EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN
TECHNOLOGICAL ERA: A TAILOR MADE METHODOLOGY TO
ENTERPRISE 2.0
Elena Alberghini*, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy
elena.alberghini@eni.com, *corresponding author
Livio Cricelli, University of Cassino, Italy
cricelli@unicas.it
Michele Grimaldi, University of Cassino, Italy
m.grimaldi@unicas.it
ABSTRACT
New technology environments provide a simpler way to manage knowledge. Social
technologies are becoming the preferred method of communication of new generations and
communication styles are evolving into a more collaborative approach.
Effective knowledge sharing depends on several factors like mentality, technology
availability and detectable personal advantage. The advent of the enterprise 2.0 phenomenon
offers new opportunities to implement knowledge management, but a structured approach is
needed to fulfill its vast potential.
This study presents a methodology for the application of social technologies to provide
companies with an implicit knowledge real time map. The innovation elements of the
methodology are given by the deep analysis of criticalities, needs, behaviors, perceptions and
trends, helpful to continuously improve the application.
The methodology consists of three key elements which are analyzed in depth: the gap
analysis, the toolkit selection and the action plan. Through these components this approach
allows to effectively capture users’ perceptions and behaviors adapting the tools to the
context specificity.
This paper aims to take up the challenges of examining the issues of knowledge sharing and
transfer. It presents a first empirical application of this approach in Eni, an integrated
energy company, active in more than seventy countries all over the world. The analysis
includes the choice of indicators which help to monitor users’ trends and engagement.
Keywords: social technology, enterprise 2.0, knowledge management, knowledge sharing.
INTRODUCTION
New technology backgrounds are transforming the way knowledge is experienced (Norris et
al., 2003). Moreover the standards of today’s fast and hyperactive world are far from the
context of the initial studies about KM. Traditional KM is characterized by a primarily top
down approach and by specifying all contents structures in advance (Davenport, 2008). This
approach is becoming not suitable anymore, even inside big companies with a consolidated
culture (Leidner, et al. 2006). Today firms are very complex environments. Information
technology has experienced many cycles of innovation, producing always more complex and
integrated set of technologies to respond directly to business needs (Koplowitz, 2010). In
spite of this, the huge quantity of documents produced daily can create innumerable silos of
information. As a consequence knowledge capture and sharing can be too difficult and
ineffective (Alberghini, et al., 2010).
The advent of the enterprise 2.0 phenomenon offers new opportunities to implement KM, but
a structured approach is needed to fulfill its vast potential. The term "Enterprise 2.0" was first
coined in 2006 by Andrew McAfee in an article about the use of emergent social software
platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers (McAfee,
2006). Even if there is still a debate about the relationship between Enterprise 2.0 and KM,
applying web 2.0 technologies and emerging social behaviors can help to add greater
interactivity into the KM environment. Social networking capabilities are providing vital
information in a way that is adaptive and user-driven. Moreover new generations are used to
dealing with social technologies, choosing them as their preferred method of communication
with peers (De Gennaro, 2010).
This paper aims to take up the challenges of examining the issues of knowledge sharing and
transfer in an energy company operating across all the world. More in detail, this study aims
to provide with an applicative example of the structured approach which reckons with the
context, people maturity level and KM purposes. The paper examines the steps of this
approach, from the analysis of new needs to the application of social technologies. The
methodology arises from the necessity to evaluate tools and the way to make use of them and
the study present a set of analyses applied in Eni, an integrated energy company. Eni operates
in the oil and gas, electricity generation and sale, petrochemicals, oilfield services
construction and engineering industries. In these businesses it has a strong edge and leading
international market position. Eni is active in 77 countries with a staff of about 78,400
employees.
At the beginning, the study concentrates on the modalities of the assessment phase, in which
the target is represented by the deduction of new behaviors, perceptions and needs and by the
evaluation of the lacks of the extant technology situation. The analysis is carried on through
the observation of users trends, present technologies’ availability and colleagues satisfaction
surveys. The results allow to gain awareness of the internal fragmented environment and the
rapidly evolving external landscape. Moreover the results represent a useful starting point to
define the strategy to get the most from knowledge sharing and to guide the choice of
indicators which help to monitor users’ trends and engagement.
