██▓▒مقالات مهندسی ░▓██

صنایع مکانیک مدیریت زبان

██▓▒مقالات مهندسی ░▓██

صنایع مکانیک مدیریت زبان

Integrating knowledge transfer and computer-mediated communicati

Integrating knowledge transfer and computer-mediated communication: categorizing barriers and possible responses

David G Schwartz1

1Graduate School of Business Administration, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

Correspondence: David G. Schwartz, Graduate School of Business Administration, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Tel: +972-3-531-8917; E-mail: dschwar@mail.biu.ac.il

Received 10 September 2006; Accepted 1 August 2007.


Abstract

Communication is at the heart of knowledge transfer (KT). But studies of KT barriers do not explicitly consider the relationship and impact of specific communication modalities on KT. The modalities of computer-mediated communication (CMC), namely email, Voice Over Internet Protocol, Instant Messaging (IM) and the like are generally viewed as a group 'CMC'. In this paper, we analyze the KT literature to distill 21 key barriers to successful KT. These barriers are then categorized according to basic communication theory. We then examine leading theories of CMC and discuss how based on these theories individual CMC modalities can be applied to KT barriers. We conclude with a model that presents the categorized KT barriers in a communication channel model that can be addressed by CMC modalities and that can potentially break down those barriers.

Keywords:

computer-mediated communication, knowledge transfer, barriers, knowledge management, communications


Introduction

Moving knowledge from one part of an organization to another is a recognized challenge. Doing this while retaining – or replacing – context is an even greater challenge. But what is at the root of these challenges? Fragmentation caused by the distributed nature of the modern organization often necessitates virtual ad hoc teams that conduct most of their interactions through computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Weisenfeld et al., 1998; Jennex, 2000; Schwartz et al., 2000; McKay & Marshall, 2000). In fact, it is generally accepted that the ubiquity and simplicity of CMC is a major catalyst in pushing the distributed nature of work to its limits (see Figure 1). Knowledge transfer (KT) within the rubric of knowledge management (KM) attempts to effectively and efficiently move knowledge within an organization. However, while communications is at the heart of transfer, with very few exceptions there is a disconnect between the CMC literature and the KM literature reflecting a parallel disconnect in these two areas of research. We believe that if CMC is part of the 'problem' in having created an environment in which KT is so crucial, then it should be studied in depth and considered as part of the solution.

Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, please contact help@nature.com or the author

The CMC impact cycle: organizational function view (from Schwartz & Te'eni, 2007).

Full figure and legend (113K)

In this paper, our approach to enhancing the applicability of CMC to KT is to begin by identifying the known barriers to KT. These barriers are drawn from decades of research into KT, some of which has a technology focus but much of which does not.

KT can find some of its roots in Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS). GDSS combine communication, computer, and decision technologies to support problem formulation and solution in group meetings (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). The earliest focus on GDSS was on ways to improve communication and understanding between group members. While not formally identified as KT per se, GDSS research has much in common with current KT efforts.

CMC or as Huber (2003) characterizes it, computer-assisted communication technologies (CACT), has grown to include e-mail, instant messaging (IM), chat rooms, video and computer conferencing, facilitating access to people inside and outside a given organization. It is safe to assume that additional technological tools will be added to the CMC toolbox in the coming years.

Since both GDSS and KT have a strong reliance on communication, it may be instructive to view KT as group decision support in which one or more members of the group was present at an earlier time in a different location and is transferring his or her knowledge for use by another member of the group at the present time and location. This conceptualization fits in quite well with the time-place analysis of communication popularized by DeSanctis & Gallupe (1987).

The CMC Impact Cycle (Schwartz & Te'eni, 2007) shown in Figure 1, describes the flow of organizational change moving from CMC to KT to organizational form and back to CMC. In that cycle, the impact of CMC on organizational form is not necessarily direct and can be better understood by interjecting KT as an intermediate step. Research into the CMC Impact Cycle has thus far been limited to the study of how organizational forms change and has not looked at specific aspects of the KT stages of the cycle.

