Knowledge and Process Management Volume 16 Number 1 pp 2329 (2009) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/kpm.

322

& Research Article

Applying Wikis to Managing KnowledgeA Socio-Technical Approach

Miia Kosonen*,y and Aino Kiantoz
School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland

As organizations are increasingly moving towards geographically dispersed and virtual forms of collaboration, knowledge sharing through social software such as wikis is widely acknowledged as an important area of research and practice. However, social software remains an underinvestigated issue in the literature on knowledge management (KM), and there is a lack of studies demonstrating how organizations can successfully incorporate these technologies into their everyday operations. To bridge this gap, our paper examines a case of successful wiki implementation. We claim that understanding the implementation of wikis requires a sociotechnical perspective focusing on the organizational context and activity system in which they are implemented rather than on their technological prociency. Furthermore, we claim that their implementation brings about change in existing social systems, and results in new kinds of social constellations, interactions, and identities, which are manageable and controllable only to a limited extent. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION
As organizations are increasingly moving towards geographically dispersed and virtual forms of collaboration, knowledge sharing through social software is widely acknowledged as an important area of research and practice (Davies, 2004; Wagner and Bolloju, 2005). Social software as such does not refer to any particular set of tools; it is rather a choice of design and use (cf. Wikipedia, 2007). In general, the term social incorporates forms of computermediated communication that allow people to connect or collaborate through organizational or interest-based communities. For instance, weblogs

*Correspondence to: Miia Kosonen, School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851, Lappeenranta, Finland. E-mail: miia.kosonen@lut. y Doctoral Student z Professor

and wikis facilitate personal learning and reection, support group-level knowledge sharing, help people to locate knowledge, and serve as a community memory that is easily accessible any time and anywhere. However, social software remains an underinvestigated issue in knowledge management (KM). The inuence of information and communication technologies (ICTs) on knowledge sharing and creation has been approached mostly from the individual perspective in terms of the role of ICT in either lowering or heightening the cognitive barrier to sharing (e.g., Hendriks, 1999). Accordingly, ICT tools are mainly designed to support the acquisition and retrieval of codied knowledge in order to improve individual knowledge bases (Huysman and Wulf, 2006). Less has been written on supporting informal emergent knowledge sharing within communities by means of novel collaboration tools. In this sense, weblogs and wikis deserve more

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

RESEARCH ARTICLE
attention from both researchers and practitioners. According to Roll (2004), the unique value of these tools resides in supporting a multitude of distributed knowledge processes simultaneously. Due to their exibility and easiness of use, they also enable the more uid communication and collaboration patterns that support the free exchange of knowledge. Current research lacks practical examples of the successful implementation of social software in organizations, particularly in the corporate context. Our paper, which is based on qualitative data, presents a case from a large company in the ICT industry that uses wikis for internal knowledge sharing and creation. We examine how internal wikis have been incorporated into the organization, and relate our ndings to the broader discussion on the socio-technical dimension of KM. The paper is organized as follows. First we discuss KM and wikis. Then we explain the methodology of our empirical research, and present our ndings on the implementation of wikis in the case organization. Finally, we discuss the wider implications of our study and propose some promising avenues for future research on social software.

Knowledge and Process Management

ability to provide sustainable competitiveness for the organization (Meso and Smith, 2000) because ICTs are not rarethey are easily available and acquired from the market. Furthermore, in as far as the outputs built through these technologies are explicit and codied, they are easily imitated by competitors. Finally, there are various options for almost all technological solutions, and the technological tools of KM therefore do not satisfy the nonsubstitutability criterion for strategic assets either. Within the socio-technical view of KM the community-based approach has been considered one of the most fruitful in terms of understanding knowledge sharing and creation (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Communities may be physical, mental, or virtual. Knowledge creation thus requires negotiation among different social communities, which may have distinctive norms, cultural values, and interests (Swan et al., 2000). Kotlarsky and Oshri (2005) identify two approaches to knowledge sharing: transactive memory (implying knowledge about who knows what), and collective knowledge (invisible structures or collective wisdom built on language, history, and shared meanings). When knowledge is embedded in the collective, sharing is enabled through collaborative mechanisms that facilitate the exchanging of ideas and stories, the providing of information and expertise, and the debating of issues that are relevant to the community (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). In conditions of distributed knowledge work, communities are supported by collaborative and communicative technologies, i.e., social software. Knowledge work includes nding codied information, organizing personal information, making sense of information, negotiating meanings, creating new ideas, establishing and maintaining personal networks, and collaborating in communities (Roll, 2004, see also Emova, 2004). These processes are highly interrelated and often cannot be separated. However, few KM tools exist that take this interrelatedness into account; for instance, document management systems focus only on nding information. The benets of novel forms of social software, such as weblogs and wikis, include support for a multitude of knowledge-work processes. They combine communication and personal information management, make knowledge work more visible, and open up new opportunities for collaboration. As the benets of such tools directly accrue to the user, their use is personally rewarding and integrates well into the daily patterns of work. (Ro 2004). ll, In particular, wikis are server-based systems of interlinked Web pages that allow users to easily

