Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge
Sharing
Mohammadbashir Sedighi, Stephan Lukosch, Sander van Splunter,
Frances Brazier and Cees van Beers
Technology, Policy and Management Faculty, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, Delft, The Netherlands
Keywords: Knowledge Management System, Engagement, Participatory System.
Abstract: The importance of knowledge sharing within most organisations is well recognised. While abundant KM
systems have been matured to encourage individual engagement in knowledge sharing, practical evidences
show a low success rate of KM systems. This paper reports on a qualitative exploratory multi-case study to
explore level participants’ engagement in knowledge sharing along the design principle for engagement of
participatory systems. Results show that KM systems using a combined approach of supply- and demand
side KM strongly influence participants’ engagement for knowledge sharing.
1 INTRODUCTION
Knowledge has become a critical driver for business
success. Many businesses are exploring the field of
knowledge management (KM) to improve and
sustain their competitive advantage (Bock et al.,
2005). Many organisations are becoming more
knowledge intensive, whilst hiring minds more
than hands”, in their attempt to capture the value of
knowledge (Wong, 2005). KM systems have been
designed to support sustainable to this purpose.
A review of the KM system literature discloses
two general approaches. The first approach from the
first generation of KM, concentrates on supplying
pre-exist knowledge to participants (Rezgui et al.,
2010). The second approach of KM focuses on
knowledge sharing processes as self-organized
phenomena between knowledge owners and
knowledge recipients. Participants’ contributions to
the second generation of KM systems strongly
depends on their engagement in the knowledge
sharing processes (van den Hooff and Huysman,
2009). Designing KM systems for participants
engagement improves individual participation and
knowledge contributions (Mergel et al., 2008).
Moreover, recent research on success factors of KM
systems shows the importance of soft factor such as
individual engagement in knowledge sharing rather
than technological factors (Sedighi et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, few studies evaluate individual
engagement in KM systems. This paper explores
how different categories of KM systems support
participants’ engagement in knowledge exchange,
using a qualitative exploratory multi-case study.
This study creates two main research contributions.
First, it makes a comprehensive understanding of
participants’ engagement by explaining different
dimensions of engagement. Second, this research
advances our knowledge about the level of
engagement support in different KM classifications.
This study is organized as follows: Section 2
discusses KM systems and focuses more specifically
on the role of participants’ engagement in KM
process. Section 3 discusses the research method and
procedure, based on participatory systems literature.
Section 4 analyses participant’s engagement for six
KM systems. Sections 5 and 6 present results
discussion, conclusions and future research.
2 RELATED WORK
Many KM systems have been developed to
encourage knowledge sharing behaviour, but
practical evidence shows that technology alone
cannot guarantee the success of KM systems
(Sedighi et al., 2015). KM systems are designed to
acquire, create and share knowledge with a
collection of employees, processes and technology
with different organisational and environmental
constraints (Sedighi and Zand, 2012).
148
Sedighi, M., Lukosch, S., Splunter, S., Brazier, F. and Beers, C.
Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2016) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 148-155
ISBN: 978-989-758-203-5
Copyright
c
2016 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
Traditionally, a principal discussion with regard to
KM systems focuses on how to improve
participants’ engagement in the KM process. There
are still no clear design recommendations. Contem-
porary KM systems are becoming more accessible,
effective, cloud-based, connected, personalized, and
integrated with other organisational technologies,
shaping new knowledge exchange environments to
support participants’ engagement in KM process.
Generally, improving employees’ participation for
knowledge sharing has been identified as a main
motivation for designing new KM technologies.
2.1 Engagement in KM Systems
Participants’ engagement indicates a level of invol-
vement in knowledge sharing processes to share
contents, information and knowledge within
organisation (Chang and Chuang, 2011). Success of
KM systems strongly depends on participants’
willingness to engage in knowledge sharing (Wiertz
and de Ruyter, 2007). All KM systems need
participants’ engagement in knowledge sharing to
improve knowledge flows within organisations, to
make sharing memorable, satisfying, enjoyable and
rewarding process (Benyon et al., 2005).
