EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN TECHNOLOGICAL ERA: A TAILOR MADE METHODOLOGY TO ENTERPRISE 2.0

magazinebindManagement

Nov 6, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

65 views



EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN
TECHNOLOGICAL ERA: A TAILOR MADE METHODOLOGY TO
ENTERPRISE 2.0


Elena Alberghini
*
,
University of Rome Tor Vergata,
Italy

elena.alberghini@eni.
com
,
*corresponding author

Li
vio Cricelli
,
University of Cassino, Italy

cricelli@unicas.it


Michele Grimaldi
,
University of Cassino,
Italy

m.grimaldi@unicas.it



ABSTRACT


New technology environments

provide a simpler way to manage knowledge
.

Social
technologies are becoming
the
preferred method of communication

of new generation
s

and
communication styles

are evolving into a more collaborative approach
.


Effective knowledge sharing depends on several

factors like mentality, technology
availability and detectable personal advantage.
The advent of the enterprise 2.0 phenomenon
offers new opportunities to implement
knowledge management
, but a structured approach is
needed to fulfill its vast potential.


This study presents a methodology for the application of social technologies

to
provide
companies with an implicit knowledge real time map. The innovation elements of the
methodology are given by the deep analysis of criticalities, needs, behaviors, percep
tions and
trends, helpful to continuously improve the application.


The methodology consists of three key elements which are analyzed in depth:
the gap
analysis
, the toolkit selection and the action plan
.

Through these components this approach
allows to e
ffectively capture users’ perceptions and behaviors adapting the tools to the
context specificity.


This paper aims to take up the challenges of examining the issues of knowledge sharing and
transfer
. It presents a

first

empirical application of
this appro
ach

in
E
ni,
an integrated
energy
company
,

active in more than seventy countries
all
over
the world.

The analysis
includes the choice of indicators which help to monitor users’ trends and engagement.


Keywords
:
s
ocial technology
,
enterprise 2.0
, knowledge
management, knowledge sharing.



INTRODUCTION


New technology backgrounds are transforming the way knowledge is experienced

(Norris et
al., 2003)
. Moreover the standards of today’s fast and hyperactive world are far from the
context of the initial studies
about KM.
Traditional KM is characterized by a primarily top
down approach and by specifying all contents structures in advance

(
Davenport, 2008
)
. This


approach is
becoming
not suitable anymore, even inside big companies with a consolidated
culture

(Leidne
r, et a
l. 2006)
. Today firms are very complex environments. Information
technology has experienced many cycles of innovation, producing always more complex and
integrated set of technologies to respond directly to business needs

(
Koplowitz
, 2010
)
. In
spite

of this, the huge quantity of documents produced daily can create innumerable silos of
information. As a consequence knowledge capture and sharing can be too difficult and
ineffective

(
Alberghini,
et al.
, 2010)
.


The advent of the enterprise 2.0 phenomeno
n offers new opportunities to implement KM, but
a structured approach is needed to
fulfill

its vast potential.

The term "Enterprise 2.0" was first
coined in 2006 by Andrew McAfee in an article
about
the use of emergent social software
platforms within comp
anies, or between companies and their partners or customers

(McAfee,
2006)
.

Even if there is still a debate about the relationship between Enterprise 2.0 and KM,
applying web 2.0 technologies and emerging social behaviors can help to add greater
interactiv
ity into the KM environment. Social networking capabilities are providing vital
information in a way that is adaptive and user
-
driven
.
Moreover new generations are used to
dealing with social technologies, choosing them as their preferred method of communi
cation
with peers

(
De Gennaro, 2010)
.


This paper aims to take up the challenges of examining the issues of knowledge sharing and
transfer in
an energy

company operating across all the world.
More in detail, this study aims
to provide with an applicative
example of the structured approach which reckons with the
context, people maturity level and KM purposes.
The
paper

examines the steps of this
approach, from the analysis of new needs to the application of social technologies.
The
methodology arises from t
he necessity to evaluate tools and the way to make use of them an
d

the study present a set of analyses applied in Eni, a
n

integrated energy company
.
Eni operates
in the oil and gas, electricity generation and sale, petrochemicals, oilfield services
constru
ction and engineering industries. In these businesses it has a strong edge and leading
international market position.
Eni

is active in 77 countries with a staff of about 78,400
employees.


