(Ebook) Knowledge Management 2.

0: Organizational Models
and Enterprise Strategies by Imed Boughzala ISBN
9781613501955, 9781613501962, 1613501951, 161350196X Pdf
Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/knowledge-
management-2-0-organizational-models-and-enterprise-
strategies-2371528

★★★★★
4.8 out of 5.0 (52 reviews )

DOWNLOAD PDF

ebooknice.com
(Ebook) Knowledge Management 2.0: Organizational Models and
Enterprise Strategies by Imed Boughzala ISBN 9781613501955,
9781613501962, 1613501951, 161350196X Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit ebooknice.com
for more options!.

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles,

James ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492,
1459699815, 1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans

Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II

Success) by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-
s-sat-ii-success-1722018

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT
Subject Test: Math Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049,
0768923042

https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-arco-
master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094
(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth
Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin
Harrison ISBN 9781398375147, 9781398375048, 1398375144,
1398375047
https://ebooknice.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-history-
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

(Ebook) Strategies for Knowledge Management Success: Exploring

Organizational Efficacy (Premier Reference Source) by Murray E.
Jennex ISBN 9781605667096, 1605667099

https://ebooknice.com/product/strategies-for-knowledge-management-success-
exploring-organizational-efficacy-premier-reference-source-2412794

(Ebook) Web 2.0 Knowledge Technologies and the Enterprise.

Smarter, Lighter and Cheaper by Paul Jackson (Auth.) ISBN
9781843345374, 1843345374

https://ebooknice.com/product/web-2-0-knowledge-technologies-and-the-
enterprise-smarter-lighter-and-cheaper-4675606

(Ebook) Organizational Project Management Maturity Model,

(Opm3®) Knowledge Foundation: Knowledge Foundation by Project
Management Institute ISBN 9781933890548, 1933890541

https://ebooknice.com/product/organizational-project-management-maturity-
model-opm3-knowledge-foundation-knowledge-foundation-1953604

(Ebook) Organizational Design for Knowledge Management by Mona

Ben Chouikha ISBN 9781848219229, 1848219229

https://ebooknice.com/product/organizational-design-for-knowledge-
management-5677532
Knowledge Management
2.0:
Organizational Models and
Enterprise Strategies
Imed Boughzala
TELECOM Business School, France

Aurélie Dudezert
Ecole Centrale Paris, France
Senior Editorial Director: Kristin Klinger
Director of Book Publications: Julia Mosemann
Editorial Director: Lindsay Johnston
Acquisitions Editor: Erika Carter
Development Editor: Michael Killian
Production Editor: Sean Woznicki
Typesetters: Jennifer Romanchak, Chris Shearer
Print Coordinator: Jamie Snavely
Cover Design: Nick Newcomer

Published in the United States of America by

Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2012 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Knowledge management 2.0: organizational models and enterprise strategies / Imed Boughzala and Aurelie Dudezert,
editors.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book provides an overview of theoretical and empirical research on knowledge management generation in
the Web 2.0 age, highlighting knowledge management evolution with a global focus and investigating the impact knowledge
management 2.0 has on business models, enterprise governance and strategies, human resources, and IT design, implemen-
tation, and appropriation in organizations”--Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-61350-195-5 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-61350-196-2 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-61350-197-9 (print & perpetual
access) 1. Knowledge management. I. Boughzala, Imed. II. Dudezert, Aurelie, 1975-
HD30.2.K63683 2012
658.4’038--dc22
2011012307

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
Editorial Advisory Board
Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Barroso, IPEN-CNEN/SP, Brazil
Nathalie Dupuis-Hepner, Ernst and Young, France
Jacques Igalens, TBS Toulouse Business School, France
Chris Kimble, Euromed Management, France
Meira Levy, Shenkar College of Engineering and Design, Israel
Benoit Montreuil, Universite Laval, Canada
Nicholas C. Romano, Oklahoma State University, USA
Jean-Michel Viola, ESC Rennes School of Business, France

