Wffi'$

andcommunication
Information
andknowledge
technologies
management

Introduction

As outlined in Chapter 4, one of the dominant themesin the early knowledgemanagement

literaturewas the importance of the role accordedto information and communication
technologies(ICTshereafter).This is visible in two ways. Firstly, ICTshad a central place in
much of the early knowledge management literature (seep. 44), with the vast maiority of
this writing being optimistic regarding the role that they could play in knowledge man-
agementprocesses.Secondly,ICTshad a prominent role in many of the earliestknowledge
management initiatives. Thus, Ruggles(1993), reporting on a 1997 sulvey, found that the
four most popular tlpes of knowledge management projects involved the implementation
of intranets, data warehouses,decision Supporttools, and Sroupware(groupwarerelatesto
sharedinformation spaces-such as Lotus Notes-which allow a range of people to work
rvith the samedocuments simultaneously.More generally,they are technologiesthat sup-
port collaboration and communication). While theseperspectiveshave been the subjectof
rvidespreadcriticism, this has nof led to a position where ICTsareregardedashaving no use-
tul role. Instead, there has been an enormous evolution in how the relationship between
ICTsand knowledge managementprocessesis conceptualized.This chapter examinesthese
changes.

Informationand communicationtechnologies(lGTs)

lCTsaretechnologies the management

whichallow/facilitate and/orsharingof knowledge and
Thusthetermcoversan enormous
information. of heterogeneous
diversity technologies including
computers, e-mail,databases,
telephones, systems,
data-mining searchengines, and
the internet,
v i d e o - c o n f e r e n cei qn ug i P m e n t .
@ SOCIAL
A N D C U L T U R AI L
SSUES

Hendriks (2001)describedthe bringing together of ICTsand knowledgemanagement

asinvoiving the clash of two titans, as such an enormousamount of ink has been spilled
on examining both topics, and the interrelationship between them. Attempting to do
iusticeto the scaleand scopeof the debateon theselinkagesin the spaceof one chapter
is thereforea difficult task.
The chapterbeginsby examining the role ascribedto ICTsin knowledgemanagement
processeswhen an objectivist perspectiveon knowledge is utilized. Following this,
practice-basedperspectiveson the relationship between ICTs and knowledge processes
will be examined,with the vast differencesbetweentheseperspectivesbecoming visible
asthe chapterprogresses. Howevet,there isn't a consensusamongstthose writing from a
practice-based perspective,thereforethis section of the chapter examinesthree areasof
disagreement/debate. Thesedebatescentre on: (1) the extent to which ICTscan facilitate
the sort of perspective-makingprocesses describedin Chapter 4i Q) the extent to which
communication mediums have fixed or variable degreesof information richness and
(3) the extent to which trust can be developedand sustainedin socialrelationsmediated
by ICTs.Following this, the chapterclosesby examining the dynamicsof implementing
ICT-basedknowledgemanagementsystems.

g ICT-supportedknowledge management processes

Characterizin

The following two sectionsexamine the substantiallydifferent ways that the objectivist
and practice-based perspectiveson knowledgesuggestthat ICTscan be used in organiza-
tional knowledge managementprocesses.while, as outlined in chapters 3 and 4, the
obiectivist perspectivehas been the subjectof widespreadcriticism, this perspectivestill
underpins many contemporcty knowledgemanagementinitiatives.

Objectivist perspectives

Chapter 2 outlined in detail both how the objectivistperspectiveon knowledgeconcep-

tualizesknowledgeand how it characterizes knowledge-sharingprocesses. However,it is
n'orth briefly restating some of the key assumptionsof this perspective,as they help
explain the rolesthat this perspectiveassumesICTscan play in knowledgemanagement
processes.Firstly, this perspectiveconceptualizesknowledge in entitative terms, with
knowledgebeing regardedas a discreteobject that can exist separatelyfrom the people
n'ho possessand useit. Secondly,there is an optimism embeddedin this perspectivethat
much knowledgeeither existsin an explicit form, or that it can be made explicit through
a processof codiflcation (Steinmueller2000). Thirdly, this perspectiveconceptualizes
knowledge-sharingas being basedon a transmitter-receivermodel (seeFigure2.r), and
assumesthat it is relatively straightforwardto sharecodifiedknowledge.
Building from theseassumptionsthose utilizing an objectivistperspectivebelievethat
ICTscan play a direct role in knowledgemanagementprocesses. Basedon this viewpoint,
rrhich swan and Scarbrough(2001) refer to as the 'knowledgemanagement as techno-
iogl'' perspective,ICTs simply representsone channel/medium through which explicit
 T E C H N O L O G I EASN D K N O W L E D G EI V A N A G E M E N T

