Towards Web Support For Tacit Knowledge Exchanges Rachelle Bosua and Rens Scheepers* School of Information Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia*
[email protected],
[email protected]*
Abstract. Organisations are continually looking for means to stimulate innovation and creativity, within and across working groups, functions and geographical boundaries. One of the ways to achieve this is through tacit knowledge exchanges in the form of sharing and transfer of knowledge by means of narratives, storytelling, reminders, best practices etc. Knowledge is an invaluable part of the shared practices of communities that need, create, adapt, transform, shape and use it. These Communities of Practice (CoPs) are informally created, evolve over time, and socially bind people together that share the same interests and passions. At the same time, organisations are turning more towards information technology and seek ways of leveraging their investments in Web technologies, in particular, to foster knowledge exchanges between individuals and working groups. The Web may be applied in new, innovative ways to draw dispersed community members together virtually and in particular, to promote tacit knowledge exchanges. We argue for a content-rich web environment that combines tools, services and mechanisms tailored towards tacit knowledge exchanges to support the unique work practices and situational knowledge needs of CoPs.
1 Introduction Organisational knowledge and knowledge management (KM) issues have risen to the top of many corporate agendas. KM initiatives form part of the vision and strategy of many knowledge-intensive organisations today (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). In this respect, organisations are investigating ways in which knowledge can be meaningfully created, shared or disseminated within the organisation, often with an eye towards fostering innovation, new product development and competitive advantage (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Alavi & Leidner, 2001). It is argued that a knowledge sharing culture is a prerequisite for successful knowledge management initiatives in organisations (Ezingeard et al., 2000; Leidner 1999). Furthermore, the presence of vibrant Communities of Practice (CoPs) within the organisation seems to be instrumental in nurturing a climate in which knowledge exchanges occur naturally (Wenger & Snyder, 2000; Broendsted & Elkjaer, 2001). In seeking to foster their knowledge management activities, organisations have turned towards information technology (IT) as an enabling mechanism (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Broendsted & Elkjaer, 2001; Bhatt, 2001, Ezingeard et al, 2000; Newell et al, 1999). The potential that modern information technologies such as Web-based systems (e.g. Intranets) and/or dedicated Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) hold is receiving much research attention. Compared to many other
forms of IT, these technologies are opening up opportunities for wider information sharing and cooperation between individuals in the organisation, without the need for specialist IT skills (Isakowitz et al, 1998). The media-richness and hypertext features associated with Web-based technologies are thought to enable applications that support knowledge exchanges between individuals (Damsgaard & Scheepers, 2001). Distributed cognition and networking within the organisation contributes to a meaningful dialog and fresh interpretations of problem situations (Boland et al., 1995). Organisations can utilise Intranets and KM systems to share individual, departmental and organisational information, enhance communication between communities, maintain virtual discussions, and support collaboration within and across organisational, departmental and global boundaries (Hills, 1997; Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1996; McNaughton et al, 1999). Knowledge is often classified as either explicit or tacit (Nonaka, 1994; Polyani, 1967). Explicit knowledge can be easily articulated in words and images and consequently shared via modern information infrastructures. Tacit knowledge on the other hand is difficult to articulate or capture (Hildreth & Kimble, 2000). It comes as no surprise that at present, most IT supported KM initiatives have been geared towards explicit knowledge exchanges. Typical mechanisms include organisational "Yellow Pages" (Ezingeard et al, 2000), directories of expertise (Fulmer, 2001), dialog spaces for knowledge exchanges (Fulmer, 2001) and content classification and categorisation of intranet content (McCauley et al, 2000) and other organisational information repositories (Alavi, 1997). Knowledge work processes however draw on both tacit and explicit knowledge (Davenport et al., 1996). In CoPs, people working closely together, share the same interests and also share a corporate memory of situational knowledge and expertise. “Tacit leaps” (Polyani, 1967) enable individuals to extrapolate from their own and others’ prior experiences to completely new situations. In this paper we explore the potential role of Web-based IT in fostering tacit exchanges within and between CoPs in the organisation. We examine how we can conceptualise this role with a view towards tailoring Web-systems to effectively support tacit knowledge exchanges. This paper is outlined as follows. First the nature of tacit knowledge and knowledge in organisational contexts is discussed. We then revisit the literature on Communities of Practice and outline the characteristics and typical behavioural patterns associated with CoPs. Given this background, the potential of web-based technologies to support tacit knowledge exchanges in CoPs are explored. We illustrate our arguments with examples and observations from our own empirical fieldwork in this area. We conclude with some principles for tailoring Web-enabled KM infrastructures in order to support tacit knowledge exchanges in CoPs and we outline areas for further research.