In this study the choice was oriented towards a social network in which everything was set up
in a very modular way, in order to better follow employ needs to facilitate their job. Global
networking sites bring people with common interest together increasing engagement.
Choosing a technology target should be not enough to ensure a success. Old generations tend
to be skeptical about social technologies, so it is important to implement something very
useful, in working terms, and that should become a habit and a necessity at work. For this
reason a golden rule is monitoring the user engagement to nurture and build the community.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a literature review about KM tools.
Section 3 defines and analyses the methodology split into perception and
qualitative/quantitative analyses. Section 4 describes the findings and includes guidelines
about what to do and not to do depending on empirical data. Moreover, this Section presents
a way to diagnose new demands to continuously improve the implemented system and
achieve higher benefits. Section 5 describes the research implications and limitations. Finally,
Section 6 highlights and summarizes the application of the methodology.
LITERATURE BACKGROUND
In work environments increasingly permeated by internet, KM tools are becoming an
important mediator in the way knowledge is managed (Rao, 2005). Global organizations have
invested heavily in KM programs in order to facilitate the transfer process of best practices,
(Davenport and Prusak, 1999). They support the achievement of organization’s strategic
objectives (Hackett, 2000; Sveiby, 1995) and the nature of these programs differs from a
technological view to a people view (Perrin, 2007). The power of KM is in allowing
organization to explicitly enable and enhance the productivity of processes and to leverage
their value for the group as well as for the individual (Ruggles, 1997).
KM theory is evolving to a more human orientation and new challenges of KM tool usage are
emerging. One of the classic works in the field of computer-mediated workspaces address
the “social information” (Brown and Duguid, 2000). Knowledge sharing enables people in
virtual communities to access relevant knowledge (explicit or tacit) from broader scope of
resources (Yang, Chen, 2007). The purpose of socialization combines both technological and
personalization (Perrin et al. 2007).
The factors affecting sharing and transfer of knowledge in an organization concern the
motivation for sharing (Kalling, 2003), the ability of the source to share (Foss and Pedersen,
2002), knowledge tacitness (Argote and Ingram, 2000; McEvily and Chakravarthy, 2002),
and the ability of the recipient to accept knowledge (Dilek and Ulku, 2008). According to
Wenger (1999), knowledge is often shared with the help of the technology. Now technology
is even more powerful, easy and helpful, anyway, according to Malhotra (2005), there is
nothing new in technology-induced change. Companies should never begin their transitions
with pioneering technology, because to make good use of technology it is necessary to know
which technologies are relevant (Malhotra, 2005). Management strategies need to shift from
command and control to sense and respond (Rao, 2005). To confirm this theory, surveys
conducted by analysts such as Forrester Research demonstrate that social technologies
continue to grow popularity inside the enterprise, in particular wiki adoption is in the lead,
followed by social networks.
The potential of Social Technologies
Social Technology is technology for social purposes or with a social basis. Social software
encloses a range of software systems that allow users to interact and share data. In the last
years online communities have been getting increasingly. At the same time, community
members seem to rapidly lack loyalty, as they tend to use their community less over time
(Bae and Jan, 2008). To survive and thrive, online communities must meet members' needs.
People are more likely to participate in innovation initiatives that are well publicized and
transparent (Koplowitz, 2010). From users’ perspective social technologies increase the
desire and the need of knowledge sharing. As a consequence, one of the most important
tangible benefits inside an organization is the unlocking innovation. This kind of technologies
has exploded into the business world, but they are still vastly misunderstood. Many
organizations are either blocking their use, or simply experimenting the hypothetical benefits.
It’s a fact that organization are only recently starting to appreciate the full collection of
capabilities that exist under the social technologies. Tools like Facebook, Twitter, and
LinkedIn appeared with personal use, but recent surveys have demonstrated that inside an
organization users employ social technologies to improve their job not just for personal
matters (Forrester Reasearch, 2009).
Each day, more and more people are choosing social technologies as their preferred method
of communication with peers. Just as email and instant messaging replaced the phone call,
social technologies could have a similar effect in changing communication dynamics (De
Gennaro, 2010).