<+FACILITATES

I C Tr o l ei n u n d e r p i n n i n g knowledgeprocesses
ICT-supported
knowledge processes

on ICTrolesin knowledgeprocesses
Fig.8.1. Objectivistperspective

\nowledge can be shared.Figure 8.1 outlines the various roles that ICTs can play in
.rnowledgemanagementprocesses, and the interrelationshipbetweenthem. Theseroles
;an be understoodto exist at two levels.
The two primary, underpinning roles that ICTs can play in the management of knowl-
=dge,from which five further roles are linked, are flrstly, in the codiflcation of knowledge,
,nd secondlyin the storageof knowledgein some repository.Intermediateto them are
:he processes of categorizationand differentiation,whete distinctions are made between
:re discretepiecesof codifled knowledgethat exist,basedon some systemof categoriza-
::on. Once the codifled knowledge that exists has been through these processes,ICT
j-.'stemscan then play a key role in utilizing these frameworksfor the storageof knowl-
=Jge.Thus, for example, structured electronic databasesrepresentone example of an
-CT-basedknowledge rePository.
.\s illustrated in Figure8.1, linked to from these roles, are five further ways in which
, -Ts can be usedto managean organization'sknowledge(seeTable8.1).For example,one
: rmmon use of searchenginesis for finding people within directoriesof expertise(thus
.::e searchrole is underpinned by an electronic stolagesystem,where the expertiseof
:-levant people is categorizedand structured into a searchableelectronic database).
-.rother example would be where Lotus Notes (a type of groupware technology) were
-sedin a multidisclplinary project team for the sharingand simultaneousintegration of
by different project team members.
:.e knowledgepossessed
S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Table 8.1. ICTapplicationsrelevantto knowledgemanagementroles

Knowledge management roles ICT application

Searching
forlFindingKnowledge SearchEngines,
Web Portals
CreatingKnowledge CAD(computer-aided
design)Systems
U t i l i z i nK
gn o w l e d g e DecisionSupportSystems
SharingKnowledge Intranets,
e-mail
Integrating
Knowledge Groupware

Internetsearchenginessuchas Googlearegoodexamplesoftechnologies that canbe usedfor

information/knowledge searching.
Suchtechnologies makethe internetusefulthroughprovidinga
way of identifyingrelevantsourcesof knowledgeon requestedtopics.what advantages and
disadvantages haveyou personallyfound from usingthem?Are theseadvantages anddlsadvantages
likelyto alsobe applicable
to organizationally
basedsearchengines?

As outlined in Chapter 4, there was a strong emphasison ICTsin many of the earliest
knowledgemanagementinitiatives. This was,to a large extent because,at that time, the
obiectivist perspectiveon knowledge was popular and widely accepted.However, the
introduction to Part 2 of the book (p. 41-2) showed how a large proportion of these
technology led initiatives failed becausethey focusedalmost exclusivelyon technolog-
ical issuesand typically, played down, if not completely ignored, social/ cultural, and
political factorswhich have sincebeen shown to be key in influencing the willingnessof
people to participatein knowledgemanagementinitiatives. However,as can be seenby
the examplefrom Nortel Networksdescribedbeloq sucha neglect,while being common,
is not intrinsic to ICT-basedknowledgemanagementinitiatives. Therefore,technology-
basedknowledgemanagementinitiatives do rzofhave to be technology led projectswhen
they arebeing designedand implemented.This issuewill alsobe returnedto in the penul-
timate sectionof the chaoter.

Nortel network: lGTsand knowledge management

Masseyet al. (2002)examinedhow NortelNetworksuseda 'processoriented'knowledge

management strategyto successfully
re-engineerits new productdevelopment (NPD)process.
Thiswas donethroughthe development andimplementation of a knowledge
management tool
called'VirtualMentor',which was describedas an electronicperformance supportsystem
(EPSS).This systemlinkedtogetherall relevant'disparateknowledgeresources' that were
relevantto their productdevelopment process(includinginternalknowledgeand expertise,
 at'rAGE\iiN
:S rND KNOl\LEDGElv1
r @

-:.t1'aShigh|ydlspersed,aswe|laScustomerknowledge,andre|evant,archivedhistorlca|

:...eqge).VirtualMentorwasdesignedtobeofvaluetothethreecategoriesofworkerthey
- = . : , e d a S b e i n g k e y t o t h e N P D p r o c e s s : i d e a g e n e r a t o r s , d eth:.:::^ni:tt r s , aevolvtng
c i s i o n - m a kofe the ndprocessown-
the tracking
the people responsiblefor
,.- r,ocess owners being
:]crocess.Massey"..'.u,.nu"thatthedeve|opmentandimplementationofthissystemwas
:.;^ificantfactorintheeconomicsuccessthatNortelNetworksexperiencedbetweenlgg4and
'']'oneofthecentralelementstothesuccessofthiSprojectWaSthatwhileitwasatechnology.
'.:rknowledgemanagementproject'technologicalissuesdidt:t1"1:t*lnstead'Nortel
- ' . ' , ' o r k s b e g a n b y d e f i n i n g t h e s t a g e s i n t h e i r N P D p r o c e s s and i d e r i nMentor
' b e { o r e c o n sVirtual gthepeople-
specification designof
ir.]l.process,The technical
= ::ed issuesflowing tron.l project
stage in their NPD re-engineering
=: ihus the third and final

ffi|edgemanagementSyStemwaSthatthetechno|ogywasdesignedto of
:cmpatibre**h"'i't'ns*;;;';;';"'' '111":Ti:::j:n.t:::1::JHHli"J:tandins
:-',:i;:;:::iil:1il:'Ji;il##;;;', *nonapproachsmost used?
commonrv

