The document discusses the role of social software in knowledge management within globally distributed organizations, emphasizing its potential to enhance collaboration and support knowledge processes. It explores various challenges, barriers, and success factors related to knowledge management, including cultural and technological aspects. The authors advocate for an integrated approach to knowledge management that acknowledges the influence of cultural differences and promotes the adoption of social software tools.

1. The use of social software for
Knowledge Management in
globally distributed settings
Jan Pawlowski & Henri Pirkkalainen
Global Information Systems group
Department of Computer Science and Information Systems
TJTSD66 Advanced Topics in Social Media

2. Global Information Systems
Mission Statement
Creating and validating new solutions for Information Systems in a
global context - this includes the support of individuals and
organizations to improve competitiveness, performance, and mutual
understanding
Topics
Designing work and learning processes in globally distributed
organizations
Design & development methods for global information systems
Culture analysis and awareness
Support tools for knowledge intensive processes in global
organizations
ICT4D: ICT for development
E-Learning and knowledge management in global
organizations

3. Global Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä
The Team
Denis Kozlov
Kati
Clements
Jan M.
Pawlowski
Henri
Philipp Holtkamp Pirkkalainen

4. Twitter feedback channel
#GSKM13
You can provide feedback and ask questions
regarding our part and the research topics
through Twitter

5. Social Software for KM: Contents
Knowledge Management in Global Settings
Social Software – Vocabulary in IS field?
Starting point for global inspection - Barriers
Focus in KM – what has been studied and how?
Towards unexplored research territories

6. A first question
What is common
knowledge?

7. Sauna: German instructions

8. Sauna: American instructions

9. Sauna: Finnish instructions

10. Related Concepts (modified,
North, 1998)
Competitiven
ess
+
Competence uniqueness
+applying to
Skill new settings
Knowledge +use
Information +context
Data +meaning
Symbol +syntax

11. Definition: Knowledge Management
“Knowledge management is defined as the management function responsible for
the regular selection, implementation and evaluation of goal-oriented
knowledge strategies that aim at improving an organization’s way of handling
knowledge internal and external to the organization in order to improve
organizational performance. The implementation of knowledge strategies
comprises all person-oriented, organizational and technological instruments
suitable to dynamically optimize the organization-wide level of competencies,
education and ability to learn of the members of the organization as well as to
develop collective intelligence.“ (Maier 2002)
”Planned and ongoing management of activities and processes for leveraging
knowledge to enhance competitiveness through better use and creation of
individual and collective knowledge resources.” (CEN 2004)

12. A first question…
Why is Knowledge a
Global Success
Factor?

13. Just a simple product?

14. Business Process Management
in a Networked Business
Management Processing
R&D
A
Marketing R&D
Sales Marketing Processing Marketing
Production B
Sales
IT
Services
Sales
IT
Services
Marketing
Material Flow
Knowledge/
Information / Data
Flow

15. Some random questions…
Decision questions
– Where to produce?
– How to build partnerships (joint ventures, contractors, …)
– Which systems to exchange knowledge?
Operational questions
– How to process wood?
– When will the next shipment arrive?
– How to market the product in Japan?
– How to explain the concept and advantages of Finnish
saunas?
– How to find the main problems of customers?
– Which are import and safety regulations?

16. This means…
Knowledge is a key to global success
Global KM managers need to understand the value
chain and knowledge requirements
Global KM managers need to understand
knowledge processes and culture
Global KM managers are the main hubs for smooth
operations in production and service enterprises
Which kind of IS support is promising or proven
successful?

17. Summary
Knowledge as a critical success factor
Knowledge management to support businesses
Global aspects
– Understanding the context
– Process design
– Systems and tool support
– Cultural aspects
Social Software as a promising tool to combine
human- and technology-orientation
– Which tools for which context?
– How to overcome cultural differences?
– How to embed tools?

