Eliciting Design Requirements for a Knowledge Management System

in Cultural and Historical Heritage

Néstor A. Nova

and Rafael A. Gonzalez

Department of Information Science, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

Department of Systems Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

Keywords: Knowledge Management Systems, Design Requirements, Sociomaterial Design, Design Science, Case Study.

Abstract: Designing a Knowledge Management System (KMS) from a socio-technical approach, usually includes

elicitation of distinct, yet related, requirements from a user, system and domain level. However, this

perspective presents shortcomings in terms of emergent and co-evolving interactions between agencies,

particularly in highly-dynamic use contexts. To address these issues, this paper reports on a design science

study that develops three design requirements grounded on sociomaterial (SM) tenets, and based on the study

of imbrications between social and material agencies. We do so in the context of an interorganizational

knowledge sharing network in the cultural and historical heritage domain, showing how the sociomaterial

coordination practices could be better understood and directed to design practices. The findings reveal that a

KMS derived from sociomaterial lens could potentially address different coordination issues that arise when

sharing knowledge between heritage projects. Our artefact will be helpful in applying what have been mostly

theoretical discussions on sociomateriality in highly-dynamic design settings.

1 INTRODUCTION

Coordinating people to find an effective knowledge

sharing space is one of the key issues in organization

science (Malone and Crowston, 1994; Mintzberg,

1983). Designing coordination for sharing knowledge

has been the primary goal of IS scholars and

practitioners for at least three decades (Burton, Obel,

& Haakonsson, 2020; Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Feldman,

2011; Malone & Crowston, 1994). However, the

knowledge sharing is hindered by a lack of

coordination design process that account for some of

the novel technological phenomena such as

ubiquitous and pervasive infrastructure and social

phenomena like heterogeneity, which are becoming

more common and natural in knowledge-sharing

practices.

The design of coordination mechanisms, such as

KMS, has evolved from a focus on a logic of pre-

determination, prediction and pre-specification

(Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Malhotra, 2004), to dynamic,

emergent, contextualized and non-patterned

coordination (Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Jarzabkowski et

al., 2011; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009). Recent studies

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2624-8314

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1237-4408

have establish the benefits of using the sociomaterial

approach to examine how the knowledge work is

coordinated in practice (Beane & Orlikowski, 2014;

Constantinides & Barrett, 2012; Hilaricus, 2011).

This paper addresses the need for a more fine-grained

knowledge for eliciting design requirements for KMS

that contribute to improve coordination for sharing

knowledge in interorganizational networks.

The motivation for this paper arose out of

difficulties we experienced trying to design a KMS

for an international and interorganizational network

of universities aiming to share specialized knowledge

about rehabilitation, conservation or protection of

material and historical heritage. Prior approaches to

design KMS have been proposed in the KM literature

following the a socio-technical perspective (Cao,

Thompson, & Triche, 2013; Grundstein & Rosenthal-

Sabroux, 2007; Sajeva, 2010). When we attempted to

use the socio-technical approach to identify design

requirements for KMS, we had challenges obtaining

results that could be ontologically aligned with our

field observations. The main barrier of this

sociotechnical approach is that its coordination

design philosophy overlooks the social dynamics of

Nova, N. and Gonzalez, R.

Eliciting Design Requirements for a Knowledge Management System in Cultural and Historical Heritage.

DOI: 10.5220/0010657100003064

In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2021) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 40-51

ISBN: 978-989-758-533-3; ISSN: 2184-3228

coordination, the material agencies of the

mechanisms and the contextual dimensions in which

any of them unfolds for sharing knowledge at

individual extent. For instance, heritage experts’

everyday environments are flooded with digital and

material artifacts for both sharing knowledge and

performing technical activities, and this ICT diversity

affords them many possibilities to become

coordinated using different technologies with

different people, in different ways, and at different

times and places, which changes dynamically the

knowledge work. These means that eliciting

requirements for KMS from a static view can be

incoherent when the coordination practices are totally

dynamic.

After experiencing these difficulties, we elected to

formulate new and more fine-grained knowledge

about eliciting design requirements for a KMS in the

heritage domain. We use the term design requirement

to refer to the set of features and functions an artifact

must embody and what constraints it must satisfy in

order to address goals, capabilities, purposes and

limits of the system (Hansen, Berente, & Lyytinen,

2009). Specifically, we consider design requirements

as the specification of particular materiality enacted

by a KMS to accomplish a goal. They capture

increasingly diverging and dynamic needs of people

during social interaction and evolution with the KMS.

In this paper, the design requirements are

concerned with the improvement of the coordination

process for sharing knowledge. Furthermore, we used

a design science research approach to explore an

interorganizational knowledge sharing network in the

heritage domain and the theoretical bases of

sociomateriality in order to elucidate the design

requirements for KMS. Design science research

(DSR) addresses important unsolved problems by

combining theory, field research, and design and

evaluation practices in unique or innovative ways to

develop innovative artifacts and derive new

knowledge. Design science research is a proper

approach when investigating in the information

systems arena (Hevner & Chatterjee, 2010) however,

this paper demonstrates how DSR it is also well-

suited for identifying sociomaterial design

requirements for KMS in the heritage domain.

The benefits of fine-grained knowledge about the

sociomaterial elicitation of design requirements for

KMS are (1) researchers can explore an empirical

example about eliciting design requirements for IS

artifacts from sociomateriality, and (2) practitioners

can receive specific guidance to improve the

coordination process for sharing knowledge when

designing a KMS in knowledge sharing networks.

In the following sections, we begin by examining

prior approaches in the research literature for

sociomateriality followed by a description of the

methodological approaches to study design. We then

describe the DSR methodology and the design

process. Next, we outline the sociomaterial design

requirements and the corresponding evaluation. The

following section describes the findings of the case

study that was used to elicitate the design of

requirements and evaluate the reliability, validity, and

utility. We conclude with a discussion of implications

for future research and practice.

