daniel lucas w100910 joht3052 strategic management of … · 2014. 12. 31. · department of...
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF VAASA
FACULTY OF BUSINESS STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
Daniel Lucas w100910
JOHT3052 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Final Assignment:
The Role of Learning Management Systems for Knowledge Transfer within a Knowledge-Intensive
Organization:
A Case Study of Butterfield & Robinson
Deadline: 30.5.2014
VAASA, 2014
2
Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
Research Methodology of the Report ........................................................................................ 4
Outline of the Case Company and LMS .................................................................................... 5
Introduction of Case Company: Butterfield & Robinson ...................................................... 5
Problem identification at B&R .............................................................................................. 6
A Solution in the form of a Learning Management System .................................................. 7
Background of Moodle .......................................................................................................... 8
Moodle at B&R ...................................................................................................................... 9
Focus of LMS for Knowledge Management ....................................................................... 10
Literature Review with Case Study Examples: Moodle as a Strategic Knowledge Transfer IS
.................................................................................................................................................. 11
Knowledge Management in Organizations .......................................................................... 11
Explicit and Tacit Knowledge ............................................................................................. 12
Knowledge Transfer Process Model Overview ................................................................... 13
The Role of Information Technology and LMS as a tool for Knowledge Transfer ............ 14
IT-based Knowledge Creation and Externalization ‘Stickiness’ Issues .......................... 14
Knowledge Storage and Retrieval ................................................................................... 16
Knowledge Transfer......................................................................................................... 17
Knowledge Application ................................................................................................... 18
Overcoming Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer ................................................................ 19
Individual and Shared Knowledge ....................................................................................... 19
Socialization and Social Networks ...................................................................................... 20
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 21
References ................................................................................................................................ 23
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 26
3
Introduction
The goal of all companies from multinational corporations (MNCs) down to small and
medium enterprises (SME’s) is to leverage their core competency into a competitive
advantage with which to thrive in the highly dynamic external international business
environment. In today’s increasingly knowledge-intensive world, this requires the ability to
both effectively and efficiently transfer valuable knowledge between employees in order to
solve problems, share best practices, and create innovations. Furthermore, it has been
proposed by Allee (2009) that knowledge is built upon a foundation of learning. As Kogut
and Zander (1992:384) famously stated that “the central competitive dimension of what firms
know how to do is to create and transfer knowledge efficiently within an organizational
context”; it follows that companies must manage their organizational learning via Learning
Management Systems (LMS) in order to optimize their Knowledge Management (KM).
With the rapid technological escalation in today’s world, the responsibility of Knowledge
Transfer (KT) within firms has been increasingly falling within the confines of the strategic
management of information systems as the key tool for locating a firm’s explicit knowledge
and enhancing it’s employees ability to share tacit knowledge. However, it is of utmost
importance for a firm to balance the implementation of IT systems with an understanding of
the factors influencing the human operators social interactions within those systems in order
to avoid failure (Chatti et al. 2007:408). If effectively built into LMS platforms, this begins to
bridge the gap between the organizational benefits associated with social networking media
such as the improved speed and quality of communication which can boost innovation
development and knowledge transfer efficiency (Heikkilä 2014B:10).
This issue is of particular importance to the case company in the high-end tourism industry,
Butterfield & Robinson (B&R), which at its heart (re: core competency) is providing in-depth
knowledge on par with that of the local people in the regions for each of their hiking and
biking guided-tours. The objective of this report is to analyze the strategic management of
knowledge transfer using Information Systems (IS) through an exploratory case study of the
knowledge-intensive organization B&R which recently implemented the LMS known as
Moodle. Although the Moodle platform was primarily developed for training purposes and
process / documentation standardization; a significant benefit identified of the system is its
4
support for the sharing of expert local knowledge between guides and the capture of this
valuable knowledge for the benefit of the firm.
The report begins with a review of the research methodology used in the development of this
report. Next, an outline is provided of the background of the case company, the problem
identified, and how a Learning Management System (LMS) was selected as the platform with
which to solve the problem. This is followed by a detailed review of Knowledge Transfer
(KT) literature which was conducted to analyze specific connections to the LMS
implemented in the case company. Finally, conclusions from the case are drawn and areas for
future research are outlined given the rapid pace of technological advancement in the field of
information systems for knowledge transfer.
Research Methodology of the Report
This research report is abductive and subjective in nature given the goal of developing theory
by “continuously moving between the empirical and model world” through the use of a case
study (Kontkanen 2014:11). The case study method was selected for its content richness with
which to identify if issues in the literature were encountered by an organization in the process
of implementing an LMS for KT. Data was gathered through triangulation where interview
responses were combined with company information available on the corporate website, as
well as administrator access being granted to the author to acquire firsthand experience with
B&R’s Moodle (NB. Reflected in the case analysis by the reference to “My ______”).
The research began with an initial interview of the Administration & Training Manager via
Instant Messaging (IM) and email to provide a base-level of information regarding the
implementation of a new IS at B&R. Then the existing overarching literature on knowledge
transfer and IS as a mechanism for KM was reviewed to determine applicable theory. Next,
access to the Moodle platform was provided which allowed a greater understanding of the
inner workings of the information system. This lead to another direction in the literature
review which resulted in further question development. At this stage, the primary in-depth
face-to-face interview with the system implementer was conducted in light of the researcher’s
existing understanding of the theory as well as initial case situation. Finally, the literature was
5
reviewed once more for further applicable theories which developed into final questions that
were answered via a brief closing interview over Skype.
