Uppsala University 2008-01-16 Department of Business Studies Autumn semester 2007 Bachelor Thesis Supervisor: Leon M. Caesarius

SharePoint’s Implications on Knowledge Management

A Case Study of Stora Enso’s Usage of SharePoint

Author: Jonas Eriksson

ii

Abstract

Companies use IT tools for knowledge management. The purpose of this study is to examine

the perceived benefits and possible drawbacks of SharePoint. Different perspectives on

knowledge and different knowledge management processes are compared to this system. The

vision for SharePoint in Stora Enso includes e.g. increasing work efficiency and supporting of

knowledge sharing. The situation before SharePoint 2007 included e.g. information was hard

to find and static sites existed in changeable conditions. Knowledge is mostly perceived as an

object in Stora Enso, but with new features and techniques it is possible to view knowledge

with other perspectives. The main benefit of SharePoint is the possibility to collaborate and

share knowledge.

List of Contents

Abstract ii 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Problem Statement....................................................................................................2 1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................2

1.2.1 Purpose Delimitation ..........................................................................................2 1.3 Definitions...................................................................................................................2

1.3.1 Groupware...........................................................................................................2 1.3.2 Knowledge Management ...................................................................................3 1.3.3 Knowledge Management System .....................................................................3

2 Theory ...............................................................................................................................4 2.1 The concept of “Ba”...................................................................................................4

2.1.1 Information versus Knowledge..........................................................................4 2.1.2 The Knowledge Creating Spiral ........................................................................5

2.2 Five Perspectives on Knowledge.............................................................................7 2.3 Knowledge Management Processes .......................................................................8

2.3.1 Knowledge Creation...........................................................................................8 2.3.2 Knowledge Storage and Retrieval ....................................................................8 2.3.3 Knowledge Transfer ...........................................................................................9 2.3.4 Knowledge Applicability ...................................................................................10

2.4 Implications for Knowledge Management .............................................................10 3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................12

3.1 Documentation.........................................................................................................12 3.2 Interviews .................................................................................................................12 3.3 Validity and Reliability .............................................................................................14 3.4 Critical Remarks ......................................................................................................14 3.4 Ethical Discussion ...................................................................................................15

4 Empirical Findings .......................................................................................................16 4.1 Company Background of Stora Enso ....................................................................16

4.1.1 Stora Enso’s Migration to SharePoint 2007...................................................16 4.2 Documentation of SharePoint 2007.......................................................................17 4.3 Interview with the Project Leader for SharePoint 2007........................................19

4.3.1 Introduction of SharePoint ...............................................................................19 4.3.2 The Perceived Functionality of SharePoint....................................................20 4.3.3 Education for the Users ...................................................................................20

4.4 The Knowledge Management Director’s View on SharePoint ............................21 4.5 The Users’ View on SharePoint .............................................................................22

4.5.1 Interview with Elisabeth Larsson.....................................................................22 4.5.2 Interview with Heléne Hansson.......................................................................24

5 Analysis ..........................................................................................................................26 5.1 SharePoint as a Type of Ba....................................................................................26 5.2 Supporting Activities for SharePoint ......................................................................27 5.3 Knowledge Perspectives ........................................................................................27 5.4 Knowledge Management Processes .....................................................................28

6 Discussion .....................................................................................................................31 6.1 SharePoint’s Effects on Knowledge Creation.......................................................31 6.2 Stora Enso’s Perspective on Knowledge ..............................................................32

7 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................34 7.1 Pros and Cons of SharePoint.................................................................................34 7.2 Further Research.....................................................................................................35

iv

Reference List iii Appendix 1 v Appendix 2 vi Appendix 3 vii Appendix 4 viii

1

1 Introduction

Today’s economy is often referred to as a knowledge economy where many companies are

focusing on creating, trading and evaluating knowledge (Business dictionary, 2007-11-20).

Companies focus more and more on the importance of knowledge. This has to do with

companies’ need to be more efficient in order to compete on a global market; and one way to

increase the efficiency is to develop and share the company’s know-how, i.e. its core

competencies. An effect of this is that companies which used to be very labour intense is

getting more and more knowledge intense. One important reason for this enhanced focus on

knowledge is that knowledge is difficult to imitate and can therefore render to long-term

competitive advantage. (Grönroos, 2006)

Knowledge management in general is a process to ensure that the intellectual capabilities of

an organisation are shared, maintained and institutionalized. Many larger companies

nowadays use information technologies (IT) to a larger extent as a tool for knowledge

management. The purpose of bringing IT into knowledge management is to support the

storage, creation, transfer, and applicability processes of an organization’s knowledge. IT

systems with this specific purpose are often referred to as knowledge management systems

(KMS). (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

Only bringing a KMS into an organization is, however, not enough for a successful

knowledge management process. Knowledge management also involves the culture of an

organization and the attitudes of the employees. In order for a KMS to be successfully

implemented, the employees often need incentives to use it in the right way, including an

understanding of the importance of sharing knowledge and the possible positive effects from

it. This is something that needs to be emphasized within knowledge management. If a

company can combine a well implemented KMS with some shared values regarding

knowledge sharing and focus on knowledge development among the employees, the

probability of an enhanced knowledge base within the organization and a competitive

advantage for the company is more likely. (Ibid)

2

1.1 Problem Statement

“There are much more to knowledge management than technology alone. Knowledge

management is a business process”. (Sarvary, 1999:95) For a company to be able to

implement a KMS in its organization successfully, it needs to be in line with the

organizational culture within the company since the KMS and the culture of an organization

will be highly interrelated. How do companies consider organizational culture, concerning

knowledge, when introducing a KMS? What happens if the culture is not considered when a

company is introducing a KMS?

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the perceived benefits and possible drawbacks of a

particular KMS in a company.

1.2.1 Purpose Delimitation

The study is delimitated to a groupware system provided by Microsoft, Microsoft Office

SharePoint Server 2007, which is also known as MOSS 2007. In this thesis it is referred to as

SharePoint 2007. In order to examine the usage of this system, a case study is carried out at

Stora Enso which has been using this type of groupware system for a number of years. The

study involves only Stora Enso’s organization in Sweden. SharePoint 2007 was recently

introduced in Stora Enso; they previously used an older version with similar functionalities,

referred to as SharePoint 2003. To the extent where these two systems can be referred to as

one system concerning functionalities, it is referred to as SharePoint only.

1.3 Definitions

Some terms used in this bachelor thesis is defined below.

1.3.1 Groupware

Groupwares are programs that enable people to work together even when they are located

remotely from each other. These programs can include the sharing of calendars, collective

3

writing, e-mail handling, shared database access, electronic meetings with each person able to

see and display information to others, and other activities. (SearchDomino, 2008-01-06)

1.3.2 Knowledge Management

Knowledge management projects usually have one out of three different main purposes;

identify and emphasize knowledge, develop or emphasize a knowledge-intensive culture

within the organization, or build an infrastructure for knowledge including both IT and

personal connections. In order to achieve these purposes, knowledge management includes

different processes which could be compromised into four processes; creating,

storing/retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge.

1.3.3 Knowledge Management System

Knowledge management systems are IT systems with the purpose to support and enhance

knowledge management processes.

4

2 Theory

The theory chapter explains and discusses some theories and perspectives regarding

knowledge and knowledge management. First, there is an introduction of the term ba,

followed by a distinction between information and data, respectively tacit and explicit

knowledge. Later, Nonaka and Konno’s knowledge creating spiral is discussed and with five

different perspectives on knowledge will be given. At the end of the chapter, four main

processes of knowledge management are described with some implications for knowledge

management.

