Social Media Strategies Leveraging
Knowledge Management to Create New
Knowledge
Ricardo Gundín Manjarín
MSc in International Business
Dublin Business School
University of Wales
September 2011
Declaration
I declare that the work described in this dissertation is, except where otherwise stated, entirely my
own work and has not been submitted as any type of exercise for a degree at this or any other
college/university.
Signed: _______________________________
Ricardo Gundín Manjarín
30th of September of 2011
Statements & Declarations
The following is a specimen layout for the declaration page to be included in the dissertation:
DECLARATION
This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being
concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.
Signed …………………………………………………………..…. (candidate)
Date …………………………………………………………….….
STATEMENT 1
This dissertation is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of:
……………………………………………………..……………….. (ie MA, MSc, MBA, etc)
Signed …………………………………………………………….. (candidate)
Date ………………………………………………………………..
STATEMENT 2
This dissertation is the result of my own independent work and investigation, except where
otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A
bibliography is appended.
Signed …………………………………………………………… (candidate)
Date ………………………………………………………………
STATEMENT 3
I hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for
inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations.
Signed ………………………………………………………….… (candidate)
Date …………………………………………………………….…
NB: Candidates on whose behalf a bar on access has been approved by the University (see
paragraph 4 in Notes of Guidance), should use the following version of Statement 3:
I hereby give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for
inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access approved by the University of Wales on the
special recommendation of the Institution.
Signed ………………………………………………………….… (candidate)
Date …………………………………………………………….…
Prifysgol Cymru
University of Wales
EXAMINATION OF TAUGHT MASTER’S DISSERTATION
NOTICE OF CANDIDATURE FORM
Master’s Degree by Examination and Dissertation
Please complete this form and submit with your dissertation to your Institution for examination. Please complete in
BLOCK capitals either using typescript or black ink. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
………………………..
……………
Surname
Initials
Surname
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Title….……….
(please repeat your surname and give your initials in the box at the top right-hand corner of this form)
Forenames (in full)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Date of Birth
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Title of degree for which the dissertation is being submitted (eg. MA, MSc, MBA etc)… ………………………………………….
Institution/College at which study pursued ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Degree(s) currently held ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Full Title of Dissertation submitted ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Dissertation submitted for Examination in *Permanent or *Temporary Binding? (*please delete as appropriate)
You will be admitted in absentia, please give below the address to which your result letter can be sent:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Before signing and submitting please ensure that you have read and understood the explanatory Notes of Guidance.
Candidate’s signature ………………………………………………………………… Date ………………………………..
For Office Use Only
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
STATEMENT 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
STATEMENT 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
STATEMENT 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Abstract
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
1.
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.1.
Background
………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2.
Rationale for undertaking this topic ………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.3.
Aim of the research ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
1.4.
Research question ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
1.5.
Organization of the dissertation ……………………………………………………………………………… 3
2.
Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
2.1.
Knowledge Management
………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
2.1.1.
Introduction
…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
2.1.2.
What is Knowledge?
……………………………………………………………………………………… 5
2.1.3.
Types of Knowledge
……………………………………………………………………………………… 7
2.1.4.
The SECI Model…………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
2.1.5.
Mechanism to create knowledge ……………………………………………………………………. 10
2.2.
Social Media …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.2.1.
Introduction
……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.2.2.
Social Networks for Business ……………………………………………………………………….. 13
2.2.3.
The importance of social media strategies
……………………………………………………….. 14
2.3.
Conclusion
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
3.
Research Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
3.1.
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
3.2.
Research philosophy ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
3.3.
Research approach …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
3.4.
Research strategy ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
3.5.
Research choice ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
3.6.
Time horizons …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
3.7.
Techniques and procedures………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
3.7.1.
Data collection methods……………………………………………………………………………….. 21
3.7.2.
Data analysis procedures ……………………………………………………………………………… 25
3.8.
Limitations of the methodology
……………………………………………………………………………. 25
3.9.
Conclusion
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26
4.
Findings and Results
…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
4.1.
Background
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
4.1.1.
Nationality ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
4.1.2.
Gender ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 28
4.1.3.
Age ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
4.1.4.
Experience ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
4.2.
Social Networks ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
4.2.1.
LinkedIn
……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
4.2.2.
Facebook
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31
4.2.3.
Twitter ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
4.2.4.
Other networks …………………………………………………………………………………………… 32
4.3.
Knowledge Creation…………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
4.3.1.
The use of SM in Knowledge Creation …………………………………………………………… 33
4.3.2.
The use of SM in the Transformation of Knowledge …………………………………………. 34
4.3.3.
The use of SM in the Externalisation of Knowledge
………………………………………….. 35
4.3.4.
The use of SM in the Combination of Knowledge
…………………………………………….. 36
4.3.5.
