Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge

Sharing

Mohammadbashir Sedighi, Stephan Lukosch, Sander van Splunter,

Frances Brazier and Cees van Beers

Technology, Policy and Management Faculty, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, Delft, The Netherlands

Keywords: Knowledge Management System, Engagement, Participatory System.

Abstract: The importance of knowledge sharing within most organisations is well recognised. While abundant KM

systems have been matured to encourage individual engagement in knowledge sharing, practical evidences

show a low success rate of KM systems. This paper reports on a qualitative exploratory multi-case study to

explore level participants’ engagement in knowledge sharing along the design principle for engagement of

participatory systems. Results show that KM systems using a combined approach of supply- and demand

side KM strongly influence participants’ engagement for knowledge sharing.

1 INTRODUCTION

Knowledge has become a critical driver for business

success. Many businesses are exploring the field of

knowledge management (KM) to improve and

sustain their competitive advantage (Bock et al.,

2005). Many organisations are becoming more

knowledge intensive, whilst hiring “minds” more

than “hands”, in their attempt to capture the value of

knowledge (Wong, 2005). KM systems have been

designed to support sustainable to this purpose.

A review of the KM system literature discloses

two general approaches. The first approach from the

first generation of KM, concentrates on supplying

pre-exist knowledge to participants (Rezgui et al.,

2010). The second approach of KM focuses on

knowledge sharing processes as self-organized

phenomena between knowledge owners and

knowledge recipients. Participants’ contributions to

the second generation of KM systems strongly

depends on their engagement in the knowledge

sharing processes (van den Hooff and Huysman,

2009). Designing KM systems for participants’

engagement improves individual participation and

knowledge contributions (Mergel et al., 2008).

Moreover, recent research on success factors of KM

systems shows the importance of soft factor such as

individual engagement in knowledge sharing rather

than technological factors (Sedighi et al., 2015).

Nevertheless, few studies evaluate individual

engagement in KM systems. This paper explores

how different categories of KM systems support

participants’ engagement in knowledge exchange,

using a qualitative exploratory multi-case study.

This study creates two main research contributions.

First, it makes a comprehensive understanding of

participants’ engagement by explaining different

dimensions of engagement. Second, this research

advances our knowledge about the level of

engagement support in different KM classifications.

This study is organized as follows: Section 2

discusses KM systems and focuses more specifically

on the role of participants’ engagement in KM

process. Section 3 discusses the research method and

procedure, based on participatory systems literature.

Section 4 analyses participant’s engagement for six

KM systems. Sections 5 and 6 present results

discussion, conclusions and future research.

2 RELATED WORK

Many KM systems have been developed to

encourage knowledge sharing behaviour, but

practical evidence shows that technology alone

cannot guarantee the success of KM systems

(Sedighi et al., 2015). KM systems are designed to

acquire, create and share knowledge with a

collection of employees, processes and technology

with different organisational and environmental

constraints (Sedighi and Zand, 2012).

148

Sedighi, M., Lukosch, S., Splunter, S., Brazier, F. and Beers, C.

Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing.

In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2016) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 148-155

ISBN: 978-989-758-203-5

Traditionally, a principal discussion with regard to

KM systems focuses on how to improve

participants’ engagement in the KM process. There

are still no clear design recommendations. Contem-

porary KM systems are becoming more accessible,

effective, cloud-based, connected, personalized, and

integrated with other organisational technologies,

shaping new knowledge exchange environments to

support participants’ engagement in KM process.

Generally, improving employees’ participation for

knowledge sharing has been identified as a main

motivation for designing new KM technologies.

2.1 Engagement in KM Systems

Participants’ engagement indicates a level of invol-

vement in knowledge sharing processes to share

contents, information and knowledge within

organisation (Chang and Chuang, 2011). Success of

KM systems strongly depends on participants’

willingness to engage in knowledge sharing (Wiertz

and de Ruyter, 2007). All KM systems need

participants’ engagement in knowledge sharing to

improve knowledge flows within organisations, to

make sharing memorable, satisfying, enjoyable and

rewarding process (Benyon et al., 2005).

