Using enterprise social networks as a knowledge management tool in higher education

Published date13 November 2017
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-12-2016-0073
Pages555-570
Date13 November 2017
AuthorNiall Corcoran,Aidan Duane
Subject MatterInformation & knowledge management,Knowledge management,Knowledge management systems
Using enterprise social networks
as a knowledge management tool
in higher education
Niall Corcoran
Department of Information Technology, Limerick Institute of Technology,
Limerick, Ireland, and
Aidan Duane
Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose The management of organisational knowledge and the promotion of staff knowledge
sharing are largely neglected in higher education institutions. The purpose of this study is to examine
how enterprise social networks can enable staff knowledge sharing in communities of practice in that
context.
Design/methodology/approach The study is framed as an Action Research project, covering three
cycles over a 12-monthperiod. During the Diagnosing phase, a conceptualmodel was developed for empirical
testing. Data were collectedthrough 30 semi-structured interviews and a number of focus groups. This was
supplementedby content analysis and reective journaling.
Findings The ndings support the conceptualmodel and provide insight into the antecedents necessary
for the creation of an enterprisesocial network-enabled knowledge-sharing environment,the motivators for
and barriers to participation, and the perceived organisational and individual benets of increased staff
knowledge-sharingactivity.
Research limitations/implications As the study has a higher education focus, all of the ndings
may not be generalizable to other types of organisation. Further development of the conceptual model and
testing in othercontextual settings will yield greater generalizability.
Practical implications A number of ndings have practicalimplications for the management of higher
education institutions,such as the evidence of a divide between faculty and other staff. In general,the study
ndings provide an opportunityfor educationalists to better understand the scope and impact of employing
social mediaplatforms for knowledge sharing.
Originality/value This paper adds to the growing body of work on organisational implementations of
social media,and should be of interest to practitioners and researchers undertakingsimilar projects.
Keywords Higher education, Communities of practice, Knowledge management,
Enterprise social networks
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are, by their very nature, knowledge intensive
environments, and their primary raison dêtre is to create and disseminate knowledge
through teaching, learning and research activities. They also play a pivotal role in the
external transfer of knowledgethrough interaction with business and other organisationsin
supporting innovation, entrepreneurship and social and cultural enterprise. There are two
knowledge perspectivesin HEIs to consider:
Knowledge
management
tool
555
Received14 December 2016
Revised27 February 2017
Accepted17 March 2017
VINEJournal of Information and
KnowledgeManagement Systems
Vol.47 No. 4, 2017
pp. 555-570
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5891
DOI 10.1108/VJIKMS-12-2016-0073
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5891.htm
(1) academic knowledge, resulting from teaching and learning activities; and
(2) organisational knowledge, which is the knowledge of the business, its strengths,
weaknesses, strategies, critical success factors, etc. (Pinto, 2012).
It would seem logical then that knowledge management (KM) would be a core business
strategy of any HEI through which they could recognise, manage and use their knowledge
assets. However, a number of studies have shown that, although the external transfer of
knowledge is effectively managed by most HEIs, the management of organisational
knowledge and the promotion of staff knowledge sharing is largely neglected, with low
levels of KM implementation and knowledge sharing evident in these organisations
(Ramachandran etal.,2009;Fullwood et al.,2013).
Intellectual capital is the sum of everything that everybody in an organisation knows
that gives it a competitive advantage, and, according to Al-Hawamdeh (2003), the
intellectual capital ofan organisation can only be maximised through the applicationof KM
practices. The importance of knowledge sharing to organisational success is also
highlighted by Liebowitz (2001), who argues that organisations can attain competitive
advantages through encouraging and promoting knowledge sharing. According to Swart
and Kinnie (2003), the need for knowledge sharing is even more important in knowledge-
intensive organisationssuch as public HEIs, and they must share knowledge held by staff if
they are to gain the most from their intellectual capital and compete effectively in an ever-
expanding, global marketplace.Al-Hawamdeh (2003) asserts that the outcome of knowledge
sharing is the creation of new knowledge and innovation that will improve organisational
performance, and a number of studies have shown that promoting knowledge-sharing
practices results in improved organisational effectiveness (Petrash, 1996;Olivera, 2000). A
lack of KM implementation and knowledge sharing, therefore, has signicant negative
impacts on the intellectual capital and the overall performance of HEIs, similar to any type
of organisation, commercial or otherwise (Sohail and Daud, 2009;Fullwood et al.,2013).
According to Ramakrishnan and Yasin (2012), speed of curriculum revision and updating,
and quality of administrative and support services are particularly impacted in HEIs. A
number of reasons for this lack of KM implementation and knowledge sharing in HEIs can
be garnered from the literature,among them:
organisational structures (Rowley, 2000;Collinson and Cook, 2003;Lee, 2007);
organisational culture (Rowley, 2000;Cronin, 2001;Lee, 2007);
the bureaucratic character of some types of HEIs (Tippins, 2003;Taylor, 2006); and
a divide and mistrust between academic staff and administration staff (Conway,
2000;Dobson, 2000;Szekeres, 2004).
With regard to KM implementation in general,from its inception in the mid-1990s, much of
the early focus was from an information and communications technology perspective
(Hovland, 2003). Following an initial surge of interest, this system-led approach caused
many to doubt the viability of KM as a discipline and indeed it was dismissed by a number
of authors as a passing fad (Scarbrough and Swan, 2001;Wilson, 2002). Much of the
organisational KM strategyalso had a top-down implementation and was of a formal nature
that required employees to enter knowledge into databases to be used by others (Levy,
2013). It soon became apparent that these systems were of limited use for sharing tacit
knowledge, the knowledge that people have in theirminds that comes from experience and
learning, and did littleto aid organisational learning, and consequently, use of thesesystems
diminished (Bower et al., 2001;Johannessen et al., 2001). However, accordingto Levy (2009),
VJIKMS
47,4
556

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT