Paper presented at the EMNet 2011December 1 – 3, 2011, Limassol, Cyprus

(http://emnet.univie.ac.at/)

Social Networking and Knowledge Management

Zeljko Panian, Ph.D.Professor at The Faculty of Economics and Business

University of ZagrebCroatia

Abstract – Social networking is an outstanding part of a broad range of Internet technologies named Web 2.0 technologies. The concept of Web 2.0 is often referred to as an umbrella term, used to explicitly express the framework of ideas and technology it creates. An essential part of the Web 2.0 is user contributed content and knowledge creation. This knowledge is published, enriched, shared, communicated and combined. From a knowledge management point of view, the essential aspects of Web 2.0 can be summarized into six important processes. Social network analysis is a highly effective tool for the analysis of knowledge sharing in networks as well as for the identification and implementation of practical methods in knowledge management.

Keywords: Web 2.0, social networking, knowledge management, social networking analysis, knowledge networks

1. Introduction

The theory of social influence states that an individual’s behavior is intentionally or unintentionally affected by other people according to how that individual perceives himself in relation to his influencers. In the social networking arena, this theory holds true. Behavior and actions vary according to how people view themselves within the various online social communities.

The term “social networking” is used to describe a set of Internet tools that enable shared community experiences, both online and in person. A community, in this context, is a group of people with common interests who connect with one another to learn, share knowledge, work, organize and socialize (AT&T, 2008). Social networking was born out of the personal empowerment and freedom the Internet offers.

Social networking is an outstanding part of a broad range of Internet technologies named Web 2.0 technologies. The concept of Web 2.0 is often referred to as an umbrella term, used to

explicitly express the framework of ideas and technology it creates. An essential part of the Web 2.0 is user contributed content and knowledge creation. The user contributed content is collaboratively annotated (e.g. by tags), shared in social network platforms and collaboratively improved (e.g. in wikis) harnessing the collective intelligence of the individual users and leveraging network effects.

Social networking was born in the race to imagine and test new frameworks of interaction among people, and exploded into common usage as it responded to the needs of a new generation of Internet users, their lifestyles, working habits and their concerns (Salpeter, 2011). Its success through applications such as MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn has made it compelling although the business models and thus possible longevity of these tools are still evolving. The corporate world follows closely behind the consumer space: many companies already communicate on their experiments and a large and fast changing portfolio of solutions is being made available.

The knowledge managed within social groups lies in content contributed by the users. This knowledge is published, enriched, shared, communicated and combined. From a knowledge management point of view, the essential aspects of social networking can be summarized into six important processes: knowledge syndication, collaborative knowledge creation, collaborative knowledge exchange, knowledge and meta-knowledge sharing, group and organizational knowledge development, and knowledge orchestration.

2. The Business Impacts of Social Networking

2.1. Major characteristics of social networks

Like many things related to Web 2.0, social networking has numerous definitions. Three viewpoints from the perspective of three globally known companies are listed in Table 1.

Organization Definition

McKinsey Social networking refers to systems that allow members of a specific site to learn about other members’ skills, talents, knowledge or preferences (McKinsey & Company, 2007).

Pew/Internet A social networking site is an online location where a user can create a profile and build a personal network that connects him or her to other users (Pew/Internet, 2007).

Wikipedia A social network service focuses on the building and verification of online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. It provides various ways for users to interact - chat, messaging, email, video, file sharing, blogging and discussion groups (Wikipedia, 2011).

Table 1 - Selected definitions of social networking

In academic terms, a social network is a group of people or organizations that are bound together by some common set of values, ideas or interests. The individual participants in a

social network are generally called “nodes”, and the relationships between the nodes can be measured in a number of ways. A social network map shows how each node interacts with the others, and the number of interactions is an indicator of a node’s “social capital”. A node which is tied directly with many other nodes is more connected with the network, and therefore has a higher capital value.

The current interest in social networks is driven by Web sites that have applied the theories of social networking to support online communities. The Web eliminates at least some of the need for face-to-face interaction, letting people connect no matter what the geography and no matter what the time. Initially popular with teens and college students, sites like Facebook and LinkedIn are now being used by people of all ages and occupations. Online social networking reflects main issues of contemporary culture, and this motivates businesses to consider the opportunity it represents.