We begin by providing a review of related work in both KT and CMC. This is followed by a discussion of barriers to KT from which we distill a set of barriers that we wish to better understand through the lens of CMC. The KT barriers are then categorized and placed into a communications channel model. A theory-based discussion of CMC characteristics ensues which is followed by a mapping of those characteristics to the defined KT barriers. We conclude with a model of the relationship between KT and CMC, and provide directions for future research based on this model.


Categorizing KT barriers

In surveying the KT literature, we have focused on six studies. These studies deal with KT from either the perspective of explicit barriers or conversely through the identification of critical success factors, the absence of which would constitute a barrier. The studies were chosen based on (a) the thoroughness of the study, (b) a desire to reflect views of KT barriers from different disciplinary backgrounds. They are by no means the only such studies to deal with barriers to KT, but between them cover all the major influencing factors that appear in the literature and as such provide a comprehensive basis upon which to develop our model. After drawing the specific barriers from each study, we then consolidate those that appear in multiple studies, and distill a single list of barriers to KT.

Reagens & McEvily (2003) identify a series of factors critical to successful KT. Specifically:

  1. Ease of transfer from source to a recipient with ease from the source's point of view being most important.
  2. Acknowledgement of transfer and proper attribution on the part of the recipient is important by often unrecognized or misattributed.
  3. Absorptive capacity of the recipient, implying that KT between a source and recipient with some common knowledge, background, or characteristics is more likely to succeed.
  4. Strength of interpersonal connection between the source and recipient will positively affect the ease of KT.

Minbaeva & Michailova (2004) discuss the notion of

  1. disseminative capacity of organizations and show how the disseminative capacity of multinational corporations, can be measured by the dual factors of
  2. ability and
  3. willingness of knowledge sources to initiate transfer.

While their work focuses on the positive aspects of fostering such behavior, implicit in their results is the fact that the above items serve as barriers to KT if not properly developed and supported.

Simonim (1999) shows how ambiguity of knowledge impedes successful transfer. That discussion focuses on how proper context can help alleviate ambiguity and improve the likelihood of successful KT.

Szulanski's (2000) process model of KT highlights the importance of 13 constructs that can become KT barriers:

  1. Stickiness at initiation where difficulties or impediments occur prior to decision to transfer knowledge.
  2. Stickiness at implementation where difficulties occur between the decision to transfer knowledge and actual start of the KT process.
  3. Stickiness at ramp-up where unexpected problems arise between start and finish of the KT process.
  4. Stickiness at integration where difficulties occur after satisfactory completion of the transfer process.
  5. Ambiguity as reflected by the depth of knowledge transferred.
  6. Unproven nature of what has been transferred and its degree of conjecture.
  7. Motivation of the source of knowledge.
  8. Reliability of the source of knowledge.
  9. Motivation of the recipient.
  10. Absorptive capacity of the recipient.
  11. Retentive capacity of the recipient which differs from absorptive capacity in that the former is an indication of long-term memory and the latter an indication of initial short-term memory.
  12. Organizational context.
  13. Nature of relationship between knowledge source and recipient.

Goh's framework for the transfer of knowledge (2002) indicates seven influencing factors:

  1. Organizational design that may or may not be conducive to KT.
  2. Motivation through a reward system that motivates source and recipient.
  3. Available time for both source and recipient to engage in KT processes.
  4. Recipient knowledge capacity (which is the same as absorptive capacity in Szulanski's work).
  5. Nature of relationship between source and recipient.
  6. Type of knowledge being transferred.
  7. Source propensity to share.

In Lesser & Fontaine's (2004) analysis they focus on four primary barriers to KT, namely Awareness, Access, Application, and Perception where:

  1. Awareness includes the parallel abilities of the potential recipient to know who might have relevant knowledge and of the knowledge source to know who might be interested in their knowledge.
  2. Access is similar to Goh's available time in that it evaluates how the recipient is able to get the source to devote time to them, and how the source is able to avoid devoting too much time.
  3. Application combines the concepts of ambiguity and context so that both source and recipient feel that the knowledge s being properly applied.
  4. Perception deals with willingness and attribution of the source, and motivation of the recipient.

Consolidating the above six independent research studies results in a list of 21 barriers. We have further aggregated the barriers as pertaining to one of three categories, Source, Recipient, and Organization, as shown in Table 1.