The use of SM in the Internalisation of Knowledge
…………………………………………… 37
4.4.
Corporate Strategy …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
4.4.1.
The link between KM and the Competitive Strategy …………………………………………. 38
4.4.2.
The importance of ‘Keep it simple’
………………………………………………………………… 39
4.4.3.
The importance of ‘Debate assumptions, no forecast’………………………………………… 40
4.4.4.
The importance of ‘Speak a common language’
……………………………………………….. 41
4.4.5.
The importance of ‘Discuss the resource deployment early’ ……………………………….. 41
4.4.6.
The importance of ‘Clearly identify priorities’ …………………………………………………. 42
4.4.7.
The importance of ‘Continuously monitor performance’ ……………………………………. 43
4.4.8.
The importance of ‘Reward and develop execution capabilities’ …………………………. 44
4.5.
General thoughts ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
4.5.1.
Should the SM strategies search for predicted effects when they are trying to create
Knowledge?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 45
4.5.2.
Why?………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46
4.5.3.
The role of top managers ……………………………………………………………………………… 48
4.5.4.
Is KM missing the opportunity of SM? …………………………………………………………… 49
4.5.5.
Further comments
……………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
4.6.
Conclusion
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 52
5.
Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 53
5.1.
Conversion of Knowledge through SM
………………………………………………………………….. 53
5.2.
Evaluation of the most popular Social Networks and their ability to create Knowledge ….. 55
5.3.
Identification of links between the competitive strategy and the strategy to create
Knowledge …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 57
5.4.
Analysis of possible focuses of SM strategies: Predicted or unpredicted effects?…………… 59
5.5.
Evaluation of the top managers role in the implementation of SM strategies ………………… 60
5.6.
Conclusion
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 61
6.
Conclusion and Recommendations
………………………………………………………………………………. 62
6.1.
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 62
6.2.
Social Media to leverage Knowledge Management
………………………………………………….. 62
6.3.
Areas for future research …………………………………………………………………………………….. 64
7.
Bibliography
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 65
8.
Appendices
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69
8.1.
Covering Letter …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 69
8.2.
Questionnaire
……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 70
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Gender of respondents …………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
Table 2: Age of respondents ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Table 3: Experience of respondents ……………………………………………………………………………………. 30
Table 4: Average results of the qualifications of LinkedIn………………………………………………………. 31
Table 5: Qualifications of LinkedIn ……………………………………………………………………………………. 31
Table 6: Average results of the qualifications of Facebook
……………………………………………………… 31
Table 7: Qualifications of Facebook …………………………………………………………………………………… 31
Table 8: Average results of the qualifications of Twitter ………………………………………………………… 32
Table 9: Qualifications of Twitter ………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
Table 10: Average results of the qualifications of ‘Other networks’
…………………………………………… 32
Table 11: Qualifications of ‘Other networks’ ………………………………………………………………………… 32
Table 12: Average results of the use of SM in Knowledge Creation …………………………………………. 33
Table 13: The use of SM in Knowledge Creation
………………………………………………………………….. 33
Table 14: Answer from European respondents to question number 6
………………………………………… 34
Table 15: Answer from Asian respondents to question number 6 …………………………………………….. 34
Table 16: Average results of the use of SM in the Transformation of Knowledge
……………………….. 34
Table 17: The use of SM in the Transformation of Knowledge………………………………………………… 35
Table 18: Average results of the use of SM in the Externalisation of Knowledge ……………………….. 35
Table 19: The use of SM in the Externalisation of Knowledge ………………………………………………… 35
Table 20: Average results of the use of SM in the Combination of Knowledge
…………………………… 36
Table 21: The use of SM in the Combination of Knowledge …………………………………………………… 36
Table 22: Average results of the use of SM in the Internalisation of Knowledge ………………………… 37
Table 23: The use of SM in the Internalisation of Knowledge …………………………………………………. 37
Table 24: Average results of the link between KM and the Competitive Strategy ……………………….. 38
Table 25: The link between KM and the Competitive Strategy
………………………………………………… 38
Table 26: Average results of the importance of ‘Keep it simple’ ……………………………………………… 39
Table 27: The importance of ‘Keep it simple’ ………………………………………………………………………. 39
Table 28: Average results of the importance of ‘Debate assumptions, no forecast’ ……………………… 40
Table 29: The importance of ‘Debate assumptions, no forecast’ ………………………………………………. 40
Table 30: Average results of the importance of ‘Speak a common language’
……………………………… 41
Table 31: The importance of ‘Speak a common language’ ……………………………………………………… 41
Table 32: The importance of ‘Discuss the resource deployment early’……………………………………….. 42
Table 33: Average results of the importance of ‘Clearly identify priorities’ ………………………………… 42
Table 34: The importance of ‘Clearly identify priorities’
…………………………………………………………. 43
Table 35: Average results of the importance of ‘Clearly identify priorities’ based on respondents with
experience ranged between 10-15 years ………………………………………………………………………………. 43
Table 36: Average results of the importance of ‘Clearly identify priorities’ based on respondents with
experience ranged between 15-20 years ………………………………………………………………………………. 43
Table 37: Average results of the importance of ‘Continuously monitor performance’ …………………… 44
Table 38: The importance of ‘Continuously monitor performance’
……………………………………………. 44
Table 39: Average results of the importance of ‘Reward and develop execution capabilities’ ………… 44
Table 40: The importance of ‘Reward and develop execution capabilities’ …………………………………. 45
Table 41: Should the SM strategies search for predicted effects when they are trying to create
Knowledge? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Table 42: Average results of the qualifications of ‘The role of Top Managers’ …………………………… 48
Table 43: Qualifications of ‘The role of Top Managers’
…………………………………………………………. 48
Table 44: Correlation between the search of predicted effects and the role of Top Managers in
Strategy implementation
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Table 45: Average results of the qualifications of ‘Is KM missing the opportunity of SM?’