2 BACKGROUND

Among scholars and organizational practitioners

alike, Knowledge Management Systems (KMS),

have attracted considerable attention during the last

decade and it is projected to be one of the top research

priorities in future IS research about Knowledge

Sharing (KS) (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Chaudhuri,

Chavan, Vadalkar, Vrontis, & Pereira, 2020). KS is

one of the major Knowledge Management (KM)

processes along with discovery, capture and

application (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Becerra-

Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2010; Davenport & Prusak,

1998). Scientific literature highlights that KMS,

defined by Alavi and Leidner (2001) as Information-

Technology (IT)-based systems supporting the

different phases of the KM processes, have an

important role in promoting knowledge sharing (KS)

(Choi, Lee, & Yoo, 2010). Understanding the KS

process in practice can affect the KMS design and

implementation (Cerchione, Centobelli, Zerbino, &

Anand, 2020) mainly because there are philosophical

considerations about alignment between both social

structures and technologies involved in the KS

process that are often overlooked (Néstor A. Nova,

2019).

The development of information systems should

be informed by a well-designed approach. Different

KMS design approaches can be traced from IS

literature. For example, Alavi and Leidner (2001)

consider KMS as an IT-based information system

applied to managing organizational knowledge to

support and enhance the organizational processes of

knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, and

application. Technical aspects of the KMS leads to

usage, and usefulness perception (Alavi & Leidner,

2001). In addition, Maier (2007) also consider KMS

from an IT-based perspective (instruments, services,

platforms) aiming to support user and business needs

(initiatives, process, participants) within a domain

context (Maier, 2007). Complementary, a KMS can

be considered as a variety of IT-based mechanisms or

a dynamic combination of them, to support the KM

processes (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2014).

Eliciting Design Requirements for a Knowledge Management System in Cultural and Historical Heritage

One of the main functions of a KMS is to facilitate

the communication processes and information flows

across individuals, groups, departments, and/or

organizations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Becerra-

Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2014). In general, the

approaches to elicitate KMS requirements are

grounded in the information-processing view of

coordination which implies identifying separately

and the matching knowledge needs and coordination

mechanisms (Malone & Crowston, 1994). The focus

of the elicitation process in KMS design has been

traditionally placed upon the system-level,

stakeholder-level or domain-level (Deve &

Hapanyengwi, 2014; Williams, 2015). Consequently,

the whole organizational system has to be treated and

analysed in pieces. Some attempts for considering an

integrated view of technological mechanisms and

human/social structures when designing a KMS have

been proposed following the socio-technical (ST)

perspective (Gallupe, 2001; Grundstein & Rosenthal-

Sabroux, 2007; Sajeva, 2010). The ST approach is

considered the most prominent philosophical

perspective to design KMS (Sajeva, 2010) and it

looks for a balance, synergy and interplay between

technological and social agencies aiming to manage

knowledge more effectively (Sajeva, 2010). From a

ST view, designing a knowledge sharing system is not

just a matter of knowledge access and retrieval. A

successful KMS must have the quality attributes

related with scale, extension, collaboration,

complexity, flexibility, heuristic properties, access,

centralization, retrieval, visualization, understanding,

awareness (knowledge and knowers). Table 1 lists the

crucial requirements for the success of a KMS.

Even though the ST approach has many

attractions when elicitating KMS requirements, the

high failure rates of IS projects questions existing

assumptions and approaches as they have not served

us too well (Cecez-Kecmanovic, Kautz, & Abrahall,

2014; Kautz & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2013). The ST

approach to elicitate KMS requirements is also

flawed in a number of significant ways. For example,

it (1) often focus design on technologies without

consideration of the social processes that surround

them (Hasan & Crawford, 2003); (2) assumes a

determinist perspective (Halawi, McCarthy, &

Aronson, 2017; Sajeva, 2010) focusing just on human

agency (people), thus ignoring material structures, or

focusing on the material agency (technology)

underplaying the action of humans; (3) refers to

knowledge work at institutional level as opposed to

individual inquiries (Leonardi, 2012) ignoring some

novel technological phenomena such as ubiquitous

and pervasive infrastructure (Jarrahi, Nelson, &

Thomson, 2017) and social phenomena like

heterogeneity (Cummings, Kiesler, Bosagh Zadeh, &

Balakrishnan, 2013); and (4) ignores the dynamic,

emergent and situated behavior of coordination for

sharing knowledge (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009).

These issues call for a sociomaterial perspective that

dissolves the analytical boundaries between users,

systems and domains, in order to capture dynamic

social interaction and co-evolution with the KMS

(Néstor A. Nova, 2019).

In this research, we use sociomateriality as a

justificatory knowledge (kernel theory) that inform

the elicitation of KMS requirements. Sociomateriality

literature incorporates various preceding theories, e.g.

socio-technical systems, actor network, and practice

theory (Leonardi, 2013). Sociomateriality aims to

understand and explain the relation between the social

and the material in organizational and technological

contexts (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2014). The two

major streams of sociomateriality can be traced in

literature, which differ by their ontological

foundations (Kautz & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2013).

The agential realism view treats the social and

material as inseparable, self-contained and entangled

in organizational practices (Scott & Orlikowski,

2008), whereas, the critical realism view consider that

the social and material can be identified separately

and explained as overlapping patterns of routines and

technologies that get imbricated overtime (Leonardi,

2013). In this research, we ground on the imbrication

view as it leaves space for improvement (Bratteteig &

Verne, 2012) and offers more opportunities for design

intervention, as it assumes that sociomaterial

assemblages can be disentangled, separately

improved and re-arranged. Acknowledging the

empirical separateness and potential imbrication of

these agencies is a necessary move for designing

technologies and organizations that work better

(Leonardi & Rodriguez-Lluesma, 2012). From this

perspective, technology and social agencies

constitute a sociomaterial ecosystem in which a group

of technologies and people are ensembled and

orchestrated temporary and dynamically according to

emergent and contextual needs (Néstor A. Nova,

2019). The sociomaterial ecosystem exists initially at

individual level, but when collaborating with others,

new and larger ecosystems can be formed to develop

group tasks.

