The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1066-2243.htm
Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards An exploratory study
Understanding customer knowledge 289
Matthew K.O. Lee, Christy M.K. Cheung, Kai H. Lim and Choon Ling Sia Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China Abstract Purpose – The proliferation and advance of web-based technologies create expanded opportunities for retailers to gain a better understanding of their customers. However, the success of these web-based discussion boards depends solely on whether customers are willing to share their knowledge and experience with other customers in these discussion boards. Thus, this study aims at identifying the factors that drive knowledge sharing among customers in web-based discussion boards. Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory study with 104 respondents was conducted to identify and categorize the key factors of customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. Findings – The results indicate that the enjoyment of helping others is the most frequently cited reason for customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge self-efficacy is the mostly cited reason explaining why customers do not want to share knowledge with others. Research limitations/implications – The exploratory analysis suggests that the underlying reasons that motivate and inhibit customers to share are very different. There is a need to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives from across the social and technical domains if this phenomenon is to be better understood. Practical implications – Building upon the findings of this study, some generic guidelines for retailers and web designers for promoting customer sharing in web-based discussion boards are outlined. Originality/value – This research is one of the first studies to use the socio-technical perspective to investigate customer knowledge sharing phenomena in web-based discussion boards. Keywords Electronic commerce, Knowledge management, Knowledge sharing Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction According to Christensen and Tedlow (2000), the web is a “disruptive innovation” that changes the landscape of the retail industry. In particular, the web has changed the relationship between customers and retailers significantly. Customers can access a The work described in this paper was partially supported by research grants from City University of Hong Kong (Project No. 9610006), and Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (CityU1361/04H).
Internet Research Vol. 16 No. 3, 2006 pp. 289-303 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1066-2243 DOI 10.1108/10662240610673709
INTR 16,3
290
virtually unlimited selection of products, brands, and sellers, making it relatively easier for them to make quality and price comparisons. They can switch brands or try different products in a single click. In this self-service environment, customers have the power to control what, when, where, and how they will interact with retailers. They have a much better control on how much they pay for a product through pricing auctions and bidding wars. In addition, the web facilitates customers to express their preferences and buying power in a way that was previously impossible. The web apparently empowers customers with more choices and better prices. Meanwhile, this technology also gives retailers a wealth of options for reaching more customers, understanding their customers better, and offering their customers with world-class online experiences. Particularly, the web facilitates retailers in collecting customer data. Table I summarizes several key customer data collection methods. There are two different types of customer knowledge: (1) knowledge about customers (e.g. demographics, preferences, lifestyles and, etc.); and (2) knowledge resided in customers (e.g. experience and insights about the products or services). The data collected from different methods offer companies different insights about their customers. For example: . Accurate profiles of individual customers gathered through registration (during transaction or other ways) are necessary for providing customized online experiences to their customers. . Web site impact statistics collected through server log file or cookies are important for evaluating web site traffic and effectiveness of web site. . Customers knowledge (experience or insights) about products or services are useful for more strategic decisions.
Customer data collection methods Web-based survey Online community
Transaction
Server log file Table I. Customer data collection methods
Cookies
Customers provide information in response to a request for the information. Data specific to the topic can be collected. Electronic data which are entered directly by customers can eliminate the need for transcription Customers provide information about themselves during their participation in an online community. Data about customers or customer knowledge about products or services can be collected. Data can be obtained through transcripts of community dialogues Customers provide their personal information (e.g. name, address, e-mail address, credit card details) when they do the transactions with online merchants. In addition to personal information, the web sites that customers have visited can be recorded and analyzed Even customers do not purchase from the merchant. The server log file can be analyzed to provide a profile of searching from specific IP addresses. Data can be useful for assessing the effectiveness and attractiveness of a site Cookies is used to collect customers online activities. Data about customers are collected automatically without the customers’ awareness