Participant engagement is developed in different
communication channels of KM systems (Sedighi et
al., 2016). Communication channels are distingui-
shed with the level of knowledge sharing
engagement visibilities (Zhang et al., 2013). Private
communication channels are developed in KM
systems to transfer knowledge between two persons:
a knowledge sender and a knowledge recipient.
Group communication channels create a knowledge
exchange platform among a group of employees
with considering to few-to-few communication.
Public communication technologies support
employees to share knowledge with all employees
within organisation. These platforms support many-
to-many communication.
2.2 Supply-side Vs. Demand-side KM
McElroy (2000) is the first author to categorize KM
systems with respect to the two sides of knowledge
sharing: supply-side KM (push system) and demand-
side KM (pull system). Further, the combination of
supply and demand sides represents a new cluster of
KM systems designed to this purpose. Figure 1
depicts different demand-side KM and supply-side
KM technologies.
Supply-side KM systems provide pre-compiled
knowledge to passive participants. Knowledge
owners customize and create knowledge in response
to knowledge needs and requests in Demand-Side
KM approaches. The combination of the supply-side
and demand-side KM promotes emergent knowledge
on the demand-side and strategic knowledge on the
supply-side, however conditions of KM systems to
support both sides of KM has not yet been
introduced.
Figure 1: Supply-side & Demand-side KM tools.
3 EXPLORATORY STUDY
This section introduces the methodology of this
exploratory study.
3.1 Research Model
This section presents an assessment model to
measure individuals engagement in knowledge
sharing. Participatory systems are large-scale
social-technical systems enabled by technology,
coordinating and orchestrating self-organisation,
designed to provide individuals and organisations
the ability to act and take responsibility in today’s
networked society (Brazier and Nevejan, 2014).
When designing a participatory system three major
design principles are of key importance (Brazier
and Nevejan, 2014). First, trust is essential to the
social process facilitated by mechanisms for
transparency, security, integrity, privacy, identifia-
bility, traceability, accessibility, proportionality,
reliability and robustness. Second, engagement
necessitates interaction, design of presence, enact-
ment, communication, awareness and co-creation.
Third, a participation process empowers partici-
pants respecting participants’ autonomy (reactivity
and pro-activeness) and providing them the ability
to act through interaction, communication and self-
regulation (Brazier and Nevejan, 2014).
Employing the design principle for engagement
in participatory KM systems, an engaging KM
system needs to support a social process and provide
Supply-side emphasis
D
e
m
a
n
d
-
s
i
d
e
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
Knowledge Repositories
Document Management
Data Warehousing
Question & Answers
Discussion forums
Online Chat
Instant Messaging
Knowledge Markets
Knowledge Networks
Content Management
Lesson Learned Systems
Enterprise Social
Networks
Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing
149
an infrastructure facilitating interaction, presence,
enactment, communication, awareness and co-
creation (Brazier and Nevejan, 2014). This paper
distinguishes 6 dimensions (Figure 2) of engagement
adopted by KM studies:
Interaction: level of participant engagement in
the knowledge exchange regarding to perceived
costs and benefits (Cyr and Wei Choo, 2010).
Presence: level of participants’ presence in
relation to time, place, actions and relations
(Nevejan and Brazier, 2012; Riva et al., 2011).
Enactment: level of participants’ engagement
in legislation and self-regulation in the gover-
nance of KM systems (Tseng and Kuo, 2014).
Communication: level of participants’
possibilities to communicate in different levels
of knowledge sharing channels (Snyder and Eng
Lee-Partridge, 2013).
Awareness: level of participants’ opportunities
to be aware of structures, networks and
governance of KM systems (Leonardi, 2014).
Co-creation: level of participants’ opportunities
to jointly generate knowledge with other
participants (Kazadi et al., 2016).
Figure 2: Participants’ engagement dimensions.
3.2 Research Method and Procedure
This paper follows the qualitative exploratory multi-
case study method. The purpose of this study is to
evaluate support for individual engagement in
knowledge exchange in different KM systems. For
the first step, KM systems are selected using the
winner list of Globally Most Admired Knowledge
Enterprises (MAKE) reward. The MAKE award,
initiated by Teleos in association with the KNOW
network, focuses on the knowledge process in
organisations (Pandey and Dutta, 2013).