THE USE OF WIKIS IN KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge is increasingly scattered both within and across organizations, which creates new challenges from the KM perspective. Swan et al. (2000, p. 1) dene KM as consisting of any processes and practices concerned with the creation, acquisition, capture, sharing and use of knowledge, skills and expertise. Two major approaches to KM have been identied in the literature: the technical view and the socio-technical view (Meso and Smith, 2000; Pan and Scarbrough, 1998). The technical view holds that supporting knowledge work is a matter of employing an optimal combination of ICTs, such as web browsers, group-ware, and document management. The socio-technical view, in contrast, highlights the interplay of technology with the organizational context, and approaches organizations as complex combinations of technology, organizational structures, and corporate cultures and communities. According to the resource-based view, sustainable competitiveness is based on the possession of strategic assets, which are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable in nature (Barney, 1991). In this context, the purely technology-centered approach to KM seems limited in its

24

M. Kosonen and A. Kianto DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Knowledge and Process Management

create and edit content (Davies, 2004; Leuf and Cunningham, 2001; Raman, 2006). According to Wagner and Bolloju (2005), they allow people to engage in knowledge creation and sharing through processes of collaborative editing. They represent an open-source technology for knowledge content, focusing on the incremental creation and enhancement of knowledge, and multi-user participation. Majchrzak et al. (2006) suggest that the benets of using corporate wikis include an enhanced reputation, making work easier, and helping organizations to improve their processes. However, these benets are more likely to be accrued in conditions in which novel solutions are called for rather than in the context of routine tasks. In addition, users have to trust in others abilities as contributors, i.e., to be able to identify credible sources of information. Davies (2004) pinpoints three key factors in wiki collaboration: understanding the social and technical aspects, which in turn promotes trust (in the technology, in the content, in the wiki community and in the concept/form of collaboration in general), and valueif it is to enable and maintain collaborative communities the wiki tool must be perceived as valuable on the individual level. Current literature suggests that champions are critical for advancing acceptance of new technologies in organizations and successfully implementing them (Beath, 1991; Lawless and Price, 1992). Internal technology champions are individuals who present and promote an outside technology (e.g., wikis) to their fellow organizational members, who are potential users (Lawless and Price, 1992, P. 342). If social software is to be used for KM purposes it has to match the organizational culture and communication climate; organizations should value open-minded and nonhierarchical idea exchange. The organizational environment also affects knowledge sharing through the level of task interdependence, employee autonomy and perceived peer support, for example: autonomous workers perceive greater utility in searching for knowledge and identifying innovative work patterns than employees who are monitored and receive detailed directions from managers, and thus lack selfefcacy (Cabrera et al., 2006; Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000). Kling and Lamb (1999) note that supporting IT infrastructures are often understood merely in terms of the physical architectures of systems and networks. Nevertheless, the hidden costs of computing are also signicant enablers of socialsoftware implementation. Finally, the informal organization, unplanned and emerging from personal friendships and needs, greatly inuences organizational behavior (Tannenbaum, 1966). Informal networks can cut

RESEARCH ARTICLE
across formal organizational charts, and at best function as signicant channels of knowledge sharing and creation and thereby enhance work and the attainment of the organizations goals. However, informal groupings can also inhibit and sabotage organizational success, such as by inhibiting information ows or transferring information that is negative to the rm (Krackhardt and Hanson, 1993). Informal networks may be more important in terms of knowledge sharing, feedback and the quality of results than formal networks (Lin, 1971).

