen as technological solutions for managing an organization’s stock of knowledge. In addition, Hibbard and Carrillo (1998) believe the information technology that supports knowledge management, such as data mining, groupware, document management and search and retrieval, are widely available and already exist in many companies. Organizational memory information systems have been important to organizations as it is recognized that knowledge is a key component to competitiveness (Stein and Zwass, 1995). Developments in collaborative technology are increasingly focusing on enabling diverse and distributed teams to come together. This means that instead of bringing groups together in a meeting room equipped with computers, people can accomplish some kinds of tasks online in virtual workspaces. This type of electronic collaboration has become a powerful means of capturing, exchanging, exploiting, and managing knowledge. In this way, electronic collaboration becomes instrumental in harnessing an organisation’s intellectual capital. The combination of the organization’s ability to access knowledge and to use it collaboratively is said to be its intellectual bandwidth (Nunamaker et al., 2001, 2002; Qureshi et al., 2002; Qureshi and Briggs, 2003). The Intellectual Bandwidth model is a powerful concept in enabling a better understanding of how distributed intellectual resources may be mobilized. However, it is as yet unclear as to how collaboration technologies actually enable knowledge to be mobilized in practice. There appears to be a missing link affecting the mobilization of knowledge in practice. This paper investigates the use of collaborative technologies to mobilize dispersed intellectual assets in a distributed organization. The question investigated in this paper is: to what extent can intellectual bandwidth be mobilized using collaboration technologies? Three globally dispersed teams within a multinational Dutch beer manufacturer are investigated using their email archives, electronic group interactions and a survey designed to elicit answers to constructs derived from the Intellectual Bandwidth (IB) Model (Nunamaker et al. 2001). The following sections describe the methodology used to assess IB, report on the results of this research and analyze the extent to which the collaborative technologies enable IB to be mobilized. This paper concludes with lessons learned, and implications for research and practice.

2. Methodology for Assessing Intellectual Bandwidth An organization’s Intellectual Bandwidth is its ability to mobilize intellectual assets to create value (Nunamaker et al. 2001, 2002, Qureshi et al. 2002, and refer to special issue of JMIS on Intellectual Bandwidth, vol 17 no 3.). An organisation’s Intellectual Bandwidth (IB) is its ability to bring its intellectual capital to bear on the tasks at hand.

(Nunamaker, et al, 2001). According to this model, the higher is an organization’s intellectual bandwidth, the higher would be its potential to create value. In order to create value organizations would aim maximize their intellectual bandwidth. By leveraging the creation and use of their intellectual assets organizations can maximize their intellectual bandwidth. It is believed that by leveraging the creation and use of intellectual assets new levels of organizational effectiveness can be attained (Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Drucker (1999), Quinn (1992). Venkatraman and Henderson (1998:34) add that "information technology now enables knowledge and expertise to become drivers of value creation and organizational effectiveness". Yet major challenges remain to 1) recognize the existence of the knowledge assets, 2) tap into these resources as and when needed and 3) use these resources to support key organizational processes such as sourcing, planning, and execution. Since the effective performance and growth of knowledge intensive organizations requires integrating and sharing highly distributed knowledge Zack (1999), and this knowledge is also seen to form the core competence of the intelligent enterprise and has to be supported if the organization is to remain competitive Quinn (1992), it is important to assess it. The intellectual bandwidth model provides an intuitive framework for measuring the extent to which an organization can create value from its intellectual assets. The intellectual bandwidth model posits that there are two key components of intellectual bandwidth: these are Understanding and Interdependence. The intellectual bandwidth model suggests that understanding consists of data, information, knowledge and wisdom. Many authors refer to data as raw facts or simple observations about the state of the world; information is data in some context, or with some kind of human interpretation applied; and knowledge is information with guidance for action, that is, knowing how to act given the information (Davenport and Prusak 1998, Tuomi 2000, Courtney 2001, Sowell 1980). This is consistent with the definitions used by Nunamaker et al (2002) who add wisdom to the hierarchy of understanding. Qureshi and Briggs (2003) add to this hierarchy of understanding by suggesting that data is the understanding of symbols, information is understanding the relationships among symbols in the context in which they are presented, knowledge is understanding the patterns in the context from which they emerge and Wisdom is Understanding Principles or causes and consequences inferred by recognizing useful principles that emerge as one considers patterns within knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the Intellectual Bandwidth Model:

2

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

U n d e r s t a n d in g W is d o m In te lle c tu a l B a n d w id th O rg a n iza tio n Z