At the beginning
,

the study

concentrates on the modalities of the a
ssessment phase, in which
the target is represented by the deduction of new
behaviors
, perceptions and needs and by the
evaluation of the lacks of the extant technology situation. The analysis is carried on through
the observation of users trends, present
technologies’ availability and colleagues satisfaction
surveys. The results allow to gain awareness of the internal fragmented environment and the
rapidly evolving external landscape. Moreover the results represent a useful starting point to
define the str
ategy to get the most from knowledge sharing and to guide the choice of
indicators which help to monitor users’ trends and engagement.


In this study the choice was oriented towards a social network in which everything was set up
in a very modular way, in
order to better follow employ needs to facilitate their job. Global
networking sites bring people with common interest together increasing engagement.
Choosing a technology target should be not enough to ensure a success. Old generations tend
to be skeptic
al about social technologies, so it is important to implement something very
useful, in working terms, and that should become a habit and a necessity at work.

For this
reason
a

golden rule is monitoring the u
ser engagement

to nurture and build the

communit
y
.




The paper is
organized

as follows.
Section 2 provides a literature review about
KM tools
.
Section 3 defines and analyses the methodology split into
perception and
qualitative/quantitative analyses
. Section 4 describes
the
findings

and
includes guidelin
es
about what to do and not to do depending on empirical data
. Moreover, this Section
presents
a way to diagnose new demands to continuously improve the implemented system and
achieve higher benefits.
Section
5

describes the research implications and limit
ations.
Finally,
S
ection
6

highlights and summarizes the application of the methodology.



LITERATURE BACKGROUND


In work environments increasi
ng
ly permeated by
internet, KM tools are becoming an

important mediator in the way k
nowledge is managed (Rao, 200
5).
Global organizations have
invested heavily in KM programs in order to facilitate the transfer process of best practices,
(Davenport and Prusak, 1999). They support the achievement of organization’s strategic
objectives
(Hackett, 2000; Sveiby, 1995) and

t
he nature of these programs differs from a
technological view to a people view (Perrin, 2007).

The power of KM is in allowing
organization to explicitly enable and enhance the productivity of processes and to leverage
their value for the group as well as

for the individual (Ruggles, 1997).


KM theory
is evolving to

a more
human orientation and new challenges of KM tool usage are
emerging
. One of the classic works in the field of computer
-
mediated workspaces address
the “social information” (Brown and Dug
uid, 2000). Knowledge sharing enables people in
virtual communities to access relevant knowledge (explicit or tacit) from broader scope of
resources (Yang, Chen, 2007).
The purpose of socialization combines both technological and
personalization

(Perrin e
t
al
. 2007)
.


The factors affecting sharing and transfer of knowledge in an organization concern the
motivation for sharing (Kalling, 2003), the ability of the source to share (Foss and Pedersen,
2002),
knowledge tacitness (Argote and Ingram, 2000; McEvily

and Chakravarthy, 2002),
and the ability of the recipient to accept knowledge

(Dilek and Ulku, 2008)
.
According to
Wenger (1999), k
nowledge is often shared
w
ith the help of the technology.
Now technology
is even
more powerful, easy and helpful, anyway, a
c
cording to Malhotra (2005
),
there
is
nothing new

in technology
-
induced change
.
C
ompanies should never begin their transitions
with pioneering technology, because to make good use of technology it is necessary to know
which technologies are relevant

(Malhot
ra, 2005)
.
Management strategies need to shift from
command and control to sense and respond (Rao, 2005). To confirm this theory, s
urveys
conducted by analysts such as Forrester Research demonstrate that
social technologies
continue to grow popularity insi
de the enterprise, in particular

wiki adoption is in the lead,
followed by social networks.


