Digital Social Networks: Examining the Knowledge Characteristics

Authors: Nurul Aini M. Nordan, Ahmad I. Z. Abidin, Ahmad K. Mahmood, Noreen I. Arshad

Abstract:

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.

Keywords: Digital social networks, e-mail, knowledge management, knowledge worker.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1072794

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.