Outline of the Case Company and LMS Introduction of Case Company: Butterfield & Robinson
Butterfield & Robinson (B&R) is a luxury hiking and biking company headquartered in
Canada with subsidiary offices in France and Italy and a network of local guides in every
corner of the world. Since 1966, they have operated global trips which combine comfort and
style with unique experiences which provide travellers with a true essence of the regions
explored (Butterfield 2014). B&R’s competitive advantage lies in having knowledgeable
guides in each trip region who have the ability to answer questions and provide “local”
knowledge which fully submerses the travellers in the essence of the people, culture, and
land. This has proven more difficult in the last decade as internet mobility increases travellers
access to regional information, making it even more important for guides to retain valuable
specialized knowledge of the region. To achieve the company’s competitive advantage they
place a strong emphasis on promoting an organizational culture focused on creativity and
entrepreneurship which proliferates every aspect of their operations. As such, B&R has
recently been developing two integrated information systems, Peak 15 and Moodle, with
which to manage the valuable knowledge of: 1) customer preferences and requirements
resulting in tailored customer service acquired over years of experience, and 2) local travel
destinations contained within the experiences of their guides and the best practices specific to
each region, respectively.
B&R trips can be viewed as the management of a variety of diverse projects where success is
dependent on highly specialized knowledge contained in individuals as well as processes.
This means that the organization needs a culture which promotes its intellectual assets as well
as has the IT systems in place which allow users to locate and retrieve applicable knowledge
when following procedures and making decisions (Karlsen & Gottschalk 2004:4). The
majority of the local regional knowledge is brought into the company through its network of
trip guides who are independent contractors (i.e. not B&R employees) hired to lead the
excursions as well as occasionally conduct trip planning research on new locations. B&R’s
fierce level of international competition, requires a focus on delivering on their core
competency of operating trips while achieving flexibility via their reliance on a network of
6
contractors (re: guides) who reinforce their value chain. Therefore, B&R acts as a
knowledge-intensive networked organization “where members need to be simultaneously
autonomous and interdependent” (Parent et al. 2007:89-90). This has led to an issue where
the case company needs to invest in information systems in order to acquire and manage the
knowledge contained within their network; particularly in situations where the company has
invested large financial sums in contractors to gather local travel information unique to a
specific region. Finally, this control must be accomplished without destroying the
organizational culture of creativity and entrepreneurship which has also in the past
paradoxically led to prior B&R contractors leaving the networked organization to create
competing firms (Grace & Butler 2005:63).
Problem identification at B&R
The implementation of Moodle at B&R developed out of a recent situation surrounding an
organizational restructuring which occurred when the company operated 20% more trips
than forecasted during the 2013 trip season. This led to difficulties in performing tasks on
time, errors being made, and an overall higher level of stress causing lowered organizational
morale. A consequence of which was select traveller feedback that the guides seemed
inexperienced in the regions in which they were supposed to be experts. This resulted in a full
job and task analysis to fix the identified issues from the previous year, primarily in the area
of implementing an IS for knowledge management. At first, the goal was to develop a portal
which could be used to host training modules; however, it quickly resulted in the discovery of
numerous additional benefits in utilizing a single platform for knowledge management.
The immediate need was identified that B&R must have an updated IS with which to provide
the guides access to the knowledge that they require both quickly and efficiently to ensure
that the prior year’s issues were not repeated. It was also assumed that the guides would be
strongly motivated by the implementation of such a tool given that the majority of their
compensation is from traveller tips; which are significantly influenced by the travellers
perception of the guide as an expert in the region (which is a factor of their level of local
knowledge). Despite the previously identified issue of providing contractors with valuable
knowledge which they could then remove from the company, the decision was made to
implement the IS given that the benefits of more knowledgeable guides and higher quality
7
trips far outweighed the risk of sharing valuable knowledge as long as the system was
monitored properly. The IS’s objectives were to: 1) ensure standards of policy and procedure
training for all guides resulting in socialization, 2) place the responsibility of regional
knowledge on guides by providing access to B&R’s knowledge repositories earlier, 3)
increase the self-sufficiency of guides through online access to all materials rather than the
prior method of mailing trip packages containing the knowledge, 4) enhance internal
collaboration within the guide network so that they could share best practices / regional
knowledge with each other to understand what worked and what didn’t on prior trips, and 5)
provide guides with greater insight into B&R’s offerings to cross-sell trips.
Prior to the IS implementation, the majority of knowledge transfer within B&R was person-
to-person involving individually held expert local knowledge and so a cultural as well as
technological process change was required to make the transition to one where everyone
records and shares their expert knowledge through codification into processes via
collaborative technology platforms (Lee & Lee 2000). Furthermore, it was discovered that
guides were using social media tools like Facebook to synchronously share information about
trips such as road conditions in order to heighten their collective awareness of the constantly
changing environments in which they were travelling. Prior to the new IS, the technology
being utilized was not only outdated but was also very difficult to access remotely using a
contractors personal devices during the trip. Therefore, achievement of B&R’s objectives
required an IS platform to deliver technological support for the four knowledge management
processes outlined by Alavi & Tiwana (2003:114): creation, storage and retrieval, transfer,
and application.
A Solution in the form of a Learning Management System
As far back as the 1980’s an argument has been made that organizational learning is the
cornerstone of leveraging knowledge held within employees (Zuboff 1988) and that the
ability to manage the learning process (e.g. in the form of a centralized training material
repository) is required for firms to succeed (Grace & Butler 2005:60). Although Learning
Management Systems (LMS) have their origins in education as e-learning arenas which fall
under the category of Virtual Learning Environments (VLE); in an organizational context
they have expanded beyond the applications associated with training and development to
8
encompass advanced tools that can be applied to knowledge management and its transfer
throughout a knowledge-intensive firm (Grace & Butler 2005). Despite arguments that LMS
are too content-centric, lack opportunities for informal learning and are not individualized
enough (Chatti et al. 2007:412); Grace & Butler (2005:59) had previously developed a
framework where LMS was utilized as “formal managed learning” supporting organizational
learning while also identifying that IS and knowledge management systems are also crucial
factors to support “informal unmanaged learning” (Appendix #1). However, it will be evident
throughout this report that an argument can be made that the constant evolution of LMS’s
such as Moodle are blurring the lines between formal learning (re: organizational learning via
training) and informal learning (re: knowledge management via social collaboration and
communication) by reaping the benefits of both learning types through technological
advancement.