2.1 The concept of “Ba”

Nonaka and Konno have introduced a concept of ba. Ba is a Japanese word and it could be

translated as place in English. In terms of knowledge and knowledge creation, ba is thought

as the “shared space for emerging relationships” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998:40). This shared

space can be of different kinds, e.g. physical such as offices, virtual such as e-mail or

telephone conferences, or mental in terms of shared experiences, norms and values. This

space is seen as a foundation for knowledge creation. It is argued that if knowledge is

removed from the ba, it turns into information and becomes a tangible asset; whereas

knowledge is viewed as an intangible asset. Knowledge is also a dynamic resource in

comparison with tangible assets. Because of this, knowledge has no value if it is not applied

in a specific place at a certain time. (Ibid)

2.1.1 Information versus Knowledge

One distinction between information and knowledge has been made where information is

defined as a flow messages, whereas knowledge is created by that very flow of messages and

is deeply rooted in the individual. Knowledge is also closely linked to human action. One way

to translate information into knowledge is through processing it in an individual’s mind. One

important implication of this view is that once knowledge is articulated or visualized, through

e.g. models or graphs, it becomes information and in order for other individuals to gain the

same understanding from certain information, they will need a shared knowledge base. (Alavi

& Leidner, 2001)

5

A distinction is made in literature between two kinds of knowledge, tacit and explicit

knowledge. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is not easily expressible and it cannot be

formalized, such as insights or feelings. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, can be

expressed, formalized and shared through manuals or specifications. (Nonaka & Konno,

1998)

2.1.2 The Knowledge Creating Spiral

Nonaka and Konno introduce in their SECI model a spiralling process of knowledge creation

built on interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. SECI is a shortening of the four

different modes of the spiral; (1) Socialization, (2) Externalization, (3) Combination, and (4)

Internalization. Each of these modes symbolizes steps within the process of creating new

knowledge. (Ibid)

Figure 1: Spiral Evolution of Knowledge Conversion and Self-transcending Process.

(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)

(1) Socialization refers to the sharing of tacit knowledge between individuals. This can be

achieved through being together or walking around at a factory and acquiring knowledge.

Personal knowledge is shared in this way and a common ba is created. (Ibid)

6

(2) Externalization involves the externalization of tacit knowledge into forms which is

understandable by other individuals. This can be done through various techniques such as

words, concepts, models, analogies etcetera. This space where tacit knowledge becomes

externalized is referred to as the interacting ba which is a process of collaboration and

dialogue. (Nonaka & Konno, 1998)

(3) The next mode is the combination mode where different explicit knowledge is combined

and more complex explicit knowledge is created. This includes three processes; capturing new

knowledge; distributing the captured knowledge through e.g. meetings; and processing

knowledge in order to make it more useable. This is all achieved in a virtual space called

cyber ba. This is where the new knowledge is combined with existing knowledge, most

efficiently supported by IT such as networks, groupwares, documentations, and databases.

(Ibid)

(4) The fourth mode is the internalization of new explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge.

Learning-by-doing, exercises, and training are a few aids for this process. In this mode, the

explicit knowledge becomes embodied in action and practice within the organization. This is

all performed in the exercising ba, which focuses on continued exercises which emphasises

certain patterns. (Ibid)

IT systems are often viewed to be effective for providing an efficient cyber ba, where the

combination of knowledge can be more efficient. But lately, as the techniques for IT systems

have evolved, IT has been proved to enhance other modes in the knowledge creation process

as well. This can be within the externalization mode where IT provides an efficient

interacting ba for collaboration between individuals or in the exercising ba where IT supports

the process of making explicit knowledge tacit. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

This ba where the knowledge creation takes place can be created and maintained by an

organization. The concentration and type of knowledge in the ba depends on the strategy of

the organization and situation, e.g. a company which has a strong external focus and

emphasizes customer knowledge will mainly have a ba consisting of knowledge received

from its customers. Nonaka & Konno concludes that the top management provides the ba for

knowledge creation and it is necessary that the management support this creation process.

They also briefly discuss knowledge activists as driving forces for knowledge creation

7

through their commitment, thoughts on what knowledge to create, and supporting activities

for emerging ba. (Nonaka & Konno, 1998)

2.2 Five Perspectives on Knowledge Five perspectives are summarized by Alavi and Leidner (2001) which can be used when

examining knowledge. The first is as a state of mind which focuses on expanding the

individual knowledge, where knowledge is described as “a state or fact of knowing” (Alavi &

Leidner, 2001:110). Secondly, it can be viewed as an object that can be stored and influenced.

The third perspective is as a process, combining knowing and acting. The fourth perspective

is as a condition of having access to information, which focuses on the arrangement of

organizational knowledge for access and retrieval of its content. The last perspective is as a

capability, where knowledge is the capability to use information for a specific action. All of

these perspectives are exemplified with implications for knowledge management and KMS in

Table 1. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

Table 1: Knowledge perspectives and their implications. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

8

A conclusion from Table 1 is that the choice of perspective influences the implications for

knowledge management and KMS in an organization. Further on, even if a distinction has

been made between tacit and explicit knowledge, they have a strong interrelationship where

the tacit knowledge is needed as a background in order to interpret the explicit knowledge in

an intended way. This also points out the importance of a shared knowledge base between

individuals in order to efficiently exchange knowledge. Without this shared knowledge base,

an implementation of a KMS will not have a large positive impact on knowledge management

within an organization. On the other hand, the greater the shared knowledge base is within a

company, the greater the value will be for the explicit knowledge. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

2.3 Knowledge Management Processes

It is argued that knowledge management projects usually have one out of three different main

purposes. These main purposes are to identify and emphasize knowledge, develop or

emphasize a knowledge-intensive culture within the organization, or to build an infrastructure

for knowledge including both IT and personal connections. In order to achieve these purposes,

knowledge management includes different processes which could be compromised into four

processes; (1) creating, (2) storing/retrieving, (3) transferring, and (4) applying knowledge.

KMS is used in order to support and enhance these processes of managing organizational

knowledge, e.g. finding the source of knowledge, sharing knowledge to co-workers through

virtual teams, or access previous projects with similar content. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

2.3.1 Knowledge Creation

Creation of knowledge occurs when new knowledge is developed or when existing

knowledge is replaced by tacit and/or explicit knowledge which originates from the

organization. This process is visualized in chapter 2.1.2 with the SECI model by Nonaka and

Konno, where they describe knowledge creation as a spiral with four different modes which is

highly linked together with each other. (Ibid)

2.3.2 Knowledge Storage and Retrieval

Organizations is not only a learning organism which creates new knowledge, sometimes it

also forget existing knowledge. KMS can be used in order to ensure and emphasize the

storage and retrieval of the knowledge within an organization. A distinction has been made

9

between individual memory and organizational memory, where the individual memory is

based from observations and experience and the organizational memory can include culture,

processes, structure, or information archives. KMS is used to enhance the organizational

memory through different retrieval techniques which are becoming more and more

sophisticated. One way for KMS to enhance the storage and retrieval process is through

groupwares which expands the organizational memory. An example of this is a virtual space

containing information from past projects, which is accessible online by all employees within

an organization, independent of place and time. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

2.3.3 Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge transfer is another important knowledge management process where knowledge

is transferred between individuals, groups, explicit sources, and the organization itself. KMS

can increase the possibility for knowledge being transferred to the right location and that it is

applicable. This process is, according to Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), influenced by five

key elements; (1) perceived value of the source unit’s knowledge, (2) the source willingness

to share knowledge, (3) continuation and richness of transmission channels, (4) the receiving

unit’s willingness to acquire knowledge from the source, and (5) the absorptive capacity of

the receiving unit, which includes the ability to acquire but also to use specific knowledge.

(Gupta and Govindarajan 2000)

The main focus within literature has been on the third element; the transmission channels.