The categorization is important as it will inform our discussion of the use of CMC. In CMC, as in any form communication, we have at least two primary participants, namely the source of a message and the intended recipient of a message. Thus these two form natural categories for the study of barriers. The third categorization, organization, reflects the contextual element so important to communications (Te'eni, 2001, 2006). Figure 2 graphically depicts the interrelationships and overlaps of each set of barriers.

Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, please contact help@nature.com or the author

Categorization of knowledge transfer barriers.

Full figure and legend (211K)

Mapping barriers to a communications channel model

In general, the contextual element of communication, in this case represented by the organization, serves alternatively as a filter or enhancer to organizational communication. The centrality of the organization's role in facilitating knowledge sharing has been well established (Kelloway & Barling, 2000; Lin & Lee, 2004; Bock et al., 2005; Lin, 2006). Placing the Source and Recipient at either end of a communication process, the organization in the middle as filter/enhancer, and the respective barriers of each group in place, results in the diagram shown in Figure 3. This sets the stage for a view of KT that can be informed by a communications model.

Figure 3.
Figure 3 - Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, please contact help@nature.com or the author

Knowledge transfer barriers as communication channels model.

Full figure and legend (104K)

Our next step is to map these grouped barriers on to a basic communication model. One of the earliest and most widely accepted models for organizational communication is that of Schramm (1954, 1960). Schramm's model initially consisted of simply a Sender, Recipient and Message (1954). He later modified the model to include Media (1960) that is the channels used to communicate the message, mitigate its passage, and enhance its chances of completing a communicative act. For a comprehensive historical presentation of communication models and approaches, see Peters (1999). The theoretical background of communication models is important for our model as it provides a foil against which we will examine both KT and CMC.

In essence, the derived communication model that we present replaces Schramm's media element with the organization as mitigator and facilitator of the communicative act. Each of the identified barrier elements can then be ascribed to either the Sender, Recipient, or Organization.

Figure 3, which shows KT barriers juxtaposed as a communications model, provides us with what can be an evocative and effective tool with which we can apply CMC elements as barrier mitigators.


CMC benefits

Research into CMC has shown that there are a number of specific benefits to the communication process that can be achieved through the introduction of computer mediation.

Karsenty (1999) showed that the inability to share visual task-related information strongly affects the efficiency of communication, implying the importance of both image and video enhancements to CMC. Bordia (1997) looks at the relative benefits CMC can provide over face-to-face communication.

The importance of social context in any framework for CMC in organizations is elucidated by Mantovani (1996) who dismisses the view that 'CMC lacks adequate social cues and fosters impulsive behaviour' concluding that 'Cognitive processes such as categorization, stereotype construction, and social identification can make electronic environments even more strongly sensible to social norms than face-to-face communication'(p. 237).

Richness of communication is shown to be a primary beneficiary of CMC in work by Schwartz & Te'eni (2000), Te'eni (2006), and Schwartz (1999). According to Te'eni (2001), there are five specific communication strategies that are directly supported by CMC, as shown in Table 2:


Each of these strategies can be applied as a mitigating force to the relevant KT barriers presented in Figure 3. But selecting an appropriate strategy is not enough to help on the applied level. For communications strategies to affect change in the KT process, we need to look at the specific ways in which CMC can be applied to implement these and other barrier-reducing strategies.


Applying CMC to the KT barrier communication channel model

Before discussing how specific CMC modalities can affect barrier reduction, we must first enumerate the particular CMC tools or systems relevant to our discussion.

Riva (2001), (2002) suggests a theoretical framework in which the CMC experience involves social actors who negotiate the meaning of various situations through the exchange of multiple cues. In doing so, Riva develops a taxonomy of CMC modalities that consists primarily of text, audio, and video incorporated in IM, Shared Hypermedia, Weblogs, and Graphical Chats, and Video Chats. While considering Positioning Theory, Situated Action Theory, and Social Information Processing Theory, Riva's work does not examine the basic Communications Theory model of Schramm discussed above. It does, however, provides a clear direction to follow in developing a theory that integrates CMC and KT by advocating the explicit consideration and differentiation between the different CMC modalities.

Expanding Riva's CMC taxonomy provides us with a simple categorization of the information types commonly supported by each CMC modality as shown in Table 3.