K n o w le d g e IB S u p p o r t p ro v id e d b y T e c h n o lo g y X

I n fo r m at io n IB R e q u ir e d b y T e a m Y

D a ta

In d i v id u a l

C o l le c te d

C o o rd i n a te d

C o n c e rt e d

In te rd e p e n d e n c e o f E ffo r ts

Figure 1: Revised Model of Intellectual Bandwidth (Qureshi and Briggs (2003) The vertical axis represents a hierarchy of understanding. The horizontal axis represents a continuum of the interdependence of efforts required for a team to succeed. The continuum of interdependence is the degree to which the efforts of team members must be interdependent in order for the team to succeed (Qureshi and Briggs 2003). It consists of the Individual Work Mode in which people work independently of others, the Collective Work Mode in which team work involves the simple sum of individual work, Coordinated Work Mode involves managing sequential interdependencies between individual activities and Concerted Work Mode which all members work in concert to produce a joint deliverable. In order to mobilize distributed intellectual assets, collaborative environments normally involve virtual teams that communicate within and among network organisations (Archer and Wang, 2002). Such distributed teams will that need to be assisted by management, trained for the task, and collaborate on beneficial tasks. A related development affecting the need to bring together diverse distributed knowledge towards achieving joint goals is the virtualization of the workplace also known as the virtual organization. Virtual organizations appear to have arisen, as the Internet became more accessible for communication and sharing of expertise. The virtual organization is seen to be a temporary network of independent companies linked by information technology to share skills, costs and access to each others' markets (Byrne 1993), a dynamic alliance of organizations that carry in complementary competencies and resources, a strategic approach focused on creating, nurturing and deploying key intellectual and knowledge assets while sourcing tangible, physical assets in a complex network of organizations (Venkatraman and Henderson 1998), or the management of a goal-oriented virtually organized activity (Mowshowitz 1994). Technologies for collaboration appear to enable the sharing and use of distributed knowledge within such virtual organizations. Developments in collaborative technology are increasingly focusing on multi-locational technology. This means that instead of bringing groups together in an

electronic meeting room, the electronic meeting facility can move to places where groups can meet - cyberspace. This type of electronic collaboration has become a powerful means of capturing, exchanging, and managing personalised organisational knowledge. In this way, electronic collaboration becomes instrumental in capitalising on an organisation’s intellectual capital. Nunamaker et al., (2001) and Qureshi et al., (2002) suggest that an organisation’s potential to create value through the use of its intellectual capital is affected by the extent to which collaborative activities can take place. For optimum collaborative knowledge management activities, organisations must seek collaborative support that extends the electronic meeting room into an electronic meeting space, enabling any time any place collaboration. According to Courtney et al (1998) a good telecommunications network which supports electronic and voice mail, GroupWare, integrated databases, multimedia presentations, graphical user interfaces, and client server architectures can greatly enhance the ease with which knowledge can be acquired, shared, compared and used. In order to measure the Intellectual Bandwidth (IB) of an organization or its parts of it, the creation shared understanding needs to be assessed in the light of the hierarchy of understanding and collaboration in the light of the interdependencies described above. Concepts within the hierarchy of understanding and continuum of interdependencies were measured through questionnaires on a five point scale, observations of communication and task descriptions of virtual team members. Interdependences were assessed through documents, such as letters, memos, minutes of meetings, and “zero-phase” documents, outlining work processes, roles and responsibilities of the team members. Informal conversation and open-ended interviews with team members and team leaders enabled task interdependencies to be ascertained. The email archive of each team was analyzed to ascertain levels off understanding and interdependency. Measuring the intellectual bandwidth in an organization that relies on collaboration technologies to manage its intellectual assets, needs to consider technology use in more detail.

3. The Research Setting Heineken N.V. is the world's most international brewing group, with operations in more than 170 countries. In 2001, total beer volume of the Heineken Group amounted to 105.1 million hectoliters beer, ensuring the Group's second place in world rankings. The Group volume comprises the volume of beer sold by the consolidated companies and the Heineken beers that are brewed and sold by third parties under license. Its beer production is based at more than 110 breweries in over 50 countries. Heineken applies a decentralized management model. The organization is

3

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

segmented geographically and the managerial decisionmaking is decentralized. The Operating Companies (OpCo’s) and Corporate Staff departments within the Heineken Group work within a clear framework set by the Executive Board and these OpCo’s all bear responsibility for their results. This policy helps to speed up the decision-making process and keeps the OpCo’s closer to the markets. However, the risks of this policy are that the OpCo spend time, resources and energy creating their own islands of knowledge. If this knowledge and expertise could be shared between OpCo’s, the numerous cases of 're-inventing the wheel' could be minimized and the quality of sourcing, planning and production processes could be increased. In addition, by creating networks between the OpCos, the problem of ‘reinventing the wheel’ could be addressed. These networks would them be supported through collaborative technologies to assist in knowledge mobilization on a daily basis without having to travel to a central location.