perspective on knowledge
of this technology-based
\\-hile the widespread criticism in it (seethe following section
a number of severelimitaiions
:-Laoog€fir€ntrru, .rpor.d
::rabriefdiscussionoftheseissues)'evidencesuggeststhattheknowl;dSemanagement perspectives
are still .rrru.olio in an objectivist-based
aitiatives of many organizations
rknowledge,andthatsomeoftheseorganizationshavebeensuccessfulintheirknowl-
:jgemana$ementinitlatives'Consider'forexample'thecaseofGlobalBank'slTsupport
Networks' iust examined'
describedin Chapter 2 (seepp' 24-Si' andNortel
litiative by the UK con-
inctuder the knowledge codification proiect undertaken
. lrther examples
)jltingfirmexamineouylr,tonis(2001);themediaorganizationexaminedbyRobertson
1002),whoseknowledgemanagementsyster[wasi,,"e,sen.easearchablerepositoryof of its
Bank' where the obiectives
expertise u"i kr'o*-t'ow; and' the World
:mployee
inowledgemanagementstrategyinthelatelgg0swastomakeitselfa'technology
:roker,transferringtcnowleOgei-,o*o"tplacewhereitisavailabletotheplacewhereit
2002'3O)'
,s needed'(van der Velden

Practice-basedPersPectives

lr.enovettheshortspaceoftimethatknowledgemanagementhasbeenregardedasan
pelspective iust outlined,
.npoftanttopictherehasbeenasignificantevol"utionintherolethatlCTsareConceptu.
in such plocesses,The objectivist
ilized as being able to play role in knowledge codifl-
to play a direct and significant
irhere IcTs were conrideri aute
;ationandsharingpfocesses,whilestillbeingutilized,ismuchlessptevalentthanitwas
: n t h e m i d t o l a t e ] . g g 0 s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e o p t i m i s m p o sand
s e sthen
s e d bstore
y t h oand t i l i z i nitg t h i s
s e u shale
codify tacit knowledge,
perspectiveregaroing the abilityio
electronicallyhasalsolargelydissipated.oveltime,therefore,therehasbeenanevolu-
:ioninthinkingregardingtheroleoflCTsi'o,gu.'i,utionalknowledgeprocesseswhich
@ S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Table 8.2. Criticismsof the objectivistperspectiveon knowledge

Criticisms of objectivist perspective on knowledge

extentto whichtacitknowledgecanbe madecodifiable

Overestimates
extentto whichtacitandexplicitknowledgeare inseparable
Underestimates
knowledgeis f ragmented
extentto whichorganizational
Underestimates
extentto which knowledgeis context-dependent
Underestimates
identon abilityfor knowledgeto be collectedin centralrepository
Overconf

has seenpractice-based perspectiveson knowledgebecomemore fully embraced.As will

be seen,the practice-basedperspectiveregardsICTs as having a lessdirect, but equally
important role in supporting and facilitating the socialprocesses that underpin interper-
sonal knowledgeprocesses.
The critique of the obiectivist perspectiveon technology, which to some extent under-
pins the shift in thinking regardingthe role of ICTsin knowledgemanagementprocesses,
was outlined in detail in Chapter 3. However,it is worth $riefly restatingthe main points
of this critique (seeTable8.2),asit helps in understanC^rgthe role that ICTsare assigned
by those utilizing a practice-basedperspective on knowledge. Firstly, the objectivist
perspective is criticized for overestimating the extent to which tacit knowledge can be
codified, with the practice-basedperspective arguing that much tacit knowledge can
never be made explicit. Secondly,the objectivist perspectivedoesn't acknowledgethe
inseparablecharacter of tacit and explicit knowledge, which means that there is no such
thing as fully explicit knowledge, and the electronic communication of any (partially)
explicit knowledge will typically mean that its tacit components are lost, or not fully
communicated and shared.Thirdly, it underestimatesthe extent to which knowledgein
organizationsis fragmented,dispersed,and specialized.Fourthly, it is arguedto underes-
timate the extent to which knowledge is context-specific,which means that such knowl-
edgeis difficult to remove from its context and be understood fully in a different context.
Fifthly, and finally, to some extent as a consequenceof all of the above criticisms, the
'synoptic
objectivist perspectiveis arguedto suffer from what Tsoukas(L996) called the
delusion', the idea that it is possible to collect an organization's knowledge in a single
repository.
One consequence,flowing from this generalcritique of the objectivist perspectiveon
knowledge,is that the role that analystsusing an objectivist perspectiveassumedICTs
could play in knowledge processesbecamequestioned (Hislop 2O02b;Walsham 2001)'
Thus, those writing from a practice-based perspectivebelievethat the role of ICTsin the
codification and storageof knowledge in electronic repositodesis limited, as such knowl-
edgeis strippedof the tacit assumptionsand valueswhich underpin it.
Further, the transmitter-receiver metaphor of knowledge-sharing is regarded as
inappropriate,as the sharing of knowledge does not involve the simple transferalof a
fixed entity (explicit knowledge)betweentwo people.Instead,the sharingof knowledge
 T E C H N O L O G IA
ENS D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T E
:nvolves two people actively inferring and constructing meaning from a process of
:nteraction(Hislop \OOZb).This relatesto the processesof pelspectivemaking and taking
:rhich were describedin Chapter4, where thoseinteracting developan understandingof
:he values,assumptions,and tacit knowledge which undelpin each other's knowledge
rase (Walsham2001). Communication processesin such interactions,to be successful,
:equireto be relativelyrich, open, and basedon a certain level of trust'
The role which those writing from a practice-basedperspectivebelieve that ICTs can
:lay in knowledgeprocessesis thus somewhatindirect, being relatedto facilitating and
:upporting the social relationships and communication processeswhich underpin
,inowledge processes.walsham (2ool, 599), usefully summalized this by arguing that,
computer-basedsystemscan be of benefit in knowledge-basedactivities . . . to support
:he developmentand communication of human meaning.'