Participant engagement is developed in different

communication channels of KM systems (Sedighi et

al., 2016). Communication channels are distingui-

shed with the level of knowledge sharing

engagement visibilities (Zhang et al., 2013). Private

communication channels are developed in KM

systems to transfer knowledge between two persons:

a knowledge sender and a knowledge recipient.

Group communication channels create a knowledge

exchange platform among a group of employees

with considering to few-to-few communication.

Public communication technologies support

employees to share knowledge with all employees

within organisation. These platforms support many-

to-many communication.

2.2 Supply-side Vs. Demand-side KM

McElroy (2000) is the first author to categorize KM

systems with respect to the two sides of knowledge

sharing: supply-side KM (push system) and demand-

side KM (pull system). Further, the combination of

supply and demand sides represents a new cluster of

KM systems designed to this purpose. Figure 1

depicts different demand-side KM and supply-side

KM technologies.

Supply-side KM systems provide pre-compiled

knowledge to passive participants. Knowledge

owners customize and create knowledge in response

to knowledge needs and requests in Demand-Side

KM approaches. The combination of the supply-side

and demand-side KM promotes emergent knowledge

on the demand-side and strategic knowledge on the

supply-side, however conditions of KM systems to

support both sides of KM has not yet been

introduced.

Figure 1: Supply-side & Demand-side KM tools.

3 EXPLORATORY STUDY

This section introduces the methodology of this

exploratory study.

3.1 Research Model

This section presents an assessment model to

measure individuals’ engagement in knowledge

sharing. Participatory systems are large-scale

social-technical systems enabled by technology,

coordinating and orchestrating self-organisation,

designed to provide individuals and organisations

the ability to act and take responsibility in today’s

networked society (Brazier and Nevejan, 2014).

When designing a participatory system three major

design principles are of key importance (Brazier

and Nevejan, 2014). First, trust is essential to the

social process facilitated by mechanisms for

transparency, security, integrity, privacy, identifia-

bility, traceability, accessibility, proportionality,

reliability and robustness. Second, engagement

necessitates interaction, design of presence, enact-

ment, communication, awareness and co-creation.

Third, a participation process empowers partici-

pants respecting participants’ autonomy (reactivity

and pro-activeness) and providing them the ability

to act through interaction, communication and self-

regulation (Brazier and Nevejan, 2014).

Employing the design principle for engagement

in participatory KM systems, an engaging KM

system needs to support a social process and provide

Supply-side emphasis

Knowledge Repositories

Document Management

Data Warehousing

Question & Answers

Discussion forums

Online Chat

Instant Messaging

Knowledge Markets

Knowledge Networks

Content Management

Lesson Learned Systems

Enterprise Social

Networks

Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing

149

an infrastructure facilitating interaction, presence,

enactment, communication, awareness and co-

creation (Brazier and Nevejan, 2014). This paper

distinguishes 6 dimensions (Figure 2) of engagement

adopted by KM studies:

 Interaction: level of participant engagement in

the knowledge exchange regarding to perceived

costs and benefits (Cyr and Wei Choo, 2010).

 Presence: level of participants’ presence in

relation to time, place, actions and relations

(Nevejan and Brazier, 2012; Riva et al., 2011).

 Enactment: level of participants’ engagement

in legislation and self-regulation in the gover-

nance of KM systems (Tseng and Kuo, 2014).

 Communication: level of participants’

possibilities to communicate in different levels

of knowledge sharing channels (Snyder and Eng

Lee-Partridge, 2013).

 Awareness: level of participants’ opportunities

to be aware of structures, networks and

governance of KM systems (Leonardi, 2014).

 Co-creation: level of participants’ opportunities

to jointly generate knowledge with other

participants (Kazadi et al., 2016).

Figure 2: Participants’ engagement dimensions.

3.2 Research Method and Procedure

This paper follows the qualitative exploratory multi-

case study method. The purpose of this study is to

evaluate support for individual engagement in

knowledge exchange in different KM systems. For

the first step, KM systems are selected using the

winner list of Globally Most Admired Knowledge

Enterprises (MAKE) reward. The MAKE award,

initiated by Teleos in association with the KNOW

network, focuses on the knowledge process in

organisations (Pandey and Dutta, 2013).

Although, it is difficult to position a KM system

independently in either supply-side or demand-side

KM, or a combination of the 2, the foundation of

KM systems addresses one of the approaches. The

selected KM systems are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Selected KM systems.

Supply-side KM

Demand-side KM

Combination approach

Knowledge

Repositories

Discussion Forums

Knowledge Markets

Lessons Learned

Systems

Q&A Systems

Enterprise Social

Networks

Such KM systems have been assessed using the

six engagement dimensions shown in Fig. 2. Google

scholar was used to find academic journals, and

book chapters on knowledge management, business

management, and information systems, published

between 2010 and 2015 that referenced “Knowledge

repositories”, “lesson learned systems”, “discussion

forums”, “question and answer systems”,

“knowledge market” and “enterprise social

network”. All studies consider KM system in

organisational environments. Overall, 32 qualitative

and quantitative studies were selected to use in the

research.

3.3 Measures

The qualitative data collected from these studies is

used to evaluate the engagement dimensions defined

above to assess individuals’ engagement. Two

judges independently investigated definitions,

structures, properties and technical features of the

six KM systems from the selected studies regarding

to the dimension definitions. They employed an

open coding method. All data regarding to the

engagement dimensions are listed for each KM

systems. Judges discuss with each other to create a

consensus. The frequency of evidences is used to

evaluate dimensions. The best system is ranked in

the highest level regarding to the dimensions’

definitions. Then other systems are ranked with

respect to the best KM system with three-point scale

(low, medium, high).

4 RESULTS

4.1 Knowledge Repository System

Knowledge repository systems are designed to

support saving, disseminating and retrieving

knowledge with the aid of IT (van den Hooff and

Huysman, 2009). Organisations and knowledge

experts contribute to the system by improving and

updating repository. Knowledge recipients are

considered to be passive actors only receiving

knowledge from the knowledge repository and not

making contributions. The different dimensions of

Designing for

Participants’

Engagement

Presence

Communication

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

150

engagement dimensions are not evaluated for

knowledge repositories, because knowledge

repositories do not support a social process for user

engagement. They only support unidirectional

communication.

4.2 Lesson Learned System

Lessons Learned systems are designed to enhance the

capability of organisations to identify and capture

valuable lessons learned through project activities

(Burley and Pandit, 2008). The purpose of a lessons

learned system is not to share failure stories, but to

disseminate experiences. Like knowledge repositories

and all other systems developed in the supply-side

KM approach, learners are passive participants whom

only obtain lessons from systems. Engagement is not

supported by lesson learned systems, because they are

only designed to collect experiences by experts within

organisations.

4.3 Discussion Forum System

Discussion forums are computer-based knowledge

systems that enable employees to exchange know-

ledge and ideas (Montero et al., 2007). Knowledge

sharing through discussion forums is stimulated by

rich social participation and communication.

Figure 3: Assessment of engagement dimensions as

supported in discussion forums.

Knowledge contents in forums are publicly

exposed within an organisation, and participants are

aware that everyone within their organisation can

read their knowledge. This creates collective

reputation for knowledge creators and enhances

interaction between employees. As result, their self-

image is improved and they receive recognition as a

knowledge worker. Although, people gain reputation

from knowledge contribution, discussion forums

have no opportunity to support other kinds of

reputation mechanisms such as rating methods.

Further, discussion forums promote reciprocity in

the form of in-direct knowledge exchange.

Participants exchange knowledge with other

participants who they have previously seen in

knowledge exchange with others. While, participants

are benefited from in-direct reciprocity, participants

have no possibility to use one-to-one communication

channel. Therefore, discussion forum systems

support participants’ interaction on a medium level.

Discussion forums are designed for individual

presence. They allow members to share knowledge

via transparent synchronous or asynchronous

communication. Thus, discussion forum systems

support high-level individual presence dimension.