Although, it is difficult to position a KM system
independently in either supply-side or demand-side
KM, or a combination of the 2, the foundation of
KM systems addresses one of the approaches. The
selected KM systems are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Selected KM systems.
Supply-side KM
Demand-side KM
Combination approach
Knowledge
Repositories
Discussion Forums
Knowledge Markets
Lessons Learned
Systems
Q&A Systems
Enterprise Social
Networks
Such KM systems have been assessed using the
six engagement dimensions shown in Fig. 2. Google
scholar was used to find academic journals, and
book chapters on knowledge management, business
management, and information systems, published
between 2010 and 2015 that referenced Knowledge
repositories”, lesson learned systems”, discussion
forums”, question and answer systems”,
knowledge market and enterprise social
network”. All studies consider KM system in
organisational environments. Overall, 32 qualitative
and quantitative studies were selected to use in the
research.
3.3 Measures
The qualitative data collected from these studies is
used to evaluate the engagement dimensions defined
above to assess individuals’ engagement. Two
judges independently investigated definitions,
structures, properties and technical features of the
six KM systems from the selected studies regarding
to the dimension definitions. They employed an
open coding method. All data regarding to the
engagement dimensions are listed for each KM
systems. Judges discuss with each other to create a
consensus. The frequency of evidences is used to
evaluate dimensions. The best system is ranked in
the highest level regarding to the dimensions’
definitions. Then other systems are ranked with
respect to the best KM system with three-point scale
(low, medium, high).
4 RESULTS
4.1 Knowledge Repository System
Knowledge repository systems are designed to
support saving, disseminating and retrieving
knowledge with the aid of IT (van den Hooff and
Huysman, 2009). Organisations and knowledge
experts contribute to the system by improving and
updating repository. Knowledge recipients are
considered to be passive actors only receiving
knowledge from the knowledge repository and not
making contributions. The different dimensions of
Designing for
Participants
Engagement
Presence
Communication
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
150
engagement dimensions are not evaluated for
knowledge repositories, because knowledge
repositories do not support a social process for user
engagement. They only support unidirectional
communication.
4.2 Lesson Learned System
Lessons Learned systems are designed to enhance the
capability of organisations to identify and capture
valuable lessons learned through project activities
(Burley and Pandit, 2008). The purpose of a lessons
learned system is not to share failure stories, but to
disseminate experiences. Like knowledge repositories
and all other systems developed in the supply-side
KM approach, learners are passive participants whom
only obtain lessons from systems. Engagement is not
supported by lesson learned systems, because they are
only designed to collect experiences by experts within
organisations.
4.3 Discussion Forum System
Discussion forums are computer-based knowledge
systems that enable employees to exchange know-
ledge and ideas (Montero et al., 2007). Knowledge
sharing through discussion forums is stimulated by
rich social participation and communication.
Figure 3: Assessment of engagement dimensions as
supported in discussion forums.
Knowledge contents in forums are publicly
exposed within an organisation, and participants are
aware that everyone within their organisation can
read their knowledge. This creates collective
reputation for knowledge creators and enhances
interaction between employees. As result, their self-
image is improved and they receive recognition as a
knowledge worker. Although, people gain reputation
from knowledge contribution, discussion forums
have no opportunity to support other kinds of
reputation mechanisms such as rating methods.
Further, discussion forums promote reciprocity in
the form of in-direct knowledge exchange.
Participants exchange knowledge with other
participants who they have previously seen in
knowledge exchange with others. While, participants
are benefited from in-direct reciprocity, participants
have no possibility to use one-to-one communication
channel. Therefore, discussion forum systems
support participants’ interaction on a medium level.
Discussion forums are designed for individual
presence. They allow members to share knowledge
via transparent synchronous or asynchronous
communication. Thus, discussion forum systems
support high-level individual presence dimension.