1.1 The nature of tacit knowledge The nature of knowledge and KM processes especially in organisational contexts has been well debated in the literature (e.g. Alavi & Leidner, 1999, 2001; Spiegler, 2000; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Knowledge is described as being complex, multifaceted, subjective and deeply personal in nature (Dahlbom & Mathiassen, 1993). It becomes embedded in repositories and documents but also in the routines, processes, norms and practices within an organisation (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Knowledge is unique and specific to every situation to which it is applicable and is therefore context dependent. Within the organisational set-up, different workgroups, departments or business units rely on different situation specific information and knowledge. Although KM initiatives in organisations attempt to manage knowledge centrally, knowledge itself is decentralized (Ezingeard et al, 2000) and
is therefore best managed in the area in which it is created and exchanged. The situation specific nature of knowledge influences not only the way in which it is managed but also how it is created, disseminated and shared. CoPs that have evolved over time develop their own style of sharing and exchanging knowledge. These processes rely on the individual members' contributions of context (Augier et al., 2001). Tacit knowledge is individual and rooted in action, experience and involvement in a specific context and comprises both cognitive and technical elements (Leidner, 1999). The cognitive element encompasses the individual's mental models consisting of mental maps, beliefs, paradigms and viewpoints, while the technical element consists of concrete, know-how, skills, crafts etc. that have been internalised and applied to a specific context. It constitutes the major part of what we know and since it is not easy to express tacit knowledge in a form that can be readily stored, retrieved or disseminated, it is difficult to fully benefit from it. Tacit knowledge is vital in creative thinking and innovation. Cultural or situational specificity is a major component of tacit knowledge. It assigns meaning to facts and data and is often inseparably linked to processes and people, representing a central element of the competencies and skills of members in a team. Aspects such as storytelling, narratives, myths, ceremonies and great personalities are important in the communication of tacit knowledge (Persaud et al, 2001). Language is a means of conveying both tacit and explicit knowledge, but narratives are always incomplete and the recipient must “read into the story” to make it sensible (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). Polyani (1967) argues that “..we can know more than we can tell”. He illustrates this concept of ‘knowing’ by comparing it to face recognition. Although we know what a person’s face looks like and can recognize it among thousands of other faces, we cannot easily tell how we actually do this recognition. In fact, Polyani argues that much of the knowledge we have, cannot be put into words. However, we can rely on appropriate cues and mechanisms to recognise and reify the face we know. In this respect, the metaphor of face identikits used by the police comes to mind. A collection of different eye, nose, face and ear-shapes can serve as cues to compile an identikit of the face a person knows, but cannot easily articulate in words. Polyani (1967, 1975) refers to knowledge of particulars without being able to identify them as proximal, while the situational extrapolation (the face in this example) is referred to as distal. When solving a problem, the human cognitive processes of association relate proximal (situational) knowledge through a process of cognition, selection and mapping, which can trigger a “tacit leap” to distal situational knowledge. In the process, new tacit knowledge is created. The notion of cue-driven “tacit leaps” is central to our argument for webenabled support for tacit knowledge exchanges. Tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are both essential, and the two are considered to be dichotomous states of knowledge (Leidner, 1999), but are mutually dependent and reinforcing qualities of knowledge. Polyani (1975) claims that tacit knowledge forms the background that is necessary for assigning the structure to develop and interpret explicit knowledge. Therefore tacit and explicit knowledge are inextricably linked. It is this intrinsic nature of tacit knowledge that makes it difficult to capture, codify, adopt and distribute (Bhatt, 2001). Haldin-Herrgard (2000) claims that the most common way of creating and sharing tacit knowledge is face-to-face. However in many organisations, especially those geographically dispersed, it may not be possible or practical to have face-to-face interaction. In such scenarios, web-based systems may play a pivotal role in fostering tacit knowledge exchanges.