Debateswithin the practice-basedperspectiveregarding lCTsand

knowledge processes
',t'ithin perspective,howevet, there isn't a consensuson the role that
the practice-based
iCTscan ptay in knowledgemanagementprocesses. This section examinesthree of the
iey debates,and will si"qultaneously provide a deeper understanding of how those utiliz-
:1g a practice-basedpers,tectiveconceptualizethe role of ICTsin knowledgemanagement
trocesses.

CTsand perspective making/taking

. he first area of debate relates to the question of whether ICTs can facilitate the rich
.nteractionthat is usually necessaryfor perspectivemaking and taking processesto be
.rccessful.Walsham (2001) answersthis question in the positive, and believesthat ICT-
:.rediated communication does have the potential to facilitate processesof perspective
::1akingand taking. Boland et al. (1994)alsobelievethat it could be possibleto designIT
'information technology can support distributed cogni-
)\'stemsto do this, suggesting,
--ionby enabling individuals to make rich representationsof their understanding,reflect
-1ponthose lepresentations,engagein dialoguewith othersabout them, and usethem to
'rform action.'(457).
However, as will be seen later, Boland et al. argue that to do this requires a radical
:ransformationin IS designphilosophies.DeSanctisand Monge (L999, 696) also take a
:ositive view regarding the ability of ICTs to allow a rich form of interaction by arguing
:hat rather than the lossof socialcueswhich occurswhen communicating via most ICTs
'by removing the
:reing negative, that such a loss may in fact facilitate understanding,
:lstraction of irrelevant stimuli'.

of ICT-mediated
: a potentialadvantage communicationthat peopleare lesslikelyto iudgeotherson
factors
superficial
,rtentially suchas looks?How does the processof makinginitialjudgementsof
:.-angersvarybetweenface-to-face and ICT-mediated
situations situations?
@ SOCIAL
A N D C U L T U R AI L
SSUES

However, other writers are more critical, fundamentally arguing that the difficulties of
facilitating rich interactions via ICTs should not be underestimated (Hislop 2002b).This
is primarily becausethe lossof socialcues(tone and paceof voice, gesture,facial expres-
sion) which occurs when using most ICTs significantly degradesthe communication
process,and limits the extent to which knowledge can be shared via such mediums
(Goodall and Roberts2003; Roberts2000; Symon 2000). Further,there may be a limited
role for ICTsparticularly in the sort of intercommunity knowledge processesexamined in
Chapter 6. This chapter showed how knowledge-sharingin such circumstancesis
complicatedby the lack of sharedidentity and limited overlapin the knowledgebaseof
people.Thesedifficulties are arguablyexacerbatedwhen such knowledge-sharingis elec-
tronically mediated,asthe socialcuesthat areimportant to the sharingof suchfactorsare
lost (Walsham2001).Mcloughlin and Jackson(1999)make similar conclusions,arguing
that rich knowledge-sharingin virtual interactions is most likely to be successfulwhere
there is a positive,pre-existingsocialrelationshipbetweenpeople.
Finally, a perspective,somewhatintermediateto the abovetwo positions suggeststhat
while ICTsalone may have a limited ability to facilitate a rich form of communication,
they can have a role when combined with face-to-faceinteractions (Nandhakum ar 1999).
Maznevskiand Chudoba (1999) reach such a conclusion in their study of global virtual
teams, suggestingthat 'effective global virtual teams . . . generatea deep rhythm of regu-
'\ar face-to-faceincidents interspersedwith lessintensive,shorterincidents using various
r,redia'(473).