List of Reviewers
Ghada Alaa, British University in Egypt, Egypt
Myriam Alavi, Emory University, USA
Isabelle Bourdon, University of Montpellier, France
Karine Evrard-Samuel, University of Grenoble, France
Myriam Raymond, French University in Egypt, Egypt
Table of Contents

Preface.................................................................................................................................................... vi

Acknowledgment................................................................................................................................. xiv

Section 1
KM 2.0 and Web 2.0 Technologies

Chapter 1
Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation................................................. 1
Imed Boughzala, TELECOM Business School, France

Chapter 2
Exploring the Impact of Web 2.0 on Knowledge Management............................................................. 17
Thomas Bebensee, Google Ireland Ltd., Ireland
Remko Helms, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Marco Spruit, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Chapter 3
Moving Wikis Behind the Firewall: Intrapedias and Work-Wikis......................................................... 44
Lynne P. Cooper, California Institute of Technology, USA
Mark B. Rober, California Institute of Technology, USA

Chapter 4
Social Networks and Knowledge Management: An Explorative Study in Library Systems................. 64
Bhojaraju Gunjal, University of Mysore, India
Panorea Gaitanou, Ionian University, Greece
Sarah Yasin, YBP Library Services, USA

Chapter 5
Web 2.0 Social Networking Technologies and Strategies for Knowledge Management...................... 84
Edward T. Chen, University of Massachussetts, USA
Chapter 6
Competence Management over Social Networks Through Dynamic Taxonomies............................. 103
Giuseppe Berio, University of South Brittany, France
Antonio Di Leva, Università di Torino, Italy
Mounira Harzallah, University of Nantes, France
Giovanni Maria Sacco, Università di Torino, Italy

Section 2
Business Implications of KM 2.0

Chapter 7
Knowledge Sharing in the Age of the Web 2.0: A Social Capital Perspective.................................... 122
François Deltour, LEMNA Research Center, France
Loïc Plé, LEMNA Research Center, France
Caroline Saris-Roussel, LEMNA Research Center, France

Chapter 8
Strategic Knowledge Management System Framework for Supply Chain
at an Intra-Organizational Level.......................................................................................................... 142
Cécile Gaumand, Ecole Centrale Paris, France
Alain Chapdaniel, ACTIMUM, France
Aurélie Dudezert, Ecole Centrale Paris, France

Chapter 9
Web 2.0 and Project Management: Reviewing the Change Path
and Discussing a Few Cases................................................................................................................ 164
Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Barroso, IPEN-CNEN/SP, Brazil
Rita Izabel Ricciardi, IPEN-CNEN/SP, Brazil
Jair Anunciação de Azevedo, IPEN-CNEN/SP, Brazil

Chapter 10
The Evolution of KM Practices: The Case of the Renault-Nissan
International Strategic Alliance............................................................................................................ 190
Nabyla Daidj, TELECOM Business School, France

Chapter 11
KMS for Fostering Behavior Change: A Case Study on Microsoft Hohm.......................................... 214
Magda David Hercheui, Westminster Business School, UK & London School of Economics
and Political Science, UK

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 233

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 256

Index.................................................................................................................................................... 262
vi

Preface

INTRODUCTION

In the last few years, Knowledge Management (KM) practices have evolved in organizations. Due to the
introduction of Web 2.0 technologies, new usages of information and knowledge sharing have emerged
(Enterprise 2.0). The new generation of employees (Generation Y or Milennials) has new habits at work.
They use everyday Web 2.0 technologies (Blogs, Wikis, RSS, Folksonomy, social networking platforms,
Mashups, Podcasting, etc.) in the private arena, and therefore, consider that such technologies for e-
collaboration and self-organizing are the best means/methods to work. They are eager to simply and
quickly find good information/knowledge, anytime and anywhere, and are not intimidated by knowledge
complexity and organizational hierarchy.
Thus, the concept of KM has been impacted and has evolved towards more human interactions man-
agement and interpersonal networking, in addition to traditional information and knowledge processing.
Organizations are currently developing a new type of KM which is social-based and may be called KM
2.0. They become knowledge-centric organizations because they focus more on KM and social col-
laboration, rather than on hierarchy and control. In this new era, all employees can equally participate
in creating, using, and sharing information and knowledge. Knowledge is no longer a matter for experts.
Every individual (or knowledge worker) plays a central role in this case. Knowledge generated by
employees is not only used for designing value-added products or services, but also for inventing new
work modes based on people empowerment, user emergent participation and collaboration. Business
models, organizational management, work modes, knowledge worker’s skills and behavior, and so forth
are intended to be transformed, reviewed, and even sometimes to be rethought.
The book aims to give an overview on theoretical and empirical research that investigates the next
Knowledge Management (KM) generation (McElroy, 2002) in the Web 2.0 age, which would be called
KM 2.0 (Dudezert & Boughzala, 2008). It highlights evolutions of the KM area with a global focus and
an international dimension of studies. The objective is also to compare different approaches and practices
developed in different countries and cultures.