Further, these systems are designed for participants’
enactment by role acceptance in the discussion
forum, but members do not have any possibility for
self-regulation and intervention on the governance
of system. Hence, discussion forum systems support
a low-level of individual enactment. Besides, these
systems are only designed for communication
among group members. Knowledge exchanges on
private and public levels are eliminated from the
scope of discussion forums. Therefore, discussion
forum systems rank low on the communication
dimension. Furthermore, people can be aware about
the changes in interested forum topics by following
the subject, but they do not provide the opportunity
to be aware on all whole changes in the forum. As
result, discussion forum systems rank low on the
awareness dimension. These systems also have been
developed for knowledge creation on a group level.
These systems have no technical opportunity to
create knowledge in public-level knowledge
exchange. Thus, discussion forum systems rank
medium on the co-creation dimension. Figure 3
presents a summary of the engagement assessment
for discussion forums.
4.4 Question and Answer System
Organisational Q&A systems are developed for
employees’ interactions, asking questions and
collecting answers within an organisation. All
questions and answers are saved in a Q&A
repository that can be easily assessed by participants
(Iske and Boersma, 2005). Q&A systems create
opportunities for participants to contribute in the
social process.
Q&A systems employ a transparent environment
between knowledge creators and knowledge
recipients to transfer personal advice and opinions.
All Q&A subjects are visible in the organisation
environment, and employees perceive professional
recognition as benefit. Also, knowledge reciprocities
stimulate participants to answer questions because
they expect to receive knowledge in the future.
Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation
Low
Medium
Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing
151
Participants have no opportunity to use private
communication tools to promote direct reciprocity.
Therefore, Q&A systems rank medium-level on the
interaction dimension.
Figure 4: Assessment of engagement dimensions as
supported in Q&A systems.
Q&A systems are designed for participants’
presence by supporting asynchronous communica-
tion between employees. However, employees have
no opportunity to use synchronous communication
platforms. They can observe knowledge exchange
interactions between inquirers and responders. Thus,
Q&A systems have a medium-level support for
individual presence. Further, participants have
limited enactment capabilities to set regulations for
the system. Hence, Q&A systems rank low on the
enactment dimension. Besides, these systems are
only designed for communication within organisa-
tion, but they have no any opportunity for private
knowledge sharing. Therefore, Q&A systems rank
low on the communication dimension. Also,
participants do not have any opportunity to stay
aware about changes in the system. Thus, Q&A
systems rank low on the awareness dimension.
These systems also have been developed for creation
knowledge in public-level knowledge exchange.
Participants share their knowledge to answer
knowledge needs in a Q&A environment, but these
systems have restriction to create knowledge in
group-level knowledge sharing. Thus, Q&A systems
support the co-creation dimension on medium-level.
Figure 4 summarizes the engagement assessment for
Q&A system within organisations.
4.5 Internal Knowledge Market System
Knowledge market systems are a type of knowledge
networks, which use market mechanisms for
knowledge exchange within organisations.
Knowledge markets are defined as a space where
knowledge buyers and knowledge sellers can
exchange knowledge within organisations (Jeong et
al., 2012). Knowledge market systems foster
knowledge sharing using a dynamic price
mechanism within organisations and all benefits of
knowledge sharing can be captured by monetary
mechanisms. Although knowledge markets are
designed by virtual monetary mechanism, other
extrinsic rewards like as reputation incentive are
used for participant engagement (Chen et al., 2010).
Internal knowledge market systems rank medium on
the interaction dimension.
Figure 5: Assessment of engagement dimensions as
supported in internal knowledge markets.
Internal knowledge markets support the presence
of participants by presenting their contributions,
locations and knowledge relations. Thereby,
knowledge markets rank high on the presence
dimension. Although participants have opportunities
to contribute in knowledge markets environments,
market designers regulate the markets
environments. This approach restricts participants’
enactment by reducing employees’ autonomy to pass
legislation and regulation for markets. Hence,
internal knowledge markets rank medium-level on
the enactment dimension. Besides, internal
knowledge markets are developed to exchange
knowledge in different communication channels.