lCTsand media richness

One finding that emergesfrom the abovedebateis that face-to-facecommunication has
different characteristicsfrom electronicallymediatedcommunications.Looking in more
detail,it can alsobe seenthat different ICTshave different communication characteristics
(seeTable8.3). However,the characteristics and degreesof information richnessof differ-
ent communication mediums,arethe subjectof disagreement,and arethe secondareaof
debateexamined.
In the information systemsliterature Information RichnessTheory (IRT) suggeststhat
different mediums have fixed and static levels of information richness,where 'commun-
ication richness(or leanness)is an invariant, objectiveproperty of communication media'
(Ngwenyamaand Lee 7997,I47). Further,this theory adoptsa rational choiceapproachto
people'sselectiondecisionswith regardto the communication mediums they use,with
people selectingthe communication medium most appropriate to the task being under-
taken. From this perspective,it is possibleto rank different mediums in terms of their
'ob1'ective'Ievels of information
richness, with face-to-faceinteraction being the richest,
and e-mailbeing one of the leanest.Table8.3 is thus laid out to reflectsuch a ranking.
However, this theory has been the subject of an increasing level of criticism, which
questionsthe idea that each communication medium has flxed and objective information
richnesscharacteristics.This is thereforewhy there is a question mark in Table8.3 besidethe
ranking arrow.Insteadof communication mediums having fixed and objectiveinformation
richness characteristics,as IRT suggests,others suggestthe leannessor richness of any
communication processis something which emergesfrom the, 'interactions between the
 T E C H N O L O G I EASN D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

of variouscommunicationmediums
Table8.3, Characteristics

Medium Communication characteristics

I -uce-to-Face
lnteraction r Information rich(socialcuessuchas facialexpression, voice,gesture
visible.Plus,synchronous communication, potentialfor rapid
high-qualityf eedback/interaction)
o Most relevantfor sharingof tacitknowledge
. Spontaneous/informal interactionspossiblewhen people
geographically proximate
o Conditlons amenableto development of trust (otherfactorsexcluded)
. Expensive when peoplegeographicallydispersed
deo conferencing o lnformation
rich(socialcues,andvirtuallyrealtime,synchronous
medium)
a Fvnoncirro +^ co+ rrn

a Set up time inhibitsspontaneity

elephone . Intermediate information richness(toneof voiceconveyssome
socialcues,but gesture,expression Alsosynchronous,
invisible.
facilitatingdetailed,immediatefeedback)
o Costvariable
. Spontaneous/informal possibleirrespective
interactions
of geographic proximity
e Canfacilitatedevelopmentof trust where face-to-faceinteraction
difflcultinteraction
difficult
E-mail r Suitablefor sharingof highlycodifiedknowledge
o Relativelylow information rlchness(allsocialcueslost)
. lnexpensive (costunrelated to geographicproximity)
r Asynchronous, with variable feedbackspeed
. Spontaneous/informal interactionspossibleirrespectiveof
geographic proximity
. Permanentrecordof interaction exists
. Development of trust basedon e-mailalonedifficult

'
Information
Increasing Richness?'

people,and the organizationalcontext' (Ngwenyamaand Lee 1.997,148).Thus the dchness

of any communication processwill not be determinedby the technical charactedsticsof the
communication medium, but will instead be shaped by a range of social and technical
factors. Relevant social factors include the degreeof mutual understanding which exists
between people/ the willingness of people to make the effort to communicate and under-
'low
stand, and the abilities of people to effectively use a communication medium. Thus,
richness' mediums like e-mail can be used for complex/ information-rich interactions if
organizationsencouragesit, or people becomeadept at using it (Markus 1994;Ngwenyama
and Lee 1997; DeSanctisand Monge 1999).Thus, if people are more comfortable and com-
petent using e-mail, comparedto 'richer' communication mediums, such asgroupware,this
may help explain the preferencefor e-mail reportedin a number of studies(Ngwenyamaand
Lee 1997;Markus 1994;Pauleenand Yoong 2001,;Robertsonet al. 2001).
Organizational level factors, such as the character of the organizational culture can
also affect both the type of medium used, and the way in which it is used. Thus, if an
@ SOCIAL
A N D C U L T U R AI L
SSUES

organizational culture placesan emphasison accountability and documentation, this

may encouragethe use of e-mail, as, compared to other communication mediums this
providesa good, documentedrecord of conversationsand interactions.Alternatively,an
organizationalculture that emphasizesteamworking, openness/and good interpersonal
working relations, may encourage the use of face-to-facemeetings, and telephone
conversations.

Robertsonet al. 2001:explainingthe predominanceof e-mail

Robertsonet al. examinedthe communicationand knowledge-sharing patternsin a knowledge-

i n t e n s i v eo r g a n i z a t i o na: s c i e n t i f i cc o n s u l t a n c yM
. u c h o f t h e w o r k i n t h i s o r g a n i z a t i ow
n as
knowledge-intensive, and requiredmultidisciplinary project teams to share and integratetheir
knowledge together.The preferred mode of communicationand sharing of knowledge was
through either telephoneconversations,or face-to-facemeetings,which supporteda rich inter-
action. However,a surprisingfinding in the study was the significanceof the extent to which
e-mailwas used, and the lack of use that was made of Lotus Notes, even though it had been
implementedorganization-wide. Accordingto IRTtheory,groupwaretechnologiessuch as Lotus
N o t e s ,a r e a r i c h e rc o m m u n i c a t i o m
n e d i u mt h a ne - m a i l t, h e r e f o r et h i s t h e o r yw o u l d s u g g e s t h a t
Lotus Notes would be of use for the type of knowledge-intensive interactionstypicallyrequired
by the consultants.Robertsonet al. suggest that there are a number of socialand contextual
f a c t o r sw h i c h e x p l a i nt h i s c o m m u n i c a t i o np a t t e r n .F i r s t l y t, h e c o n s u l t a n t sh a d b e c o m e a d e p t
e-mailusers,and were ableto make innovativeuse of it. Secondly,few consultantshad invested
the time to learnhow to use Lotus Notes,which createda viciouscirclewhere peopledidn't feel
encouragedto make the use of it, as they were unsurethat otherswould be adeptwith it. Finally,
the organizational
culture,for a varietyof historicalreasons,also encouragedand reinforcedthe
u s e o f e - m a i la
, s o n e o f t h e m a i n m e t h o d so f c o m m u n i c a t i o n .