Background of Moodle
Moodle (acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) is an online
LMS platform which enables rich communication between all learners and teachers (Moodle
2014A). Started in 2003, Moodle has quickly spread globally in the past decade to over
64,000 organizations, in 235 countries and 100 languages with over 71 million users (Moodle
2014B). There are four basic functions of Moodle which can be utilized by organizations: 1)
store (info, files, databases, links), 2) communicate (forums, chatrooms, calendar, messaging,
RSS) 3) collaborate (wiki, blog, forum, workshop/lesson, social network), and 4) evaluate
(quiz, assignments, scales, choices, rating) (Lasic 2008). Moodle is differentiated from other
LMS platforms in that it is freeware committed to the Open Source Initiative meaning that
new community produced plug-ins are continuously being developed to ensure that the
platform is constantly evolving with the needs of its users. The system is often used in
organizations for training purposes as it has the ability to interact with a plethora of training
software offerings via SCORM (Chatti et al. 2007:410) as well as creates an asynchronous
training ground which breaks the distance confinements of in-person training. It can also be
integrated into existing infrastructure systems or act as the standalone primary infrastructure
IS with the assistance of approved Moodle-Certified partners who provide support, hosting,
project planning and implementation services (Webanywhereworkplace 2012).
9
In terms of pedagogy, Moodle has been developed with a philosophy of social
constructionism wherein “reality is reproduced by people acting on their interpretation and
their knowledge of it” and knowledge is transferred, developed and maintained in social
situations (Parent et al. 2007:83). Socially constructed reality has received support by KT
researchers (Spender 1996:60; Lee et al. 2007:513; Eskelinen et al. 2004:209) as well plays a
key role in the research ontology of subjectivism (Saunders et al. 2009:111). Moodle has also
demonstrated enhanced KM in firms via knowledge creation (i.e. wikis, forums, blogs, log
files, courses) and knowledge transfer (i.e. forums, wikis, resources, workshops, notes,
repositories, community hub) when its implementation is embedded within the organization’s
culture and practices (Berry 2009:33,37,38).
Moodle at B&R
Moodle was identified by B&R as a flexible system with which to combine social
collaboration with an easy format for dispersing information online, even to individuals who
are not tech savvy. As such, Moodle’s central access point via any web browser interface
enables it to be implemented as a backbone enterprise information portal with which to
transfer knowledge between both human and technological repositories, anywhere at anytime
(Alavi & Tiwana 2003:110). Given B&R’s utilization of contractors which rely on shadow IT
to access knowledge in the field (re: all forms of BYOD – Mac, PC, smartphones and tablets)
(Heikkilä 2014C:6), Moodle far surpasses B&R’s prior citrix-based system which was
difficult to install, run, and access on trip. This has been supported with a strong directive
from HQ that all guides should rely on Moodle for documents, policies, and procedures in
order to encourage utilization of the new systems by aligning processes and procedures with
management-backed IS (Lee & Lee 2007).
As Moodle’s open source nature provides a flexible, diverse, and highly customizable
platform; the expected result is a higher user acceptance of the IT system as previously
demonstrated with the development of firm-specific platforms that address the specific
knowledge management needs of the organization (Smale 2007B:2). Adoption of the system
for KM should also be enhanced given Moodle’s simplicity and ease of use in navigation for
administrators as well as users (Chatti et al. 2007:414). Finally, B&R selected the Moodle
system due to its ability to track individual user interactions within the system. This allows
10
the administrators to interpret usage such as how and when the system is being used. Also,
given the valuable local region and procedural knowledge contained within the system, the
organization can avoid the dark side of IS by identifying users who may be leaking
information from the system by downloading vast quantities of knowledge which isn’t
directly relevant to their role (Heikkilä 2014C:5).
Butterfield & Robinson’s online learning centre which runs on Moodle is called “The
Honorary University of Butterfield” aka The HUB. This name not only reflects the learning
aspect (re: training) side of the system through its association as a University, but it goes
further by positioning itself as the central piece of the network which connects everyone and
everything in B&R. The name is also highly aligned with the creativity of the organizational
culture in that it reflects the hub of a bike tire, the primary association that many guides make
with the firm. Although The HUB only went live in the last few months, it already has 80
participants and is currently undergoing a transformation as guides begin to familiarize
themselves with the system through accessing documents and sharing knowledge.
Focus of LMS for Knowledge Management
Although the focus of Butterfield & Robinson’s Moodle was originally as an LMS platform
developed as a source of learning for guide training purposes (Grace & Butler 2005); the
secondary benefits for the main users / stakeholders of the system quickly became evident in
the form of pushing knowledge to contractors (re: guides) internationally and assisting them
with sharing knowledge. Given that local regional knowledge contained within the
contractors (re: guides) was identified as one of the primary competitive advantages of B&R,
the remainder of this report will focus on analyzing The HUB as a knowledge management
system directed towards encouraging Knowledge Transfer (KT) between the guides and
within B&R’s networked organization. Throughout the report, guides will be treated in a
similar way as globally located subsidiaries each holding individual specialized knowledge
which needs to be shared both vertically (to HQ) as well as horizontally (to other guides).
Although language is an issue when investigating global phenomenon (English isn’t the
native tongue of a significant number of guides), it’s implications have been downplayed
given that all guides require excellent English communication skills due to B&R’s primary
travellers / customers being native-English speaking North Americans.
11
Literature Review with Case Study Examples: Moodle as a Strategic
Knowledge Transfer IS Knowledge Management in Organizations
How an organization manages its knowledge has been identified as playing a crucial role in
the development of its core competencies with which it remains competitive in the global
dynamic environment as proposed by Grant (1996) in the Knowledge-based view of the firm.