In this research we use the imbrication metaphor

to understand how affordances (possibilities for

action) (Leonardi, 2011) can lead the design and

redesign of coordination mechanisms for sharing

knowledge in the heritage domain. Employing the

metaphor of imbrication, however, has several

implications. First, recognizing that that someone

(heritage expert or IT designer) is responsible for

putting the social and the material together, but that

they were ever separate in the first place. Second,

KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

Table 1: KMS design requirements from the socio-technical perspective.

Requirement Source

Scalable: should manage to support a large number of users (Deve & Hapanyengwi, 2014; Nevo & Chan, 2007)

Extensible: expands per organizational needs (Deve & Hapanyengwi, 2014)

Secure: should allow different access level to project information

enabling to share relevant knowledge according to project needs

(Deve & Hapanyengwi, 2014; Nevo & Chan, 2007; Nestor A.

Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a)

Collaborative: should support the interactions of the various

organizational units across the organization

(Deve & Hapanyengwi, 2014; Nevo & Chan, 2007; Nestor A.

Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a; Perez‐Araos, Barber, Eduardo, &

Eldridge, 2007; Secundo, Del Vecchio, Simeone, & Schiuma,

2020)

Complex querying capabilities (Deve & Hapanyengwi, 2014; Frank, 2001)

Flexible: should be able to handle all possible forms of knowledge

used and required by the organization

(Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2014; Deve & Hapanyengwi,

2014; Nevo & Chan, 2007; Nestor A. Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a)

Heuristic: the KMS should learn about its users and the knowledge

it possesses

(Deve & Hapanyengwi, 2014)

Accessible: enable access to project insights during and after the

project life-cycle affording reuse of knowledge

(Frank, 2001; Lisanti, Luhukay, Veronica, & Mariani, 2014; Nevo

& Chan, 2007; Nestor A. Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a; Perez‐Araos

et al., 2007; Secundo et al., 2020)

Centralized: should allow to connect different knowledge

repositories in a central storage medium

(Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2014; Nevo & Chan, 2007;

Nestor A. Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a)

Retrievable: should support experts to complete the information

needed to perform project tasks and make decisions effectively

(Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2014; Nevo & Chan, 2007;

Nestor A. Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a; Perez‐Araos et al., 2007)

Visualizable: should offer different knowledge visualization

options enabling customized connection with the already available

knowledge

(Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2014; Frank, 2001; Nevo &

Chan, 2007; Nestor A. Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a; Secundo et al.,

2020)

Understandable: should offer definitions of concepts that are

needed for the description and analysis of a corporation

(Frank, 2001)

Awareness: should support the dissemination of knowledge (Frank, 2001; Nestor A. Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a)

time and space are an important part of the

conversation (symbolic communication within and

between social and material agencies) because

affordance perception depends on contextual

situations that determine the type and length of the

imbrication. And, third, imbrications can be

dismounted (Leonardi & Rodriguez-Lluesma, 2012)

and there is no ideal or finite number of imbrications.

In particular, Leonardi argues that the perception of

constraints leads people to change their technologies,

while the perception of affordance leads people to

change their organizational routines. Both

perceptions are constructed in the space of

imbrication called trading zone (Leonardi, 2011).

3 METHODOLOGY

We ground this research in the Design Science

Research (DSR) approach (Gregor and Jones 2007;

Hevner et al. 2004) because our primary goal is to

develop a new artifact. The choice of DSR as research

strategy is based on the nature of the research

problem, on the status of theory development in the

research field, the audience to whom it is to be

communicated (Gregor & Hevner, 2013) but also in

the coherence with the critical realism perspective

(Leonardi, 2013) that we adopted to study

sociomateriality in the design arena (Carlsson, 2010).

This improvement research (Gregor & Hevner, 2014)

aims to create a better solution for eliciting KMS

design requirements in sharing knowledge networks.

Since DSR in information systems is issue-driven

(Hevner, March, Park, & Ram, 2004), the Relevance

Cycle guided the start of this research. A preliminary

exploration of the case study was conducted in order

identify real problems coordination issues for sharing

knowledge. The Rigor Cycle then began by studying

literature about coordination in practice and

identifying the limits of the knowledge-base. This led

back to the Relevance Cycle in the case study in

which observation of coordination for sharing

knowledge provided empirical content to the

theoretical concepts and contributed to identifying the

role of social and material agencies in coordination

practices. Afterwards, we performed a Rigor Cycle by

Eliciting Design Requirements for a Knowledge Management System in Cultural and Historical Heritage

Figure 1: DSR setting (adapted in parts from Hevner 2007) and the elicitation steps.

drawing on the existing body of knowledge regarding

information systems design and sociomateriality.

In the Design Cycle, we derived a set of design

requirements (Walls, Widmeyer, & El Sawy, 1992)

that lead the KMS design. Evaluation was conducted

through an expert review session by following the

principles suggested by (Maranzano et al., 2005).

Furthermore, the final set of design requirements was

formulated and corroborated through empirical

evidence and literature insights. This paper describes

the final iteration of the research process which is

presented in Figure 1.

To ensure the artefact is grounded in theory and

empirical evidence, it is developed using exploratory

research methods for developing theories or

managerial guidelines from case study evidence

(Eisenhardt, 1989). In this paper, the knowledge

developed from the case study consists of actionable

propositions related to the elicitation of design

requirements rather than a design theory (Gregor &

Jones, 2007). The case study focuses on the

contemporary phenomenon of coordination for

sharing knowledge, and the researcher had no control

over the behavioural events of the study. According

to Yin (2009), these conditions argue for the use of

case study research.

This research is grounded on an exploratory

single-case study (Yin, 2009). The case study was a

knowledge sharing network about historic and

cultural heritage called RedPHI. RedPHI is an

international and interorganizational network of 46

universities of seven countries which are highly

specialized in heritage projects, involving diagnosis,

management, conservations, restoration, and

maintenance of material heritage objects, and aiming

for protection and conservation through research,

education and consultancy projects in the

architectural, urban and landscape scope. RedPHI has

some characteristics which make it a special setting

for studying sociomaterial knowledge sharing

coordination. First, heritage projects involve

heterogeneous actors that develop specialized

heritage activities. Heterogeneity means different:

disciplines, groups, institutions, networks, location,

research philosophies and methods, data and

information types, tasks and activities, and others.