At the core of an online social network there is generally a Web site and some associated tools, usually based on Web 2.0 technologies, to help participants establish connections and grow their networks. Some social networks are free, others have a membership fee. Users typically sign up for an online Web page (generally called a profile), where they create and share their personal information. Most social networks have ways to publish photos, create blogs and wikis, as well as to find and connect with people who have similar needs and interests to share content.

For business people, the networking benefits emerge as the individual members view each other's information and begin to communicate. People may exchange information about shared business issues, try to fill a job vacancy or look into ways to collaborate on a project. Privacy controls let users decide who can or cannot see their profiles; in some systems, they are encouraged to ask for introductions from current contacts rather than approach a stranger directly. Connections form between people with mutual acquaintances who see some business value in the relationship.

A social network is a tool that is working for people involved all the time. It can help them gain inside connections and gather information that could provide them a competitive advantage. In a hiring and recruiting context, huge numbers of job seekers can be connected to. The potential marketing and public relations benefits can be significant as well, but will depend on the degree of each individual’s engagement (Kabani, 2010).

But, not everyone is comfortable with virtual connections. The ability to explore and take advantage of the technology depends on an individual’s personality. Workers cannot be pushed into using social network platforms, and the value derived from a social network depends heavily on how much effort people put into it. For those who are willing to engage and participate, a social network can offer some real business value. It can increase their number of personal contacts, thereby helping them build their business. It can be a way to find sales opportunities, learn from others, share best practices, connect with new clients, and generate referrals. It can also help find others in the industry who might be interested in partner relationships.

The social networking experience is not without a down side. Putting personal or business information on the Web always carries an element of risk. A recent article reported that hackers have begun to target high-level executives, using the email addresses found on social

network sites. Also, it needs to be understood that the benefits won’t accrue over night; Web-based networking takes time and effort, just like traditional networking.

2.2. Types of social networks and their business benefits

While originally a consumer-based technology, social networking has been adopted by enterprises as a way to share ad hoc information. Although the term ‘social networking’ sounds incongruous within a corporate workplace, the technology and the practice of sharing personal information that grew out of Web 2.0 consumer applications provide a faster and easier way to connect with people and share information.

In many cases, the adoption of social networking applications was driven by users who adopted consumer technologies for use in the business environment. Recently, large enterprises began deploying these applications to make them more widely used and to bring the software under the IT umbrella to standardize technology and practices.

Enterprise users can participate in many more ‘communities of knowledge’ and ‘communities of practice’, both inside and outside the company, thus changing the way organizations communicate and innovate (Hara, 2010). Whereas individuals used to have to join each group separately, social networking applications allow users to associate their profiles with many groups, centralizing personal information and content and avoiding the need for replication and reiteration. The result can mean better leveraging of corporate knowledge and can lead to increased corporate productivity.

Enterprise social networking applications are optimized to collect unstructured information and connect users to relevant people and content. Enterprises typically use these applications to create communities for employees, partners, customers, or developers. The constants that define enterprise social networking applications are:

User presence, typically visible via a profile or collection of content and comments Ability to link between users and make connections, thus creating a networked

ecosystem of nodes Functionality (blogs, wikis, forums) that enables interaction between users, which also

adds richness and informs the community about the user.

Organic on-line communities have tantalizing potential value for the business world, whether they are used internally to help colleagues find others to incubate ideas into tangible projects or used to create closer relationships with customers, suppliers or business partners. However, the task of integrating a number of disparate applications looms large for any enterprise environment.

Fortunately, as the market for these applications has evolved, vendors have begun to do the integration themselves, offering solutions with user profiles and various social media applications (e.g., blogs, wikis, forums) all on one platform. These integrated applications bring new value to the enterprise by linking individuals to one another and providing relevant content and tools across the organization. And, of course, this networking can extend beyond the firewall to engage partners and customers in the dialog.

Table 2 shows the typical types of company-sponsored social networks and associated business benefits.