METHODOLOGY
Case studies are well suited to preliminary, exploratory types of research and in areas in which the existing theory is inadequate (Eisenhardt, 1989). In particular, the literature on the implementation and use of social software in organizations has typically adopted a fairly managerial approach by offering guidelines on how to apply weblogs or wikis, for example. We thus chose the case study as our research method and focused on the experiences of applying and developing wikis inside an engineering organization from the ICT industry. The organization is considered to be one of the most successful within its industry, and is globally seen as a forerunner in developing new communication technologies. In our understanding, it has been a fruitful breeding ground for applying social software in the corporate contextas one interviewee put it, engineers by their very nature want to experiment with novel technologies. We chose an information-rich case, a type of single case that provides various opportunities for learning about the phenomenon (Patton, 1990). Given the scarcity of academic studies in the area of social software, wikis seem to be a phenomenon to which there is no easy access in the business context. This could also reect their newness in corporate use. Hence we also provide a revelatory case (Tellis, 1997). Our case study draws on multiple sources of evidence: no single piece of evidence could be considered to provide a comprehensive perspective on the phenomenon under study. In order to illustrate the implementation of wikis in practice we conducted two group interviews, the rst in March 2006 and the second in October 2006, with four representatives of a large ICT company. Four interviewees participated in the rst interview round, which was organized as a telephone conference, and three in the second, which was conducted face-to-face. Both interviews lasted between one-and-a-half and 2 hours. They were

Applying Wikis to Managing Knowledge DOI: 10.1002/kpm

25

RESEARCH ARTICLE
tape-recorded and transcribed, which resulted in a total textual dataset of 41 pages. We also engaged in additional informal conversations with the informants, and employed company-internal presentation materials concerning the use of wikis. The interviewed people were the corporate champions related to the implementation process. Hence, we focused on a non-dominant group of individuals in the organization, and allowed them to tell their stories (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003). The interviewer directed the inquiry in the group interviews, but in a rather unstructured fashion. This interview type was chosen because it is considered a good means of helping the respondents to recall specic events, as well as the shared experiences related to them (Fontana and Frey, 2000). We analyzed the interview data using ATLAS.ti, which is software tailored to qualitative data analysis. We coded the data inductively and then sorted it into categories based on regularities that occurred. Hence, the sorting was done by formulating the themes based on our main research question, in other words concerning the factors explaining the incorporation of wikis into the organization. This strategy enabled us to nd the relevant parts of the data that required further analysis (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003). The accuracy and value of the coding and the interpretations were ensured by means of data triangulation. We used multiple sources of evidence and established a chain of evidence with ATLAS.ti in order to increase the validity of the study (Yin, 2003).

Knowledge and Process Management

tance or projection. Thus the process could be characterized as voluntary and even risky. Here the strong conviction and motivation of the initial champion was a decisive factor. There were no ofcial frames for doing such work. It was more like a non-verbal contract that Im allowed to be less productive. . . An important milestone in spreading wiki use outside of the pilot project was the offering of social support by peers and colleagues. In particular, the rst internal customers to adopt the internal wiki encouraged the development as they immediately saw the benets of the system. The developer, in turn, gave informational support to the emerging user community by providing simple how-to-do guidelines for those interested in the subject. He was also able to react quickly to feedback and develop the wiki system to better match users needs. This has affected the success of internal wikis, but the large number of users has also had its reverse side: it is slower, more difcult and more costly to make changes as the user base grows and users are locked into the current system. It started out as a minor need, or a very specic need in project documentation. As we were able to solve the problem, we then noted that this would be nice for a variety of uses in our organization. Now its a de-facto tool with over 7,000 users. We [as customers] could just send an email, that we would like to have this kind of feature, and in one hour it was all done. The system advanced during its use, and it was quite utopian, how well it really worked. We shouldnt try to make everyone use wikis. The net effect to the rm can be negative. Its more important to have the right tool and maximized productivity. Our case thus illustrates the fact that both technical and social support are critical for the dissemination of wikis. This was realized as the champion exercised an important role in providing support for the novel users of wikis. Our results also demonstrate that their implementation is an ongoing social process, characterized by continuous incremental adaptations, rather than a one-shot act. The ability to continuously adjust the technology to the specic organizational context in which it is used seems to be an important success factor in the implementation of wikis, just as it is in the adoption of any other external technologies (Leonard-Barton, 1995). Following the above ndings, our results also underline the role of informal social networks in successful implementation. It has been estimated