The potential of Social Technologies


Social Technology is technology for social purposes or with a social basis. Social software
encloses a range of software syst
ems that allow users to interact and share data.
In the last
years o
nline communities
have been

getting increasingly
. A
t the same time, community
members seem to
rapidly
lack loyalty, as they
tend to
use their community less over time

(Bae and Jan, 2008)
.
To survive and thrive, online communities must meet members' needs
.
People are more likely to participate in innovation initiatives that are well publicized and


transparent

(
Koplowitz, 2010
)
.
From users’ perspective social technologies increase the
desire
and the need of knowledge sharing. As a consequence, o
ne of the most important
tangible benefits inside an organization is the u
nlocking innovation
. T
his kind of technologies
has exploded into the business world, but they are still vastly misunderstood. Ma
ny
organizations are either blocking their use, or simply experimenting the hypothetical benefits.

It’s a fact that

organization are only recently starting to appreciate the full collection of
capabilities that exist under the social technologies.

Tools li
ke Facebook, Twitter, and
LinkedIn appeared with personal use, but recent surveys have demonstrated that inside an
organization users employ social technologies to
improve their job

not just for personal
matters

(
Forrester Reasearch, 2009
)
.


Each day, mor
e and more people are choosing social technologies as their preferred method
of communication with peers. Just as email and instant messaging replaced the phone call,
social technologies
could

have a similar effect in changing communication dynamics

(De
Ge
nnaro, 2010).



In an always more hyperactive world, people can feel immediate
benefits
in connecti
n
g

with
the right peers, getting answers to questions and finding information.

According with
Forrester analysts

as De Gennaro and Fenwick
, there are key tr
ends that will make the
inclusion of social technology in the IT management tool set a necessity. These

trends

are the
physical distance between

and the entrance of Millennials into the workforce (De Gennaro,
2010)
.

T
elecommuting
can strongly help
to lower

costs

due to physical distance between
teams
. This strategy makes improved collaboration
absolutely
critical.

For what concerns t
he
Millennials, also known as the Millennial Generation (Generation Y)
, they

are people born
between 1980 and 2000
.

T
hey are n
ow entering the workplace. These new employees bring
very different needs, experiences, and expectations to the job and often meet a seasoned
workforce that has very different work styles

(Schooley
, 2009
)
.

Anyway, what Millennials
want to support their wor
k, such as flexible work schedules, social media tools, or a
collaborative environment are work features that other employees can benefit from, too

(Schooley
, 2008
)
. Web 2.0 tools allow people to ask questions, share ideas, and discover
people skills regar
dless
of
the
hierarchy. Such these tools help

to

break down organizational
and cultural barriers

such as time differences (Koplowitz and Owens, 2010)
.



THE TAILOR MADE
METHODOLOGY


The methodology arises from the necessity to evaluate tools and the way to

make use of
them. It
consists of three key elements which are analyzed in depth:

the gap analysis

and
monitoring
, the toolkit

selection and

customization

and

finally

the action plan.

Through these
components this approach allows to effectively capture use
rs’ perceptions and

behaviors
adapt
ing

the
tools

to

the context specificity.


The research has been conducted within
Eni,
a multinational integrated energy company. This
company was of particular interest because it is characterized by a consolidated cultu
re, even
if it operates all over the world
and
in many activities
.


At the beginning the study concentrates on the
gap analysis
,
with

the target of
detecting
ne
w
behaviors, perceptions and needs and
evaluating

t
he lacks of the extant technology situation.
To be always useful and to follow user needs,
most of the time
available tools need to be


integrated, customized and adapted to the existing context.
The results allow to gain
awareness of the internal fragmented environment and the rapidly evolving extern
al
landscape.
They

guide
the action plan
, that

must

be

carry out
by exploiting the chosen

tools
,
eventually after a customization
.

Moreover the results represent a useful starting point to
define the strategy to get the most from knowledge sharing and to g
uide the choice of
indicators which help to monitor users’ trends and engagement.


I
t
is extremely important
planning future steps
. T
he action plan must tak
e

into account
people
maturity level

respect to current technologies

and utilization expectations
i
n the same way
that

a sailor always steers the course.

A golden rule is that t
he approach
should

be gradual
,
especially

in a consolidate context. In this c
ase three phase
s

were

chosen: firstly

support
ing

individual needs
, then

im
proving

the collaborative c
ulture
and finally

enhanc
ing

the
collective intelligence.

This study concerns mai
n
ly the first phase and put the basis

for the
others.