Type of Community Typical Reason Why Companies Deploy Social Networks

Customer Increase Web traffic with persistent engagement Gather real-time input from customers on their needs Increase brand awareness and loyalty Solicit customer-driven innovation

Employee Enhance teamwork Discover new ideas and accelerate innovation Encourage cross-functional inputs to drive better decision

making Create a company culture of knowledge sharing and learning Increase communication by leveraging intra-employee

communications to a broader audiencePartner (suppliers, channel partners, developers, consultants)

Coordinate communications, accelerating cross-company performance

Increase sales through real-time market intelligence and collaboration

Encourage co-innovation to better serve joint customers and markets

Create an interdependent ecosystem of partners that drives increased revenue for all participants

Table 2 - Social network deployment by type of community

2.3. Business value of social networking

Having the facts mentioned above in mind, and parallel to growth in popularity of Web 2.0 technologies, particularly social networking, businesses strategists and managers are trying to recognize their power and potential they offer to better conduct and govern corporate activities, both in the B2C (business-to-customer) as well as in the B2B (business-to-business) sphere.

In most cases, the business value of participation in a social network can only be seen indirectly. Social networks exist at the individual level, so the primary value accrues to the individual employees who are using the network to connect with other people. To the degree that those employees are effective ambassadors of their company’s brand, they will improve their company’s reach and reputation, while building their own store of social capital. However, if those individuals leave the company they will carry that earned social capital and knowledge acquired with them.

As social networks mature, their importance to business will increase (Safko, 2010). Social networks are becoming more important as tools for building relationships with customers, prospects, employees, and business partners. Business-oriented applications are just beginning to emerge, since so many sites have been focused on young, consumer-side audiences. As a platform for supporting business, the technology has real promise. We can imagine the value

of an application that could highlight upcoming industry events, as well as identify all the people in the network who planned to attend. That could greatly increase the potential for face-to-face networking, as well as the value gained from participation.

In certain situations, companies may even find that sponsoring a social network of their own makes good business sense. For example, a globally popular company Starbucks has recently launched a re-branding initiative that includes MyStarbucksIdea.com. It is a site where anyone can submit suggestions for improving the company’s products and services. Dell Computer has sponsored a similar site as a way to “crowd source” innovation and let its customers vote on suggested product improvements. Companies like YourMembership.com offer integrated platforms to help organizations establish their own social networks, whether they are nonprofit groups or for profit enterprises.

A private social network could also be extended to include people from outside the company, depending on the situation. Many business relationships tend to funnel communication through a single customer representative; broadening that contact point can improve process efficiency. A social network could be established to connect company’s technical staff to their customers’ or partner’s technical staff, or their accounting personnel to their customers’ or partner’s accounting personnel. In the end, social networks are always about making human connections, in order to improve communications and open new avenues for collaboration at any level.

Taylor has developed 10 predictions on how social networking would possibly impact the corporate world (Taylor, 2008):

1. Corporations will change the way they communicate.2. Corporations will change their vision.3. Corporations will change their organization.4. Collective intelligence and customer experience will lead innovation.5. Networking will be a key to employee excellence.6. Employee mobility will increase.7. Corporations will adapt their employees’ motivation and career path systems.8. IT/telecoms applications will mutate.9. Corporate adoption of social networking application will happen at different speeds.10. Social networking may allow increased revenue.

The change in the way corporations communicate among themselves and their customers will be affected by availability of brand new communication channels, different from face-to-face, phone, e-mail or traditional communication channels. Examples of new communication channels used in social networking are blogs, wikis, RSS, etc.

Corporations will change their vision since social networks at the same time broaden and segment their business horizons. These horizons are broadened because the networks may grow in time, and narrowed because companies will be able to target strictly focused audience, corporate and/or individual.

Since the way of doing business will change, corporation will be forced to modify their organizational structure and relationships. The usage of Web 2.0 technologies generally, and social networking specifically, creates a kind of ‘controlled chaos’ in the organization that requires radical organizational changes to be made.

New modalities of knowledge management, discussed further in this paper, will lead to improved collective and organizational intelligence which will create a creative environment prone to different types of innovation in business processes, products designed and manufactured, and services offered.

New sources of information in social networks may enrich employees’ personal, inter- and intra-personal knowledge, their competence and skills. This will, in turn, derive higher level of their excellence, supported by stronger competition among them, as well as new organizational structures and relationships.

Increased mobility of employees will result from improved and faster information exchange in social networks. In such an environment they will be able to quickly recognize new business opportunities, both for themselves personally and for corporate business purposes, and take appropriate actions to ‘catch’ these opportunities (Borg, 2009).

Increased employee excellence and mobility will force companies to adapt their employees’ motivation and career path systems. The shifts will have to be made in motivation and compensation schemes and career and talent management will come in focus of corporate human resource management.

