Investigating the exploitation of web 2.0 for knowledge management in the Greek tourism industry: An utilisation–importance analysis

Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /comphumbeh

Investigating the exploitation of web 2.0 for knowledge managementin the Greek tourism industry: An utilisation–importance analysis

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.032

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2271035160.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Sigala), [email protected]

(K. Chalkiti).

Please cite this article in press as: Sigala, M., & Chalkiti, K. Investigating the exploitation of web 2.0 for knowledge management in the Greek tourismtry: An utilisation–importance analysis. Computers in Human Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.032

Marianna Sigala a,⇑, Kalotina Chalkiti b

a Department of Business Administration, University of the Aegean, Chios 82100, Greeceb School for Social and Policy Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxxx

Keywords:Knowledge managementWeb 2.0GreeceTourismSocial mediaUtilisation–importance matrix

a b s t r a c t

The paper investigates the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and specifically ofthe web 2.0 in supporting knowledge management (KM) processes. A literature review analyses how theweb 2.0 transforms the implementation of KM by supporting conversational and collaborative KM pro-cesses that in turn divert KM from a technology-centric to a people-centric approach. The discussion alsoreveals how different ways of exploiting web 2.0 reflect different levels of technology supported KM prac-tices. The study also investigated the type and the level of web 2.0 exploitation for KM purposes in theGreek tourism industry by collecting empirical data from tourism professionals. The data was analysedby performing an utilisation–importance analysis that compared data measuring the actual utilisationof web 2.0 with the perceived utilisation importance of web 2.0 for KM purposes. The analysis identifiedseveral gaps and opportunities in relation to web 2.0 exploitation for KM purposes. The paper concludesby providing practical and theoretical implications for enhancing the exploitation of web 2.0 for KMpurposes.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, knowledge is widely recognised as one of the mostcrucial competitive assets that substantially supports and fostersan enterprise’s adaptation, survival and outstanding performance(Bohn, 1994; Boisot, 1998; Mertins, Heisig, & Vorbeck, 2000; O’Dell& Grayson, 1998; Palacios & Garrigos, 2006). This is because bybeing mainly tacit (intangible) and embedded in organisationalstructures and cultures, knowledge cannot be easily copied andsubstituted and so, it enables firms to create business value in aunique, inimitable and non-transferable way. Indeed, researchhas revealed the performance impacts of KM on various businessprocesses and functions, such as (Boisot, 1998; Mertins et al.,2000; Ruhanen & Cooper, 2003; Sigala, 2011, 2012; Sigala & Chalk-iti, 2007): building and maintaining good quality customer rela-tions and so, enhancing customer lifetime value; improvingsupply chain management by disseminating and sharing informa-tion for increasing coordination and collaboration; and enhancingorganisational learning and continuous improvement. As informa-tion is the lifeblood of tourism, tourism organisations are not ex-cluded from this knowledge revolution (Poon, 1993; Sigala &Chalkiti, 2007). Actually, knowledge management (KM) is recogni-sed as a competitive and survival necessity for tourism firms (Coo-

per, 2006; Hallin & Marnburg, 2008) that can significantlycontribute to their performance (e.g. Yang & Wan, 2004).

However, previous studies investigating KM in tourism haveplaced an increased importance on intra-firm KM overlooking theneed to also engage in knowledge creation and exchanges withstakeholders beyond the firm’s borders (Bouncken, 2002). In tour-ism, knowledge sharing at an interfirm level (between andamongst firms’ external networks) are also highly important dueto the complexity of the tourism product (i.e. an amalgam of manydifferent services) that creates increased interdependenciesamongst many stakeholders (e.g. regulatory bodies) and amongsttourism firms (Cooper, 2006). Tourism is also a dynamically chang-ing and highly vulnerable industry that is continuously influencedby numerous environmental factors. Because of that, tourism firmsneed to continually collect, share and process a huge amount ofinformation for keeping abreast with any changes, addressing po-tential and real risks as well as becoming proactive to tourists’ de-mands and changes. Moreover, in a highly interconnected anddynamic world, technology and specifically, web 2.0 advances em-power tourism firms to cultivate, expand and enhance their knowl-edge sharing practices with their customers, suppliers, variouspartners and other stakeholders (Chalkiti & Sigala, 2008). Indeed,Young (2008) predicted that by 2013 social networking will be adecent substitute for KM applications. Nowadays, KM is evolvingto a new phase that places collective intelligence at its core andpromotes its use by accelerating its distribution. However,although tourism research has emphasised and explored the ways

indus-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.032

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh


2 M. Sigala, K. Chalkiti / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

in which the collective intelligence of web 2.0 can be used for Cus-tomer Relationship Management, new service development, mar-keting and reputation management strategies (e.g. O’Connor,2010; Pan, MacLaurin, & Crott, 2007; Sigala, 2011, 2012), there isa lack of research investigating whether and how tourism firmscan exploit web 2.0 for enriching and expanding their KM practicesspecifically beyond the organisational borders of their firms.

In this vein, this paper aims: (a) to analyse how the web 2.0 en-hances and transforms KM practices; (b) to investigate the level ofweb 2.0 exploitation for KM in the Greek tourism industry; and (c)to identify any gaps and opportunities in web 2.0 exploitation forKM by conducting an utilisation–importance analysis that com-pares the actual utilisation levels of web 2.0 with the perceivedimportance of web 2.0 utilisation for KM purposes. To achieve that,a literature review is conducted that first identifies the KM pro-cesses and then, it debates the role and the limitations of informa-tion and communication technologies (ICT) for supporting theseKM processes. The literature review continues by debating thetransformative power of web 2.0, as it migrates the implementa-tion of KM from a technology-centric to a people-centric approach.This is because the web 2.0 supports conversational and collabora-tive KM processes that overcome the conventional ICT-driven ap-proaches to KM. Overall, the literature review shows that thedifferent types of ICT exploitation reflect different levels of tech-nology-supported KM practices. In this vein, the study investigatedthe technology-supported KM practices in the Greek tourismindustry by conducting a survey measuring the ways in whichGreek tourism professionals exploit the web 2.0 for KM. To achievethat, a questionnaire was designed in order to collect data relatedto: the type and level of web 2.0 use by Greek tourism profession-als for supporting their KM processes; and the professional’s per-ceptions regarding the importance of web 2.0 exploitation forconducting these KM activities. Findings reveal interesting infor-mation about the level of web 2.0 exploitation for KM purposesin the Greek tourism industry. In addition, an utilisation–impor-tance analysis was conducted for identifying potential gaps andopportunities in web 2.0 exploitation for KM. The paper concludesby providing several implications for advancing future researchand addressing the industry’s challenges related to web 2.0 exploi-tation for KM.

2. Knowledge management processes

Knowledge management (KM) is a structured approach foraddressing the core processes of creating, codifying, using, measur-ing and retaining knowledge, as well as leveraging knowledge forcompeting in turbulent business markets (Rowley, 2000; Tobin,1998). Knowledge is generally categorised into explicit knowledge,that can be easily encoded, stored and transmitted (von Krogh,1998), and tacit knowledge, that is normally developed from actionand experience, and it is shared through highly interactive commu-nication (Zack, 1999). Knowledge is created through an intertwin-ing of the various forms of knowledge (tacit, explicit, individualand collective) expressed by a knowledge spiral (Nonaka, Toyama,& Nagata, 2000) that reflects an iterative conversation from tacit toexplicit knowledge through four modes: socialisation, externalisa-tion, combination and internalisation.

The literature does not provide any standard and holistic KMframework (Jennex, 2005; Ponis, Vagenas, & Koronis, 2009) incor-porating the processes responsible for knowledge creation. How-ever, the numerous and fragmented KM frameworks that existcomprise the following five generic KM processes: the acquisition,generation and creation, codification, storing, sharing, transfer andutilisation of knowledge. Many authors (e.g. Davenport & Prusak,1998; von Krogh, 1998) place a great emphasis on the knowledge

Please cite this article in press as: Sigala, M., & Chalkiti, K. Investigating the expltry: An utilisation–importance analysis. Computers in Human Behavior (2013),

creation processes that can create and accumulate intellectual cap-ital. This is because knowledge creation can mobilise and refreshthe KM spiral processes with additional and updated knowledge,while the accumulated knowledge enhances the absorptive capac-ity of people that in turn empowers them to better assimilate andproduce further knowledge. Equally, many researchers have ar-gued that knowledge sharing processes are also an essential partof effective KM (Bock & Kim, 2002; Markus, 2001; Wasko & Faraj,2005), because knowledge sharing lies at the core of continuousimprovement processes, and it is quintessential in terms of trans-forming an individual’s process improvements into actual learning.In this vein, knowledge sharing is also a very essential componentof knowledge creation activities (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).Knowledge sharing is the process by which an individual impartshis or her expertise, insight or understanding to another individual,so, that the recipient may potentially acquire and use the knowl-edge to perform his or her task(s) in a better way. As knowledgesharing involves knowledge exchange activities amongst individu-als, groups and communities of practices (Wasko & Faraj, 2005),the social networking affordances of web 2.0 can offer numerousopportunities to enrich and transform KM.