………….. 49
Table 46: Qualifications of ‘Is KM missing the opportunity of SM?’ ……………………………………….. 50
Table 47: Average results of the qualifications of ‘Is KM missing the opportunity of SM?’ based on
respondents with experience ranged between 15-20 years ………………………………………………………. 50
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Knowledge pyramid. Source: Marco, D. (2001) ………………………………………………………… 6
Figure 2: The SECI model of Knowledge Generation. Source: Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) …………. 9
Figure 3: Social Networks for business purposes. Source: Mancini, J. (2011).
……………………………. 13
Figure 4: Research Onion. Source: Saunders et al. (2009) ………………………………………………………. 17
Figure 5: Nationality of respondents …………………………………………………………………………………… 28
Figure 6: Gender of respondents ………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
Figure 7: Age of respondents …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Figure 8: Experience of respondents …………………………………………………………………………………… 30
Figure 9: The use of SM in Knowledge Creation…………………………………………………………………… 33
Figure 10: The use of SM in the Transformation of Knowledge ………………………………………………. 35
Figure 11: The use of SM in the Externalisation of Knowledge
……………………………………………….. 36
Figure 12: The use of SM in the Combination of Knowledge ………………………………………………….. 37
Figure 13: The use of SM in the Internalisation of Knowledge ………………………………………………… 38
Figure 14: The link between KM and the Competitive Strategy……………………………………………….. 39
Figure 15: The importance of ‘Keep it simple’
……………………………………………………………………… 40
Figure 16: The importance of ‘Speak a common language’ …………………………………………………….. 41
Figure 17: The importance of ‘Discuss the resource deployment early’ ……………………………………… 42
Figure 18: The importance of ‘Clearly identify priorities’ ……………………………………………………….. 43
Figure 19: The importance of ‘Continuously monitor performance’ ………………………………………….. 44
Figure 20: Should the SM strategies search for predicted effects when they are trying to create
Knowledge? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45
Figure 21: Qualifications of ‘The role of Top Managers’ ……………………………………………………….. 48
Figure 22: Qualifications of ‘Is KM missing the opportunity of SM?’ ………………………………………. 50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to give my sincere thanks to all my lecturers in DBS; especially to my supervisor Brid Lance
for her guidance during this project.
I would love to express my special thank to my family and friends because they never stopped
believing in me. I dedicate my dissertation to them for their unconditional support.
I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to Roberto Rodriguez for being always on my side. I
would not be where I am without him.
ABSTRACT
For hundreds of years, business people have been transmitting their wisdom generation to
generation. In the middle 1990’s companies started to create units focused in managing their
knowledge. Nowadays, Knowledge Management is still a relatively new discipline focused in
developing the main competitive advantage that organizations have: the intellectual assets.
Organizations recognise that Social Media can be enormously used to influence their
customers. However, they exactly do not know how to confront this new tool. Therefore, how
to effectively develop a SM strategy is today a major issue for businesses. This research
focuses on showing how organisation should implement their Social Media strategies in order
to maximise their knowledge creation. Data was collected using a web survey distributed
among experts and practitioners in the area of Knowledge Management in order to review the
literature about knowledge creation and strategy implementation. The findings show that
Social Media is a positive tool to create knowledge and the link between the Knowledge
Management strategy and the corporate strategy is still valid. This study also provides some
recommendations for a successful implementation of Social Media strategy and areas for
future research.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This section explains the purpose of this research and why it should be done. Additionally, a
description of the research question and objectives will be also provided. Finally, with the
aim of guiding the reader, a route map of the different sections will be developed.