RESULTS
Wiki adoption in the organization evolved from the bottom up, starting as an informal trial to match the needs of one software-development project situated on two different geographical sites. On the basis of his experience the focal employee, or corporate champion, became interested in wikis. The development work was thus driven by his willingness to experiment with them, and his ability to perceive their value. The risks were low because the tool was freely available and easy to launch. In general, successful champions emerge informally, promote the novelty with conviction, persistence and energy, and are willing even to risk their position and reputation to ensure the noveltys success within the organization. Our case thus demonstrates the crucial role of a committed champion with these characteristics. It should also be noted that, in this case, wikis were brought to the organization by the champion without proper authorization, and they were disseminated further without formal accep-

26

M. Kosonen and A. Kianto DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Knowledge and Process Management

that up to 70% of all communication within organizations takes place through the grapevine, i.e., informal, uncontrollably spreading rumors or gossip (Crampton et al., 1998). In our case too, the initial interest in trying out wikis was spread through face-to-face conversations between the champion and colleagues who were sitting on the same oor of the ofce building. Much of a large organization is based on informal networks. Your work cant be limited inside one unit, you must know the right people you can ask when necessary. Based on our case, one of the success factors was internal branding and productization. The focal employee developed the wiki system to functionally resemble the corporate intranet. This, in turn, lowered the cognitive barrier to its adoption. As the use of wikis spread, the non-rational bases of thinking about how people were using the system in practice became more visible. Easiness of use and exibility are naturally important, but even more than that the adoption relies on what the tool seems to be and feels like. When the interface and layout were made consistent with the organizations intranet, the number of users radically increased. This implies that the sensual, aesthetic dimensions of social technologies should also be given conscious attention. We did nothing else but changed the layout; what it looked like and how people felt about it, and suddenly it had much more credibility, people were attached to the system. It was not about explicit rules for setting the content of sites, but more about making it look more ofcial and acceptable. In addition, in terms of marketing wikis internally, much of the success has been due to positive recommendations and word-of-mouth, e.g., by agitators and internal hubs. According to the developers, the best way to market them seems to be through trial and practice. As a result, they have organically spread across the organization. Only drug dealers and IT people have users. . . Its difcult to attract people unless they see the concrete benets, and feel that the system has true value. Then you dont actually need to sell anything. Kling and Lamb (1999) argue that too often champions and sponsors of new technologies believe that other employees will naturally see the benets of adoption, and do not pay enough attention to explaining what these benets are. However, people need good reasons to change their

RESEARCH ARTICLE
work-related practices and are likely to adopt changes, for example to start using wikis, only if they see the direct benets for their work (see also Davies, 2004). It could further be argued that the key to successfully implementing wikis (or any technological knowledge-management tools for that matter) lies in understanding the identities of the organizational actors and the ways in which they conduct their day-to-day work. As Spender (2007, P. 16) notes, We can be surprised how readily people change when they believe changes will enhance their power and identity. If organizational actors perceive wikis to be something that enables them to do their work more efciently and effectively, and to improve their chances of conducting meaningful and inspiring tasks, then they will be more willing to start using them. According to our ndings, once people try them and nd them useful, they will be motivated to continue to use them and there will be less need for further internal marketing. It is in the nature of social software to adjust to the needs of the surrounding organization: the user community determines both the structure and the content. Initiating and sustaining such collaboration requires a supportive organizational culture, in which people are trusted and encouraged to contribute. In other words, the tool must t the context: wikis as such do not guarantee positive outcomes related to knowledge sharing and creation. Furthermore, not all wiki experiments will succeed, nor do they need to. Matching user needs and having a supportive culture seem to be the key facets in bridging the chasm of death and attracting a critical mass of users to form a community. The interviewees described the close connection between open-source ideology and informal collaboration tools such as wikis: in both contexts people freely reveal what they know and want to share their contributions with others. Wikis are uncontrolled, informal tools, and they do not suit highly ofcial tasks. When using email, people express power relations and hide information: who gets to know what, who is included and who is excluded. Wikis and weblogs are analogous to open source, where everything can be shared freely. However, the culture of openness has its limits, and many employees feel uncomfortable about their rights and responsibilities. For instance, not every piece of information can be freely revealed in the rm environment, no matter how easy and exible that would be. This causes much uncertainty among