2 Communities of practice A CoP can be considered as an emerging, fluid, organisational form that holds great promise of complementing existing structures and radically galvanising knowledge sharing, learning and change (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). They are found in a variety of contexts, are not limited to organisational settings and it is claimed that they significantly improve organisational performance (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). A CoP is defined as in informal grouping of people that share the same interests, passions, vocabulary and hence also the same context in terms of the knowledge they create, need, adapt, transform, shape and use (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). A CoP comes into existence over time as a result of sharing work practices, work experiences and working interests of its members, while its major output is knowledge exchanges (as a result of a sense of community) (Wenger, 1999). They share a passion for innovative ways to continually improve their work practices, and communicate regularly to exchange ideas and pitfalls, share incidents and stories, and request opinions from other members. It is open to new members and through its group member interaction, and interaction with similar groups, tacit knowledge is exchanged and shared creating an environment that members use to make sense of new situations and ultimately create new knowledge (Wenger and Snyder, 2001). A CoP creates among the participants relations of mutual accountability that become an integral part of the practice (Wenger, 1999). CoPs also develop their own norms, negotiation and collaboration mechanisms towards achieving their outcomes. The members develop and use different kinds of tools and mechanisms, which mediate the subject’s interaction with the work practice to achieve specific objectives (Broendsted & Elkjaer, 2001). Over time CoP members develop their own shared repertoire, be it in the form of concepts, shared stories, tools, artefacts, historical events or discourses. These elements are all employed to build a communal memory oriented specifically towards the CoP (Broendsted & Elkjaer, 2001). Some CoPs meet regularly, while others operate in dispersed settings and are primarily connected by email networks. However, where CoPs are geographically dispersed and cannot communicate faceto-face, some infrastructure is needed to promote collaboration, communication and participation of its members (Dieng, 2000; Rowley, 2000; Hildreth & Kimble, 2000). These activities are essential for tacit knowledge exchanges. In order to understand the practices of CoP’s, various common behavioural patterns pertaining to them have been documented. In Table 1 we condense a number of significant behavioural patterns from research studies in this area. Behavioural pattern
Description
Communicating freely within the CoP
Members communicate freely and openly about the interests and passions they share within the CoP or across different CoPs (Wenger, 1999)
Solving problems
Problems are solved quickly using the expertise, know -how and best practices based on previous experiences that are shared by CoP members or between CoPs (Wenger and Snyder, 2000; Fulmer, 2001)
Table 1: Typical CoP behavioural patterns (continued on next page)
Behavioural pattern
Description
Sharing a local vocabulary
Members in a CoP share a common way of working and organisational memory with a common vocabulary (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Ezingeard et al., 2000; Wenger & Snyder, 2000)
Knowing what questions to ask and
CoP members know what questions to ask other (more
who to ask
knowledgeable) CoP members within or across organisational
Remembering previous lessons
boundaries (Wenger & Snyder, 2000) Previous experiences and work practices serve as reminders of lessons learnt from and for similar working situations (Wenger, 1999; Broendsted & Elkjaer, 2001)
Learning from each other
Individual members of the CoP learn by questioning each other and trading know -how. The result is the creation of new explicit and tacit knowledge (Broendsted & Elkjaer, 2001; Boland et al, 1995; von Hippel, 1987)
Networking with other CoPs Harnessing diversity
CoP Members exchange ideas with other CoPs within and across organisational boundaries (von Hippel, 1987) Diverse experiences, knowledge and backgrounds of members contribute to a synergistic effect on creativity within the CoP (Elmes & Wilemon, 1992; Shani et al, 2000; Wenger 1998)
Table 1: Typical CoP behavioural patterns
