The Role of an Enterprise Social Networking Tool on Organisational

Knowledge Dynamics

Alizee Lacosta and Catherine Thomas

GREDEG, Université Coted’Azur CNRS, 250 Rue Albert Einstein, Valbonne Sophia-Antipolis, France

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Enterprise Social Networking Tool, ESN, JIVE.

Abstract: Enterprise social networking (ESN) technologies aim to have a profound impact on knowledge management

within companies in making things simpler, more fluid and dynamic for users. Their implementation within

organizations raises many questions on their ability to (1) promote knowledge sharing, and (2) create the

needed support for knowledge creation. Our study was conducted using Design methodology and carried out

within an international company. The company had chosen an ESN tool to develop a dynamic knowledge

management system. Three key results have been identified so far. First, the emergence of a virtuous and/or

vicious circle of Knowledge Management. Second, well managed gamification can facilitate knowledge

diffusion. Third, this type of technology requires a more federative governance, especially at its

implementation and initial stages, to build the knowledge management system.

1 INTRODUCTION

The exchange between individuals is at the heart of

both KM processes. First, knowledge sharing is made

by interactions between people (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995; Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994; Ikujiro Nonaka & von

Krogh, 2009). To allow the second KM process,

knowledge creation, the exchange between

individuals is capital to insure knowledge

combination (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Ikujiro

Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). It has often been

facilitated by digital technologies. The domain of

knowledge management (KM) was often

accompanied by references to the management of

information systems (IS) (Gray, 2001; Hwang et al.,

2018; Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2011; Kankanhalli et al.,

2005; Kim et al., 2016). Digital technologies are

today an integral part of businesses, especially for the

capitalization of knowledge, the primary purpose of

KM (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009).

These technologies have evolved from knowledge

storage (document management, knowledge base) to

real exchanges and collaboration. Today, they are part

of what is known as web 2.0, defined as applications

facilitating interactive information sharing,

interoperability and collaboration over the Internet

(O’reilly, 2005). This definition shows how much

web 2.0 applications are more focused on the

participation of actors in the system than on the

technology itself. These more intuitive technologies

aim to simplify the usage and streamline interactions,

this by achieving fluidity in exchanges (Garud &

Kumaraswamy, 2005), simplicity and dynamism in

KM (Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2011), elements that are

absent from content management tools (also called

repository). In this perspective, knowledge exchanges

aim to facilitate sharing (purpose of capitalization)

and combination (knowledge creation) (Nahapiet &

Ghoshal, 1998).

Enterprise social networking (ESN) technologies

are evidence of this development; they are often

mobilized to support the digital transformation of

companies and encourage interactions in order to

create a competitive advantage in an increasingly

dynamic market (Rayrole et al., 2016). These ESN

tools are no longer simple storage or communication

tools. By using social network technologies, they also

aim to develop the social ties necessary for exchanges

and combination of knowledge (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,

1998). A question arises: do ESN create the social ties

and collaborative exchanges to build organizational

knowledge dynamics?

This article is based on an action research carried

out within an international group using the enterprise

social network tool - JIVE - to promote knowledge

sharing and creation. The first part of the research put

in perspective the literature on KM and IS relating to

Lacosta, A. and Thomas, C.

The Role of an Enterprise Social Networking Tool on Organisational Knowledge Dynamics.

DOI: 10.5220/0010120200760087

In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2020) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 76-87

ISBN: 978-989-758-474-9

knowledge exchange, the second will present the

methodology used. The third will present briefly the

results obtained. They will then be discussed in a

fourth and final part.

2 INTERACTIONS IN THE

HEART OF KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT/DYNAMICS

2.1 Tacit/ Explicit Knowledge

Interaction

The interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge

is key to understand the way knowledge is created,

but also diffused within a group of people (Nonaka &

Takeuchi, 1995). Tacit knowledge is embodied in

individuals and is more experienced than shared, this

is why tacit knowledge is difficult to share (Nonaka

& von Krogh, 2009). Explicit knowledge, also called

codified knowledge, can take several aspects, more or

less abstract, about the “how” and the “why”

(Echajari & Thomas, 2015). We speak about

knowledge interaction as knowledge never stays in a

fixed status, it moves from tacit to explicit and

evolves through social exchange (SECI model

(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka, 1994; Ikujiro

Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009)). The tacit/explicit

knowledge interaction is source of dynamics.

Furthermore, the re-use of explicit (codified)

knowledge in other contexts requires its combination

with other elements to favour the creation of new

knowledge (Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). However,

this type of transfer raises the question of the capacity

of individuals to use codified knowledge in their

practices (Ancori, 2000); in other words, it raises the

question of the appropriation of codified knowledge.

Several forms of codification can be developed that

are more or less abstract depending on the objectives

of the codification process. Abstraction facilitates the

dissemination and the communication of knowledge

(Boisot & Li, 2005) but abstract codifications

generate a loss of accuracy in the representation of

phenomena, requiring the actors who wish to

appropriate this knowledge to expend major effort on

re-contextualization (Echajari & Thomas, 2015).