It is obvious that new technologies, such as social networking, imperatively require changes in business IT and telecom applications. The business logic of these applications needs not to be altered in each particular case but new technological solutions are welcome anywhere that appropriate. The emphasis should be put on collaborative features of Web 2.0 technologies.

As it is the case with majority of newly introduced technologies, corporate adoption of social networking application will happen at different speeds. The shape of adoption cycles in companies will depend on multiple factors, such as technological heritage, organizational and collaborative culture, the age of employees, managerial willingness, etc.

Finally, it has to be stated that the most important challenge of social networking implementation in corporate world is its inherent potential to generate new value and greater revenue. This is still quite controversial issue and that is the reason why the need for development of new business models based upon social networking applications is probably the most discussed topic in business and professional circles.

3. Social Networking Corporate Models

To start a social networking program one first needs to design one or more models: these will target content that can be just business oriented or allow social items, and will be oriented toward employees, customers and business partners and channels, and more rarely to both of them.

There are four dimensions that determine a type of business model to be developed:

collaboration communities development

internal external

The map involving these four dimensions is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Social networking corporate models

The four types of model defined by dividing the map into Collaboration (Corporate-Wide) / Communities development (Individual) and Internal/External directions are:

Knowledge management model, including collaborative innovation (one of the ‘must haves’ from IT companies, via annual events or continuous programs), certified profession groups (engineers and project managers, for example, already form communities which easily make the jump to social networking), and knowledge networks (in those companies that successfully adopted knowledge management as a sustainable development plan).

Integration model, including Human Resource (HR) intelligence (understanding the networking map, locate talents and survey employee satisfaction by observation, much more efficiently than with traditional surveys), employee retention (allow employees to network in the corporation to avoid having them doing it outside of the enterprise, with a risk that competition or hackers build a view of confidential information by compiling different sources) and employee efficiency via a single user experience (many companies already have parts of a social networking experience that need to converge to allow effectiveness and efficiency).

Brand consolidation model refers mostly to pure marketing and communication programs including buzz (sharing with a close circle of customer some early information or usage, to strengthen launch communications once the information goes

public), innovation idea gathering (little barriers and a strong objective to build the future of the brand and its values with the customers) and tribal marketing (to favor identification to the brand of diverse social groups).

Business development model gathers developer groups (especially in the software area, as they can share adds-on, configuration and technical tips), after-sales (customer-company collaborative learning projects via forums or even better and newer, wikis) and loyalty programs (customer long term engagement programs that help identify business opportunities though the fine observation of behaviors and feedbacks).

Triggers, accelerators and model specification will define the adoption speed. As for the success when implementing a social networking program, like all innovations relying on technology, it relies on usability and design.

4. Knowledge Management Social Networking Corporate Model

4.1. Development of knowledge management tools and facilitators

Historically, collaborative tools (such as e-mail, structured file sharing, document management, and calendaring) have done a good job of supporting impersonal and personal knowledge. However, they have been poor at enabling the kinds of social artifacts needed to effectively capture and use organizational knowledge in a business environment (Vossen and Hagemann, 2007).

Facilitating real-time communication, coordination, and collaboration among groups of people was the goal of the next generation of software called groupware (for example, Lotus Notes). These applications were a major leap forward, for the first time combining tools such as project management, calendaring, chat, whiteboards, and document management. But although groupware was effective in introducing task-based tools to enterprise users, it was limited to new capabilities developed by administrators; end users were not able to create more customized solutions. Additionally, like most enterprise software, groupware was not designed to anticipate the rich collaborative, user-centric possibilities brought on by the Internet.

The new generation of collaborative work may be defined by the shift from information handling to interaction management, or socialization. Social networks might seem at first to be more about play than about work but it is precisely such play and the recurring stickiness it engenders that will allow people to tap into the collective knowledge of their coworkers. Social networking will succeed where earlier approaches to collaboration, such as traditional Knowledge Management and groupware tools, have failed (Casarez et al., 2009).

What can the enterprise learn from social networks? First is the notion that birds of a feather flock together. Communities of interest will quickly form without the need for top-down hand-holding. First, when people build their own groups, connections become stronger and interactions more frequent and long lasting. Second, with better tools, a faster rate of user adoption is evident. Enterprise users, spoiled by the ease of consumer software, do not want to perform complex installations, remember arcane passwords, or learn something new just to be able to share with their coworkers.