3 Web support for tacit knowledge exchanges in CoPs Web technologies such as HTTP, HTML and XML have had a dramatic influence on organisational information management. This medium has notably influenced the working place and is becoming significant for knowledge diffusion and communication in organisational contexts within and across organisational boundaries (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Cecez-Kecmanovic, 1999; Damsgaard & Scheepers, 2001; Dieng, 2000; McNaughton, 1999). Moreover, these technologies are already in place in many organisations and form part of the overall computing infrastructure. Hence, we believe that Web-based technologies may be successfully harnessed as a medium for tacit knowledge exchanges between member of CoPs and also between CoPs within and across organisational boundaries. Although even a lean medium such as e-mail may suffice for tacit exchanges (Ngwenyama & Lee, 1997), we shall argue here that a Web-based environment is especially suited to embody “rich cues” that are conducive in enabling “tacit leaps” from proximal to distal knowledge. In the following we provide some examples of such rich cues from our field studies. Although the nature of our discussion in this paper is speculative, our arguments are empirically grounded. We are engaged in fieldwork where we observe the nature of Web-based technology use in organisations in Australia, Denmark and South Africa. Many observations relate to the desire of organisations to foster tacit and explicit knowledge exchanges. The case organisations we are studying are large knowledge intensive organisations in sectors such as Research and Development,
Telecommunications and Professional consulting. We illustrate our discussion with a number of practical intranet/web examples from our field studies. We highlight the potential of Webtechnologies’ support for fostering tacit knowledge exchanges by drawing on the typical behavioural patterns of CoPs described in Table 1.
3.1 Communicating freely within the CoP Web-based technologies offer a variety of services that can facilitate communication within and across CoPs. Within CoPs the use of Internet-based discussion and news groups (e.g. Usenet groups, Newsgroups, listservs) are popular forums for exchanging questions and ideas. E-mail is used extensively in most knowledge intensive organisations, but mostly address only one-to-one and oneto-many types of interactions. However the Web is an ideal conduit for fostering exchanges in manyto-many interactions. To communicate “freely” however, requires a cultural environment where such expression is accepted. For example, in one large South African company we found an interactive intranet discussion group called “The Wall”. Here organisational members can express their opinions anonymously . This is done by posting messages in a variety of categories that appear as “graffiti slogans” painted on an HTML background resembling a brick wall. The style of this communication environment encourages both positive and negative communication in an open environment. The application is very popular among certain communities within the organisation. Some stated that it was an attractive way to “let off steam”.
3.2 Solving problems Problem solving behaviour of CoPs can be supported by Web technologies in a variety of ways. CoPs members exchange solutions to prior problems and in doing so the rich environment of the Web becomes an ideal conduit to foster such interactions. We shall address facts of problem solving also in subsequent sections, but focus here on ways in which the proximal situational knowledge of CoPs can be made both visible and accessible by Web-technologies. Intranet-based portals, search engines and even agent technologies can provide quick access to a rich array of searchable content that pertain to the CoP - a step beyond having such a wealth of information locked away in filing cabinets. At the same time such richness can be daunting. In fact, one of our interviewees responded, “…we are drowning in information, but starved of knowledge.” Hence there is a need to structure such richness in ways to make it easily accessible and usable to others. In this respect the marketing department can create an internal portal to various marketingrelated information in the organisation. Similarly, many other portals to the same information space can be set up (e.g. with customer, departmental, product or project views in mind). Having the ability to interpret information from various quarters in an organization, allows experiences, know -how, and best practices to become easily accessible even to the “non-technical” members of CoPs.
