NEXT GENERATION KNOWLEDGE NETWORKS: A DESIGN

SCIENCE PROJECT

Abstract
Networks are employed as powerful conceptualization of many aspects of organizations. Some
examples are networks of information or social networks. However, there are few tools available
which provide organizations with an integrated environment in which networks can be understood,
navigated, authored and composed. Moreover, research tends to consider networks in the
organizational context independently but not simultaneously and in an integrated fashion. This
research aspires to deliver a novel conceptualization of knowledge as a network in the organizational
context, which integrates multiple knowledge perspectives. A multi-methodological approach is
adopted, which involves the design and evaluation of chains of interrelated artefacts. This PhD
research approximates the completion of its first year. Any feedback will be most valuable to set the
right directions for the remaining years of the study.

Next Generation Knowledge Networks Working Paper, March 2010, Max Rohde
http://nexnet.wordpress.com/
1 INTRODUCTION
Organizations nowadays are becoming increasingly complex systems. The complexity of
organizational knowledge hinders the theoretical enquiry into the deep structures which might govern
these organizations. Networks have been found to be a powerful conceptualization for many aspects of
the physical and social world (Barabasi, 2003). Networks can potentially be a powerful vehicle in
understanding organizational knowledge better and can support organizations in their work with
unstructured information.
However, it cannot be claimed that we have one lens, which allows us to understand the knowledge of
an organization as one integrated network. Most network conceptualizations focus on a specific aspect
of organizational knowledge, such as encoded semantic information in a semantic web or the network
structure of a group of organizations sharing their knowledge and supply chains (Dyer & Nobeoka,
2000). Moreover, organizations seldom think in or work with networks. There are few management
frameworks, which have an underlying understanding of knowledge as a network. Furthermore, there
are very few software tools, which would allow organizations to navigate or compose their
information as a network.
We see a next generation knowledge network as integrating multiple organizational networks to a
degree, which allows organizations to work with key information in a network fashion. This involves
the navigation, composition and management of these networks in an integrated environment. A tool,
which could support next generation knowledge networks, could provide interesting insights into the
structure and nature of organizational knowledge.
In the following, we will first provide a brief review of the literature, introducing knowledge as
multidimensional and context-embedded construct. We then provide some examples of network
conceptualizations, which account for individual aspects of organizational knowledge. Based on this
brief literature review, we discuss our research motivation. This motivation leads to the discussion of
our research design.

2 KNOWLEDGE AS MULTIDIMENSIONAL AND CONTEXT-

EMBEDDED
Organizations as a whole have a set of socially constructed knowledge capabilities, which differentiate
them from their competitors . Different kinds of knowledge capabilities have been identified in the
organizational literature (Blackler, 1995): (1) Encoded knowledge is the kind of knowledge
traditionally dealt with in the domains of artificial intelligence and knowledge representation: this
knowledge can be broken down to a distinct set of facts or statements, which can be represented in a
symbolic form, for instance databases or knowledge bases. (2) Embrained knowledge refers to
knowledge that is applied by individuals in a conscious and analytical fashion. (3) Embodied
knowledge, in contrast, is knowledge individuals apply in an intuitive way, without being explicitly
aware of what exact knowledge they apply or posses. Many managers say they based their best
decisions on intuition without being able to name what knowledge or skills they have applied (Simon,
1987). (4) Embedded knowledge refers to knowledge implicitly existent in organizational routines,
structures, and resources, which has not been explicitly formalized. (5) Encultured knowledge is a
very tacit form of knowledge, expressed in shared beliefs or understandings of groups. This a very
helpful classification of the different kinds of organizational knowledge capabilities which shows that,
when investigating organizational knowledge, far more needs to be considered than what can be
explicitly encoded in knowledge bases or knowledge repositories. In fact, only one aspect of
organizational knowledge, encoded knowledge, can be explicitly encoded while all the other kinds of
knowledge identified by Blackler are tacit and cannot be brought into a firm representation.
Furthermore, it is argued that knowledge must not be seen apart from the context of its application
(Thompson & Walsham, 2004). Thompson and Walsham argue that each of Blackler’s knowledge
types, encoded, embrained, embodied, embedded, and encultured, is to be seen as contextual
component. These components are applied in a certain context, and the experiences, which are made in
due course, again become contextual components being applied in a different context. The important
implication of this perspective is that there is no such thing as static knowledge, which lies as silent
capability inside an organization; knowledge is always to be seen relative to its application in a certain
context. Orlikowski (2002) provides a related perspective of organizational knowledge, introducing
“knowing” as dynamic, a distributed organizational capability that emerges from individual actions in
certain situations. These perspectives on knowledge and its application highlight that the formalization
and representation of knowledge must never be seen apart from its application. It is not advisable to
engage with knowledge solely from a static perspective, but only in combination with a dynamic
perspective, which is rooted in the application of this knowledge. Related notions can be found in the
organizational literature, where it is claimed that organizational routines should never be seen as static
but always as adapted to the context of their application (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). In fact, the
“standard” way of conducting a routine, is supposed to never be found in the real execution where the
complex environment forces organisations to adapt in every instantiation of a routine (Levinthal &
Rerup, 2006).