Applying Wikis to Managing Knowledge DOI: 10.1002/kpm

27

RESEARCH ARTICLE
people: Can I publish this? Who could do that? It is relatively easy to implement practical guidelines on implementing social software, but it is much more difcult to give guidance and encouragement on how to use it, particularly in the corporate context. Our case thus demonstrates the importance of the organizational culture in the implementation of wikis. A culture that supports knowledge sharing and collaboration enables organizational actors to derive the best benets from social software. An important cultural factor also seems to be the acceptance of mistakes and occasional failures, as these necessarily happen in an open collaborative environment. Previous studies have emphasized the necessity of such cultures for collaborative innovation (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001). As users themselves take the role of focal players in the knowledge sharing and utilization processes, organizational structures gradually become atter and more horizontal.

Knowledge and Process Management

capital (Cohen and Prusak, 2001; Huysman and Wulf, 2006). Overall, our results thus demonstrate the importance of adopting a socio-technical approach towards KM. We further argue that if an organization is to enjoy sustained benets it should realize that there is more to KM than the implementation and use of technological solutions. When successfully embedded in communities, collaborative technologies go beyond the formal, codied bases of knowledge. Social software falls within the sociotechnical dimension of KM by interlinking informal discussions through which communities are maintained, and the supporting technology. Thus if organizations want to create sustainable value through knowledge, they should not limit their knowledge-management activities merely to uncritically acquiring the latest available technological solutions, or judge the suitability of a given technological tool on the basis of its technological sophistication and effectiveness. Instead, they should opt for a more comprehensive approach, which takes into account both the technologies and the social environment in which they are to be utilized. If an organization is to successfully implement wikis and to do so in a manner that enhances its value-creation capabilities, it should consciously synchronize the technological possibilities they offer with the practical, context-dependent realities it is facing and the social patterns through which its day-to-day work is conducted. Thereby social software can provide it with an additional source of sustained competitive advantage. In our research we have focused on the critical elements involved in incorporating wikis into the corporate context. However, the actual knowledgesharing and creation patterns that evolve through the use of wikis and weblogs remains an open eld for further studies. Another interesting avenue of research in KM would be to re-examine and develop the theoretical perspective we label as the sociotechnical dimension. We have observed that one aspect that strongly inuenced the success of the implementation of wikis was what they looked and felt like. On the more general level of organizational studies, a novel strand of research examining the aesthetic experiences of the corporate landscape has emerged in recent years (e.g., Gagliardi, 1996), but the aesthetic dimension has so far been largely neglected in the area of KM. This offers a useful and interesting avenue for future research.

DISCUSSION
Novel solutions for improving connectivity and enhancing communication are called for among and across organizations. Wikis represent easy-to-adopt open-source technology that facilitates collaboration, particularly in conditions of distributed knowledge work. Taking the interplay of the organizational context and technology as a theoretical point of departure, this study examined the conditions leading to the successful incorporation of wikis into the corporate context. Our results demonstrate the importance of both social and technological aspects of implementation. In particular, we illustrated the roles of corporate champions, internal branding and the related aesthetic dimensions, a supportive organizational cultures, and informal social networks. Based on our ndings, we emphasize that the implementation of virtual collaboration tools requires actively and mindfully taking the social context and community into account, otherwise the potential of ICTs to support the social processes of knowledge sharing and creation may be compromised. Also according to Zack and McKenney (1995), the strategic advantage derived from the use of ICT is considered to result from having the appropriate social context, norms, politics, reward systems, and leadership to take advantage of the technology, and not simply from implementing communication technologies. In other words, it is not the technology that brings people together, but the existing social

REFERENCES
Auerbach C, Silverstein L. 2003. An Introduction to Coding and Analysis, Qualitative Data. University Press: New York.