Further, these systems are designed for participants’

enactment by role acceptance in the discussion

forum, but members do not have any possibility for

self-regulation and intervention on the governance

of system. Hence, discussion forum systems support

a low-level of individual enactment. Besides, these

systems are only designed for communication

among group members. Knowledge exchanges on

private and public levels are eliminated from the

scope of discussion forums. Therefore, discussion

forum systems rank low on the communication

dimension. Furthermore, people can be aware about

the changes in interested forum topics by following

the subject, but they do not provide the opportunity

to be aware on all whole changes in the forum. As

result, discussion forum systems rank low on the

awareness dimension. These systems also have been

developed for knowledge creation on a group level.

These systems have no technical opportunity to

create knowledge in public-level knowledge

exchange. Thus, discussion forum systems rank

medium on the co-creation dimension. Figure 3

presents a summary of the engagement assessment

for discussion forums.

4.4 Question and Answer System

Organisational Q&A systems are developed for

employees’ interactions, asking questions and

collecting answers within an organisation. All

questions and answers are saved in a Q&A

repository that can be easily assessed by participants

(Iske and Boersma, 2005). Q&A systems create

opportunities for participants to contribute in the

social process.

Q&A systems employ a transparent environment

between knowledge creators and knowledge

recipients to transfer personal advice and opinions.

All Q&A subjects are visible in the organisation

environment, and employees perceive professional

recognition as benefit. Also, knowledge reciprocities

stimulate participants to answer questions because

they expect to receive knowledge in the future.

Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation

Low

Medium

High

Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing

151

Participants have no opportunity to use private

communication tools to promote direct reciprocity.

Therefore, Q&A systems rank medium-level on the

interaction dimension.

Figure 4: Assessment of engagement dimensions as

supported in Q&A systems.

Q&A systems are designed for participants’

presence by supporting asynchronous communica-

tion between employees. However, employees have

no opportunity to use synchronous communication

platforms. They can observe knowledge exchange

interactions between inquirers and responders. Thus,

Q&A systems have a medium-level support for

individual presence. Further, participants have

limited enactment capabilities to set regulations for

the system. Hence, Q&A systems rank low on the

enactment dimension. Besides, these systems are

only designed for communication within organisa-

tion, but they have no any opportunity for private

knowledge sharing. Therefore, Q&A systems rank

low on the communication dimension. Also,

participants do not have any opportunity to stay

aware about changes in the system. Thus, Q&A

systems rank low on the awareness dimension.

These systems also have been developed for creation

knowledge in public-level knowledge exchange.

Participants share their knowledge to answer

knowledge needs in a Q&A environment, but these

systems have restriction to create knowledge in

group-level knowledge sharing. Thus, Q&A systems

support the co-creation dimension on medium-level.

Figure 4 summarizes the engagement assessment for

Q&A system within organisations.

4.5 Internal Knowledge Market System

Knowledge market systems are a type of knowledge

networks, which use market mechanisms for

knowledge exchange within organisations.

Knowledge markets are defined as a space where

knowledge buyers and knowledge sellers can

exchange knowledge within organisations (Jeong et

al., 2012). Knowledge market systems foster

knowledge sharing using a dynamic price

mechanism within organisations and all benefits of

knowledge sharing can be captured by monetary

mechanisms. Although knowledge markets are

extrinsic rewards like as reputation incentive are

used for participant engagement (Chen et al., 2010).

Internal knowledge market systems rank medium on

the interaction dimension.

Figure 5: Assessment of engagement dimensions as

supported in internal knowledge markets.

Internal knowledge markets support the presence

of participants by presenting their contributions,

locations and knowledge relations. Thereby,

knowledge markets rank high on the presence

dimension. Although participants have opportunities

to contribute in knowledge markets environments,

market designers regulate the markets’

environments. This approach restricts participants’

enactment by reducing employees’ autonomy to pass

legislation and regulation for markets. Hence,

internal knowledge markets rank medium-level on

the enactment dimension. Besides, internal

knowledge markets are developed to exchange

knowledge in different communication channels.

