CCT 2013 LE5 Knowledge Management Web Society

Corporate Communications Today

Course Module 5: Knowledge Management

Course Module 6: Web Society

Susanne Robra-Bissantz

WS 2012/13 | Prof. Dr. Susanne Robra-Bissantz | Corporate Communications Today| Seite 2

Welcome!

Welcome to our last course module, that consists of two big topics – some contents around „knowledge“ and collaboration, and some on something, we call a web society...

First – Knowledge Management ... In Social Media – with Collaboration.


Course Module 5: Knowledge Management

29.01.2013



Course Modules

CM 1

Social Media

CM 3

„Marketing“

CM 2

Collaboration

CM 4

Innovation

CM 5

Knowledge

CM 6

Web Society


Collaboration approaches: internal – external?

Collaborative creativity

Innovation Management

Organizational LearningComplaints: ideas and problems

Knowledge Management

Project support


Knowledge Management - Facts

The ability to apply knowledge in the company and share it with partners correlates positively with the ability to build competitive advantages

(Chew et al. 1990)

The best ideas come through weak ties in a network– „the strength of weak ties“ (Granovetter 1979).

Groups often make better decisions than individuals– „the wisdom of the crowds“ (Surowiecki 2004)

Knowledge can be used by the entire company, if implicit knowledge of the individual is externalized.

(Nonaka,Takeuchi 1997).

Phenomenon of Information Stickiness – Knowledge „sticks“, it is difficult to transfer(from Hippel 1994).


And summarized:

Collaboration seems to be important for organisations, but, it seems to be difficult. And the reason is the so called „information stickyness“.

Organisations know that, and they try to transfer knowledge – from implicit knowledge to explicit knowledge.

Implicit knowledge is not externalised and kept by one person. This may be because the person doesn‘t want to explicate it, but also because it is hard (or even impossible) to verbalize or because the person is unconscious about the fact that his knowledge may be important for others.

Explicit knowledge is externalised (verbalized), even categorized and connected to other knowledge. Like this it can be adopted by others.

They implement Knowledge Management Systems and use Incentives in order to make people share their knowledge. For example „points“ for knowledge pieces you provide.


implicitknowledge

unconscious

conscious

categorized / networked

not / difficultverbalizable

verbalizable verbalized

explicitknowledge

Information StickinessKMS, Incentives

Information Stickiness


Instruments of Knowledge Management

KnowledgeCards

Instruments of Knowledge

Management

Best Practices

LessonsLearned

YellowPages

SkillManagement

Find a quite good summary on knowledge management and different instruments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management.


In social media, we try and start with the differences between implicit and explicit knowledge, and find out, that in order to transfer knowledge we need:

• Occasions for Communication, that may appear in discussions on Blogs, Wikis and especially with status updates or activity streams,

• Contexts – that may be interpersonal context, people are networked. In this case knowledge doesn‘t have to be explicated, but it is enough to know who knows what. Contexts on electronical platforms – between the contents – can brilliantly achieved via tagging, social tagging and tag clouds, as we introduced them last week.

And: in our second lecture on social Media and Collaboration, you‘ll find functions in information cylce (slide 16), where you‘ll find „occasions for communication“ and „creation of contexts“.

By the way: in the introduction of a Knowledge Management System, that has to be used voluntarily and because someone is motivated to to so, the following way has been proven to be successfull: Start with problems and questions that people may post. That is easy. The others will answer. Then let them post good ideas. Only after that finally build a social network, where you expect people to post what ever they know and may find interesting. By then they have probably understood the mechanic of giving and getting knowledge. And they feel good in posting contents to a social media plattform. What is difficult in the beginning...


implicitknowledge

unconscious

conscious

categorized / networked

not / difficultverbalizable

verbalizable verbalized

Create contexts

explicitknowledge

BlogWikiStatus update

Networking Content

TaggingTagcloud

knowledge of relationships

NetworkingPerson

Information StickinessKMS, Incentives

Information Stickiness

Create occasions for communication


Problems / Questions

Response / Solution Discussion

EvaluateIntegrate and linkLearn

Communication occasion question/problem

A good starting point for communication, that may be implemented, are problems. Enable employees to ask their question. Others provide solutions, they may be discussed and evaluated and also linked together.