1.1. BACKGROUND
For hundreds of years, business people have been transmitting their wisdom from generation
to generation (Hansen et al., 1999). In the middle 1990’s companies started to create units
focused in managing their knowledge (Lynch, 2005). Nowadays Knowledge Management
(KM) is a relatively new discipline whose aim is to develop the main competitive advantage
that organizations have: the intellectual assets (Halawy et al., 2005).
On the other hand, organizations recognise that Social Media (SM) can be enormously used
to influence their customers; however, they do not know how to confront this new tool
(Wilson et al., 2011). Therefore, how to effectively develop a SM strategy is today a major
issue for businesses.
There is a lack of research about the SM applications into specific business areas. For
instance, despite the fact that SM is commonly used for marketing purposes, knowledge
managers are not maximising its possibilities to create knowledge (Wright et al., 2010). SM
tools can be used to improve some aspects related to KM such as innovation or organizational
learning (Dutta, 2011); nevertheless, firms do not precisely know how to develop their SM
strategies with these objectives.
1.2. RATIONALE FOR UNDERTAKING THIS TOPIC
There are several techniques that can be used to generate a suitable research idea (Saunders et
al., 2009). One suitable technique is based on scanning the media and articles from academic
and professional journals. For that reason, the researcher started to scan the latest editions of
Harvard Business Review. This source was chosen due to its trustworthiness and
appropriateness in suggesting interesting ideas. The reading of What’s Your Personal Social
Media Strategy by Soumitra Dutta (Dutta, 2011) was a deciding factor. This article explores
the need of having a SM strategy for companies and the possible advantages they entail.
Moreover, it has to be explained the researcher had a personal preference in the area of KM;
therefore, the finding of the conference paper To Tweet or not to Tweet, that is the Question –
Social Media as a Missed Opportunity for Knowledge Management by Tim Wright, Stuart
2
Watson and Daniela Castrataro (Wright et al, 2010), was essential to integrate ideas,
indicating how SM is not commonly used in the area of KM despite its potential applications.
Finally, the unique advice of the person supervising this project helped to refine the ideal
research question.
1.3. AIM OF THE RESEARCH
The purpose of the research is to show how organizations should implement their SM
strategies in order to maximise their knowledge creation. To achieve this purpose, the
following objectives also need to be accomplished:
Identify and assess the processes of knowledge conversion that maximise the use of
SM.
To examine from the viewpoint of KM strategists the different social networks
available to create knowledge in organizations.
To identify the links between the competitive strategy and the strategy to create
knowledge.
To evaluate the role of top managers in the creation of knowledge by implementing
SM strategies.
In order to achieve these objectives critical realism philosophy, deductive approach and the
use of quantitative methods have been followed. The researcher admits its point of view is
subjective and determines the research. The deductive approach characterizes for collecting
information to test the research question; therefore, the methodology should be strict and
focused on the right angle. Moreover, the strategy chosen is a survey where the data is
collected and then quantitatively analysed.
Secondary research has also been used to provide a clear understanding of the topic. This
research has been focused in two main areas. Firstly, this research aimed to the discipline of
KM, concretely, the definition of knowledge, its different types (tacit and explicit), the SECI
model and the tools that can be used to create knowledge. On the other hand, this research
centred on SM, its strategies and the possible link between this and the competitive strategy
of a firm. Finally, research was also conducted to integrate both aspects. All these aspects
will be explained in detail in the next chapter.
3
1.4. RESEARCH QUESTION
In order to develop a satisfactory research question, the rules for designing questions found in
Bryman (2008) were followed. A suitable question cannot be ambiguous and too long.
Besides, technical terms have to be avoided, and, among other factors, negativities should not
appear in the question. The following question satisfies the requirements of a research
question.
How companies should implement their social media strategies with
the aim of creating knowledge?
The purpose is to investigate how businesses can generate knowledge through their presence
in SM. In other words, what are the critical steps that companies have to follow and the
requirements that they have to fulfil to maximize their social media strategy to facilitate
knowledge creation? Organizations are struggling with this; therefore, the significance of this
study is that it could be used to guide firms in the implementation of SM strategies. What is
more, this could help companies to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage while they
maximise their knowledge assets.
1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION
The first chapter is the Introduction of the project. It is a brief outline of the research
background with an explanation of the research objectives, question and the purpose of this
paper. The second chapter aims to provide a review of the Literature and it is divided in two
main sections: Knowledge Management and Social Media. Essential aspects like the creation
of knowledge or the importance of SM strategies are there defined. In the following chapter
the Methodology to carry out the project is presented with the reasons for choosing it.
Afterwards, there is a chapter dedicated to report the Findings of the primary research. This is
followed by the evaluation and Discussion of the findings. The project finalises with some
Recommendations for further research and the Conclusion of the study.