3 NETWORKS IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

Having provided a general perspective on organizational knowledge in the previous section, we now
want to give a brief introduction into the importance of networks for organizational knowledge.
Investigating, conceptualizing and designing complex reality based on networks has led to many
theoretical insights (Barabasi, 2003; Granovetter, 1973; Nagurney & Dong, 2002) and powerful
practical applications such as the World Wide Web, the semantic web and social networking software.
Two examples of networks, which are important for organizational knowledge, are social networks
and information networks.
Social networks in organization are found to be an important carrier of knowledge. Rich human
interactions allow effective sharing of information (Orlikowski, 2002). A lack of social interaction
between departments or affiliated companies can result in severe knowledge management problems
(Thompson & Walsham, 2004). The direct social link between individuals is further said to be an
important vehicle to share knowledge in a business network (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000; Swan, Newell,
Scarbrough, & Hislop, 1999). Information networks are often used to encode organizational
knowledge. Corporate intranets are often employed for the purpose of knowledge management
(Ruggles, 1998) and are usually based on interlinked websites. Naturally, organizations also interact
with the World Wide Web as a source, sharing and publishing platform for their knowledge. Many
organizational models and knowledge models are organized as networks (Geoffrion, 1987;
Mylopoulos, 1981; Studer, Benjamins, & Fensel, 1998).
Doubtlessly there are numerous further examples of social networks and information networks, which
are relevant in the context of organizational information. Moreover, other forms of networks can cover
important aspects of organizational knowledge, such as process-networks (Brendel, Friedler, & Fan,
2000; Friedler, Fan, & Imreh, 1998) or decision networks (Langley, Mintzberg, Pitcher, Posada, &
Saint-Macary, 1995; Wellman, Breese, & Goldman, 1992).

4 RESEARCH MOTIVATION
We see a very imminent practical problem for organizations in a lack of tools to work with
information networks. Though these networks exist implicitly in all organizations, there is no
integrated environment, in which these networks could be navigated, authored and managed. One
important factor for this is that the information network in organizations is conceptually, logically and
physically divided. One divide can be seen between the networks of individuals and the organization.
Most personal information is carefully stored away on desktop computers in various files and folders
(Henderson, 2005), which are often not accessible by the organization (Ducheneaut & Bellotti, 2001).
Another divide is between structured and unstructured information. It is, for instance, difficult to link
the transactional information in ERP systems with unstructured information, which may reside in
emails or chat clients. Heterogeneous systems pose another challenge, where various standards and
systems prevent information from being interlinked (Joo & Lee, 2009). Table 1 shows an overview of
these divides.