Therefore, internal knowledge market rank high on

the communication dimension. Additionally,

participants get notifications about the changes such

as new knowledge on the market in their profiles

pages. Thus, knowledge markets rank high on the

awareness dimension. Market systems also have

been designed for co-creation knowledge in different

levels of knowledge exchange. Knowledge

exchanges in different communication channels

make an environment for creation knowledge among

employees. Thus, internal knowledge market can

support high-level employees’ co-creation

dimension. Figure 5 summarizes the engagement

assessment for internal knowledge market.

4.6 Enterprise Social Network System

Enterprise social networks (ESN) have become

contemporary KM systems that combine knowledge

exchange with social relations. They provide a

Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation

Low

Medium

High

Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation

Low

Medium

High

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

152

distributed communication system among partici-

pants to promote knowledge exchange unconstrained

by the limitations of time and space (Leonardi et al.,

2013).

ESN improve experts’ recognition and

reciprocity in firms, because they make participants’

behaviours and knowledge contents visible. Both

intrinsic and extrinsic perceived benefits are

promoted by ESN. Therefore, ESN systems rank

high on the interaction dimension. ESN users are

enabled to make their opinions, perceptions and

knowledge public within organisations or use

communities, which have limited visibility in

organisations. Thus, ESN rank high on the presence

dimension. Further, ESN are designed for enactment

by offering opportunities for participants to involve

in legislation processes. But some procedures of the

regulatory process such as incentive programs are

medium on the enactment dimension.

Figure 6: Assessment of engagement dimensions as

supported in ESN.

Network members are enabled to share their

knowledge in a spectrum of knowledge exchange

channels from invisible to visible communication

levels. This opportunity supports users’ engagement

in the knowledge sharing process by designing

communication mechanisms among network

members. Therefore, ESN rank high on the

communication dimension. Participant’s awareness

is stimulated by triggered attending feature

(Majchrzak et al., 2013). Triggered attending feature

reduces participants’ search time by a trigger

mechanism which helps them to remain uninvolved

until a timely alert informs a change to the

participant’s interested knowledge list. Hence, ESN

rank high on the awareness dimension. Besides,

knowledge exchange in different communication

channels supports individual engagement with

supporting knowledge co-creation in private, group

and organisational knowledge sharing. Thus, ESN

can support high-level employees’ co-creation

dimension. Figure 6 summarizes the engagement

assessment for ESN.

5 ANALYSIS SUMMARY

This section represents a summary of the analysis.

Knowledge repository and lesson learned systems

offer no opportunity for social interaction.

Therefore, they cannot support employees to engage

in the knowledge exchange process. On the other

hand, open discussion forums, Q&A systems,

knowledge market and ESN offer communications

channels to support engagement and participation.

These systems support a process for employees’

engagement. As can be seen in summary of

assessment columns in Table 2, the level of

engagement’ dimensions were used to signify level

of participants’ engagement in KM systems.

Comparing the different engagement dimensions

in Error! Reference source not found.Figure 7

shows the need to more strongly consider individual

enactment in different KM systems’ categories.

Participants lack the opportunity to engage in the

regulatory process, as all considered KM systems

use a centralized process for systems regulation.

Table 2: Assessment summary.

KM systems

Social

process

Summary of

assessment

Low

Medium

High

Knowledge repository

Lessons Learned

Discussion Forum

Yes

Questions and answers

Yes

Internal Knowledge market

Yes

Enterprise social network

Yes

Discussion forums as a kind of knowledge sharing

system among group members have been developed.

Although, they employ collaborative mechanisms,

they have limited capabilities to support employees’

enactment, communication and awareness.

Q&A Systems aim to solve organisational

problems that are asked by employees. Web 2.0 offers

more interactive and collaborative technologies that

support engagement for collective knowledge.

Nevertheless, these systems need more mechanisms

to support co-creation and awareness and communica-

tion dimensions. Additionally, although Q&A users

have opportunities to ask questions, they have no

opportunity to participate in the regulatory process of

the Q&A environments.

