The value of an intranet for knowledge management (KM) is largely dependent on the calibre of the content and tools that it provides to its users and its ultimate application in business operations. For many organisations, there is a particular dilemma regarding the development of internally produced intranet resources for KM applications. Employees will not feel encouraged to provide content until they believe that what they provide will be used and they will not use an intranet if it does not provide useful content. This paper considers strategies for making intranets ‘input-friendly’: how can organisations extract the content needed to add to the body of internally produced resources from their employees? The discussion explores factors that encourage intranet contributions. These include enabling conditions such as the provision of appropriate tools, the development of organisational KM culture and reward systems. The paper makes reference to studies drawn from the academic literature in business studies, information systems, organisational science and sociology, as well as to practice in case study organisations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
[1] G. Smith and V. Newman , The Cranfield/Cap Gemini Intranet Maturity Model . [Unpublished paper delivered at Performance Measurement for Intranets, London, 8-9 May 2000.]
2.
[2] H. Hall and A. Jones , Show off the corporate library , International Journal of Information Management20 (Spring 2000) 121-130 .
3.
[3] S. Newell , H. Scarborough , J. Swan and D. Hislop , Intranets and knowledge management: complex processes and ironic outcomes . In: R. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, 5-8 January 1999 (IEEE, Los Alamitos, 1999).
4.
[4] W.J. Orlikowski , Learning from notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation. In: R. Kling (ed.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices2nd ed. ( CA Academic Press, San Diego , 1996).
5.
[5] D. Holsthouse , Knowledge research issues , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 277-280 .
6.
[6] D. Leonard and S. Sensiper , The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 112-132 .
7.
[7] D. Snowden , Liberating knowledge. In: S. Rock (ed.), Liberating Knowledge ( IBM/CBI, London , c.2000).
8.
[8] A. Kransdorff , Knowledge management’s role in experiential learning. In: S. Rock (ed.), Liberating Knowledge ( IBM/CBI, London , c.2000).
9.
[9] J.S. Brown and P. Duguid , Organizing knowledge , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 90-111 .
10.
[10] R. Ruggles , The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 80-89 .
11.
[11] R. Lamb , Using intranets: preliminary results from a socio-technical field study . In: R. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, 5-8 January 1999 (IEEE, Los Alamitos, 1999).
12.
[12] C. O’Dell and C. Jackson Grayson , If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal best practices , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 154-174 .
13.
[13] Cap Gemini and Cranfield University , Intranet Benchmarking and Business Value ( Cap Gemini and Cranfield University, Cranfield , 1999).
14.
[14] D. Cohen , Towards a knowledge context: report on the first annual UC Berkeley forum on knowledge and the firm , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 22-39 .
15.
[15] I. Bruce , Innovation and Knowledge Management: The Use of Space . [Unpublished paper delivered at Knowledge Management in an Age of Networks, Napier University, Edinburgh, on 27 October 2000].
16.
[16] T.H. Davenport and P. Klahr , Managing customer support knowledge , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 195-208 .
17.
[17] G. Von Krogh , Care in knowledge creation , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 133-153 .
18.
[18] T.H. Davenport , Information Ecology: Mastering the Information Environment ( Oxford University Press, New York , 1997).
19.
[19] E. Wenger , Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity ( Cambridge University Press, New York , 1998).
20.
[20] E. Davenport and H. Hall , Communities of practices and organizational learning. In: B. Cronin and D. Shaw (eds), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2001 ( Information Today, New Jersey , 2001) [in press].
21.
[21] J. Galegher , R.E. Kraut and C. Edigo (eds), Intellectual Teamwork ( Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey , 1990).
22.
[22] B. Wellman and S. Wortley , Different strokes for different folks: community ties and social support , American Journal of Sociology96 (1990) 558-588 .
23.
[23] D. Snowden , A framework for creating a sustainable programme. In: S. Rock (ed.), Knowledge Management: A Real Business Guide ( CBI/IBM, London , c.1998).
24.
[24] J. Nahapiet and S. Ghoshal , Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage , Academy of Management Review23(2) (1998) 242-266 .
25.
[25] J.H. Dyer and K. Nobeoka , Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case , Strategic Management Journal21(3) (2000) 345-367 .
26.
[26] B. Kogut and M. Zander , What firms do? Coordination, identity and learning , Organization Science7(5) (1996) 502-518 .
27.
[27] Y. Merali , Self-organising communities. In: S. Rock (ed.), Liberating Knowledge ( IBM/CBI, London , c.2000).
28.
[28] L. Fahey and L. Prusak , The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 265-275 .
29.
[29] R. Van der Spek and J. Kingma , Achieving successful knowledge management initiatives. In: S. Rock (ed.), Liberating Knowledge ( IBM/CBI, London , c.2000).
30.
[30] M. Stephenson and T. Davies , Technology support for sustainable innovation. In: S. Rock (ed.), Liberating Knowledge ( IBM/CBI, London , c.2000).
31.
[31] A.B. Hargadon , Firms as knowledge brokers , California Management Review40(3) (1998) 209-227 .
32.
[32] M.A. Nowak and K. Sigmund , Shrewd investments , Science288 (May 2000) 819-820 .
33.
[33] M.K. Samitt , Knowledge management in a corporate environment: an annotated bibliography , Business and Finance Bulletin110 (1999) 39-50 .
34.
[34] M. Beer and N. Nohria , Cracking the code of change , Harvard Business Review (May/June 2000) 133-141 .
35.
[35] The debate in the literature as to how far a community should extend is pertinent to the question of vitality. In the case of online communities, it is argued that there must be controls on membership so that expertise is not diluted by those of marginal use to the community as a whole [7, p. 13]. However, those at the margins, such as lurkers on a listserv, can later become integrated into the main group, bringing fresh ideas: ‘People learn by taking a position on the periphery of skilled practice and being allowed... move slowly into the community and the practice involved’ [9, p. 107].