3. The role of ICT in supporting KM processes: the levels,benefits and limitations of ICT exploitation for KM

ICT are widely recognised as a crucial factor that can boostknowledge creation processes by mobilising and convertingknowledge (Kankannalli et al., 2005; Rhodes, Hung, Lok, Lien, &Wu, 2008; Robert, 2009; Yang & Wu, 2008). Traditionally, ICT areviewed as a collection of technological capabilities and tools (e.g.e-mail, intranets, databases, forums) that capture, store and shareknowledge (Grover & Davenport, 2001) in order to enable firmsto manage, retrieve, disseminate and process information (Swan,Newell, & Robertson, 2000). Nowadays, the internet representsthe most successful open information distribution mechanism en-abling people to network for sharing, debating, (co)-creatingknowledge and learning from each other (Chalkiti & Sigala, 2008;Karger & Quan, 2005; Wagner & Bolloju, 2005).

Several authors have analysed the role of ICT in facilitating allthe previously identified KM processes. For example, based on aninformation systems (IS) approach, Jackson (2000) defined KM tohave functions that facilitate and enhance the collection, organisa-tion, refining, analysis, and dissemination of all forms of knowl-edge. Zack (1999) described the ICT-driven KM as a processaiming to create and disseminate knowledge within firms, whichincludes activities such as knowledge retrieval, refinement, index-ing, distribution, and representation. Rosenberg (2001) proposed aKM pyramid model that includes three layers of ICT-driven KMprocesses. The lowest level represents technology enabled docu-ment management supporting information storage and distribu-tion. The second layer represents KM processes for informationcreation, sharing, and management, where people actually storeinformation in the ICT, create new content, and enrich knowledgedatabases for further online retrievals. The third layer refers to theentrepreneurial wisdom, which expresses the affordances of ICT toempower people to create organisational know-how. Jackson(2000) supported Zack’s (1999) arguments that ICT can enablehigher order KM and creation processes, by arguing that ICT enablemultidimensional KM processes that create knowledge value thatis not the same thing as data or information. Zack’s (1999) KM pyr-amid model is also important, because it enables firms to identifyand measure their level of ICT exploitation for supporting andenhancing their KM processes.

The increasing importance of ICT for implementing KM is attrib-uted to the business need to make KM more independent from hu-

oitation of web 2.0 for knowledge management in the Greek tourism indus-http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.032


M. Sigala, K. Chalkiti / Computers in Human Behavior xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

man resources and to protect organisational knowledge from fac-tors such as, staff turnover, power challenges affecting knowledgesharing, and knowledge hoarding (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003;Walsham, 2001). However, despite the great theoretical emphasison the ICT capabilities to support KM, the impact of ICT on KM isquestionable (Thomas, 2005), while some studies have also shownthe inability of ICT to successfully support KM processes (Butler,2003; Schultze & Boland, 2000). Reasons contributing to the failureof ICT’s to support KM processes refer to issues related to (Sigala &Chalkiti, 2007): the limited ICT’s capabilities and functionalities tosupport KM processes; and the mediating effect of environmentalfactors on the path relations between ICT exploitation, KM imple-mentation and firm performance. These factors may include: thedisregard of the social and cultural aspects of knowledge (e.g.power); the unstable and dynamic nature of the contemporaryworkforce caused by many factors casualising the labour forcesuch as, the high staff turnover, labour mobility and flexible labourstrategies (Chalkiti & Sigala, 2010); and the epistemological de-bates concerning the tacit nature of knowledge versus the conven-tional approach of the IS literature to treat knowledge solely as acommodity.

Debates about the impact of ICT on KM also exist based on epis-temological grounds. Some researchers believe that knowledge isan object that can be stored and shared because of its explicit nat-ure (Nonaka, 1994), while others argue that knowledge is alwaystacit (Polanyi, 1966) and consequently it cannot be captured viaICT. Depending on the view, the role and the importance of ICT dif-fer. Researchers in favour of the tacit and explicit dichotomy of thenature of knowledge claim that ICT are excellent ways of capturing,storing and transferring knowledge. This represents the conven-tional approach of ICT-driven KM (Swan & Scarbrough, 2001; Swanet al., 2000) that treats knowledge as a commodity and adopts aninformation processing approach to KM (Roos & von Krogh,1996), because it considers knowledge and information as synony-mous (Terrett, 1998) and learning as an individual rather than agroup activity (Currie and Kerrin, 2004). However, according to thisapproach, an important limitation of ICT to support KM focuses onthe ICT’s ability to capture and process only data and information,and not knowledge (Butler, 2003; McGee & Prusak, 1993). Conse-quently, ICT are unable to support cognitive and decision-makingprocesses (Boland et al., 1994), which in turn corroborate the ICT’snarrow impact on the construction of knowledge. Indeed, ICT con-sider the construction of knowledge as a functionalist activity anddisregard ‘the socially constructed, distributed, and embedded natureof knowledge and the process by which it changes’ (Pentland, 1995, p.2). This is a major ICT limitation as the social dimension is instru-mental for the whole knowledge creation process (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995).

On the other hand, researchers advocating the solely tacit nat-ure of knowledge argue that ICT are unsuccessful, because they dis-regard the socio-cultural context of knowledge (Leonard &Sensiper, 1998; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001). So, although ICT ap-pear to support the externalisation and recording of explicitknowledge, ICT disregard the tacit components of knowledge andtheir pivotal role on knowledge construction (Walsham, 2001).This is because ICT are great facilitators of data and informationsharing, but they can never substitute for the rich interactivity,communication and learning that are inherent in dialogue. Indeed,knowledge is primarily perceived as a ‘‘function and consequence ofthe meeting and the interaction of minds’’ (Fahey & Prusak, 1998, p.273). Hence, as ICT cannot entirely substitute the social cues inface-to-face interactions, many are against the overreliance onICT to potentially replace human interaction activities (Connellyand Kelloway, 2003). Moreover, as it is found that human resourcesare critical in supporting KM processes and that knowledge cannotbe separated from its socio-cultural context (Brown & Duguid,

Please cite this article in press as: Sigala, M., & Chalkiti, K. Investigating the explotry: An utilisation–importance analysis. Computers in Human Behavior (2013),

1991), ICT can only offer ways to support employees’ actions (Edv-insson, 2000; Hull, 2000; Scarbrough, 2003). Nevertheless,although ICT cannot be the panacea to knowledge sharing prob-lems, it is recognised that ICT can significantly complement theother factors enabling knowledge sharing.

Overall, it can be concluded that ICT have been limited in sup-porting KM processes, because ICT applications have traditionallydiscounted the human-centred view of knowledge, which high-lights the important tacit dimension and the social co-constructionof knowledge through people’s interactions. Consequently, ICTexploitation that dis-regards the socio-cultural aspects of knowl-edge is advocated to have a minimal effect on supporting higher le-vel KM processes (McDermott, 1999; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998).

4. Web 2.0 supporting a conversational and collaborative KM:KM 2.0

The web 2.0 appears to address many of the abovementionedlimitations of the conventional ICT-driven KM, as the variousweb 2.0 tools do consider the human and socio-cultural aspectsof knowledge. By changing the way people search, share and createknowledge, the web 2.0 advances have enabled the technology-supported KM practices to migrate from a technology-centricapplication, that highlights the information processing and centra-lised aspects of ICT, to a people-centric KM approach, that en-hances and emphasises the conversational and collaborative-based KM processes. Consequently, research talks about KM 2.0(McKinsey, 2007) that is characterised by the need to discoverand participate in social networks and communities of knowledgethat enable individuals to acquire, co-create and share collectiveintelligence.

The web 2.0 empowers individuals to take an active role inknowledge co-construction by contributing and debating contentwith others through a conversational and collaborative approach(Jonassen, 2000). For example, discussion forums, wikis, and web-logs, are conversational technologies enabling knowledge creationand sharing through (Wagner & Bolloju, 2005): discussions; ‘ques-tions and answers’ process (discussion forums); collaborative edit-ing (wikis); and/or storytelling (weblogs). Hence, the web 2.0expands the cognitive and knowledge creation abilities of an indi-vidual by enabling him/her to process knowledge beyond his/herown inner mental processes and to consider the contextual and so-cial aspects of this knowledge.

Research has also shown that the web 2.0 enhances not only thefunctional (information processing), but also the socio-affective as-pects of KM activities (Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Seung-Jee, 2007; Ro-vai, 2002). For example, wikis and blogs allow collaboration andrelationship building amongst individuals (Jonassen, 2000), whiletagging enables the formation of social networks (Ullrich, Heng,Liping, & Ruimin, 2008). Several authors have also analysed howthe various web 2.0 tools enable people to (co)-create and shareknowledge. For example, Yu, Lu, and Liu (2010) discussed howblogs enhance knowledge sharing amongst professionals, becauseblogs support both the codification of knowledge (e.g. through tagsand the profiling information of the knowledge creators) and theinterpersonal communication and conversations. Others (e.g. Bat-eman, Brooks, McCalla, & Brusilovsky, 2007; Hayman, 2007; Sel-dow, 2006; Ullrich et al., 2008) have analysed how (social)tagging can support knowledge creation and dissemination bylinking meanings and concepts as well as by enabling processessuch as information filtering, categorisation, recalling and negotia-tion. Sigala (2013) demonstrated how geovisualisation tools usingweb map services can help groups to exchange and co-createknowledge for enhancing their collaborative decision-making andlearning processes. Studies have also shown how web 2.0 can sup-

itation of web 2.0 for knowledge management in the Greek tourism indus-http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.032



port all the four circles of knowledge conversion processes basedon the Nonaka’s spiral model (e.g. Wagner & Bolloju, 2005). Table 1provides several examples on how individuals can use the web 2.0for supporting their knowledge conversion circles: in short, theconversational and collaborative KM can yield benefits at numer-ous stages of the KM processes beginning with knowledge creationand ending with knowledge use and refinement (Wagner & Bolloju,2005).