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

The interest in KM dates back to the early 90s when companies realized the strategic value of knowledge
as a competitive resource and a factor of stability for their survival (Spender, 1996). There is more than
one definition of KM. Mentzas (2004 p.116) defines KM as the “discipline of enabling individuals, teams
 vii

and entire organizations to collectively and systematically create, share and apply knowledge, to better
achieve the business objectives”. “KM efforts can help individuals and groups to share valuable orga-
nizational insights, to reduce redundant work, to avoid reinventing the wheel per se, to reduce training
time for new employees, to retain intellectual capital as employees turnover in an organization, and to
adapt to changing environments and markets” (McAdam & McCreedy, 2000) (as cited in Wikipedia).
KM is also defined by Dieng et al. (1999) as a range of practices, methods, and techniques used in an
organization to identify, analyze, organize, create, memorize, and share knowledge.
According to Ikyjiro Nonaka (1994), Knowledge Creation is a spiraling and continuous process of
interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge which is codified and transmitted
as information in formal and systematic language (e.g. rules, procedures) and tacit knowledge which
is personal and deeply internalized, embodied in practice and action and so hard to be formalized and
communicated (e.g. talent, hand-turn) (Polanyi, 1966). Spender (1996) has qualified a part of this tacit
knowledge as implicit which is the only part that could be codified. The interactions between the explicit
and tacit knowledge lead to the creation of new knowledge. The combination of the two categories makes
it possible to conceptualize four conversion patterns: Socialization, Externalization, Combination and
Internalization (Nonaka, 1994). Socialization enables the conversion of tacit knowledge through direct
interaction between individuals through join activities by observation, imitation, practice, and linkage
(Polanyi, 1966; Nonaka, 1994; Spender, 1996).
The Japanese culture inspired Ikyjiro Nonaka and Noburo Konno to introduce the concept of Ba in
1996 to represent a shared space for emerging relationships that serves as a foundation for Knowledge
Creation (Nonaka, 1998). This space can be physical (e.g. office, dispersed business space), mental (e.g.
shared experiences, perceptions, ideas and ideals), or any combination of them. This concept, which is
difficult to be translated in Western languages, could be defined as the pooling context in which knowl-
edge is shared, created, and used through interaction.
Since its emergence, KM focused more on knowledge as such with its space of socialization (Ba)
and individuals (knowledge workers) who are holders of knowledge in their behavior, interactions, and
relationships. This discipline has for long time emphasized capturing, accumulating, and disseminating
knowledge through Knowledge Management Systems (KMS). KMS refer to IT-based systems developed
to support and enhance the organizational processes of knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer,
and application (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Yet for many organizations KMS became enormous reposito-
ries whose use was hindered by the sheer volume of data and the associated difficulties of keeping the
knowledge accurate and up-to-date (Alavi et al., 2005-6). Thus in traditional KM era, KM refers more
on knowledge control than on knowledge creation and transfer.
We argue that with the arrival of Web 2.0, Knowledge Management has found a new youth, and its
study and scope should be redesigned. KM is in the forefront in this evolutionary organizational context
as we are moving from the only information processing to human interactions management and inter-
personal networking. With the advent of the Web 2.0, the concept of KM has been impacted and has
evolved towards a vision based more on people participation and emergence and less on knowledge per
say. This implies a new conception of KM that we propose to call “KM 2.0”.
viii