4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter aims to provide the reader with a clear understanding by reviewing the existing
literature related with the topic. This part will be focused in two main areas: Knowledge
Management and Social Media. By doing this, the reader will have the notion about what is
knowledge, how it is created, the different mechanisms used to created and social media
strategies and their implementation to facilitate the creation of knowledge.
2.1. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
2.1.1. INTRODUCTION
In the 1990’s organisations realised that their intellectual assets are their most important
resources that they had (Bredtmann and Hoeborn, 2010; Hallawi et al., 2006). It was then,
when a new discipline emerged: Knowledge Management. Guchait et al. (2011) indicate that
researchers have started developing different studies in the last decade. The aim of these
studies is to find how companies can perform better practices in managing knowledge. The
implementation of Knowledge Management tools and techniques has become a major issue
since it is recognized as the best way to manage innovation and achieve a sustainable
competitive advantage (Swan, et al., 1999).
Although, it has been indicated previously that KM as a discipline is relativity new, the
concern about how knowledge should be manage has been around for many years (Dalkir,
2005). In fact, since ancient time people have found several ways of sharing knowledge based
in experience with the aim of not repeating the same mistakes. Additionally, the cultural
legacy has been considered the primary technology of knowledge transfer. Despite the
difficulties in managing knowledge, Wiig (1999) finds pragmatic KM techniques in the 13th
century when the craft-guilds developed the apprentice-journeyman-master system. Wiig
(1999) also considers there have been complexities with the penetration of knowledge
management because managers are naturally conservative. It is clear KM has not emerged by
chance, a series of factors such as the rationalization of work, the improvement in education
and mainly the development of ICT tools have contributed to the origin of the discipline.
Nonetheless, it can be argued that some mistakes have been made. The advances in ICT have
produced that companies are spending substantial amounts of their capital in acquiring new
equipment and sometimes these decisions are not efficient. For that reason, Ichijo and
Nonaka (2007) support the idea that the technology systems are not the solution in the long
5
term; organizations need to focus on knowledge and learning to achieve excellence in their
performance.
It is important to indicate that KM can be found in the literature from different perspectives.
For instance, Dalkir (2005) considers this area suffers from the “Three Blind Men and an
Elephant” syndrome because this discipline can be defined from diverse points of view and
each of these points entails a different definition. This author recognises three perspectives:
First of all, the business perspective; where KM is related to the overall business activities
and links the intellectual assets with the business results. Secondly, the knowledge science
perspective emphasises that knowledge is the ingredient which allows the effective advance
of the society. Finally, knowledge can also be interpreted from a process/technology
perspective. Here, the use of knowledge management systems is identified as the generator of
new knowledge, but only if these tools are managed by the right people. Moreover, other
experts defend diverse perspectives; Davenport and Prusak (2000) support an integrated
approach similar to the technology perspective. This approach indicates that human resources
are the active resources while the information technology tools and techniques are the passive
resources. This passive resources need to be managed by the active resources in order to
maximise the organisations’ profitability. In addition there are experts in favour of a strategy
perspective (Newell et al., 2009; Wiig, 1999) since the effective management of knowledge
assets improves the performance of a company while guarantees continuous innovation.
2.1.2. WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
Before going further into the analysis, an explanation of knowledge is needed. An interesting
definition is the one developed by Davenport and Prusak (2000; p5) where knowledge is
described as ‘a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert
insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information’ therefore; they emphasize the idea of knowledge as a combination of different
ingredients. Wiig (1999; p3) indicates that knowledge in the workplace is ‘the ability of
people and organizations to understand and act effectively’. Ichijo and Nonaka (2007; p286)
also insist on the relationship between knowledge and people ‘it is a uniquely human process
that cannot be reduced or easily replicated’. It is also remarkable that others (Newell et al.,
2009) prefer to not define knowledge because the only important aspect is to be clear when
we refer to manage knowledge work. However, it is necessary to distinguish between
knowledge, data and information with the aim of defining what knowledge is and what it is
not (Lynch, 2005).
6
Data is content based on events, facts that are provable (Dalkir, 2005); therefore, there is no
place for interpretation when we are talking about data. Companies develop it in their
different departments and business units, and, despite the fact it only shows us a piece of the
puzzle, it is essential to create information (Davenport and Prusak, 2000).
Information is the content right above data in the Knowledge Pyramid (Marco, 2001). It can
be defined as the message created once data is analysed (Dalkir, 2005). Its main objective is
to ‘inform’; it means, the message created impacts on the people who received that message
(Davenport and Prusak, 2000).
As indicated previously, Knowledge is not simple or easy to define. Davenport and Prusak
(2000) indicate that comparisons, consequences, connections and conversation transform the
information into knowledge. Consequently, knowledge is the next step of the cited Pyramid.