Second, heritage projects involve a set of

coordination issues for knowledge sharing (Nestor A.

Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a). Third, RedPHI has

evolved from using an ontological view of heritage

objects as monument, which is based on

environmentalist and geometric statements, towards a

territorial approach focused on considering physical

space, human and social behaviours, and contextual

dimensions as an entanglement where the concept of

territory embodies a sociomaterial notion (Montañez

& Viviescas, 2002; Santos, 1997).

At the time of this research, the RedPHI had

designed a web-based KMS service to visualize

structured text of heritage objects aiming to facilitate

knowledge sharing between experts, however, the

performance was not satisfactory due to

misalignment between materiality of the system and

human agency. The selection of the cases study was

based on these issues jointly with full access to data

resources by the heritage experts and the particular

sociomaterial characteristics of the heritage work.

The possibility to “observe transparently” the process

of interest and flexibility during data collection

(Eisenhardt, 1989) were also indicated as criteria to

select RedPHI.

The data collection in this case study included

document analysis, interviews and direct observation

in the fieldwork. We collected several documents

including publications, technical reports, technical

memos, videos, pictures, audio and video records,

presentations, among other information. Constant

access to the project content and updates were

guaranteed in order to monitor continuously the

heritage projects through conversations and data for

Build / Design

• Design

Requirements

Evaluate

• Expert review

Design

Cycle

Application Domain

People

• Heritage experts

• Stakeholders

Organizational systems

• RedPHI network

• Heritage projects

• Coordination activities

• Knowledge sharing

practices

Technical Systems

• Coordination mechanisms

Problems and opportunities

• Coordination issues

Environment

Scientific theories

• Knowledge sharing

• Coordination theory

• Sociomateriality

•KMS Design theories

Instruments

• Literature review

• KMS design methods

• Case study

Meta-artifacts

• Designrequirements

• Elicitation process

Knowledge Base

-Specific

requirements

Relevance Cycle

-SM exploration

-Grounding

Rigor Cycle

-Additions to the

Step 1

Steps 2,3

Step 4

Step 5

KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

subsequent analysis. In addition, several interviews

with heritage experts at RedPHI and native

informants (people living within or around the

heritage object) were held during the whole research.

Information about knowledge sharing and

information exchange between RedPHI researchers

and other people was also informed during interviews

and conversations. All formal interviews were

recorded and transcribed and copious observational

field notes were taken. Researchers visited the

fieldwork taking advantage of willingness of heritage

experts to share continuously their experiences,

knowledge and documentation with researchers. In

addition, researchers attended staff and group

meetings, coffee conversations and phone calls with

heritage experts. All data collected was related to

creation and operation of RedPHI projects developed

inside the case study and individual experiences of

heritage experts. In addition, data was listed and

saved in a database in order to ensure traceability of

findings. Data analysis was carried out through

structural codification process (Miles & Huberman,

1994). This process was tested in quality and

functionality until reaching 90% of recode

consistencies. Coding process were stopped when

categories reached saturation. Case study analysis

included pattern-matching logic (Yin, 2009).

Objectivity and quality of findings were assured

via triangulation of multiple data sources (Eisenhardt,

1989). Use of such multiple sources helped us to

generate data rich in detail and rigor, providing better

scope for triangulation (Miles & Huberman, 1994)

but also to mitigate bias. This increased the validity

of the findings while contributing different

perspectives on the constructs. Objectivity and

content validity were also ensured through constant

comparisons and pattern matching between the

theories and data, through searching for rival

explanations, via theoretical sensitivity of the

researchers and by comparison between respondents

(Eisenhardt, 1989; Strauss & Juliet Corbin, 1998;

Yin, 2009). A formal case study protocol directed the

case study exploration but also reinforced reliability,

maintaining a database of evidence and findings, and

comparing results from multiple respondents (Yin,

2009).

4 THE SM DESIGN

REQUIREMENTS FOR KMS

By following the publication schema for a DSR study

(Gregor & Hevner, 2013), in this section, we provide

an overview of the design process and the set of

design requirements for KMS (artifact design).

4.1 The Elicitation Process

The literature on design science in information

systems has already pointed out the need for

methodical support for the requirements elicitation

process (Braun, Benedict, Wendler, & Esswein,

2015). In order to increase credibility on this study

when eliciting design requirements, in this section we

provide the detailed process carried out to elicitate

them from a sociomaterial view. The five-step

process to identify the design requirements is

presented in Figure 1 and explained below.

First, a deeper analysis following the

sociomaterial tenets was carried out in two major

steps. First, several sociomaterial ecosystems

participating in heritage projects were identified and

characterized by analysing the data collected. This

activity was important in order to know boundaries of

the heritage work and determine the scope of the

exploration in terms of coordination activities. Given

the size of the network, we decided to filter heritage

actors, focusing only on experts. Second, discussions

about the ontological background of heritage work

determined how we should perform further activities

to explore conversations in RedPHI from

sociomateriality. The focus of explorations was on

sociomaterial practices for sharing knowledge

between projects, but also on how the particularities

of the design permeates the coordination of

knowledge.

Second, several dependencies between

knowledge coordination activities were identified and

analysed as well as the coordination mechanisms used

by experts to manage them (Nestor A. Nova &

Gonzalez, 2016a). At this point, we used a people-

dependencies-mechanisms framework (Okhuysen &

Bechky, 2009) because it enacts a critical realist view

that is coherent with our sociomaterial perspective of

imbrication. The empirical separateness and potential

imbrication of experts, coordination mechanisms and

dependencies are necessary to understand the

sociomaterial coordination in practice. Additionally,

it is useful to identify how the knowledge sharing

work can be improved by changing one (or more) of

the constituents of the sociomaterial imbrication

characterizing the situation. By analysing the

collected evidence at this time, we identified several

affordances and constraints perceived during the

heritage work and the arguments for using a specific

mechanism in a particular contextual dimension.