Information Network Divides

Individual Organisation
Structured Unstructured
Heterogeneous Systems
Table 1. Information Network Divides
Furthermore, information networks are often not well-aligned with other organizational networks. For
instance, knowledge management activities are often perceived as interfering with the normal work
practices (Kwan & Balasubramanian, 2003), indicating that the information networks in knowledge
management systems are not aligned with the process network of organizations
There is significant literature, which is concerned about the integration of heterogeneous information
networks (Allemang & Hendler, 2008; Stein, 2003). However, this literature often fails to recognize
that information networks are only one part of the complex organizational reality. In the literature that
does recognize that knowledge is a multidimensional and context-embedded construct, on the other
hand, little focus is often set on encoded information networks. Therefore, our study aspires to
investigate how information networks can be integrated and aligned with networks relating to more
tacit aspects of organizational knowledge, for instance social networks. Our research questions can be
formulated as:
How can multiple network conceptualizations of different aspects of organizational knowledge be
integrated into one conceptualization?

5 RESEARCH DESIGN
5.1 Philosophical Assumptions

Our epistemological assumption is that the nature of knowledge is relative to its degrees of freedom.
Social theories, though they might be grounded in rigorous studies, exhibit high degrees of freedom,
implying that another theory could be equally “true”. Measurement of physical phenomena is subject
to fewer degrees of freedom. These different levels of abstraction interact with each other and validate
one another. This belief is grounded on general systems theory (Boulding, 1956) and, partly, multi-
level research (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Following Simon (1996), we follow the mode of enquiry linked to the introduction of new artefacts.
Reflecting on and observing the process of creation and the reaction of the world to the artefacts can
lead to new insights (Gregg, Kulkarni, & Vinzé, 2001; Iivari, 2007; Purao, 2002). However, the
central concepts of the science of the artificial (Simon, 1996) combined with the notion of knowledge
in multiple degrees of freedom leads us to unique challenges. Artefacts can be proposed on different
levels of abstraction (Hevner, March, Jinsoo, & Ram, 2004; March & Smith, 1995). We believe that
chains of artefacts can be used to validate one another, if their central characteristics and design
processes are interrelated and interwoven. The design process thereby itself carries an inherent notion
of validation (Newell & Simon, 1976; Rapp, 1981). Figure 1 summarizes important aspects of our
philosophical assumptions by illustrating degrees of freedom in relation to different philosophical
perspectives.
Figure 1. Degrees of freedom and philosophical assumptions

5.2 Research Method

This research follows a multi-methodological approach based on Nunamaker, Chen and Prudin’s
(1991) work. Design science must address a problem, which is practically relevant (Hevner et al.,
2004). The solution itself (Nunamaker et al., 1991), the process leading to the solution (Hevner et al.,
2004), or the experiences made during the process (Nunamaker et al., 1991) should possibly make a
contribution to the body of knowledge in information systems. As we have argued under section 4, our
research question has theoretical as well as practical implications and is therefore well-suited to be
investigated with design science research.
Our research question suggests that a theory is the primary artefact, which is to be designed. Theories
are valid artefacts in the context of design science research (Purao, 2002). Our philosophical
assumptions impose, however, that a sole investigation of a theory as primary artefact is problematic,
with theories being subject to many degrees of freedom. Thereby, in difference to what is often
assumed in design science research, that the output of the research is one single artefact (Hevner et al.,
2004; Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee, 2008), our research design is aimed at the
creation of an artefact chain.
Following March and Smith, (March & Smith, 1995) artefacts can be constructs, models, methods and
instantiations. The practical problem we are seeking to address proposes that the instantiation is a
software artefact. Naturally, a higher level artefact, which is interrelated with a software
implementation, is a software architecture. These, in turn, can be related to a framework as further
higher-level artefact. Frameworks can be informed by theories. A general framework, which is
employed in the domain of soft system methodology is the V model (Sheffield, 2005). Following this
model, we illustrate the artefacts on different levels of abstraction in figure 2.

Figure 2. Artefacts and degrees of freedom

5.3 Research Process

In a slight adoption of Nunamaker’s framework, we see our research process as governed by three
modes of activity, namely design, evaluation and realignment. The research process is always initiated
by observation, which leads to the research motivation and formulation of research problems and
issues. In the activity of design, central characteristics from higher level artefacts are used to drive the
objectives and creation of lower level artefacts. The lower level artefacts, in turn, are evaluated against
the objectives set forth by the higher level. The possible results of the research depend on the
evaluation. In case the researcher finds the design artefacts unsatisfactory in the light of the higher
level requirements, the research process must be realigned, involving the redesign of the artefacts
(Peffers et al., 2008). Possible reiterations resolve in loops similar to the research process proposed by
Purao (2002). Figure 3 illustrates these three activities and shows one possible process, in which the
research can be conducted.