We begin by specifically enumerating those modes of communication that are considered CMC, namely email, IM, Chat (which we define as multi-participant IM), VOIP, and Video conferencing (or VVOIP – Video and Voice Over Internet Protocol). These seven modes of CMC are known to have increasing levels of both information richness and contextual support (Te'eni, 2001; Kahai & Cooper, 2003; Kock, 2004).

While newsgroups and forums have different technology legacies (the former being based on nntp protocols and the latter on bulletin boards), they essentially provide the same functionality and for our purposes are treated as one and referred to as Forums.

Each CMC modality, as shown in Figure 4, has the ability to reduce KT barriers and move us closer to frictionless transfer of knowledge between source and recipient. One need look no further than the primary theories being used to study CMC usage to see how the judicious application of CMC modalities could lead to a direct reduction of KT barriers.

Figure 4.
Figure 4 - Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, please contact help@nature.com or the author

CMC modalities and communication characteristics.

Full figure and legend (15K)

Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) and social presence theory (Short et al., 1976) have been the most influential rational-choice models applied to study the use of communication technology. In rational-choice models, the communicator is expected to determine the most effective medium for conveying a message in a given situation. For example, media richness theory claims that in ambiguous situations, a richer medium, such as face-to-face communication, is more effective than a leaner medium, such as a fax (Te'eni et al., 2001).

Social presence theory equates the degree of social presence with the degree of awareness. This implies that any CMC modality that increases social presence will have the effect of increasing awareness thus reducing the effects of that barrier to KT.

Media richness theory, which has grown to become a dominant force in CMC research, states that increasing the expressive capabilities of media in support of collaborative tasks can be the leading element in reducing ambiguity. Here yet another key KT barrier, the ambiguity identified on both the sender and recipient's side of the model, can be effectively reduced.

In a departure from the popular theories of social presence and media richness, Kock (2004) proposes a psychobiological model to explain the effectiveness of CMC. He suggests that there is a negative relationship between the 'naturalness' of a CMC medium and the cognitive effort required to achieve KT through the use of CMC. Naturalness refers to the extent to which CMC recreates face-to-face communication. The Media Naturalness Proposition, according to Kock, is as follows: 'Decreases in the degree of naturalness of a CMC medium lead to increases in the degree of cognitive effort required from an individual to use the medium for communication to accomplish a collaborative task' (p. 333). Reflecting on the converse of this proposition, we would expect that increases in the degree of CMC medium naturalness would lead to a lesser degree of cognitive effort required and this, we would argue, will directly reduce the barriers of absorption and retention in the side of the recipient and reduce the barriers of ease and willingness on the sender side.

The view presented by Figure 3 in which KT barriers are juxtaposed in a communication channel model helps direct us towards the appropriate and effective application of the CMC modalities, supported by CMC theories and enumerated in Figure 4.

In pursuing more effective KT, we argue that each barrier in the communication process can be attacked by application of the appropriate CMC modality in order to mitigate the barrier's impact through the specific strength of the CMC modality. Table 4 summarizes the potential barrier reduction based on the three theories discussed above.


If one observes the evolution of CMC over the past 5 years, it becomes clear that the technology is moving from standalone CMC modalities such as e-mail, independent forum systems, standalone Chat and IM, etc. to integrated CMC modalities. Current portal systems, for example, integrate a user's personal email alongside forum participation relevant to his/her organizational role. Of even greater import are the developments in the high context modalities. The most recent release of the popular Skype VOIP software, which initially included only IM alongside VOIP, has now been expanded to include both Chat, and Video (VVOIP). This creates a communications environment that incorporates all of the high context modalities in a single application. This may be attractive from a usability and user interface perspective, but it will make our task of reducing KT barriers all the more complex. The key may just be deconstructing CMC so that it can be applied most effectively to the problem points of KT.


Implications for practice and future research

The implications of the KT Barriers as Communication Channels Model are many and we suggest the following future directions.