18. Social Software?

19. Social Software
“Social Software enables an interactive way of collaboration,
managing content and connecting to online networks with other
people. It supports the desire of users to be pulled into groups in
order to achieve their personal goals”
(Wever, Mechant, Veevaete & Hauttekeete 2007)

20. Social Software
4 Cs of Social Software
Cook, N. Enterprise 2.0: How Social Software Will Change the Future of Work, UK:Gover, 2008.

21. Intertwined terminologies!

22. Social Media

23. Groupware
Message systems
Multiuser editors
Group decision support systems (GDSSs) Ellis, Gibbs & Rein 1991)
Computer conferencing systems
Shared information spaces
Workflow management/coordination systems
…Much older approach in the IS research
Ellis C.A., Gibbs S.J. & Rein C.L. 1991. Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM 34 (1), 39 – 58.

24. Collaboration tools
Onyechi & Abeisinghe 2009
Refs to Social Media, Social Software, Groupware, Web 2.0…

25. Web 2.0
Often explained as the
combination of methods and
techniques on which
Social Media is based on
Still used in IT literacy
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

26. What do you focus on when addressing
Social Software?

27. Research Trends for KM & SoSo
Constructive / Design-oriented research
– Tools to improve knowledge exchange and distribution
Do we really understand how global KM works: Qualitative
Research
– Understanding which influence factors and relations emerge in
global settings
– For example: Barriers to KM (why and how)
Relating and quantifying: Quantitative Research
– Understanding behavior in KM settings
– E.g. ISSM, TAM, KM Success Model
• What type of relations, how strong, cause-effect etc.
• Applied for example in Social networking studies, also Web 2.0 focus

28. Barriers?
Discussed from the viewpoint of an individual or group of people
Can relate to social interaction and as an example to factors that
hinder or challenge knowledge exchange
Might relate to challenges and risks when adopting or using a
specific technology
Challenges set by diverse workers, hierarchies and cultural
influences within an organization
In many cases tied to a specific context
Can be presented as a wider concept “cultural distance”
…or as a question that is formed from the problem,
“How to reward contribution?”…

29. Barriers
+ +
Organizational Dependent on business Location, time, culture
and hierarchical process and project and language
=
“Knowledge Islands”

30. Success factors - barriers
Critical Success Factors (CSF)
The relation between a barrier and success factor not always clear
…not always counter balanced in a way that overcoming a
barrier means a success
…not all success factors can be derived from barriers
Barriers are a starting point to understand success factors within a
specific context
Geographical dispersion of individuals
CSF
“set meeting schedules and rules of engagement”
“conduct periodic face-to-face meetings”

31. Context.
Organization /
Success Factors Individuals
Instruments
Holistic, integrated and standardized approach
– KM integrated within culture, coordination, and leadership
– Consider relationships and interdependencies
– Avoid isolated solutions, e. g., different, incompatible communication systems, no
standards, different knowledge processes,
– Knowledge processes and ICT platforms for KM should be standardized
throughout the organization and integrated with the existing business processes.
Knowledge-oriented culture
– Supportive organizational culture
– Open and communicative atmosphere
– Supporting a knowledge-oriented culture through e. g., communication of success
stories and best practices, through the acceptance of errors a s well as promoting
individual responsibility
Management support
– Top management to strategic knowledge goals, allocate sufficient budgets to the
KM initiative
– Providing good example for the change of behavior
– A knowledge champion can act as a coordinator for management support as well
as key speaker and motivator for the initiative.

32. Relation of concepts – GSKM
(Global Social Knowledge Management)
Pawlowski & Pirkkalainen 2012

33. Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2013

34. Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2013

35. Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2013

36. Technical barriers
Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2013

37. Cultural barriers
Pirkkalainen & Pawlowski 2013

38. Methodology to capture barriers
Different approaches depending on the discipline and maturity of the field
KM
Observation, ethnographic approaches
Relying on the rigor of the researcher
The main authors often experts with long history in the field
Experiences
Documented best practices, policies
Also combined approaches applying interviews and surveys within
specific organizations
Global factors
Long traditions, identification turned to concrete context specific
understanding
Social Software
Depending what is analyzed (adoption, influencing factors for sharing,
usability etc.)
Expert interviews, surveys, lab testing etc.
Research trend II - Merging research orientations and disciplines