Jonassen (2000) identified the following processes summarisingthe ways in which individuals can use the web 2.0 for supportingall types of KM processes and co-constructing knowledge:

� Use of web 2.0 as a knowledge repository (e.g. by uploadingpublic resources in youtube.com, blogs) for enabling informa-tion transmission.� Pseudo-collaboration with others that happens when people

use resources suggested by the web 2.0 tools and resulting fromthe analysis of user-generated-content (e.g. others’ preferredlinks, ‘likes’ denoting content evaluation).� Selecting, collecting and sharing information with others

through RSS, e-mail alerts etc.� Selecting and sharing information within social networks of

common interests (e.g. profile updating in facebook).� Decision- and judgment-making by evaluating online resources

(e.g. voting, liking resources in facebook).� Categorisation and generation of resources through (personal or

public) tagging (e.g. bookmark sharing and social/collaborativesearching). This higher order cognitive process contributes tothe construction of meta-knowledge which can be later sharedand compared with others’ knowledge (e.g. learning and creat-ing knowledge from others’ judgments/categorisations).� Collaborative editing of knowledge (e.g. wikis) which also cre-

ates cognitive and social relations with others.� Negotiation of meanings (which is an essential element of the

collaborative construction of knowledge) through online con-versations [e.g. in (micro)-blogs] that enable information com-prehension, feedback, reflection and contributions.

In sum, these studies have shown how the mass collaboration andcommunication functionalities of the web 2.0 can support collabo-rative, participatory and conversational KM processes. Hence, theRosenberg’s (2001) KM pyramid that was previously used to eval-uate the impact of ICT on KM processes cannot effectively explainand measure the exploitation of the web 2.0 for KM purposes,because it only considers the information processing capabilitiesof ICT. In order to consider the influence of the affordances ofweb 2.0 on KM processes, the three layers of the KM pyramid haveto be expanded and adapted as follows: the lowest levels of web2.0 exploitation represent the use of the technological tools forsearching, storing, categorising and linking information; higher

Table 1Knowledge conversion circles enabled by web 2.0. Source: adapted from Nonaka et al. (20

From To

Tacit knowledge

Tacit Knowledge Socialisation� Participate in online discussions/forums and social netwo� Update profile and distribute information in social netwo

Explicit knowledge Internationalisation� Sense-making and learning-by-doing processes(e.g. participate in simulations on virtual words)� Passive learning by reading others’ comments and online� Keeping notes of what it was read� Writing reflections of reading/discussions


levels of web 2.0 exploitation represent the use of technology toolsfor identifying and participating in social networks with the aim todevelop and maintain interpersonal relations that can in turn sup-port KM processes referring to the sharing, discussion and negoti-ation of information with others; while the highest level refers toweb 2.0 exploitation aiming to support knowledge (co)-creationprocesses through the synthesising (i.e. comparing and contrast-ing) and discussion of information.

Overall, KM processes supported by web 2.0 instil a participa-tory, a more democratic and collaborative approach to KM thatsupports a dynamic, conversational and flexible creation and re-newal of knowledge (Lee and Lam, 2007). Hence, the exploitationof the web 2.0 for KM purposes can overcome the common pitfallsof the ICT-driven KM, i.e. knowledge hoarding and saturation, andknowledge processing determined only by technology engineers(McDermott, 1999). Moreover, by being a very useful medium forknowledge exchange, extraction and co-creation (Nishida, 2002),the conversations taking place in web 2.0 can address the socialdimension of the KM processes (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) thathas been ignored by the conventional ICT-driven KM.

5. Research methodology

5.1. Research aims

The study had three major aims: (a) to investigate the role andthe use of web 2.0 for supporting, enhancing and transforming KM;(b) to investigate the level of web 2.0 exploitation for KM purposesin the Greek tourism industry; and (c) to identify gaps and oppor-tunities in web 2.0 exploitation for KM purposes by conducting anutilisation–importance analysis that compares the actual utilisa-tion levels with the perceived importance of web 2.0 exploitationfor KM. A literature review has shown that the web 2.0 includesa variety of collaboration tools that can be used for supportingand enriching KM in varied ways. Moreover, as it was also shownthat the different types of web 2.0 utilisation represent differentlevels of KM processes, the study investigated the level of web2.0 exploitation in the Greek tourism industry by: (a) identifyingthe use of the various web 2.0 tools; and (b) measuring the useof each web 2.0 tool for supporting different level of KM processes.In addition, an utilisation–importance analysis is conducted foridentifying the fit between the type of KM use of each web 2.0 tooland the type of the KM processes that the tool can better support.After reviewing the related literature, a research instrument wasdesigned for collecting information about the different ways inwhich tourism professionals can use the various web 2.0 toolsfor KM. The questionnaire was pre-tested by two academics andthree professionals for checking its content reliability and usabil-ity. Apart from some minor changes that had to be done in thewriting style and the information presentation for making the

00).

Explicit knowledge

Externalisationrks � Users placing tags to their bookmarks, to their documentsrks � Users posting comments to online discussions

Combination� Users building a collective knowledge

discussions � Users uploading information on a social network or a wiki




questionnaire easier to understand and complete, no other changeswere found to be required.

5.2. Measures

The research instrument included three sections collectinginformation about: (1) the respondents’ demographic and workingprofile as well as their experience with the internet; (2) the inte-gration of the web 2.0 in the respondents’ KM profile by investigat-ing the level and the reasons of using web 2.0 as a preferred sourcefor collecting, sharing and discussing different types of professionalinformation; and (3) the respondents’ use and perceived impor-tance of use of six web 2.0 tools (namely, social networks, blogs,microblogs, wikis, content sharing network, and text/audio and/or videoconferencing sharing tool) for supporting different levelsof KM processes.

Questions of the second section required respondents to ranktheir preferences of using various traditional/offline and onlinesources for collecting, sharing and discussing different types ofprofessional information (e.g. competitors’, suppliers’ customers’information). For investigating the reasons of web 2.0 exploitationfor KM, respondents had to report their level of agreement (7 scaleLikert scale, 1 totally agree, 7 totally disagree) regarding their focuson using web 2.0 for collecting and sharing knowledge for the fol-lowing six items (adapted from Yu et al., 2010): (a) task completion(2 items); (b) professional career (2 items); and (c) peer pressure (2items). According to the KM pyramid (Rosenberg, 2001), ten itemswere also used for assessing the level of web 2.0 exploitation forconducting different types of KM activities: four items reflectedKM activities relating to the first level of KM, i.e. the use of web2.0 for searching, storing and reading information for personal orpublic use; four items reflected KM activities relating to the useof web 2.0 for networking, sharing and discussing information withothers; and two items reflected KM activities relating to the high-est level of KM referring to the exploitation of web 2.0 for creatingand generating new knowledge.

As regards to the specific use of the six tools of web 2.0 for KMpurposes, the respondents were asked to record: (a) their use ofeach one of these tools (yes/no answer); (b) the frequency (7 likertscale, 1 = very rarely, 7 = very often) of their use of each web 2.0tool for conducting each of the ten KM activities; and (c) their per-ceived importance (7 likert scale, 1 = not important at all, 7 = veryimportant) of using each web 2.0 tool for conducting each KMactivity. Thus, for every of the six web 2.0 tools, each KM activityhad received two scores: one score indicating the respondents’ per-ceived importance of using the specific web 2.0 tool for conductingthe KM activity; and another score indicating the respondents’ fre-quency of use of the specific web 2.0 tool for conducting the KMactivity.

5.3. Data analysis

To identify opportunities and gaps in web 2.0 exploitation forKM, an utilisation - importance analysis was performed by adapt-ing the importance-performance analysis matrix. The latter wasinitially introduced by Martilla and James (1977) for identifyingattributes of products or services with respect to their importanceto customer and their relative performance. Later, the matrix wasmodified by others (Easingwood & Arnott, 1991; Slack, 1994) fordetermining several strategic areas in firms’ operations based onthe managers’ perceptions rather than the customer perceptions.An importance-performance matrix compares the perceptualimportance of different attributes against their contribution tobusiness performance. In a similar vein, an utilisation–importanceanalysis matrix was developed for comparing the utilisation levelof a web 2.0 tool for conducting a KM activity against the impor-


tance of using this web 2.0 tool for conducting the KM activity.Consequently, the utilisation–importance matrix can provide in-sights on the fit between the usage of web 2.0 and the importanceof the usage or non-usage of the web 2.0 tool for conducting theKM activity. By evaluating the fit of the various web 2.0 tools forconducting the ten KM activities, it is also possible to identifyopportunities and gaps regarding the exploitation of web 2.0 toolsfor KM activities. Understanding and measuring this fit is alsoimportant in developing a road map for web 2.0 exploitation, asfirms need to place priorities among which web 2.0 tools to usefor conducting the various KM activities. Overall, the utilisation–importance matrix can answer the following two major questions:what is the utilisation level of web 2.0 tools by tourism profession-als for conducting the various KM activities; and how does thisweb 2.0 utilisation fits with the importance of using web 2.0 forperforming the KM activities. In other words, the matrix providesanswers to the following: which are the web 2.0 tools that are un-der- or over– used in relation to their importance; and which KMactivities are under- or over- performed by the use of the variousweb 2.0 tools.