2.1.1 Social Dimension of Knowledge

Dynamics

Social dimension of the exchange is the second key

component of knowledge dynamics. Nonaka and

Takeuchi (1995) in their SECI model have put aside

the social dimension to show the importance of

tacit/explicit interaction (Nonaka & von Krogh,

2009). According to Kogut and Zander (1992) and

Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) sharing and creating

organizational knowledge is a social process of

exchange, absorption and the combination of

information and knowledge. Exchange, absorption

and combination are complex social processes that

reflect the entanglement of knowledge forms in an

organization capable of coordinating, structuring,

sharing and creating knowledge. The very notion of

the organization’s social capital is the source of

intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

Social capital has three dimensions (Nahapiet &

Ghoshal, 1998). The first, structural, refers to the

configuration and the density of the ties which

connect individuals. The second, relational, shapes

the social system. It feeds the notion of belonging to

a group and defines the context in which

communication and exchanges occur between

members of an organization (Kankanhalli et al.,

2005). Finally, the third dimension is cognitive and

promotes a cognitive alignment of individuals which

will facilitate the sharing and combination of

knowledge.

One of the best examples of organizations capable

of coordinating, structuring, sharing and creating

knowledge are Communities of Practice (CoP).

Wenger (1998) defines CoP by explaining that

individuals form a community from the moment they

share the same working conditions. This common

practice generates a support for collective memory

(Wenger, 1998). CoP are therefore original social

structures.

However, as Garud and Kumaraswamy (2005)

point out, a certain balance between continuity and

change is necessary to ensure the dynamics of the

knowledge management system. It operates mainly

within and between group dynamics. It allows the

balancing between the continuity that an epistemic

group offers (identity, common thought models) and

the change that connections in and between these

epistemic communities can produce.

3 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

TOOLS

Technologies dedicated to KM have evolved

considerably, from storage tools to collaborative

tools.

The Role of an Enterprise Social Networking Tool on Organisational Knowledge Dynamics

3.1 KM Tools: From Storage to

Collaboration

When we talk about knowledge management, most of

the literature refers to codified knowledge storage

tools. Several words are used to define these tools:

"repositories" or more precisely "electronic

knowledge repositories" (EKR), but also "Knowledge

management systems" (KMS) or "Information

retrieval systems" (IR systems), "information system

". They all have the same vocation: the organized and

collective archiving of knowledge (Arazy & Woo,

2007; Bock et al., 2005; Hayes, 2011; Hwang et al.,

2018; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2016;

Sutanto et al., 2018). The quality of archiving is

essential to facilitate the recovery of knowledge.

Storage tools allow better accessibility to the

company's knowledge and thus participate in the

capitalization process.

The knowledge exchange has been and is made

ever faster, easier and more efficient thanks to

information and communication technologies. These

tools include emails and instant messaging, which

allow information or knowledge to be exchanged

from a request (Connelly et al., 2012). Failing to

provide only support for the exchange of information

and/or knowledge, emails have undergone misuse:

they are the subject of information storage. According

to a Lecko study (Rayrole et al., 2016), they are

considered to be the capital application of the entire

information system. However, this diversion of use

highlights the problems of validation and updating of

the knowledge exchanged and stored via messaging.

The transition to collaborative tools was made in

particular with the advent of wikis, a tool where

individuals contribute and whose content can be

corrected and improved by other members of the

organization (Hayes, 2011). With these tools,

individuals can interact with content, establish new

networks for exchange and new communication

channels within the organization (Hayes, 2011).

Content storage tools can support the knowledge

capitalization process by favouring content sharing.

However, they don’t play on tacit/explicit interaction,

which is left to individuals. Thus, collaborative tools

aim to favour this interaction by allowing individuals

to exchange.

3.2 Enterprise Social Networking,

Knowledge Management Tools?

Enterprise Social Networking (ESN) technologies

distinguish from previous KM tools by their plural

characteristics but also by their social aspect based on

collaboration. They offer the best combination of

different types of tools: allowing both storage

(capitalization process) and encouraging (more)

interactions by supporting social ties (knowledge

sharing and creation process?).

3.2.1 ESN Technologies: Technical

Specifications

The technology of ESN tools is part of the wave 2.0.

It is defined as applications facilitating interactive

information sharing, interoperability and

collaboration on the Internet (O’reilly, 2005). We

notice then that this definition is more focused on the

participation of the actors of the system than on

technology, which highlights the need to use these

ESN technologies as tools allowing and promoting

social exchanges rather than as storage platforms. The

link between KM and Web 2.0 can therefore be seen

as the path from autonomous process systems to

networks and collaboration (Hayes, 2011).

Web 2.0 carries the benefits of Web 1.0, that is, a

platform for documents, plus the social Web. It is the

activities of systems, due to the socialization of the

Web, that generate new data, which in turn process

and reuse in other areas (O’Reilly & Battelle, 2009).

This creates an exponential increase in the number of

data, what we call Big Data. Interaction and

information overload are, so, familiar elements of

Web 2.0.

3.2.2 ESN Technologies: Special Features

Web 2.0 is also intended to “simplify” use in order to

improve interactivity on the web. Interactivity is

promoted by the possibility of commenting, liking

and "tagging" documents. The ESN technologies

include gamification features which aim to motivate,

by using different types - especially hedonic ones

(Aboelmaged, 2018) - the users to participate on the

platform. An ESN is open to everyone, so it gives

visibility to the person behind the content

(Aboelmaged, 2018). This effervescence of opinions,

information and comments contributes both to the

enrichment of content and to information overload.