But one important question arises: Why has not still there been a plethora of enterprise software offerings for social software? Although Web technologies have advanced to the point where building applications on top of a networked infrastructure is easier, building an online social graph that mirrors employees’ real-world interactions is still very hard. And what are the benefits of using a social application within the enterprise? Instead of viewing social network as a distraction, the savvy enterprise should learn what makes it so sticky – and how those capabilities could be applied to the enterprise to drive knowledge worker productivity and accelerate innovation.

Enterprise social knowledge management applications are obviously going to be the next generation of collaboration and productivity tools, capturing the interpersonal knowledge of workers and the implicit connections among people, systems, and data to integrate them in a body of organizational knowledge. With them, the invisible becomes visible and actionable in a way never before possible.

4.2. The six processes of knowledge management in a social networking environment

The knowledge managed within Web 2.0 applications lies in content contributed by the users. This knowledge is published, enriched, shared, communicated and combined. From a knowledge management point of view, the essential aspects of Web 2.0 can be summarized into six important processes.

Those six processes where derived from an extensive analysis of related work in the field of Web 2.0 (Schwagereit et al., 2008) that has been conducted earlier. For each process, representative examples of Web 2.0 applications are provided and its relation to the processes of traditional Knowledge Management is identified:

Knowledge syndication – Users publish their opinions, experience and knowledge to a broad community of recipients. The recipients can randomly access the information or subscribe to it. The knowledge producer is typically known to the recipients. Web 2.0 applications that support knowledge syndication are blogs, podcasts and news feeds. With respect to the traditional Knowledge Management processes, knowledge syndication mainly deals with knowledge transfer, i.e. making pieces of knowledge of a person or organization explicit and providing it to other persons and organizations.

Collaborative knowledge creation – It deals with joined creation of explicit knowledge resources, e.g. text or hypertext documents. In contrast to the knowledge syndication, where the authors of the knowledge are known to the consumers, this is typically not the case in collaborative knowledge creation. The group of users collaboratively creating the knowledge can be an open community such as the Internet users or closed such as a specific division of a company. A Web 2.0 application for collaborative knowledge creation is the use of wikis in organizations and its collaborative creation of articles. Collaborative creation of knowledge mainly deals with the creation of (new) interpersonal knowledge or at least making implicit knowledge explicit.

Collaborative knowledge exchange – The way of solving a problem an individual has by exploiting the wisdom of others in a group or community. A description of the problem is made available to an open or closed group of users. The users can give

hints, make suggestions how to solve the problem, give concrete solution directions and discuss about them. All feedback, hints, answers, and solutions provided are visible to all users of the community. Examples of Web 2.0 applications that provide for collaborative knowledge exchange are discussion forums and question and answering systems. The collaborative knowledge exchange process focuses on knowledge transfer and knowledge application. The transfer of knowledge takes place by users providing their contribution to the problem solving process as a form of interpersonal knowledge.

Knowledge and meta-knowledge sharing – Users share their knowledge with a group of other users or an organisation. The sharing can be within a closed or open community. Users possess the knowledge they contribute and sharing typically comes in combination with creation and sharing of meta-knowledge. Meta-knowledge are descriptions of the pieces of knowledge, i.e. it is knowledge about knowledge. Typically tags are used as meta-knowledge. The process differs from knowledge syndication insofar as it is typically not about a “one to (very) many” relationship as with, e.g. mass media. Web 2.0 applications that allow for knowledge and meta-knowledge sharing are content sharing systems.

Knowledge networking – Users typically provide some personal information such as interests and affiliation(s) and share it with the community. In addition, the users can explicitly state that there is a connection between themselves and other users (contacts). Considering social networking with respect to the traditional processes of knowledge management, the main relation can be seen with knowledge storage and retrieval. It also supports the creation of personal and organizational knowledge (the social network itself). Another, secondary, purpose of social networking is the transfer of knowledge.