These can be of four different types; informal or formal and personal or impersonal. Informal

channels, such as informal meetings, can be efficient for transferring knowledge but it has

some drawbacks, e.g. the knowledge may not be accurately transferred due to different

interpretations by the receiver(s) or the inability to process the knowledge. Formal channels,

such as training sessions, may be more efficient in distributing knowledge, but it can also

inhibit creativity. Personal channels, e.g. personnel transfers, is efficient when the knowledge

is very context specific, where impersonal channels may be more efficient when distributing

knowledge which can be generalized and applied in several different contexts. It is stated

though that the efficiency of the knowledge transfer channel depends on the nature of the

knowledge to be transferred. It is possible to apply KMS for transferring all types of

knowledge, but it is most efficient used for impersonal and informal channels. But it can also

10

extend an individual’s formal communication lines in order to find a source of the knowledge,

e.g. extending an individual’s network. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

2.3.4 Knowledge Applicability

It is perceived that a company’s competitive advantages reside in the applicability of

knowledge, not in the knowledge itself. This makes it interesting to focus on this process and

on the implications KMS can have on it. Three mechanisms which creates organizational

capability to apply knowledge have been presented; directives, organizational routines, and

self-contained task teams. Directives refer to procedures, rules, and standards etcetera, which

have been developed by specialists in order to enhance the application of knowledge from

non-specialists. Organizational routines can e.g. be interaction protocols or process

specifications which enables individuals to integrate their knowledge without any articulation

of it. These routines can range from simple, such as an assembly line, to highly complex, e.g.

a cockpit crew flying a large passenger plane. An implication of using a KMS for storing

these types of routines is that if the environment is unstable and rapidly changing, there is a

need of constantly renewal of the knowledge in the KMS. This makes KMS less efficient in

such situations. Also, if the KMS grows very large, it can be problematic just to choose which

rule to apply to a certain problem. When tasks are too complex or uncertain for any directory

or specification, self-contained task teams are created to solve the problem. (Alavi & Leidner,

2001)

2.4 Implications for Knowledge Management

Some relevant conclusions, which Alavi & Leidner (2001) presents, are summarized in the

following part. They state first of all that an organizations culture have a large impact on

knowledge creation. This is due to if the culture emphasizes knowledge hoarding, knowledge

will not be shared through out the organization and new knowledge will not be created to the

same extent. This is not something an introduction of a KMS can change; it is the culture that

needs to be knowledge friendly to start with. KMS can only support these processes if they

exist, e.g. KMS can create ties between individuals in order for them to share knowledge; it is

though not possible to force them to use these ties. Culture also influences the process of

knowledge storage, where knowledge will not be provided for storage if the culture does not

11

emphasize it. KMS can in this case only provide an efficient tool for knowledge storage, but it

is the employees that need to provide the actual knowledge. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

Another implication for storing knowledge is the amount of context that should be included in

order for the knowledge to be useful to another individual. This is something that is discussed

by Becker (2001) where he is focusing on implications of disperse knowledge. The dispersion

of knowledge includes three different problems which have implications on knowledge

management; large numbers, asymmetries; and uncertainty of the knowledge. Large numbers

increases resources requirements and a lost of overview. Asymmetries refers to that the

interpretations of knowledge differs between individuals and that dissimilar knowledge put

together is inefficient. Uncertainty of the knowledge makes it impossible beforehand to

predict the outcome of an action. (Becker, 2001) All of this is also linked to the amount of

knowledge that should be stored since the easier it is to access the knowledge, the more it will

be used. If the knowledge is too easily accessed, the greater the risk will be for the knowledge

to be misapplied. Another conclusion is that it is often a gap between what organizations

know and what organizations does. This makes it important to focus on the knowledge

applicability process, since it does not really matter if knowledge is created, stored and

transferred efficient if it does not get applied within the organization. One implication of this

concerning applicability and KMS is that employees do not always trust that the system

provides the correct or valid knowledge. This is especially relevant in rapidly changing

environments where knowledge needs to be constantly updated. (Alavi & Leidner, 2001)

12

3 Methodology

This chapter describes the methods used for collecting the empirical data for this study. These

methods can be divided into documentation of the system in focus and interviews with users

or management for the system. Some remarks of the chosen methods are given later and there

is also an ethical discussion at the end of the chapter.

3.1 Documentation

I have, in order to describe the SharePoint technology, written a brief description over the

system and its features. The source of this description is to a large extent www.microsoft.com

(2007-12-15), which contains an exhaustive description of the system and what it can be used

for. Some documentation has also been provided by Stora Enso regarding their view on the

system and the features which are in focus within their organization. This documentation is

referred to but not included as appendices due to the fact that they are internal documents of

Stora Enso. They are, however, available upon request if needed.

3.2 Interviews

This study has a qualitative approach where the main empirical data is collected through in-

depth interviews with different persons employed at Stora Enso. The reason for choosing this

particular approach is due to that the perception and underlying values of the interviewees are

in focus. A qualitative study can hopefully bring an understanding of these perceptions. Due

to this approach, only four interviews are carried out at Stora Enso. These interviews are

though exhaustive in order to capture the interviewees’ perception of SharePoint. (Holme &

Solvang, 1997)

Before the interviews were conducted, some general questions where specified and

acknowledged to the interviewee. More questions where asked during the interview when the

interviewer needed some clarification or development of an answer or reasoning. This

increased the flexibility where open-ended questions could be followed up by the interviewer

when it was necessary. (Ibid) No definitions were given before the interview concerning the

different concepts that were brought up during the interview.

13

The interviews were carried out over the telephone, due to that it enables accessibility to

information which would be difficult to collect otherwise since the persons being interviewed

are located at various offices within Sweden. Also, the possibility to afterwards complement

the interviews with some specific questions over the telephone was more probable. Each

interview was recorded and later summarized in a document.

Interviewee Management/User Follow-up interview

Charlotte Sperling Management Yes

Lennart Haglund Both No

Elisabeth Larsson User No

Heléne Hansson User No

Table 2 - List over the four different interviews.

The first interviewee was the Project Leader for the implementation of SharePoint 2007,

likewise System Manager for SharePoint 2003, Charlotte Sperling. The purpose with

interviewing Sperling was to get some general knowledge of why SharePoint is used within

Stora Enso and what the management thinks of the usefulness of the system. The interview

lasted for approximately 45 minutes and a completion of 20 minutes was done a week later in

order to clarify some specific statements.

The second interview was performed with the Director of Knowledge Management at Stora

Enso Research, Lennart Haglund. Haglund is responsible for the collaboration within Stora

Enso’s research and development department. Stora Enso Research is using SharePoint as a

focal instrument in their operation. The purpose of the interview was to get his view of

SharePoint and its usefulness as a KMS. Some specific questions regarding the usage of

SharePoint were also asked.

Two interviews with two employees within Stora Enso and likewise users of SharePoint were

also carried out. This was to find out how the users perceive the benefits of the system and

how they are using it. The first of these two users, Elisabeth Larsson, was chosen by me with

recommendations from Sperling. Larsson is, according to me and herself, a frequent user of

SharePoint where much of her work involves the system in one or another way. Larsson

position within Stora Enso AB is within the Group Business Controlling unit. The second user

of SharePoint to be interviewed was Heléne Hansson, who is employed by Stora Enso Skog

14

AB. She is, according to me, a novice user who is mostly using the basic functions of

SharePoint.