This is a first long term approach. Of course the evol
ution of the

context will bring an
evolution
of

the approach itself
.



Figure

1
: The framework of the methodology
.



Gap Analysis

and monitoring


Th
is

phase consists of
different
kind
s

of analysis: perceptive, qualitative and quantitative
analysis.
These analyses permit to assess
and monitor
the current situation.

Qualit
ative and
quantitative analyses are strictly correlated

in this study
.


Perceptive analysis

To measure attitudes and perceptions about available technology a questionnaire based on
Likert scales has been applied to a

representative

sample of 153 employees
working in the
information and communication technology (
ICT
)

area.

A Likert scale is a psychometric
scale widely used in questionnaires and it was named after its inventor, psychologist Rensis
Likert

(
1932
)
.






In this survey of about 80 items, the indivi
dual
was

invited to define his attitude towards each
statement by choosing among a number of four scores (

strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
strongly agree

). In this way the choice method was forced since the middle option of
"
neither agree nor disagree
" wa
s not available.

On the contrary the “
not sure/not applicable


option was available.


T
he gap between users expectations and experience

is analyzed

through eight dimensions
:
general perception of KM, knowledge creation and capitalization, diffusion, u
tilization, utility
e
xpectation, utility perception, tangibles, expectation
s

respect to strategic objectives.


The results emphasize on the need for collaboration and sharing experience.

The following
charts summarize the aggregate results about users’ per
ceptions.

For what concerns the
general perception,
KM is seen as a way to share knowledge by the 66% of people and it is
recognized a great importance in growth and change management.

In this case results about
KM importance are quite good. An interest as
pect is that only 4% of pe
o
ple see KM as an IT
tool.



Figure 2: General perception of KM definition
.





Figure
3
: General perception of KM

processes
.




Sharing experience with other people and workshops ha
ve

been recognized as the main
sources of knowle
dge creation and capitalization.

It is interesting to note that top down tools
as collection of communications are in the bottom.
It is the same also for what concern the
knowledge diffusion dimension, in which results are very similar. In fact, s
haring ex
perience
with other people and workshops ha
ve

been recognized as well mostly relevant in favoring
knowledge diffusion
, while surveys and periodic communication ar
e

in the last positions
.



Figure
4
: Knowle
dge Creation and Capitalization
.




Figure 5
: Kno
wledge Diffusion.



Internet, chat, instant messaging and email are the most used technologies.

This result will be
confirmed also by the quantitative analysis.

People still use email as the preferred method of
communications but there is an increasing int
erest in new technologies such as instant
messaging and desktop sharing.





Figure
6
:
Tools'
Utilization
.


People w
ere

invited to choose on seven parameters about real perception and expectation
of
KM utility. These parameters are collaboration, competence
, sharing knowledge, culture,
change, content and connectivity. E
xpectation
s

about KM utility

are very high

for all the
aspects, in particular for collaboration and sharing knowledge. This means that people are
definitely aware of KM importance. On the con
trary
the perception
s

about what it is really
available

are
quite low
, especially
for

the competence map
.
Finding the right person with the
right competence is one of the most
important issue facing companies today
, but it is not an
easy task to be impleme
nted
.

For what concern c
onn
ectivity and collaboration
they
are
enough
effectively
perceived.

The introduction of new collaboration tools provided an
improvement in satisfaction.


Tangible activities

confirm low perceptions
, especially for the
competence
ma
p
ping

and the
easy accessing to lesson learned and process documentation
.
In fact,
t
angible activities are

a
sort of
specification of
some aspects of
utility perceptions
.

The main expectation
s

respect to
strategic goals
are

about the improvement of the
eas
iness of
search and quality of
information.




Figure
7
:

Utility
Perceptions vs
Utility
Expectations
.






Figure
8
:

Tangible a
ctivities
.




Figure
9
: Expectations respect to strategic Goals
.



Through the analysis of these results, it is possible to obse
rve
that people are ready
to
collaborate
and
that
they
strongly
perceive the importance of sharing knowledge

and
collaborating
. They have great expectations,
because they feel the potential of new
technologies

and they are aware of innovation
.
They
find so
me difficult
y

with the actual
available systems, especially in
mapping

people skills
, experiences and lesson learned
.