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 2.0

According to Stowe Boyd (Gandih, 2008), one of the prominent consultants and bloggers in the Web
2.0 industry, there are three types of knowledge:

• Impersonal knowledge which consists of ideas and information made explicit in documents and
files (explicit knowledge).
• Personal knowledge which is tacit and stored in the brains (tacit knowledge).
• Interpersonal knowledge which is communicated implicitly in the conversations and connections
of people (implicit knowledge)

In traditional KM, we focus mainly on the two first types of knowledge. The study of Interpersonal
Knowledge related to relationships and interactions of people (Social Capital, Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998) is specific to KM 2.0. In the context of collaborative work, it is part of what is called Collaboration
Knowledge which includes work process and relational knowledge (Boughzala, 2007; 2010). Socializa-
tion is the most important mode of Knowledge Creation in the KM 2.0.
With the development of the concept of social organization, a human centered organization based on
e-collaboration, social networks and communities with an intensive use of Web 2.0 technologies, it has
involved a new concept of KM, the KM 2.0. It describes the changing trends in managing knowledge
in the knowledge-based society and economy built on the collective intelligence and social capital,
mainly related to the interpersonal knowledge. We adopt Shimazu and Koike’s definition of KM 2.0 as
“a model that places collective intelligence at its core and promotes its use by accelerating the distribu-
tion of information” (Shimazu and Koike, 2007 p.52).
This new generation of KM, KM 2.0 aims to allow incorporated and pervasive management of
knowledge for social and virtual organizations (teams, communities, and enterprises). With the intro-
duction of Web 2.0 - social and collaboration technologies, the bases of KM have been updated and in
some ways metamorphosed. The Web 2.0 adoption in connecting people (social networks and virtual
communities) and online collaborating will succeed where previous approaches of traditional KM had
failed in term of socialization.
KM 2.0 affects Enterprise Business Models, organizational management, and knowledge worker’s
skills and behavior, and may be visible at different dimensions: social, managerial, technical, economic,
legal, ecological, et cetera. Compared to the traditional KM, evolution is related to the KM scope, the
nature of knowledge, the place of the individual, leadership, the KM governance, and the KM process
and technology (Boughzala & Limayem, 2010; Dudezert, 2009).

• KM Scope: Traditional KM focuses mainly on knowledge (Knowledge capital: Impersonal and

personal knowledge). KM 2.0 on the other hand focuses not only on knowledge but also on its
space of socialization and holders (Social capital: Interpersonal knowledge) through electronic
open collaboration, social linking/networking and content sharing (thanks to Web 2.0 technolo-
gies) with a new culture of awareness (especially with both mixed and virtual reality) and in-
novation. At the level of the organization, while traditional KM focuses on intra organizational
knowledge, KM 2.0 also covers inter organizational KM (IKM) such as in SCM and e-business
where many exchanges and sharing of knowledge are done between partners. These exchanges
usually take place between experts of the same field or around the same value chain or network.
 ix