Figure 3. Research method overview

5.4 Evaluation

A very critical step in design science research for the generation of valid theoretical results is the
evaluation. Artefacts should be evaluated using rigorous scientific methods (Hevner et al., 2004;
Nunamaker et al., 1991; Peffers et al., 2008). The focus of our research is on altering reality by
introducing new artefacts (Simon, 1996) the process of evaluation must be directly aligned to the
nature of the proposed artefacts.
As central component of our methodology we aim at designing artefact chains spanning multiple
levels of abstraction. Preference for either qualitative or quantitative methods dominates many fields
of research. We see this as directly linked to the level of abstraction a field usually deals with.
Consequently, different levels of abstraction propose different methods of scientific enquiry. For
instance, ‘hard sciences’ prefer quantitative methods, whereas ‘soft sciences’ often employ qualitative
methods. Furthermore, we understand that the more degrees of freedom an artefact has, the more it is
subject to the interpretation of the researcher, requiring an interpretative rather than positivist
perspective. Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between qualitative/quantitative methods,
philosophical perspective and degrees of freedom.
Figure 4. Qualitative/Quantitative Research Methods
Based on what Figure 4 proposed, we seek to investigate our different artefact using the following
methods:

Artefact Method/Data collection Data Analysis

Software • Usage logs and user data Statistical and network analysis
Implementation • Implementation based on existing Implementation in itself an experiment (Newell
frameworks, based on rigorous & Simon, 1976)
software development
methodologies; record development
progress using versioning systems
Software • Demonstration by proof-of-concept Evaluate prototype with explicit list of
Architecture implementation architectural requirements (Sheffield, 2005)
• Survey of related software tools Simple thematic analysis
using whitepapers, web resources,
research and industry journals
Conceptual • Illustration by software architecture Evaluate prototype and architecture against
Framework and implementation explicit list of requirement derived from the
framework (Sheffield, 2005)
• Delphi study with domain experts Qualitative analysis
Theory • Illustration by conceptual Analysis of the design process and findings as a
framework, architecture and whole using hermeneutics (Klein & Myers,
implementation as well as design 1999; Purao, 2002).
process
• Scientific review process and
conference presentations
Table 2. Methods employed for evaluating the artefacts
Although each one of the employed methods for evaluation will be performed with commitment to
academic rigour, we do not understand any individual investigation as carrying our main contribution.
Our contribution is supported by the tight integration of the artefact chain and a rigours and
transparent design process, which builds on existing theories, frameworks, and software artefacts.

6 CONCLUSION
Knowledge is an inherently complex construct. Arriving at sound knowledge conceptualizations is
hindered by this complexity. In our research, we aspire to ‘discover through design’ (Baskerville, 2008)
a new conceptualization of knowledge as knowledge networks of a next generation. We take a slightly
different approach to design science by focussing on the design and evaluation of artefact chains,
rather than on one central artefact.
The research so far has developed initial versions of all major artefacts theory, framework, architecture
and implementation. Discussions of the theory, framework and architecture have been published in
peer-reviewed venues, whereby the research can rely on a sound theoretical basis to engage in a
second design iteration. A prototype has been implemented in Java and provides core functionality to
support central requirements of the higher level artefacts. However, the limited space in this article
prevents us from discussing the proposed artefacts in greater detail.
As this PhD research has not yet completed its first year, feedback on the adopted methodology as
well as on the initial artefacts will be most helpful for the further progress of this project.