Qualitative and quantitative analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative analyses contribute to corpus study.
Current technologies
and
the
ir
real

employment
have
been detected by specific

tools
able to collect and present
information about user behavior on web sites as well as mobile devices running various
operating systems.

The

quantitative analysis has been applied to a sample of
2
7
.000
e
mployees working in
different

Business Units.
The quantitative results have been analyzed
in a qualitative way to understand effective user needs.


Results

revealed that users
are constrained

to employ many tools to reach their goals. Mostly
they
use IT

to
ols
to search people, find contacts and

information about colleagues’ positions
and to communicate.


The introduction of new collaboration tools demonstrates a growing trend of
utilization.

The
following chart shows utilization statistics concerning princi
pal basic intranet tools.






Figure
10
:

Utilization statistics

of a group of application
.



The following diagrams highlight the utilization trends after the introduction

of a
n enterprise

communication tool

for instant messaging
, web conferencing

and shar
ing desktop sessions.




Figure
11
: User Trends
.


The
target

of this approach is to support knowledge sharing and transfer by exploiting

current
technology potentialities
. Tools
must

be useful, easy and well integrated. It is extremely
important to monito
r utilization dynamics and the user engagement in order to intervene
when necessary
and

to incentivize participation.


User engagement refers to the degree that a viewer or consumer has been positively
influenced

by a product

and it bring participation and

involvement
.

To monitor user
engagement, it is necessary to select the right key performance indicators (KPI). In the case
of social network KPI are quite different from the classical web sites KPI.

User

engagement
main objectives are to
enhance

the
sense

of belonging

and to
increase user
participation and involvement.

The chosen KPI
s

are the following ones.




Total time spent on site
: shows how thoroughly users are consuming the content.





Geographic segmentation
: the audience is divided according to geograp
hic units. It
can be useful to tailor programs to fit the needs of individual geographic areas,
localizing the effort to geographic differences in needs and wants.



Single service utilization statistics
: shows how much users are consuming the single
widget/
service



Inbound and outbound links evolution
: The link analysis display all internal and
external links of the website
.
This metric could be particularly useful for ongoing
features helpful to build a regular user base for.



Profile completion level
:

shows
user psychological site loyalty



Number of added services
: shows how thoroughly users are interested to the content.



Toolkit selection and customization


Even if “KM activities are all over the map“ (Malhotra, 2005), no
IT

tool can work unless the
partic
ipants fully understand the benefits and unless employees have incentives to participate

(Grant, 2007)
.

Current technologies offer a wide range of products and possibilities.

Given

the variety of contexts and situations
,
choosing
the

right

way to apply tec
hnology
is
extremely important,
besides

the choice of them.
For this reason
being able to always

catch
and understand

user needs is crucial
, especially in a complex environment such as a
multinational company
.


In this study
a

social network was

selected
t
o better
follow employ needs

and
to facilitate
their job.

Social networking sites

are not only simple tools. They

allow users to create their
own personal virtual space and a relationship network.
This
happens through psychological
and social dynamics that

encourage connections creation and maintenance.


The best way to apply a social network is from learning about the way the web works
,
through understanding the right innovation metrics and the focus
.

The new trends of
innovation are made by passionate peo
ple that move more than in any time in history.
R
easons that leaded to a social networks are the given by
three

s
ocial
media and w
eb
Innovation metrics. The

first one is the

return on attention

which is a key metric of attention
scarcity

and refers to

the

value we get in return for the time spent looking for what we want
and need.
Communities

demonstrated wide cost reductions and a huge returned value in
change of attention.

The second
one is
the
return on information

metric, which is based upon
the value
of relevant data returned through search. Communities are

an

ideal pool to find
information

about people, needs and preferences
.

The third one is the
return on skills
.
Communities are able to attract users with high capabilities and

social networks make

po
ssible to build a knowledge map.

The

previous

metrics represent the
starting

strategic
objectives of the selected tool
, namely generating

r
elationships and engagement

and

let
ting

the competencies emerge.

User participation is favored by the capability of i
nducing and
gratifying the joining pulse, going through the daily user flow.

Realization has to be gradual
and respect all
kinds of needs.


The focus model was
the
sh
el
f
.