4. The Virtual Teams In an effort to manage the knowledge duplication dilemma, Heineken University was established ‘To add value to the competitive advantage of the Heineken NV by inspiring people who are directly and indirectly linked to the organization in order to create, to diffuse and to apply knowledge. Hieneken University acts as a facilitator that structures and offers expertise on learning processes. The objectives of Heineken University were (1) to offer expertise, encourage and help Heineken employees to create and share knowledge and (2) to avoid a situation where every individual OpCo ‘re-invents the wheel’, where the knowledge and experience is available. In April 30 2000, Heineken University implemented virtual teams to create a “Virtual Learning Network” for the African cluster. This set of three “pilot” teams consists of several employees within the area of Human Resources located in different African countries. The Kumbaya Connection virtual team was set up with the intention of improving the process of knowledge creation, stimulating and creating the flow of knowledge and information within the group and the exchange of experience between various OpCos. The two other teams consisted of participants of a Heineken University course called Brewing Talent. Each of the three teams had a clear division of roles, which are fulfilled by the team members. There was a shared leadership between two project leaders, there was one administrator who was responsible for the storage and cleaning of files, and also for the planning of the conference calls and three remaining members were active members. Questionnaires were administered to all the members of the teams. Almost all team members responded.

The main objective of the Kumbaya Connection was to create a common approach to Human Resources activities in all different regions in Africa. The Kumbaya Connection started with eight team members but has grown during the last year to 20 members. Most of these members were employees from the cluster Africa. The countries of origin are Nigeria (2x), Ghana (3x), Congo (4x), Chad (1x), Burundi (1x), Rwanda (1x), Angola (1x), and Ile de la Reunion (1x). There were also some members from European countries like the Netherlands (4x), Greece (1x), and France (1x). Most of the team members were within the function of Human Resources. Other functions present were Training/Learning Consultant. The goal of the Kumbaya Connection was to enhance knowledge creation and mobilization within a group, exchange of best practices, exchange information on how to avoid pitfalls, create synergy between the organization and the solving of problems, innovation and creativity, and exposure to new ways in learning / development. Prior to virtual team interaction, the Kumbaya Connection had three face-to-face meetings. The first physical meeting was held in Accra (Ghana) and the main objective of this meeting was that the members got to know each other, build trust and understanding, and become clear on the teams’ task and their roles in that task. For each of these subjects some exercises were created, in which the team members participated. This meeting took three days, and ended with some assignments for the members. After each face-to-face meeting, the team members were assigned collaborative work with team members. Members of the Kumbaya Connection sent 176 email messages during the period April 30th 2000 until January 31st 2002. 53 of the 176 email messages had content related to the purpose and goals of the team. These task-related messages were equally spread over the period, but peaked at moments several days before the next face-to-face meeting was scheduled. 59 of the total email messages had an administrative character. This meant that the topic of these messages did not directly involve the daily work or task of the team. In the Kumbaya Connection these types of messages mostly enclose subjects like announcements of new members, and passing through flight schedules and hotel reservations. 19 messages had a more social character. No more then four email messages were technical related. The main subject was how to use one of the tools that YahooGroups offered. The remaining 41 email messages were not relevant to the team's task. The content of the irrelevant email messages was about the introduction of new interns, filling in the interns’ questionnaire, error reports, and sending mails by accident.

4.2 The Brewing Talent Teams 4. 1 The Kumbaya Connection

The purpose of the Brewing Talent Teams was to develop the future Heineken leaders who would focus on