In suchan organizational
contextwhat would management
requireto do to persuadeits workersto
makegreateruse of LotusNotes?

I CTsan d d eveIopi n g/retai n i n g tru st

The final areaof debateand disagreementexamined,which links closelyto the first topic
of debateexamined,is the extent to which trust can be developedand sustainedin social
relations which are mediated by lCT-basedmodes of communication. The literature on
this topic shows that the extent of face-to-faceinteraction that occurs between people
affectsmore than iust their ability to develop an understanding of each other. It also
affectsthe basic nature of the social relationship, and the extent to which trust can be
developedand sustained.The debatein this areais over the question of whether trust can
be developedand sustainedby electronicallymediatedcommunication alone.
I
 T E C H N O L O G IA
ENS D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T E
One school of thought suggeststhat it isn't possible to develop and maintain trust in
social relations mediated purely by ICTs.Roberts(2000) thus arguesthat face-to-facecon-
tact is a vital element in the establishmentof a relationship of trust. Researchconducted
by Maznevski and Chudoba (1.999)reinforces this perspective,as one of the benefits for
the successfulteams who used occasional face-to-facemeetings as well as electronically
mediated interactions was that the face-to-facemeetings improved the social relationship
and the level of trust that existed amongst proiect team members.
Finally, the researchconducted by Nandhakumar (1999) on global virtual teams also
supportsthis perspective.This researchexamined patterns of information and knowledge-
sharingwithin a global virtual team. The communication of the team was mediatedby a
PC-basedICT systemwhich included desktop video conferencing, multimedia e-mail and
groupware applications, which included an intranet and file transfer software. In this
researchthe absenceof co-location was found to significantly affect the development of
trust. The project team examined consistedof people who had never previously met, or
worked together, therefore there was no pre-existing personal relationship, and initially
trust was relatively contractual and weak. However, project team members actively initi-
ated face-to-faceinteractions with other team members to develop a more personal type
of trust. Overall, Nandhakumar concluded that ICTs in and of themselves were not
adequatefor either the development or maintenance of trust in working relations. This
conclusion can be illustrated with the following quotation from one of the project team
members interviewed, 'to start establishing a relationship I think you need to have the
physical contact more becauseyou have this indefinable thing about relationships and
body languageand you don't get it in the sameway [in electronic interactions] . . . so . . .
asyou do the teambuilding you need to have some physical contact' (52).

Pharma-co:communication within a virtual project team

Pharma-co decidedin the mid-1990sto implement a new information management systeminto

theirproduction sites,whichwouldbetterlinkthemto otherorganizational functions(forfurther
detailson Pharma-eq,s projectseepp.3a-5).Pharma-co's production siteswerespreadthroughout
Europe, Asia,andNe,thAmerica, with thegreatest concentration of sitesin the UKandUSA.The
projectteamset up to facilitate the designandimplementation of the information management
systemwere from two UKandtwo Americansites.Thereforetherewas somenecessityto work
A numberof different
virtually. communication mediumswereusedto facilitate the development
of socialrelationsand knowledge-sharing including e-mail,videoconferencing, telephone calls,
andconferences, as well as occasionalface-to-face meetings. The projectmanagerin particular
hadto do a lot of travelling
to maintain frequentface-to-face interactions with projectmembers
from all sites.Whilethe projectwas ultimately successful in its work, electronically mediated
workingwasfoundto be difficult andchallenging, fora numberof reasons. Firstly,
videoconferenc-
wereonlyavailable
ingfacilities ontwo sites,so it wasdifficult to include allprojectteammembers
whenusingthem.Secondly, the projectdeveloped a routineof havinga weeklyvoiceconference
linkingallteammemberson allfoursites.Theprojectmanager, however, foundthatthismethod
@ SOCIAL
A N D C U L T U R AI L
SSUES

Theseproblems are not exclusiveto the implementation of knowledge management

systems.For example, Symon (2000), in discussingresearchon the use of electronic
communication systems,concludesthat it is tlpically problematic to assumeunques-
tioningly that peoplewill be willing to usethesesystems.Orlikowski et al. (1995)alsoin
relation to electronic communication systems argued that when such systems are not
adaptedadequatelyto the socialconditions of the local context that there is a significant
chance that such systemswill be underused.Finally, McDermott (1999) argued that a
neglect of social and cultural issuesin the design and implementation of information
technology runs the risk that such systemswill reinforce rather than transform existing
cultures,values,and behaviour.