3.3 Sharing a local vocabulary A local vocabulary is a prerequisite for exchanging knowledge between CoP members. In particular, newcomers need to become familiar with the “jargon” used by the CoP. Establishing a vocabulary also contributes to the learning process of its members (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). In one of our case
organisations, we noted an internal Web-based dictionary of definitions that captures the “internal speak” used to describe telephone line installations and related billing statistics. This internal dictionary contains ‘standard’ business definitions to be used throughout the organisation. Entries cover issues such as what the “number of telephones installed in the last month” means. For example, whether it includes business phones installed, residential phones or both. One of the employees noted that this repository is becoming the definitive source for these descriptions. She mentioned that each definition is linked to a particular staff member who can provide further clarification if required.
3.4 Knowing who to contact, harnessing diversity Knowing ‘who’ to contact within and across CoPs can be supported in various ways via Webtechnologies. In many of the companies we studied, applications that connected individuals were often reported to us as very popular “killer applications”. Such applications typically combined individual’s photos, profiles and job descriptions from Expertise Registers and HR systems with contact information such as email, phone and office locations. The availability of such tools on the intranet helped others to familiarise themselves with peoples’ appearance and backgrounds prior to asking questions or meeting them in person. This also served as a valuable mechanism to connect knowledgeable persons with each other. We have also seen the emergence of personal home pages on organisational intranets where individuals maintain their interests, hobbies, and other facets of their personal life. The availability of such informal details, beyond what is usually captured in HR systems and other formal systems in the organisation, promotes networking and openness within a CoP and between CoPs.
3.5 Knowing what questions to ask We have noticed the emergence of numerous Frequently Asked Question lists (FAQs) on intranets. For example in one environment the IT support Helpdesk offered a way whereby end-user problems could be logged electronically and an intranet-based FAQ list of past problems and workarounds can be examined. FAQ’s not only provide the of sharing experience, know -how, best practices and also problems, but also a place to ‘park’ problems. It is also useful to know what questions not to ask. In this respect, an organisational intranet can provide a rich environment especially for new members to acquaint themselves with. Compare this to other technologies such as the telephone or e-mail where the inquirer potentially reveals her ignorance in asking “stupid” questions. One of our ni terviewees commented: “(The intranet) is a nice place to find information and saves a lot of time. In my old job we never had something like that. As a new employee, I wanted to know what I can find out without asking too many questions”.
3.6 Remembering previous lessons In a large R&D organisation, we came across an application, which supported a program manager who manages a number of project leaders that ran a variety of R&D projects. All previous project information is stored collectively in the form of documents, informal feedback notes, project documentation, minutes, comments and notes, persons involved and agendas of meetings. In this way hindsight of specific projects is available, also knowledge about the type of projects that were undertaken and knowledge of lessons learnt and experience of previous projects and work practices.
This collective project knowledge is invaluable for future undertakings and project completion by revisiting the experiences with the benefit of hindsight but also opening up the possibility of foresight. The project manager reflected on their project group’s communication following the implementation of the intranet-based project repository and reported as follows: “We just don’t generate other paper work around the project. We have a meeting once every three months. Apart from that all the communication happens via the intranet. We do meet in between, but that’s socially and focusing on team building”.
3.7 Networking with other CoPs Web-technologies can facilitate networking between CoPs across functional, departmental and geographic “boundaries” that often exist in many large organisations. In a large professional consulting firm, we noted that networking between CoPs is facilitated by meticulously classifying experiences from prior consultations. Hence the context and specific conditions of a prior consultation is recorded so that it becomes more transferable to other groups within the organisation, even across international borders. Apart from the details of the project, people involved, type of involvement, etc., the organisation appointed dedicated team members to classify content according to attributes such as context, service and geography. The intent is to share accumulated knowledge with other CoPs within and across organisational boundaries.