  1. Additional theories of CMC can be examined with respect to the KT Barriers model in a manner similar to what we have done with the Media Richness, Social Presence, and Psychobiological theories.
  2. Robust high context KT systems could be built by integrating existing CMC applications; KT research in this area should focus on identifying which CMC modalities should be integrated into existing KM systems serving a KT function.
  3. KT barriers can be addressed through a best-of-breed approach to adopting the CMC modality most proficient in reducing the given barrier; Research into how organizations select specific CMC modalities based on multiple IT considerations should be conducted, and KT should be included as one of those considerations. Having KT on the agenda in the adoption process of CMC technologies will better position an organization to make the best use of that modality.
  4. The use of multiple CMC modalities may combine to address multiple barriers, depending on the organizational KT environment. Research that creates 'combination plates' of CMC modalities and targeted barriers can help determine preferred combinations.
  5. The behavior of specific KT barriers can be isolated and studied to see how each is impacted by specific CMC modalities.
  6. The Time–Space impact of CMC modalities on KT barriers must also be investigated. Much work in communications theory is based on the widely used space–time categorization of DeSanctis & Gallupe (1987). That model, when populated with various CMC solutions is useful in that it clearly delineates the temporal and location characteristics of each mode (Table 5).

The 2 times 2 classic matrix is expanded in Grundin (1994) to a 3 times 3 matrix that splits the 'different' aspect between 'different and predictable' and 'different and unpredictable'. Current KT research does not differentiate between different but predictable and different and unpredictable communication modes. This distinction may be important in the analysis of KT, depending on the distributed nature of the organization in question, and should be an area of future research.


Summary

There are a number of isolated attempts to connect KM systems to CMC. There is clear consensus that CMC is influencing the growth of virtual and distributed organizations while KT is recognized as being more difficult in these same types of organizations. We believe that for effective KT solutions to develop, a comprehensive orchestrated approach grounded in CMC is required. This article presents a mapping between the capabilities, affects, strengths, and weaknesses of CMC and the barriers to KT in organizations.

We have shown where CMC does indeed contribute to the problems of KT in organizations; we then surveyed the barriers to KT. This resulted in an aggregation of KT barriers that were then presented in a new communication channel model. With this analysis in hand we then enumerated CMC modalities and leading CMC theories, discussing how they should be harnessed and focused to address the specific KT barriers, explaining how the known characteristics of different CMC solutions are capable of being applied to different barriers. Based on the KT Barriers as Communications Channels model, a number of research directions were discussed.

The approach we have advocated is integrative, taking what we have learned from the KT literature and applying what we know from the CMC literature which continues to evolve. The ideas and model presented in this article can serve as the foundation for such an approach and help map out the basis upon which future KT systems integrated with CMC can be built.