Theses insights enact conversations in which

relationships between expert´s goals and mechanisms

are negotiated. The exploration of this continuum of

conversations led us to identify different imbrications

Eliciting Design Requirements for a Knowledge Management System in Cultural and Historical Heritage

moments in practice across different contextualized

actions (Nestor A. Nova & Gonzalez, 2016b).

Third, we examined the temporal embeddedness

of coordination processes, and how orientations to the

past and future by heritage experts influence the way

how coordination mechanisms become imbricated in

emerging coordination practices. Time is a

characteristic of the Leonardi´s view who argue that

without a temporal consideration, no analyst could

explain why practices arise, endure, or change

(Leonardi, 2013). Through interviews and surveys

with heritage experts, we examined how people come

to understand, interpret and deal with the materiality

of technology-based mechanisms and how this

existing materiality becomes imbricated with the

knowledge sharing contexts into which it is

introduced. We asked experts to answer questions

regarding how people negotiate with materiality of

technology during the heritage work; in which way

materiality has supported or limited the knowledge

sharing process over time; how experts change

technology as they perceive constraints and how the

change routines due to affordances perception; what

role experts play in the creation of the sociomaterial

over time; what are the particularities of the trading

zones in which imbrications happen, among other

questions.

Fourth, linking the problem space from the case

study with the solution space from the literature in a

structured and iterative manner (Hevner et al., 2004),

allowed to abstract and formulate the design

requirements. We aggregated theoretical positions

and domain characteristic into design requirements

and explained the goal of the KMS and why the

sociomaterial design perspective can contribute to

improving coordination in knowledge sharing

activities.

Fifth, an expert review was conducted as

evaluation process for the design requirements.

4.2 The Design Requirements (DQ)

The exploratory case study revealed that the

coordination ecosystems for knowledge sharing

activities are independent and temporary

disconnected. All the coordination materials compose

personal ecologies (Jarrahi et al., 2017) that each

heritage expert configure and reconfigure differently.

The coordination ecosystems include all the

technology-based materials that people use to

communicate, exchange information and share

knowledge with others. The literature review revealed

that coordination mandates which does not account

for mutual influences between partner’s ecosystems

lead to failures (Cummings & Kiesler, 2008).

Coordination practices for sharing knowledge at

RedPHI draw upon a huge and dissimilar set of

interdependencies of different experts with various

coordination technologies.

By combining this diversity, it is possible to reach

a high level of coordination for sharing knowledge,

however, the lack of interconnection among various

technologies (Kallinikos, Aaltonen, & Marton, 2013)

leverage independency and disconnection. In this

sense, the KMS must address individual coordination

preferences but also it should allow connection of

different ecosystems - no in the sense of

interoperability- but as self-sufficient and

independent modules within a wider coupled network

of coordination relationships between artifacts

(Néstor A. Nova, 2019). Switching, combining,

adding and removing technologies within and among

ecosystems is a context-awareness process grounded

on variables such as location, role, time, situation,

interest and utilization. Consequently, different

ecosystems should be able to be orchestrated in the

KMS in order to meet new contextual and situational

opportunities and challenges of the knowledge

coordination work. Correspondingly:

DQ 1: The KMS should embody mechanisms to

naturally interconnect individual ecosystems

enabling knowledge sharing between heterogeneous

experts.

A heritage project involves different activities

essentially being carried at the individual level, but

aiming to synchronize at certain points to ensure task

performance. Sharing findings directly with

colleagues at some point in the project, is one of the

most important activities in the heritage work. A

heritage work often is developed individually by each

expert but then, they need to work in a team in order

to get feedback and be ontological and operational

alliterated. This behaviour demands a seamless

transition between individual to collaborative work

and vice versa. The heritage projects are based on

loosely coupled workflow processes (Van der Aalst,

2000) which operate essentially independently, but

have to synchronize at certain points to ensure task

performance. Therefore, several combinations and

flows of individual work and group interaction must

be supported in the KMS. In the heritage domain,

these combinations are relevant for both important

project findings and the processes, methods,

resources, knowledge and capabilities that led to

them. In addition, due to the multidisciplinary

character of the heritage domain, the transition

between individual and collective work also happens

within disciplinary teams but also it is important for

the whole project team. Thus, combination of

workflows preferably should be on different

abstraction levels allowing both individual work and

KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

communication with other experts (Néstor A. Nova,

2019). Accordingly:

DQ 2: The KMS should support the transition and

combination between individual and collaborative

workflows, enabling coordination in knowledge

sharing processes.

The insights of the RedPHI case study aligns well

with the metaphor of imbrication (Leonardi, 2011) as

heritage experts change routines and technologies as

they perceive affordances or constraints of materials.

Flexibility and improvisation are technology

characteristics that determine the episodic

interactions with people. In addition, this materiality

is embedded in the context where people can have it

modified to fit their needs in relatively short order. As

the affordance perception is non-planed, the KMS

should decline attempts at prediction but it must

support those changes. Therefore, the KMS should

support emergent coordination, affording different,

new and improvised ways of working and organizing

but also recognizing that certain uses are enabled or

hindered by the qualities afforded by the current

technological artifacts. Technology affordances of

communication tools has transformed the knowledge

sharing practices and the effectiveness in making

decisions in fieldwork. However, technological rules

in some projects limit experts to take advantage from

this potential so that routines have to be switched

back in order to accomplish a contract regulation

(Nestor A. Nova & Gonzalez, 2016b). Therefore, the

KMS should support stable or ongoing processes of

sharing knowledge allowing reconfiguration of

coordination practices. Consequently:

DQ 3: The KMS should support changes in

routines and technologies allowing to configure and

reconfigure functions and content according to

particular project requirements.

5 EVALUATING DESIGN

REQUIREMENTS

As design science is an iterative and incremental

procedure, requirements act as an intermediate result

of the design process, and so revision is also

necessary. The evaluation activities demonstrate goal

achievement, as the designed artifact is “complete

and effective when it satisfies the requirements and

constraints of the problem it was meant to solve”

(Hevner et al., 2004). In this study, an evaluation

process for the design requirements was performed in

order to validate initial statements and refined them

through literature research, discussions with heritage

experts and practitioners and further evaluation.