In an always more hyperactive world, people can feel immediate benefits in connecting with
the right peers, getting answers to questions and finding information. According with
Forrester analysts as De Gennaro and Fenwick, there are key trends that will make the
inclusion of social technology in the IT management tool set a necessity. These trends are the
physical distance between and the entrance of Millennials into the workforce (De Gennaro,
2010). Telecommuting can strongly help to lower costs due to physical distance between
teams. This strategy makes improved collaboration absolutely critical. For what concerns the
Millennials, also known as the Millennial Generation (Generation Y), they are people born
between 1980 and 2000. They are now entering the workplace. These new employees bring
very different needs, experiences, and expectations to the job and often meet a seasoned
workforce that has very different work styles (Schooley, 2009). Anyway, what Millennials
want to support their work, such as flexible work schedules, social media tools, or a
collaborative environment are work features that other employees can benefit from, too
(Schooley, 2008). Web 2.0 tools allow people to ask questions, share ideas, and discover
people skills regardless of the hierarchy. Such these tools help to break down organizational
and cultural barriers such as time differences (Koplowitz and Owens, 2010).
THE TAILOR MADE METHODOLOGY
The methodology arises from the necessity to evaluate tools and the way to make use of
them. It consists of three key elements which are analyzed in depth: the gap analysis and
monitoring, the toolkit selection and customization and finally the action plan. Through these
components this approach allows to effectively capture users’ perceptions and behaviors
adapting the tools to the context specificity.
The research has been conducted within Eni, a multinational integrated energy company. This
company was of particular interest because it is characterized by a consolidated culture, even
if it operates all over the world and in many activities.
At the beginning the study concentrates on the gap analysis, with the target of detecting new
behaviors, perceptions and needs and evaluating the lacks of the extant technology situation.
To be always useful and to follow user needs, most of the time available tools need to be
integrated, customized and adapted to the existing context. The results allow to gain
awareness of the internal fragmented environment and the rapidly evolving external
landscape. They guide the action plan, that must be carry out by exploiting the chosen tools,
eventually after a customization. Moreover the results represent a useful starting point to
define the strategy to get the most from knowledge sharing and to guide the choice of
indicators which help to monitor users’ trends and engagement.
It is extremely important planning future steps. The action plan must take into account people
maturity level respect to current technologies and utilization expectations in the same way
that a sailor always steers the course. A golden rule is that the approach should be gradual,
especially in a consolidate context. In this case three phases were chosen: firstly supporting
individual needs, then improving the collaborative culture and finally enhancing the
collective intelligence. This study concerns mainly the first phase and put the basis for the
others. This is a first long term approach. Of course the evolution of the context will bring an
evolution of the approach itself.
Figure 1: The framework of the methodology.
Gap Analysis and monitoring
This phase consists of different kinds of analysis: perceptive, qualitative and quantitative
analysis. These analyses permit to assess and monitor the current situation. Qualitative and
quantitative analyses are strictly correlated in this study.
Perceptive analysis
To measure attitudes and perceptions about available technology a questionnaire based on
Likert scales has been applied to a representative sample of 153 employees working in the
information and communication technology (ICT) area. A Likert scale is a psychometric
scale widely used in questionnaires and it was named after its inventor, psychologist Rensis
Likert (1932).
In this survey of about 80 items, the individual was invited to define his attitude towards each
statement by choosing among a number of four scores (“strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
strongly agree”). In this way the choice method was forced since the middle option of
"neither agree nor disagree" was not available. On the contrary the “not sure/not applicable”
option was available.
The gap between users expectations and experience is analyzed through eight dimensions:
general perception of KM, knowledge creation and capitalization, diffusion, utilization, utility
expectation, utility perception, tangibles, expectations respect to strategic objectives.
The results emphasize on the need for collaboration and sharing experience. The following
charts summarize the aggregate results about users’ perceptions. For what concerns the
general perception, KM is seen as a way to share knowledge by the 66% of people and it is
recognized a great importance in growth and change management. In this case results about
KM importance are quite good. An interest aspect is that only 4% of people see KM as an IT
tool.
