Web 2.0 and IKM
Just as with the commercial solutions cited in this learning object, we could very well use social networking tools for managing information and knowledge. Social networking tools have shown a great deal of success with the creation, distribution and sharing of information, it may depend on the purpose, environments and the nature of the information shared if we can see that we could manage knowledge using social networking tools.
| Something is changing. WEB 2.0 is bringing a new wave that should be adopted in knowledge management. A lot can be learned, whether in the distribution of control, in adoption by using the younger or even by adopting tools as is. In the first stage, it will be appropriate to adopt use of tools: WIKI has a good chance to succeed (as already viewed in some organizations) and Blogs could be also used, also carefully, in small chunks, Blogs can succeed where the organization finds an expert, with prestige among others, willing to write, having what to write continuously and knowing how to write. But as Snowden has stated, social computing evolves from the variety of technology together with people and environment (Levy, 2009, p. 13) |
You have seen that for many questions you could search for in Google, more often than not, you would find answer for them in forums or Q & A sites like Yahoo answers. In the Web 2.0, user generated content is the most abundant information. Using social networking tools in combination, you can create a platform for the distribution and sharing of knowledge. For example, a wiki can serve for the establishment of an online community of practice. It is possible to integrate services like Twitter and Facebook to post updates and then distribute them through an RSS feed, and then manage any amounts of feeds using an RSS reader to follow vast amounts of updates.
However, in the corporate world it seems the adoption of Web 2.0 tools have been slow, as some authors have argued. You can read two examples in the following passages:
|
Will people use the new tools? Will they really achieve the value we are promoting? These may appear to be strange questions since wikis are so viral outside the corporate setting. But we must remember that these two environments are different and operate under different rules. What is acceptable in my social or leisure time is not necessarily acceptable during my professional time. But my team has a gut feeling that Web 2.0 technologies can play a vital role in advancing KM at our organization. Why has the corporate world been so slow to adopt these technologies? I believe the answer lies in the necessary paradigm shift related to how we process information. It's a shift from a lot of hierarchical order and paper to higher levels of comfort with user contribution, less inherent order, and a "please, no paper" attitude. All these trends can be seen in the changing mindsets of younger generations in the workplace. In order to gain acceptance for this more loosely connected information paradigm, we must provide the proper context and incentives to encourage people to participate. (White, P., 2009, para. 5-6) Yet, organizations have to be careful. Success will not be triggered by adopting tools. Adopting principles is a more complex task. In most cases, the knowledge management world is not mature enough for loosing control and moving to altruism without any organizational central guidance. In most organizations (at least the 50 or more that I can state that I have experienced working with on knowledge management efforts), it is too soon to let free, and enable people to share where and only when they wish. That is how knowledge management started, a decade ago, and it surely was not enough. It has to be kept in mind that organizations do not have the mass of people as the WEB does, which is a critical factor of its success. In the Internet, it is enough that a minority will share and we will be flooded, feeling as if the whole world is sharing. Folksonomy can succeed in a world where so many people tag, that there will be enough similar tagging to what is wanted by each person, no matter how he or she thinks. The organizational world is much smaller and therefore the rules are different. The world has already experienced this difference at the beginning of this decade, while trying to copy internet forums to organizational internal discussion groups, which yielded much smaller success. As organizations do not have the mass, the LONG TAIL principle cannot take place in most organizations. Where it does, it surely can and should be adopted (Levy, 2009, pp. 13-14). |
Sirje Virkus, Tallinn University, 2011