3.3 Validity and Reliability

The fact that the interviewees had the ability to interpret the different question freely maybe

decreased the reliability of the study slightly if they perceived some questions differently to

each other. At the same time it probably gave a more honest picture of their thoughts since

they were not influenced by the interviewer in any way. Also, the reliability is not as

important for a qualitative study, compared to a quantitative study, since the purpose is not to

bring forth a general picture for the whole population, rather a better understanding of certain

factors. (Holme & Solvang, 1997)

The validity of the interviewees’ answers is in general higher in qualitative studies than in

quantitative studies. The validity of this study is increased by the fact that some general

questions were acknowledged before the interview which made it possible for the

interviewees to prepare themselves. (Ibid)

The information collected through the interviews and presented in this thesis is interpreted by

the interviewer. In this way, the empirics are likely to be coloured by the author. This is

though something which is difficult to avoid since the raw material from the interviews needs

to be processed in order to be presentable. The recording of the interviews is though

increasing the validity of the material presented in chapter four.

3.4 Critical Remarks

Concerning the main source of the documentation of SharePoint, Microsoft’s web page, it

gave me a well-written description of what the system can do. I am well aware of the fact that

this description is likely to be coloured in order for Microsoft to promote the system so I have

tried to restrict the information from this source to pure facts about the system. This is to get

as credible information as possible.

The choice of interviewing both the Project Leader for the migration to SharePoint 2007 and

the Director of Knowledge Management gave me two different views on the use of

SharePoint. This could be due to that they probably have different educational backgrounds

15

and work for different departments in Stora Enso. The choice of two different types of users

for the interviews gave me two perspectives of SharePoint as a system and as a KMS. The

differences in their perspectives can be to a large extent due to that one of the users had not

yet been introduced to SharePoint 2007. Also, they were, according to me, on different levels

concerning the use of functionalities where one used the system in her daily activities and one

only used it as a tool for communicating and collaborating within specific project work. It is

not enough with interviewing only two users to be able to draw some general distinctions

concerning how SharePoint is perceived by the users within Stora Enso. It does, however,

show two interesting perspectives on this issue.

3.4 Ethical Discussion

Each of the interviewees was asked before the interviews if they were willing to participate in

this study. This included also a short description of the purpose and scope of the study. All

four of the interviewees accepted the request of participating without any remarks or

concerns. Each of the interviewees was also asked if they accepted that the interview was

recorded by the interviewer. This was neither viewed as any problem.

The information presented in chapter four does not include any sensitive information

concerning Stora Enso’s businesses which could be to damage if it was published. The

information is only concerning the usage of an information system and not the specific

information stored within the system.

16

4 Empirical Findings

This chapter contains five different parts. The first part gives some company background to

Stora Enso together with SharePoint’s history within Stora Enso. Secondly, the functionality

of SharePoint 2007, i.e. what the system can do, is formally described. The third part is a

summary of the interview with the Project Leader for the migration to SharePoint 2007 at

Stora Enso, Charlotte Sperling. Next, a summary is given from the interview with the Director

of Knowledge Management at Stora Enso Research, Lennart Haglund. Lastly, there is a part

containing a summary from two similar interviews with two users of SharePoint within Stora

Enso, Elisabeth Larsson and Heléne Hansson.

4.1 Company Background of Stora Enso

Stora Enso is a pulp and paper company origin from Sweden and Finland. It is a global

company with production facilities and business all over the world. When examining the

Swedish organization, which this study has involved, they have offices and mill sites spread

out all over the country. Stora Enso has a number of different subunits in their organization,

only within Sweden. Examples of these subunits are Stora Enso Research AB which is their

development department, Stora Enso Skog AB which supplies the raw material to the mills,

and each mill is also a different company. Each of these units reports to Stora Enso AB within

Sweden. These subunits are also highly interrelated with other subunits outside of Sweden,

e.g. in Finland or Germany. (Stora Enso, 2008-01-14)

4.1.1 Stora Enso’s Migration to SharePoint 2007

Stora Enso has recently migrated from SharePoint 2003 to SharePoint 2007. The project for

the implementation of SharePoint 2007 was started in October -06 and was finished in May -

07. SharePoint 2007 and SharePoint 2003 have since then been running in parallel, where

only some specific sites have been migrated to the new version. This will be ongoing until

May -08 when the SharePoint 2003 servers will be closed down. (Sperling, 2007-11-30)

To be able to structure the numerous sites, documents and information in SharePoint 2003 a

decision was made to migrate all SharePoint sites to SharePoint 2007 and at the same time

clean up and structure all the information so it could be accessible and possible to overview.

17

(Sperling, 2007-11-30) The situation before the implementation included 115 different sub

sites where information was hard to find, many sites had no clear purpose, static sites existed

in changeable conditions and no encouraging information sharing between units. The vision

for SharePoint 2007 was that it would increase work efficiency, support knowledge sharing,

be a common archive, and be an easy tool for creative working. (About Corporate IT

worksite, 2007-12-14)

The new structure will include only one document library, each site to have a clear purpose,

and the possibility to search for any information in SharePoint. The users still get full control

over their own sites, but they need to know precise what they will use it for, decide on a

suitable template and be responsible for the content on the site. There are four different

templates to choose from; a team template for organizing, sharing and promoting team work;

a recurrent meeting template for workgroups and steering groups; a project template for

supporting successful projects; and a library template for storing of documents outside of the

document centre. Documents which are meant to be shared over the organization will though

be stored at the document centre, i.e. documents which are not group specific. All new sites

should also be created on a parallel level to “avoid the anthill” (About Corporate IT Worksite,

2007-12-14). The sites will also be given several labels which are possible to categorize.

(About Corporate IT Worksite, 2007-12-14)

4.2 Documentation of SharePoint 2007

This part is based on information given on Microsoft’s web page, www.microsoft.com, and

information provided by Stora Enso. The latter is in form of internal documents which was

shared with me.

SharePoint 2007 is a part of the latest version of Microsoft’s Office package. This makes it a

standard program which is compatible with other Microsoft products and other software.

SharePoint 2007 “provides a single, integrated location where employees can efficiently

collaborate with team members, find organizational resources, search for experts and

corporate information, manage content and workflow, and leverage business insight to make

better-informed decisions” (Microsoft, 2007-12-15). SharePoint 2007, compared to

SharePoint 2003, consists of several new features, e.g.: portals, an advance search function,

18

business integration tools, and intelligence tools. (Microsoft, 2007-12-15) The different

features of SharePoint 2007 can be viewed below in figure 2.

The collaboration feature includes enabling technologies that allows effective team work,

mechanisms for sharing information and the possibility to collaborate and publish documents.

The portal feature provides the capabilities to personalize a SharePoint site in order to deliver

a comprehensive management of the sites’ content.

Figure 2 - SharePoint 2007 feature areas. (MOSS 2007 Evaluation Guide, 2007-12-15)

The enterprise search feature enables location of relevant content distributed across a wide

range of sites, document libraries, and other sources or the possibility to find the appropriate

people who posses the knowledge or information. The content management feature handles

the creation, publication, and management of information. The business forms and integration

provides the ability to implement form-based business processes. It also includes the ability to

connect with structured systems such as databases and the ability to access that information in

a number of ways. The business intelligence feature can deliver information critical to

business objectives through a wide range of mechanisms, from spreadsheets accessing

business data in real time and performing sophisticated analyses to the presentation of key

performance indicators (KPIs). (MOSS 2007 Evaluation Guide, 2007-12-15)

It is also possible in SharePoint 2007 to manage and personalize MySites. These MySites can

be customized by each user of SharePoint where they can add specific information about

themselves and their field of knowledge and expertise. This enables, besides being able to

search for information and knowledge, the possibility to search for different sources of

19

knowledge, e.g. finding a person which has the suitable knowledge to solve a problem.