IT enables the system to learn in every step. Find better respondands, discuss and integrate.


Focus communication occasion: Question- and Responsecards

Occasion for communication: Problem

Additional motivation:- Votings- Expert status

Question

Proposed contacts for the question that had answers to the topic earlier.

Answers may be evaluated and rated.


Focus communication context: Knowledge network

Basis: Social Network(Relationships) with

• People• Relationships• Projects

and all of them connected by

• Activities• Tags


Problems – research questions

1. How do I motivate my employees to contribute knowledge?

2. How do I motivate my employees to augment knowledge together?

Starting points:

Contributions: How do they have to be formulated in order to foster answers?

Platform: Which features are needed, like status, evaluation....?

Environment: What has to happen with the organisational culture – collaboration?!?


Fun to collaborate – willingness to collaborate

Social closeness

Motivation

InteractionParticipation

Willingness to collaborate

openness

trust

mutuality

contributions are valuable

fun tocontribute

many supporters

sharedunderstanding

ideas grow„big“


In these self-enforcing cycles:

• Motivation is enhanced, because everybody realizes, that his contributions are valuable, and that then it is fun to contribute.

• This enhances interaction and many employees support common knowledge. This again leads to a mutual understanding, via discussions and tagging.

• The mutual understanding makes ideas grow as a result of a wisdom of the crowds – of participation. And at the same time trust raises – as collaborating works.

• With trust a social closeness may grow. You learn that it is worth, being open and a sense of mutuallity appears. This again rises motivation.

... and concluding: the willingness to collaborate rises.

But, as always, before you try and implement an IC-System, think about your goals (pinkish) first.


• Explicit knowledge is the asset for our organization. Our knowledge and a lot of knowledge from other sources is available – but often we do not find it.

Social Bookmarking

• Together, we know much more than every individual. We are working on a shared knowledge base.Wiki

• It is enough if we know someone who knows something. Anything else is too much work.Skill-Network

• Our knowledge is so difficult to grasp and articulate. Sometimes we only realize what is important in conversations. Social Network

• We want to continue to discuss and develop. Every individual, every new idea is valuable for our company.Idea-Blog

• We work on projects which accumulate regularly and predictably a lot of information for different groups. (Multi)-News-Blog

• Not binding, share something not so important– it also strengthens the social cohesionTwitter

Need more knowledge?


Collaboration approaches: internal – external?

Collaborative creativity

Innovation Management

Organizational LearningComplaints: ideas and problems

Knowledge Management

Project support


In a short excursus, let‘s think about „learning“ – like we do it in organizational contexts, e. g. in courses and during knowledge management.

Without explicating different possible systems – it is probably self explaining, that today frontal teaching without interaction and following a strict curriculum, like in lectures, doesn‘t fit learners needs.

What we need is learning – in order to escape from the uncertainty we are faced with. We even need life-long-learning. But learning as to be connected to the problems we are faced with. Actually about 80% of what we know, doesn‘t come from institutional learning (in school, university and further education). We learn in contexts and, as information behaviour shows it, at information encounters – spaces in which discussion take place, often unplanned.

This is even more important for the so called digital natives – that grow up with the internet and that have a completely different access to knowledge.

Therefore we need a „modern“ learning – in situations, in collaboration ...


Demands of the modern "professional" learning

connectivity

self-responsibility

discursive formats

ad hoc, in situations

collaborative

self-controlled

playful?, authentic?

acquiring skills

Needs of learners „Modern“ learning

Knowledge through exchange

Knowledge in situations

Find knowledge

Construct knowledge

Digital Natives


We have actually learned about learning. Learning theories have changed – and also the functions of media – coloured in red typing in the next slide.