It has to be mention that some authors consider a next level at the top of the Pyramid:
Wisdom. Ichijo and Nonaka (2007; p299) describe wisdom as a requirement that managers
have to fulfil to ‘understand and integrate the needs of workers’. Nonetheless, Davenport and
Prusak (2000) sustain that companies have already difficulties to difference the three
concepts previously defined, so they prefer the inclusion of wisdom into knowledge.
Figure 1: Knowledge pyramid. Source: Marco, D. (2001)
7
2.1.3. TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
Once the concept of knowledge has been properly defined, this section will analyze how
knowledge can be classified. The most accepted classification of knowledge by experts is
based on two major categories: Tacit and Explicit. This categorization of knowledge was
elaborated by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). The explicit knowledge is clearer and generally a
consequence of a detailed analysis while the tacit knowledge is complex and difficult to
imitate (Lynch, 2005).
First of all, the explicit knowledge is tangible and documented; it means, companies store this
knowledge in databases and it is available to their employees. The manuals, transcribed
procedures and patents of a company are examples of explicit knowledge; therefore, although
it can provide a sustainable competitive advantage (Lynch, 2005), it can be easily copied by
the competitors (Guchait et al., 2011).
On the other hand, the tacit knowledge is owned by individuals; it means, this knowledge is
acquired by human beings and it stays in their minds. Guchait et al. (2011; p516) suggest that
processes like ‘experience, reflection, internalization, or individual talents’ are what produces
this tacit knowledge. As a consequence of this, tacit knowledge is considered the most
important because the competitive advantage achieved is not easily imitated (Lynch, 2005).
Despite agreeing with this classification of knowledge expounded, Dalkir (2005) thinks the
line between what is explicit and what is tacit knowledge is not always clear. This author
proposes that if the tacit knowledge is in human minds, while some individuals describe what
they know easily, others may have more problems in doing it. Hence, the same knowledge is
considered tacit by some people whereas others classify it as explicit. Ichijo and Nonaka
(2007) consider two dimensions of tacit knowledge. Firstly, the technical dimension based on
the skills and the know-how, and secondly, the cognitive dimension consisted of beliefs and
perception. This could explain the point suggested by Dalkir (2005). Although two different
people have the same preparation and both are really high-skilled, the perception is unique
and determines the way they transmit their knowledge.
As it has been explained, many experts in the literature classified tacit knowledge as the
most important one (for instance: Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Guchait et al. 2011) explain
tacit knowledge has more impact on consumer satisfaction; Dalkir (2005) is also among the
experts who support this argument, conceding to explicit knowledge the representation of the
end product. However, the explicit knowledge is shared easily so, it is also necessary (Ichijo
8
and Nonaka, 2007). To sum up, as it will be developed in the next point, the relationship
between both categories holds the cycle of knowledge creation, thus, it is essential that
explicit and tacit knowledge work together.
2.1.4. THE SECI MODEL
In the early 90´s, when the Western countries were astonished by the performance of the
Japanese companies, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) developed an essential model for the
discipline of KM: The SECI model. Also known as The Nonaka and Takeuchi Knowledge
Spiral Model (Dalkir, 2005), it emerged to depict how innovation and creativity are achieved.
Organizations have to adapt to a changing environment; for that reason, flexibility is a crucial
requirement to survive. The members of a company learn how to deal with different
situations by sharing tacit and explicit knowledge (Mihi Ramírez et al., 2011). This exchange
of knowledge produces innovation, in other words, new knowledge is created.
The SECI Model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) recognizes four models of knowledge
conversion:
Socialisation: from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge. This process is generally
based on face-to-face interactions. When two or more human beings communicate
and share their experience, values and beliefs regarding a situation, new tacit
knowledge is produced. This new knowledge has elements of previous situations to
deal with a matter in question (Henao-Cálad and Arango-Fonnegra, 2007). The main
advantage of this process is also the major downside; this knowledge is not easy to
copy because it stays in human minds, but this socilisation is also time-consuming
(Dalkir, 2005).
Externalisation: from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. Although the way it is
produced might be similar to socialization, this process lead to formulate a coherent
body of knowledge (Henao-Cálad and Arango-Fonnegra, 2007). Once knowledge is
externalised, it can be easily shared. The manuals or procedures created with this
process will be accessible to the members of an organization. In addition, these can be
checked in the future because they are permanent, in contrast to what happened with
the socialization process (Dalkir, 2005).
Combination: from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge. When previously
recorded material is used to create new material, the conversion of explicit into
explicit knowledge is produced. As Dalkir (p 55, 2005) indicates ‘no new knowledge
9
is created per se; it is a new combination or representation of existing or already
explicit knowledge’. This process is the most commonly used in a research project
when diverse bodies of knowledge from different disciplines are connected (Henao-
Cálad and Arango-Fonnegra, 2007).