(Microsoft, 2007-12-15) Another function of SharePoint is the alert function. This is a

function which alerts members of a site when a specific document of interest is updated or

revised by sending out an email. Each member can specify which documents they want to get

an alert from when it is updated. (Microsoft, 2007-12-15)

4.3 Interview with the Project Leader for SharePoin t 2007

The text in part 4.3 is a summary of the interview with Charlotte Sperling. Sperling is the

Project Leader for the implementation of SharePoint 2007, likewise System Manager for

SharePoint 2003, for Stora Enso AB.

4.3.1 Introduction of SharePoint

At the beginning when SharePoint 2003 was implemented in Stora Enso six years ago, there

was no clear purpose or intention of bringing the system in to the organization. It was more or

less “something that someone wanted to try out” (Sperling, 2007-11-30), i.e. a new interesting

system on the market. Another similar system, provided by IBM, was also used at the same

time and the System Manager of these two systems preferred the later one. This contributed to

that much activity was directed to IBM’s system and SharePoint was only used by a minority

of the employees.

The interest for SharePoint started to grow after a while though among the employees without

any direct efforts from the management. People within the organization came and asked for

access to the system more and more; this together with a statement during 2004 from the

management that SharePoint 2003 was to be Stora Enso’s main document management

system contributed to an “organic growth” (Sperling, 2007-11-30) of the usage of the system.

This ended up in an enormous and unorganized system which came to be difficult to maintain

for the IT personnel. Sperling estimates the users of SharePoint to be close to 14000 with

personal accounts; there are also public sites which anyone in the organization can access.

Sperling’s conclusion of this was that is was not a push effect where the system was forced

upon the users, but rather a pull effect where the users demanded to get access to it. This was

though something that Sperling viewed as necessary for the growth of the system. It was also

what led to the decision later to migrate to SharePoint 2007.

20

4.3.2 The Perceived Functionality of SharePoint

The migration to SharePoint 2007 also involved new functionalities which did not exist in the

previous version. Even though the migration to SharePoint 2007 means that more complex

tasks can be carried out, the main functionality for the users, according to Sperling, is the

possibility to store and share documents and information. “Up to 90 percent thinks that is the

most important feature of a SharePoint site” (Sperling, 2007-11-30). This view is not shared

by the Corporate IT department which values the collaboration functionality in SharePoint

2007 as the most important feature. The collaboration functionality is though a wide term in

this case since much of the activity on a SharePoint site can be included into this. Sperling

stress though that is should be used more as a collaboration tool between individuals than a

document management system. Benefits with SharePoint 2007 which Sperling mentions

among others is an improved search functionality where the users can more efficiently search

for both information and knowledge but also sources of knowledge, i.e. other users of the

system. This will hopefully help to avoid the problem with the overload of information in the

previous version.

It is difficult for the management or IT department to see any measurable effects or benefits

from using SharePoint. The only real physical effects noticeable are fewer attachments in

internal email conversations and less travelling, which also online meetings and telephone

conferences have contributed to.

4.3.3 Education for the Users

For SharePoint 2003, Corporate IT provided online teacher-led training sessions in order to

introduce new users to the system. These sessions were voluntary for the users and whom

ever that thought they needed it was welcome to participate. The response from this was

positive and another bi effect of this was that the users also got to see how online meetings

worked. For SharePoint 2007, there are no specific teacher-led training sessions planned at the

moment. Instead, there are How-to-do flash files, FAQ and manuals provided for the users.

The users of SharePoint 2003 will also see many similarities in SharePoint 2007 which makes

the need for education less distinctive.

21

As a summary, Sperling’s view on knowledge management is that it is something which

everyone thinks it is important for the company, but no one is really taking responsibility for.

She thinks that SharePoint is an excellent tool for knowledge management, but knowledge

management should be handled more by the Human Resource department than the IT

department. SharePoint will not change the fact that people store information locally and do

not fully document their responsibilities and roles.

4.4 The Knowledge Management Director’s View on Sha rePoint

The following text is a summary of the interview with Lennart Haglund. Haglund is the

Director of Knowledge Management at Stora Enso Research AB. He is responsible for the

collaboration within this department and he has been involved with the development of

SharePoint within Stora Enso.

Stora Enso Research has used SharePoint as their main research library since it was

introduced in Stora Enso. This library contains every technical research report produced

within Stora Enso and by external partners such as universities or other organisations. It is an

integrated knowledge database which is accessible world wide within Stora Enso’s

organization. The purpose of this is that anyone within the organization can access these

reports and acquire the knowledge if they want to. The library is a central part in this

department’s operations since knowledge is their product; “it is what they want to exploit and

distribute to the rest of the organization” (Haglund, 2007-12-14). This part of SharePoint 2003

has not yet been migrated to SharePoint 2007 but the goal is to do it within a not too distant

future.

Haglund was involved in the initial discussions concerning knowledge management, 6-7 years

ago. SharePoint was not introduced in the organization at that time but the discussions were

already then focused on some type on system for this function. SharePoint did evolve after a

while in the organization almost automatic without any pushing from management. Haglund

also mentioned two other knowledge management systems which still exist in the

organization. It is now stated the SharePoint will be the standard KMS from management

level, but the fact that there do exist other KMS is something that makes it difficult to

collaborate between the systems and reach the synergy effects desirable, according to

Haglund.

22

He thinks SharePoint is a simple and rudimentary KMS, but easy to access and to use.

According to him, it is probably better to have a very simple KMS which gets used by many

people compared to having an advanced KMS which only a few people are able to operate.

He also saw the problem with the previous version which got quite hard to overview after a

while and the information got more and more difficult to find. His thoughts about the most

important functionality of SharePoint were focused more towards the collaboration part of the

system rather the document management functionality. He wanted it more to be used as

collaboration tool which enables people to discuss, communicate, and review different topics,

not only as a distributor and storage of information. The interaction should be on a higher

level where humans interact and learn from each other. Also, he thought it should be a more

proactive distribution of information, not only present from the one who are searching for the

information.

Concerning the knowledge management, Haglund thought that management might not be the

most appropriate word. The term, according to him, should rather be more towards knowledge

sharing or utilization of knowledge. He also implicated that knowledge management is not

only about distributing research reports or information since knowledge is much bound

together with individuals or relations between individuals. And to get people to share

knowledge cannot be solved with KMS or IT system. Even though it is important with KMS

for knowledge management, it is not enough with only a KMS.

4.5 The Users’ View on SharePoint

This part includes summaries from the interviews with Elisabeth Larsson and Heléne Hansson

who is both users of SharePoint in Stora Enso.

4.5.1 Interview with Elisabeth Larsson

The following text is a summary of the interview with Elisabeth Larsson. Larsson is employed

by Stora Enso AB but is belonging to Group Business Controlling, which is included in the

Group Executive Board. She is working for a division responsible for reporting and analysis

applications. Her responsibilities involve accountability for information on Insite, Stora

Enso’s intranet, and in SharePoint. This information is since the summer -07 accessible in

23

SharePoint 2007. Much of Larsson’s work is involving SharePoint in one way or another. She

could not specify how much of her time at work that does involve SharePoint but she seemed

to be well-informed about the system and its features.

The type of information that Larsson is responsible for is instructions, forms, and blanks

etcetera, concerning how the reporting of accounting information should be carried out at the

different subunits within Stora Enso. This could be instructions for how to use the financial

planning system or how the numerous sales companies tied to Stora Enso should report their

sales figures. This is to a large extent a one-way communication where the Group Executive

Board is giving instructions on how to report upwards. There are though possibilities for the

users of this information to e.g. give feedback or ask questions in SharePoint. But the main

purpose for Larsson’s use of SharePoint is to distribute information throughout the company.