The first behavioural approach stresses learning as based on experiences on stimulus-response-relations. Material has to be structured and presented - media can support that in knowledge representation.

In cognitive theories, internal cognitive processes are taken into account. The learner doesn‘t learn facts but processes that lead him to problem solving. The focus of media is knowledge transfer and the regulation of learning processes, that enable the learner to build new connections and approaches.

In constructivist learning, we presume, that reality is always constructed and may only be learned in situations, where the learner is introduced in social or real contexts and works on problem solving himself and together with other learners and teachers. Media support this, when they provide knowledge tools – actually like our knowledge management systems.

But still – in todays information behaviour, Kerres sees problems in media supported learning in embedding knowledge in authentic situations and social contexts. Social media may be a solution for social contexts and collaborating on solutions. Additionally we are able to identify context – automatically: we are able to identify surroundings and even emotions...


Media in modern learning

„With its emphasis on social interaction inauthentic contexts it seems that

especially media-based learning is questionable.“

(Kerres, M.: Multimediale und telemediale Lernumgebungen, München et al. 2001, S. 82)

Behaviouristapproach

Cognitivetheories

Constructivisttheories

Theories ofinformation behavior

Knowledge presentation: Presentation and organization of knowledge

Knowledge transfer: Control and regulation of the learning process

Knowledge tool: Communication and construction of knowledge

(Kerres, M.: Multimediale und telemediale Lernumgebungen,

München et al. 2001, S. 95 ff.)


Technologies

„With its emphasis on social interaction inauthentic contexts it seems that

especially media-based learning is questionable.“

(Kerres, M.: Multimediale und telemediale Lernumgebungen, München et al. 2001, S. 82)

Social Media:- Facebook, Wikis, Twitter- Networking of people- Creation of platforms

(Spaces)

contextualising:- Identification of contexts- Reaction to contexts


Examples: Web 2.0 in teaching

Twitter-Lecture• Mass lecture• Individual adaptation• Discussion, own contributions• Continuation onlineVideo-Discussion

• Advanced level• Youtube thesis videos• Collaboration• Ongoing discussion - public

Wiki-Seminar• Smaller groups• Learning by teaching• Collaboration• Responsibility


Course Module 6: Web Society – Environment of an Enterprise 2.0

29.01.2013



Course Modules

CM 1

Social Media

CM 3

„Marketing“

CM 2

Collaboration

CM 4

Innovation

CM 5

Knowledge

CM 6

Web Society


Last but not least let‘s see everything we did up to now from a meta, maybe societal perspective.

First. What are the basic changes in Corporate Communications – if you compare the next slide and the one after this with the „University Example“.

First difference: there is a distinction between internal and external communication in traditional communication with different responsibilities – maybe the IT-Department and PR/Marketing. In Social Media live it‘s hard to keep these borders – especially if internal students, professors and employees use media like facebook. Still they all may act in different roles.

The students, professors and employees ARE the university. Their communication leads to the university‘s picture. It would be very hard to channel and filter it in single Departments. And most of the time they don‘t have to contruct communication but just work – it‘s not marketing, it‘s the function: to present research results, to discuss challenges in quality and to network with organizations and companies.


Traditional communication: Example university

Prospective Students

Students

Alumni

ScienceEconomy / Politics …

University communication• Process portal• Newsletter• Information services• Transaction services• …

• Press• Website• Radio/TV• Events• …

Public RelationsMarketing

Administration„IT“

EmployeesProfessors


With this communication and collaboration the so called association premises (blue eggs) can be established. Talks and discussions about what the university does and stands for, build the picture of it for many stake holders. And it makes the university a social partner in different topics in research or in quality of teaching etc.