4

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

developing two key objectives: (1) Guarantee sustainable growth and (2) keep the (Heineken) Brand young. The teams operated as part of the Brewing Talent course which included workshops, e learning, involvement in real business projects, meetings with innovators and learning from prominent business leaders. The process was monitored, supported and sponsored by the Executive Board and Heineken’s senior executives. The main objective of the teams was to develop recommendations for the process by which commercial excellence in beverage wholesalers could be achieved. Upon completion of the project, the teams would report their recommendations to be presented to the Beverage Wholesaling Steering Committee. Eleven Heineken employees were selected to participate in the Brewing Talent course. These participants were divided into two teams; the CU Team and Bang1. Most of the members were active in the commercial field. Nevertheless, there also were members who are active in Human Resources, Production, and Logistics. There was a clear difference between the field the members worked in during their daily work and the subject of the project. Next to that, it was clear that the subject of the project was of added value for the members, when used in practice. Three physical, or face-to-face, meetings were planned during the “Brewing Talent” period. The first meeting module was a five-day program that was held during 3 – 7 September 2001. This first face-to-face was primarily used to build trust. Between the physical meetings the team members (of both teams) could only interact by using the electronic tools on hand, or by telephone conferencing. 4.2.1. The CU Team This virtual team consisted of five team members from four different countries. The countries of origin are Spain, Nigeria, Netherlands (2x), and Ghana. The participants are from different functional backgrounds like Commercial (3x), Logistics, and Production. The members of the CU Team sent 355 email messages during the period of September 12th 2001 until February 22nd 2002. The 355 email messages sent by the CU Team are also divided in the five categories: Task Related, Administrative, Social – Relational, Technical and Irrelevant. The CU Team sent 126 messages that were task related. These messages, containing content directly related to the objectives of the team, were sent throughout the period, but peaked just before a conference call was planned, and especially peaked the two weeks before the deadline of the project. Of the total messages there were 105 email messages containing administrative or indirect task relating content. 76 Email messages contained social-relational content. There few technical questions or problems. Only 4 of the 355 messages contained technical related content. These technical messages were sent at the start of the project period. The remaining 43 messages contained no relevant information.

4.2.2. Bang 1 Team The Bang1 Team consisted of six members with different functional backgrounds and different nationalities. The functional backgrounds were Commercial (4) and Production (2). The members’ countries of origin were France, Nigeria, Greece, Italy, Ghana, and the Netherlands. The members of the Bang1 team sent 165 email messages during the period of September 10th 2001 until February 22nd 2002. When all email messages sent were categorized into five different categories, the following figures are the result. Of the total amount of 165 emails 64 were directly related to the objective of the team. Just as the other two teams these messages, containing content directly related to the objectives of the team, were sent throughout the period, but peaked just before a conference call or face-to-face was planned. Of the total of 165, 51 email messages have a more administrative character. For building a relation between the team members of just for socializing 28 messages were used. Four messages were sent with some sort of technical problem or question. Of the 165, 18 messages contained an error or content of some kind with no relevance to the team or the team’s objective at all. Further results and analysis of this study are described in the following sections.

5. Results and Analysis This section describes the results of the open interviews, observations and analysis of email archives. This data is analyzed using the concepts from the IB model described in Table 1 in the ensuing sections. The analysis sheds light into the ways in which knowledge can and cannot be mobilized through collaboration technologies.

5.1. Collaboration Tools Used The shared workspace or virtual environment used by the three teams is an online groupware application, called “YahooGroups”. Although it is free, this does not mean there is a lack of existing tools. YahooGroups offers possibilities for the three virtual teams to use groupware tools that were synchronous as well as asynchronous. YahooGroups’ chat tool enabled real time conferencing. In addition to a chat tool, which also had an audio option, each member has a telephone on their desk that can be used for audio / telephone conferencing. YahooGroups offered the option to send the same email message to all team members at the same time by using a group address. All messages sent were automatically stored and archived. By using keywords certain messages can be searched for in the archive. Group calendars and schedules were used for calendaring and scheduling events, meetings, and deadlines. The calendar was shown at the homepage of the team, so it is clear what tasks or events are planned. Knowledge repositories were created for storing documents, pictures, and photo’s. Files were uploaded and read or looked at online. In addition to the storing of files there, was a tool to create and maintain databases, for example a database

5

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

containing addresses of team members or customers. Other tools available in YahooGroups to the group members were publishing tools for links (bookmarks), sending newsletters, organizing voting polls, and a clear overview of the team members. The following table illustrates the tools that were used by the different team members and for what purpose. Table 1 Collaboration Tools Used