This is strongly aligned with the OECD’s 1996 report “The Knowledge-Based Economy”
which emphasized the importance of the diffusion of information within an organization
through the development of network societies where members can interactively share their
knowledge (OECD 1996:14). Furthermore, support for the social aspect of knowledge is
alluded to in Alavi & Tiwana’s (2003:104) statement that “effective knowledge management
in organizations involves a combination of technological and behavioural elements.”
There continue to be numerous debates effecting knowledge management. Such as whether to
view knowledge as an “object” that can be captured, a “process” that can be managed, or a
“capability” to be built (Liyanage et al. 2009:120) (Appendix #2). Additionally, knowledge
has been classified as “know what”, “know how”, “know why” and “know-whom” (Panahi
et al. 2013:379; Chatti et al. 2009:405). The scope of these arguments are beyond the
confines of this paper; however, it is important to note the various viewpoints and how they
influence an organizations choice of the optimal knowledge transfer mechanisms. For
example, in the case company it is evident that they view some knowledge as “objects” in the
form of documents that they can capture in repositories and push to guides, as well as other
knowledge that comes about through a “process” wherein guides collaborate to solve
problems or create best practices through sharing their unique experiences. This demonstrates
the contextual nature of knowledge.
This report has already highlighted a number of key terms in the prior sections such as
Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge Transfer (KT); however, before proceeding
with the literature analysis, it is important to further define knowledge terminology for the
purpose of clarity. This begins with the distinction being made between data, information,
knowledge, and expertise as described by Bender & Fish’s (2000) Knowledge Hierarchy
(Appendix #3). The most important factor to note in the hierarchy is that as the movement is
12
made from data to expertise, knowledge becomes less explicit and more tacit as it is
constructed on an individual level as well as within social groups. While Grant (1996)
proposed that specialized knowledge is individually held, Kogut and Zander (1992)
advocated that an organization’s reason for existing is to grow by recombining this
knowledge to learn new skills. Therefore, there is a need to increase the “flow” within ones
organization to achieve the benefits associated with knowledge.
Smale (2008:152) identified important terminological differences when discussing the
movement or “flow” of knowledge within an organization. Knowledge transfer (KT) is
viewed as a “distinct experience” (from Galbraith 1990:70), whereas knowledge diffusion is
a gradual process over time. Additionally, Liyanage et al. (2009:122) describes knowledge
sharing as a bilateral exchange between people at an individual level, which is the smallest
level of analysis in the area of knowledge transfer but one that is of crucial importance when
an organization aims to “create a knowledge sharing culture”.
Explicit and Tacit Knowledge
As with all academic writing on the subject of knowledge, a distinction must be made
between explicit knowledge which is codifiable and easily articulated (Koulopoulos &
Frappaol, 1999) and tacit knowledge which is “non-verbalised, intuitive and unarticulated
knowledge” (Polanyi 1962). Furthermore, some academics propose that knowledge falls on a
continuum based on the degree of tacitness (Ambrosini & Bowman 2001) (Appendix #4).
The unique characteristics of explicit and tacit knowledge has resulted in arguments
supporting the suitability of explicit KT via technological mechanisms, while information
communication technology (ICT) has been fiercely debated over the past decade as to its
ability to successfully transfer tacit knowledge (Roberts 2000:439; Griffith et al. 2003:271;
Chatti et al. 2009; Panahi et al. 2013:387). Roberts (2000:439) added to the critique when he
proposed that tacit KT would not be possible until the development of a “shared space” was
created in which users could virtually share a common social and cultural understanding
which is required to establish trust as long as it is supported by face-to-face meetings. This
argument has received support through the case analysis in that The HUB has become a
virtual learning environment which is based around a shared organizational culture.
Furthermore, socialization is enhanced when B&R’s guides meet face-to-face twice a year to
13
open the travel season with training in May and close the travel season to share experiences
in October. Roberts also proposed (2000:439) that “those who experience socialization from
a young age may be able to utilize ICTs as an effective substitute for face-to-face contact”;
which has proven true at B&R with younger guides adopting The HUB more rapidly.
Knowledge Transfer Process Model Overview
In the field of knowledge transfer, many academics have proposed frameworks or models to
describe the process with which knowledge moves from its source (re: sender/producer) to
the recipient (re: end user). All models begin with an understanding that the knowledge
holders in an organization must be identified prior to the transfer of their knowledge. At
B&R, the primary holders of valuable knowledge have been identified as the guides who
contain region-specific local knowledge. One KT model is Parent et al.’s (2009:88) system’s-
based dynamic knowledge transfer capacity model. This model states that once the pre-
existing conditions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘need’ have been identified (similar to Szulanski
1996:28), the authors argue that an organization requires four capacities with which to
manage their knowledge (Appendix #5). At B&R, The HUB matches the criteria as a
disseminative capacity tool in that it provides social and technological infrastructure which
enhances networking and leads to the development of “iterative mechanisms to facilitate a
large diffusion of knowledge” (Parent et al. 2007:88).
The most frequently cited and instrumental model in the field has been Szulanski’s (1996:28-
29) four stage knowledge transfer process: initiation implementation ramp-up
integration. Although a strongly supported and proven model, the model chosen as the
primary analysis tool in this report is Liyanage et al.’s (2009:126) KT process model based
on communication and translation theories (Appendix #6). This model has been selected for
its all encompassing framework which includes: Szulanski’s (1996) four stage transfer
process and ‘stickiness’ factors, Nonaka & Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge creation modes of
KT, as well as networking theory which has come to the forefront of international business in
the last two decades.