ESN tools seem also to encourage trust in a collective

way, compared to previous tools which were

favouring dyadic trust, so integrating the notion of a

“system” (Singh et al., 2018). Thereby, and because

ESN tools seem to enable users to “make sense” and

to access their virtual colleagues’ expertise

(Aboelmaged, 2018), we then could expect that ESN

tools ties CoP within the organization.

In these terms, ESN tools raises the question of

establishing a governance adapted to this type of KM

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

tool, in order to preserve knowledge and keep fluidity

to enable organizational knowledge creation.

4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 Context

4.1.1 General Presentation of the Company

Travel-Α

This research is carried out within the framework of

a CIFRE (an industrial agreement for training through

research in France) PhD thesis within a company

evolving in the travel industry, which we will name

Travel-α for confidentiality reasons. It is one of the

world leaders in travel management. Travel-α is a

global company with various regional management

offices spread over several continents: Americas

(NORAM and LATAM), Europe (EMEA), Asia-

Pacific (APAC). During 2016, the company initiated

a change in its strategy based on a digital

transformation.

The company Travel-α is divided into eight major

organizational functions, three of which are directly

linked to the KM: the "Strategy and Commerce"

function of which the KM team is a part, the "Human

Resources" function and finally the "Clients".

4.1.2 Presentation of the Company's KM

Project

The company's KM strategy is to support the

company strategy of Travel-α while assisting its

employees in digital knowledge sharing and creation

via an ESN tool, JIVE (commercial software). Travel-

α used several content management platforms, mainly

an intranet and SharePoint. The current KM project is

to gather most of this SharePoint content on JIVE.

The goal is to allow employees to share, exchange,

communicate and collaborate as freely as possible.

The objective of implementing this new tool is

threefold: (1) share information relating to human

resources and HR processes, i.e. the intranet, (2)

manage knowledge relevant to customer relations and

(3) organize and encourage interactions via the

emergence of collaborative groups between Travel-α

employees. The last two objectives are managed by

the KM function; the study therefore focuses on these

two.

4.1.3 KM Tools at Travel-Α

At Travel-α, a large part of the content intended for

customers is stored and shared on SharePoint, a

content management tool. A SharePoint site has been

opened to everyone and serves as a knowledge base

for documents intended for Customer teams. This site

is managed by the KM team which, as a last step,

validates and publishes the documents. We will call

this knowledge base SPS - SharePoint System.

In connection with the company's digital

transformation strategy, JIVE was launched in early

2017. JIVE is an American company created in 2001

offering its main product: a social network type

technology available in SaaS. The solution works on

the basis of "prefabricated" collaboration models

providing tools for different uses such as innovation,

project management, or even intelligence

communities (Rayrole et al., 2016).

JIVE first goals were to replace the existing

intranet tool and the old social network of the

company Yammer. It was also chosen to avoid silos

and procedures that slowed down employees' work.

Finally, JIVE's mission is to become the main tool

supporting the KM system in order to facilitate the

exchange of knowledge between employees and

company learning.

4.2 Integrative Design Methodology

In order to carry out this research, we have adopted a

design methodology well suited to intervention

research where the researcher-actor aims to design

and then implement a tool or an organizational

device. We have developed an integrative design

methodology (Pascal et al., 2013) which combines

two methodologies: “science-based design” and

“human centred –design”.

The integrative approach thus combines the

knowledge of literature based on “science-based

design” approach (development of design rules by

mobilizing existing knowledge in the scientific

literature) and then tested in practice ; it creates

knowledge by the combination of literature and real-

life testing (Denyer et al., 2008; Romme &

Endenburg, 2006; Romme, 2003; Van Aken, 2005)

and the knowledge of practitioners based on “human

centred –design” approach (successful solutions

emerge from design processes involving users and

future users and analysis of their needs) (Bate &

Robert, 2007; Hatchuel et al., 2006; Plsek et al.,

2007). The design rules from the literature, once

implemented, can be tested and a new design loop can

be developed. Thus, this methodology is carried out

in several loops, each consisting of six stages:

understanding the problem, developing design rules,

creating usage scenarios, building the artefact,

The Role of an Enterprise Social Networking Tool on Organisational Knowledge Dynamics

evaluation and transformation (Pascal et al., 2013).

4.3 Implementation of the

Methodology

The implementation of this methodology began in the

Travel-α company with two Design loops carried out

on 20 groups.

4.3.1 Design Loops

The first loop started early 2018, with meetings,

survey and interviews, then implementation of the 3

first pilot JIVE groups in September, October and

November 2018. While the implementation of these

groups gave us some first results, we decided to start

implementing second loop groups in February 2019.

The second loop overlapped slightly the first one. The

last groups of loop-2 were implemented end of Q4

2019, while loop-3 was being started.

4.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis Loop 1

Data collection for the first loop was done through

two surveys conducted one year apart and interviews.

The surveys were online (multiple choice questions

and open questions) and sent to all Travel-α

departments. The first in 2017, a few months after the

launch of the ESN, aimed to highlight the uses of the

company's various KM tools, and more specifically

of the SharePoint and JIVE platforms (more than 400

responses collected); the second in 2018 wanted to

identify changes in use after one year.

