IRI-RORCollaboration ContinuumKnowledge Exchange in Organizations

Co-Chairs:Leonard Huskey, US Army Research Lab

Natalie Schoch, Kellogg CompanyPeter Oelschlaeger, Sandia National Labs

SME: Robert McNamee, Rutgers Universityrmcnamee@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Knowledge & Collaboration

• “The most important contribution management needs to make in the 21st Century is to increase the productivity of knowledge work and the knowledge worker." (Drucker 1999)

• “Interest in collaboration rests, implicitly or explicitly, on the assumption that human cognition is an interpersonal, as well as intrapersonal, process” (Levine & Moreland, 2004)

E2.0 is Uniquely “Socio-Technical”• KM/Collaboration Technology

exists to resolve issues with or improve on existing interpersonal networks

• Cultural and interpersonal barriers will often be similar or worse in KM/E2.0 environments

• Many of the most important knowledge interactions will continue to happen interpersonally

E2.0

Enhances, Builds/Relies On, & Compliments

Interpersonal Networks & Organizational Culture

Collaboration Continuum Project• Right now there is little solid research on value of E2.0

– Within Organizations:• Some articles and case studies• All post hoc and one-off explanations

– Slightly more evidence of E2.0 value when it connects the organization to outside stakeholders (e.g., customers / partners)

“When companies provide [social networking software] to employees, they’re often going on little more than a gut

instinct that these applications will be good for business.” (Dell V.P. Communities & Conversations, 2009)

“Stand on the shoulders of giants”

• Critical that we do not start our research in a vacuum– Communication, Knowledge Exchange, Creativity, & Innovation

• Provides fundamental understanding of motivation, knowledge flows, knowledge recombination, and organizational learning

– Knowledge Sharing via Repositories• KM research provides some fundamental understanding of sources

motivations to share knowledge• However, E2.0 is more social than KM of the past

– Web 2.0 / Open Source• Research on CoP and Web 2.0 provide an understanding of the socio-

technical environment systems can provide.• However, corporate environments much different than public

Internet / open source environments

scholar.google.com

Why / how we seek Knowledge?

• Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Kramer, 1999)

– Uncertainty Information Seeking Behavior

• Creative Problem Solving Process (Treffinger 2000)

Understand Challenge

Generating Ideas

Preparing for Action

Increased Certainty

(& Constraint)

Increased Uncertainty

(& Flexibility)

Org

. Col

labo

ratio

n Li

t.

NovelProven

Pu

shP

ull

Small Groups Research

Knowledge Search-Transfer

Advice Sharing

Knowledge Sharing via Repositories

Creative Ideation

Creative Problem

Solving (CPS)

Organizational Creativity

Innovation Acceptance/Adoption

Definitions• Knowledge: “a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual

information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” (Davenport & Prusak, 2000)

• Knowledge Transfer: the “process through which one is affected by the experience of another.” (Argote & Ingram, 2000)

• Advice: “information that communicates an opinion about what could or should be done about a problem.” (Sussman & Siegal, 2003)

• Creativity: “the production of novel & useful ideas” (Amabile, 1996:)

• Innovation: the “intentional introduction and application of new and improved ways of doing things” (Andersen et al., 2004)

Prototypical Knowledge Exchanges• Knowledge Search-Transfer Lit. (Prototypical Pull*Proven)

Assumption: hard to get potential sources engaged in interactions.

Scientists have described the “enormous personal impact of sharing knowledge unwisely: they could be swallowed up, cut out of the chain, and risked losing credit, visibility, first authorship, and a place on the patent.” (Andrews & Delhaye, 2000)

• Innovation Acceptance/Adoption Lit. (Prototypical Push*Novel)Assumption: hard to get potential recipients engaged in interactions.“Getting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is often very difficult.” (Rogers, 1995)

To “overcome the indifference and resistance that [change] provokes, a champion is required to identify the idea as his or her own, to promote the idea actively and vigorously…” (Howell & Higgins, 1990)

Pull Flows & Org. Learning• Typical Pull Process

– Recipients 1) identify / frame problem & 2) Approach sources• Sources often constrained in knowledge they can apply• Recipients may be closed off to unexpected knowledge

• Org Learning– “known unknowns” - Minimum for effective

org. knowledge system

However, we can’t constantly validate all our assumptions

Push Flows & Org. Learning• Typical Push Process

– Sources 1) Identify / frame problem & 2) Approach recipients• Sources may be providing more of their own knowledge• Sources may underappreciated/misapprehend context/situation

– For exchange to occur, Recipients must accept• Problem existence• Solution appropriateness/viability

• Org Learning– “Known Unknowns” - more efficient org. knowledge system– “Unknown Unknowns” - Breaks down false assumptions /

avoids decision failures / Drives org. change & innovation

Directionality of Exchanges• In open collaborative environments

– Searchers can find appropriate knowledge sources (& transferors are engaged in solving searcher’s problems)

– Sharers know others who will benefit from their knowledge (& adopters are open to unsolicited advice, ideas, & knowledge)

• These same patterns can often be found in E2.0 systems: – Push via blogs or twitter / Pull via forums or search

• Knowledge Repositories may risk innovation (PushKMPull)– Less dialogue / feedback loops– Filter “noise” eliminate unsolicited knowledge (& serendipity?)– Need to design E2.0 systems with this in mind

• E.g., Enable some “productive noise” via opt in feeds

Knowledge and Ideas

• “Knowledge” is often pigeonholed as:– Proven solutions

• Some of the most important knowledge:– Comes as ideas, hunches, and best guesses– Is hard to communicate and understand (i.e. tacit / complex)

• Judgmental Cultures– Restrict Knowledge Search (show don’t know), Transfer/Sharing (may

make a mistake), Creativity (may be judged for crazy ideas)

• In E2.0 environments norms often develop in various systems – e.g., Repositories for proven knowledge / Blogs open to creative ideas– Need to design systems for both proven knowledge & creative ideas

Knowledge Complexity / Scope• Many levels of complexity to Knowledge

– Data / Information– Knowledge Component (Meme)– Knowledge Structure (Schema / Mental Models)– Meta Knowledge (Problem Solving / Learning Methods)

• More Constraints Less Applicable Knowledge– Meta-knowledge applies to the entire problem solving process– Knowledge structures / mental models provide guidance or

frameworks for exploring ill-defined problem spaces

“a well-packed question carries its answeron its back as a snail carries its shell”

Knowledge Exchange & Collaboration

Find – Engage – Understand!