Evaluation was conducted through an expert

review session by following the principles and

process suggested in (Maranzano et al., 2005):

screening, preparation, review meeting and follow-

up. Screening describes the primary version of the

design requirements including the elicitation process.

Preparation involves the reviewer’s selection. In this

case, nine experts from RedPHI participated in the

review. Reviewers were different from those who

participated in the elicitation process. The evaluation

team was selected according to their expertise in

developing heritage projects as well as experience in

teaching, research and consulting in the heritage

domain. Afterwards, the review meeting was

conducted. The reviewers asked questions and

recorded issues that could have made the design

requirements an incomplete or inadequate solution to

the problem. During the follow-up, reviewers

delivered comments regarding the design

requirements which were embedded in the final

version of them. Next, we present a summary of

consideration regarding the artifact evaluation.

Reviewers agreed in considering that the design

requirements fit the reality of knowledge

coordination in heritage projects. An expert

highlighted flexibility in configuring projects as the

breakthrough for improving coordination: …I think

that flexibility should be the main feature of a KMS,

because we often perform [sequentially or

simultaneously] different research projects at a

personal and interorganizational level but also

consulting, which sometimes involves different and

novel methods and formats that do not fit research

project standards.

The importance of providing flexibility was

further highlighted at collaboration level. For

instance, it was pointed out that supporting transition

between individual and group workflows would

enhance coordination and productivity more than just

exchanging individual resources in a dyadic way. For

instance, an expert stated: …In our network the work

is mostly multidisciplinary, each team member and

even experts of the same discipline such as […]

manage their own knowledge in a different way but

when we have to integrate individual results in just

one report, the whole knowledge needs to be

available to everyone in the group in order to reach

the project goals.

Experts also remarked the importance of material

agency being adapted to humans needs rather than

learning a new tool for every project they develop.

Most of the reviewers agreed in considering

consistency between the project requirements and the

specific materiality afforded by the KMS, due to each

project is unique and they do not often use predefined

Eliciting Design Requirements for a Knowledge Management System in Cultural and Historical Heritage

templates. In this sense, an expert posited an example

on this: …We often are limited by 3D scanners

availability […] to evaluate the heritage objects so

that we have to switch immediately our technical

approach from analysing data points in a software

with virtual models to use a total station or even in

the worst case, to take pictures and model the object

later with less precision sometimes.

Another reviewer mentioned that the project

requirements are different among project types and so

flexibility in function and content configuration is a

useful characteristic of the system: …for me as a

consultant and professor […] the flexible

configuration of the KMS functions is high-value

because when involving students in a research

project, I have to deal with academic information at

different quality levels and this requires a dedicated

knowledge organization strategy. In this regard,

another expert also mentioned: …if there are, for

example, four task forces producing information for

the same project, we then struggle with filtering the

content needed to produce a specific outcome. For

me, as project manager, it can be even more

problematic when team members have not

participated in prior project versions, because we

must explore and understand a huge amount of

physical and material documents which takes a lot of

time.

6 DISCUSSION

In (Bjørn & Østerlund, 2014) and (Leonardi &

Rodriguez-Lluesma, 2012, p.) the potential of

sociomateriality has been identified to advance in IS

design as both product and process. One of the

challenges for sociomaterial design starts by

determining a framework that guides the exploration

of real settings (Constantinides & Barrett, 2012) but

also the design of innovative artifacts. In this sense,

we consider a sociomaterial lens particularly helpful

in eliciting requirements for KMS in coordinative and

collaborative settings for sharing knowledge.

Consequently, the design requirements proposed in

this study advance the design of coordination (Faraj

& Xiao, 2006; Jarzabkowski et al., 2011; Okhuysen

& Bechky, 2009) involving a range of useful design

insights that naturally could overcome coordination

issues that are not fully gathered and explained

through the socio-technical and engineering focus of

eliciting software requirements.

In the socio-technical scenario, the role of

information systems is grounded on the intersection

of the material and the social (Hovorka &

Germonprez, 2011), but the current elicitation

process privilege the material agency as causing or

occasioning some organizational effects (Scott &

Orlikowski, 2008). By exploring people and

technologies as shifting and imbricated ecosystems of

social and material agencies, designers can finally

dispense with independent explorations of them

(Leonardi & Rodriguez-Lluesma, 2012), examining

how the coordination mechanisms are intrinsic to

every knowledge sharing activity. Imbrications

happens mainly at individual level and so it should be

focal point of the sociomaterial design, because the

heritage experts always decide how they will let the

technology influence their knowledge work.

By making a KMS scalable, extensible and

heuristic (Deve & Hapanyengwi, 2014; Nevo &

Chan, 2007), designers focus attention specifically on

the materiality of technology during implementation

times but omitting the ongoing set of imbrications

between the social and material agencies in which, the

perception of affordances or constrains should be

addressed by malleable material properties of the

KMS. By designing a KMS from a socio-technical

perspective, designers take the side of identifying

imbrication patterns as organizational practices,

dismissing the uniqueness of each individual

imbrication (Leonardi, 2011). Improvements in

coordination for sharing knowledge can be reach by

understanding how materiality of mechanisms is

activated according to the context of use and how

people could configure and reconfigure those

functions according to their knowledge needs (Néstor

A. Nova, 2019). In this sense, some calls for making

the KMS flexible, collaborative and visualizable are

partially in the side of the sociomaterial inquiry

(Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2014; Nestor A.

Nova & Gonzalez, 2016a). Consequently, the design

process is dual, because not only implies the initial

configuration of the KMS based on requirements such

as those presented in the Table 1, but also the ongoing

reconfiguration of the system made by users,

according to their affordance perceptions and leading

to changes in routines or technologies. Therefore, the

elicitation process requires to be attentive to emergent

interactions among people and technologies and

changes derived from them, as well as their complex

interactions (Jarke & Lyytinen, 2015) which lead to

consider the requirements engineering tasks from a

critical realist perspective on sociomateriality

(Leonardi, 2013).