According to Larsson, the main benefit and most important feature of SharePoint is the

easiness to distribute information and knowledge to numerous receivers. With the use of

SharePoint, this is achieved much more efficient compared to e.g. using an email for

distributing the same information. Another important feature is also the possibility to share

and collaborate in documents without having to send the documents back and forth. This also

includes the alert functionality where e.g. the members in a project get notified when a

document of interest is updated. Another good feature of SharePoint 2007 is the possibility to

choose a ready made template depending on the purpose of a SharePoint site, e.g. for projects

or steering groups.

The actual benefits from SharePoint were easy to identify in Larsson’s case. Previously,

before SharePoint was implemented, she had to upload all information given to her each

quarter on Insite. This could take up to two working days for her. Nowadays, when all

information is accessible in SharePoint, the same process is taking her approximately 10

minutes. Other measurable benefits that she can perceive are the reduction of the size for

many emails where attachments are not necessary as long as the information is accessible in

SharePoint.

Larsson do not see a need for changing the usage of SharePoint, from her point of view. The

fact that it is mostly used as a document management system is fulfilling her purpose of using

SharePoint, where it is an efficient tool for distributing information and knowledge. Larsson

24

has also taught herself how to use SharePoint, without any major guidance from e.g. the IT

department. Her view of SharePoint is that it is easy to understand and learn how it works. At

the moment, she does not feel that she needs any particular education of SharePoint different

application areas. On the other hand, she is organizing various education sessions for other

users on how to use the particular SharePoint sites which she is responsible for. These

educations are described as informal face-to-face meetings or as online demos where the sites

are demonstrated. To conclude, concerning Larsson’s view on knowledge management, it is

something which includes circulation of information and knowledge in an organization.

4.5.2 Interview with Heléne Hansson

The following text is a summary of the interview with Heléne Hansson. Hansson is a Project

Leader for the implementation of SAP, a financial and accounting system, in Stora Enso Skog

AB. She has been using SharePoint in various projects which she has been involved in. She

has not yet had the opportunity to use SharePoint 2007 so her answers are only based on her

experiences from SharePoint 2003.

Hansson has mostly used SharePoint as a document management system where documents

have been shared and collaborated in. SharePoint have enabled sharing information with

project members more efficient but also giving a user the possibility to search for demanded

information as well. The feature in SharePoint which is most important, according to

Hansson, is the easiness to find information within a project or from previous similar projects.

The structure of the sites are mostly easy to follow but she points out at the same time that

sites usually “explode” (Hansson, 2007-12-14) where too many subfolders makes it difficult

to search for information. The point with SharePoint, according to Hansson, is too keeping it

as simple as possible.

Hansson says that SharePoint is most useful as a document management system within project

work. But it can be used in other ways depending on the purpose, e.g. as an internal

information channel where news and information is acknowledged. This could be seen as a

substitute to most of the emails sent today in companies. Hansson has difficulties to find any

measurable benefits with SharePoint but she thinks the alert function is very useful where

users get notified when some information is updated. A drawback, which Hansson mentions,

is the fact that information gets more and more difficult to find as the stock of information

25

grows larger. Concerning education of SharePoint, Hansson is self taught about how to use

the system. Hansson’s view on knowledge management is linked with distribution of

information.

26

5 Analysis

The following section contains an analysis of the empirical material and a comparison

between the empiric and theoretic chapter. The analysis follows the structure of the theory

where each major theoretical point is applied on the empiric.

5.1 SharePoint as a Type of Ba

To begin with examining the “shared space for emerging relationships” (Nonaka & Konno,

1998:40), it is possible to see similarities between the SharePoint technology and the type of

ba where knowledge is created and stored. It is likely to be a type of virtual ba which exists

online within an organization’s infrastructure. This can be seen within Stora Enso where the

users can access SharePoint online, independent of location. When examining Nonaka and

Konno’s different types of ba, there is more than one which could be applied on SharePoint.

When looking at the features of SharePoint, it is possible to draw parallels to the cyber ba,

where different external knowledge is combined and more complex knowledge is created. In

SharePoint’s case, this is mostly achieved through combination where users collaborate with

each other and with different types of documents which contains knowledge and information.

This is enlightened as an important feature of SharePoint by all four of the interviewees, e.g.

by Hansson who states that she mostly uses the system to collaborate with other users in

different types of documents.

There are also similarities with the interacting ba where tacit knowledge becomes

externalized, by using models, analogies, and words etcetera, which can be achieved in

SharePoint. The fact that SharePoint is storing numerous types of documents, models, and

technical papers, are showing that the users uses the system to externalize and publish their

knowledge in the organization’s memory. Since SharePoint is used as a type of information

and knowledge archive within Stora Enso, it is also a part of the Stora Enso’s organizational

memory. Some similarities can be drawn to the common ba also where, in SharePoint 2007,

personal knowledge can be shared by specifying knowledge bases in the MySite feature. The

type of knowledge which is stored in SharePoint is likely to be explicit knowledge since most

of the information and knowledge in SharePoint is stored in different types of documents.

27

5.2 Supporting Activities for SharePoint

When looking at the users of SharePoint and how they have been introduced to the system,

they have had the possibility to get an introduction of SharePoint 2003’s features through

online training sessions. These have been appreciated by the users, according to Sperling, but

neither Larsson nor Hansson has been taking this opportunity to learn more about the system.

Both Larsson and Hansson state that they did not need any education of SharePoint since the

system is rather easy to operate, which is also confirmed by Haglund who thinks SharePoint is

a very simple and rudimentary type of KMS. This implies that not all users have been

introduced to SharePoint in the same way and they could therefore in fact be using it in

different ways, which has implications on the knowledge in the system. Nonaka and Konno

conclude that several persons need to have a similar knowledge base in order to gain the same

understanding from certain information. It is not evident that the users are introduced to the

system in the same way or that they have the same knowledge base in Stora Enso’s case.

When it comes to the top management’s efforts to provide an efficient ba for knowledge

creation, this is something which the management within Stora Enso is trying to achieve.

They have stated that SharePoint will be the system for knowledge management within the

organization. But even so, Haglund reveals that it does exists several other KMS in the

organization which is, according to him, inefficient in order to reach the desirable synergy

effects. Regarding knowledge activists, which Nonaka and Konno conclude to be driving

forces for knowledge creation, both Sperling and Haglund seem to be supporting this process

in order to have an efficient knowledge creation process.

5.3 Knowledge Perspectives

When comparing the usage and intentions of SharePoint in Stora Enso with the different

perspectives on knowledge presented by Alavi and Leidner (2001), it is possible to see several

similarities. When viewing knowledge as a state of mind, the role of KMS should be to

provide access to sources of knowledge. This is possible with SharePoint 2007 where users

can specify their own fields of knowledge which later is searchable. The users did not give

any reflections on this functionality but, according to Sperling, it will be a useful functionality

of SharePoint 2007.

28

If knowledge is viewed as an object, the role of a KMS should be to gather, store and transfer

knowledge. The main functionality of SharePoint as the users perceives it seems to be to store

and share knowledge and information. This implicate that most users see SharePoint as a

document management system where documents of different types and with different contents

is gathered and shared throughout the organization. An exemplification of this perspective is

also the research library mentioned by Haglund where every technical report within Stora

Enso can be found. The role for a KMS if knowledge is viewed as a process of applying

expertise involves nearly the same implications as the view on knowledge as a state of mind,

i.e. to provide links among sources of knowledge. This is something which can be achieved in

SharePoint, as mentioned above.

Viewing knowledge as access to information, the role of a KMS is to provide effective search

and retrieval mechanisms to be able to locate the information needed. Even though that

Sperling mentions the search mechanism in SharePoint 2007, three of the interviewees points

out that the previous version of SharePoint became so large that it sometimes was difficult to

locate the knowledge and information needed. This is something that is considered with

SharePoint 2007 where the goal is, according to Sperling, to always keep an easy to follow

structure on each SharePoint site. The last perspective on knowledge presented is as a

capability imply for a KMS to support the development of individual and organizational

competencies. One of the main objectives of SharePoint within Stora Enso is to support the

knowledge sharing which can be perceived as support to the development of organizational

knowledge.