References
Allemang, D. & Hendler, J. (2008) Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist: Effective Modeling in
RDFS and OWL. {Morgan Kaufmann}.
Barabasi, A.-L. (2003) Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means.
Plume.
Baskerville, R. (2008) What design science is not. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 441-
443.
Blackler, F. (1995) Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation.
Organization Studies (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.), 16(6).
Boulding, K. (1956) General Systems Theory-The Skeleton of Science. Management Science, 2(3),
197-208.
Brendel, M., Friedler, F., & Fan, L. T. (2000) Combinatorial foundation for logical formulation in
process network synthesis. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 24(8), 1859-1864.
Ducheneaut, N. & Bellotti, V. (2001) E-mail as habitat: an exploration of embedded personal
information management. interactions, 8(5), 30-38.
Dyer, J. & Nobeoka, K. (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing
network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345-367.
Feldman, M. & Pentland, B. (2003) Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of
Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.
Friedler, F., Fan, L. T., & Imreh, B. (1998) Process network synthesis: Problem definition. Networks,
31(2), 119-124.
Geoffrion, A. (1987) An Introduction to Structured Modeling. Management Science, 33(5), 547-588.
Granovetter, M. (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-
1380.
Gregg, D., Kulkarni, U., & Vinzé, A. (2001) Understanding the Philosophical Underpinnings of
Software Engineering Research in Information Systems. Information Systems Frontiers, 3(2),
169-183.
Henderson, S. (2005). Genre, task, topic and time: facets of personal digital document management.
Paper presented at the CHINZ '05: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand
chapter's international conference on Computer-human interaction, Auckland, New Zealand.
Hevner, A., March, S., Jinsoo, P., & Ram, S. (2004) Design Science in Information Systems Research
MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
Iivari, J. (2007) A Paradigmatic Analysis of Information Systems As a Design Science. Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 39-64.
Joo, J. & Lee, S. (2009) Adoption of the Semantic Web for overcoming technical limitations of
knowledge management systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 7318-7327.
Klein, H. & Myers, M. (1999) A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field
Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-93.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Klein, K. J. (2000) A Multilevel Approach to Theory and Research in
Organizations: Contextual, Temporal, and Emergent Processes. In Multilevel Theory,
Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions and new Directions (pp. 3-
90): Jossey-Bass.
Kwan, M. & Balasubramanian, P. (2003) KnowledgeScope: managing knowledge in context. Decision
Support Systems, 35(4), 467-486.
Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J. (1995) Opening up Decision
Making: The View from the Black Stool. Organization Science, 6(3), 260-279.
Levinthal, D. & Rerup, C. (2006) Crossing an Apparent Chasm: Bridging Mindful and Less-Mindful
Perspectives on Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 17(4), 502-513.
March, S. & Smith, G. (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis.
Support Syst., 15(4), 251-266.
Mylopoulos, J. (1981) An overview of Knowledge Representation. SIGART Bull.(74), 5-12.
Nagurney, A. & Dong, J. (2002) Supernetworks: Decision-Making for the Information Age (New
Dimensions in Networks). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1976) Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search. Commun.
ACM, 19(3), 113-126.
Nunamaker, J., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. (1991) Systems development in information systems research.
J. Manage. Inf. Syst., 7(3), 89-106.
Orlikowski, W. (2002) Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed
Organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249-273.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M., & Chatterjee, S. (2008) A Design Science Research
Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems,
24(3), 45-77.
Purao, S. (2002). Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or
Dare.Unpublished manuscript.
Rapp, F. (1981) Analytical Philosophy of Technology. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ruggles, R. (1998) The State of the Notion: Knowledge Management in Practice. California
Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.
Sheffield, J. (2005) Systemic knowledge and the V-model. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst., 1(1/2), 83-101.
Simon, H. (1987) Making Management Decisions: The Role of Intuition and Emotion. The Academy
of Management Executive (1987), 1(1), 57-64.
Simon, H. (1996) Sciences of the Artificial. The Mit Press.
Stein, L. (2003) Integrating biological databases. Nature reviews. Genetics, 4(5), 337-345.
Studer, R., Benjamins, R., & Fensel, D. (1998) Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods. Data
& Knowledge Engineering, 25(1-2), 161-197.
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999) Knowledge management and innovation:
networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 262-275.
Thompson, M. P. A. & Walsham, G. (2004) Placing Knowledge Management in Context. Journal of
Management Studies, 41(5), 725-747.
Wellman, M., Breese, J., & Goldman, R. (1992) From knowledge bases to decision models. The
Knowledge Engineering Review, 7(01), 35-53.