39. Research results – Part I
Published in ECIS 2011
Studying influencing factors for Researchers’ sharing intentions in
Social Networking sites. Focus on sharing research and educational
information.
Examined our suggested hypotheses in a
quantitative analysis
Model: Extending TAM towards
knowledge sharing. Influence factors of:
-reputation
-anticipated mutual benefit
-self-efficacy
-enjoy helping
-internal personal computing support
-external computing support
-management support
Hypothesized based on existing literature
Kalb, Hendrik; Pirkkalainen, Henri; Pawlowski, Jan; and Schoop, Eric, "SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES AS A
FACILITATOR FOR SCIENTISTS’ SHARING ACTIVITIES" (2011). ECIS 2011 Proceedings. Paper 267.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/267

40. Fo
lie
Social Networking Services for research and 40
education

41. Research results – Part I
Survey: 54 eligible responses
Data analysis was conducted using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach and the SmartPLS
software. PLS is a structural equation modeling technique (SEM) – well fitting to confirmatory research
Results:
Expected reputation through sharing activities is an important predictor of the intention
the perceived usefulness of an SNS influences the intention to share information
To influence the usefulness in our context we found as antecedents the anticipated
reciprocal relationships through knowledge sharing in the system, the perceived
ease of use of the system and management support
….and Influence of enjoy helping on the intention to share educational resources in
a SNS
Not significant: internal and external support, we can not find support for the hypotheses
H5a and H5b, which propose a positive influence of self-efficacy on sharing behavior.
Kalb, Hendrik; Pirkkalainen, Henri; Pawlowski, Jan; and Schoop, Eric, "SOCIAL NETWORKING SERVICES AS A
FACILITATOR FOR SCIENTISTS’ SHARING ACTIVITIES" (2011). ECIS 2011 Proceedings. Paper 267.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/267

42. Research results – Part II
Currently studied
Studying barrier significance for using OER portals.
Contextualization of the previously presented barriers with OER
focus
Step1: Literature research
Step2: Narrowing the focus and studying barriers
Step3: Mapping identified barriers to KM activities and interventions
Step4: Studying changes over time. Deeper investigation on
implications and reasons behind

43. Example OER Social Software

44. Research results – Part II
Currently studied
Combining engagement activities (focus group) with the survey
instrument.
Running teacher workshops across Europe
- Presenting OER portals for teachers, running a scenario,
discussing SWOT, change enablers
- Filling the survey on-site or online
1176 eligible responses from 20 countries
Extending current OER research to Social Software (portal focus) to
understand most significant challenges.
Data analysis in progress… Variance analysis (One-way ANOVA)
depicts the significance of barriers dependent on the nationality of
the stakeholders.

45. Research results – Part II
Currently studied
Example difference between countries: availability of resources in
own language
Significant barrier: Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia…
Not significant: Romania, Spain, Netherlands, Finland..

46. Social Software in
Knowledge Management
Individuals, process/culture, technology
In many cases generalizing the purpose of Social
Software/media unnecessarily
E.g. “social media is essentially a social networking site, with subscribing”
Support of Social Software for different levels of KM:
Knowledge evolution, knowledge use/reuse, knowledge sharing/transfer
Not to replace but to support?
Are we discussing a specific service
or about the web in general?

47. Social Software in KM
Collaboration
Awareness
Documentation
Customer engagement
Interaction with stakeholders
…

48. Research trends III
Analyzing the cultural, organizational, and individual
context
Identifying barriers and potential success factors
Choosing and creating solutions (=interventions /
methods)
– Aligned with strategies and processes
– Addressing barriers
– Involving all stakeholders
– Not overloading people
Utilizing barrier-knowledge in KM processes