5.4. Data collection methods and sampling

A large-scale national web-based survey was undertaken be-tween November 2010–April 2011 by distributing the question-naire within the Greek tourism industry through various means:(a) publication of press releases and a banner on a major tourismportal promoting the study and motivating tourism professionalsto fill in the online questionnaire; the URL of the portal iswww.traveldailynews.gr and it was selected, as it represents themost widely known and the largest professional portal in the Greektourism industry featuring more than 5000 thousands daily news-letter subscribers and numerous online daily website visitors; (b)publication of many other press releases for promoting the onlinesurvey through other online and offline media (e.g. Melody radiostation, Greek Travel Pages, www.GTP.gr); and (c) an e-mail cam-paign targeting the 324 members of the eBusiness Forum groupwho specialises in tourism (this network is part of the Greek Net-working and Research, www.grnet.gr); the latter group was usedbecause it includes tourism professionals that are interested intourism and technology issues and so, they were more appropriateand likely to respond to the survey.

One hundred and thirty-six responses were received until the5th of April 2011. Forty-two were incomplete and so, were ex-cluded from analysis. The findings from the ninety-four usable re-sponses are presented below.

6. Analysis and discussion of the findings

6.1. Respondents’ profile

The profile of the 94 respondents reflects a representativesample of the professionals working in the various sectors ofthe Greek tourism industry (Table 2). Respondents representboth young and matured professionals (65% were until 40 yearsold), have received tertiary education (88%) and reflect a goodgender representation (53% were male). The majority of therespondents worked for hotels (35%), travel agencies (14%) andpublic tourism organisations (10%), while the remaining 41%were employed in several other sectors such as, the MICE (Meet-ings, Incentives, Conferences, Exhibition), the transport, cultural,educational as well as other sectors. Respondents also representa good balance amongst firm owners and managers (41%) andemployees (59%) working in both small and large businesses,since 54% work for firms having no more than 20 employees,


http://www.traveldailynews.gr

http://www.GTP.gr

http://www.grnet.gr


Table 2Respondents’ profile.

Number of responses(N = 94)

% ofResponses

What is your age group?19–30 years 18 1931–40 years 43 4641–50 years 20 2151–60 years 11 12>60 years 2 2Total 94 100

What is your highest education achievement?High-school 5 5Vocational education 6 6Undergraduate degree 35 37Postgraduate degree 42 45PhD 6 6Total 94 100

How many years have you worked in tourism?<5 years 25 276–10 years 23 2411–20 years 28 3021–30 years 11 12>30 years 7 7Total 94 100

What is your gender?Male 50 53Female 44 47Total 94 100

Years of using the Internet1–3 years 2 23–6 years 14 15>6 years 78 83Total 94 100

Type of professional activityFirm owner and manager 37 41Employee 55 59Total 94 100

In which tourism sector do you work?Hotel 33 35Restaurant 4 4Travel agency 13 14MICE 4 4Transport 4 4Cultural organisations, leisure 4 4Destination management

organisation9 10

Public tourism organisation 15 16Other (consultants) 3 3Other (education) 5 5Total 94 100

What is the size of the business you work for?1–10 Employees 44 4711–20 Employees 7 721–50 Employees 13 14>50 Employees 30 32Total 94 100

Where is your work/business located?Peninsular (urban) 46 49Peninsular (rural) 15 16Insular (urban) 16 17Insular (rural) 17 18Total 94 100

In which department do you work?Marketing 25 27Operations 30 32Finance 8 8.5Human resources 5 5.3General manager 19 20Other (international relations) 2 2.1Other (education) 5 5.3Total 94 100



and 46% work for firms with more than 21 employees. Therespondents work mainly in operations and marketing positions(59%), while a significant part of the respondents (20%) are gen-eral managers. The respondents also represent professionals witha varied experience in the tourism industry, as their workingexperience is almost equally distributed amongst all categoriesfrom 1 to more than 30 years. Although the majority of therespondents (49%) are located in peninsular urban locations,the remaining respondents represent workers almost equally lo-cated in other geographical areas. Finally, the respondents’ use ofthe internet is quite good (83% are using the internet for morethan six years).

6.2. The integration of web 2.0 in respondents’ KM profile

6.2.1. Type and frequency of web 2.0 useFindings demonstrating the adoption of the various web 2.0

tools by the respondents (Table 3) reveal that wikis, personalblogs and microblogs are the least used tools, while social net-works and other users’ blogs represent the most highly usedweb 2.0 tools. Data reporting the frequency and purpose of useof web 2.0 are also important, since they reflect a high frequencyof use and a high penetration rate of web 2.0 in respondents’personal and professional daily life (Table 4). Specifically, nearlyall respondents use the web 2.0 for personal, social and profes-sional purposes: the use of web 2.0 for social purposes had thelead (99% respondents), the use for personal purposes followed(98% respondents), while fewer respondents (96%) used theweb 2.0 for professional purposes. Hence, it is evident that al-most all respondents are already aware and they are exploitingthe benefits of web 2.0 not only for social and personal pur-poses, but also for professional purposes. Findings also illustratethat web 2.0 has become part of the respondents’ daily agenda,since more than half of the respondents use the web 2.0 everyday or once a week. The latter is true for all three purposes ofweb 2.0 usage, although findings reveal that the frequency ofweb 2.0 use for social purposes is the highest, followed byweb 2.0 usage for personal reasons and then, for professionalpurposes. This confirms previous studies (e.g. Parra-Lopez, Bulc-hand-Gidumal, Gutiererez-Tano, & Diaz-Amas, 2011) showingthat the social pressures and the need to communicate and findfriends are the primary reasons motivating people to start usingthe web 2.0. In addition, the findings also indicate that the web2.0 exploitation for professional reasons follows only after peo-ple have used web 2.0 for social purposes and have becomefamiliarised with the web 2.0 functionality and benefits. How-ever, future studies are required to confirm this.

Table 3Adoption and use of web 2.0 tools.

N %

Use of social networks [Number of social networks that you area member 4.6 = the average number of social networks thatusers reported to be a members]

81 86

Do you have a personal blog? 26 28Do you read the blogs of other users? 58 62Are you a member of a microblog, e.g. twitter? 31 33Do you use a collaborative authoring tool? e.g. wiki 16 17Do you use a content sharing network (e.g. youtube.com,

flckr.com)?86 91

Do you use any collaborative tagging website (e.g. delicious) 16 17Do you use any text, audio, videoconferencing sharing tool? e.g.

skype, slideshare.com, scrib.com65 69



Table 4Respondents’ purpose and frequency of web 2.0 use.

Do you use web 2.0 for: Social purposes (e.g. contactfriends)

Personal purposes (e.g.entertainment, education)

Professional purposes (e.g.search and discuss professionalinformation)

N % ofRespondents

N % ofRespondents

N % ofRespondents

93 99% 92 98% 90 96%How frequently and for what reason do you use at least onesocial media?

Number ofresponses

% (N = 70) Number ofresponses

% (N = 64) Number ofresponses

% (N = 72)

Every day 42 60 31 48 33 46Once a week 7 10 12 19 9 132–3 Times a week 13 19 10 16 10 142–3 Times a month 4 5 3 5 9 13Rarely 3 4 7 11 8 11Never 1 1 1 2 3 4

70 100 64 100 72 100


6.3. Preferred sources for collecting, sharing and discussingprofessional information

Data about the respondents’ preferred sources for searching,sharing and discussing professional information show that theinternet tools have significantly penetrated their KM activities (Ta-ble 5). Specifically, the internet is found as the top preferred sourcefor information collection, since the greatest percentages ofrespondents ranked the internet as the first, second and third mostpreferred source for collecting professional information. ‘‘Ask a col-league at work’’ and ‘‘read the professional printed media’’ are foundas the next preferred sources for collecting professional informa-tion. On the other hand, sources that relate to the use of externalnetworks including people beyond the firm’s borders, i.e. ‘‘atten-dance at a professional conference/workshop/seminar’’, ‘‘ask a col-league working somewhere else’’ and ‘‘ask a social network on theInternet’’ are found to be used as a preferred information sourceby a significant but much lower percentage of respondents. Inother words, the respondents have reported a higher preferenceto information sources representing a ‘‘push or publishing mecha-nism’’ of information in relation to sources that also enable an‘‘information pull’’ mechanism and ‘‘interaction’’ amongst usersand networks. It is also surprising that although a great majorityof respondents claimed a high preference to ‘‘ask a colleague at

Table 5Preferred sources for collecting, disseminating and discussing professional information.