Internalisation: from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge. This process is based on
experience. The explicit knowledge previously obtained has to be learnt by ‘doing it’
(Loon Hoe, 2006). The members of the organization have to analyse their bodies of
knowledge and learn to use them (Henao-Cálad and Arango-Fonnegra, 2007). Once
the individuals acquire the new knowledge, they can apply this to deal with their day-
to-day issues. This new knowledge is now in their minds, thus, it is part of their own
tacit knowledge basis (Dalkir, 2005). While the first three processes regard to
organizational learning, the internalization process is based on individual learning
(Bratianu, 2010).
Figure 2: The SECI model of Knowledge Generation. Source: Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
It has to be explained that exists a positive relationship between the four processes part of the
SECI model (Mihi Ramirez, et al., 2011). This model is also known as the spiral model
because the processes described are not independent. Once the knowledge acquired in one
mode, it is used in the others. The conversion of knowledge is, therefore, a continuous
activity that allows the well-management of the organization. These processes require a high
degree of commitment by the employees, mainly the processes of externalization and the
10
internalization because they convert tacit into explicit knowledge and vice versa (Dalkir,
2005).
To conclude, although it can be found in the literature arguments supporting the idea that this
model cannot be used in Western cultures because of its Japanese heritage (Bratianu, 2011), it
has to be denied. Successful Western companies like Kraft General Foods or the US marines
have applied this model (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) proving that the SECI model is
universal; therefore, it can be used in diverse cultures.
2.1.5. MECHANISM TO CREATE KNOWLEDGE
After explaining how knowledge is transformed, the next necessary step is to indicate the
possible mechanisms that can be used in knowledge creation. This section reviews the six
mechanisms of knowledge generation proposed by Davenport and Prusak (2000): acquisition,
rental, dedicated resources, fusion, adaptation and networks; with a main focus on the last
mechanism due to its interest in this paper.
1. Acquisition. The most common and sometimes more effective way of acquiring
knowledge is to buy it. When we talk about acquisition of knowledge, this knowledge
does not have to be recently generated; the only important aspect for the organisation
is that the knowledge acquired is new for them. It means that originality is not
essential.
2. Rental. Similar to acquisition, knowledge can also be rented or even leased.
Consulting firms are the perfect examples of renting knowledge, when organizations
hire these companies for their projects what they are doing is renting knowledge. The
main drawback of this mechanism is that the knowledge source is temporary; the
firms have to make an effort to retain part of the knowledge in their organizations.
3. Dedicated resources. Bigger organizations usually have departments or units whose
main objective is to generate knowledge. These groups are commonly known as
Research and Development departments. The R&D departments are separated from
the other units because they need the freedom to operate without pressure from the
other areas of the organization. These units have to deal carefully with other areas
because these could not understand the results of the research; therefore, the other
departments do not appreciate the findings. Besides, when companies have to cut
costs, the R&D budget normally suffers from these reductions.
11
4. Fusion. In this mechanism people from different areas have to work together with the
purpose of solving a concrete issue. Although this mechanism entails conflict due to
the diverse perspectives of the people involved, these people have to make an effort to
find a ‘common language’ to understand the others’ point of view. Fusion involves
other benefits apart from knowledge generation; it also helps to transmit wisdom
among the members of the organization.
5. Adaptation. If organisations want to survive in a competitive environment, they have
to adapt to external or even internal circumstances. An adverse economic climate and
fierce competition are some of the most common factors which lead to adaptation. By
adopting an attitude of awareness, firms will adapt to complicated situations by
generating new knowledge. The human resources are the most important component
because they can develop new roles and skills based on their experience. The
employees have the ability to learn and therefore, to develop an efficient adapation.
6. Networks. Formal or informal communities are ideal mechanisms to generate
knowledge. The communities can be used by people with common interest to share
knowledge. The communications are done face-to-face, by telephone or e-mail. The
development of new technologies entails new ways of networking. In the last few
years social media has emerged as a valuable resource for every kind of organisation.
Social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter allow the possibility of
exchanging knowledge in a global context.
The last mechanism proposed by Davenport and Prusak (2000) has a special meaning for the
purpose of this paper. This dissertation analyses the Implementation of Social Media
Strategies to Create Knowledge; hence, the reader has to understand the value of networks to
create knowledge before going further. Networks can highly contribute to innovative
thinking; however, organisations have to implement their social media strategies carefully.
For instance, firms need to allocate the right people to analyses and edit the knowledge
provided.
Organizations should not miss the opportunity of using networks to share and generate
knowledge. It is clear that networking is not as spontaneous as a natural conversation.
Nonetheless, networks are effective and efficient tools to spread knowledge and this made
them really valuable (Newell et al. 2009).