A shelf can be personalized as preferred, can contain own and
other objects, can hold

working and extra
-
working contents.



Social network
s

are not all the same. In this particular case the main purpose was to
realize a
useful

job tool

able
to create an open and connected place where ideas and discussions could


grow in support of innovatio
n and creativity
. After the firsts analyses it was decided
to
make

a

modular offer to better address the social business needs of diverse
users.

By delivering a
modular software approach,
a

new working environment, both effective and motivating at the
same

time
,
could be

introduced
.
Modules follows users needs det
ected by the gap analyses
and add
further

advantages.

The basic
modules

allow total collaboration and involvement of
the employees. It represents the initial stage to transform conversations into t
angible
initiatives.

The other modules are designed to facilitate interaction, discussion and an
exchange of information and to allow the submission of ideas to be commented on, including
documents so as to work in a collaborative manner on new content.

Ad
ditional advantages
are given by the reduction

of the
numerous me
etings and of the amount of e
mails, or
simple
by retaining a memory of past projects.
The main feature is that
individuals exchange views
between each other in real
time and even more accurat
ely
the right info
rmation with the right
people
.


Action Plan


The collected results give the basis to start to work.

The main objective is to

improve
knowledge sharing and transfer

by

putting the individual at the center and analyz
ing

social
usability and

relational motivations.

In the current situation
systems are very fragmented, but
the perception survey shows that
people are ready

to share knowledge.

Quantitative and
quality analyses

shows people tendencies, which represents the critical factor of the
further
implementation.
F
irst of all people want to find contacts and information about colleagues’
position and
competences
, then
they
need

an integrated system.


According to Malhotra (2005), best practices recommend not
to
pioneer new

technology
. For
th
is reason t
he

solution is in exploiting
existent
social technologies
’ feature

in an integrated
way always close to employees needs.

The identified solution is a modular social network
rich of functionalities.

People

themselves

are ready, but we should move

gradually to not
counteract the benefit of social technologies
.

Three phases with different target
s

have been
identified. The first phase’s target is to
support individual needs
, the second phase’s target is
to
improve the collaborative culture
, and the t
hird one is to
enhance the collective
intelligence
.


To build a success social network it is necessary to follow a p
rocess. The main steps
of this
action plan
are

given by

the a
ctive listening, strategic concept and governance, interface
design, implementa
tion, launch and promotion, participation and dynamics monitoring.



Figure
1
2
: The Process
.


Active listening is fundamental to discover people needs. Blowing up the needs permits to
choose the right technology to enable. Brainstorming, focus group and
A
S IS

analysis are key
aspects of this stage

that permit to formalize the contents.
The strategic concept is a statement
of what is to be done.

Focus

drivers are given by a shared and informal place, workability,
practicalness
, community and shared job.



The

model is complex and it is necessary to move graduall
y. First of all i
t is necessary to
work on the needs. Provid
ing a not requested
functionality can lead to the
empty room effect
,
or rather

u
sers do
n't feel compelled to come back

because the conversatio
ns doesn’t seem
active.

A

problem creates a need, a need ask
s

for a solution.

The solution should be delivered
on time

to not frustrate people
, while
t
he
interface should be easy, usable and pleasant.
Communication is crucial. This new tool
aims to be

an e
volution of communication services
and a dev
elopment of social relationship.
In particular the target is to create
an

informal space
where it is possible to share interests,
passions, personal skills and
achieve
actual leadership.

It is absolutely importan
t simulate and organize feedbacks to steer the course accurately as in
a
sailboat.



FINDINGS


The empirical study

evaluated the

effectiveness of current
KM
tools
in achieving
knowledge
transfer

in an integrated
energy company. The paper proposes a tailor
made
methodology

and
some best practices to encouraged knowledge sharing in a more structured manner. In
particular the paper proposes to use social networks, which are consolidated technologies, by
this time.


Social network
are strategic
tools
as

they br
ing a change in organization dynamics.