References

  1. Argote L (1999) Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
  2. Basque J, Imbeault C, Pudelko B and Léonard M (2004) Collaborative knowledge modeling between experts and novices: a strategy to support transfer of expertise in an organization. In Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept Mapping (Cañas AJ, Novak JD, González FM, Eds), Pamplona, Spain: Universidad Publica de Navarra.
  3. Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG and Lee JN. (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological factors, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly 29(1), 87–111.
  4. Bordia P. (1997) Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication 34(1), 99–118. | Article |
  5. Daft RL and Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32(5), 554–571. | ISI |
  6. Darr ED and Kurtzberg TR (2000) An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82(1), 28–45. | Article |
  7. Davey C (2006) Recipients: the key to information transfer. Knowledge Management in Research & Practice 4, 17–25. | Article |
  8. Desanctis G and Gallupe RB (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science 33(5), 589–609.
  9. Eppler MJ (2006) Knowledge communication. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (Schwartz DG, Ed), pp 317–325, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA.
  10. Ewalt DM (2005) E-mail time capsule, Forbes, (December 1, 2005) (available at http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/18/communication-networks-language-cx_mn_de_comm05land.html, accessed 10 February 2006).
  11. Ford DP and Staples DS (2006) Perceived value of knowledge: the potential informer's perception. Knowledge Management in Research and Practice 4, 3–16. | Article |
  12. Fulk J and DeSanctis G (1995) Electronic communication and changing organizational forms. Organizational Science 6, 338–349.
  13. Goh SC (2002) Managing effective knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management 6(1), 22–30. | Article |
  14. Grundin J (1994) Computer supported cooperative work: its history and focus. IEEE Computer 27(5), 19–26.
  15. Hädrich T and Maier R (2006) Integrated modeling. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (Schwartz DG, Ed), pp 251–258, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA.
  16. Harel D, Carmel L and Lancet D (2003) Towards an odor communication systems. Computational Biology and Chemistry 27, 121–133. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  17. Huber GP (2003) The effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. In Strategic Information Management: Challenges and Strategies in Managing Information Systems (Galliers RD and Leidner DE, Eds), 3rd edn, pp 460–496, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  18. Isaacs E, Walendowski A, Whittaker S, Schiano D and Kamm C (2002) The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. In Proceedings of the CSCW'02, pp 126–135, New York: ACM Press.
  19. Jacobson CM (2006) Knowledge sharing between individuals. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (Schwartz DG, Ed), pp 507–514, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA.
  20. Jennex M (2000) Using an intranet to manage knowledge for a virtual project team. In Internet-Based Organizational Memory and Knowledge Management (Schwartz DG, Divitini M and Brasethvik T, Eds), pp 241–259, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
  21. Kahai SS and Cooper RB (2003) Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: the impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(1), 263–299.
  22. Karsenty L (1999) Cooperative work and shared visual context: an empirical study of comprehension problems in side-by-side and remote help dialogues. Human Computer Interaction 1(3), 283–315. | Article |
  23. Katzy B, Evaristo R and Zigurs I (2000) Knowledge management in virtual projects: a research agenda. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii international Conference on System Science – Volume 1 HICSS (Sprague RH, Ed), IEEE Computer Society, Silver Spring, MD.
  24. Kelloway EK and Barling J (2000) Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International Journal of Management Reviews 2(3), 287–304. | Article |
  25. King WR (2006) Knowledge transfer. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (Schwartz DG, Ed), pp 538–543, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA.
  26. Kock N (2004) The psychobiological model: towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organizational Science 15(3), 327–358. | Article |
  27. Lesser EL and Fontaine ME (2004) Overcoming knowledge barriers with communities of practice: lessons learned through practical experience. In Knowledge Networks: Innovation Through Communities of Practice (Hildreth P and Kimble C, Eds), pp 14–23, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
  28. Lindsay KL (2006) Knowledge sharing barriers. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (Schwartz DG, Ed), pp 499–506, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA.
  29. Lin HF (2006) Impact of organizational support on organizational intention to facilitate knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 4, 26–35. | Article |
  30. Lin HF and Lee GG (2004) Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge sharing behavior. Management Decision 42(1), 108–125. | Article |
  31. Majchrzak A, Rice RE, King N, Malhotra A and Ba S (2000) Computer-mediated inter-organizational knowledge-sharing: insights from a virtual team innovating using a collaborative tool. Information Resources Management Journal 13(1), 44–53.
  32. Mantovani G (1996) Social context in HCI: a new framework for mental models. Cooperation, and Communication, Cognitive Science 20, 237–269.
  33. McKay J and Marshall P (2000) The challenges of interorganizational management: an emerging issue in the virtual organization. In Internet-based Organizational Memory and Knowledge Management (Schwartz DG, Divitini M and Brasethvik T, Eds), pp 201–221, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