49. Social Software in KM activities and tasks
Knowledge Management Tasks
Not all tools are meant to support  creation, building, anticipation or
generation
all knowledge steps/tasks  acquisition, appropriation or adoption
 identification, capture, articulation or
extraction
 collection, gathering or accumulation
Identifying
 (legally) securing
 conversion
 organization, linking and embedding
 formalization
Collection, modification, collaboration  storage
 refinement or development
Annotation  distribution, diffusion, transfer or
sharing
 presentation or formatting
 application, deploying or exploiting
 review, revision or evolution of
Sharing, awareness knowledge
Source: (Maier, 2004)

50. From barriers to tools…
Tool Purpose Key End user KM Activities & processes Main Barriers
category Functionality
Blogging tools Communication -Post writings -Active & passive exchange of Organizational,
-Comment on professional information (Fiedler & Cultural, Social
writings Welpe 2011).
-Share writing -Acquire / capture / create, Organizational
Apply/share/transfer. Incentive for (Zhang 2010),
(external/internal) (Reuse/innovate/evolve/transform), Fitness to task
-Evaluate writings alerting (Avram 2006) (Thom-Santelli
-Extend with -Knowledge Evolution (Zheng & 2010)
plugins / integrate Zheng 2010) Cognitive (Kim
to other systems -Idea-generation and problem- 2008)
-RSS (alerts) solving (Zhang 2010)
-Externalization, combination
(Chatti et al, 2007)
-Creation, codification, sharing,
collaboration, organization
(Razmerita 2009)
Micro- Connection / -Post micro -Retrieve knowledge for use Organizational,
blogging tools awareness. writings (Zheng & Zheng 2010), Social
-Comment / -Enhancing information sharing
share / evaluate (easy to identify information Fitness to task
micro writings updates), building common (Thom-Santelli
-Share material / ground, sustaining connectedness 2010),
Information via among colleagues, supporting Social (trust)
micro writings informal communication (Zhao & (Zhao & Rosson
-Manage profile Rosson 2009) 2009)
(notifications -Alerting, informing users of
(RSS), privacy) changes (Levy 2009; Avram 2006)
-Follow other -Socialization, combination (Chatti
users et al, 2007)
-Send direct
messages
Pawlowski & Pirkkalainen 2012

51. From barriers to tools…
Pawlowski & Pirkkalainen 2012

52. From barriers to tools…
Pawlowski & Pirkkalainen 2012

53. From barriers to tools…
Pawlowski & Pirkkalainen 2012

54. Social Software Supporting processes
Maier & Remus (2003) Implementing process-oriented knowledge management strategies

55. KM activities &
Barrier-knowledge instruments
Maier & Remus (2003) Implementing process-oriented knowledge management strategies

56. Focus points for research
Ranging from smaller to large research activities
Distributed teams (local to global, small vs massive)
– What type of challenges they face in their work
– How could Social Software support / how should it be
integrated to the working activities / how to ensure adoption /
how could it bridge the gap to other communities or
collaborators/competitors
• For example analyzing where do the collaborators or relevant
stakeholders interact (European projects one perfect example).
– Setting clear Social Software policy that differentiates
between internal/external work, customer relations etc.
– …

57. Thank You

58. Contact Information
Prof. Dr. Jan M. Pawlowski
jan.pawlowski@jyu.fi
Skype: jan_m_pawlowski
Office: Room 514.2
Telephone +358 14 260 2596
http://users.jyu.fi/~japawlow
Henri Pirkkalainen
henri.j.pirkkalainen@jyu.fi
Office: Room 511.1
Telephone +358 400247684

59. Readings
Zheng, Y., Li, L., & Zheng, F. (2010). Social Media Support for
Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Management and Service Science, pp. 1-4. dpi:
10.1109/ICMSS.2010.5576725 [IEEE Xplore at Nelli]
Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge
management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-
134. [Nelli e-journals]
Pawlowski, J.M., Pirkkalainen, H. (2012): Global Social
Knowledge Management: The Future of Knowledge
Management Across Borders? Proc. of European Conference on
Knowledge Management, June 2012, Spain. Retrieved from:
http://users.jyu.fi/~japawlow/Global%20Social%20Knowledge%2
0Management_ECKM2012_citation.pdf