Digital Social Networks: Examining the Knowledge Characteristics

In today-s information age, numbers of organizations are still arguing on capitalizing the values of Information Technology (IT) and Knowledge Management (KM) to which individuals can benefit from and effective communication among the individuals can be established. IT exists in enabling positive improvement for communication among knowledge workers (k-workers) with a number of social network technology domains at workplace. The acceptance of digital discourse in sharing of knowledge and facilitating the knowledge and information flows at most of the organizations indeed impose the culture of knowledge sharing in Digital Social Networks (DSN). Therefore, this study examines whether the k-workers with IT background would confer an effect on the three knowledge characteristics -- conceptual, contextual, and operational. Derived from these three knowledge characteristics, five potential factors will be examined on the effects of knowledge exchange via e-mail domain as the chosen query. It is expected, that the results could provide such a parameter in exploring how DSN contributes in supporting the k-workers- virtues, performance and qualities as well as revealing the mutual point between IT and KM.

Authors:

• Nurul Aini M. Nordan
• Ahmad I. Z. Abidin
• Ahmad K. Mahmood
• Noreen I. Arshad

Keywords:

• Digital social networks
• e-mail
• knowledge management
• knowledge worker.

References:

[1] Whelan, Eoin. Exploring knowledge exchange in electronic networks of
practice, Journal of Information Technology, vol. 22, pp. 5-12, 2007.
[2] Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P. and Parker, A. Making Invisible Work Visible:
Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration,
California Management Review, vol. 44(2), pp. 25-46, 2002.
[3] C.B Crawford and C. S. S. Stronthkirch. The Critical Role
Communication in Knowledge Organizations: Communication
apprehension as a predictor of Knowledge Management, Journal of
Knowledge Management Practice, vol. 7(4), 2006.
[4] Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. Working knowledge: How Organizations
manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School, 2000.
[5] T. Pederson. Physical-Virtual instead of Physical or Virtual - Designing
Artifacts for Future Knowledge Work Environments, in 8th International
Conference Proceedings on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 19-24,
1999.
[6] A. Broberg, M. Milrad, and T. Pederson. Challenges for Design:
Seeing Learners as Knowledge Workers Acting in Physical-Virtual
Enviroments, in 8th European Conference for Research Proceedings on
Learning and Instruction, 1999.
[7] A. Broberg, Learners as Knowledge Workers - Some Implications, in
29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers Conference Proceedings on Education, pp.
19-24, 1999.
[8] Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., and Lundvall, B. A. Why all this fuss about
codified and tacit knowledge?, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2),
pp. 245-262, 2002.
[9] Kim, D. H. The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning,
Sloan Management Review, 35(1), pp. 37-51, 1993.
[10] Schultze, U., and Leidner, D. Studying Knowledge Management in
Information Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical
Assumptions, MIS Quarterly, 26(3), pp. 213-242, 2002.
[11] Wiig, K., and Jooste, A., Chapter 45: Exploiting Knowledge for
Productivity Gains, Springer Science and Business Media B.V., pp. 289-
308, 2004.
[12] Yoshioka, T., Herman, G., Yates, J. and Orlikowski, W. J. Genre
Taxonomy: A Knowledge Repository of Communicative Actions, ACM
Transactions on Information Systems, 19(4), pp. 431-456, 2001.
[13] Agarwal, R., Krudys, G. and Tanniru, M., Infusing Learning into an
Information Systems Organization, European Journal of Information
Systems, 6(1), pp. 25-40, 1997.
[14] Garud, R., On the Distinction between Know-how, Know-what and
Know-why, In A. Huff and J. Walsh (Eds.), Advances in Strategic
Management, pp. 81-101, 1997.
[15] Earl, M. Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy,
Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), pp. 215-234, 2001.
[16] Pomerol, J., Brezillon, P., and Pasquier, L. Operational Knowledge
Representation for Practical Decision-Making, Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18(4), pp. 101-115, 2002.
[17] Rulke, D. L. and Galaskiewicz, J. Distribution of Knowledge, Group
Network Structure, and Group Performance, Management Science,
46(5), pp. 612-625, 2000.
[18] Dhaliwal, J., and Benbasat, I. The Use and Effects of Knowledge-based
System Explanations: Theoretical Foundations and a Framework for
Empirical Evaluation, Information Systems Research, 7(3), pp. 342-362,
1996.
[19] Shahnawaz Muhammed, J.D. William and D. Xiaodong, Exploring the
Relationships among Individual Knowledge Management Outcomes, in
41st Hawaii International Conference Proceedings on System Sciences,
pp. 1-10, 2008.
[20] Gasson, S., The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge, and expertise in
collaborative, boundary-spanning design, Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 10(4), 2005.
[21] C. Y. Narasimha, M. Kamath, and R. Sharda, A Semi Markov Decision
Process Approach to E-mail Management In A Knowledge Work
Environment, in 3rd Annual IEEE Conference Proceedings on
Automation Science and Engineering, pp. 1051-1056, 2007.
[22] Syed Z. Shariq. Knowledge Management: An Emerging Discipline,
Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 1(1), pp. 75-82, 1997.
[23] R. Teigland and M. M. Wasko. Creative Ties and Ties that Bind:
Examining the Impact of Weak Ties on Individual Performance.
Sweden: Stockholm School of Economics, 2000.
[24] Wasko, M., and Faraj, S. It is What One Does: Why People Participate
and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice, Journal of
Strategic Information Systems (June), 2000.
[25] Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. The Kindness of Strangers: The
Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice, Organization
Science 7(2), pp. 119-135, 1996.
[26] Michaelson, G.A. Sun Tzu: The Art of War for Managers, Adams Media
Corporation, MA.pp.27, 2001.
[27] Fernie S, Green SD, Weller SJ and Newcombe R. Knowledge Sharing:
context, confusion and controversy, International Journal of Project
Management, vol. 21, pp. 177-187, 2003.
[28] O- Reilly, C. Variations in Decision Makers- Use of Information
Sources: The Impact of Quality and Accessibility of Information,
Academy of Management Journal 25(4), pp. 756-771, 1982.
[29] Ruggles, R. The State of the Notion: Knowledge Management in
Practice, California Management Review (40), pp. 80-89, 1998.
[30] Darwin Magazine. Why Knowledge Management matters. Retrieved
from: www.darwinmag.com/read/whitepaper_mean. html
[31] Kogut, B. and Zander, U. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative
Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology, Organisation Science,
3(3), pp., 3(3), pp. 383-398, 1992.
[32] Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. The knowledge creating company: how
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford
University Press, New York, NY, 1995.
[33] Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. I. Knowing ÔÇÿwhat- to do Is not Enough:
Turning Knowledge into Action, California Management Review, 42(1),
pp. 83-109, 1999.
[34] Chatzkel, J., Conversation with Alex Bennet, former Deputy CIO for
Enterprise Integration at the US Department of Navy, Journal of
Knowledge Management. 6(5), pp. 433-439, 2002.
[35] Hasgall, Alon and Shoham, Snunith. Digital Social Network Technology
and the Complex Organisational Systems, Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems, 37(2), pp. 180-191, 2007.
[36] Oliver, D. and Ross, J. The Poised Organisation: Navigating Effectively
on Knowledge Landscapes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication,
1999.
[37] Sekaran, Uma. 4th. Ed. Research methods for business: a skill building
approach. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2003.