Chat Email Calendar Files Database Bookmarks News letter Poll

Kumbaya Connection × ¥ × ¥ ¥ ¥ × ×

CU Team

Bang 1

¥ ¥ × ¥ × ¥ × ¥

× ¥ × ¥ × × × ×

Telephone conferencing was used frequently and is the key to the success of the CU team and the Bang1 Team according to the team members. During these telephone conferences the team process was discussed, actions were evaluated, and a new planning was made. 5.2 Level of Collaboration using the Tools The questionnaire results reveal several insights into the way in which the above collaboration tools were used. The analysis in this section suggests that the use of collaboration tools was flexible and dependent upon the dynamics of each group. The respondents had the flexibility to choose between video conferencing, email, group mail, calendar and schedule, telephone conferencing, chat, electronic message board, or any other tool that they could specify. In particular, it appears that the tools enabled existing collaboration processes to be further enacted on the electronic spaces. When asked “What collaborative technologies did you use to communicate and work with your colleagues?”, all the respondents mentioned email and the possibility of sending a “group mail” were important tools and were used a lot. All team members of the CU and Bang 1 team also mentioned telephone conferencing as the most important type of groupware application. The Kumbaya members mentioned email (Lotus Notes) and “group mail” as the most important tools that are used. Only one of the Kumbayans mentioned the telephone. The members of the Kumbaya Connection used several of the YahooGroups tools. The team members used the tool to upload and save files online a few times. After each of the three face-to-face meetings some files, mainly text files, were uploaded. These text files were mostly summaries of the topics discussed during the meetings. For each OpCo that participated in this

virtual team a folder was created. None of the members who belonged to one of the OpCos used this folder to upload a file. The tool to create and maintain databases was used to create a database with contact information of each team member, but also a database to show all planned and given courses for the cluster Africa was created. Besides email, the Bang1 Team used the option to store and upload files. They used this tool only to store documents, which were of relevance to the project, like summary of interviews and meetings. No personal information about the team members was found. Instead of using the bookmark tool to place links, the members of the Bang1 Team published any interesting links by email. In addition, just like the CU Team, this team used scheduled dates for telephone conferencing. When asked, “To what extent has the choice of collaborative technology enabled you to interact as a global virtual team?”, all participants, except three, the collaborative technology (YahooGroups) enabled global virtual collaboration to a large (31.25 %) or very large (50 %) extent. The remaining three respondents (one Brewing Talent member, and two Kumbayans) answered with “average”. In addition, when it was suggested that “Without collaboration applications (like YahooGroups) a virtual team can’t operate successfully”, 62.5 % of the respondents agreed that such applications are a necessity for successful virtual teaming. 25 % even strongly agreed with this statement. One of the Kumbaya members disagreed and one of the Bang 1 members answered neutral. In addition, the participants were able communicate well with each other on the collaborative spaces. When they were suggested that, “Communication between members of my team and me has been very good”, nine members of the Brewing Talent teams agreed (60 %) or strongly agreed (30 %). Only one person answered neutral to this question. Of the Kumbaya members one disagreed, two were neutral, two agreed, and one member strongly agreed. While the participants agreed that the collaboration technologies were essential in enabling them to interact with each other successfully as a global team, and communicate well, a lot of time was spent using these technologies to socialize. For the statement, “I spend a lot of time on our group’s virtual collaborative space to socialize and get to know my colleagues better”, 66.67 % strongly disagreed, and 33.33 % disagreed. The Brewing Talent participants are more divided; 40 % agrees with this statement, 30 % answered with neutral, and another 30 % answered they disagreed. It appears from the analysis thus far that the collaboration tools were useful in enabling the participants to interact with each other. However, it is as yet not clear how this interaction on the electronic spaces actually enabled knowledge to be mobilized - or used to create value for the organization. The following sections examine this missing link by analyzing the data using the IB concepts.

6

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

6. The Missing Links This section examines the connection between the collaboration processes and tools and knowledge mobilization. The IB concepts illustrated in table 1, are used to categorize the results from the observations, emails and questionnaires. The following subsections reflect these categories as derived from the IB model. The analysis uncovers the factors that bring about effective use of intellectual resources to attain organizational objectives knowledge mobilization. 6.1 Individual The IB model suggests that the Individual work mode is the first basic component of collaboration. In the individual work mode people not currently working toward an agreed joint goal, but who create value through efforts independent of all others can be said to be working in individual mode. A programmer working independently to produce a report generator for an internal database may be working in Individual mode. Productivity is measured in terms of the deliverables of the individual (Nunamaker et al. 2001, 2002). Individual participants of the Kumbaya and Brewing Talent teams, worked according to rules that were clear and simple. During the project period the members of the two Brewing Talent teams became more flexible with respect to the rules, because the team members felt they could rely on each other. As their individual work modes developed, different levels of participation emerged. Only the eight Kumbaya team members that were actively involved from the start of the African Virtual Learning Network were invited. The response was 75 %, which means six Kumbaya members filled in the questionnaire. The answers that were given by the respondents are described as percentages. 75 % of the total group of respondents agreed with the statement that giving and receiving feedback is important for the level of trust within a virtual team. One of the Kumbaya members disagreed, two answered “neutral”. One of the Bang 1 Team members also answered “neutral”. This finding is in accordance with that of Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999) who found that virtual team develop trust quickly in order to get the job done. 6.2 Collective The second form of collaboration assumed by the IB model is the Collective Work Mode. This is based on Pooled interdependency which occurs where team members agree to work toward a joint goal, but each member’s efforts are independent of the efforts of other team members (Thompson 1967). This mode is used when the efforts of a single individual cannot produce sufficient value to achieve a goal. No coordination among members is required for the individuals to be productive. Team productivity measured as the aggregated sum of individual efforts. The only

interdependency among team members is the joint goal. Data entry clerks work in this mode. In examining the level of collective efforts that took place in the teams, the participants were asked to respond to the statement: “Our first priority (action) was to discover the purpose of our team”. Of all the members of the Kumbaya Connection, 50 % agreed with the statement, 33.33 % answered with “strongly agree”. One respondent answered “neutral”, without any explanation. From the 10 Brewing Talent participants 6 (60%) answered, “Agree” and 3 (30%) answered, “Strongly agree” to this question. Just one of these participants answered “Neutral” to this question; he explained the first action was “to get the job done as effective as possible”. This suggests that there was collective effort. The participants were asked to respond to the statement: “During the process of creating the team objective, stakeholders (like managers) should be involved.” Of the total respondents 62.5 % agreed with this statement and 25 % strongly agreed with this need for involvement of their managers. 12.5 % answered “neutral”, which are two members of the Bang 1 Team. According to these two members, it does not matter if management is involved. In addition, for the statement: “A shared method of working is equally or more important than a shared workspace”, all participants agreed (68.75 %) or even strongly agreed (18.75 %) with this statement. Only two respondents answered differently from the rest. One member (6.25%) of the Bang 1 Team answered with “disagree”. One Kumbaya member (6.25 %) answered “neutral” to this question. This suggests that there was a congenial atmosphere between management and employees thus making it easier for participants to share their knowledge. The collaborative processes for working together enabled the shared spaces to be used to achieve joint objectives. 6.3 Coordination The third form of collaboration assumed by the IB model is the Coordinated Work Mode. Coordinated work involves managing interdependencies of deliverables, quality, and schedule among individual activities. This is represented by sequential interdependency (Thompson 1967). Team members working in this mode still make individual efforts, but the success of some members depends on the timely receipt of good-quality deliverables produced by other members. Therefore, the success of the team depends on their ability to coordinate the timing of their efforts and the quality of their deliverables. Synergy is possible through specialization as team members apply their unique skills and talents to the parts of the task where they are most needed. The members of the CU team and the Bang 1 team developed tight plans of when and what part of the final deliverables should be finished. In this planning the team members agreed on what task every individual was responsible for, and when the next conference call was

7

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

scheduled. This tight planning, the continuous process of giving and receiving feedback, and creating a zero phase document that clearly outlined the framework of the project, formed the key element of the working method of the Brewing Talent teams. Within the Kumbaya team there was no division of tasks nor was there any form of a tight planning. According to 56.25 % (both “Agree” and “Strongly agree”) of the respondents a tight planning contributed to a sufficient level of trust. Five of the respondents answered “Neutral”. Three of these were members of the Kumbaya Connection. Two of the Kumbaya members answered they disagree. It is not surprising that the Kumbaya members not answered “Agree” to this question. The reason is not that they think a tight planning does not contribute to the needed level of trust, as the Kumbaya Team never worked according to a tight planning. All the participants found the statement: “Dividing work in tasks is necessary for a successful virtual team” to be true. The total of 16 respondents answered unanimously to this question. 56.25 % answered, “agree” to this question; 43.75% answered with “strongly agree”. Of the total respondents 62.5 % agreed with this statement and 25 % strongly agreed with this need for involvement of their managers. 12.5 % answered “neutral”, which are two members of the Bang 1 Team. Within the Brewing Talent teams, the team leaders played an important role. This leadership role was shared between two team members of one team. Although one of the most important rules was to keep responsibility for your own tasks, the presence of a leader was part of the team process. The leaders felt supported emotionally as well was on task by the team members, which caused a strong group feeling. On their turn, the leaders sent positive messages, when everybody was overloaded with work. The leaders always referred to the plan and kept the team together, but remained flexible in the way of working. This leadership role was absent in the Kumbaya team. While, there was a participant assigned an observer role in the Kumbaya team, most participants fulfilled this role of observer.

6.4 Concerted The fourth form of collaboration assumed by the IB model is Concerted Work Mode. Concerted work requires the highest level of interdependency among team member efforts. Reciprocal interdependency is represented by the concerted work mode (Thompson 1967). In this mode, it is not useful to consider individual deliverables, as it is the team that produces a joint deliverable. The timely and effective contributions of all team members are required for the goal to be achieved. A concerted effort can enable multiple reciprocally interdependent tasks to be carried out in synchrony such as strategic planning.