14
The Role of Information Technology and LMS as a tool for Knowledge Transfer
As the focus of this report is to understand B&R’s LMS platform The HUB as a IS tool in the
knowledge transfer process; knowledge management theory which utilizes IT tools (Alavi &
Tiwana 2003) and software support systems (Lindvall et al. 2003) is a significant factor in the
analysis. First and foremost, by means of Lindvall et al.’s (2003:139) KM architecture model
(Appendix #7), they propose that “a complete software system for KM should support all
transformations and components of the knowledge conversion cycle” (2003:138). Although
The HUB isn’t a complete software system in this regard, it does contain many of the crucial
knowledge management processes identified which overlap with Alavi & Tiwana’s
(2003:114) categorization of IT tools for the support of KM processes (Appendix #8). Alavi
& Tiwana’s (2003:114) KM processes also broadly reflect the main stages outlined in
Liyanage et al.’s (2007:126) KT process model described earlier. This report will continue by
discussing the way in which The HUB addresses knowledge management as supported by IT
(and ICT) tools outlined by each of Alavi & Tiwana’s (2003) four KM processes of:
creation, storage and retrieval, transfer, and application.
IT-based Knowledge Creation and Externalization ‘Stickiness’ Issues
A discussion of knowledge creation isn’t possible without first mentioning Nonaka &
Takeuchi’s (1995:71) knowledge spiral (aka SECI model) consisting of: socialization,
externalization, combination, and internalization. Given that The HUB is a software platform
in which users must codify their tacit knowledge to an explicit form in order to share it, the
externalization aspect of the SECI model will be the primary focus of analysis. However, as
online networking is gaining prominence, a discussion will follow later which highlights the
importance of tacit to tacit knowledge creation via socialization. As enhanced decision
making and innovation creation is the overarching goal of KM; internalization of explicit to
tacit knowledge and the combination of explicit to explicit knowledge will be discussed in the
application process section.
Knowledge creation within The HUB is possible via the e-learning tools and collaboration
support systems. The e-learning management system dimension of The HUB is an important
knowledge creation tool contained within each user’s “My Courses” profile (Alavi &
Tiwana’s 2003:105; Lindvall et al. 2003:148). Moodle provides integration with B&R’s
15
existing training software (Articulate Storyline) in order to push training knowledge to the
guides with the objective of building the skills which they require. The HUB’s training
courses are a one-directional transference of policies and procedures which have been
codified by HQ from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge via the process of documentation
which are pushed to the guides regardless of their location. Transfer of this type of explicit
knowledge is a central focus of the LMS platform through codifying tacit knowledge into a
sharable and searchable format as well as creating training tools to provide standardized
process and procedure operational guidelines. Knowledge creation is also possible via the
collaboration support systems’ forums, blogs, and hotlinks contained within the “My
references” section of The HUB as they can be utilized to facilitate user interactions in
solving problems (Alavi & Tiwana’s 2003:109; Lindvall et al. 2003:142).
Individuals holding tacit expert knowledge can acquired power associated with controlling
valuable knowledge that others don’t have (Chatti et al 2007:414). While sharing this
intangible knowledge via externalizing their knowledge into “organizationally accessible
repositories” enhances the organizations view of them as valuable central network
contributors (Tsai 2001); contradictorily, in the externalization conversion process from tacit
to explicit knowledge via IT systems, the individual loses the benefit of retaining that
knowledge and thusly will be less motivated to share (Griffith et al. 2003:280). Furthermore,
similar to Liyanage’s et al.’s (2009) intrinsic and extrinsic influence factors for KT; Szulanski
(1996) empirically proved that knowledge transfer would be more ‘sticky’ (re: difficult)
when: 1) the knowledge had causal ambiguity, 2) the knowledge recipient lacked absorptive
capacity, and 3) the transfer context contained an arduous relationship. Although Szulanski
found no support for motivation as a stickiness factor, in an empirical study to research
employee willingness to share knowledge, support was found for Burgess’s (2005)
hypothesis that the perceived credit (‘extrinsic rewards’) provided by an organization were
positively correlated with employee’s exhibiting increased sharing behaviour.
In the case company, the more knowledgeable that guides are regarding the area in which
they are guiding is directly linked to the local area valuable knowledge that customers
perceive they have, resulting in higher tips. This should create a motivation to learn more, but
can also be negatively associated with the fact that knowledge is power and so they are less
16
motivated to share (i.e. receiver openness while sender KT stickiness) (Chatti et al.
2007:414). For example, a guide may have local contacts (e.g. restaurant owner) that they
have developed a relationship with over the years which provides high quality service.
Although they can easily transfer the explicit knowledge about where to go (re:
recommendations), they cannot as easily transfer the tacit knowledge and value contained
within the relationship. Furthermore, they may not desire to transfer this to other guides as
their tips are directly tied to the unique knowledge and trip experience that they provide.
Knowledge Storage and Retrieval
One of the primary goals of The HUB is to act as one centralized knowledge repository
which is able to locate captured knowledge from outside of the organization as well as
disseminate knowledge within the organization through bringing together all knowledge into
a single access point to reduce the search process (Alavi & Tiwana’s 2003:108). This has
been an instrumental benefit of The HUB for knowledge management given that it assists
guides with transferring their individually held “local region” knowledge back to the
company (HQ) via documentation through trip reports and debriefings which codify their
tacit experiences into explicit knowledge so that it can be collected, analyzed and shared on
The HUB. As guides convert their knowledge from tacit to explicit via technological
communication tools (i.e. The HUB), the result for the entire networked organization will be
enhanced access and the ability to search for relevant knowledge (Griffith et al. 2003:271).
Within the “My References” section of The HUB are wiki’s, documents and hotlinks which
aid user’s in finding the most relevant and up-to-date documents and contents related to all
aspects of the business, thereby increasing the explicit KT speed and efficiency (Lindvall et
al. 2003:140). Prior to the centralization of knowledge, multiple separate inefficient tools
were located with various office staff which required guides to contact the office and receive
printed documents which could quickly become outdated. It is important to note that training
is required to reduce the difficulty for guide to understand the feature-rich centralized system
as well as the develop the skills with which they can compose a report or classify a document
and locate it within the system (Chatti et al. 2007:409).