These association premises cannot exclude groups that they are not meant for. They use different media (social media, in blue and as presented in the last course modules), maybe with internal views. And, very important, they address different stakeholders with different topics and targets: Relationship with Alumnis, Attractiveness with students (or their parents?) and Knowledge with the scientific community.

From this targets, as can be seen in the „What?“ „Who?“ etc. slide, follow certain strategies for communication. This again holds for every organisation. Decide which target you follow. Who may and should contribute. Why? What may be his motivation? Is there any? Try to let others communicate for you, not only your public relations or your chief. Is it necessary that he posts? Maybe others are better, but he should know and support this.

Then decide for the platform – as described before and at the same time decide about the form of your communication. Where will be private bits, maybe? Do you want to use campaigns, only short statements or stories around it. Try to imagine your talks and discussions beforehand, but keep the platform open for changes. The whole system of customers, employees etc. will develop differently from what you thought it will...


Collaborative association premises: Example university

Prospective Students

Students

Alumni

ScienceEconomy / Politics …

University communication

Employees

Public RelationsMarketing

Administration„IT“

Professors

Reputation

Attractiveness

Attention

Relationship

Knowledge Satisfaction

Quality

„Sag‘s uns“ (Tell us)

Note-Blog

Facebook-Groups

TU-WebsiteResearcher network

BSocial

wi2-Blog

Facebook-Institution


From ideas (targets) follow the „strategies“…

Who?

Where?

How?

Employees, „Chief“ himself, Public Relations, Customers ...

Facebook, Twitter, Forums, own websites

Messages, Stories, Campaigns, Actions, Private Contents

What?Relationship, Quality, Satisfaction, Attention ...


One main target that perfectly fits social media communication is reputation. Reputation results from all the messages, discussions, actions, campaigns and associations the public.

From talks, from offers for participations, e. g. in innovation management, from complaints and their treatment, from our knowledge management where certain parts can be seen from outside.

This is because reputation is more than our product, It is more than the story, we tell about our product, more that the image. Reputation is our capital, Everything we invested in. Our employees, our knowledge, our responsibility. And, further more, it is the commonly accepted capital. Everything that is talked about our reponsibility, our whole organisation with our employees and values.

Social media is the place where, above all, reputation will be built. By all stakeholders and by the organisation itself.

A reputation of the whole company but also a reputation as being present (and how) in the social web.


Repu-tation

„Marke-ting“

Discus-sion

Com-plaint

Inno-vation

Ideas

Know-

ledge

Reputation

• Talks – association spaces

• Offers for participation

• Knowledge network, with „store window“

• Internet Complaint Center

• Innovation Competitions

• …


The road to reputation

„Product“

„Potential“

Reputation

Social Media

Website / Mass media

Image

gesteuerte / soziale

Anerkennung

Organizationsocial capitalknowledge …

of the organization

on the web


So. Finally. All of this looks good.

But why do we have so called Shitstorms:- when Pril doesn‘t agree with the most wanted Design in their innovation competition and

doesn‘t use it?- when Greenpeace accuses Nestle of using Palmoil?- when Volkswagen erases comments of customers that are influenced by Greenpeace?- when H&M has bet on a design that was invented before their designers invented it?- and when adidas builts shoes that look like being in chains?

Exactly, we have them, because something went wrong, either in the company, or even worse in social media communication. Marie Christine and Fatmir already pointed that out in their presentation.

And this again is somehow caused by the fact, that we keep on being stuck in mass media society. We haven‘t completely learned what the new media is. The revolution will not be televised. Gil Scott said this in the 70s. He was critizising mass media, mass media society, where critical opinions are overwhelmed by mass opinions and opinions controled by media. For us this holds true – in the other way around. The revolution may take place in social media but, important for us, social media are not like television. This, our revolution in media we can use, cannot be handled with knowledge from mass media..


Puh.

The Revolution will not be televised …

http://www.vwdarkside.com/


Media influence our society, society reflects its media set. We probably have to learn, generally, that we are moving into a web society, that we may make a cooperative web society.

This is another great transformation like the one we faced towards the industrial society. With mass media, mass production and mass markets. This all will change.

And we will have to think about what will change. Will the representative democracy still work reasonably, will it be substituted or complemented by a direct one? Will it be possible to reach for a defragmented public or will we have to live, as we already do, with a fragmentation? Can public and private spheres be separated, and if, than how? What should be private today? Will we still stick on role models or do we have to cope with individualized lifestyles and role diversity? Will negotiation – but with collaborative principles – be the common state instead of decision?

Communication leads to action. The society represents itself in communication. And in social media communications are potentially effective discourses that lead to publicity and to action.


The Great Transformation

Collaborative Web Societyagricultural society

Industrial Society


„Leitmedium“ (trend-setting media) InternetTransformation to a web society

Public and private spheres

Fragmented social public

Communicative action

Representative vs. direct Democracy

Individualized lifestyles

Role diversity

Decision or negotiation


In our organisation we will, maybe, step by step be confronted with the effects of a web society and with the new paradigms of collaboration.

In markets, but also inside our organisations discussions will prevail former messages and missions. Preset institutions, where you have to become a member, will be complemented by groups – in organisations these are departments contrary working groups / teams.

Hierarchy will or can be substituted with heterarchy. Certainly not at once and not everywhere. But remember, that heterarchy with collaboration principles includes equality but also responsibility. Organisational Processes, that are mostly hierachically controled may also change and step by step be substituted by less hierachical working and co-working forms. Here a sense of coherence, less control but trust in the well being of the system, can evolve.

Where in Mass Media Society Institutions are units that provide the inner meaning of society and that work with representative principles and advocacy, in Web Society more temporary groups will come together, with common goals and interests and a social closeness. Institutions meet at places and times, they decide and disseminate decisions. Groups, on the other side are kept together by associations and talks. Coordination is substituted by collaboration.

But conventions will be needed, and as we showed it in our second course module, whereas we are quite familiar with traditional Mass Media conventions, we will have to learn those of Web Society and together with this the conventions and difficult parts of collaboration.


Herausforderung Webgesellschaft

Leitmedium Television Leitmedium Internet

Messages Talks, Discussions

Institutions Groups

Hierarchy Heterachy

Processes Coherence


Organizations in the web society

Web society

Networking / Social closenessCommon interestsRange of associationsCohesion through collaborationConventions?

Mass media society

AdvocacySense giving unitsEncounter and disseminationCohesion through coordinationConventionsRooms, Places, Times, Meetings

Social medias are the dominant mediums of the collaborative web society.


All this sounds difficult, but maybe it isn‘t. Maybe we are only much to used to our society of masses where hierarchy and achievements count and where media based communication is either television or something with IT and databases – with no possibility to interact.

There is one citation, that we should not forget: behaving in social media is very close to acting in groups and therefore just with human beings. In groups of people we know and/or trust.

Maybe the picture on the left hand side helps – especially when we are beneath organisations. For example in markets or in society in general.

Social Media are nothing different than social plattforms that already exist. Like parties. If you want to be heard there and if you want to introduce your ideas and make people realise that they are good. Let‘s take, in the example, you want to introduce another style of music. Then you probably don‘t appear with a big megaphone, telling everybody, loudly, that you are the best. You wouldn‘t but you wouldn‘t succeed if you tried. It is the same with social media. It‘s no use there, trying to convince loudly and from the scratch. Like at the party. You try to start little conversations, you listen to the opinion of the others, you explain your point and step by step you find equally minded people. Finally you in your and as a group can start and try to convince the DJ to play better music. Talk, discuss, associate, build groups and make conversation become visible action.


But above all…

A good way to think

about social media

is that all of this is

actually just about

being human

beings.

(Antony Mayfield)

„… on big parties!“

Social behavior in "foreign" spaces

Education

CCT 2013 LE5 Knowledge Management Web Society