Therefore, internal knowledge market rank high on
the communication dimension. Additionally,
participants get notifications about the changes such
as new knowledge on the market in their profiles
pages. Thus, knowledge markets rank high on the
awareness dimension. Market systems also have
been designed for co-creation knowledge in different
levels of knowledge exchange. Knowledge
exchanges in different communication channels
make an environment for creation knowledge among
employees. Thus, internal knowledge market can
support high-level employees’ co-creation
dimension. Figure 5 summarizes the engagement
assessment for internal knowledge market.
4.6 Enterprise Social Network System
Enterprise social networks (ESN) have become
contemporary KM systems that combine knowledge
exchange with social relations. They provide a
Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation
Low
Medium
High
Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation
Low
Medium
High
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
152
distributed communication system among partici-
pants to promote knowledge exchange unconstrained
by the limitations of time and space (Leonardi et al.,
2013).
ESN improve experts’ recognition and
reciprocity in firms, because they make participants
behaviours and knowledge contents visible. Both
intrinsic and extrinsic perceived benefits are
promoted by ESN. Therefore, ESN systems rank
high on the interaction dimension. ESN users are
enabled to make their opinions, perceptions and
knowledge public within organisations or use
communities, which have limited visibility in
organisations. Thus, ESN rank high on the presence
dimension. Further, ESN are designed for enactment
by offering opportunities for participants to involve
in legislation processes. But some procedures of the
regulatory process such as incentive programs are
designed by network designers. Thus, ESN rank
medium on the enactment dimension.
Figure 6: Assessment of engagement dimensions as
supported in ESN.
Network members are enabled to share their
knowledge in a spectrum of knowledge exchange
channels from invisible to visible communication
levels. This opportunity supports users’ engagement
in the knowledge sharing process by designing
communication mechanisms among network
members. Therefore, ESN rank high on the
communication dimension. Participant’s awareness
is stimulated by triggered attending feature
(Majchrzak et al., 2013). Triggered attending feature
reduces participants’ search time by a trigger
mechanism which helps them to remain uninvolved
until a timely alert informs a change to the
participant’s interested knowledge list. Hence, ESN
rank high on the awareness dimension. Besides,
knowledge exchange in different communication
channels supports individual engagement with
supporting knowledge co-creation in private, group
and organisational knowledge sharing. Thus, ESN
can support high-level employees’ co-creation
dimension. Figure 6 summarizes the engagement
assessment for ESN.
5 ANALYSIS SUMMARY
This section represents a summary of the analysis.
Knowledge repository and lesson learned systems
offer no opportunity for social interaction.
Therefore, they cannot support employees to engage
in the knowledge exchange process. On the other
hand, open discussion forums, Q&A systems,
knowledge market and ESN offer communications
channels to support engagement and participation.
These systems support a process for employees’
engagement. As can be seen in summary of
assessment columns in Table 2, the level of
engagement’ dimensions were used to signify level
of participants’ engagement in KM systems.
Comparing the different engagement dimensions
in Error! Reference source not found.Figure 7
shows the need to more strongly consider individual
enactment in different KM systems’ categories.
Participants lack the opportunity to engage in the
regulatory process, as all considered KM systems
use a centralized process for systems regulation.
Table 2: Assessment summary.
KM systems
Social
process
Summary of
assessment
Low
Medium
High
Knowledge repository
No
-
-
-
Lessons Learned
No
-
-
-
Discussion Forum
Yes
3
2
1
Questions and answers
Yes
3
3
0
Internal Knowledge market
Yes
0
2
4
Enterprise social network
Yes
0
1
5
Discussion forums as a kind of knowledge sharing
system among group members have been developed.
Although, they employ collaborative mechanisms,
they have limited capabilities to support employees’
enactment, communication and awareness.
Q&A Systems aim to solve organisational
problems that are asked by employees. Web 2.0 offers
more interactive and collaborative technologies that
support engagement for collective knowledge.
Nevertheless, these systems need more mechanisms
to support co-creation and awareness and communica-
tion dimensions. Additionally, although Q&A users
have opportunities to ask questions, they have no
opportunity to participate in the regulatory process of
the Q&A environments.