17
Knowledge Transfer
The HUB’s potential as a KT tool is reliant on its acceptance as both an enterprise
information portal and communication support system (Alavi & Tiwana’s 2003:109; Lindvall
et al. 2003:144). The “My References” section of The HUB contains a “Guiding 2014”
subsection which acts as a portal that houses everything required for a guide to run a trip as
well as connect to both HQ and other guides while in the field. Included in the portal are:
helpful announcements, reference materials (checklists), guiding document lists (e.g. post-trip
forms), as well as an open communication tool called “Guiding life” which contains an open
forum and wikis where guides are free to share helpful tips regarding cities of which they
have extensive knowledge.
Tacit knowledge requires social interaction in order to be shared (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995)
and so face-to-face meetings are optimal; however, media richness is enhancing the ability
for tacit knowledge sharing via synchronous communication tools such as instant messaging
(IM) (Panahi et al. 2013:387). The objective was that the Guides could use the wiki’s and IM
communication tools available in The HUB to quickly share knowledge about locations in
real-time whereas before the guides were using an external social media network (Facebook)
to share knowledge which wasn’t then being captured by the organization. This is an example
of the LMS supporting “informal or unmanaged learning” (Grace & Butler 2005:60), which
goes beyond the initial goals of supporting “formal managed learning within the
organization” via training. Although asynchronous communication tools, guide insight during
The HUB development phase led to the addition of wikis and forums to provide a fluid
workspace compared to other sections of The HUB which would remain more stable (e.g.
policy documents).
A subsection of “My References” called “Regional Information for Guides” also contains
valuable proprietary B&R knowledge compiled throughout the year on all trips that the
company operates. While this knowledge provides the very essence of a B&R trip and
therefore is of strategic value to the guides, it also represents a security threat of possible
knowledge leak to competitors. Travel knowledge is B&R’s core business, and as such there
is a lot of risk with providing access to contractors (travel guides) who have no direct tie to
B&R and as such are a potential threat of taking the regional information located on The
18
HUB for their own use and starting their own company. Although an initial concern, the
value added of having the guides get access to this info was weighed more heavily than the
risk. However, the company can track all downloads and time spent on Moodle to monitor for
suspicious behaviour.
An imitatability issue with knowledge transfer to competing firms external of B&R’s
networked organization is an problem that must be further addressed because once valuable
knowledge becomes codified within The HUB, it becomes easily transferrable. This is of
benefit to the organization but can also lead to knowledge-leak as knowledge contained
solely within a “technological tool reservoirs” are the easiest format to transfer and one which
competitors could potentially utilize (Argote & Ingram 2000:158). Therefore, the real value
of the knowledge embedded within The HUB platform is derived not only from the explicit
knowledge embedded within, but rather with the tacit knowledge of the users (guides) in how
to: create, combine, search, transfer, and utilize the knowledge that gets created in the system.
This is supported by Argote & Ingram’s (2000:150) proposition that “interactions among
people, tasks, and tools are least likely to fit a new context and hence are the most difficult to
transfer.” This is why there is a high level of importance in developing a system which is
based on socialization to continue the sharing of knowledge from which the firm will benefit.
Only once users develop trust and have internalized the value associated with the HUB, will
it become a core competitive advantage that will attain rarity and inimitability.
Knowledge Application
The value associated with utilizing an LMS platform such as The HUB as a tool for
knowledge management derives directly from the ability of the knowledge transferred to be
applied by users in future situations. In this way, The HUB fulfils both the role of an expert
system as well as a decision support system. The “My Profile” section of The HUB allows
users to quickly find people (e.g. view staff, positions, names, contact details) with whom
they can communicate to answer questions or share knowledge. This is supported by the “My
Badges” section where guides receive certification badges indicating skills achieved through
completing courses. Both of these sections aid knowledge seekers in finding experts in
various areas to address the issue of “knowing-whom” (Panahi 2013:379; Chatti et al.
2007:405).
19
Although it has been advocated that managing the transfer of knowledge within a company is
of strategic importance, the outcomes in terms of applicability of these transfers have yet to
be discussed. The most frequently-cited benefits associated with KT are enhanced problem
solving (Parent et al. 2007), best practice sharing (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Szulanski
1996), and promoting innovation through facilitating collaboration and networking (Liyanage
2007:122). All of which result in supporting organizational decision making. Furthermore,
the following are general benefits of IS for organizations: efficient and cheaper
communication throughout the network (internally and externally) with tighter coordination
and decentralization leading to improved decision making (Heikkilä 2014A:19-20).
Application of newly acquired knowledge for optimal decision making in the field occurs
through the internalization process as individual knowledge is created during the transition
from explicit to tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995:71). At B&R, guides must be
able to read the explicitly codified document prepared by trip planners, and then internalize
the knowledge so that they can answer questions and improve their decision making during
trips. Furthermore, given that guides are located all over the world, utilizing a single virtual
information system (re: The HUB) provides the opportunity for standardized training and
sharing of knowledge (vertically in both directions as well as horizontally) without the need
for expensive transportation costs associated with personal meetings. However, this leads to
some limitations regarding the knowledge that can be transferred using virtual systems due to
the loss of knowledge during codification and raises questions as to the degree to which
experiential tacit knowledge sharing is possible via ICT.