Globalbank:the problems in a technology led KM project

ln Chaptersix (seep.76-7Jthe problemsGlobalbank experienced with its intranetprojectwere

described. Oneof the mainproblems, whichadversely affectedthisproject,was thatstafffrom
differentbusiness unitsdidn'tadequatelV collaboratewith eachother,andsharerelevant knowl-
edge.A significant partof the explanationfor why this happened was that the project,whose
overallcoordination wasthe responsibility
of corporate lTstaff,was focusedprimarily on techno-
logicalissues,suchas whetherthe lT infrastructure in placewas adequately for the functions
required,agreeing protocolsfor sitedevelopment, anddeciding on the contentandstyleof the
intranetsites.Theprojectteam,whileacknowledging the cultureof autonomyandantagonistic
competitiveness whichexistedbetweendivisions, did littleto improveor changethesesocial
Thismeantthatthe levelof trustbetweendivisional
relations. staffwas typicallylow as nothing
hadbeendoneto breakdownandchallenge the historicalantagonisms whichexisted.lronically,
the resultof this was that a projectwhoseaim was to attemptto reducecross-organizational
boundaries, and improvelevelsof intra-organizational communication and knowledge-sharing,
insteadhelpedto reinforce the existingcultureof divisionalautonomy.

However,being sensitiveto the socio-culturalcontext meanstaking accountof the spe-

cific and distinctive characteristicsof each organization. This therefore makes it difficult
to provide a general checklist of prescriptions and answersabout how to be successfulin
such ventures. What works in one organizational context may be completely inappropri-
ate in another, different organizational context. A better way of dealing with this issueis
not to try and give such standard,generalizedanswers.Walsham (2001)insteadsuggests
that a better way to developan understandingof relevantsocio-culturalfactorsis to aska
setof sensitizingquestion,such as:

r What type of knowledge-sharingprocessesdoes the existing organizational culture

encourageand discourage?
. How do existingpower relationsaffectknowledgeprocesses?
 L E D G Ei " l A N A G E l v l E i ' r
SN D K N O l \
T E C H N O L O G I EA

be possible to design ano

these questionshave been answeredit should then
Once take account of these
management systems which
;mpiement ICT-basedknowledge
iactors.

An alternative design PhilosoPhY

Bolandetal.(1994)aleoptimisticthatlCTscanbedesignedtosupportplocessesol
oelspectivemakingandtaking.Buttheyalsoacknowledgethatachievingthiswillrequire
asignificantshiftofemphasis-inSystemdelisnptrilosophies(Tenkasi,andBolandl.996).
Thisisprimarilybecause'whiletheobjectivistperspectiveonknowledgeandknowledge-
sharinghasbeenwidelycriticized,itStillreplesentsthedominantparadigminthemain-
Stleaminformation,y*.-,literature(SchulzeandLeidner2002).Thisismadevisibleby
made by this literature:
a number of the assumptions

.obiectiveknowledgeexistsandistransmittablethroughwordsandlanguagewhichhas
a fi.xedmeaning'
and a signiftcant
is-characterizedby consensus'
gL'6e'n^i'7a-t^iorrs
. The Rnowrbdgerlase6f
knowledge-sharing unproblematic'
common knowledge Uu*'"-uXittg
olCTsystemsforknowledge-sharingarebasedonthetlansmittel_Ieceivermodel(see
Iigure 2.1)'

Fromthisperspective,systemdesignisconcernedwithdesigningcommunication
c h a n n e l s t h a t m a x i m i z e s i g n a l / i n f o r m a t i o n r i c h(1996)n e s s aargue
n d mthat' i z e , naopractice-
i n i mfrom ise,levels
Tenkasiand Boland
(Bolisaniand Scarso2000).Initead
b a s e d p e r s p e . t i , , e , o e s i g n o b i e c t i v e s s h o u l d s h i fto
ttofacia l i tlot l o c e s s e s oinf pcom-
a t eofpknowledge erspective
U.t*.."rr'p"opi. *t o can't be-assumed have and
making/taking that allow the surfaclng
the creation of op"r, systems
mon. This therefore requires and values'
taken for granted assumptions'
sharing of different
"'iJ'p'"'u"ons'

Conclusion

AsignificantnumberofwritelssuggestthatlCTscanplayanimportantroleinknowledge
m a n a g e m e n t p r o c e s s e s ' H o w e v e t ' t h e r e i s a s irole
g n i fthat
i c a nICTs
t d e bcan n t h einc oknowledge
a t e iplay ntemporary
literature regarding thJ
knowledge *u"ur"*"t" Thus, rather than attempt to
pIoceSSeS, which this chapter ius .*amined. to the
management attempted to do justice
persne;lr;,liris chapter has
present a coherent and unitary
'"fT,:::'::;;:ii':"Jffi:liH'i"':"'J':'; in theearrv
embodied
rromtheoptimist
knowledgemanagementliteraturethatknowledgeplocessescaneasilybemediatedand
mediated by ICTs'
facilitatedviatrreuseofadvancedlCTs.Thereisnow,thus,agleateracknowledgementof
of having knowledge processes
the not insignncant aitticutties
onecontlastintheliteraturecanbemadebetweenanalysesutilizingobiectivistand of
obiectivist conceptualization
p..rp..iirr.s. writlng which utilizes an
practice-baseo
SOCIAA
L N D C U L T U R AI L
SSUES

