Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to investigate the key determinants of knowledge sharing and collaboration using Web 2.0 technologies by exploring the reasons for and barriers to employees' active participation in its various platforms within a large multinational firm.Design/methodology/approach -This study is based on a case study design. In total, 11 in-depth interviews were conducted. In addition, secondary data was collected. The data was analysed using a grounded approach.Findings -The authors reveal four key determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies: history, outcome expectations, perceived organizational or management support and trust.Research limitations/implications -The limitations are related to the small sample size and the assumptions on which the study was based. First, Web 2.0 technologies were perceived as a single set of technologies whose adoption and use is determined by the same range of factors. Secondly, the study assumes that knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 is an effective means to collaborate.Practical implications -Managerial recommendations derived from this study include: playing an active role in supporting Web 2.0 technologies as a strategic knowledge management initiative, clearly communicating its benefits, providing the necessary training and finally, rewarding participation.Originality/value -Online collaboration tools have become the knowledge management tool of choice for an increasing number of organisations. However, very little is known about factors leading to their success or failure. This study narrows this gap by offering unique empirical evidence from TechCo (pseudonym), one of the largest companies deploying such technologies.

Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review

“…This resistance is amplified by the fact that knowledge hoarding is not proscribed while knowledge sharing is mostly not recognised nor rewarded in today's organisations (Lam and Lambermont-Ford, 2010).In fact, in some cases knowledge exchange may be perceived negatively as wasting time in "chatting" (Davenport and Prusak, 2000). Those who are willing to share their knowledge may be inhibited by the lack of time needed to put it into a form suitable for sharing, unawareness of what knowledge needs to be shared (Levy et al, 2010), fear of publishing something confidential (Paroutis and Saleh, 2009), and the lack of an organisational culture and/or structure that fosters knowledge sharing (Ling, 2011).…”

Transfert de connaissances issues de la recherche en éducation : situation globale, défis et perspectives

“…D'autres abordent le recours à des plateformes ou à des applications Internet destinées à soutenir le transfert de CIR, dont le Web 2.0 (Edelstein, 2011;Paroutis et Saleh, 2009). Enfin, des résultats soulignent l'importance que les gestionnaires et décideurs soient non seulement sensibilisés au TC, mais impliqués dans les activités prévues à cet effet (Bourdeau, 2011;Collerette, 2008;Crona et Parker, 2011;Landry et al, 2008).…”

Integrating Social Knowledge and Collaboration Tools into Dispersed Product Development

“…There has been limited academic research conducted into the use of collaborative groupware within a PD or manufacturing setting, especially when they are considered within an ADI organisation; previously, academics have focused on the use of groupware from a KM standpoint [21,22]. For the purpose of this study, the authors designed and developed a bespoke groupware solution to meet specifically the needs of the two dispersed collaborating organisations.…”