The first survey was followed by semi-structured

interviews with a selection of users in the “Client”

function, first KM team audience: Program Managers

(PM), Sales and Global Commercial Operator

(GCO). 54 interviews were conducted over 5 weeks,

30 minutes each, in order to identify: (1) the most

sought-after documents and information; (2) the

different platforms/tools employees use to find them

(if they are found?); (3) the procedures used to search:

keywords in the search engine or navigation through

content map; (4) the new uses developed on JIVE and

a comparison with those developed on SharePoint

(previous tool for the storage and exchange of

knowledge).

In addition, meetings were held with the heads of

key departments in different functions in order to

better understand the role of knowledge management

with regards to the new company strategy

implemented by Travel-α.

The main objective of analysing data from

surveys, interviews and meetings was to define the

problem to be solved, the first step in the design loop.

Surveys and interviews have highlighted the concrete

needs and problems encountered by users when

searching for documents. The meetings specified the

needs and expectations in terms of the KM strategy.

4.3.3 Data Collection and Analysis Loop 2

For the second loop, a third survey (500 responses

collected) has been followed by interviews (25, 30

minutes each). The objectives of these interviews

were to better understand (1) how users learn about

the new Travel-α strategy, (2) for what purpose they

go on JIVE, (3) what kind of content and knowledge

they are looking for and if they find, (4) how they

proceed to look, (5) what issues they encounter and

finally (6) what they expect from JIVE in the future.

In addition to this, information from 180 meetings

conducted with group owners have been collected and

coded.

5 RESULTS

5.1 Problem Awareness

The first analysis of meetings and interviews allowed

us to define problems at two levels: strategic and

operational. At the strategic level, expectations were

(1) to organize knowledge in alignment with the new

strategy and (2) to use JIVE to create a KM system.

At the operational level, get one platform to store

knowledge and content, was the most requested

element, JIVE replies to this. But the change from a

very centralized platform to a decentralized one was

one of the main operational challenges KM team has

to solve. The second operational challenge was to

manage the transition from SharePoint to JIVE in

order to get more collaboration for a richer sharing.

5.2 Design Rules

The literature in interaction with surveys and

interviews has allowed us to define six main design

principles in two loops. These principles in

interaction with the groups’ members were then

broken down into Design rules. This step therefore

mixes steps 2 (design rules) and 3 (usage scenario).

5.2.1 Distinguish between Official Groups

and Collaborative Groups

The dual purpose of the knowledge management

system led us to build the KM solution by combining

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

two types and two groups. Official KM groups that

aim to support the capitalization of knowledge

through the exchange and sharing of knowledge

deemed relevant, validated and updated.

Collaborative groups which aim to strengthen

exchanges and the combination of knowledge in order

to promote knowledge creation.

Rule 1: Official groups are responsible for

identifying critical knowledge, formalizing,

validating, classifying, and updating it. These

essential processes to guarantee confidence in the

published knowledge (perceived usefulness) and the

ability to retrieve the right document (ease of use)

requires the implementation of minimal governance.

Rule 2: In addition to official groups, encourage

the emergence of collaborative groups in order to

strengthen interactions within these. Their objective

is to increase the exchanges and combinations of

knowledge not yet stabilized in order to allow the

emergence of new knowledge.

5.2.2 Provide Official Groups with a

Common Identity

The move from a single site, SPS, to a multitude of

groups on JIVE reflects a major change in the KM

system. The recognition of official groups,

depositaries of validated knowledge then becomes

essential.

Rule 3: Having a design element that allows their

recognition, here "official" will be written in each

group’s name.

Rule 4: Provide official groups with a common

identity to facilitate exchanges and knowledge

sharing through these groups. This identity can be

based on the search for similarity (Brewer, 1991). The

similarities are declined on two levels: 1) the respect

of the colours and the logos of the company, and 2) a

common model of the home page. The common

model ensures a similarity between the groups, it

nevertheless allows adaptations so that each group

can appropriate it. The common model is made up of

4 mandatory “boxes” on the homepage: a box for

describing the group’s subject, a box for presenting

the team in charge of the group, a box leading to the

education group, a box leading to a "frequently asked

questions" page.

5.2.3 Have a Common Knowledge

Classification to Facilitate Their

Retrieval

The knowledge retrieval, essential for a KM-IS, is

based on a shared knowledge classification and an

indexing adapted to usages and the system. The mode

of classification or organization of knowledge is

essential to promote cognitive alignment between

members of the organization (Nonaka, 1994); that is,

all the more, important in a KM system composed of

several distinct groups. Content is generally indexed

by the name of the document and then by the

description of the content and the container (Arazy &

Woo, 2007; Kergosien et al., 2011).

Field surveys have also shown that the current

classification and indexing methods are not

satisfactory on SPS, revealing problems with

retrieving documents via search engine or navigation.

Going to JIVE is an opportunity to improve this key

point of the knowledge management system.

Rule 5: Adopt a common document indexing

policy to facilitate document retrieval via search

engine: a naming convention (with a glossary to

maintain spelling consistency) and a tag convention

(made possible as JIVE is an ESN) to improve search

engine’s results.

Rule 6: Adopt a common knowledge organization

to facilitate documents retrieval via navigation. The

categories to organize are taken from the glossary

developed in the naming convention. In addition,

navigation is made easier by the construction of a

page (a "content overview document") mapping the

types of documents and the link to documents

published by the group. Surveys have shown that this

mapping of published documents is particularly

appreciated by users.