knowledge typically arguesthat ICTs can have an important and direct role in knowledge
processes/for example in the structuring, storage, and dissemination of codifled
knowledge.By contrast,writing which adoptsa practice-based perspectiveon knowledge,
questionsthis role for ICT systemsin knowledge processes.This work emphasizesthe
difficulty of both codifying knowledge, and sharing codifled knowledge electronically.
Writing embeddedin this perspectivethus tends to suggestthat ICTs can have a more
indirect role in knowledgeprocesses, facilitating interpersonalinteraction and processes
of perspectivemaking/taking. However,aswas shown, it is deceptiveto presentthesetwo
perspectivesasbeing unified, as within the practice-based literature there are debateson
a number of issues,including the extent to which trust can be built via social relations
mediatedby ICTs.
The managerial implications that flow from these insights are quite significant. For
example,if different types of behaviour are appropdate for the development and mainten-
ance of trust in face-to-faceand lCT-mediatedinteractions, this affectsthe $.pes of behav-
iours and attitudes that organizational management should encourageand reinforce.
Howevet,one generalconclusion that can be made on this topic is that, whateverthe
role that ICTs have in knowledge processes,for such systemsto be effective, their design
and implementation requiresto be sensitiveto the socio-culturalcontext into which they
are being implemented. The danger of not doing this, as was well demonstratedby the
high failure rate of the earliesttechnology led knowledgemanagementprojects,is that
the chancesof such projectssucceedingare relativelylow.

REVIEW
OUESTIONS ii

Arguably,an either/orlogicpredominatesin much of the literaturewhich compares

technology-mediated and face-to-facemethods of communicationand knowledge-sharing
processes,where they are consideredto exist at the oppositeends of a spectrum,and
where the use of one mode of communicationis regardedas being likelyto limit the extent
to which the other is used (Woolgar2003).However,is this necessarilythe case?To what
extent may the use of eitherform of knowledge-sharing supportand facilitatethe use of the
other? For example,is it possiblethat the use of technology-based knowledgesystems,
such as a searchabledirectoryof expertise,may also leadto an increasein face-toJace
b a s e dk n o w l e d g e - s h a r i nmge c h a n i s m sf,o r e x a m p l et h r o u g hm e e t i n gp e o p l ef o u n dt h r o u g h
u s i n gs u c hd i r e c t o r i e s ?
When lCTsare used for know edge managementpurposesthere appearsto be a preference
for uslngoff-the-shelfproductsand then attemptingto customize/modifythe organizational
context, ratherthan customizingor designingtechnologicalsystems to be compatiblewith
existingorganizational
practices.Why is this the case?
T h e c r i t i q u eo f I n f o r m a t i o n
RichnesT s h e o r y( l R T )d i s c u s s e dc h a l l e n g e tdh e i d e at h a t a n y
c o m m u n i c a t i om n e d i u mh a sa n o b j e c t i v ea n d f i x e d l e v e lo f c o m m u n i c a t i o rni c h n e s sa, n d t h a t
i n s t e a dt h e r i c h n e s so f a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o pn r o c e s sw o u l d b e s h a p e db y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
between people,and their skillsat usingdifferentcommunicationmediums.To what extent
d o y o u a g r e ew i t h t h i s a r g u m e n t ?c o u l d t h i s a r g u m e n tn o t b e c h a l l e n g e db y s u g g e s t i n gt h a t
c e r t a i nc o m m u n i c a t i o m
n e d i u m sa r e i n h e r e n t l yr i c h e rc o m m u n i c a t i o m
n e d i u m sc o m p a r e dt o
 T E C H N O L OI E
GSA N D K N O W L E DEGI \ I A N A G E M E N T
@
others,for examprephoneconversations,
wherevorcetonecanbe heard,ande-mair,
which
rsa purelytext-based
medium?

A. Massey,M. Montoya-Weiss, andT. O,Driscoll(2002).,KnowledgeManagementin pursuitof

Performance: Insights f rom NortelNetworks,,M IS Ouart r
e ty, 2613:269-8g.
Presentsa detailed analysr'sof a successful tcT-basedknowledge
managementinitiatrve,which
did take account of social/contextualfactors.

J. Roberts(2000).'FromKnow-Howto Show-How?ouestioning
the Roreof lnformationand
communicationTechnorogies in KnowredgeTransfer',TechnorogyAnarysis and strategic
Management, 1214:42943.
Examinesthe difficurtiesof sharingknowredge,particurarty
tacitknowredge,via rcrs.
G. walsham(2001).'Knowredge Management:The Benefitsand Limitations of computer
systems', EuropeanManagementJournat,1916:599_608.
Reviews the literature on lr-based knowledge management,
and concludesthat ICTscan facilitate
knowledgemanagementefforts,but from a practice_based perspective.
R. Boland,R.Tenkasi, and D. Te,eni(1994),Designing Information Technology to Support
DistributedCognition',OrganizationScience,513:486_jb.
Argues that lCTscan be designed to support and facilitate perspective
making/takrng processes.