<i>Wiki</i> for knowledge sharing, a user-centred evaluation approach: a case study at <i>STMicroelectronics</i>

Brichni, Manel; Mandran, Nadine; Gzara, Lilia; Dupuy-Chessa, Sophie; Rozier, David

doi:10.1108/jkm-04-2014-0123

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These new means of KS have become the attention areas for researchers (Goswami and Agrawal, 2018). Studies were taken to examine and explore KS by means of various ICT tools and technologies such as newsgroups, electronic bulletin boards, emails, chat rooms (Li et al, 2006), wiki (Brichni et al, 2014) and Weblogs (Kaiser et al, 2009;Papadopoulos et al, 2013). Emergence of social media tools in recent times has given new opportunities to researchers to examine these aspects of KS.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building intellectual structure of knowledge sharing

Goswami

2019

VJIKMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to build the intellectual structure of knowledge sharing (KS) research by objectively and systematically capturing and sketching the content of research papers published in the KS research area. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a systematic literature review for data collection, and content analysis and bibliometric techniques of citation and co-citation analysis for data analyses and interpretation. Findings Based on the study, the intellectual structure of KS research consisting of five themes has emerged. The five themes identified are: models, frameworks and understanding for KS, the behaviour-oriented perspective of KS, technology-oriented perspective of KS, KS barriers and KS and firm’s performance. Research limitations/implications This study has used published literature extracted from selected journals using the web of science database. More journals and databases may be included in future studies. Practical implications This study will give future researchers a comprehensive understanding of KS discipline and serve as a quick reference and resource for those interested in KS research. It identifies major areas of KS for the practitioners to enable them to focus and apply various organizational interventions to derive a competitive advantage. The identified themes in the intellectual structure of KS will also provide a holistic view and give multiple perspectives to practitioners so that they can better manage KS in their organizations. Originality/value This is among early studies aiming to extract the intellectual structure of KS in the broad area of knowledge management research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building intellectual structure of knowledge sharing

Goswami

2019

VJIKMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the micro level, it was found that individual motivation, individual capabilities and reflexivity were likely to influence the co-creation of artifacts in collaborative knowledge building. Individual motivation was addressed in the work of Maaninen-Olsson et al (2008), Mueller (2012), Schwabe and Salim (2002), Brichni et al (2014) and Kreiner (2002). Individual motivation (also referred to as “intrinsic motivation”; see, for instance, Mueller, 2012) seemed to be a crucial individual factor enabling proper co-creation and subsequent use of artifacts (Brichni et al , 2014), especially in the long-term in conjunction with individual awareness and willingness to contribute to the creation of artifacts (Brichni et al , 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individual motivation was addressed in the work of Maaninen-Olsson et al (2008), Mueller (2012), Schwabe and Salim (2002), Brichni et al (2014) and Kreiner (2002). Individual motivation (also referred to as “intrinsic motivation”; see, for instance, Mueller, 2012) seemed to be a crucial individual factor enabling proper co-creation and subsequent use of artifacts (Brichni et al , 2014), especially in the long-term in conjunction with individual awareness and willingness to contribute to the creation of artifacts (Brichni et al , 2014). Individual motivation was found to allow organizational members “to understand each other’s knowledge and work activities” (Maaninen-Olsson et al , 2008, p. 271), with positive effects on knowledge sharing among members and teams (Mueller, 2012) as well as to achieve desired outcomes (Kreiner, 2002; see also Barney, 1986).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the knowledge management field, artifacts have been studied to better understand, for instance, how they contribute to knowledge transfer in shift work practices in the manufacturing and educational sectors (Bosua and Venkitachalam, 2015); or how boundary objects contribute to sharing practices and group cognition and sensemaking (Nosek, 2004), enabling knowledge to be mobilized to develop collaborative work at the group (Mueller, 2012) or organizational level (Brichni et al , 2014). More recently, artifacts have been assessed in the knowledge management debate (Mariano and Awazu, 2016) and several avenues for future research have been suggested.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of collaborative knowledge building in the co-creation of artifacts: influencing factors and propositions

Mariano

Awazu

2017

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This article assesses the role of collaborative knowledge building in the co-creation of artifacts in the knowledge management field. Design/methodology/approach-Fifty-eight articles published in six knowledge managementrelated journals were analyzed. The framework for analysis included thirteen codes. Articles were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Findings-Findings showed that several factors influenced the co-creation of artifacts in collaborative knowledge building. At the micro level, individual motivation, capabilities and reflexivity seemed to play a central role in co-creation processes. At the meso level, teamwork and shared understanding were identified as two key major factors. At the macro level, structural, behavioral and cognitive factors were identified; they included organizational rules and workplace setting, organizational culture, and learning and memory. Managerial agency, characteristics of artifacts, and knowledge brokers and boundary spanners also seemed to have an influence at the inter-organizational levels of analysis. Research limitations-This study has limitations related to scope of contribution, covered time span (17 years), and restrictions in journal subscriptions. Practical implications-The study will help managers understand the intricacies of collaborative knowledge building practices to increase organizational overall effectiveness and performance. Originality/value-This article is a first attempt to systematically assess the role of collaborative knowledge building in the co-creation of artifacts, and therefore it represents a

show abstract

“…Among other solutions, STMicroelectronics has opted for the use of a Wiki to capitalize its expert knowledge, called Stiki . In a previous publication [4], an evaluation of Stiki use for knowledge sharing was performed. One of the evaluation findings concerns the importance of pages structuring in Wiki .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manufacturing Reporting Knowledge Representation: A Case Study at STMicroelectronics

Brichni

Dupuy-Chessa

Gzara

et al. 2014

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Part 1: Knowledge Discovery and SharingInternational audienceThis paper addresses the problem of manufacturing Reporting knowledge representation in manufacturing companies. An approach to characterize these knowledge is proposed. The solution is applied to the Reporting process at STMicroelectronics for capitalizing knowledge in the Wiki of the company and responding to users’ needs. In such an approach, the user participates throughout the knowledge representation definition process, even in choosing knowledge characteristics to represent it. For that aim, three dimensions are taken into consideration: the know What, the know Why and the know How

show abstract

Wiki for knowledge sharing, a user-centred evaluation approach: a case study at STMicroelectronics

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Building intellectual structure of knowledge sharing

Building intellectual structure of knowledge sharing

The role of collaborative knowledge building in the co-creation of artifacts: influencing factors and propositions

Manufacturing Reporting Knowledge Representation: A Case Study at STMicroelectronics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About