5.2.4 Get a Governance

The literature in KM indicates the need to set up an

organizational structure which supports KM

processes, in particular the capitalization process and

support processes such as communication and

incentives. Mainly, studies on the KM-IS governance

concern conventional tools of the “repository” type.

However, an ESN profoundly changes the nature of

the KM system. It is no longer made up of one site

but of several groups, and these group’s leaders are

not part of the KM team.

The mode of governance to be put in place is to

find a fair balance between centralization and

decentralization. For this, during the first loop we

have created a rule to guarantee the quality of

capitalization in official groups.

Rule 7: Develop a RASI for each official KM

group. The RASI (or RACI) consists of the

development of a table, in which the roles and

responsibilities are clearly indicated.

As you will see later in this article (evaluation

section), we encountered difficulties to put in place

The Role of an Enterprise Social Networking Tool on Organisational Knowledge Dynamics

this rule and the loop 2 highlighted a need of a wider

governance, not only on officials’ group. As is, the

rule 7 has been transformed in a more informal one

(rule 7A) where KM team is aware of who is an

official group administrator and so 1) follow

publication guidance (to help knowledge retrieval)

and 2) reply to questions on the group they own (more

information in evaluation section). This was to meet

the need of role and responsibilities in official groups,

but we were lacking a rule for a wider governance.

From the literature, we learnt a KM committee is

useful to provide awareness of KM within the

organization and to define KM priorities based on the

strategy.

Rule 9: Implement a KM committee within

Travel-α with key stakeholders at manager level.

5.2.5 Encourage Interactions between

Formal Groups and Collaborative

Groups to Support a Dynamic

Knowledge Management System

The choice of JIVE is to encourage interactions

between collaborators in order to facilitate exchanges

and combinations of knowledge, as a social network

would do (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). In this

perspective, employees can create collaborative

groups (rule 2). If these groups are aimed at creating

new knowledge, it is important once knowledge is

stabilized to share it more widely. The official groups

then take over to ensure the sharing of this new

knowledge once it is deemed relevant and validated.

Rule 8: Organize modes of interaction between

official and collaborative groups.

5.2.6 Use the Tool's Functionality to

Motivate Knowledge Sharing

ESN tools offer new functionalities, notably

gamification with quests and earning points by

participation on the platform. We have seen during

the JIVE’s first year that individuals were motivated

to use it by the perspective of earning points. Also,

many first contributors on the platform made the

request to create quests. Martin Cruz et al. in 2009

(Martín Cruz et al., 2009), hypothesized that extrinsic

motivators play on competition between members,

since they encourage employees to perform useful

and valuable tasks for the organization. The authors

specified that despite the fact that extrinsic motivators

are not necessarily the first motivators, they can be a

good tool to generate a "basic commitment". Our

observation allows us to conclude that the

gamification has played this role. Thus, putting in

place some rules about the gamification should

improve motivation to share knowledge on the

platform.

During loop 2, and faced with feedback from

users, the KM team, in collaboration with the Internal

Communication team (in charge of JIVE), decided to

add rules on Quest creation, so that these make more

sense in knowledge sharing for users.

Rule 10: Regulate the quests of official KM

groups: (1) KM team should be included in the quest

discussions, and (2) quest objectives and end date are

required.

5.3 Artefact Construction

As explained briefly above, the methodology of

Design Science lives by loops. The first loop, rules

creation, was applied on three pilot groups (PO, TC

and GSS) in the last quarter of 2018. All three pilots

have applied the rules. However, the application of

the naming rules (rules 5 and 6) revealed points of

tension in one group (GSS).

The second loop has been applied on 14

products/services and strategy groups and 8 other

groups related to sales or CX team productions,

during 2019. We encountered again these naming

tension, but more groups were implemented less,

these problems appeared. During this loop, we did not

apply any rule 8 because no collaboration groups

have been created. This second loop has highlighted

a wider problem: the need of organizational KM

governance in Travel-α.

5.4 Evaluation

The two first Design loops allowed us to highlight 4

key points relating to the construction of a KM system

on an ESN, which will be very briefly described.

5.4.1 Richer Exchanges

The main advantage of Web 2.0 tools is the

collaborative features included, more specifically

likes, comments or questions in ESN tools.

Richer Exchanges in Terms of Knowledge.

Through comments, in particular, users can tell others

if the published content is useful, interact with

contributors. Users can also ask for more information

through comments and/or questions. The example

below shows us that a response in a comment can help

the user to apply an official document rule to a

particular case. Contextualization is done by people

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

who face same situations and share it, as explained by

PM-1 in EMEA.

“The question was whether

we could put the invoices on [a

travel-α product] I raised the

question in comment, and I had

the answer”

These ESN features extend exchanges with many

potential partners and not only with the people who

own the content. Below, the combined advantage of

(1) the commenting feature and (2) the platform’s

openness to everyone, enables greater responsiveness

because it is not only content owners who can

respond, other users can too, as PM-2 in NORAM

said:

"One thing I really like is

that when you post [a

question], you don't hear the

owner of the product right

away, but you hear other PMs

or other people who could

answer it”

However, sometimes, users’ comment does not add

value, as Sales 1 in APAC said:

"A lot of people

commenting, it's irrelevant”

Richer Social Exchanges. The primary purpose of an

ESN tool is to create virtually the interactions

characteristic of social networks, making it possible

to connect individuals who are not directly connected

with other individuals. These tools appear to be so far

fulfilling well this function of "connectivity" as

presented by Sales 2 in EMEA:

“Overall, I think it's a very good tool: the

possibility of being able to interact with people is

an ergonomic tool”

We identified two types of social relationships: the

first is related to motivation; the second reflects the

multiplication of connections to gain access to

knowledge.