Knowledge markets are designed by a social

process to improve knowledge exchange between

knowledge owners and knowledge recipients. Though

transparent market regulations support the enactment,

designing the regulatory process by users is not

Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation

Low

Medium

High

Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing

153

considered in knowledge markets. Wisdom of

crowds is a common method, which used in different

parts of the knowledge market to use participants’

insights. Lacks of self-governing and intrinsic

incentives reduce the capacity of knowledge markets

to support individual engagement. Thus, knowledge

markets support engagement on a medium level.

Figure 7: Assessment of engagement dimensions in KM

systems.

ESN as a contemporary system combine

knowledge exchange with social interactions. These

communication technologies support individual

engagement in knowledge exchange which are not

designed only based on principles of delegating, but

are structured on the principle of participation

(Brazier and Nevejan, 2014). Informality and

visibility natures of ESN reduce knowledge exchange

costs and promote individual perceived benefits for

knowledge sharing not only in mutual communica-

tions, but also in collective knowledge exchange.

These transparent environments support employees’

awareness about the changes. Moreover, ESN offer

different possible roles for participants to contribute

in the networks, structure and governance, however

members need to be enabled by self-regulation

processes. Therefore, ESN are designed regarding

towards participants’ engagement.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The role of individual engagement in developing

KM systems has been an issue of considerable

interest by KM studies, yet little research has been

done to explore how KM systems promote

engagement. This paper uses a KM system’s

classification to select KM systems. Six KM systems

are mapped with the supply-side KM, the demand-

side KM and combination approach. Following a

qualitative research strategy method, different

engagement dimensions in six KM systems were

explored. According to the results, the lack of a

social process for knowledge exchange in supply-

side KM systems’ results in no support for

engagement. Although demand-side KM system

supports a social process by using Web 2.0

technologies, the engagement’s dimensions are not

supported appropriately. Finally, KM systems that

follow the combination approach of demand- and

supply-side have the highest capacity to support

individual’s engagement.

Several opportunities for future research have

been identified. First, the current study was

exploratory in nature and focused on six main KM

systems. Extending the research scope will help to

generalized results. Also, a future study needs to

systematically examine points of improvement for

KM systems by further analysing the different

engagement dimensions. Improving engagement in

KM systems remains largely claimed rather than

empirically confirmed. Future research therefore

needs to consider this issue. Further, finding the

right mechanisms for participants’ engagement is a

valuable area for future research, which can support

sustained participations for knowledge exchange.

Studies need to explore the impact of dynamic KM

technologies with various forms of KM participation

beyond the traditional KM systems.

REFERENCES

Benyon, D., Turner, P. and Turner, S. (2005). Designing

interactive systems: People, activities, contexts,

technologies, Pearson Education.

Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G. and Lee, J.-N.

(2005). "Behavioral intention formation in knowledge

sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators,

social-psychological forces, and organisational

climate". MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, PP. 87-111.

Brazier, F. and Nevejan, C. 2014. Vision for Participatory

Systems Design. 4th International Engineering

Systems Symposium (CESUN 2014). New York.

Burley, D. L. and Pandit, G. (2008). "Lesson learned:

organisational realities influence KMS implementa-

tion". VINE, Vol. 38 No. 4, PP. 476-489.

Chang, H. H. and Chuang, S.-S. (2011). "Social capital

and individual motivations on knowledge sharing:

Participant involvement as a moderator". Information

& Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, PP. 9-18.

Chen, Y., Ho, T. H. and Kim, Y. M. (2010). "Knowledge

market design: A field experiment at Google

Answers". Journal of Public Economic Theory, Vol.

12 No. 4, PP. 641-664.

Cyr, S. and Wei Choo, C. (2010). "The individual and

social dynamics of knowledge sharing: an exploratory

study". Journal of Documentation, Vol. 66 No. 6, PP.

824-846.

Iske, P. and Boersma, W. (2005). "Connected brains:

Question and answer systems for knowledge sharing:

Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation

DF Q&A IKM ESN

Low

Medium

High

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

154

concepts, implementation and return on investment".

Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 9 No. 1, PP.

126-145.