Researchers have long recognized the value of customer as a source of knowledge (Davenport and Jarvenpaa, 2003; Rowley, 2004) and asserted the increasing importance of investigating customer knowledge management. Effective management of customer knowledge can significantly enhance a company’s competitive advantage by providing the company with better and timely design of new products and services, with early warning and competitive intelligence, with customer commitment and loyalty, and with the synergy of collaboration (Koenig and Srikantaiah, 2000). In addition, Bulter (2000) has asserted that capitalizing on the information of customer’s needs can improve customer satisfaction and increase the frequency and intensity of buying behavior with the vendor concerned, resulting in a high switching cost for its customers. Web-based discussion boards are one of the most common platforms for customers to learn from each others, and for retailers to glean important insights from customers’ conversations. Customer knowledge is created and shared through a process of discussion with questions and answers between customers. However, without the participation of customers, the discussion boards will just fade away. Given the prominence of this web application, customer participation in the discussion boards deserves serious attention of researchers and practitioners. However, only limited research on customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards has been published to date. The purpose of this study is to better understand the motivations behind a customer’s decision to share knowledge in a web-based discussion board. We begin with the theoretical perspectives for investigating customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. We then present the research method and findings. Finally, we conclude the paper with a discussion on the implications of our study for theory and practice, pointing out limitations and areas for future research meanwhile. 2. Theoretical background Web-based discussion board can be described as a “socio-technical” system involving interactions among characteristics of individual users (customers), user groups (customer groups), and the systems (web-based discussion boards). The social system is concerned with the attributes of customers (e.g. attitudes, values, perceptions); the relationships among customers, the culture and structure of customer groups. The technical system is concerned with the processes, tasks, and technology needed. Research on customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards remains new and has received little attention in academic research. This study aims at proposing a research framework and exploring important factors that affect customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. Reflecting the socio-technical characteristics of the domain of investigation, the proposed research framework consists of psycho-social as well as technological components, both of which are seen to explain customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. Figure 1 shows our framework for customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. 2.1 Personal interest Social exchange theory was developed primarily to understand human reciprocal behavior (Blau, 1964). This theory suggests that individuals will contribute and
Understanding customer knowledge 291
INTR 16,3
292
Figure 1. Theoretical framework
exchange their knowledge with others, with an expectation to benefit from what is received in return. Further, it posits that individuals tend to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs when they decide to perform a behavior (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Personal motivational theories are useful in identifying factors pertaining to the benefits of knowledge sharing. One useful perspective posits that behavior can be both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated (Deci and Ryan, 1980). Extrinsic motivation pertains to behaviors that are engaged in response to something apart from its own sake, such as reward or recognition or the dictates of other people. The decision to share in a web-based consumer discussion board is determined partly on a rational calculation of the benefits (e.g. reward, recognition, image, and, etc.) (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). On the other hand, intrinsic motivation refers to the fact of doing an activity for its own sake: the activity itself is interesting, engaging, or in some way satisfying. The decision to share in a discussion board may also be partly determined by intrinsic motivation, for instances, the enjoyment of helping others (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Social exchange theory also explains knowledge sharing behavior using the cost factors, such as time and effort. Research on consumer behavior has suggested that time is an important constraint for the consumer to maximize his or her utility subject, while research on knowledge sharing in electronic knowledge repository has indicated that effort determines user intention to share knowledge (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). 2.2 Social context Customer sharing in a web-based discussion board may be for the sake of achieving both the personal and the shared goals of members of the discussion board. Therefore, apart from personal interest factors, we also propose social identity as another important determinant of customer participation. Social identity refers to “the individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of this group membership” (Tajfel, 2000). This concept is closely related to sense of community, where it is:
. . . a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith the members’ needs and to the group, and a shared faith the members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together (McMillian and Chavis, 1995).
Understanding customer knowledge
We believe that customers who are in the same “in-group” category or have a stronger sense of community tend to cooperate and have a higher motivation to share in web-based discussion boards.