Overcoming Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Transfer Individual and Shared Knowledge
Within B&R’s networked organization, all guides are silo’s of individually held highly
specialized tacit regional knowledge of great value to the firm (Grant 1996). As has been
previously stated, this tacit knowledge is difficult to transfer especially via technology as it
requires a great deal of communication. However, as guides have been recruited for similar
personality traits and skill sets, they also possess a transactive memory which is a shared
system of meanings, stocks of knowledge (Kogut & Zander 1992:388), coding schemes
(1992:390), retrieving knowledge available to the group (Griffith et al. 2003:277) and
experiences which can be leveraged to facilitate the tacit knowledge transfer process within
20
the network. It has been shown that connections are more likely to form between people who
are more similar to one another, known as ‘homophily’, such as the case in B&R where
guides share similar behavioural attributes (Smale 2007A:19-20). Therefore, to enhance tacit
knowledge transfer, a focus should be on building socialization within the guide network in
order to develop a more unified transactive memory.
Socialization and Social Networks
An initial belief behind The HUB was that the more people begin to share, the more that they
will be excited to share, especially as the system develops into an enculturalization tool (via
common training) which Spender (1996) has associated with the ability to transfer individual
tacit knowledge within teams. This is supported by Kogut & Zander (1992:383) in that
building on existing social relationships can lead to firm growth. The socialization process
was also identified by Nonaka (1994) as the primary method of transferring tacit to tacit
knowledge within a company via on-the-job training and direct observation. The Network
Model of IT applications also supports this theory by “facilitating person-to-person transfer
of knowledge via electronic communication channels” (Alavi & Tiwana 2003:109). As such,
The HUB performs an ICT knowledge sharing role via wiki’s and IM which create a
previously unavailable organic line of communication throughout the guide network and not
just vertically between HQ and individual guides. Developing stronger connections in the
form of a social network between these independent guides provides the organization with
the ability to acquire new capabilities (Argote & Ingram 2000) and build learning
communities (Chatti et al. 2007:406).
In order to achieve an optimal LMS-based knowledge management system, Chatti et al.
(2007:411) advocate focusing on the following seven critical factors: 1) knowledge
networking and community building (i.e. enhancing know-who), 2) user-centric focus (i.e.
‘Me-learning’), 3) distributed learning (i.e. outside of the classroom), 4) bottom-up (i.e.
sharing instead of controlling knowledge), 5) knowledge-pull (i.e. individuals choose the
knowledge that meets their needs), 6) adoption (i.e. systems must be simple and useful), and
7) knowledge sharing culture and trust (i.e. promote collaboration and relationship
development).
21
The HUB meets all of these criteria; however it can be taken a step further by encouraging
the most active users to develop a community of practice (CoP). Within The HUB, users
should collaborate with the common goal of solving a problem or creating innovations
around which they have informally organized themselves to communicate with other
passionate experts (Parent et al. 2007:83). Griffith et al. (2003:276) proposes that in virtual
teams, an individual’s membership in a relevant CoP will positively affect the transition of
potential team knowledge to useable knowledge.
Furthermore, the literature has highlighted that the strategic role of IS in KM is driving
beyond what is now capable with today’s Moodle platform to a focus on social network
building as a means of sharing tacit knowledge (Chatti et al. 2007; Panahi et al 2013).
However, as an open-source platform, Moodle can always grow to incorporate these elements
in the future to continually bridge the gap between ICT and face-to-face communications in
organizational knowledge transfer.
Conclusions
In today’s highly competitive international business world where knowledge management is
playing an increasing important role; firms must strategically manage their information
systems in order to harness the valuable knowledge contained within their organizational
network. In the past, this meant a focus on building multiple databases with which to store
codified explicit knowledge. However, due to the rapid advancements in technology,
organizations are coming closer than ever in replicating face-to-face human interaction
through the application of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs). One such
technology is Learning Management Systems (LMS) such as Moodle which form a ‘shared
space’ alluded to by Roberts (2000:439) wherein the members of an organization’s network
can form social connections and achieve a level of tacit knowledge transfer unlike previously
imaginable.
As the case study of Butterfield & Robinson’s implementation of Moodle for the purpose of
knowledge transfer indicated, it is possible to achieve both explicit as well as tacit knowledge
sharing as long as the information system is highly customized to the firm and it is embedded
within a corporate culture that emphasizes open sharing and collaboration between
22
knowledge holding users. Although only recently implemented, The HUB has a lot of
potential given that B&R is only currently using 25% of Moodle’s capabilities. In the future,
The HUB will continue to play an instrumental role in: the socialization of new and existing
employees through e-learning programs who are geographically distant, training suppliers in
B&R’s values and standards, and opening deeper lines of communication across-borders and
silos within B&R’s network.
It has been recognized throughout the literature review that the future of e-learning via
platforms such as Moodle are shifting towards combining LMS with “knowledge networking
and social software” (Chatti et al. 2007). This is demonstrated in the ICT movement towards
pure networking with the goal of sharing tacit knowledge through the use of closely
integrated organizational networks, such as Enterprise Social Networks (e.g. Yammer). This
is based on the proliferation of Web 2.0-based Social Webtools (e.g. Wikis, SNS, blogs,
videopostings, social tagging) for collaboration, communication and transferring tacit
knowledge (Panahi et al 2013). B&R has already begun to capitalize on some of these trends
thru the hash tag #mybnr where guides can post and share photo’s from around the world
(Tagboard 2014). Future research is now required to empirically analyze the effectiveness of
social web platforms in sharing tacit knowledge within an organization. As the history of
business has proven throughout the ages, organizations will always be driven to exploiting
(and trying to manage) cutting edge technological advancements with the objective of
acquiring an advantage over their competition.
23
References
Alavi, M. & Tiwana, A. (2003). Knowledge Management: The Information Technology Dimension.
Mark Easterby-Smith and Marjorie Lyles (Editors), Organizational Learning, Blackwell Press,
London, 103-120
Allee, V. (1999). Knowledge or Learning, Published in Leverage, March.
Ambrosini, V. & C. Bowman, (2001). Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization.
