Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets

By Hazel Hall. Journal of information science, 2001

318 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The value of an intranet for knowledge management (KM) is largely dependent on the calibre of the content and tools that it provides to its users and its ultimate application in business operations. For many organisations, there is a particular dilemma regarding the development of internally produced intranet resources for KM applications. Employees will not feel encouraged to provide content until they believe that what they provide will be used and they will not use an intranet if it does not provide useful content. This paper considers strategies for making intranets ‘input-friendly’: how can organisations extract the content needed to add to the body of internally produced resources from their employees? The discussion explores factors that encourage intranet contributions. These include enabling conditions such as the provision of appropriate tools, the development of organisational KM culture and reward systems. The paper makes reference to studies drawn from the academic literature in business studies, information systems, organisational science and sociology, as well as to practice in case study organisations.

Subfields: Communication, Computer Science Applications, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/74513d17d45493fda0a79f18546629aece223ad6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Computer Science Applications

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Committed to Share: Commitment and CMC Use as Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing (2004, background): “, 2002) to ‘soft’ issues such as motivations (Hall, 2001; Hinds and Pfeffer, 2003; Kalling, 2003), organizational climate (Moffett et al.”
Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing (2007, background): “Since members of a CoP help each other, and share knowledge (Wenger n.d.), if no contributions of knowledge are made, the community will not survive ( Hazel 2001 ).”
Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: a social power and social exchange theory perspective (2008, background): “Organization can promote employees interaction and future security through sharing their knowledge by policy (Hall 2001).”
Explaining Knowledge Sharing (2006, background): “…2002) to soft issues such as motivations, organizational climate, and communication climate (Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003; Bock & Kim, 2002; Hall, 2001; Hinds & Pfeffer, 2003; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Moffett, McAdam & Parkinson, 2003; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004;…”
What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs (2009, methodology): “Therefore, we use the effort construct to represent and covermultifaceted obstacles in knowledge-contribution and -seeking behaviors, such as lack of appropriate tools [30], difficulty of searching and finding [64], insufficiency of personalization [47], and time and effort constraints [27,37].”
Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework (2003, background): “Support for the relationship between reciprocity and knowledge sharing was also found by Hall (2001) and Dyer and Nobeoka (2000).”
The impact of team‐member exchange, differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team performance (2011, unknown): “Research has revealed that employee attitudes impact their knowledge-sharing attitude and behavior (Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Hall, 2001; Minbaeva et al., 2003; Kwok and Gao, 2005).”