293
2.3 Technological attributes Traditional technology adoption studies asserted that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are important instrumental factors that drive users to adopt and use a new technology (Davis, 1989). In the context of knowledge sharing technologies, Jarvenpaa and Staples (2000) suggested that a user-friendly system can enhance information sharing as it helps reduce the psychological costs of sharing. Preece (2001) identified four dimensions of the usability of an online community, including dialogue and social interaction support (the prompts and feedbacks that support interaction), information design (e.g. easy to read, understandable), navigation (the ease with which users can move around and find what they want), and access (e.g. downloading speed, response time). These dimensions are believed to be critical to the success of an online community. 3. Research method Research on customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards is still at its early and formative stage. The theoretical framework (Figure 1) based on the socio-technical theory provided us with a good starting point for the current investigation. An exploratory study was conducted to identify and categorize the key factors of customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. 3.1 Data collection An invitation to participate in this research study on online consumer behavior was via e-mail broadcasting, posters, and flyers inside the campus in a local university. In this study, the participants were requested to fill in an online questionnaire about their online shopping behavior. Two open-ended questions specific to customer participation in web-based discussion boards were asked: (1) Will you share your experiences about online movie ticket purchasing in web-based discussion board? (2) Why or why not? In appreciation of the time and input the respondents contributed, each respondent received US$7 after the completion of the survey. 3.2 Data analysis As this is an exploratory study of a qualitative and interpretative nature, we have followed the “ladder of abstraction” approach well used in this type of studies (Carney, 1990) in analyzing our data. This approach has the advantage of simplicity, while at the same time also being systematic and exercising a certain level of rigor in data interpretation. The analysis is a natural progression where we start with the description of the specified situation, we then identify the elements and locate the key variables in the situation, and finally we build a theory or model to explain how
INTR 16,3
294
the variables are connected and how they influence each other. The analytical progression is shown in Figure 2. At Level 1, we extracted the data from the two open-ended questions. First, we divided the respondents into two groups (willing to share vs not willing to share) based on the first open-ended question. Then, we tried out coding categories to find a set that fits. The coding categories are shown in Table II. At Level 2, we identified the trends in the data overall. Since, the answers were openly solicited, one participant could list more than one reason about their willingness or unwillingness to participate in web-based discussion boards. Data were then aggregated into the categories. For the group which is willing to share in the discussion boards, the number of responses in each category was counted and listed. Similarly, for the group which is not willing to share, the responses were classified and counted. At Level 3, the key categories were further aggregated into the three key components in the theoretical framework, with special attention to the relationships among the three components and customer’s decision to share (or not share) knowledge in web-based discussion boards. 4. Results A total of 104 individuals were included in this study. As shown in Table III, a majority of them aged below 25. Of the 104 individuals, 48 percent were males and 52 percent were females. Most of them were experienced Internet users, with over 80 percent using the Internet for more than 4 years. All of them used the Internet regularly, with 94 percent using the Internet more than once per day. In addition, a majority of respondents (65 percent of the sample) reported that they will not share their experiences/comments in web-based discussion boards, whilst only 35 percent of respondents reported that they will share in web-based discussion boards.
Figure 2. The ladder of analytical abstraction
Factors
Descriptions
Extrinsic motivation Reward
The incentive (money or gift) for customer sharing in web-based discussion boards Image/reputation The recognition received for customer sharing in web-based discussion boards. Reciprocity A sense of mutual indebtedness for customer sharing in web-based discussion boards. Intrinsic motivation Enjoyment of helping The enjoyment (feeling good, fun, and challenging) for customer sharing in web-based discussion boards. Knowledge self-efficacy The confidence about the knowledge being shared in web-based discussion boards. Cost Time spending The time spent in sharing in web-based discussion boards. Effort The effort used in sharing in web-based discussion boards, including reading, writing, or replying messages on the boards. Sense of community The feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith the members’ needs and to the group, and a shared faith the members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together. Ease of use The degree to which the web-based discussion board is easy to use and helps customers accomplish their tasks Privacy The web-based discussion board’s ability in protecting consumer personal information collected from registration from unauthorized use or disclosure Usefulness The degree to which customers believes that the use of a web-based discussion forum is useful to them
4.1 Reasons for sharing Table IV summarizes the response frequencies to the questions about why respondents want to share in web-based discussion boards. It provides a description of the results including a list of categories, the sample comments, and the percentage of responses. The comments demonstrate that they share experiences or comments mainly for intrinsic satisfaction. 87.5 percent of the comments are related to the enjoyment of sharing. It is fun to share the experience with people in the web. And I believe it can enhance the interest and confidence of customers for online purchasing tickets.
Moreover, they believe that they can exchange information with and learn from other customers’ experiences in web-based discussion boards. “It is because I want to be engaged in the web discussion in order to exchange ideas from other people.” More examples can be found in Table IV.
Understanding customer knowledge 295
Table II. Coding categories
INTR 16,3
296
Table III. Profile of respondents
Percentage Age 16-20 21-25 Over 26 Gender Female Male Internet usage experiences Less than 6 months 6-12 months 1-3 years 4-6 years 7 years or more Frequency of Internet usage More than 9 times per day 5-8 times per day 1-4 times per day A few times a week
Reason
Sample comments
Enjoyment of Helping
“Since, the website is good, so I hope that more people can have more confident in using this website after seeing my message.” “I want to share the good experience with other people.” “It is fun to share the experience with people in the web. And I believe it can enhance the interest and confidence of customers for online purchasing tickets.” “Yes, I want to listen to more opinion and get more experiences from other people.” “It is because I want to be engaged in the web discussion in order to exchange ideas from other people.”
