1. Week 7 Z514: Social Aspects of IT

2. The CSCW View of Knowledge Management (Ackerman, et al., 2013) 1 st generation: the repository model (i.e., knowledge sharing) Social context Boundary objects and other knowledge sharing objects Common information spaces Assemblies 2 nd generation: sharing expertise through communication Community of Practice Social Capital

3. Boundary Objects Boundary objects, or shared objects that facilitate bridging across different groups and assist the intersecting of different communities of practice (Star and Ruhleder 1995), are used when crossing boundaries to communicate with people who belong to different groups and have various backgrounds (Star and Griesemer 1989).

4. Boundary Objects Boundary objects as boundary negotiation artifacts (Lee, 2007) 1) Self-explanation Artifacts privately used for “learning, recording, organizing, remembering, and reflecting” (p.319), e.g., notes, sketches, and journals; 2) Inclusion Artifacts used for developing “alliances with sympathetic communities of practice” (p.321); 3) Compilation Artifacts applied to cultivating shared meaning; 4) Structuring Artifacts employed to “coordinate media and understand” (p.330), but are frequently used when conflicts are found between two communities of practice; and 5) Borrowed Artifacts that are appropriated from one community to the other.

5. Where Did KM Come From? (Prusak, 2001) Intellectual antecedents Economics Intellectual capital Non-tangible asset (i.e., social capital) Sociology Studies of communities Social learning Psychology Learning mechanism Philosophy Epistemology (c.f., Knorr-Cetina) http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5386951&tag=1

6. The Social Construction of KM Who manages/sells/develops KM regimes? Consultants Software developers Managers (human resources)

7. What Does the Job Market Look Like? 520 (449 in 2012; 610 in 2011; 313 in 2009; 826 in 2007; 543 in 2005) postings in KM jobs found at www.monster.com www.monster.com C.f., 760 (696 in 2012; 742 in 2011; 272 in 2009; 717 in 2007; 378 in 2005) postings of information architecture; more than 1000 postings of usability; database administration; system analysis

8. Travel of KM Discourses Business press & IT trade journals 60,664 articles in factiva mention KM (as of 3/22/07) In 1988, 3 references, 2 to hypertext ZOG/KMS In 1989, 13 references, mostly regarding DB In 1990, 17/18 references, as expert systems & DB In 1991, 18 references In 1992, 38 references In 1993, 36 references In 1994, 61 references In 1995, 97 references in 1996, 339 references In 1997, 1374 references, strategic management In 1998, 4415 references In 1999, 7907 references In 2000, 9597 references In 2001, 9907 references

9. KM Popularity (Search on Factiva)

10. Reengineering Discourse

11. The Social Construction of KM KM visions Are likely to depend upon the interests of the group(s) articulating the vision: For managers? For Chief Learning/Knowledge Officer? For workers? For system developers?

12. Travel of KM Discourses Trade conferences, e.g., Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (http://www.cs.umbc.edu/cikm/ )http://www.cs.umbc.edu/cikm/ International Conference on KM (http://i-know.tugraz.at/ )http://i-know.tugraz.at/ International Conference on Knowledge, Culture, Change in Organizations (http://ontheorganization.com/conference- archives/2012-conference )http://ontheorganization.com/conference- archives/2012-conference APQC Knowledge Management Conference (http://www.apqc.org/2013-knowledge-management-conference- recap )http://www.apqc.org/2013-knowledge-management-conference- recap CrowdConf (http://www.crowdconf.com/)http://www.crowdconf.com/

13. Taxonomy of Discourses in Organizational Science (Deets, 1996) See also Figure 1, p. 216 NormativeInterpretive CriticalDialogic Local/ emerging Elite consensus Desensus

14. Travel of KM Discourses Academic journals & conferences In IS, dominantly elite/consensus-based, i.e., normative (Schultze & Leidner, 2002) Normative (53) Interpretive (19) Critical (1) Dialogic (2) Local/ emerging Elite consensus Desensus

15. Why Should I Share? (Wasko & Faraj, 2005) Reputation Enjoy Helping Centrality Self-rated Expertise Tenure in the Field Commitment Reciprocity Knowledge Contribution Individual Motivations Structural Capital Cognitive Capital Relational Capital H1a H1b H2b H7a H3a H4a H5a H6a H2a H3b H4b H5b H6b H7b Ha= more helpful Hb= more responses

16. Why Should I Share? (Wasko & Faraj, 2005) Reputation Enjoy Helping Centrality Self-rated Expertise Tenure in the Field Commitment Reciprocity Knowledge Contribution Individual Motivations Structural Capital Cognitive Capital Relational Capital H1a H1b H2b H7a H3a H4a H5a H6a H2a H3b H4b H5b H6b H7b Ha= more helpful Hb= more responses

17. Critical Perspective on KM Examine KM from the view point of participants Heterogeneous Issues of commitment, rewards, trust Analysis is ecological knowledge networking is often interpersonal and informal, raising Qs about repository-oriented “capture” projects Enrollment processes (ANT)