In a short summary, the KMS should address

individual and group knowledge needs about heritage

objects and the research processes about them; must

be capable of facilitating the knowledge work by

affording malleable material properties that support

KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

both design prior to use and design in use activities;

should serve to heterogeneous heritage experts by

allowing to orchestrate different and individual

sociomaterial ecosystems in a dynamic and non-

patterned way; and must it conform to affordances

and constraints perceived by people in real practices.

7 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we presented a set of design

requirements for KMS grounded on sociomaterial

tenets and applicable to knowledge sharing networks

in the heritage domain. The purpose of the paper was

to demonstrate that by changing the ontological

approach of separating users, systems and domains

when eliciting requirements, into a sociomaterial

lens, it is possible to observe both the ways in which

the knowledge sharing process is bound up with the

materiality of coordination mechanisms, and how

people act and interact as they perceive contextual

affordances and constraints from them during the

coordination practices.

By exploring the RedPHI network and the limited

literature about the sociomaterial design of

information systems, we formulated three design

requirements, focusing on observing, exploring and

tracking imbrications between social and material

agencies, conversations between and among them,

and people´s perceptions of affordances and

constraints from technology. These considerations

could lead to a sociomaterial configuration of the

KMS in practice. We also highlighted differences

between eliciting requirements from a sociomaterial

perspective and a socio-technical one.

Overall, our results are in line with recent calls for

consistency between the philosophical principles of

sociomateriality and the empirical exploration of

environments aiming to design new artifacts. At this

point, however, it is also essential to consider the

limitations of our artifact. This concern, in particular,

the generalizability of the results. Our results are

tailored to elicitate design requirements for KMS

aiming to improve coordination for sharing

knowledge, but this only covers the heritage project

domain. Moreover, we only consider

interorganizational networks, whereas the results

with a focus on intraorganizational settings could

vary. A more extensive range of case studies would

provide fruitful insights over time. Furthermore, it

would also be essential to determine a set of design

guidelines that fit the design requirements and guide

KMS designers in real settings when designing

technology-based artifacts from the sociomaterial

perspective. This is necessary in order to reach

ontological consistency between elicitation and

design processes. Additionally, it would also be

interesting to design a KMS prototype fulfilling the

design requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank RedPHI members at

Javeriana University in Bogotá - Colombia for

collaborating in this project.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Administrative

Department of Science, Technology and Innovation –

COLCIENCIAS under grant number 617/2014,

Bogotá, Colombia.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge

Management and Knowledge Management Systems:

Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS

Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.

Beane, M., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2014). What Difference

Does a Robot Make? The Material Enactment of

Distributed Coordination.

Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2010). Knowledge

management: Systems and processes. M.E. Sharpe.

Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2014). Knowledge

management: Systems and processes. Routledge.

Bjørn, P., & Østerlund, C. (2014). Sociomaterial Design:

Bounding Technologies in Practice. Springer.

Bratteteig, T., & Verne, G. (2012). Creating a Space For

Change Within Sociomaterial Entanglements.

Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 24(2),

105–114.

Braun, R., Benedict, M., Wendler, H., & Esswein, W.

(2015). Proposal for Requirements Driven Design

Science Research. In B. Donnellan, M. Helfert, J.

Kenneally, D. VanderMeer, M. Rothenberger, & R.

Winter (Eds.), New Horizons in Design Science:

Broadening the Research Agenda (pp. 135–151).

Springer International Publishing.

Burton, R. M., Obel, B., & Haakonsson, D. D. (2020).

Organizational design. Cambridge University Press.

Cao, Q., Thompson, M. A., & Triche, J. (2013).

Investigating the role of business processes and

knowledge management systems on performance: A

multi-case study approach. International Journal of

Production Research, 51(18), 5565–5575.

Carlsson, S. A. (2010). Design science research in

information systems: A critical realist approach. In

Eliciting Design Requirements for a Knowledge Management System in Cultural and Historical Heritage

Design Research in Information Systems (pp. 209–

233). Springer.

Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Kautz, K., & Abrahall, R. (2014).

Reframing Success and Failure of Information Systems:

A Performative Perspective. Mis Quarterly, 38(2).

Cerchione, R., Centobelli, P., Zerbino, P., & Anand, A.

(2020). Back to the future of Knowledge Management

Systems off the beaten paths. Management Decision,

58(9), 1953–1984.

Chaudhuri, R., Chavan, G., Vadalkar, S., Vrontis, D., &

Pereira, V. (2020). Two-decade bibliometric overview

of publications in the Journal of Knowledge

Management. Journal of Knowledge Management,

ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).

Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The Impact of

Information Technology and Transactive Memory

Systems on Knowledge Sharing, Application, and

Team Performance: A Field Study. MIS Quarterly,

34(4), 855–870.

Constantinides, P., & Barrett, M. (2012). A narrative

networks approach to understanding coordination

practices in emergency response. Information and

Organization, 22(4), 273–294.

Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008). Who collaborates

successfully?: Prior experience reduces collaboration

barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research.

Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer

Supported Cooperative Work, 437–446.

Cummings, J. N., Kiesler, S., Bosagh Zadeh, R., &

Balakrishnan, A. D. (2013). Group Heterogeneity

Increases the Risks of Large Group Size: A

Longitudinal Study of Productivity in Research Groups.

Psychological Science, 24(6), 880–890.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working

Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They

Know. Harvard Business Press.

Deve, T., & Hapanyengwi, G. (2014). Knowledge

Management Systems Generic Architectures:

Enhancing Uniformity and Inter-Operability of

Technological Tools for Knowledge Management.

Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3).

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case

Study Research. Academy of Management Review,

14(4), 532–550.

Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in fast-response

organizations. Management Science, 52(8), 1155–1169.

Frank, U. (2001). Knowledge management systems:

Essential requirements and generic design patterns.

Institute for Information Systems Research, University of

Koblenz. Retrieved from Http://Www. Unikoblenz. de/

∼

Iwi/Publicfiles/PublikationenFrank/ISE2001. Pdf

(Reprinted from Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Information Systems and Engineering,

ISE’2001. Las Vegas: CSREA Press, 2001, Pp. 114-121).

Gallupe, B. (2001). Knowledge management systems:

Surveying the landscape. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 3(1), 61–77.

Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. (2013). Positioning and

presenting design science research for maximum

impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2).

Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. (2014). The Knowledge

Innovation Matrix (KIM): A clarifying lens for

innovation. Informing Science: The International

Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 17, 217–239.

Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The Anatomy of a Design

Theory. Journal of the Association for Information

Systems, 8(5), 313–335.

Grundstein, M., & Rosenthal-Sabroux, C. (2007). A

sociotechnical approach of knowledge management

within the enterprise: The MGKME model.

Proceedings The 11th World Multi-Conference on

Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3, 284–289.

Halawi, L., McCarthy, R., & Aronson, J. (2017). Success

Stories in Knowledge Management Systems. Issues in

Information Systems, 18(1), 64–77.

Hansen, S., Berente, N., & Lyytinen, K. (2009).

Requirements in the 21st century: Current practice and

emerging trends. In Design requirements engineering:

A ten-year perspective (pp. 44–87). Springer.

Hasan, H., & Crawford, K. (2003). Socio-technical systems

for knowledge mobilisation in communities. ACIS 2003

Proceedings, 107.

Hevner, A., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). Design science

research in information systems. Springer.

Hevner, A., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004).

Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS

Q., 28(1), 75–105.

Hilaricus, J. R. (2011). Toward a sociomaterial approach

to knowledge transfer. International Conference for

Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities

(OLKC), Kingston upon Hull, UK.

Hovorka, D. S., & Germonprez, M. (2011). Towards an

informativity account of design research.

Jarke, M., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). “Complexity of Systems

Evolution: Requirements Engineering Perspective.”

ACM Transactions on Management Information

Systems (TMIS), 5(3), 11.

Jarrahi, M. H., Nelson, S. B., & Thomson, L. (2017).

Personal artifact ecologies in the context of mobile

knowledge workers. Computers in Human Behavior,

75, 469–483.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., Lê, J. K., & Feldman, M. S. (2011).

Toward a Theory of Coordinating: Creating

Coordinating Mechanisms in Practice. Organization

Science, 23(4), 907–927.

Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The

Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Q.,

37(2), 357–370.

Kautz, K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2013).

Sociomateriality and information systems success and

failure. International Working Conference on Transfer

and Diffusion of IT, 1–20.

Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When Flexible Routines Meet

Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the

Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies. MIS Q.,

35(1), 147–168.

Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and

socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean?

How are they related? Do we need them? Materiality

KMIS 2021 - 13th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological

World, 25–48.

Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the

study of sociomateriality. Information and

Organization, 23(2), 59–76.

Leonardi, P. M., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2012).

Sociomateriality as a Lens for Design: Imbrication and

the constitution of technology and organization.

Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 24(2).

Lisanti, Y., Luhukay, D., Veronica, & Mariani, V. (2014).

The design of knowledge management system model

for SME (Small and Medium Enterprise) (Phase 2—

The pilot implementation in IT SMEs). 2014 2nd

International Conference on Information and

Communication Technology (ICoICT), 211–216.

Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge Management Systems.

Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Malhotra, Y. (2004). Why knowledge management systems

fail: Enablers and constraints of knowledge

management in human enterprises. In Handbook on

Knowledge Management 1 (pp. 577–599). Springer.

Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The

interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM

Computing Surveys (CSUR), 26(1), 87–119.

Maranzano, J. F., Rozsypal, S. A., Zimmerman, G. H.,

Warnken, G. W., Wirth, P. E., & Weiss, D. M. (2005).

Architecture reviews: Practice and experience. IEEE

Software, 22(2), 34–43.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data

Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edition).

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Montañez, G., & Viviescas, F. (2002). Espacio y territorios.

Razón, pasión e imaginarios. Revista de Estudios

Sociales, 12, 123.

Nevo, D., & Chan, Y. E. (2007). A Delphi study of

knowledge management systems: Scope and

requirements. Information & Management, 44(6), 583–

597.

Nova, Néstor A. (2019). Sociomaterial design of

coordination in knowledge sharing: A heritage KMS

reference architecture. Doctoral thesis.

Nova, Nestor A., & Gonzalez, R. A. (2016a). Reframing

Coordination in Knowledge Transfer: A Sociomaterial

Perspective. In Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge

Engineering and Knowledge Management (1st ed., Vol.

914, pp. 346–362). Springer.

Nova, Nestor A., & Gonzalez, R. A. (2016b). Coordination

Problems in Knowledge Transfer: A Case Study of

Inter-Organizational Projects. Proceedings of the 8th

International Joint Conference on Knowledge

Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge

Management (IC3K 2016), 3, 60–69.

Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). 10 Coordination

in Organizations: An Integrative Perspective.

The

Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463–502.

Perez‐Araos, A., Barber, K. D., Eduardo, M. J., & Eldridge,

S. (2007). Designing a knowledge management tool to

support knowledge sharing networks. Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, 18(2), 153–

168.

Sajeva, S. (2010). The analysis of key elements of socio-

technical knowledge management system. Economics

& Management, 765–774.

Santos, M. (1997). Técnica, espaço, tempo: Globalização e

meio técnico-científico informacional. Editora Hucitec.

Scott, S. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2008). Sociomateriality:

Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and

Organization. Annals of the Academy of Management,

2(1), 433–474.

Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Simeone, L., & Schiuma, G.

(2020). Creativity and stakeholders’ engagement in

open innovation: Design for knowledge translation in

technology-intensive enterprises. Journal of Business

Research, 119, 272–282.

Strauss, A., & Juliet Corbin. (1998). Grounded Theory

Methodology- An Overview.

Van der Aalst, W. (2000). Loosely coupled

interorganizational workflows: Modeling and

analyzing workflows crossing organizational

boundaries. Information & Management, 37(2), 67–75.

Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992).

Building an Information System Design Theory for

Vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–

59.

Williams, D. (2015). Nuts and bolts of a knowledge

management system. Journal of Information &

Knowledge Management, 14(04), 1550035.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and

Methods. SAGE.

Eliciting Design Requirements for a Knowledge Management System in Cultural and Historical Heritage