They
represent a breaking point

such

as email introduction was at the beginning
. Electronic mail
was in fact a crucial tool
that
allowed multiple users to log from remote

places
.
It started in
1965 and t
his new abilit
y encouraged users to share information in new ways. In many cases
resista
nce to change was encountered in
introducing email inside the companies
, as everyone
could be able to communicate directly with the CEO
, by that time
.
Now

we are facing to
another r
evolution
:
social networks allow users to create their own personal virtual space

in
which it is possible to show personal implicit competencies

and communicate the own status
.



In this study some main aspect
s

are emerged

about enterprise 2.0.
There are
p
rincipal

reasons
why community users decrease in their participation over time. Those are the lack of interest,
low quality content, low usability, low trust,
merely

boring.
Every context is different and it
is absolutely important take into account people

maturity level about new technologies. It is
important to carry out every initiative in a gradual way and choose the strategic objective for
each phase basing on people perceptions and needs. Then monitoring is crucial to steer
the
course on every little
chan
ge and the emerging of new needs.


To summarize best practices in the application

of enterprise 2.0 the golden rule is
always
a
nalyzing data

to be ready to support new requirements and changes
.

Tools

should be usable
,

easy

and well integrated
. It is im
portant a continuous and active listening
to people
and the
monitoring of keyword analysis and behavior patterns.

To make the transition from
individual to enterprise usage,
w
eb 2.0 products need to be able to scale to large groups and
to operate across th
e entire enterprise
. T
he enterprise search
tool
has to be very powerful, as
s
earch solutions are blending traditional approaches with
w
eb 2.0 functionality.

E
ffective
design is crucial
. It presents KM tools in context to enable and en
courage usage and
con
tribution.

Effective design simplifies functions such as search and browse and also
provides efficient contextual access to collaboration tools.





Table 1: what to do and not to do summary
.

TO DO

NOT TO DO

Move
g
radually

Continuous and active listening

A
nalyze data

Provide modular tools

Monitor

keyword analysis

Be ready to change

Follow a process

Design u
sable and easy
interface

Integrate systems and enhance search tools

Pioneer new technologies

Give soon unrequested functionality r
isk
ing

the empty
room e
ffect

Underestimate user feedbacks and perceptions

Monitor only the initial KPIs

Block people creativity



RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATION
S


These

findings revealed the large number

of factors impacting on knowledge transfer.

It is
not so much the kn
owledge existing in an organization but rather the firm’s ability to
effectively apply this knowledge that goes a long way to creating new knowledge (Alavi and
Leidner, 2003).

Social technologies help to leverage knowledge sharing and transfer, but a
struc
tured approach should be applied through many steps and different kind
s

of analys
i
s,
ready to always follow user needs.


The paper is based on a
n
application
of the described approach
to a

single
, even large,

c
ompany, which limits the possibility of making

general conclusions.
The representative
nature of the survey group, together with the data collection methods employed, were key
strengths of the study approach. However, the
re is
a key limitation of the survey group
due to

the participation of only a lit
tle representative sample of people
.

Next steps are represented
by the analysis of the
trends of the utilization

of this social network inside this multinational
Company.


CONCLUSIONS


In an
even

more complex world, more
openness

is required to better unde
rstand and integrate
expectations of internal

stakeholders.

Eni demonstrated a great farsightedness and passion for
continuous improvement.
Social

technologies can help to capture critical information,
designing
an implicit knowledge real
-
time map and appl
y a qualitative and dynamic analysis
of people trends.

Avoiding

their use can be a missed opportunity for the companies, also
because people can use external tools like
Facebook
to state their

opinion and show their
skills.


KM has evolved to the point whe
re collaboration and contribution is as much a priority as
information access
. By now the linchpins of KM

are
not

only
the ability to

lead users to
relevant knowledge
, but also the capability to promote participation.



REFERENCES


1.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D
.E. (2003), ‘‘Review: knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues’’,
MIS Quarterly
, 25
(
1
)
, pp. 107
-
36.

2.

Alberghini E., Cricelli L., Grimaldi M.,
(
2010
)
, Implementing knowledge management
through IT oppo
rtunities: definition of a theoretical model based on tools and processes


classification,
The Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Intellectual Capital
,
Lisbon, Portugal, 29
-
30 March, 2010, pp. 22
-
33.

3.

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge
transfer: a basis for competitive
advantage in firms’’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
, 82
(
1
)
, pp.
150
-
69.