Knowledge orchestration – Process that implements the combination of different open infrastructures and thus merging different resources of knowledge to create a new service and to provide better insights into the knowledge. It can be used for better exploring knowledge and its combinations; often achieved with maps, timelines or diagrams. Web 2.0 applications making use of knowledge orchestration are typically called mashups, providing a (predefined) combination of different knowledge sources (Clarkin and Holmes, 2007). The process of knowledge orchestration allows for interpersonal knowledge creation through combination of existing resources. The goal of this combination is knowledge transfer and knowledge application. Transfer of knowledge means that by accumulating the knowledge and presenting it through different visualizations, it can be perceived and acquired.

4.3. Aligning knowledge management and social networking processes

Seemingly, the six processes identified for social networking applications have a correlation to the four core processes of traditional knowledge management. The matrix depicted in Table 3 shows this correlation. The x-axis shows the four traditional knowledge management processes and the y-axis depicts the six Web 2.0 and social networking processes. Given this matrix, the majority of Web 2.0 and social networking support for traditional knowledge management lies on the knowledge transfer. Here, we find all social networking applications introduced. The process of knowledge creation and knowledge storage and retrieval are

supported by fewer Web 2.0 applications. Both can be facilitated by wikis and social networking applications.

Traditional Knowledge Management

Web 2.0 & Social Networking

KnowledgeCreation

KnowledgeTransfer

KnowledgeStorage/

/Retrieval

KnowledgeApplication

Knowledge Syndication Blogs, Podcasts,News Feeds

Collaborative Knowledge Creation

Wikis Wikis Wikis

Collaborative Knowledge Exchange

Discussion Forums

Discussion Forums

Knowledge and Meta-Knowledge Sharing

Sharing andTagging ofContent

Sharing andTagging ofContent

Knowledge Networking Social NetworkingApplications

Social NetworkingApplications

Social NetworkingApplications

Knowledge Orchestration Mashups Mashups Mashups Mashups

Table 3 - Traditional knowledge management processes aligned with social networking

While Knowledge creation is additionally supported by knowledge orchestration, knowledge storage and retrieval can be improved by knowledge and meta-knowledge sharing. Finally, social networking can give only minor support for knowledge application by methods of collaborative knowledge exchange and knowledge orchestration. Although not all processes of traditional knowledge management are equally supported by Web 2.0 and social networking applications, one can conclude that indeed knowledge management can benefit from them.

5. Social Networking Analysis as a Powerful Method for Knowledge Management

5.1. Basics of social network analysis

Social network analysis is a sociological paradigm to analyze structural patterns of social relationships (e.g., Wasserman and Faust, 1994, Wellman and Berkowitz, 1988). It provides a set of methods and measures to identify, visualize, and analyze the informal personal networks within and between organizations. Thus, social network analysis provides a systematic method to identify, examine and support processes of knowledge sharing in social networks (Müller-Prothmann, 2006).

According to the literature, organizations that develop networks both internal and external to their organization are supposed to be able to deal with knowledge more effectively (e.g., Kanter, 2001). Discussions of the role of networks in knowledge management primarily stress

the importance of informal networks (as opposed to different types of formalized networks). Furthermore, networks are often emphasized as result of an activity or process, i.e. “networking” (Seufert et al., 1999).

Social network analysis can help support knowledge sharing by focusing on various core applications of knowledge management, for example (Müller-Prothmann, 2005):

identification of personal expertise and knowledge, research into the transfer and sustainable conservation of tacit knowledge, and discovery of opportunities to improve communication processes and efficiency.

While social network analysis as a method of academic research remains mostly on a descriptive level, its use and application goes beyond a merely descriptive-analytical focus. It can be successfully applied for practical interventions and follow-up activities to influence network actors, their relationships, and network structure to improve knowledge sharing between individuals, groups, and organizational units or whole organizations.

Especially with regard to processes of inter- and intra-organizational knowledge community building, social network analysis provides a powerful tool. Based on the insights of a social network analysis, interventions can be derived to facilitate communication processes and community activities, to strengthen boundary-spanning knowledge exchange and to increase the informal inter- and intra-organizational relationships for better knowledge sharing. Therefore, social network analysis should become an integral method of organizational design and strategy to support processes of inter- and intra-organizational community building, communication and knowledge management.

5.2. Social network analysis as a source of knowledge

Knowledge, communication and their social organization constitute the central dimensions of knowledge management. Taking this position as a starting point, the paradigm of social networks and the method of social network analysis is widely recognized as a potential approach to analyze, evaluate, and influence communication processes. Here, it is argued that social network analysis is a highly effective tool for the analysis of knowledge sharing in networks as well as for the identification and implementation of practical methods in knowledge management.

