Moria Levy, author of this article, is CEO at ROM Knowledgeware, Reut Israel. According to the company’s website, Levy has over 10 years experience as a knowledge management consultant including the managing of ROM, reportedly the largest knowledge management consultancy firm in Israel.
In this article Levy aims to outline an understanding of the Web 2.0 phenomenon and its effect on her field of interest, the knowledge management (KM) industry. Levy compares the concept of Web 2.0 with KM practices as she endeavours to explore whether using Web 2.0 ideas and technologies can facilitate better assimilation of KM into organisations. To achieve this comparison Levy examines and critiques a number of writings relating to Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 and KM 2.0. Her paper is set out in three main sections namely Web 2.0 review, Enterprise 2.0 - The Web 2.0 reflection in organisations and KM 2.0 - How could or should knowledge management be enhanced in light of Web 2.0? (Levy, 2007, p. 120-121).
In reviewing the history of Web 2.0 Levy draws on the work of Tim O’Reilly who along with Dale Dougherty of O’Reilly Media reportedly coined and conceptualised the original term in 2004, (Maness, 2006). It can be gleaned from Levy’s article the KM is a relatively new industry and one that has indeed struggled (p. 120). Andrew McAfee who reportedly coined the Enterprise 2.0 term in 2006 is like Levy interested in the potential for Web 2.0 to help KM. McAfee (2006) states “The advent of Web 2.0 has revitalised the field of knowledge management, by providing a new perspective and tools based on the idea of supporting people cooperation and participation, acknowledging the importance of the social process in the way that knowledge is created and managed”. Others like Kathrin Kirchner believe that the social collaborative dimensions of Web 2.0 offers ways to cultivate and exploit knowledge sharing in enterprise, providing new form for KM (Kirchner et al, 2009).
After drawing on O’Reilly’s definitions of Web 2.0 and that of others, Levy attempts to list the concepts of Web 2.0 most relevant to KM and provides information on Web 2.0 applications. It is here that Levy brings many varied angles to her paper from individuals for, against and cautious of the application of Web 2.0 ideas and technologies into the KM practices of organisations. While Levy believes that “Web 2.0 is bringing a new wave that should be adopted into knowledge management” (p. 132), her conclusion is that in most cases KM is not mature enough for loss of control, namely centralised control within organisations. It is perhaps this unwillingness to let go of control that will hinder at the very least the trial of Web 2.0 within KM. Certainly the Web 2.0 concepts of open ness and active participation of users goes against the older centralised models of KM. Indeed McAfee (in Kirchner et al, 2009) argues that Web 2.0 integrates and enhances the capabilities of older centralised platforms like (Intranets) by providing new digital platforms for generating, sharing and refining information, enabling decentralised and collaborative work (p. 57).
Levy also points out that organisations do not have the same mass of people that the web does and so there’s a question of whether or not there would be enough people sharing information to make Web 2.0 adaptation worthwhile (p.132). This is certainly a point that has been argued by others. In the paper Wikifailure: The Limitations of Technology for Knowledge Sharing, Alexeis Garcia-Perez and Robert Ayres report a case study of a Wiki that was implemented to support a group of researchers from the same institution. While initially very successful usage declined over time until one year after its launch use was minimal. Reportedly one major problem appears to have been the lack of critical mass, with only a small proportion of users contributing to the Wiki (p. 43).
While Levy’s opinion shifts between enthusiasm and caution she concludes that once KM is mature enough and organisations are ready for it, they should move towards adaptation (p. 133). Although Levy’s paper contains a lengthy comparison of Web 2.0 and KM principles, tools and attributes within table’s one and two respectively the paper could be enhanced by a further exploration of KM in its own right. Levy does not talk much about the individual and collective aspects of KM. Indeed (Kirchner, et al 2009, p. 16). asserts that the management of knowledge at an individual level represents a very important issue for knowledge workers. Ignoring this aspect is probably an important reason for the failure of first generation knowledge management, which expected from employees an altruistic attitude. Certainly it would be hard to expect employees to be altruistic when the chance for individual promotion outweighs the collective needs of the company. If KM is not mature enough and centralised control still dictates where and when people share information then the promise of Web 2.0, which requires open ness and sharing can never be fully realised and maybe (within the context of KM at least) Levy’s caution is well founded.
References
Garcia-Perez, A., Ayres, R. (2010) Wikifailure: the Limitations of Technology for Knowledge Sharing. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, (1), 43 - 51.
Kirchner, K., Razmerita, L., Nabeth, T. (2009) Personal and collective knowledge management in the Web 2.0: two faces of knowledge management. 9th International Conference on Innovative Internet Community Systems Jena,
Germany, 15 - 26.
Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, (1), 120 - 134.
Maness, J. M. (2006). Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries. Webology, Volume 3, Number 2, June, 2006, http://webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html#7
McAfee, A. P. (2006) Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. Sloan Management Review, 47, (3), 21 - 28.
No comments:
Post a Comment