In order to assess the level of concerted effort the participants were asked to respond to the statement: “The way we worked in my team was direct and action oriented”. The members of the two Brewing Talent teams all agreed (60 %) or strongly agreed (40 %) with this statement. The Kumbaya members, on the other hand, disagreed (50%) or answered neutral (33.33 %). One of the Kumbaya members answered, “Strongly agree”. To assess the extent to which concerted action was taking place, the statement was asked: “My virtual team showed entrepreneurial spirit”. 80 % of the brewing talent teams agreed, and 20 % even strongly agreed. Of the Kumbaya members, 50 % disagreed, 33.33 % answered neutral, and the same person as with the previous question strongly agreed. In addition there was sense in the stement:, “Working in this virtual team made me feel like being part of a closed group”. The CU team members and the Bang 1 team members all agreed (90 %) or strongly agreed (10%) to this statement. One of the Kumbaya members answered “Disagree”, and one other answered “Neutral”. The other Kumbaya members agreed (50 %) or strongly agreed (16.67%). This tended to be linked to the perception that there was an element of trust among the members of the teams. The statement: “Without face-to-face meetings, there will be lack of trust between the members” evoked mixed responses. 43.75 % of the participants answered “Agree” to this question. One of the respondents agreed, but made the remark “that it depends on the fact if you’re part of a new or existing team”. 37.5 % strongly agreed with this statement. Three participants (two members of the Bang 1 Team, one member of the Cu Team) disagreed (12.5 %) or strongly disagreed (6.25 %) with this statement. All respondents agree that meeting face to face each other contributed to the level of trust; 43.75 % answered with “Agree”. The majority of 56.25 % even strongly agreed with this statement.

7. Implications for Knowledge Mobilization The above analysis has revealed a number of factors that link the use of collaborative processes and tools to the mobilization of knowledge. These linkages that are currently absent in the IB model are as follows: To mobilize knowledge at the individual level, clear and simple rules that can be used flexible are needed. Supporting collective efforts requires a shared or congruent purpose, shared methods and facilitative management involvement. This makes it easier for participants to share and create knowledge. Effective coordination for knowledge mobilization requires planning, division of tasks and above all leadership. The leadership role provides emotional and task support while adhering to the plan. Supporting concerted action to enable knowledge mobilization requires some face to face interaction, cohesion and an entrepreneurial spirit - or motivation. Underlying the success of all four forms of collaboration is trust. Responses at all four levels indicated that the existence of trust made it easier

8

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

to collaborate, use the tools and thus share and use knowledge towards joint effect. This is exemplified in the following comment: “Members of my group show a great deal of integrity”, and, “I can rely on those with whom I work in this group”. Since the IB model suggests that different levels of understanding are required in order to be able to create value through intellectual capital, an additional set of questions were asked. For the statement, “I consider myself to be an expert within the area of the project”, half of the Brewing Talent participants answered neutral to this question. Four team members disagreed (20 %) or strongly disagreed (20 %). One of the members agreed. In addition, half of the Kumbaya members answered neutral to this question. Two Kumbaya members agreed on being an expert within the area of the project. One of the Kumbaya members strongly disagreed. For the statement, “I consider myself to be an expert within my functional area (Commercial, ICT, HR, etc)”, 80 % of the Brewing Talent participants answered that they were experts within their own functional area. 20 % answered neutral. Half of the Kumbaya members considered themselves to be experts within their own functional area. Two of the members answered neutral and one disagreed. Mobilization of knowledge was assessed by asking the participants to respond to the statement, “I believed in and used the expertise of other team members during the project phase”. To this members of all three teams agreed (56.25 %) or strongly agreed (31.25 %) with this statement. Two of the respondents answered with neutral. The creation of knowledge was assess through the statement “During the project we created new knowledge.” On this question all respondents, except one member of the Kumbaya Connection, answered they agreed (56.25 %) or they strongly agreed (37.5%). This suggests that knowledge mobilization did take place in the sharing and use of knowledge.

8. Summary and Conclusions This paper has investigated how participants in a distributed virtual organization use collaboration processes and technologies to mobilize knowledge and thus create value for their organization. The IB model was used to assess the potential of this multination beer manufacturer to mobilize knowledge through three virtual teams. The analysis reveals additional links as to how collaborative processes and tools can be used to mobilize knowledge. This is the key contribution of this paper. By uncovering and making explicit the links that are assumed in the IB model, this paper provides practical application to an intuitive and theoretical model. Lessons learned from this research are that in order to mobilize distributed knowledge, both face to face and electronic collaboration processes are needed.