With regard to purposes of knowledge management, social network analysis may help to evaluate availability and distribution of critical inter- and intra-organizational knowledge and thus facilitates (Kobielus, 2009):

strategic development of inter- and intra-organizational knowledge, transfer and sustainable conservation of implicit knowledge, development of core competencies (like leadership development), creation of opportunities to improve communication processes, identification and support of communities of practice, harmonization of knowledge networks after mergers and acquisitions, sustainable management of external relationships.

Particularly in research and service organizations, where the members’ innovative potentials, creativity, and abilities for self-organization play an important role, it is of primary interest to pool individual competencies and resources and to create synergetic effects and co-operations.Therefore, knowledge about potential core competencies and individual resources, facilitation of existing personal relationships, as well as development of new personal relationships and co-operations, are necessary prerequisites. This is where social network analysis provides a powerful tool for measuring and increasing performance of knowledge management.

Social network analysis can help to gain useful insights into network structures and roles using simple patterns of relationships (like who talks to whom) based on a single event of data collection (questionnaire, email analysis, document analysis) with a minimum effort in terms of time and money. A more sophisticated analysis could include various dimensions of relationships, data collection from different resources, and longitudinal studies with continuous data collection (e.g., communication traffic) or multiple surveys (e.g., monthly, weekly). Implementation of results from social network analysis would need follow-up activities, e.g., workshops and team development, and thus involve more personal involvement and additional resources.

Social network analysis uses various techniques to empirically identify underlying patterns of social structure. It compares the existing patterns and their influence on specific network behavior variables and performance outcomes. From the perspective of knowledge management, social network analysis helps us identify basic network properties, positions of network members, characteristics of relations, cohesive sub-groups, and bottlenecks of knowledge flows.

5.3. Results of social network analysis applicable to knowledge management

Data collected from social network analysis is commonly analyzed by use of appropriate software tools. Data analysis itself may be complex and its explanation in detail goes far beyond the scope of this paper. Here, only those network concepts and metrics are explained that play a central role for knowledge management in social networks within and between organizations.

The interpretation of results of a network analysis can be distinguished according to three different analytical levels:

1. interpretation of the whole network;2. interpretation of clusters and components;3. interpretation of individual positions.

For the case of knowledge sharing and management within social networks, three whole-network measures should be taken into account due to their basic relevance (Bandyopadhyay, 2011):

The size of a network is defined by counting its members (nodes). It is a basic property of a network – directly sharing and managing knowledge between all members of a large network (e.g., between 100.000 employees of a multinational enterprise) would be extremely difficult compared to sharing and managing knowledge between all members of a small network (e.g., within a research team).

Network centralization is the global centrality of a network and measures the degree to which relationships within a network are focused around one or a few central network members. High network centrality means that knowledge flows within a network are dependent on few single nodes, i.e. removal of these network members means corruption of knowledge flows.

Density is defined as the total number of ties divided by the total number of possible ties. As a measure that is especially relevant for knowledge community building within and between organizations, density describes the overall linkage between network members.

Three basic types of network structures have been found in the literature to be central for processes of knowledge sharing and management:

Sub-groups and clusters of expertise are built through dense connections between sub-sets of network members. They are important for understanding the behavior of the whole network. For example, organizational sub-groups or cliques can develop their own culture toward knowledge management and their own attitude toward other groups.

Cut-points build bottlenecks for free flows of knowledge. They emerge when networks are split into loosely coupled components. Network members of pivotal significance in holding components together are also called bridges. While bottlenecks are critical to knowledge sharing within a network, too many links can lead to inefficiency of knowledge exchange and management. Therefore, links between sub-groups must be coordinated effectively and efficiently.

Hubs are enablers of effective knowledge transfer and management. As networks are clustered, some members are important as simultaneous actors in many clusters. These are known as hubs. They can effectively link different sub-groups of the network and facilitate knowledge flows, e.g., between different departments or to external partnering organizations. On the other hand, network efficiency can be strongly dependent on hubs, i.e. they provide a potential risk to the overall functioning of the network.