Figure 2: General perception of KM definition.
Figure 3: General perception of KM processes.
Sharing experience with other people and workshops have been recognized as the main
sources of knowledge creation and capitalization. It is interesting to note that top down tools
as collection of communications are in the bottom. It is the same also for what concern the
knowledge diffusion dimension, in which results are very similar. In fact, sharing experience
with other people and workshops have been recognized as well mostly relevant in favoring
knowledge diffusion, while surveys and periodic communication are in the last positions.
Figure 4: Knowledge Creation and Capitalization.
Figure 5: Knowledge Diffusion.
Internet, chat, instant messaging and email are the most used technologies. This result will be
confirmed also by the quantitative analysis. People still use email as the preferred method of
communications but there is an increasing interest in new technologies such as instant
messaging and desktop sharing.
Figure 6: Tools' Utilization.
People were invited to choose on seven parameters about real perception and expectation of
KM utility. These parameters are collaboration, competence, sharing knowledge, culture,
change, content and connectivity. Expectations about KM utility are very high for all the
aspects, in particular for collaboration and sharing knowledge. This means that people are
definitely aware of KM importance. On the contrary the perceptions about what it is really
available are quite low, especially for the competence map. Finding the right person with the
right competence is one of the most important issue facing companies today, but it is not an
easy task to be implemented. For what concern connectivity and collaboration they are
enough effectively perceived. The introduction of new collaboration tools provided an
improvement in satisfaction.
Tangible activities confirm low perceptions, especially for the competence mapping and the
easy accessing to lesson learned and process documentation. In fact, tangible activities are a
sort of specification of some aspects of utility perceptions. The main expectations respect to
strategic goals are about the improvement of the easiness of search and quality of
information.
Figure 7: Utility Perceptions vs Utility Expectations.
Figure 8: Tangible activities.
Figure 9: Expectations respect to strategic Goals.
Through the analysis of these results, it is possible to observe that people are ready to
collaborate and that they strongly perceive the importance of sharing knowledge and
collaborating. They have great expectations, because they feel the potential of new
technologies and they are aware of innovation. They find some difficulty with the actual
available systems, especially in mapping people skills, experiences and lesson learned.
Qualitative and quantitative analysis
Both qualitative and quantitative analyses contribute to corpus study. Current technologies
and their real employment have been detected by specific tools able to collect and present
information about user behavior on web sites as well as mobile devices running various
operating systems. The quantitative analysis has been applied to a sample of 27.000
employees working in different Business Units. The quantitative results have been analyzed
in a qualitative way to understand effective user needs.
Results revealed that users are constrained to employ many tools to reach their goals. Mostly
they use IT tools to search people, find contacts and information about colleagues’ positions
and to communicate.
The introduction of new collaboration tools demonstrates a growing trend of utilization. The
following chart shows utilization statistics concerning principal basic intranet tools.
Figure 10: Utilization statistics of a group of application.
The following diagrams highlight the utilization trends after the introduction of an enterprise
communication tool for instant messaging, web conferencing and sharing desktop sessions.
Figure 11: User Trends.
The target of this approach is to support knowledge sharing and transfer by exploiting current
technology potentialities. Tools must be useful, easy and well integrated. It is extremely
important to monitor utilization dynamics and the user engagement in order to intervene
when necessary and to incentivize participation.
User engagement refers to the degree that a viewer or consumer has been positively
influenced by a product and it bring participation and involvement. To monitor user
engagement, it is necessary to select the right key performance indicators (KPI). In the case
of social network KPI are quite different from the classical web sites KPI.
User engagement main objectives are to enhance the sense of belonging and to increase user
participation and involvement. The chosen KPIs are the following ones.
 Total time spent on site: shows how thoroughly users are consuming the content.
 Geographic segmentation: the audience is divided according to geographic units. It
can be useful to tailor programs to fit the needs of individual geographic areas,
localizing the effort to geographic differences in needs and wants.
 Single service utilization statistics: shows how much users are consuming the single
widget/service
 Inbound and outbound links evolution: The link analysis display all internal and
external links of the website. This metric could be particularly useful for ongoing
features helpful to build a regular user base for.