5.4 Knowledge Management Processes

The purpose of SharePoint existing in Stora Enso is to support the knowledge management

process in the organization. It is officially stated that SharePoint is to be the KMS in the

organization. When examining the usage of SharePoint within Stora Enso, it seems to mostly

support the process of storage and retrieval of knowledge, e.g. Hansson mentions the

possibility to find information from similar projects which can be used as previously

experiences. This is also stated by Sperling, even though the Corporate IT department thinks

it should be used more for collaboration than storage of knowledge and information.

SharePoint 2007, as mentioned previously, is also to improve the retrieval of knowledge with

29

an improved search mechanism and a structure which is easier to follow. The purpose with

SharePoint according to Sperling is to gather knowledge and collaborate on this knowledge.

When looking at the transfer of knowledge and the use of SharePoint for this, it is possible to

find positive effects. All four of the interviewees mention the efficiency of SharePoint when it

comes to spreading information and knowledge in a more efficient way. This is also shown

with the asserted reduction of size on the emails within the organization. Due to that a user

have the possibility find appropriate knowledge by their own it is likely that the knowledge

will be transferred to the right location where it is needed. This seems though to be

problematic with the earlier version which grew too much and got difficult for locating

knowledge. According to Sperling, this was to a large extent due to that many sites did not

have a clear purpose and static sites existed in changeable conditions. This will be changed in

SharePoint 2007 through sites templates, emphasizing on purpose for each sites and an easier

structure.

Gupta and Govindarajan mention five key elements which are influencing the transfer

process. The introduction and usage of SharePoint in Stora Enso is influencing the third

element, the continuation and richness of transmission channels, while the other four elements

is up to the knowledge management to influence. SharePoint’s characteristics as a

transmission channel is similar to the impersonal type which transfers rather generalized

knowledge which can be applied in various contexts. But at the same, it seems to work as

personal channel also as in Larsson’s case where specific knowledge concerning reporting is

distributed to subunits. The use of SharePoint does not, according to Sperling, influence such

as the perceived value of the source unit’s knowledge or the absorptive capacity of the

receiving unit. This is something which Sperling would want the Human Resource department

to be more involved in and to promote as much as possible.

When it comes to the applicability of knowledge, SharePoint is used to an extent as a tool for

this. Larsson emphasize that much of the information she puts in SharePoint are directives for

reporting accounting information. This is available for all units within Stora Enso so that the

reporting process will be efficient each time. It is also likely that organizational routines, such

as process specifications, are distributed with the help of SharePoint to locations where it is

needed. When users need information or knowledge that cannot be found in SharePoint it is

possible to search for a source of the knowledge and in that way create self-contained task

30

teams. Both Sperling Haglund emphasizes the usefulness of SharePoint for collaboration on a

human level similar to the self-contained task teams mentioned earlier.

Becker’s implications for knowledge management, concerning the amount of context that

should be included when storing knowledge, are relevant for the use of SharePoint. Becker

states that large numbers can be a problem for KMS and this is something which has been a

problem in Stora Enso’s case. All three of Sperling, Haglund and Hansson mentioned the

problematic of finding knowledge and information as SharePoint 2003 grew larger. This is

something which has been though of in Stora Enso when migrating to SharePoint 2007. The

problematic with asymmetries and uncertainty were though not brought up by any of the

interviewees during the interviews.

31

6 Discussion

The essentials in this study are enlighten and discussed in this chapter.

6.1 SharePoint’s Effects on Knowledge Creation

It is possible to see that SharePoint can support different modes in the knowledge creation

spiral presented by Nonaka and Konno. It is maybe most efficient as a type of cyber ba where

explicit knowledge is combined. This is shown by Larsson and Hansson who emphasizes the

easiness to collaborate in different documents with other users. But if examining both

Sperling’s and Haglund’s ideas about how SharePoint could be utilized even more, they

would like to see SharePoint getting used more as collaboration between users than

documents. If so, SharePoint would serve even more as some sort of common ba or

interacting ba, where users interact more direct or creates a common understanding of

information and knowledge.

When it comes to the exercising ba and the internalization of knowledge it is more difficult to

see any direct connection to SharePoint within Stora Enso. They seem to be using SharePoint

more for distributing knowledge and information throughout the organization than promoting

exercising in the system.

When SharePoint 2003 was introduced, the users had the opportunity to participate in online

training sessions provided by Corporate IT. Even though that these sessions seems to be

appreciated by the users, according to Sperling, they did only focus on the technical features

of SharePoint, e.g. how to perform a certain task in the system instead of why SharePoint

should be used and how it can increase the organization’s knowledge stock. Also, neither

Larsson nor Hansson has used any of these opportunities which can also imply that users

interpret knowledge and information from the system in different ways since no common

introduction has been given to all users. This could lead to unintended negative effects for the

organization such as knowledge being applied in a way which it was not supposed to. The fact

that an introduction was not needed in these two cases shows on the other hand that the

system is rather easy to operate, in line with Haglund’s description of SharePoint as a KMS.

Another effect of the voluntary education of SharePoint can also be the large number

problematic shown in SharePoint 2003 where knowledge and information got difficult to find

32

as the system grew. This could maybe been avoided through a more thorough education about

e.g. how much context to include in the documents or how to structure the sites. The problem

with the site structures has been considered by Corporate IT when migrating to SharePoint

2007; but probably not the problematic with how much context to include for the knowledge

to be applicable for other users, since it was not mentioned by Sperling. The management in

Stora Enso seems to have provided a ba for the organization when stating that SharePoint will

be the KMS where knowledge can be created and shared throughout the organization. But I

think more could be done when it comes to knowledge management and influencing of the

organization’s culture, just as Sperling and Haglund points out.

6.2 Stora Enso’s Perspective on Knowledge

Depending on how an organization is choosing to view knowledge, e.g. as an object, a

process, or a state of mind, it will have different implications for a KMS. In Stora Enso’s case,

with their usage of SharePoint, knowledge seems to be perceived mostly as an object which

can be stored and manipulated with the help of a system. According to how the users view

SharePoint’s main functionality, I think it is an efficient system for this process of storing and

retrieving knowledge. But with new features and techniques, such as an advanced search

mechanism, it is also possible to view knowledge in several other perspectives. This could be

for example as a state of mind where SharePoint can locate a source of the knowledge instead

of the knowledge itself or as a process where SharePoint can support the collaboration

between several different sources of knowledge. This is emphasized by both Sperling and

Haglund who both think that the usage of SharePoint can be extended in several directions.

Alavi and Leidner points out that what an organization does is not always equal with what an

organization know and it is therefore important to focus on the applicability of knowledge.

SharePoint seem to contain a large stock of knowledge but it is not evident that all of this

knowledge is applicable within the organization. One way to ensure that information and

knowledge in SharePoint is applicable is through a common culture and understanding

concerning how to use the system. This is something which has not been emphasized within

Stora Enso, e.g. Sperling would want to see more involvement from the Human Resource

department who could promote a knowledge friendly culture. It is stated that SharePoint will

support the knowledge sharing within the organization of Stora Enso, but not much seems to

be done when it comes to the encouraging of sharing knowledge. The interviewees do neither

33

mentioned anything about incentives for sharing knowledge, such as bonus systems or

likewise.

34

7 Conclusions

This chapter contains the main conclusions from this study based on the analysis and the

discussion chapters. Some suggestions for further research are also presented at the end of the

chapter.

