Describes some of the theoretical background that is being empirically examined in the IRI-ROR Collaboration Continuum Project by Robert McNamee.

1. IRI-RORCollaboration ContinuumKnowledge Exchange in Organizations Co-Chairs: Leonard Huskey, US Army Research Lab Natalie Schoch, Kellogg Company Peter Oelschlaeger, Sandia National Labs SME: Robert McNamee, Rutgers University rmcnamee@andromeda.rutgers.edu

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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)

5. “Stand on the shoulders of giants” scholar.google.com 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

6. Why / how we seek Knowledge? Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Kramer, 1999) Uncertainty  Information Seeking Behavior Creative Problem Solving Process (Treffinger 2000) Increased Uncertainty (& Flexibility) Increased Certainty (& Constraint)

7. Knowledge Search-Transfer Creative Ideation Pull Creative Problem Solving (CPS) Organizational Creativity Org. Collaboration Lit. Small Groups Research Knowledge Sharing via Repositories Advice Sharing Push Innovation Acceptance/Adoption Novel Proven

8. 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)

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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 (PushKMPull) 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

13. 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

14. 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 answer on its back as a snail carries its shell”

15. 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

16. Source Motivations “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” Transferor (Pull Sources) 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 Sharer (Push Sources)

17. Recipient Motivations “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” 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 Searchers (Pull Recipients) Adopters (Push Recipients)

18. Org. / Dyadic Climate Negative 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

20. 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)

21. 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.)

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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