28

M. Kosonen and A. Kianto DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Knowledge and Process Management

Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99120. Beath C. 1991. Supporting the information technology champion. MIS Quarterly 1991: 355372. Brown JS, Duguid P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice. Organization Science 2(1): 4057. Cabrera A, Collins WC, Salgado JF. 2006. Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(2): 245264. Cohen D, Prusak L. 2001. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Harvard Business School Press: Boston. Crampton S, Hodge J, Mishra J. 1998. The informal communication network: factors inuencing grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management 27(4): 569584. Davies J. 2004. Wiki Brainstorming and Problems with Wiki Based Collaboration. University of York. http://users. cs.york.ac.uk/kimble/teaching/students/Jonathan_ Davies/wiki_collaboration_and_brainstorming.pdf [2 July 2007] Emova L. 2004. Discovering the iceberg of knowledge work: a weblog case. A paper submitted to the 5th Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities (OLKC). http://doc.telin.nl/dscgi/ds.py/ Get/File-34786 [10 April 2007] Eisenhardt K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532550. Fontana A, Frey J. 2000. From structured questions to negotiated text. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 645672. Gagliardi P. 1996. Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life. In Handbook of Organization Studies, Clegg S, Hardy C, Nord W (eds). Sage: London; 565580. Hendriks P. 1999. Why share knowledge? The inuence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management 6(2): 91100. Huysman M, Wulf V. 2006. IT to support knowledge sharing in communities: towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology 21: 4051. Jarvenpaa S, Staples SD. 2000. The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9: 129154. Kling R, Lamb R. 1999. IT and organizational change in digital economies. A socio-technical approach. Computers and Society 1999: 1725. Kotlarsky J, Oshri I. 2005. Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Information Systems 14: 3748. Krackhardt D, Hanson J. 1993. Informal networks: the company. Harvard Business Review 1993: 104111. Lawless M, Price L. 1992. An agency perspective on new technology champions. Organization Science 3(3): 342355. Leonard-Barton D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Leuf B, Cunningham W. 2001. The Wiki Way. Quick Collaboration on the Web. Addison-Wesley: Boston. Lin N. 1971. The Study of Human Communication. BoobsMerril: New York. Majchrzak A, Wagner C, Yates D. 2006. Corporate wiki users: results of a survey. Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis. http://www.wikisym. org/ws2006/proceedings/p99.pdf [28 June 2007] Meso P, Smith R. 2000. A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management systems. Journal of Knowledge Management 4(3): 224234. Pan S, Scarbrough H. 1998. A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman laboratories. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(1): 5566. Patton M. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage: Newbury Park, CA. Raman M. 2006. Wiki technology as a free collaborative tool within an organizational setting. Information Systems Management Fall 2006. 23(4): 5966. Roll M. 2004. Distributed KMimproving knowledge workers productivity and organisational knowledge sharing with weblog-based personal publishing. The European Conference on Weblogs, Vienna, 56 July 2004. http://www.roell.net/publikationen/distributedkm. shtml [10 September 2006]. Spender JC. 2007. Data, meaning and practice: how the knowledge-based view can clarify technologys relationship with organizations. International Journal of Technology Management 38(1/2): 178196. Swan J, Newell S, Robertson M. 2000. Limits of IT-driven knowledge management initiatives for interactive innovation processes: towards a community-based approach. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. http://csdl.computer. org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2000/0493/01/ 04931013.pdf [28 May 2007]. Tannenbaum A. 1966. Social Psychology of the Work Organization. Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont. Tellis W. 1997. Application of case study methodology. The Qualitative Report 3(3). http://www.nova.edu/ ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html [20 October 2004]. Yin R. 2003. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Wagner C, Bolloju N. 2005. Supporting knowledge management in organizations with conversational technologies: discussion forums, weblogs, and wikis. Journal of Database Management 16(2): IVIII. Wasko M, Faraj S. 2000. It is what one does: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9: 155 173. Weick K, Sutcliffe K. 2001. Managing the unexpected. assuring high performance in an age of complexity. Wiley: San Francisco. Wikipedia. 2007. Social Software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_software [28 June 2007]. Zack M, McKenney J. 1995. Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported management groups. Organization Science 6(4): 394422.

Applying Wikis to Managing Knowledge DOI: 10.1002/kpm

29