 Profile completion level: shows user psychological site loyalty
 Number of added services: shows how thoroughly users are interested to the content.
Toolkit selection and customization
Even if “KM activities are all over the map“ (Malhotra, 2005), no IT tool can work unless the
participants fully understand the benefits and unless employees have incentives to participate
(Grant, 2007). Current technologies offer a wide range of products and possibilities. Given
the variety of contexts and situations, choosing the right way to apply technology is
extremely important, besides the choice of them. For this reason being able to always catch
and understand user needs is crucial, especially in a complex environment such as a
multinational company.
In this study a social network was selected to better follow employ needs and to facilitate
their job. Social networking sites are not only simple tools. They allow users to create their
own personal virtual space and a relationship network. This happens through psychological
and social dynamics that encourage connections creation and maintenance.
The best way to apply a social network is from learning about the way the web works,
through understanding the right innovation metrics and the focus. The new trends of
innovation are made by passionate people that move more than in any time in history.
Reasons that leaded to a social networks are the given by three social media and web
Innovation metrics. The first one is the return on attention which is a key metric of attention
scarcity and refers to the value we get in return for the time spent looking for what we want
and need. Communities demonstrated wide cost reductions and a huge returned value in
change of attention. The second one is the return on information metric, which is based upon
the value of relevant data returned through search. Communities are an ideal pool to find
information about people, needs and preferences. The third one is the return on skills.
Communities are able to attract users with high capabilities and social networks make
possible to build a knowledge map. The previous metrics represent the starting strategic
objectives of the selected tool, namely generating relationships and engagement and letting
the competencies emerge. User participation is favored by the capability of inducing and
gratifying the joining pulse, going through the daily user flow. Realization has to be gradual
and respect all kinds of needs.
The focus model was the shelf. A shelf can be personalized as preferred, can contain own and
other objects, can hold working and extra-working contents.
Social networks are not all the same. In this particular case the main purpose was to realize a
useful job tool able to create an open and connected place where ideas and discussions could
grow in support of innovation and creativity. After the firsts analyses it was decided to make
a modular offer to better address the social business needs of diverse users. By delivering a
modular software approach, a new working environment, both effective and motivating at the
same time, could be introduced. Modules follows users needs detected by the gap analyses
and add further advantages. The basic modules allow total collaboration and involvement of
the employees. It represents the initial stage to transform conversations into tangible
initiatives. The other modules are designed to facilitate interaction, discussion and an
exchange of information and to allow the submission of ideas to be commented on, including
documents so as to work in a collaborative manner on new content. Additional advantages
are given by the reduction of the numerous meetings and of the amount of emails, or simple
by retaining a memory of past projects. The main feature is that individuals exchange views
between each other in real time and even more accurately the right information with the right
people.
Action Plan
The collected results give the basis to start to work. The main objective is to improve
knowledge sharing and transfer by putting the individual at the center and analyzing social
usability and relational motivations. In the current situation systems are very fragmented, but
the perception survey shows that people are ready to share knowledge. Quantitative and
quality analyses shows people tendencies, which represents the critical factor of the further
implementation. First of all people want to find contacts and information about colleagues’
position and competences, then they need an integrated system.
According to Malhotra (2005), best practices recommend not to pioneer new technology. For
this reason the solution is in exploiting existent social technologies’ feature in an integrated
way always close to employees needs. The identified solution is a modular social network
rich of functionalities. People themselves are ready, but we should move gradually to not
counteract the benefit of social technologies. Three phases with different targets have been
identified. The first phase’s target is to support individual needs, the second phase’s target is
to improve the collaborative culture, and the third one is to enhance the collective
intelligence.
To build a success social network it is necessary to follow a process. The main steps of this
action plan are given by the active listening, strategic concept and governance, interface
design, implementation, launch and promotion, participation and dynamics monitoring.
Figure 12: The Process.
Active listening is fundamental to discover people needs. Blowing up the needs permits to
choose the right technology to enable. Brainstorming, focus group and AS IS analysis are key
aspects of this stage that permit to formalize the contents. The strategic concept is a statement
of what is to be done. Focus drivers are given by a shared and informal place, workability,
practicalness, community and shared job.