Jeong, S., Ahn, J. and Rhee, B. (2012). "A Study of

Knowledge Management System Activation Methods

Based on Knowledge Market Theory", in Lee, G.,

Howard, D., Ślęzak, D. & Hong, Y.(Ed.) Convergence

and Hybrid Information Technology. Springer Berlin

Heidelberg, PP. 103-110

Kazadi, K., Lievens, A. and Mahr, D. (2016).

"Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation

process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge

creation among multiple stakeholders". Journal of

Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2, PP. 525-540.

Leonardi, P. M. (2014). "Social media, knowledge

sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of communi-

cation visibility". Information Systems Research, Vol.

25 No. 4, PP. 796-816.

Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C. (2013).

"Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and

prospects for the study of social technologies in

organisations". Journal of Computer

‐

Mediated

Communication, Vol. 19 No. 1, PP. 1-19.

Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C. and Azad, B. (2013).

"The Contradictory Influence of Social Media

Affordances on Online Knowledge Sharing". Vol. No.

Mcelroy, M. W. (2000). "Integrating complexity theory,

knowledge management and organisational learning".

Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 4 No. 3, PP.

195-203.

Mergel, I., Lazer, D. and Binz-Scharf, M. C. (2008).

"Lending a helping hand: voluntary engagement in

knowledge sharing". International Journal of

Learning and Change, Vol. 3 No. 1, PP. 5-22.

Montero, B., Watts, F. and García-Carbonell, A. (2007).

"Discussion forum interactions: Text and context".

System, Vol. 35 No. 4, PP. 566-582.

Nevejan, C. and Brazier, F. (2012). "Granularity in reci-

procity". AI & SOCIETY, Vol. 27 No. 1, PP. 129-147.

Pandey, S. C. and Dutta, A. (2013). "Role of knowledge

infrastructure capabilities in knowledge management".

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,

PP. 435-453.

Rezgui, Y., Hopfe, C. J. and Vorakulpipat, C. (2010).

"Generations of knowledge management in the

architecture, engineering and construction industry:

An evolutionary perspective". Advanced Engineering

Informatics, Vol. 24 No. 2, PP. 219-228.

Riva, G., Waterworth, J. A., Waterworth, E. L. and

Mantovani, F. (2011). "From intention to action: The

role of presence". New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 29

No. 1, PP. 24-37.

Sedighi, M., Splunter, S. V., Brazier, F., Beers, C. V. and

Lukosch, S. (2016). "Exploration of multi-layered

knowledge sharing participation: the roles of perceived

benefits and costs". Journal of Knowledge Manage-

ment, Vol. 20 No. 6, PP. (Forthcoming).

Sedighi, M., Van Splunter, S., Zand, F. and Brazier, F.

(2015). "Evaluating critical success factors model of

knowledge management: An analytic hierarchy

process (AHP) approach". International Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, PP. 17-36.

Sedighi, M. and Zand, F. (2012). Knowledge manage-

ment: Review of the Critical Success Factors and

development of a conceptual classification model.

10th International Conference of ICT and Knowledge

Engineering, Bangkok IEEE Explore, 1-9.

Snyder, J. and Eng Lee-Partridge, J. (2013). "Understan-

ding communication channel choices in team

knowledge sharing". Corporate Communications: An

International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, PP. 417-431.

Tseng, F.-C. and Kuo, F.-Y. (2014). "A study of social

participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers'

online professional community of practice".

Computers & Education, Vol. 72 No. 37-47.

Van Den Hooff, B. and Huysman, M. (2009). "Managing

knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering

approaches". Information & Management, Vol. 46 No.

1, PP. 1-8.

Wiertz, C. and De Ruyter, K. (2007). "Beyond the call of

duty: why customers contribute to firm-hosted

commercial online communities". Organisation

studies, Vol. 28 No. 3, PP. 347-376.

Wong, K. Y. (2005). "Critical success factors for

implementing knowledge management in small and

medium enterprises". Industrial Management & Data

Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, PP. 261-279.

Zhang, X., De Pablos, P. O. and Zhou, Z. (2013). "Effect

of knowledge sharing visibility on incentive-based

relationship in Electronic Knowledge Management

Systems: An empirical investigation". Computers in

Human Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, PP. 307-313.

Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing

155