4 Discussion The behaviour of specific CoPs within the organisational context needs to be understood in order to tailor possible Web-based support. Many of the present KM initiatives in organisations are mostly technology driven without considering the ways in which CoPs actually operate. At the same time, we are also witnessing the proliferation of KM tools on offer by IT vendors. We believe that successful KM relies not on tools alone but on environments with content richness that is socially and technically conducive to tacit knowledge exchanges in CoPs. With the ever -increasing globalisation of organisations and employees, the focus on Web-based technologies for tacit knowledge exchanges is becoming more prominent. A proper investigation into the unique routines, work practices and situational knowledge needs of CoPs is required to determine the content, mechanisms, services and tools that make up a rich environment in which tacit knowledge exchanges can occur. Instead of fixating on new tools to support knowledge exchanges, we advocate the notion of tailoring what is already available to the behavioural patterns of CoPs in organisational contexts into a content rich environment. Such an environment could contain a variety of different communications media, mechanisms and tools with a number of cues all shaped to promote tacit knowledge exchanges within a CoP. Communications media include for example: E-mail, discussion lists based on situational knowledge needs and/or topics, personalized workspaces to create a virtual face-to-face meeting and personalized documents. Tools such as dedicated search engines that allow the searching of numeric, textual or multimedia documents, personalized Yellow Pages, Expertise Registers, document management tools, content classification tools, dedicated repositories and tools that link members within a CoP, may all contribute to the intrinsic activities of CoP members. Moreover, a
content rich environment would include significant cues such as for example: best practices, hints, reminders, lessons learnt, “your best story”, “guidelines to quick results”, person of the day/month/week, “talk to/meet the Expert on (a topic)”, “the latest on…”, “what works/doesn’t work”, “share your ideas…” etc. Compared to the often-formal look and feel of many corporate websites, these cues are of a more personal nature and are geared towards specific CoPs based on their routines, practices, jargon and ways of working. Such cues only make sense and are relevant in a specific context i.e. the social and work processes and routines of the CoP to which they apply. These cues are based on the communal memory of the CoP that allows the individuals to communicate, collaborate and participate without needing to know everything. They serve as triggers for the cognitive processes of recognition and reification required to create and exchange tacit knowledge. We believe that a content rich webenabled environment combining relevant cues, communications media, mechanisms and tools, all shaped to support CoP situational specific knowledge needs will not only promote the creation of, but also foster tacit knowledge exchanges.
5 Conclusion We examined ways in which the Web can be harnessed towards tacit knowledge exchanges. It takes the viewpoint that the cognitive nature of knowledge can be well supported by a content rich environment to enable “tacit leaps” from the proximal to the distal situational knowledge. However a requirement is that an appropriate knowledge shar ing culture of CoPs within the organisation is first in place, and their unique way of working are well understood. Our future research will concentrate on the work practices and situational knowledge needs of CoPs in particular and will focus on their work practices. This will be investigated by conducting further field studies to identify how Web technologies are employed to allow CoP members to exchange tacit knowledge through collaboration, communication and participation. The latter will be investigated in settings where CoPs work in close proximity as well as dispersed. We will identify the role of artefacts in CoP practices as a basis for tacit knowledge exchanges and explore ways in which context evolves in a CoP making use of IT. From these we may be able to determine what cues, mechanisms, tools and communications media a web environment should have in place to create that personalised look and feel to trigger and promote the creation, sharing and dissemination of tacit knowledge. We hope to be able to identify whether tacit knowledge could become pre-explicit knowledge and subsequently explicit knowledge. It is envisaged that these results will provide meaningful feedback on a web-enabled infrastructure to enable tacit knowledge exchanges.
References Alavi, M., (1997), KPMG Peat Marwick U.S.: One Giant Brian, Case study, Harvard Business School, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA. Alavi, M. & D. Leidner, (1999), Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(7).