The model is complex and it is necessary to move gradually. First of all it is necessary to
work on the needs. Providing a not requested functionality can lead to the empty room effect,
or rather users don't feel compelled to come back because the conversations doesn’t seem
active. A problem creates a need, a need asks for a solution. The solution should be delivered
on time to not frustrate people, while the interface should be easy, usable and pleasant.
Communication is crucial. This new tool aims to be an evolution of communication services
and a development of social relationship. In particular the target is to create an informal space
where it is possible to share interests, passions, personal skills and achieve actual leadership.
It is absolutely important simulate and organize feedbacks to steer the course accurately as in
a sailboat.
FINDINGS
The empirical study evaluated the effectiveness of current KM tools in achieving knowledge
transfer in an integrated energy company. The paper proposes a tailor made methodology and
some best practices to encouraged knowledge sharing in a more structured manner. In
particular the paper proposes to use social networks, which are consolidated technologies, by
this time.
Social network are strategic tools as they bring a change in organization dynamics. They
represent a breaking point such as email introduction was at the beginning. Electronic mail
was in fact a crucial tool that allowed multiple users to log from remote places. It started in
1965 and this new ability encouraged users to share information in new ways. In many cases
resistance to change was encountered in introducing email inside the companies, as everyone
could be able to communicate directly with the CEO, by that time. Now we are facing to
another revolution: social networks allow users to create their own personal virtual space in
which it is possible to show personal implicit competencies and communicate the own status.
In this study some main aspects are emerged about enterprise 2.0. There are principal reasons
why community users decrease in their participation over time. Those are the lack of interest,
low quality content, low usability, low trust, merely boring. Every context is different and it
is absolutely important take into account people maturity level about new technologies. It is
important to carry out every initiative in a gradual way and choose the strategic objective for
each phase basing on people perceptions and needs. Then monitoring is crucial to steer the
course on every little change and the emerging of new needs.
To summarize best practices in the application of enterprise 2.0 the golden rule is always
analyzing data to be ready to support new requirements and changes. Tools should be usable,
easy and well integrated. It is important a continuous and active listening to people and the
monitoring of keyword analysis and behavior patterns. To make the transition from
individual to enterprise usage, web 2.0 products need to be able to scale to large groups and
to operate across the entire enterprise. The enterprise search tool has to be very powerful, as
search solutions are blending traditional approaches with web 2.0 functionality.
Effective design is crucial. It presents KM tools in context to enable and encourage usage and
contribution. Effective design simplifies functions such as search and browse and also
provides efficient contextual access to collaboration tools.
Table 1: what to do and not to do summary.
TO DO
Move gradually
Continuous and active listening
Analyze data
Provide modular tools
Monitor keyword analysis
Be ready to change
Follow a process
Design usable and easy interface
Integrate systems and enhance search tools
NOT TO DO
Pioneer new technologies
Give soon unrequested functionality risking the empty
room effect
Underestimate user feedbacks and perceptions
Monitor only the initial KPIs
Block people creativity
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
These findings revealed the large number of factors impacting on knowledge transfer. It is
not so much the knowledge existing in an organization but rather the firm’s ability to
effectively apply this knowledge that goes a long way to creating new knowledge (Alavi and
Leidner, 2003). Social technologies help to leverage knowledge sharing and transfer, but a
structured approach should be applied through many steps and different kinds of analysis,
ready to always follow user needs.
The paper is based on an application of the described approach to a single, even large,
company, which limits the possibility of making general conclusions. The representative
nature of the survey group, together with the data collection methods employed, were key
strengths of the study approach. However, there is a key limitation of the survey group due to
the participation of only a little representative sample of people. Next steps are represented
by the analysis of the trends of the utilization of this social network inside this multinational
Company.
CONCLUSIONS
In an even more complex world, more openness is required to better understand and integrate
expectations of internal stakeholders. Eni demonstrated a great farsightedness and passion for
continuous improvement. Social technologies can help to capture critical information,
designing an implicit knowledge real-time map and apply a qualitative and dynamic analysis
of people trends. Avoiding their use can be a missed opportunity for the companies, also
because people can use external tools like Facebook to state their opinion and show their
skills.