Knowledge markets are designed by a social
process to improve knowledge exchange between
knowledge owners and knowledge recipients. Though
transparent market regulations support the enactment,
designing the regulatory process by users is not
Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation
Low
Medium
High
Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing
153
considered in knowledge markets. Wisdom of
crowds is a common method, which used in different
parts of the knowledge market to use participants
insights. Lacks of self-governing and intrinsic
incentives reduce the capacity of knowledge markets
to support individual engagement. Thus, knowledge
markets support engagement on a medium level.
Figure 7: Assessment of engagement dimensions in KM
systems.
ESN as a contemporary system combine
knowledge exchange with social interactions. These
communication technologies support individual
engagement in knowledge exchange which are not
designed only based on principles of delegating, but
are structured on the principle of participation
(Brazier and Nevejan, 2014). Informality and
visibility natures of ESN reduce knowledge exchange
costs and promote individual perceived benefits for
knowledge sharing not only in mutual communica-
tions, but also in collective knowledge exchange.
These transparent environments support employees’
awareness about the changes. Moreover, ESN offer
different possible roles for participants to contribute
in the networks, structure and governance, however
members need to be enabled by self-regulation
processes. Therefore, ESN are designed regarding
towards participants’ engagement.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The role of individual engagement in developing
KM systems has been an issue of considerable
interest by KM studies, yet little research has been
done to explore how KM systems promote
engagement. This paper uses a KM system’s
classification to select KM systems. Six KM systems
are mapped with the supply-side KM, the demand-
side KM and combination approach. Following a
qualitative research strategy method, different
engagement dimensions in six KM systems were
explored. According to the results, the lack of a
social process for knowledge exchange in supply-
side KM systems’ results in no support for
engagement. Although demand-side KM system
supports a social process by using Web 2.0
technologies, the engagement’s dimensions are not
supported appropriately. Finally, KM systems that
follow the combination approach of demand- and
supply-side have the highest capacity to support
individual’s engagement.
Several opportunities for future research have
been identified. First, the current study was
exploratory in nature and focused on six main KM
systems. Extending the research scope will help to
generalized results. Also, a future study needs to
systematically examine points of improvement for
KM systems by further analysing the different
engagement dimensions. Improving engagement in
KM systems remains largely claimed rather than
empirically confirmed. Future research therefore
needs to consider this issue. Further, finding the
right mechanisms for participants’ engagement is a
valuable area for future research, which can support
sustained participations for knowledge exchange.
Studies need to explore the impact of dynamic KM
technologies with various forms of KM participation
beyond the traditional KM systems.
REFERENCES
Benyon, D., Turner, P. and Turner, S. (2005). Designing
interactive systems: People, activities, contexts,
technologies, Pearson Education.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G. and Lee, J.-N.
(2005). "Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators,
social-psychological forces, and organisational
climate". MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, PP. 87-111.
Brazier, F. and Nevejan, C. 2014. Vision for Participatory
Systems Design. 4th International Engineering
Systems Symposium (CESUN 2014). New York.
Burley, D. L. and Pandit, G. (2008). "Lesson learned:
organisational realities influence KMS implementa-
tion". VINE, Vol. 38 No. 4, PP. 476-489.
Chang, H. H. and Chuang, S.-S. (2011). "Social capital
and individual motivations on knowledge sharing:
Participant involvement as a moderator". Information
& Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, PP. 9-18.
Chen, Y., Ho, T. H. and Kim, Y. M. (2010). "Knowledge
market design: A field experiment at Google
Answers". Journal of Public Economic Theory, Vol.
12 No. 4, PP. 641-664.
Cyr, S. and Wei Choo, C. (2010). "The individual and
social dynamics of knowledge sharing: an exploratory
study". Journal of Documentation, Vol. 66 No. 6, PP.
824-846.
Iske, P. and Boersma, W. (2005). "Connected brains:
Question and answer systems for knowledge sharing:
Interaction Presence Enactment Communication Awareness Co-creation
DF Q&A IKM ESN
Low
Medium
High
KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing
154
concepts, implementation and return on investment".
Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 9 No. 1, PP.
126-145.