7.1 Pros and Cons of SharePoint

It is possible to perceive both pros and cons of SharePoint from this case study. Most of these

are difficult to measure and it is only possible to speculate what effects they really have

within an organization. The most obvious drawback of SharePoint 2003 within Stora Enso is

the problematic of finding required information and knowledge as the size of the system

grows. The structure of the sites became too complicated, according to both Sperling and

Hansson. This makes the system less efficient as a KMS than it would have been with an easy

to follow structure and efficient retrieving mechanisms. This has been considered when

migrating to SharePoint 2007 and Sperling thinks that the problem will be avoided in the

future.

Another possible drawback from the usage of SharePoint could be the fact that there are an

enormous amount of users in the system and no common introduction for how to use the

system in the most efficient way or understanding of the purpose of the system. Knowledge

and information in the system can be interpreted in different ways depending on the

knowledge base of the user; where the same knowledge base is required for gaining the same

understanding from specific information. Stora Enso does not seem to have any clear

incentives for using the system in an intended way; i.e. the users are more or less free to use

the system however they want. This can imply that knowledge is sometimes applied in an

unintended way and lead to unexpected consequences. This is though also considered with

SharePoint 2007 but it is maybe not taken seriously enough.

There are also several measurable and immeasurable benefits from the use of SharePoint in

Stora Enso. The most obvious measurable benefit from this case study is the efficiency of

using SharePoint for distributing knowledge and information. This is best exemplified in

Larsson’s case where she could compromise the work time for a specific task from

approximately two working days down to ten minutes.

35

The main benefit of SharePoint which was mentioned by the users is the possibility to

collaborate and share knowledge. It is though difficult to measure the effects on the

organization from this. Hansson state that this is the main functionality of SharePoint and it is

most efficient used for this purpose. The sharing of knowledge seems to be mostly achieved

through collaborating in different documents where explicit knowledge is combined into more

complex knowledge. Another benefit seems to be the fact that much of the organization’s

knowledge is stored in SharePoint, e.g. every technical report produced for the organization. It

is an exhaustive organizational memory where much of the organization’s knowledge and

information can be found. Even though that the overload of information implied some

complications of finding the knowledge, the knowledge is still accessible by anyone who

wants to take part of it.

7.2 Further Research

This case study was not exhaustive enough to be able to measure the possible benefits and

drawbacks which were found. To be able to do so, a quantitative and more thorough research

would be needed. This could be a subject for further research where e.g. the actual benefits

are measured more accurate.

It would also be interesting to research how the SharePoint 2007 is perceived by the users. It

seems to be a promising system, according to Sperling. There is a possibility though that the

intentions of SharePoint 2007, such as an easier structure and a clear purpose of each site,

may not be fulfilled. I think the users will need more guidance when it comes to how to share

knowledge, not only how to operate the system.

Also, another issue which would be possible to extend the research to is the possible effects

which could come from a more active knowledge management concerning the culture and

shared values within the organization. If this was emphasized within the organization, would

the benefits from SharePoint be even greater and/or easier to identify?

iii

Reference List

Literature

� Grönroos, C., Service management and marketing, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2006

� Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H., The knowledge creating company; How Japanese

companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press, 1995

Articles

� Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E., Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge

Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues, MIS Quarterly,

Vol. 25, No. 1, March 2001

� Becker, C. M., Managing Disperse Knowledge: Organizational Problems, Managerial

Strategies, and Their Effectiveness, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, No. 7,

November 2001

� Gupta, K., & Govindarajan, V., Knowledge management’s social dimension: Lessons

from Nucor Steel, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42, pp. 71–80, 2000

� Nonaka, I., & Konno, N., The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for Knowledge

creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 40-54, spring 1998

� Sarvary, M., Knowledge Management and Competition in the Consulting Industry,

California Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, Winter 1999

Online Sources

� Business dictionary, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/knowledge-

economy.html, 20th of November, 2007

� Microsoft, http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/default.mspx, 15th of December,

2007

� MOSS 2007 Evaluation Guide, http://office.microsoft.com/en-

us/sharepointserver/HA101680161033.aspx, 15th of December 2007

� SearchDomino, http://searchdomino.techtarget.com/sDefinition/

0,,sid4_gci212217,00.html, 6th of January, 2008

� Stora Enso, www.storaenso.com, 14th of January, 2008

Interviews

� Charlotte Sperling, Stora Enso AB, 30th of November, 2007

iv

� Elisabeth Larsson, Stora Enso AB, 19th of December, 2007

� Heléne Hansson, Stora Enso Skog AB, 14th of December, 2007

� Lennart Haglund, Stora Enso Research AB, 14th of December 2007

Internal Documents

� About Corporate IT worksites, 14th of December 2007

v

Appendix 1

Interview with Charlotte Sperling, Project Leader f or MOOS 2007,

Stora Enso AB, 2007-11-30

These are the general questions which were acknowledged to the interviewee before the

interview was conducted.

1. What is your position within Stora Enso AB?

2. What was your role through the implementation of Microsoft Office SharePoint Server

2007?

3. Describe with your own words, what do you think was the reason for introduction of

the SharePoint technology within Stora Enso?

4. Which are SharePoint’s most important features according to you?

5. Which actual benefits do see with the SharePoint?

6. Is there any documentation over what effects SharePoint where meant to give for Stora

Enso?

7. Does a new user of the system get any type of introduction/education of how to use

the system? If yes, how does that look like?

8. How many users of SharePoint exist within Stora Enso’s organisation?

9. What does the term Knowledge Management mean for you as an employee of Stora

Enso?

vi

Appendix 2

Interview with Lennart Haglund, Director of Knowled ge

Management, Stora Enso Research AB, 2007-12-14

These are the general questions which were acknowledged to the interviewee before the

interview was conducted.

1. What is your position within Stora Enso AB?

2. What was your role through the implementation of Microsoft Office SharePoint Server

2007?

3. Which are SharePoint’s most important features according to you?

4. Describe, how are you using SharePoint?

5. SharePoint is mostly used as a document management system according to Charlotte,

even though Corporate IT sees it as such a system. Would you want to see it got used

more in another different way?

6. Which actual benefits do see with SharePoint?

7. Describe with your own words, what do you think was the reason for introduction of

the SharePoint technology within Stora Enso?

8. Is there something you would like to add about SharePoint and usage of it?

9. What does the term Knowledge Management mean for you as an employee of Stora

Enso?

vii

Appendix 3

Interview with Elisabeth Larsson, Group Business Co ntrolling,

Stora Enso AB, 2007-12-19

These are the general questions which were acknowledged to the interviewee before the

interview was conducted.

1. What is your position within Stora Enso AB?

2. Have you come in contact with Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007?

3. How long have you been using SharePoint?

4. Describe, how are you using SharePoint?

5. Which are SharePoint’s most important features according to you?

6. SharePoint is mostly used as a document management system according to Charlotte,

even though Corporate IT sees it as such a system. Would you want to see it got used

more in another different way?

7. Which actual benefits do see with SharePoint?

8. What does the term Knowledge Management mean for you as an employee of Stora

Enso?

viii

Appendix 4

Interview with Heléne Hansson, SAP Project Leader, Stora Enso

Skog AB, 2007-12-14

These are the general questions which were acknowledged to the interviewee before the

interview was conducted. 1. What is your position within Stora Enso AB?

2. Have you come in contact with Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007?

3. How long have you been using SharePoint?

4. Describe, how are you using SharePoint?

5. Which are SharePoint’s most important features according to you?

6. SharePoint is mostly used as a document management system according to Charlotte,

even though Corporate IT sees it as such a system. Would you want to see it got used

more in another different way?

7. Which actual benefits do see with SharePoint?

8. What does the term Knowledge Management mean for you as an employee of Stora

Enso?