KM has evolved to the point where collaboration and contribution is as much a priority as
information access. By now the linchpins of KM are not only the ability to lead users to
relevant knowledge, but also the capability to promote participation.
REFERENCES
1. Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2003), ‘‘Review: knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues’’, MIS Quarterly, 25
(1), pp. 107-36.
2. Alberghini E., Cricelli L., Grimaldi M., (2010), Implementing knowledge management
through IT opportunities: definition of a theoretical model based on tools and processes
classification, The Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Intellectual Capital,
Lisbon, Portugal, 29-30 March, 2010, pp. 22-33.
3. Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive
advantage in firms’’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1), pp.
150-69.
4. Bae B. P., Jan H. (200) User Loyalty and Online Communities: why Members of Online
Communities are not faithful. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on
INtelligent TEchnologies for interactive enterTAINment, Cancun, Mexico
5. Brown J.S. and Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life od Information. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
6. De Gennaro T., 2010 “Social Technologies Will Penetrate IT Management Tools”,
Forrester Research.
7. Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1999), Working Knowledge – How Organizations Manage
What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
8. Dilek Z. N., Ulku U. (2008) A cultural perspective on knowledge management: the
success story of Sarkuysan company, Journal of Knowledge Management, 12 (2), pp.
141-155,
9. Foss, N.J. and Pedersen, T. (2002), ‘‘Transferring knowledge in MNCs: the role of
sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context’’, Journal of International
Management, 8, pp. 49-67.
10. Grant, R. (2007) Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications,
6th Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
11. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1986), ‘‘Resource sharing among SBUs: strategic
antecedents and administrative implications’’, Academy of Management Journal, 29 (4),
pp. 695-714.
12. Kalling, T. (2003), ‘‘Organization-internal transfer of knowledge and the role of
motivation: a qualitativecase study’’, Knowledge and Process Management, 10 (2), pp.
115-26.
13. Koplowitz R. (2010) “Enterprise Social Networking 2010 Market Overview”, Forrester
Research.
14. Koplowitz R., Owens L. (2010) “Disciplined Social Innovation “, Forrester Research.
15. Hackett, B. (2000), Beyond Knowledge Management, New Ways to Work and Learn,
Research Report 1262-00-RR, The Conference Board, New York, NY.
16. Leidner D, Alavi M., Kayworth T., (2006) The Role of Culture in Knowledge
Management: A Case Study of Two Global Firms, International Journal of eCollaboration, 2(1), 17-40, January-March.
17. Likert, Rensis (1932). "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes". Archives of
Psychology, 140: 1–55.
18. Malhotra, Y. (1998) "Deciphering the knowledge management hype", Journal for Quality
and Participation, 21, (4), pp. 58-60.
19. Malhotra, Y. (2005) "Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational
business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance",
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (1).
20. McAfee A. P. (2006) “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, 47 (3), pp.20-28.
21. McEvily, S. and Chakravarthy, B. (2002), ‘‘The persistence of knowledge-based
advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge’’,
Strategic Management Journal, 23, pp. 285-305.
22. Norris D., Mason J., Lefrer P. (2003) Transforming e-Knowledge:A revolution in the
sharing of knowledge. Ann Arbor, Michigan Society for College and University Planning.
23. Rao, M. (2005) Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques: practitioners and experts
evaluate KM solutions, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington USA.
24. Ruggles, R. L. (1997) Knowledge management tools, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
25. Perrin A., Rolland N., Tracy S. (2007) Achieving best practices transfer across countries,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 11 (3), pp. 156-166.
26. Schooley C. (2009) “The Millenials are here! Are you prepared?”, Forrester Research.
27. Schooley C. (2008) “Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning”, Forrester
Research.
28. Sveiby, K.E. (1995), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring
Knowledge-based Assets, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
29. Wenger, E. (1999), Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
30. Yang S.J.H, Chen I.Y.L. (2006) "A social network-based system for supporting
interactive collaboration", International Journal of Human Computing Studies.