• Successful exchanges requires:– Finding an appropriate exchange partner

• Individuals (or other sources) that possess knowledge• Individuals that possess gaps/opportunities

– Both parties are motivated enough to engage in the effort necessary to transfer and/or receive knowledge

– That both parties can understand one another• From a General Expertise/Knowledge standpoint• From a Specific Contextual/Situational standpoint

Source Motivations

Negative Factors• Time & Effort Required for Exchange• Fear of Loss of Unique Value

– Human Capital Loss• Evaluation Apprehension

– Expertise Status Loss– Social Capital / Status Loss

Positive Factors• Extrinsic Rewards / Incentives?

• Organization / Group Identification• Intrinsic (Learning / Problem Solving)

– Human Capital Gains• Reciprocity

– Social Capital / Status Gains• Competency Recognition

– Expertise Status Gains

“Not only does an individual choosing to share knowledge stand to lose his/her unique value within the organization, but any knowledge that is subsequently judged to be unsound or irrelevant can damage his/her reputation”

Sharer (Push Sources)

Transferor (Pull Sources)

Recipient Motivations

Negative Factors• Implementation/Change Costs• Evaluation Apprehension

– Expertise Status Loss• Reciprocity Expectations

– Social Capital Costs• Problem Recognition/Acceptance• Knowledge/Advice Discounting• Psychological Reactance

Positive Factors• Need/Problem /Opportunity

“Open knowledge sharing still seems to be the exception rather than the rule, with knowledge hoarding and guarded skepticism of knowledge offered by others seeming to be natural human tendencies”

Searchers (Pull Recipients)

Adopters (Push Recipients)

Org. / Dyadic ClimateNegative Factors

• Competitive Climate• Judgmental Culture• Project / Time Accounting• Lack of connection of KM

strategy to firm goals

Positive Factors• Interpersonal

– Ties– Trust

• Reciprocity Norms– Specific / Interpersonal– General / Group

• Task Interdependence• Shared Outcomes & Rewards• Perceived Man./Org. Support

Intra-Organizational Boundaries• ‘Small worlds’ of open collaboration

– Shared Goals, Outcomes, Understanding +– Group Identification, Trust, Reciprocity +

• Breaking Barriers– Requires:

• Engagement (Trust / Identification)• Shared Understanding (identify opportunities / communicate)

– Benefits: • Reduce redundancy productivity / efficiency• Enhance the diversity of perspectives innovation

• In E2.0 similar problems result when:– Disparate, unconnected, systems parallel real world divides– People are members of so many groups they don’t identify/actively

participate with any of them

Status Boundaries• Hierarchical (supervisor-subordinate) information flows:

– May push down / pull up information (need-to-know)– May not be available to answer questions– May not be open to hearing ideas from below

• Expert information flows:– May respond to information requests– May transfer packaged solutions (no understanding

of problem specifics and no dual ownership of problem)– May not proactively share new information– May not be open to receiving knowledge from less-expert members

• E2.0 can replicate this when:– Information is “dumped” in response to requests– Supervisors/experts relatively uninvolved– Bottlenecks exist in knowledge networks (too few experts)

E2.0: Find/Engage Reputation & Trust

• Reputation & Trust are “Engagement Filters”– “Making that decision of ‘trust vs. don’t trust’ is becoming the key skill

for today’s overly networked worker.” (KMWorld, 2008)• Trust is especially critical when:

– Interacting beyond local trusted colleagues– Considering novel/uncertain knowledge

• E2.0 Social Rating/Voting/Reputation Systems– Highlights best content/experts for searchers– Provides normative feedback to guide/improve contributions– Provides status rewards to contributors of useful material

• 70% of people who contribute web 2.0 content indicated ‘fame’ was the reason (McKinsey & Co.)

E2.0: Engage/UnderstandCommunities of Practice

• Social Networking– Links people from across the organization– Encourages frequent contact– Create/develop/strengthen CoPs

• Communities of practice– Groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do

and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly– Identity ties with the group can create trust and other emotional bonds to

all members of the group– Shared understanding develops among members

• Sources and Recipients know one another’s knowledge, needs, problems, and specific contexts

• Knowledge is transferred more easily

E2.0: Systemic Integration• To really achieve value these technologies

must be integrated into a systemic whole.– Single logins– Search across all platforms w/ a single query– Integration & Norms

• e.g., only post question once a search is completed

• It requires some additional effort to turn community conversations into knowledge assets / collective intelligence– Best answers in forum threads become wiki posts– Blogged ideas that get initially positive feedback move into

ideasbank for development– Lessons learned from projects become wiki posts– Success stories become wiki posts / announced with tweets

Thank you very much for your time and attention

For additional information please contact: Robert McNamee: rmcnamee@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Or visit our wiki: collaborationcontinuum.pbwiki.com

Special thanks to the Technology Management Research Center (TMRC)

@ Rutgers Business School for providing partial funding for this research. http://tmrc.rutgers.edu