The method of knowledge network analysis as presented here in a quite simplified manner aims at the analysis of network structures and positions within a clearly defined scope of analysis, i.e. a specific domain of organizational knowledge. The interpretation of results based on the basic measures of social network analysis must, on other hand, include the existing organizational conditions.

6. Conclusions

Knowledge generated is useful only when it is well-managed and disseminated to people who can use it. This is true also for social networks which could be viewed as a huge source of personal, inter-organizational and intra-organizational knowledge. The knowledge managed within social groups and networks lies in content contributed by the users. This knowledge is published, enriched, shared, communicated and combined.

While traditional knowledge management involves four basic processes – knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, knowledge storage/retrieval and knowledge application, knowledge management in Web 2.0 and social networking environment relies upon six fundamental processes – knowledge syndication, collaborative knowledge creation, collaborative knowledge exchange, knowledge and meta-knowledge sharing, knowledge networking, and knowledge orchestration. Although not all processes of traditional knowledge management are equally supported by Web 2.0 and social networking applications, one can conclude that indeed knowledge management can benefit from them.

Especially with regard to processes of knowledge community building, social network analysis provides a powerful tool to strengthen boundary-spanning knowledge exchange and to increase the informal inter- and intra-organizational relationships for better knowledge sharing and management. Therefore, social network analysis should become an integral method of organizational design and strategy to support processes of inter- and intra-organizational community building, communication and knowledge management.

References

AT&T. “Web 2.0: What You Need to Know“. http://www.att.com/business, October 22, 2008

Bandyopadhyay, Suraj. Models for Social Networks With Statistical Applications: Advanced Quantitative Technology in the Social Sciences. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (CA), 2011

Borg, Andrew. “Mobile Device Management: Bringing Order to Enterprise Mobility Chaos”. http://www.aberdeen.com, June 2009

Casarez, V., Cripe, B., Sean, J., Weckerle, P. Reshaping Your Business with Web 2.0. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York (NJ), 2009

Clarkin, Larry, Holmes, Josh. “Enterprise Mashups”. The Architecture Journal, October 2007, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/bb906058

Hara, Noriko. Communities of Practice: Fostering Peer-to-Peer Learning and Informal Knowledge Sharing in the Work Place. Indiana University, School of Library & Information Science (SLIS), Bloomington (IN), 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking

Kabani, Shama. The Zen of Social Media Marketing: An Easier Way to Build Credibility, Generate Buzz, and Increase Revenue. BenBella Books, Dallas (TX), 2010

Kanter, R. M. Evolve! Succeeding in the digital culture of tomorrow. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (MA), 2001

Kobielus, James. “Social Network Analysis: Going to Become Too Ubiquitous for Its Own Good”. Information Management Blogs, December 8, 2009, http://www.information-management.com/blogs/

McKinsey & Company. “How businesses are using Web 2.0”. The McKinsey Quarterly, March 2007

Müller-Prothmann, Thomas. “Use and Methods of Social Network Analysis in Knowledge Management“. In: Coakes, E. and Clarke, S. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information and Knowledge Management, Idea Group, Hershey (PA), 2005, pp 565-574

Müller-Prothmann, Thomas. Leveraging Knowledge Communication for Innovation: Framework, Methods and Applications of Social Network Analysis in Research and Development, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt a. M. (Germany), 2006

Pew/Internet. “Social Networking Websites and Teens”. http://pewinternet.org/, January 3, 2007

Safko, Lon. The Social Media Bible: Tactics, Tools, and Strategies for Business Success. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (NJ), 2010

Salpeter, Miriam. Social Networking for Career Success: Using Online Tools to Create a Personal Brand. LearningExpress, LLC, New York (NJ), 2011

Schwagereit, F. Scherp, A., Kaczanowski, T., Wozniak, E., Dziadek, D., Papadopoulos, S. “D5.1: Survey Knowledge Management Systems“, http://www.weknowit.eu/system/files/D5.1.pdf, 2008

Seufert, A., von Krogh, G., Back, A. “Towards knowledge networking“. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1999, pp 180-190

Taylor, Cherry. “Corporate Social Networking in Europe“. http://www.dynamicmarkets.co.uk, 2008.

Vossen, G., Hagemann, S. Unleashing Web 2.0: From Concepts to Creativity. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington (MA), 2007

Wasserman, S., Faust, K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (MA), 1994

Wellman, B., Berkowitz, S. D. Social Structures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (MA), 1988