Motivational Social Bond. These functionalities of

virtually recreating social relationships make it

possible to recover some social interactions that

individuals could have face to face, in particular

congratulations, encouragements, as explained by

PM-3 in NORAM:

"If somebody need

encouragement, I would

definitely encourage them”

The tool is also used to share the achievements and

successes of the teams, as explained by PM-4 in

NORAM:

“It is also a great place for

staying connected […] we have

a page where we can share

accomplishment”

Social Ties to Access Knowledge. On JIVE,

whatever content type you publish, your name

appears; unlike common social networks,

pseudonyms are not possible. Thus, all users know

who posted what. Users can know "who knowns what

" (who owns what), as the GCO in EMEA explained:

"It is very easy to know who the product owner is,

[…], who can be helpful. So, it is an easy access

information and exchange platform”

5.4.2 A Facilitated Motivation: The

Gamification

ESN tools have gaming features allowing individuals

to earn points by participating. We can distinguish

two gamification types: first, the more you participate

the more you earn points; second, following a "quest"

allow you to gain points.

Points. Whether it is a like, or a comment, or even a

document, each participation gives points to the users.

This simple fact is a motivator for individuals who are

thus encouraged to use it, as explained by PM-3 in

NORAM:

"When I have a little time

or depending on the page,

when I see my profile, I see

that I am so close to the next

level so I will pick a quest or

I’ll do something to pump up

my points”

Here, we can see that users are encouraged to

"participate" on the platform to earn points and that

this incentive phenomenon works. The gamification

aspect turns out to be a good motivator for use.

However, gaining points by participation can

generate perverse effects, even if users are concerned

about the usefulness of their interventions as PM-3 in

NORAM:

"I try to comment but I like

my comment to be a value, I

don’t comment just for

comment I would really

comment if my words would be

impactful. […] I don’t want to

The Role of an Enterprise Social Networking Tool on Organisational Knowledge Dynamics

be the girl that comment

“great job everyone” every

single time”

As the quote above points out to us, the number of

people commenting “great job” every single time is

significant enough for her to mention it.

Quests. Creating a "quest" creates a "path" that the

user will have to take to earn points. This "path" will

make him "consume" different content, in different

ways: by liking, commenting, "sharing" or

downloading content. By encouraging people to do

so, the quest can have a positive impact on the

knowledge dynamics.

(1) The individual is browsing content that he or

she might not have seen without the existence of the

quest. Insofar, as the quest can be related to the

individuals’ tasks, it highlights important content for

him or her and, thus, favour its consultation as a

priority, as PM-4 in NORAM explained:

“There are some products

that I really do need, and I

want to know about, so I would

do that quest”

Targeting key documents is a way of countering

“information overload” which is often cited by users

and the literature of Web 2.0 tools. PM-4 in NORAM

continues:

"And I think this is going to

take me to the right places,

make me bookmark the right

pages"

(2) These "quests" allow also managers to track

people who completed quests; offering a new form of

training for employees as explained by PM-5 in

NORAM.

"We had to complete the

[JIVE quest]: we have to go

through [JIVE], the learning

training thing by August 12.

That's really good because

when we see that there is a

deadline, in my opinion, it

forces me to bloc my calendar,

take the time and go through it.

And it is very […], easy to

follow”

Thus, the marketing manager of the new strategy

created a quest to encourage individuals to consume

the new strategy content and incorporated this quest

into training for newcomers.

If you want to complete the quest, you must

complete all of the actions listed. It’s a “forced” way

to share knowledge. However, quests may sometimes

not make sense to users. Content owners can create

quests which, at the end, make no sense for users, as

PM-4 in NORAM explained:

"Some of the quests want

you to share a page or a

document. I don’t really

understand that when we all

have access to the same quest.

I am like “who am I going to

share this with?”. People have

all the same access that I have.

[…] That’s not really working,

I’m like “why are we doing

this?”

It seems here that the hedonic motivation does not

activate when there is loss of meaning. As a reminder,

ESN should allow the re-creation of social ties, which

partly consist of common meanings, particularly

within CoP. In the example above, the person sought

to share with his/her community to bring value and

help others. This example shows that a poorly

designed quest can create information overload.

5.4.3 Knowledge Creation

The distinction between official and collaborative

groups (rules 1 and 2), and how their interaction can

favour a dynamic KM system (rule 8) was put in place

by GSS in the loop 1. GSS owners noted that the

interactions between the official and the collaborative

group allowed them to question critical knowledge.

As stated by the GSS’ Vice-President:

"What the GSS group has

set up is exactly where we want

to go to manage knowledge"

Unfortunately, the collaborative group has not been

animated and was moved out of priorities. So, we

cannot confirm or infirm the results. With the second

loop, we tried to implement collaborative groups with

official ones, as one of the group owners said:

“that’s ok, we are already

collaborating using mails and

calls”

This example shows that we need users and

managers’ awareness about knowledge creation to get

dynamics in the KM system.

Governance. As explained briefly in the Design rules

section, we started by creating the rule 7 in order to

make roles and responsibilities clear for everyone,

especially the users. When we asked the pilot groups

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

of loops 1 to fill in the RASI, the group owners did

not see the need of this particular element. According

to the PO owner:

“It is not my priority and

[the RASI] may change every

often”

So, implementing the RASI was difficult, that’s the

reason why we made it more informal between KM

team and owners. But with the number of

implemented groups increasing, we saw less and less

difficulties to implement all the common rules and

moreover, other group owners came to KM team to

implement KM rules. Here, we can see that the

governance largely promotes the knowledge sharing.

5.5 Transformation and Changes for

the Coming Loop

To synthetize: the first loop (3 groups) has shown the

needs of a better role & responsibilities definition

within the different groups, but also a definition of

knowledge groups boundaries The second loop has

shown the need of a wider governance due to the

interdependencies between groups not reflected by

the governance in place. We thus need to expand the

groups governance to a KM system’s governance,

which implies the involvement of all employees in a

KM culture.

The next loop should focus then on engaging

employees in a federal KM governance by creating a

KM committee in order to spread the KM culture, but

also to get feedback from key stakeholders in terms

of priorities and usage.

6 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION

This paper aimed to show the first results of the ESN

tool implementation to build a dynamic KM system

that promotes essentially knowledge sharing. Indeed,

the results obtained have shown that the deployment

of this technology definitely improved knowledge

sharing processes. But it can generate vicious circles

and needs specific governance, especially at the

implementation stage, for the KM system to be

efficient.

6.1 Exchanges Favoured, Knowledge

Sharing Improved

We have seen that JIVE can, via likes, comments and

questions, enrich the initial content of documents.

The interactions, facilitated by technology, between

group members and the published content, provide

additional knowledge. Here, interactions between

formal (“official” knowledge) and less formal ones

(comments) initiate a virtuous circle of knowledge

exchange. These interactions between two forms of

explicit knowledge enrich the notion of virtuous

circle introduced by Nonaka (Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994)

which is based on tacit/explicit knowledge

interactions.

In addition, we have seen that comments and

questions (less formal knowledge) on an ESN tool

can provide context that helps knowledge

appropriation, and thus knowledge sharing. It echoes

Echajari and Thomas’ (Echajari & Thomas, 2015)

work on codification, abstraction and appropriation.

Our results show that ESN tools favour two types

of social exchanges. The first type allows users to

access their colleagues’ expertise (Aboelmaged,

2018), by identifying “who knows what” in a larger

way than the one offered by their direct network.

The second one favours social interactions such as

encouragements, which as shown by the literature

(Ikujiro Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009; Singh et al.,

2018; Wenger, 1998), facilitate knowledge sharing.

6.2 Gamification and the Risk of

Developing a Vicious Circle

Gamification on ESN tools encourages users to

actively participate in the KM processes and help to

access the right information. It contributes to

organizational learning. Knowledge sharing seem to

be more influenced by hedonic motivation on ESN

tools, and gamification is a good example as by

providing direct positive emotions after gaining

points, it motivates to share (Aboelmaged, 2018).

However, motivation on KM system has always

been tricky (Garud & Kumaraswamy, 2005;

Jasimuddin & Zhang, 2011) and to some extent, the

incentive via gamification joins Garud and

Kumaraswamy (2005) work highlighting the dangers

of financial incentives. Indeed, it can create

information overload and reduce knowledge quality

on the system. Gamification is all the more dangerous

since this practice is very simple to implement. They

therefore need to be regulated by the KM governance

system.

6.3 Federative and Collaborative

Governance Difficult to Implement

ESN tools aim to manage knowledge by promoting

interactions through a social network construction.

The Role of an Enterprise Social Networking Tool on Organisational Knowledge Dynamics

However, the study shows that these ESN require a

KM governance implementation at different levels:

First, to ensure KM processes’ quality, as for a classic

KM IS, managed by official groups; second, to

motivate people to use the tool and also to regulate

interactions. Beyond these regulations, governance

appears essential to create a unique KM system which

makes sense (Garud & Kumaraswamy, 2005). The

literature speaks of federative governance (Choi et al.,

2005; Kannabiran & Pandyan, 2010) and in our case,

KM governance is difficult to set up due to the

creation of a KM system common identity. The

ability to identify arises from the convergence of an

individual's interests with the system ones (Johnson

et al., 1999). Identity and governance seem

intrinsically linked, which provides an interesting

avenue of research for future design loops.

REFERENCES

Aboelmaged, M. G. (2018). Knowledge sharing through

enterprise social network (ESN) systems: Motivational

drivers and their impact on employees’ productivity.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 362–383.

Ancori, B. (2000). The economics of knowledge: The

debate about codification and tacit knowledge.

Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 255–287.

Arazy, & Woo. (2007). Enhancing Information Retrieval

through Statistical Natural Language Processign: A

Study of Collocation Indexing. MIS Quarterly, 31(3),

525.

Bate, P., & Robert, G. (2007). Toward more user-centric

OD: lessons from the field of experience-based design

and a case study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 43(1), 41–66.

Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005).

Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:

Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-

psychological factors, and organizational climate. MIS

quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.

Boisot, M., & Li, Y. (2005). Codification, Abstraction, and

Firm Differences: A Cognitive Information-based

Perspective. Journal of Bioeconomics, 7(3), 309–334.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The Social Self: On Being the Same

and Different at the Same Time. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.

Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P.

(2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.

Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2008).

Developing Design Propositions through Research

Synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3), 393–413.

Echajari, L., & Thomas, C. (2015). Learning from complex

and heterogeneous experiences: The role of knowledge

codification. (P. Claude Paraponaris, Dr Martine Siga,

Ed.)Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(5), 968–

986.

Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2005). Vicious and

virtuous circles in the management of knowledge: The

case of Infosys Technologies. MIS quarterly, 29(1).

Gray, P. H. (2001). The impact of knowledge repositories

on power and control in the workplace. Information

Technology & People, 14(4), 368–384.

Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2006). Building

innovation capabilities. The development of design-

oriented organizations.

Innovation, science and

industrial change, the handbook of research (pp. 294–

312). Oxford University Press, New-York.

Hayes, N. (2011). Information technology and the

possibilities for knowledge sharing. Handbook of

organizational learning and knowledge management

(pp. 83–104).

Hwang, Y., Lin, H., & Shin, D. (2018). Knowledge system

commitment and knowledge sharing intention: The role

of personal information management motivation.

International Journal of Information Management, 39,

220–227.

Jasimuddin, S. M., & Zhang, Z. (Justin). (2011).

Transferring Stored Knowledge and Storing

Transferred Knowledge. Information Systems

Management, 28(1), 84–94.

Johnson, W. L., Johnson, A. M., & Heimberg, F. (1999). A

primary-and second-order component analysis of the

organizational identification questionnaire.

Educational and psychological measurement, 59(1),

159–170.

Ju Choi, C., Cheng, P., Hilton, B., & Russell, E. (2005).

Knowledge governance. Journal of knowledge

Management, 9(6), 67–75.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005).

Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge

repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS quarterly,

29(1).

Kannabiran, G., & Pandyan, C. (2010). Enabling role of

governance in strategizing and implementing KM.

Journal of knowledge management, 14(3), 335–347.

Kergosien, E., Bessagnet, M.-N., & Gaio, M. (2011).

Exploitation d’une cartographie sémantique à des fins

de validation: Application à l’indexation experte de

corpus documentaires. Documentation et bibliothèques,

57(1), 19.

Kim, S. H., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Kraut, R. E. (2016).

When Does Repository KMS Use Lift Performance?

The Role of Alternative Knowledge Sources and Task

Environments. MIS Quarterly, 40(1), 133–156.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm,

combinative capabilities, and the replication of

technology. Organization science, 3(3), 383–397.

Martín Cruz, N., Martín Pérez, V., & Trevilla Cantero, C.

(2009). The influence of employee motivation on

knowledge transfer. Journal of knowledge

management, 13(6), 478–490.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital,

Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage.

The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242.

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating

company: How Japanese companies create the

dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press.

Nonaka, Ikujiro. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of

Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization

Science, Vol. 5, No. 1, 14–37.

Nonaka, Ikujiro, & von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective—

Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion:

Controversy and Advancement in Organizational

Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization Science,

20(3), 635–652.

O’reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? : Design Patterns and

Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.

Retrieved from

https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-

web-20.html

O’Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2009). Web squared: Web 2.0

five years on. “O’Reilly Media, Inc.".

Pascal, A., Thomas, C., & Romme, A. G. L. (2013).

Developing a Human-centred and Science-based

Approach to Design: The Knowledge Management

Platform Project: Knowledge Management Platform

Project. British Journal of Management, 24(2), 264–

280.

Plsek, P., Bibby, J., & Whitby, E. (2007). Practical methods

for extracting explicit design rules grounded in the

experience of organizational managers. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1), 153–170.

Rayrole, A., Gouraud, G., Juan, N., Le Lann, B., Rogé, F.,

& Legroux, S. (2016). Enterprise social networking

volume 8 – Supporting and preparing your business for

change. Lecko Study. Retrieved from

http://referentiel.lecko.fr/en/esn-vol8/

Romme, A. Georges L., & Endenburg, G. (2006).

Construction Principles and Design Rules in the Case

of Circular Design. Organization Science, 17(2), 287–

297.

Romme, A.G.L. (2003). Making a difference: Organization

as design. Organization science, 14(5), 558–573.

Singh, J. B., Chandwani, R., & Kumar, M. (2018). Factors

affecting Web 2.0 adoption: Exploring the knowledge

sharing and knowledge seeking aspects in health care

professionals. Journal of Knowledge Management,

22(1), 21–43.

Sutanto, J., Liu, Y., Grigore, M., & Lemmik, R. (2018).

Does knowledge retrieval improves work efficiency?

An investigation under multiple systems use.

International Journal of Information Management, 40,

42–53.

Van Aken, J. E. (2005). Management research as a design

science: Articulating the research products of mode 2

knowledge production in management. British journal

of management

, 16(1), 19–36.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a

social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 2–3.

The Role of an Enterprise Social Networking Tool on Organisational Knowledge Dynamics