Alavi, M. & D. Leidner, (2001), Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25 (1). Augier, M., S.Z. Shariq & M.T. Vendelø (2001), Understanding Context: its emergence, transformation and role in tacit knowledge sharing. In: Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, Number 2, pp. 125-136. Bhatt, G.D., (2001), Knowledge Management in organisations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques and people, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 5, Number 2. Boland, R.J. & R. Tenkasi, (1995), Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing, Organisation Science, 6 (4), July – August. Broendsted, J. & B. Elkjaer, (2001), Information Technology as a fellow player in organisational learning, In: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Information Systems, "Global Cooperation in the New Millennium" , Bled, Slovenia., June 27 – 29. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Moodie, D., Busutill, A., & Plesman, F. (1999), Organizational change mediated by e-mail and intranet - an ethnographic study. Information, Technology & People, 12 (1), 9-26. Dahlbom, B. & L. Mathiassen, (1993). Computers in Context. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Damsgaard, J. & R. Scheepers, (2001), Using intranet technology to foster organisational knowledge creation. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Information Systems, "Global Cooperation in the New Millennium" , Bled, Slovenia., June 27 – 29. Davenport, T. H., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Beers, M.C. (1996), Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan Management Review (Summer 1996), 53-65. Davenport T.H. & L. Prusak, (1998), Working Knowledge: how organisations manage what they know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts. Dieng R. (2000), Knowledge Management and the Internet. IEEE Intelligent Systems. Elmes, M. & Wilemon, D. (1992), Determinants of cross-functional cooperation in technology-based organizations, IEEE Engineering Management Review 20, 1. Ezingeard J-N, L. Simon & R. Chandler-Wilde, (2000), Knowledge Management at Ernst & Young UK: Getting Value through Knowledge Flows, http://www.commerce.uq.edu.au/icis/ Fulmer, W. (2001), The World Bank and Knowledge Management: The Case of the Urban Services Thematic Group, in Harvard Business Review , Harvest Business School Publishing, Boston, MA, January 5, 2001. Haldin-Herrgard, T., (2000), Dif ficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organisations, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1 (4), pp. 357 – 365. Hildreth, P. & C. Kimble, (2000), Communities of Practice in the distributed international environment, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 4, Number 1, 2000, p. 27-38. Hills, M. (1997), Intranet business strategies. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Isakowitz, T., Bieber, M., & Vitali, F. (1998), Web information systems. Communications of the ACM, 41 (7), 78-80. Jaevenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1996), Introducing transformational information technologies: the case of the World Wide Web technology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1 (1), 95-126. Leidner, D.E. (1999), Information Technology and Organisational Culture: In Strategic Information Management, R.D. Galliers, D.E. Leidner, and B.S.H. Baker (eds), London: Butterworth Heineman, pp 523 – 550.
McNaughton, R.B., Quickenden, P., Matear, S. and Gray B. (1999), Intranet adoption and inter functional co-ordination, Journal of Marketin g , 15, 387-403. Newell, S., J. Swan, R. Galliers and H. Scarborough, (1999), The intranet as a knowledge management tool? Creating new electronic fences. In: Proceedings of the Information Resources Management Association of International Conference, Managing Information Technology Resources in Organisations in the Next Millennium. (Khosrowpour, M., ed.). Ngwenyama, O.K. & A. Lee, (1997), Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical society theory and the contextuality of meaning, MIS Quarterly, 21 (2), June. Nonaka, I. (1994), A Dynamic Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation, Organisation Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 1994. Persaud, A., U. Kumar & V. Kumar, (2001), Harnessing Scientific and technological knowledge for rapid deployment of global innovations. Engineering Management Journal, 13(1). Polyani, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London. Polyani, M. (1975), Personal Knowledge, In Meaning. M. Polyani and H. Prosch (eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975, pp 22 45. Rowley, J. (2000), Knowledge organisation for a new millennium: principles and processes. Journal of Knowledge Management. Volume 4, number 3, pp. 217-223. Shani A.B., J.A. Sena & M.W. Stebbins, (2000), Knowledge work teams and groupware technology: learning from Seagate’s experience, Journal of Knowledge Management, 4 (2). Spiegler, I. (2000), Knowledge Management: A new Idea or Recycled Concept? In Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Volume 3, Article 14, June. Von Hippel, E. (1987), Cooperation between rivals: informal know -how trading. Research Policy, 16, 291-302. Wenger, E.C. (1999), Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wenger, E.C. and WM. Snyder. (2000), Communities of Practice: The Organisational Frontier, In Harvard Business Review, Harvest Business School Publishing, Boston, MA, January – February, p 139 – 145.