How do you prefer to find professional information? (ranking of the 3 most preferred optSearch on the internetAsk a colleague at workRead the professional printed mass mediaAttend a professional conference - workshop – seminarAsk a colleague/friend working somewhere else e.g. in another businessAsk a social network on the Internet

How do you prefer to disseminate and discuss your professional information and experienTalk about it during face to face informal meetings with friends, colleagues and otheShare it with colleagues in company’s meetingsSend it on an e-mail to colleaguesShare it in professional meetings, gatherings etc.Share it on your social network on the internetPublish and share it in online mass mediaPost it on an online forumPost it on a personal blogPublish it in a printed mass mediaPost it on a wikiPost it on twitterPost it on a personal website


work’’, a significant much lower percentage of respondents pre-ferred to use the social networking tools and capabilities of theinternet for asking others and collecting information. Issues relatedto trust, social rapport, openness and familiarity that respondentsplace on the internet and on social network members may explainthis paradox about the limited use of social networks for informa-tion collection. However, further research is required to confirmthe former and to provide reliable insight about the respondents’preference to internal in relation to external information sources.

Regarding the preferred tools for sharing and discussing profes-sional information (Table 5), the respondents reported again amuch higher preference to the tools that involve a more personalinteraction with known colleagues within the firm. Analytically,personal informal and formal meetings with colleagues, and e-mailexchanges with colleagues were ranked as the first, second andthird most preferred ways for sharing and discussing professionalinformation. Substantially lower (but still significant) percentagesof respondents also reported a preference to share and discuss pro-fessional information by using various types of web 2.0 tools. Thepreference ranking of these web 2.0 tools demonstrates that socialnetworks are found at the top of the preferred social media, fol-lowed by the online mass media (which enable content sharingand discussion through plug-ins with facebook, linkedin, google+etc.), while forums and blogs are found as third and forth preferred

1st Preferred option 2nd Preferred option 3rd Preferred option

N % N % N %

ions)56 60 15 16 12 1316 17 10 11 11 12

8 8.5 22 23 20 215 5.3 12 13 18 192 2.1 11 12 12 132 2.1 11 12 7 7.4

ce? (ranking of the 3 most preferred options)r experts 67 71 10 11 1 11

6 6.4 19 20 26 288 8.5 22 23 8 8.5

0 8 8.5 11 126 6.4 15 1.6 6 6.41 1 2 2.1 6 6.41 1 2 2.1 7 7.41 1 2 2.1 4 4.21 1 1 1.7 6 6.3

1 1.7




tools. Tools such as wikis, twitter and personal websites receivedalmost zero preference for information sharing and discussion.The respondents’ preference to use the abovementioned web 2.0tools may be related to their high adoption and familiarity withthese tools in relation to tools such as wikis, twitter and mainte-nance of a personal website, that are less adopted and less pre-ferred information sharing tools (Table 3).

6.4. Respondents’ use of the web 2.0 for KM purposes: type, frequencyand motivation of web 2.0 use

Table 6 provides the findings regarding the specific KM activi-ties that the respondents conduct when using the web 2.0. A greatmajority of respondents (more than 80%) used the web 2.0 for alltypes of KM activities. However, findings reveal that the most pop-ular activity in web 2.0 (adopted by 96% web 2.0 users) is to ‘‘createand update my personal profile and status’’, which was closely fol-lowed by: ‘‘read information’’ (93%); ‘‘upload and store informationonline for personal use’’ (92%) and ‘‘Search for professional social net-works and become a member’’ (91%). This finding demonstrates thatthe most important activity (and so, reason) for using web 2.0 forprofessional purposes is for finding and joining social networksin order to search, read and store information for personal use. Thishighlights the major benefit of web 2.0 as an important and heavilyused source of professional knowledge. However, the findings alsodemonstrate the lower web 2.0 usage for conducting more ad-vanced KM processes (such as, the sharing and discussing informa-tion, participate in online dialogues for generating new knowledge)in relation to the use of web 2.0 for conducting basic KM activities(such as, knowledge searching and reading). This is because fewerrespondents reported to use the web 2.0 for activities such as:‘‘search and collect information’’ (89%), ‘‘participate in electronic dis-cussions for creating and generating new information’’ (89%), ‘‘shareand discuss information’’ (88%), ‘‘upload and store information onlinefor public use’’ (87%), ‘‘identify experts for collecting and debatinginformation’’ (81%) and ‘‘compare and contrast information for creat-ing new knowledge’’ (80%). In other words, the majority of web 2.0users exploit the web 2.0 for supporting their internal KM pro-cesses by finding and storing information for later personal userather than for enhancing and facilitating their external KM pro-cesses by sharing, debating and collaborating with others, whichin turn can help them understand and create new knowledge. Thisis also confirmed by the findings showing the frequency of the web2.0 use for conducting each KM activity (Table 6). Indeed, the

Table 6Type and frequency of web 2.0 for KM activities.

Adoptionrate (%)

Frequencyof use

(Mean) SD

Read information 93% 6.1 0.93Search and collect information 89% 5.9 0.88Upload, and store information online for personal use 92% 3.9 1.17Upload, and store information online for public use 87% 4.2 1.09Create and update my personal profile and status 96% 3.8 1.23Share and discuss information 88% 5.8 1.05Search for professional networks and become a

member91% 3.9 1.12

Identify experts for collecting and debatinginformation

81% 3.6 1.07

Participate in online discussions for creating andgenerating new knowledge

89% 3.3 1.04

Compare and contrast information for creating newknowledge

80% 3.01 1.18

% = Percentage of web 2.0 users that reported to use web 2.0 for each KM activity.Mean: Frequency of use measured by a 7 point Likert Scale, 1 = very rarely, 7 very often.


respondents reported to use the web 2.0 more frequently for con-ducting KM activities that support basic and inner cognitive KMactivities (such as, search and read of information) rather thanfor conducting KM activities supporting external and higher cogni-tive KM processes.

In other words, according to the Bernoff and Li (2008) typologyof web 2.0 users, the Greek tourism professionals can be catego-rised as follows: the majority of them represent joiners of socialcommunities who are mainly interested in using the web 2.0 forsearching, storing and collecting information (collectors) for per-sonal use, while substantially, fewer respondents use social net-works for distributing (distributors), debating (critics) and (co)-creating (creators) new knowledge. Hence, the Greek tourism pro-fessionals can be characterised as ‘consumers’ and not ‘producers’of knowledge in web 2.0. This does not only reflect a current gapand weakness, but also a potential opportunity for further KMexploitation of the web 2.0. Indeed, the findings highlight thatthe Greek tourism professionals need to enrich their web 2.0exploitation by actively engaging in high level KM activities. Over-all, it is suggested that Greek tourism professionals should stopbeing solely passive collectors and consumers of online content.In contrast, they should become more active online contributorsby commenting, exchanging and creating knowledge in web 2.0platforms. By doing so, professionals would not only be more ableto understand and foresee market changes, but they would also beempowered to formulate and contribute through their own onlineinterventions to the development and diffusion of new fashionsand trends in the tourism industry.

As most respondents used web 2.0 mainly for information col-lection, it is also interesting to discuss the findings regarding thetype of information that respondents collect by using the web2.0 (Table 7). A great majority of web 2.0 users (more than 80%) ex-ploit the web 2.0 for identifying all types of professional informa-tion. However, the majority of the respondents use the web 2.0 forcollecting information about: the customers and tourism demand(91%); the environmental (91%) and legal factors (88%) of the tour-ism environment as well as the partners/collaborators (89%). Fewerweb 2.0 users exploit the web 2.0 for searching and learning aboutthe competitors (85%), the distributors (83%), operational issues(83%) and HRM (81%). The respondents’ preference to use theweb 2.0 for collecting these types of professional information isalso confirmed by the findings regarding the frequency of use ofthe web 2.0 for managing each type of information: i.e. the major-ity of the respondents use the web 2.0 more frequently for collect-ing information about customers, environmental factors andcollaborators than other types of information.

Thus, the Greek tourism professionals heavily rely on the web2.0 for supporting and enriching their environmental scanning.

Table 7Types of professional information collected by using web 2.0.

Information about % Mean SD

Competitors 85 3.2 0.96Customers and the tourism demand 91 6.3 0.82Distributors 83 3.3 0.95Business partners/collaborators 89 4.4 1.04Legal framework: regulations, governmental decisions –

policies regarding the tourism sector88 3.7 1.16

Factors of the environment (political, economic, cultural,physical etc.)

91 4.6 1.03

Human resource management (HRM) issues: e.g.training, recruitment, salaries

81 2.6 1.25

Business operational issues 83 4.1 1.14

% = Percentage of web 2.0 users that reported to use web 2.0 for managing each type ofinformation.7 Point Likert scale, 1 = very rarely, 7 = very often.



Table 8Motivations for using the web 2.0 for KM purposes.

Mean SD

I put a lot of effort into completing my work tasks 4.1 1.09Personal initiative to do well in my work-profession 4.4 1.11I never give up trying to perform at a higher level than others

in my work group2.9 1.14

I have to follow and become the leader of current trends 3.3 1.21My peers are doing so, so I have also to do it 3.8 1.02I attempt to develop a reputation as someone who is really

easy to work with3.7 1.03

7 Point Likert scale, 1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree.

Table 9Utilisation – importance matrix.