4.

Bae B. P., Jan H. (200) User Loyalty and Online Communities: why Members of Online
Communities are not faithful.
Proceedings o
f the 2nd international conference on
INtelligent TEchnologies for interactive enterTAINment
, Cancun, Mexico

5.

Brown J.S. and Duguid, P. (2000). The Social Life od Information. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.

6.

De Gennaro T., 2010 “Social Technologies W
ill Penetrate IT Management Tools”,
Forrester Research.

7.

Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1999), Working Knowledge


How Organizations Manage
What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

8.

Dilek Z. N., Ulku U. (2008) A cultural perspective on knowl
edge management: the
success story of Sarkuysan company,
Journal of Knowledge Management
,

12
(
2
)
, pp.
141
-
155,

9.

Foss, N.J. and Pedersen, T. (2002), ‘‘Transferring knowledge in MNCs: the role of
sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context’’,
J
ournal of International
Management
, 8, pp. 49
-
67.

10.

Grant, R. (2007) Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications,
6th Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

11.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1986), ‘‘Resource sharing among SBUs: strate
gic
antecedents and administrative implications’’,
Academy of Management Journal
, 29

(
4
)
,
pp. 695
-
714.

12.

Kalling, T. (2003), ‘‘Organization
-
internal transfer of knowledge and the role of
motivation: a qualitativecase study’’,
Knowledge and Process Management
, 10
(
2
)
, pp.
115
-
26.

13.

Koplowitz R. (2010) “Enterprise Social Networking 2010 Market Overview”, Forrester
Research.

14.

Koplowitz R., Owens L. (2010) “Disciplined Social Innovation “,

Forrester Research.


15.

Hackett, B. (2000), Beyond Knowledge Management, New Way
s to Work and
Learn
,

Research Report 1262
-
00
-
RR, The Conference Board, New York, NY.

16.

Leidner D,

Alavi M., Kayworth T.,

(2006)
The Role of Culture in Knowledge
Management: A Case Study of Two Global Firms
,

International Journal of e
-
Collaborat
ion
, 2(1), 17
-
40, January
-
March.

17.

Likert, Rensis (1932). "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes".
Archives of
Psychology
,

140: 1

55.

18.

Malhotra, Y. (1998) "Deciphering the knowledge management hype",
Journal for Quality
and Participation
, 21,
(
4
)
, pp. 58
-
60.

19.

Malhotr
a, Y. (2005) "Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational
business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real
business performance",
Journal o
f Knowledge Management
, 9
(
1
)
.

20.

McAfee A. P. (2006) “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of
Emergent Collaboration”,
MIT Sloan
Management Review
, 47
(
3
)
, pp.20
-
28
.

21.

McEvily, S. and Chakravarthy, B. (2002), ‘‘The persistence of knowledge
-
based
advantage: an empirical test for product performance and technological knowledge’’,

Strategic

Management J
ournal
, 23, pp. 285
-
305.



22.

Norris D., Mason J., Lefrer P. (2003) Transforming e
-
Knowledge:A revolution in the
sharing of knowledge. Ann Arbor, Michigan Society for College and University Planning
.

23.

Rao, M. (2005) Knowledge M
anagement Tools and Techniques:
pr
actitioners and experts
evaluate KM solutions, Elsevier Butterworth
-
Heinemann,
B
urlington USA.

24.

Ruggles, R. L. (1997) Knowledge management tools, Butterworth
-
Heinemann, Oxford.

25.

Perrin A., Rolland N., Tracy S. (2007) Achieving best practices transfer across
countries,
Journal of Knowledge Management
,

11
(
3
)
, pp. 156
-
166.

26.

Schooley C. (2009) “The Millenials are here! Are you prepared?”, Forrester Research.

27.

Schooley C. (2008) “Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning”, Forrester
Research
.

28.

Sveiby, K.E. (1995
), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring
Knowledge
-
based Assets, Berrett
-
Koehler, San Francisco, CA.

29.

Wenger, E. (1999), Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.

30.

Yang S.J.H, Chen I.Y.L.
(2006)
"
A social network
-
based system for supporting
interactive collaboration
"
,
International Journal of Human Computing Studies
.