12
2.2. SOCIAL MEDIA
2.2.1. INTRODUCTION
Social networks can be defined as a set of people or organizations connected with each other
using electronic devices (Garton et al., 1997). The relationship among the members of a
social network can be personal, but also professional and it entails huge opportunities for
firms. Among other applications, the stimulation of innovation has to be remarked for the
purpose of this project.
While social media users and even business people tend to emphasize the element ‘media’,
Drury (2008) considers that the key is in the term ‘social’. The reason supporting this
argument is that this word refers to the relationships, it means, people share and exchange
content by using networks and this content can be very valuable if you have the right
connections. Miller and Christakis (2011) support this perspective. They consider that the
main issue in social media is to contact with the correct users. By doing the right movements,
organizations might know, for instance, who their consumers are and who their potential
users are.
This part of the literature review is focused on explaining the importance of having a strategy
in social media. As it was developed previously, the social networks have a constructive
influence on innovation. However, how the implementation of the social media strategy takes
place is a previous and crucial step (Newell et al., 2000). Everyday more companies agree on
implementing SM strategies; they are changing their perception about SM and now
organizations consider SM as a very valuable tool (eMarketer, 2011).
There are some examples of organizations using SM that should be cited in order to show the
innumerable applications available (Uhrmacher, 2008): information technology companies
like Cisco or IBM have developed an important amount of blogs (more than 30000 in the case
of IBM as indicated by Wright et al,. 2010) to connect the different aspects of their
businesses and exchange knowledge; Dell is present in different social networks for customer
engagement; Intel and HP are using Twitter. Besides, really well-known brands from other
sectors outside technology are taking advantage of SM; for instance: Coca-Cola has created a
blog focuses in Coke collectives; Starbucks has launched MyStarbucksidea; where consumers
can make suggestions and the ones with more votes will be developed; Visa uses a Facebook
application to promote small business; and Toyota has developed a site in Japanese language
to promote their products.
13
2.2.2. SOCIAL NETWORKS FOR BUSINESS
Before going further in the strategy issue, it is important to summarize the options available.
The AIIM survey of social media activists (Mancini, 2010) indicates that LinkedIn is the
main network for business is purposes. With more than 120 millions of members (LinkedIn
Press Center, 2011), this is the professional network par excellence. The cited survey shows
that more than 30% of the organizations which use ICT tools, access to this network at least
once per day for business reasons. A remarkable fact is that Twitter is the second in this
ranking in spite of having much less users than Facebook which is third used by more than
10% of the firms.
Figure 3: Social Networks for business purposes. Source: Mancini, J. (2011).
It is clear that there are more options available but the cited networks are the indispensable
for organizations. It is expected that Google+ will have a particular meaning in a near future
and in a later study it will be considered. However, its recent launch makes its analysis not
possible in this project because it possibilities cannot be still quantified. Apart from the most
common networks, organizations can also develop limited and personalised networks for
their internal communications and to contact with their existing consumers.
14
2.2.3. THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGIES
First of all, it is vital that organizations have a strategy. If a firm ignores strategy, the
possibilities of success will be highly decreased, it means that the competitive advantage
could not be achieved (Porter, 2001). Organizations need a social media strategy to start and
stay in focus once this strategy has been implemented (Wilson et al., 2011).
Secondly, a common mistake when organizations are managing knowledge is that they
isolate KM (Hansen et al., 1999). This separation from other business areas entails a negative
impact in its potential benefits. Hence, what companies should do is to create a link between
their strategy for managing knowledge and their competitive strategy (Hansen et al., 1999).
Mankins and Steele (2005) elaborated a list of seven rules to maximise the performance of
the competitive strategy. Taking the previous information into account, these rules are rightly
applied for managing knowledge as stated below:
1. Keep it simple. When organizations are going to start to use social media to create
knowledge they have to be concrete. It has to be done step by step.
2. Debate assumptions, not forecasts. Newly created knowledge cannot be predicted in
advance. Firms have to know that although some findings can be expected, the end
result may be a surprise.
3. Speak a common language. The management have to be sure that they understand
what business units are doing. If they do not fulfil this requirement, valuable
knowledge could be lost.
4. Discuss the resource deployments early. Discussion prior to implementation is
necessary. The business unit dedicated to knowledge creation and the management
need to critically analyse what resources will be required for the efficient and
effective running of the department.
5. Clearly identify priorities. It is clear that ‘not all the tactics are equally important’
(Mankins and Steele, 2005; p8). The unit might consider one model of knowledge
conversion above the others. As it was explained in the first section of this literature
review, the Socialization process of the SECI model entails great benefits but it is
time-consuming; therefore the knowledge creation department might decide not to
allocate a considerable amount of its resources in this process.
6. Continuously monitor performance. A periodic control of the department has to be
done. This control should help to know if the unit is maximising its possibilities and
delivering a great performance.