High importance (4–7) Missing opportunity/gap Effective useC D

Low importance (0–3) Indifference Wasting time andresources

A BLow utilisation (0–3) High utilisation (4–7)


This finding is not surprising when considering that the tourismindustry is the most volatile and vulnerable industry. The tourismsupply and demand are affected by many PESTEL (political, eco-nomic, societal, technological and legal) factors, and so, the profes-sionals need to continuously be informed and alerted about anychanges in order to better sense and understand the environmentaldata and easier predict potential changes. Indeed, the findings re-veal that the greatest majority of the respondents use the web2.0 for collecting information that is external to their firms (e.g.collaborators, environment, customers-demand). On the otherhand, significantly fewer respondents exploit the web 2.0 for man-aging information relating to internal business issues such as, HRMand operations. This represents a gap in web 2.0 exploitation, but itmay also reflect a lack of industry awareness about the affordabil-ity and the functionality of the web 2.0 to support internal KMpractices such as, organisational learning, internal communication,networking and knowledge exchange.

Table 8 summarises the findings about the reasons for whichrespondents reported to use the web 2.0 for KM purposes. Basedon the average scores of the items measuring the three major fac-tors that motivate the use of the web 2.0 (Yu et al., 2010), it can beconcluded that the respondents use the web 2.0 for KM because:first, they wish to perform their tasks well, i.e. high average scoresfor the items ‘‘Personal initiative to do well in my work-profession’’(4.4) and ‘‘I put a lot of effort into completing my work tasks’’ (4.1);secondly, because of peer pressures ‘‘My peers are doing so, so I havealso to do it’’ (3.8) and ‘‘I attempt to develop a reputation as someonewho is really easy to work with’’ (3.7); and lastly, because of profes-sional aspirations and prospects, i.e. ‘‘I never give up trying to per-form at a higher level than others in my work group’’ (2.9) and ‘‘Ihave to follow and become the leader of current trends’’ (3.3). Thisfinding is interesting because it shows that the use of the web2.0 for professional purposes is mainly driven by task related mo-tives and purposes, and not so much by peer pressures and/or rea-sons related to the management and promotion of one’s personalidentity, which is usually the motivation of web 2.0 exploitationfor social purposes (e.g. Parra-Lopez et al., 2011). This motivationexhibits a responsible online behaviour and internet exploitationby the Greek tourism professionals, which also ensures that therespondents try to make a productive and effective use of theirtime and efforts while using the web 2.0.

6.5. Web 2.0 exploitation for KM activities: utilisation–importanceanalyses for each web 2.0 tool

Utilisation–importance matrices were constructed for each ofthe six web 2.0 tools by recording responses ranging from 0 to 3as low utilisation or low importance and from 4 to 7 as high util-isation or high importance (Table 9). Consequently, four scenarioswere identified: (A) indifference: when a respondent makes low useof the web 2.0 tool for a KM activity and also perceives this use ofthe web 2.0 tool of low importance; (B) wasting time & resources:when a respondent makes high use of the web 2.0 tool for a KM


activity, but he/she perceives this use of the web 2.0 tool as oflow importance; (C) missing opportunity/gap: describes a respon-dent that makes low use of the web 2.0 tool for a KM activity,but perceives this use of the web 2.0 tool as highly important;and (D) effective use: when a respondent makes high use of theweb 2.0 tool for a KM activity and also perceives this use of theweb 2.0 tool as highly important.

The utilisation–importance matrices for the six web 2.0 toolsare given in Table 10. The exploitation of social networks (adoptedby 81 respondents) is found as follows. The social networks arehighly used and perceived as very important for conducting thefirst level of KM activities (i.e. ‘‘read information’’, ‘‘search and col-lect information’’, ‘‘upload and store information online for publicuse’’): this is because more than half of the social networks’ users(more than 55%) highly use them for performing these basic KMactivities apart from the activity ‘‘upload and store information on-line for personal use’’ for which the respondents’ utilisation effec-tiveness is questionable, as their answers spread in all fourscenarios. However, as the activity utilisation of 66% (32% + 34%)of respondents can be classified as scenario C and D (i.e. of highimportance), it can be concluded that the use of social networksfor uploading/storing information for personal use is also consid-ered of high importance. On the other hand, the findings reveal avery low utilisation level of social networks for conducting KMactivities relating to the second and third level of KM processes(more than 50% of respondents fall in the scenario A and C). More-over, as the greatest majority of respondents (i.e. more than 80%)reported that the use of social networks for conducting secondand third level KM activities is of high importance, this means thatthe great percentage of respondents (more than 48%) that reportedto make limited use of social networks for these KM activities rep-resent a major gap and missing opportunity regarding the KMexploitation effectiveness of social networks. Overall, althoughthe use of social networks shows a good utilisation effectivenessfor low level KM activities, there are a lot of missing opportunitiesof social networks’ exploitation, as the respondents are found tomake ineffective use of social networks for higher level KMactivities.

Blogs represent the second most highly penetrated web 2.0 tool,as 58 respondents reported to use them (Table 3). Concerning theblogs’ utilisation effectiveness for KM purposes, the findings revealthat the blogs are perceived as important for supporting all the KMactivities apart from two activities namely: ‘‘Create and update mypersonal profile and status’’ whereby more than 54% of respondentsclaimed not to use them and consider this use as of low importance(A); and ‘‘Search for professional networks and become a member’’,whereby 56% (38% + 18%) of respondents consider this type ofblog’s use of low importance and 38% use blogs for doing this activ-ity quite frequently (i.e. waste of resources, B). The findings also re-veal that there is a huge gap in the utilisation effectiveness of blogs,as more than 51% of respondents make a low use of blogs for sup-porting all other KM activities although they also consider theseusages as of high importance (i.e. missing opportunity, C). Themissed opportunities are found not only at third level KM activi-ties, but also in one first level KM activity referring to the use ofblogs for storing information for public use. This is not surprisingsince the previous findings (Table 5) revealed that very few respon-



Table 10Utilisation – importance matrix of the six web 2.0 tools for KM.

C D A BSOCIAL NETWORKSRead information 17% 67% 11% 5%Search and collect information 34% 55% 9% 2%Upload, and store information online for personal use 32% 34% 23% 11%Upload, and store information online for public use 12% 72% 12% 4%Create and update my personal profile and status 23% 65% 4% 8%Share and discuss information 51% 39% 4% 6%Search for professional networks and become a member 48% 28% 16% 8%Identify experts for collecting and debating information 52% 39% 5% 4%Participate in online discussions for creating & generating new knowledge 54% 36% 2% 8%Compare and contrast information for creating new knowledge 49% 31% 7% 13%BLOGSRead information 54% 34% 8% 4%Search and collect information 56% 31% 6% 7%Upload, and store information online for personal use 77% 5% 13% 5%Upload, and store information online for public use 74% 4% 17% 5%Create and update my personal profile and status 25% 9% 54% 12%Share and discuss information 51% 35% 8% 6%Search for professional networks and become a member 22% 22% 18% 38%Identify experts for collecting and debating information 56% 21% 16% 7%Participate in online discussions for creating & generating new knowledge 73% 12% 9% 6%Compare and contrast information for creating new knowledge 64% 11% 12% 13%MICROBLOGSRead information 53% 18% 16% 13%Search and collect information 53% 21% 12% 14%Upload, and store information online for personal use 9% 4% 34% 53%Upload, and store information online for public use 20% 9% 23% 48%Create and update my personal profile and status 43% 14% 28% 15%Share and discuss information 28% 12% 19% 41%Search for professional networks and become a member 12% 18% 27% 43%Identify experts for collecting and debating information 24% 11% 21% 44%Participate in online discussions for creating & generating new knowledge 12% 9% 29% 50%Compare and contrast information for creating new knowledge 11% 8% 39% 42%WIKISRead information 61% 28% 6% 5%Search and collect information 52% 32% 8% 8%Upload, and store information online for personal use 6% 1% 23% 70%Upload, and store information online for public use 77% 6% 7% 10%Create and update my personal profile and status 2% 0% 0% 98%Share and discuss information 9% 5% 8% 78%Search for professional networks and become a member 1% 0% 5% 94%Identify experts for collecting and debating information 0% 0% 3% 97%Participate in online discussions for creating & generating new knowledge 2% 0% 5% 93%Compare and contrast information for creating new knowledge 40% 7% 15% 38%CONTENT SHARING PLATFORMSRead information 75% 19% 4% 2%Search and collect information 74% 21% 3% 2%Upload, and store information online for personal use 63% 17% 12% 8%Upload, and store information online for public use 75% 21% 3% 1%Create and update my personal profile and status 24% 10% 38% 28%Share and discuss information 71% 21% 5% 3%Search for professional networks and become a member 64% 28% 3% 5%Identify experts for collecting and debating information 23% 9% 12% 56%Participate in online discussions for creating & generating new knowledge 54% 21% 12% 13%Compare and contrast information for creating new knowledge 64% 17% 7% 12%TEXT/AUDIO/VIDEO SHARING PLATFORMSRead information 2% 3% 5% 90%Search and collect information 1% 0% 1% 98%Upload, and store information online for personal use 0% 9% 3% 88%Upload, and store information online for public use 0% 2% 1% 97%Create and update my personal profile and status 0% 0% 5% 95%Share and discuss information 80% 17% 3% 0%Search for professional networks and become a member 3% 5% 8% 84%Identify experts for collecting and debating information 2% 1% 9% 88%Participate in online discussions for creating & generating new knowledge 13% 4% 32% 51%Compare and contrast information for creating new knowledge 3% 1% 23% 73%

% of respondents within each scenario

% of Respondents within each scenario.