9. References

[1] Archer N. and Wang S. Knowledge Management in the Network Organization. Proceedings of the ITI’02 (Information Technology Interface) Conference, Cavtat, June 2002, Croatia, SRCE University Computing Centre, 299-304. 2002. [2] Alavi, M. and D. Leidner, Knowledge Management Systems: Emerging Views and Practices from the Field, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 1999. [3] Byrne, The Virtual Corporation. Business Week, February 1993. [4] Courtney, J. F. Croasdell, D. T. and D. B. Paradice, "Inquiring Organizations," Australian Journal of Information Systems, Volume 6, Number 1, pp. 3-15, and Foundations of Information Systems: Towards a Philosophy of Information Technology, http://www.mis.fsu.edu/philosophy/pfis/. 1998. [5] Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. “Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What they Know.” Harvard Business School Press. Boston. 1998. [6] Drucker, P.,F. Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge California Management Review; Winter 1999; 41, 2; pp. 79-94. 1999. [7] Hibbard, J. and Carillo, K.M. Knowledge Revolution – Getting employees to share what they know is no longer a technology challenge – it’s a corporate culture challenge. InformationWeek. 663. 1998. [8] Huber, G.P. “Organization Leaning: An examination of the Contributing Processes and the Literatures.” Organization Science. 2. 88-115. 1991. [9] Jarvenpaa S.L., Leidner D.E. “Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams”. Organization Science, Vol. 10, No.6 (June 1999), pp 791-815. 1999. [10] Mowshowitz, Virtual Organization. Communications of the ACM, 1997. [11] Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi,. The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1995. [12] Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Briggs, R.O., Vreede, G.J. de,. From Information Technology To Value Creation Technology, in: Dickson, G.W., DeSanctis, G. (eds). Information Technology and the Future Enterprise: New Models for Managers, New York: Prentice-Hall. 2001. [13] Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., Romano, N.C. Jr., Briggs, R.O., Increasing Intellectual Bandwidth: Generating Value From Intellectual Capital With Information Technology, Group Decision & Negotiation. 2002. [14] Quinn, J.B. Intelligent Enterprise. Free Press. New York. 1992. [15] Qureshi, S. and P. Keen. “Activating Knowledge through Electronic Collaboration: Vanquishing the Knowledge Paradox”. IEEE Transactions in Professional Communication. 2005.

9

Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2006

[16] Qureshi, S. and Briggs, B. “Revising the Intellectual Bandwidth Model and Exploring the Use of IB by A Corporate Management Team” In (eds) R. Sprague and J. Nunamaker The Thirty Sixth Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press. 2003. [17] Qureshi, S., van der Vaart, A., Kaulingfreeks, G., Vreede, G.J., de, Briggs, R.O., Nunamaker, J., What does it mean for an Organisation to be Intelligent? Measuring Intellectual Bandwidth for Value Creation, The Thirty Fifth Hawaii International Conference in Systems Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press. 2002. [18] Schultz. U. and D. E Leidner. “Studying knowledge management in information systems research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions.” MIS Quarterly; Vol. 26, Iss.3; pg. 213-242. 2002. [19] Sowell, T. Knowledge and Decisions, Basic Books, 1996 [20] Stein, E. and V. Zwass, "Actualizing Organizational Memory with Information Systems." Information Systems Research. Vol. 6, No. 2, pp:85-117,. 1995. [21] Stewart, T.A. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations, Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited, London. 1997. [22] Tallon, P., Kraemer, K. and V. Gurbaxani. “Executives’ Perceptions of the Business Value of Information Technology: A Process-Oriented Approach”. Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 16, No. 4, pp:145-173. 2000. [23] Thomson, J. D.,“Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory”. McGrawHill. pp.192. 1967. [24] Tuomi, I. “Data is More Than Knowledge: Implications of the Reversed Knowledge Hierarchy for Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory.” Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 16, No 3. pp.103-117. 2000. [25] Vance, D. M.: Information, Knowledge and Wisdom: The Epistemic Hierarchy and Computer-Based Information System . Proceedings of the 1997 America's Conference on Information Systems. http://hsb.baylor.edu/ramswoer/ais.ac.97/papers/vance.ht m. 1997. [26] Venkatraman, N. and J.C. Henderson. “Real Strategies for Virtual Organizing,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 2 pp:73-87. 1998. [27] Zack, M. Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review, pp:125-145. 1999.

10