Jeong, S., Ahn, J. and Rhee, B. (2012). "A Study of
Knowledge Management System Activation Methods
Based on Knowledge Market Theory", in Lee, G.,
Howard, D., Ślęzak, D. & Hong, Y.(Ed.) Convergence
and Hybrid Information Technology. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, PP. 103-110
Kazadi, K., Lievens, A. and Mahr, D. (2016).
"Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation
process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge
creation among multiple stakeholders". Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2, PP. 525-540.
Leonardi, P. M. (2014). "Social media, knowledge
sharing, and innovation: Toward a theory of communi-
cation visibility". Information Systems Research, Vol.
25 No. 4, PP. 796-816.
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C. (2013).
"Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and
prospects for the study of social technologies in
organisations". Journal of Computer
Mediated
Communication, Vol. 19 No. 1, PP. 1-19.
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C. and Azad, B. (2013).
"The Contradictory Influence of Social Media
Affordances on Online Knowledge Sharing". Vol. No.
Mcelroy, M. W. (2000). "Integrating complexity theory,
knowledge management and organisational learning".
Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 4 No. 3, PP.
195-203.
Mergel, I., Lazer, D. and Binz-Scharf, M. C. (2008).
"Lending a helping hand: voluntary engagement in
knowledge sharing". International Journal of
Learning and Change, Vol. 3 No. 1, PP. 5-22.
Montero, B., Watts, F. and García-Carbonell, A. (2007).
"Discussion forum interactions: Text and context".
System, Vol. 35 No. 4, PP. 566-582.
Nevejan, C. and Brazier, F. (2012). "Granularity in reci-
procity". AI & SOCIETY, Vol. 27 No. 1, PP. 129-147.
Pandey, S. C. and Dutta, A. (2013). "Role of knowledge
infrastructure capabilities in knowledge management".
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
PP. 435-453.
Rezgui, Y., Hopfe, C. J. and Vorakulpipat, C. (2010).
"Generations of knowledge management in the
architecture, engineering and construction industry:
An evolutionary perspective". Advanced Engineering
Informatics, Vol. 24 No. 2, PP. 219-228.
Riva, G., Waterworth, J. A., Waterworth, E. L. and
Mantovani, F. (2011). "From intention to action: The
role of presence". New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 29
No. 1, PP. 24-37.
Sedighi, M., Splunter, S. V., Brazier, F., Beers, C. V. and
Lukosch, S. (2016). "Exploration of multi-layered
knowledge sharing participation: the roles of perceived
benefits and costs". Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment, Vol. 20 No. 6, PP. (Forthcoming).
Sedighi, M., Van Splunter, S., Zand, F. and Brazier, F.
(2015). "Evaluating critical success factors model of
knowledge management: An analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) approach". International Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, PP. 17-36.
Sedighi, M. and Zand, F. (2012). Knowledge manage-
ment: Review of the Critical Success Factors and
development of a conceptual classification model.
10th International Conference of ICT and Knowledge
Engineering, Bangkok IEEE Explore, 1-9.
Snyder, J. and Eng Lee-Partridge, J. (2013). "Understan-
ding communication channel choices in team
knowledge sharing". Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, PP. 417-431.
Tseng, F.-C. and Kuo, F.-Y. (2014). "A study of social
participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers'
online professional community of practice".
Computers & Education, Vol. 72 No. 37-47.
Van Den Hooff, B. and Huysman, M. (2009). "Managing
knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering
approaches". Information & Management, Vol. 46 No.
1, PP. 1-8.
Wiertz, C. and De Ruyter, K. (2007). "Beyond the call of
duty: why customers contribute to firm-hosted
commercial online communities". Organisation
studies, Vol. 28 No. 3, PP. 347-376.
Wong, K. Y. (2005). "Critical success factors for
implementing knowledge management in small and
medium enterprises". Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, PP. 261-279.
Zhang, X., De Pablos, P. O. and Zhou, Z. (2013). "Effect
of knowledge sharing visibility on incentive-based
relationship in Electronic Knowledge Management
Systems: An empirical investigation". Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, PP. 307-313.
Exploration Participants Engagement in Organisational Knowledge Sharing
155