How Can Web 2.

0 Tools Be Used to Augment Knowledge

Management Within Organizations?

By: Abid Imam

Presented To: Dorit Nevo; OMIS 6710

February 24th, 2009

Introduction
Web 2.0 has revitalized the practice of enterprise knowledge management (KM) through the
introduction of applications that are able to capture and reuse information while possessing the
qualities to augment its relevance via network effects. Network effects in turn enable the
generation and distribution of employee insights and experiences – the specific realm of KM
systems. Because enterprise knowledge is fast becoming a means of firm differentiation and
competitive advantage1 (especially in the service industry), not only is the efficiency of
information capture and reuse becoming important but the innovation based on the collected
data as well.

This essay describes how the Web 2.0 platform can augment KM within organizations. First a
description of KM as a concept is provided, followed by a description of Web 2.0 while being
intertwined by running a simplified real-life example throughout the paper. Two major
assumptions are made: that the collective performance exceeds the sum of individual
performances and that all tacit knowledge can eventually be broken down into explicit
knowledge. Without either of these assumptions the arguments below are baseless.

Knowledge Management
This paper defines KM as the cycle of capturing, reusing and inventing knowledge, which is in
turn driven by the overlap between people, processes and technology (see Appendix 1). The
realm of KM lies on the outer components illustrated in Appendix 1 and is subsequently
discussed.

Capture
This component involves the capture of knowledge – which is generally divided into two types:
explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge can be codified in a formal language (i.e.: English, French,
computer programs, etc…) whereas tacit knowledge is “…deeply rooted in action, commitment,
and involvement in a specific context.” (Nonaka, 2002) The latter is generally learned over time,
through experience and practice, and is usually more valuable than the former – as it is internal,
hidden within people and processes and is knowledge that has yet to be mapped into a
shareable format.

Herein lies the common problem in KM systems, how does one capture knowledge that cannot
be digitized (at least with current technology)? You don’t, but you do the best you can with what
you have (or what you can get); meaning that organizations must do their best at capturing all
relevant explicit knowledge and provide a variety of media that facilitate the transition of tacit
knowledge, or at least components of it to explicit knowledge. For example, an activity that is
difficult to describe using text may be easily demonstrated in a video or perhaps microblogging
such as twitter.(Hansen, Ronne, & Jensen, 2008)

Reuse: Don’t Reinvent the Wheel, You’ll Never be Fast Enough

The reuse of knowledge is a knowledge worker’s answer to lean manufacturing. When products
become commoditized, markets invest in efficiency and cost reduction. We have seen this
happen in the industrial world, and are now noticing it in white-collar industries through the
globalization of services. (Friedman, 2005)

Once a product or service is en route to becoming a commodity, organizations generally decide

to compete on low cost and high volumes. I would argue that the precursor of knowledge,
information and data have turned, with the advent of Web 1.0, into a commodity that is within all

























































1
‘Information’ and ‘Knowledge’ are used interchangeably in this document.
organizations’ reach at minimal cost. The differentiating factor now resides in an organization’s
ability to quickly “…mobilize collective intelligence and the knowledge of stakeholders[.]”
(Olivier, 2004)

Just as in competition based on tangible goods, competition based on knowledge must be

comparably efficient in order to use it as a point of parity. Imagine how much easier Bob’s (a
project manager for a consulting firm) life would have been by having access to previous
projects’ Lessons Learned data (as he was about to make a very common budgeting mistake).

Invent
Invent refers to the incremental (or revolutionary) innovation result of successful knowledge
management. The first two components are prerequisites and essentially form the ‘shoulders’ of
on which new ideas (presumably leading to competitive advantage) stand on.

How Web 2.0 Can Augment Knowledge Management

Where people and process drive the KM cycle (Appendix 1), technology is the vehicle. Whether
the vehicle is a Moped or a Ferrari depends on how well business objectives are met. For a
project management consultancy firm, an objective might be “continued innovation in delivering
projects on-time, within budget and with the utmost quality standards. This objective already
defines what a possible KM for this firm will need to capture knowledge on, that is, project
efficiency, budgeting best practices and maintaining high quality standards.

KM systems existed before digital technology. It existed in the form of manuals, handwritten
text and possibly analogue recordings. All this information was decentralized, with little to no
coordination between functional silos. There was no single version of the truth at any point in
time and if Bob had diligently written down his projects’ Lessons Learned, it would eventually
collect dust in a long forgotten cabinet. Fast forwarding to present day, Web 2.0 can help in six
unique ways:

1. Provide a single platform. The most important of all, the web as a platform serves in
centralizing (via servers/databases) and standardizing (via digitization) dispersed
information. Centralization and digitization adds the unique ability of making recorded
information searchable. Now Bob is able to lookup the topic for “Lessons Learned” from
past projects, but is the information there?
2. Harnessing collective intelligence. This is where the concept of ‘network effects’ comes into
play, that is, “…the service gets better as more people use it.” (Marshall, 2008) Two heads
are better than one; and there’s no exception with regards to information. For example,
multiple views on the maintenance of project quality provides a more complete view
regarding the topic and the more people contribute, the increased chance that Bob finds
answers to his questions.
3. The most helpful data will win. Certainly a presumptuous statement, however think about
eBay’s rating system. It’s seller rating system allows a sense of security for buyers; and
because thousands of buyers can potentially rate a seller, one gets a sense of the seller’s
reliability – as opposed to, say, two ratings, one very good and one very bad. Now imagine
Bob searches for “project crashing” (method used to add concurrency to project tasks), if his
project is running behind schedule, wouldn’t he want the best method to do so? Say his job
depended on this one project!
4. Perpetual beta. The concept of the “living document” is a form of perpetual beta relevant to
KM, where no topic is finalized but continuously edited and re-edited to reflect additional
points of views and/or new business environments. One would argue that this represents
 the competitive ‘heart’ of an enterprise’s KM implementation: if knowledge was fixed, how
relevant would it be tomorrow?
5. Software above the level of a single device. Imagine Bob being able to access his project
tracking software through the browser on his desktop, laptop, and Blackberry; from the
same server that his boss may access via her iPhone. In this scenario, because nothing is
‘locally stored’ on a personal hard drive, all forms of explicit work is retrieved, stored and
created centrally – easy pickings for a KM system to codify.
6. Rich user experience. As with the previous example, the project management application
was accessed via a browser, an application that can reside across electronics categories.
The interactivity and application-like feel of browser-based applications promotes multi-
media forms of information storage. Imagine capturing the process of designing a work
breakdown structure in a collaborative group setting via a video. This would certainly
capture intangible nuances that a sterile description in a document would miss! These
‘nuances’ tend to be the once mysterious tacit knowledge made explicit.

It is easy to get lost in the number of tools and software packages that promise to provide the
aforementioned Web 2.0 functionalities because they all do to a degree. But do they all fulfil the
original objectives that inspired the KM system? Going back to the consulting firm and one of its
objectives, project budgeting best practices – what would be the best type of tool to capture this
information? A blog is a one-to-many form of communication. Unless an author is defined as
an ‘expert’ in project budgeting, the blogs content will generally only be as deep as the author’s
personal knowledge (in terms of driving discussions – others with more knowledge may
comment on his/her points). Assuming the firm has no leading expert in project budgeting,
would a wiki help? Wikis are living documents, where only the latest version of the knowledge
is displayed (although previous versions are available). This means a single, though updated
truth about project budgeting best practices would exist – not all projects are created equal,
should there be only one way to ‘do project budgeting’? How about a page in which other
project managers inside the firm rate multiple approaches to budgeting, through say, an eBay-
type rating system. Bob can now browse through a number of posted approaches, find the best
combination of relevance and score rating. Bob combines two approaches that he likes the best
and completes his project way below budget, subsequently updating the site with his new
‘fusion’ approach. Bingo! Not only did the KM system capture budgeting best practices the
appropriate way (with ratings), but allowed Bob to reuse it and in turn, invent a whole new
approach. Capture, Reuse and Invent!

Conclusion
This essay has defined KM systems as the summation of a set of Web 2.0 applications and has
provided examples of implementations through a very simple running scenario using Bob the
Project Manager. Simply implementing turnkey solutions will generally result in KM systems
that are only really taking up server space. The firm needs to define its objectives, which may
be hidden in its vision and/or mission statement and extract from that relevant categories of
knowledge; after all, over half of executives surveyed by the Economist Intelligence Unit confirm
that a lack of doing so will ultimately result in a KM system’s failure. (Economist Intelligence
Unit, 2005)

As described, people, process and Web 2.0 enable KM systems, but only if (1) people are prone
to contribute and use existing information, (2) organizational processes are explicitly captured
and (3) the right implementation of Web 2.0 is used to drive the KM cycle of capturing, reusing
and inventing knowledge. If this is where the competitive advantage of firms is moving to, then
they better be sure that the KM cycle is working like a perfectly oiled machine.
Works Cited
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2005, June). Companies turn to knowledge management to solve
information overload. (The Economist Intelligence Unit) Retrieved 02 13, 2009, from Access:
http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number54/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=03
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World Is Flat (2.0 ed.). United States: Farar, Straus and Giroux.
Hansen, K. S., Ronne, K., & Jensen, M. (2008). Microblogging as a Facilitator for Tacit
Knowledge. Retrieved from Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3460679/Microblogging-as-a-
Facilitator-for-Tacit-Knowledge
Marshall, K. R. (2008, April). Utilizing Web 2.0 Technology to Enhance Enterprise Knowledge
Management. Retrieved 02 14, 2009, from Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8644735/Utilizing-
Web-20-Technology-to-Enhance-Enterprise-Knowledge-Management
Me, F. (2004). Scribd. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/5691/Managing-collective-
intelligence
Nonaka, I. (2002). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. The Strategic
Mangement of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge , 439.



Appendix A: The KM Cycle

Driven by people, processes and technology (in this case Web 2.0), the KM cycle starts with
capturing information and knowledge from a variety of sources into a centralized location.
Users subsequently and simultaneously use existing captured knowledge through a web
browser and use it towards their current business problems, or a means to innovate through
incremental or even evolutionary knowledge, which in turn is captured back into the system
through a variety of Web 2.0 tools. During the capture phase, tacit knowledge is often ‘leaked’
out of the cycle, however this can be minimized with a particular set of Web 2.0 tools that can
map particular people and process knowledge that ultimately specifically benefit the
organization.