  34. Minbaeva DB and Michailova S (2004) Knowledge transfer and expatriation in multinational corporations: the role of disseminative capacity. Employee Relations 26(6), 663–679. | Article |
  35. Nardi B, Whittaker S and Bradner E (2000) Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action, In Proceedings of CSCW '00 Philadelphia, PA, pp 79–88, New York: ACM Press.
  36. Nissen ME (2002) An extended model of knowledge-flow dynamics. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 8, 251–266.
  37. Nissen ME, Kamel MN and Sengupta KC (2000) Integrated analysis and design of knowledge systems and processes. Information Resources Management Journal 13(1), 24–43.
  38. Orlikowski W, Yates J, Okamura K and Fujimoto M (1995) Shaping electronic communication: the metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science 6(4), 423–443.
  39. Peters JD (1999) Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  40. Reagans R and McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 240–267. | Article | ISI |
  41. Ribak A, Jacovi M and Soraka V (2002) Ask before you search: peer support and community building with reachout. In Proceedings of CSCW'02, pp 126–135, New York: ACM Press.
  42. Riva G (2001) Communicating in CMC: making order out of miscommunication. In Communicating in CMC: Making Order Out of Miscommunication (Anolli L, Ciceri R and Riva G, Eds), pp 203–233, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  43. Riva G (2002) The sociocognitive psychology of computer-mediated communication: the present and future of technology-based interactions. CyberPsychology & Behavior 5(6), 581–598. | Article |
  44. Schramm W (1954) The Process and Effect of Mass Communication, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  45. Schramm W (1960) Mass Communication: a Book of Readings, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  46. Schwartz DG (1998) Applying shared semantics to organizational email communications. Journal of Internet Research 8(2), 434–441. | Article |
  47. Schwartz DG (1999) When email meets organizational memories: addressing threats to communication in a learning organization. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 51(3), 599–614. | Article |
  48. Schwartz DG, Divitini M and Brasethvik T (2000) On knowledge management in the internet age. In Internet-based Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory (Schwartz DG, Divitini M and Brasethvik T, Eds), pp 1–23, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
  49. Schwartz DG and Sadan Z (2006) Strip-mining the web with Saim: a system for the analysis of instant messages. International Journal of Business Data Communications and Networking 2(2), 1–20.
  50. Schwartz DG and Te'eni D (2000) Tying knowledge to action with Kmail. IEEE Intelligent Systems 15(3), 33–39. | Article |
  51. Schwartz DG and Te'eni D (2007) The impact of computer mediated communication on knowledge transfer and organizational form. In Knowledge Management: An Evolutionary View of the Field, Advances in Management Information Systems (AMIS) Series (Becerra-Fernandez I and Leidner D, Eds), M.E. Sharpe, New York.
  52. Short J, Williams E and Christie B (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. John Wiley, London, UK.
  53. Simonim BL (1999) Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliance. Strategic Management Journal 20(7), 595–623. | Article |
  54. Sussman SW and Siegal WS (2003) Informational influence in organizations: an integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research 14(1), 47–65. | Article |
  55. Szulanski G (2000) The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82(1), 9–27. | Article | ISI |
  56. Te'eni D (2001) A cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MISQ (Review) 25(2), 1–62.
  57. Te'eni D (2006) Organizational communication. In Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (Schwartz DG, Ed), pp 734–740, Idea Group Reference, Hershey, PA.
  58. Te'eni D, Sagie A, Schwartz DG, Hamburger Y and Zaidman N (2001) The process of organizational communication: a model and field study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications 44(1), 6–20. | Article |
  59. Torodan H (2005) Smelling objects for multimedia database applications. Studies in Informatics and Controls 14(4), 273–278.
  60. van den Hooff B, Elving W, Meeuwsen JM and Dumoulin C (2003) Knowledge sharing in knowledge communities. In Communities and Technologies (Huysman M, Wenger E and Wulf V, Eds), pp 119–141, Kluwer B.V., Deventer, The Netherlands.
  61. Weisenfeld BM, Raghuram S and Garud R (1998) Communication patterns as determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 3(4), 1–21.

About the author

David G. Schwartz is a senior lecturer and head of the Information Systems Division of the Graduate School of Business Administration at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. David's research focuses on Computer-Mediated Communications, Knowledge Management, and Internet-based systems. Since 1998 he has served as Editor of the internationally acclaimed journal Internet Research. David's research has appeared in publications such as IEEE Intelligent Systems, International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, Kybernetes, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior. His books include Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (2006) and Internet-Based Organizational Memory and Knowledge Management (2000) for which he served as Editor, and Cooperating Heterogeneous Systems (1995). David received his Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University; MBA from McMaster University; and B.Sc. from the University of Toronto, Canada.

MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS

These links to content published by Palgrave Macmillan are automatically generated.

RESEARCH

Integrating knowledge transfer and computer-mediated communication: categorizing barriers and possible responses

Knowledge Management Research & Practice Article

The Influence of workspace awareness on group intellective decision effectiveness

European Journal of Information Systems Original Article

محمد دوشنبه 27 دی‌ماه سال 1389 ساعت 08:41 ب.ظ
0 نظر