Reciprocity Table IV. Reasons for sharing in web-based discussion boards
51 48 1 52 48 2 1 14 57 27 22 18 56 4
Percentage * 87.5
12.5
*The percentage is based on the total number of comments pertaining to sharing in web-based discussion groups
4.2 Reasons for not sharing Comparing the results with Section 4.2, it is interesting to note that there are significantly more diverse reasons for respondents who do not want to share in web-based discussion boards. As shown in Table V, the most frequently suggested reason for not sharing in web-based discussion boards is that respondents do not have enough confidence with the knowledge they have for sharing. For example, one respondent mentions that “I think my opinion is worthless”. Others suggest that they are not familiar with online shopping and its related issues – e.g. third party recognition (visa verification). On the other hand, some respondents think knowledge sharing in these discussion boards is useless. They do not see the values of sharing and contributing in this type of discussion board.
Reasons
Sample comments
Knowledge self-efficacy
“I think my opinion is worthless.” “I am not familiar with online shopping, for instance, I have no idea what is Visa Verification, I would like to learn more before I post any message on the discussion board” “I do not think it is necessary to share knowledge in web-based discussion boards.” “Because it is no use to express my feeling” “I feel very troublesome.” “It is not my duty” “I think this will waste my time.” “Actually I don’t have much time to do promotion, which I get no reward.” “Because I will not have any benefits” “It is inconvenient to post a message.” “I just like reading the message and don’t like to post message to share my opinion to others who I don’t know.” “I would rather choose to promote it through my mouth.” “People will know your E-mail during knowledge sharing in online discussion forums, I think it is not good for me, I hope that only my friends know my E-mail”
Perceived usefulness Effort Time Reward Perceived ease of use Sense of community Privacy
Percentage *
Understanding customer knowledge
41
297 16 11 9 7 7 7 2
*The percentage is based on the total number of comments pertaining to not sharing in web-based discussion boards
From the comments provided, it appears that respondents also emphasize on the cost and benefit for knowledge sharing in web-based discussion forums. For instance, “Effort” “Time” and “Reward” are the key barriers that inhibit them to participate in web-based discussion boards: I do not think it is necessary to share knowledge in web-based discussion boards. It is not my duty. I think this will waste my time. I will not have any benefits.
Apart from the reasons related to personal interests, customer’s decision to share in web-based discussion boards is also based on social identification. For example: I would rather choose to promote it through my mouth. I do not want to share knowledge to someone I do not know.
Finally, some of the reasons for not sharing in web-based discussion boards are specific to the instrumental and technological attributes of the web-based discussion board, such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and privacy concerns. Privacy concerns have long been a barrier in the widespread adoption of consumer based electronic commerce (Wang et al., 1998). Apparently, the situation has not changed much over the years.
Table V. Reasons for not sharing in web-based discussion boards
INTR 16,3
298
5. Discussion and conclusions The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of why customers share knowledge in web-based discussion boards. The socio-technical perspective has guided us in developing a theoretical framework consisting of three key components, including personal interest, social context, and technological attributes. An exploratory study is then conducted which gives us further insights into the factors determining customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. Table VI provides a summary of the findings. 5.1 Implications for research Our literature analysis indicates that research on customer sharing in web-based discussion boards remains relatively new and has only received limited attention in the scholarly literature. To enhance the understanding of this phenomenon and contribute towards the developing of the existing literature in this area, the current study proposes a theoretical framework that integrates both social and technical systems in explaining customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. The findings of this study indicate that the socio-technical perspective is useful in the understanding of customer knowledge sharing phenomena in web-based discussion boards. Enjoyment of helping others is the mostly cited factor that drives customers to share knowledge in web-based discussion boards. To some extent, this is almost the only motivation (contributing 87.5 percent of all responses about willingness to share) among customers who are willing to share. The result is consistent with Wasko and Faraj (2000) argument, where they asserted that people participating in electronic communities of practice considered knowledge as a public good, their motivation to share knowledge was basically driven by moral obligation and community interest rather than narrow self-interest. On the other hand, reasons that inhibit customers to share knowledge are more diverse and complex, including factors related to personal interest, social context, and technological attributes. Among all these reasons, knowledge self-efficacy is the mostly cited reason that hinders them to share in web-based discussion boards. This can be explained by the fact that over 60 percent of the participants do not have experiences with Internet shopping (the domain of discussion in the boards), as well as knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. In addition, respondents who do not want to share knowledge seem to be more driven by self-interest. They will first Perspectives
Factors
Personal interest
Knowledge self-efficacy Effort Time Reward Enjoyment of helping Reciprocity Sense of community Perceived usefulness Perceived ease of use Privacy
Social context Technological attributes Table VI. Summary of findings
Reasons for sharing
Reasons for not sharing p p p p
p p p p p p