Journal of Management Studies, (38)6: 811-829
Argote, Linda, & Paul Ingram (2000). Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for Competitive Advantage in
Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 150-169
Bender, S. & Fish, A. (2000). Transfer of knowledge and the retention of expertise: the continuing
need for global assignments. Knowledge Management, 4(2): 125-37
Berry, Miles (2009). Knowledge Management in Moodle. [online] Available from:
<http://www.slideshare.net/mgberry/moodle-and-knowledge-management> [Accessed on 10 May
2014]
Burgess, D. (2005). What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit?
Journal of Business Communication, 42(4): 324-48
Butterfield (2014). Since 1966. [online] Available from: <http://www.butterfield.com/about/since-
1966/> [Accessed on 1 May 2014]
Chatti, M.A., M. Jarke, & Frosch-Wilke, D. (2007) The future of e-learning: a shift to knowledge
networking and social software, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, 3(4/5): 404–420
Eskelinen, Jussi, Aki Kokkinen, Minna Koskinen, & Pasi Tyrväinen (2004). Comparing the
Applicability of Two Learning Theories for Knowledge Transfer in Information System
Implementation Training. Proceedings – IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies. DOI: 10.1109/ICALT.2004.1357404, p.206-2010
Galbraith, C.S. (1990). Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high tech firms. California
Management Review, 32(4): 56-70
Grace, Audrey & Tom Butler (2005). Beyond knowledge management: Introducing learning
management systems. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 7(1): 53-70
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17:109-122
Griffith, Terri L., John E. Sawyer, & Margaret A. Neale (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams:
Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly,
27(2): 265-287
Heikkilä, Jukka-Pekka (2014A). Lecture 1: Strategic Management of Information Systems. University
of Vaasa: JOHT3052
Heikkilä, Jukka-Pekka (2014B). Lecture 3: Social media. University of Vaasa: JOHT3052
Heikkilä, Jukka-Pekka (2014C). Lecture 5: The dark side of technology. University of Vaasa:
JOHT3052
24
Karlsen, Jan Terje, & Petter Gottschalk (2004). Factors affecting knowledge transfer in IT projects.
Engineering Management Journal, 16(1) 3-10
Kogut, B., & U. Zander, (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication
of technology. Organization Science, 3: 383-97
Kontkanen, Minnie (2014). Lecture 4: Research Design. University of Vaasa: INTB3002
Koulopoulos, T. & C. Frappaolo, (1999). Smart Things to Know about Knowledge Management.
Capstone, Dover, NH.
Lasic, Tomaz (2008). What is Moodle explained with Lego. [online] Available from:
http://www.slideshare.net/moodlefan/what-is-moodle-explained-with-lego-presentation> [Accessed
on 2 May 2014]
Lee, Zoonky & Jinyoul Lee (2000). An ERP implementation case study from a knowledge
transfer perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 15: 281-288
Lee, Sang M., Zoonky Lee, & Jinyoul Lee. (2007). Knowledge transfer in work practice: Adoption
and use of integrated information systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(4): 501-518
Lindvall, M., I. Rus, & S. S. Sinha (2003). Software systems support for knowledge management.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5): 137-150
Liyanage, Champika, Taha Elhag, Tabarak Ballal & Qiuping Li (2009). Knowledge communication
and translation – a knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3): 118-131
Moodle (2014A). About Moodle FAQ. [online] Available from:
<http://docs.moodle.org/27/en/About_Moodle_FAQ> [Accessed on 5 May 2014]
Moodle (2014B) Stats. [online] Available from: <https://moodle.org/stats/> [Accessed on 15 May
2014]
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,
5(1): 14-37
Nonaka, I. & H. Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1996). The Knowledge-Based Economy.
OECD: Paris, France
Panahi, S., J. Watson, & H. Partridge (2013). Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3): 379-397
Parent, R., M. Roy, & D. St-Jacques (2007). A systems-based dynamic knowledge transfer capacity
model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6): 81-93
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-critical Philosophy. Harper Torchbooks,
New York, NY.
Roberts, Joanne (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and
communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
12(4): 429-443
25
Saunders, M., P. Lewis and A. Thornhill (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. 5th edition.
Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Smale, Adam (2007A). Theme 5: ‘Stickiness factor (v) – The Source-Recipient Relationship
(individual level). University of Vaasa: JOHT3017
Smale, Adam (2007B). Theme 8: Technology-based Mechanisms of Knowledge Transfer. University
of Vaasa: JOHT3017
Smale, Adam (2008). Global HRM integration: a knowledge transfer perspective. Personnel Review,
37(2): 145-164
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making Knowledge The Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm. Strategic
Management Journa,.17: 45-62
Szulanski, Gabriel (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice
within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17:27-43
Tagboard (2014). #mybnr. [online] Available from: <https://tagboard.com/mybnr> [Accessed on 25
May 2014]
Tsai, Wenpin (2001). Knowledge Transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network
position and absorptive capacity of business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of
Management Journal, 44(5): 996-1004.
Webanywhereworkplace (2012). Moodle training solutions for businesses. [online] Available from:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QeKBA5NmyM> [Accessed on 25 April 2014]
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic
Books.
26
Appendix Appendix #1) “Learning in Organizations – Framework Incorporating LMS”
(Grace & Butler 2005:59)
27
Appendix #2) “Knowledge perspectives and their implications” (Liyanage et al.
2009:121)
Appendix #3)“Knowledge Hierarchy” (Bender & Fish 2000)
Appendix #4) “Degree of tacitness” (Ambrosini & Bowman 2001)
28
Appendix #5) “The dynamic knowledge transfer capacity model” (Parent et al.
2007:88)
29
Appendix #6) “Knowledge transfer – a process model” (Liyanage et al.’s
2009:126)
Appendix #7) “KM architecture model” (Lindvall et al.’s 2003:139)
30
Appendix #8) “Information technology tools for support of KM processes”
(Alavi & Tiwana 2003:114)