Please cite this article in press as: Sigala, M., & Chalkiti, K. Investigating the exploitation of web 2.0 for knowledge management in the Greek tourism indus-try: An utilisation–importance analysis. Computers in Human Behavior (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.032



dents have and maintain their own blog for publishing and discuss-ing information with others. Hence, the few respondents foundhere to make an effective utilisation of blogs refer to the use ofblogs maintained by others and not by themselves.

As regards microblogs, 31 respondents reported to use them(Table 5), and the majority of them (more than 41%) reportedthat they are wasting resources (B), because they use microblogsfor conducting second and third level KM activities, which usagethey also consider as not important. The only second level KMactivity that respondents perceived as a missed opportunity inmicroblogs’ utilisation is the activity referring to the update ofthe user’s profile and status. This is because, respondents per-ceive that microblogs are important for keeping their colleaguesupdated about their profile changes and daily activity, but theydo not frequently use microblogs for doing so. Respondents alsoreported that the usages of microblogs for reading, searching andcollecting information are also missed opportunities. In otherwords, the findings reveal that microblogs are perceived as animportant KM tool for conducting only first level KM activities(i.e. information collection and identification) and sharing per-sonal information alerts.

Wikis represent the tool used by the fewest respondents (16respondents, Table 5). The majority of respondents (more than78%) also reported that they waste resources when using wikisfor identifying information and experts, and sharing and discussinginformation. Missed opportunities are also found in the use of wi-kis for conducting the first level of KM activities, as a great majorityof respondents (more than 52%) do not use wikis for searching,reading, collecting and storing information for public use, but theyconsider this usage as of high importance. Actually, a low but sig-nificant percentage of respondents (28% and 32%) are found tomake an effective use of wikis for reading and searching informa-tion respectively. Overall, the findings reveal that there are missedopportunities in the usage of wikis as regards the completion offirst level KM activities, while the use of wikis for conducting sec-ond and third level of KM activities represents a waste of therespondents’ resources.

Although content sharing networks are used by numerousrespondents (86, Table 5), the findings reveal that the greatestmajority of respondents (more than 54%) have missed the oppor-tunity to exploit the content sharing networks for conducting al-most all KM activities, apart from updating their profile (whichcan be considered as an activity that is not perceived to makeany difference, i.e. A) and identifying experts for debating infor-mation (which can be considered as an activity whereby 56% ofrespondents are wasting their resourcing when they are doingthis). In general, the findings clearly reveal the great importance,but also the very low effective utilisation of content sharing net-

Table 11The road map of effective utilisation of web 2.0 tools for KM purposes.

Social networks

Read information DSearch and collect information DUpload, and store information online for personal use Questionable (?) but of

importanceUpload, and store information online for public use DCreate and update my personal profile and status CShare and discuss information CSearch for professional networks and become a member CIdentify experts for collecting and debating information CParticipate in online discussions for creating and

generating new knowledgeC

Compare and contrast information for creating newknowledge

C


works for conducting almost all KM activities. Thus, contentsharing networks represent a significant KM tool that is howeververy limited exploited. This may also be due to the fact thatbusy tourism professionals may find it difficult and/or time con-suming to ‘create’ multimedia content (e.g. power points, videoand audio files) in order to share it online for further discussing it.

The text/audio/video sharing tools such as, skype and the chat/videoconferencing facilities of google + or facebook, also representtools used by a great number of respondents (i.e. 65, Table 5). How-ever, the greatest majority of respondents perceive that they arewasting their resources when using such tools for conducting allthe KM activities, apart from one activity namely ‘‘share and discussinformation’’, which they do not use it frequently but they perceiveit as important (i.e. missed opportunity). In this vein, it might beconcluded that respondents do not highly appreciate the use ofthese tools for supporting their KM activities, unless if they wishto ‘‘quickly’’ and ‘‘simultaneously’’ share and discuss an informa-tion with someone. Otherwise, the use of these tools for startingand participating in dialogues, searching and collecting informa-tion by chatting to colleagues is considered as a waste of resource.This might be because the synchronous sharing and discussion ofinformation might be perceived as a ‘disturbing’ communicationway for the busy tourism professionals. On the other hand, theuse of other web 2.0 tools, that can allow professionals to commu-nicate whenever they think is an appropriate and convenient time,may be considered as a more efficient and effective way for con-ducting KM activities, because it allow the users to act at theirown pace and time.

Table 11 provides a more holistic picture of the effective util-isation of the six web .0 tools by the Greek tourism profession-als, as it synthesises the above-mentioned major findings.Overall, the respondents make very low effective utilisation ofall the web 2.0 tools, because: only one web 2.0 tool (social net-works) and three first level KM activities have received a D sce-nario (i.e. effective use). On the other hand, respondents perceiveto waste their resource when using text/audio/video sharing net-works for conducting almost all KM activities. The use ofmicroblogs and wikis is also considered as a waste of resourcefor activities mainly relating to the development of dialoguesand new knowledge, but they represent missed opportunitiesfor information search and reading. Blogs and social networksare the two web 2.0 tools that respondents have given a highimportance on their use for almost all KM activities and so, theseare the areas whereby respondents have identified the greatestmissed opportunities and gaps in web 2.0 exploitation. Table 11represents a useful roadmap for enhancing the web 2.0 exploita-tion, as it identifies the areas in which Greek professionals haveto invest more resources and efforts.

Blogs Microblogs Wiki Content sharingnetwork

Text/audio/videosharing network

C C C C BC C C C B

high C B B C B

C B C C BA C B A BC B B C CB B B B BC B B C BC B B C B

C B C C B




7. Conclusions, implications and suggestions for future research

Web 2.0 changes the way people search, share and create infor-mation. In this vein, web 2.0 applications shift KM implementationfrom a technology-centric approach to KM practices reflecting apeople-centric approach that supports conversational and collabo-rative KM processes. The paper reviewed the related literature forrevealing this transformational role of web 2.0 in supporting andenhancing KM processes. The paper also collected primary datafrom Greek tourism professionals in order to explore their leveland type of web 2.0 exploitation for KM purposes.

Overall, the findings revealed a low level of web 2.0 exploitationfor KM practices, as respondents tended to use web 2.0 mainly forinternal KM processes such as searching, storing and collectinginformation rather than external KM processes such as sharing,discussing and creating knowledge with others. The findings alsorevealed that the majority of respondents exploit the web 2.0 formanaging information that is external rather than internal to thefirm, and so, they miss opportunities to exploit the web 2.0 forenriching practices related to organisational learning and internalsocial bonding. To further investigate the missed opportunitiesand waste of resources in the use of web 2.0 tools for KM purposesby the Greek professionals, the study also performed an utilisation- importance analysis comparing the level of use of six major web2.0 tools with the perceived importance of their usage for differenttypes of KM activities. The findings of this analysis reconfirmed thelow level of web 2.0 exploitation for KM purposes by the respon-dents. The study also demonstrated how firms can use the utilisa-tion–importance analysis for identifying which web 2.0 should beused for performing which specific KM activities as well as foridentifying waste of resources or missed opportunities in theirweb 2.0 exploitation strategies. Firms can also use the results ofthe utilisation–importance analysis as a useful guideline whendeveloping internal policies and/or their organisational culture inrelation to which types of web 2.0usage can be considered as‘appropriate’, ‘effective’ and/or waste of resources.

The findings also provide useful ideas for further advancing re-search in the field. For example, future studies could investigatethe following issues: factors motivating and/or inhibiting tourismprofessionals to exploit the web 2.0 for conducting higher levelKM processes and internal KM practices. For example, researchcould explore the impact of factors such as organisational trust,management commitment, risk and/or threats of losing corporateinformation. In addition, the professionals’ technological skills(e.g. the creation of video and audio files) may also significantlyinfluence the type and the level of web 2.0 exploitation for KM pur-poses. Future research should investigate not only the influence ofthese factors, but also the strategies that firms need to adopt in or-der to address the former.

References

Bateman, S., Brooks, C., McCalla, G., & Brusilovsky, P. (2007). Applying collaborativetagging to E – Learning: Proceedings of 16th international world wide webconference. Banff, Alberta, Canada (8–12 May).

Bernoff, L., & Li, J. (2008). Harnessing the Power of the Oh-So-Social Web. MIT SloanManagement Review, 49(3), 36–42.

Boland, R.J., Tenkasi, R.V. & Te’eni, D. (1944). Designing information technology tosupport distributed cognition. organisational Science, 5(3), 456–475.

Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratorystudy of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources ManagementJournal, 15(2), 14–21.

Bohn, R. E. (1994). Measuring and managing technological knowledge. SloanManagement Review, 36(1), 61–73.

Boisot, M. H. (1998). Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in theinformation economy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bouncken, R. (2002). Knowledge management for quality improvement in hotels. InR. Bouncken & P. Sungsoo (Eds.), Knowledge management in hospitality andtourism (pp. 25–59). New York, NY: The Haworth Hospitality Press.


Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities ofpractice. California Management Review, 40(3), 112–132.

Butler, T. (2003). From data to knowledge and back again: Understanding thelimitations of KMS. Knowledge and Process Management: The Journal of CorporateTransformation, 10(4), 144–155.