estimate the cost and benefit involved before they share in the discussion boards where their contribution is entirely voluntary. Thus, time, effort, reward, and reciprocity are also playing important roles in customer sharing in web-based discussion boards, providing support to the economic theory in understanding customer behavior. Similar to other new technologies, user acceptance and usage of web-based discussion boards are also affected by IT attributes. In this study, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and privacy are the key concerns accounting for their decision not to share knowledge with other customers. Finally, our findings support social identity theory, where the “sense of community” is essential for knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. The results of this exploratory analysis suggest that the underlying reasons that motivate and inhibit customers to share in web-based discussion boards are very different. In other words, people all have different reasons for their sharing in web-based discussion boards. Some care about consumer buying experiences and want to learn some tips and insights from others; some are looking mainly to interact with peers or people who share something important; some enjoy the connections with other customers in the discussion boards; some are drawn from the value of web-based discussion boards, and some believe that their contributions would be genuinely appreciated. We used to think that we should encourage customers to participate and share equally; however, this expectation seems unrealistic, as customers knowledge sharing behaviors are drawn by many different reasons in web-based discussion boards. In particular, research based on narrowly defined instrumental models such as the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) (though popular in the field) is likely to be very limited in its ability to help understand the complex social-technical phenomenon of web-based customer knowledge sharing. There is thus a need to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives from across the social and technical domains if this phenomenon is to be better understood. 5.2 Implications for practice The proliferation of web-based technologies brings tremendous impact on the retail industry. In particular, the explosion of so-called micro-media (online chat rooms, online discussion boards, blogs, wikis, and, etc.) provides retailers with expanded opportunities to gain deeper insights into their customers. In addition to the descriptive knowledge of customers, companies now can gain insights from the conversations or experience sharing among customers in web-based discussion boards. This knowledge is particularly important for retailers to gain competitive advantage over their competitors. It is therefore useful to understand what drives or inhibits customers to share their knowledge in this new web-based technology. This exploratory study has identified some key factors of customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards. Building upon the findings of this study, Table VII outlines some generic guidelines for retailers and web designers for promoting customer sharing in web-based discussion boards. 5.3 Limitations and future research One limitation of this study is that the sample is relatively small (104) and they are university students, with a fairly narrow focus on respondents’ decision on knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards in the context of Internet shopping.
Understanding customer knowledge 299
Goals To indicate to the participants that their contribution makes a significant difference to the discussion boards To reward the participants for their efforts in the participation and contribution in the discussion boards
To raise the level of enjoyment that the contributors experience as they help others
To raise the perception of reciprocity in the discussion boards To build a sense of community among participants
Knowledge self-efficacy
Effort and reward
Enjoyment of helping
Reciprocity
Sense of community
Table VII. Suggestions and guidelines
Key factors
300 The discussion boards should provide features that recognize the top contributors The discussion boards should provide a rating system where others can review and rate other people’s comments Example: Amazon.com The discussion boards should offer the contributors both monetary and non-monetary incentives For monetary incentives: contributors should receive as much for helping someone make a buying decision with a positive opinion as her or she could for helping another person avoid a purchase with a negative opinion. For non-monetary incentives: web designers should provide a recognition mechanism, where they can get recognized for their expertise during their participation and contribution. Example: Epinions.com The discussion boards should provide a mechanism where people who have provided useful suggestions to other members are identified and informed that they have helped others. Example: Microsoft Corporation Web designers should provide a recognition mechanism, where they can get recognized for their expertise during their participation and contribution The discussion boards should provide features that increase their familiarity with other users. For example, by giving them an option to post personal profile information. Example: Yahoo! Group (continued)
Suggestions and guidelines
INTR 16,3
Goals To ensure the high-quality and unbiased reviews, comments, or suggestions in the discussion boards
To enhance the perception of ease of use of the discussion boards To raise the concern of privacy
Key factors
Perceived usefulness
Perceived ease of use
Privacy concern
Web designers should provide features that allow personalized recommendations to the participants. The discussion boards should offer incentives to ensure the quality of comments. The discussion boards should provide a rating system where others can review and rate other people’s comments The discussion boards should allow customers to share both their positive and negative experiences. Example: Epinions.com Web designers should design a user-friendly system, for examples, FAQ or search engine that help the participants to get the knowledge they needed easily The discussion boards should provide guaranteed privacy policies
Suggestions and guidelines
Understanding customer knowledge 301
Table VII.
INTR 16,3
302
Though industrial surveys reported that university students (or young people) are the major players in the Internet, researchers have to be cautious about the generalization of the results. Given that rigorous research on customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards remains sketchy and lacking, more work should be done to enrich this line of research. For instance, valid and reliable measurement instrument for the relevant constructs in the research framework should be developed and empirically tested. In addition, further empirical testing is needed to validate the research model and to examine the relative importance of factors affecting customer knowledge sharing. The results of this study suggested that customers are drawn by different reasons in web-based discussion boards, and there are significantly more people who are unwilling to share than those who are willing to share in web-based discussion boards. Indeed, there is a growing interest of negative asymmetry in the field of IS (Cenfetalli, 2004). For instances, researchers are interested in identifying the inhibitors of new technology adoption and usage. Knowledge transfer barriers in web-based discussion boards deserve more effort from the research community. In addition, recent literature has suggested that events that are negatively valenced will have longer lasting and more intense consequences than positively valenced events of the same type (Cheung and Lee, 2005). The impact of barriers versus the impact of drivers of customer knowledge sharing is another interesting area worthy of further investigations. Traditional literature on knowledge management focuses mostly on knowledge sharing within organizations. Some studies emphasized on the structural and macro aspects of knowledge transfer on an organizational level (Szulanski, 2000), whilst others focused mostly on the general enablers and inhibitors of knowledge transfer (Husted and Michailova, 2002; Jacobson, 2006; Lindsey, 2006). On the other hand, Goh (2002) proposed an integrative framework that combines organizational, structural, and individual factors to explain effective knowledge transfer. This line of research provides some thoughtful insights for the investigation of customer knowledge sharing in public online social spaces. Future studies should continue to explore the relationship between knowledge transfer barriers within organizations and knowledge transfer barriers on public web sites. References Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY. Bulter, Y. (2000), “Knowledge management: if only you knew what you knew?”, Australian Library Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 31-42. Carney, T.F. (1990), Collaborative Inquiry Methodology, University of Windsor, Division for Instructional Development, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Cenfetalli, R.T. (2004), “Inhibitors and enablers as dual factor concepts in technology usage?”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 5 No. 11, article 16. Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2005), “The asymmetric impact of website attribute performance on user satisfaction: an empirical study”, e-Service Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3. Christensen, C.M. and Tedlow, R.S. (2000), “Patterns of disruption in retailing”, Harvard Business Review. Davenport, T.H. and Jarvenpaa, S.L. (2003), “Managing customer knowledge in electronic commerce?”, in Alfred, J. and Beerli, et al. (Eds), Knowledge Management and Networked
Environments: Leveraging Intellectual Capital in Virtual Business Communiites, AMACOM, New York, NY. Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1980), “The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes?”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 39-80. Goh, S.C. (2002), “Managing effective knowledge transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 22-30. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52. Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2002), “Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility”, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 60-73. Jacobson, C.M. (2006), “Knowledge sharing between individuals”, in Schwartz, D.G. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA, pp. 507-14. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Staples, D.S. (2000), “The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants?”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9, pp. 129-54. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K-K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation?”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 113-43. Koenig, M. and Srikantaiah, T. (2000), “The evaluation of knowledge management?”, Knowledge Management for the Information Professional: ASIS Monograph Series, The American Society for Information Science, Information Today, Medford, NJ, pp. 23-36. Lindsey, K.L. (2006), “Knowledge sharing barriers”, in Schwartz, D.G. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA, pp. 499-506. McMillian, D.W. and Chavis, D.M. (1995), “Sense of community: a definition and theory?”, Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 6-13. Preece, J. (2001), “Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring success”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 347-56. Rowley, J. (2004), “Partnering paradigms? Knowledge management and relationship management?”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 Nos 1/2, pp. 149-57. Szulanski, G. (2000), “The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickness”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 9-27. Tajfel, H. (2000), “Social categorization?”, in Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (Eds), Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 292-322. Wang, H., Lee, M.K.O. and Wang, C. (1998), “Consumer privacy concerns about internet marketing”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 63-70. Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2000), “It is what one does: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice?”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9 Nos 2-3, pp. 155-73. Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice?”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Understanding customer knowledge 303