Chalkiti, K., & Sigala, M. (2008). Information sharing and knowledge creation inonline forums: The case of the Greek online forum ‘‘DIALOGOI’’. Current Issues inTourism, 11(5), 381–406.

Chalkiti, K., & Sigala, M. (2010). Staff turnover in the Greek tourism industry: Acomparison between insular and peninsual regions. International Journal ofContemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 335–359.

Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions ofknowledge sharing culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,24(5), 294–301.

Cooper, C. (2006). Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,33(1), 47–64.

Currie, G., & Kerrin, M. (2004). The limits of a technological fix to knowledgemanagement epistemological, political and cultural issues in the case ofIntranet Implementation. Management Learning March, 35(1) 9–29.

Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge, what organizations managewhat they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Easingwood, C. J., & Arnott, D. C. (1991). Priorities in services marketing.International Journal of Service Industry Management, 2(2), 20–37.

Edvinsson, L. (2000). Some perspectives on intangibles and intellectual capital.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 12–16.

Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management.California Management Review, 40, 265–277.

Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledgemanagement: Fostering a research agenda? Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 18(1), 5–21.

Hallin, C. A., & Marnburg, E. (2008). Knowledge management in the hospitalityindustry: A review of empirical research. Tourism Management, 29(2), 366–381.

Hayman, S., 2007. Folksonomies and tagging: New development in socialbookmarking. Education Services Australia. <http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/papers/arkhayman.pdf> (accessed15.12.10).

Hull, R. (2000). Knowledge management and the conduct of expert labour. In C.Pritchard, R. Hull, M. Chumer, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Managing knowledge: Criticalinvestigations of work and learning. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Jackson, C., 2000. Process to product: Creating tools for knowledge management. InMalhotra, Y. (Ed.), Knowledge management and business model innovation (pp.402–412). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Jennex, M. E. (2005). What is knowledge management? International Journal ofKnowledge Management, 1(4), i–iv.

Jonassen, D. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge toelectronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly,29(1), 113–143.

Karger, D. R., & Quan, D. (2005). What would it mean to blog on the semantic web?Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 147–157.

von Krogh, G. V. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review,40(3), 133–153.

Lee, D. and Lam, S. (2007). Protocol Design for Dynamic Delaunay Triangulation. in:27th International Conference Distributed Computing Systems, 2007. ICDCS ’07,25-27 June.

Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation.California Management Review, 40, 112–132.

Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Seung-Jee, L. (2007). Does sense of communitymatter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learningcommunities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24.

Markus, M. L. (2001). Towards a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledgereuse situations and factors in reuse success? Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 18(1), 57–93.

Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal ofMarketing, 41(1), 77–79.

McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliverknowledge management. California management review, 41(4), 103–117.

McGee, J., & Prusak, L. (1993). Managing information strategically. New York, NY:John Wiley & Sons.

McKinsey, 2007. How businesses are using web 2.0. McKinsey Global Survey. <http://www.finextra.com/Finextra-downloads//featuredocs/hobu07.pdf> (accessed15.12.10).

Mertins, K., Heisig, P., & Vorbeck, J. (2000). KM best practices in Europe. Berlin andHeidelberg: Springer Verlag.

Nishida, T. (2002). A traveling conversation model for dynamic knowledgeinteraction. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 124–134.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York:Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: Anew perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1),1–20.

O’Connor, P. (2010). Managing a Hotel’s Image on TripAdvisor. Journal of HospitalityMarketing & Management, 19(7), 754–772.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(13)00189-1/h0340









































http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/papers/arkhayman.pdf

http://www.educationau.edu.au/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/papers/arkhayman.pdf





























http://www.finextra.com/Finextra-downloads//featuredocs/hobu07.pdf

http://www.finextra.com/Finextra-downloads//featuredocs/hobu07.pdf
















O’Dell, C. And., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know. New York, NY:The Free Press.

Palacios, M. D., & Garrigos, S. F. (2006). The effect of knowledge managementpractices on firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3),143–156.

Pan, B., MacLaurin, T., & Crott, J. C. (2007). Travel blogs and the implication fordestination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 35–45.

Parra-Lopez, E., Bulchand-Gidumal, J., Gutiererez-Tano, J., & Diaz-Amas, R. (2011).Intentions to use social media in organizing and taking vacation trips.Computers in Human Behaviour, 27(2), 640–654.

Pentland, B. T. (1995). Information systems and organizational learning: The socialepistemology of organizational knowledge systems. Accounting, Managementand Information Technology, 5, 1–21.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41(155), 1–18.Ponis, S., Vagenas, G., & Koronis, E. (2009). Exploring the knowledge management

landscape. In D. Harorimana (Ed.), Cultural implications of knowledge sharing,management and transfer: Identifying competitive advantage (pp. 1–25). USA: IGIGlobal.

Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies. Wallingford: CABInternational.

Rhodes, J., Hung, R., Lok, P., Lien, B., & Wu, C. (2008). Factors influencingorganisational knowledge transfer: Implication for corporate performance.Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 84–100.

Robert, C. (2009). Annotation for knowledge sharing in a collaborative environment.Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 111–119.

Roos, J., & von Krogh, G. (1996). The epistemological challenge: Managingknowledge and intellectual capital. European Management Journal, 14(4),333–337.

Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digitalage. NY: McGraw Hill Publishing.

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, andpersistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and HigherEducation, 5(4), 319–332.

Rowley, J. (2000). From learning organisation to knowledge entrepreneur. Journal ofKnowledge Management, 4(1), 7–15.

Ruhanen, L., & Cooper, C. (2003). Developing a knowledge management approach totourism research. TedQual, 6(1), 13.

Scarbrough, H. (2003). Knowledge management, HRM and the innovation process.International Journal of Manpower, 24(5), 501–516.

Schultze, U., & Boland, R. J. (2000). Knowledge management technology and thereproduction of knowledge work practices. Journal of Strategic InformationSystems, 9(2–3), 193–212.

Seldow, A. (2006). Social tagging in K – 12 Education: folksonomies for student folk.Harvard Graduate School of Education. <http://mrseldow.gradeweb.com/custom/Social_tagging_in_K12_Education_Seldow_4_3_06.pdf> (accessed 15.12.10).

Sigala, M. (2011). ECRM 2.0 applications and trends: The use and perceptions ofGreek tourism firms of social networks and intelligence. Computers in HumanBehavior, 27, 655–661.


Sigala, M. (2012). Social networks and customer involvement in New ServiceDevelopment (NSD): The case of www.mystarbucksidea.com. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(7), 966–990.

Sigala, M. (2013). Using and measuring the impacts of geovisualisation on tourismeducation: The case of teaching a service management course. Journal ofHospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, 12, 85–98.

Sigala, M., & Chalkiti, K. (2007). Improving performance through tacit knowledgeexternalization and utilization: Preliminary findings from Greek hotels.International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management, 56(5–6),456–483.

Slack, N. (1994). The importance-performance matrix as a determinant ofimprovement priority. International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement, 14(5), 59–75.

Swan, J., Newell, S., & Robertson, M. (2000). Limits of IT-driven knowledgemanagement initiatives for interactive innovation processes: Towards acommunity-based approach, In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii internationalconference on system sciences (island of Maui, January 4–7).

Swan, J., & Scarbrough, H. (2001). Knowledge management: Concepts andcontroversies. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 913–921.

Terrett, A. (1998). Knowledge Management and the Law Firm. Journal of KnowledgeManagement, 2(1), 67–76.

Thomas, H. (2005). ICT and lean management: Will they ever get along?International Journal of Digital Economics, 59, 53–75.

Tobin, D. R. (1998). Networking your knowledge. Management Review, 46–48.Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organisational knowledge? Journal of

Management Studies, 38(7), 973–993.Ullrich, C., Kerstin, B., Heng, L., Xiaohong, T., Liping, S., & Ruimin, S. (2008). Why web

2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. InProceedings of the 17th international world wide web conference (Beijing, China,21–25 April).

Wagner, C., & Bolloju, N. (2005). Supporting knowledge management inorganizations with conversational technologies: Discussion forums, weblogs,and wikis. Journal of Database Management, 16(2), 1–8.

Walsham, G. (2001). Knowledge management: The benefits and limitations ofcomputer systems. European Management Journal, 19(6), 599–608.

Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital andKnowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly,29(1), 35–57.

Yang, J. T., & Wan, C. S. (2004). Advancing organizational effectiveness and knowledgemanagement implementation. Tourism Management, 25(5), 593–601.

Yang, H., & Wu, T. (2008). Knowledge sharing in an organisation. TechnologicalForecasting & Social Change, 75, 1128–1156.

Young, G.O., (2008). Global enterprise web 2.0 market forecast: 2007–2013. Reportby Forrester Research. http://www.forrester.com/home.

Yu, T. K., Lu, L. C., & Liu, T. F. (2010). Exploring factors that influence knowledgesharing behavior via weblogs. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26, 32–41.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4),45–58 (Summer).












































http://mrseldow.gradeweb.com/custom/Social_tagging_in_K12_Education_Seldow_4_3_06.pdf

http://mrseldow.gradeweb.com/custom/Social_tagging_in_K12_Education_Seldow_4_3_06.pdf











































Documents

Investigating the exploitation of web 2.0 for knowledge management in the Greek tourism industry: An utilisation–importance analysis