• Nature of knowledge: In the traditional KM, knowledge comes mostly from experts (Individual
Intelligence). In the context of KM 2.0, knowledge originating from any individual could be in-
teresting. Customer reviews on amazon.com, for example, could be decisive in the purchase of a
product. In the traditional KM, knowledge is mainly related to products (outcomes). In KM 2.0
however, knowledge is related to both products and processes. For example, in the case of a team
working on the design of a new product, expertise around both the outcomes (individual domain
knowledge and skills) and the work processes (collaboration knowledge, capabilities of members
to work together and innovate) are important.
• Place of the individual: In the traditional KM, knowledge workers are mostly users of knowl-
edge. In KM 2.0, people play a more central role by consciously and unconsciously generating
knowledge. The connection, interaction, and collaboration of individuals and the nature of their
relationships are a source of knowledge (Collective Intelligence), and play a major role in KM 2.0.
Consequently, performance and recognition of individuals is done according to their collaborative
capabilities to get in touch (connect), to federate others, and to work collaboratively. KM 2.0 is
best suited to the new generation of individuals (Gen Y) who are looking continuously for new
technology and become Knowledge Contractors, i.e. people who are aware knowledge is crucial
to work in new knowledge-centric organizations and choose to develop and promote it (Dudezert
et al., 2008; Dudezert, 2009).
• Leadership: In modern Western countries bureaucratic organizations are edifices built on ideas of
rationality and control (Weberian myth) (Feldman & March, 1981). Leadership and hierarchical
structure are based on this myth. In KM 2.0 era, knowledge is mainly personal and interpersonal.
Thereby this crucial resource cannot be controlled and rationally managed by middle- and top-
managers. Thus KM 2.0 questions the rationality and control myth in bureaucratic organizations
and makes business organizations reinventing managerial practices able to consider new founda-
tions of authority. Google for instance developed a peer-assessment for collaborators rather than
a hierarchical control of tasks. In this company leadership is based on legitimacy related to exper-
tise and knowledge rather than on rationality and control.
• KM governance: In traditional KM, knowledge was stored by organizations in order to maintain
their competitive advantage. Organizations had a defensive attitude concerning knowledge. In
KM 2.0 era, Collective Intelligence is now used to transform stakeholders’ relationships and to im-
prove competitive advantage. Thus, Walmart by developing KM 2.0 practices (Binot & Dudezert,
2008) improved its competitive advantage and developed a new business unit (GAZELEY) spe-
cialized in Logistics and Operations Management, which is its core knowledge.
• KM Process: KM is a structured process involving creating, storing, refining, and sharing knowl-
edge (Knowledge Push). KM 2.0 is less structured, more transparent to the user in all its behavior
and interactions and evolves gradually over time (“on the fly”), using technologies to observe and
to keep track such as Log files, RFID, GSM/UMTS, or GPS, tagging and profiling (Knowledge
Pull). Similarly, traditional KM is a Top-Down approach based on a corporate and normative
strategy (centralization), KM 2.0 is a Bottom-Up approach based on individual initiatives and
emergence (distribution).
• KM Technology: Compared to Web 2.0 technologies of today which are user centered, the tradi-
tional KMS - task oriented, seems incredibly primitive in terms of interpersonal knowledge. These
offer only limited and formal information on experts and explicit knowledge in terms of collabo-
ration. They suffer from their lack of tools of expression, social interaction, and visualization of
x

relationships. Traditional KM technologies are often passive with a static content and are gener-
ated by professionals. Web 2.0 technologies are participatory and personalized with a dynamic
content and are generated by users themselves. Traditional KM technologies are overly complex
and rigid. Web 2.0 technologies are flexible and easy to use and to install.

ABOUT THE BOOK

The material presented in this book is a collective contribution to the knowledge management area. The
book is written for those who want to improve their understanding of challenges associated with KM
evolutions due to the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies. It is, in particular, discussing impacts of KM
2.0 practices on:

• Business models
• Enterprise governance and strategies
• Organizational structures and models
• Business work practices
• Human resources
• IT design, implementation, and appropriation in organizations

This book is meant for those connected with the fields of Management Science, Information Systems,
Design Engineering, or anyone interested in the KM paradigms changing through Web 2.0 usages (En-
terprise 2.0). It intends to serve as a valuable asset for academics (graduate students, researchers, and
professors) in their research and teaching, as well as managers and practitioners in their KM strategy
reformulation and Web 2.0 technologies implementation.
The book is divided in two sections. The first section of this book analyses how Web 2.0 technologies
contribute to KM 2.0 implementation according to the new organization transformation.
Chapter 1, “Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation,” by Imed
Boughzala introduces a new holistic organization transformation (i.e. Organization 2.0) caused by
changes in the act of collaboration (i.e. mass collaboration or collaboration 2.0) due to the emergence
of Web 2.0 technologies and their use by a new generation of people called Gen Y. Organization 2.0 is
based on Collective Intelligence and Social Capital. This chapter tries to sort out confusion that may
exist between different concepts like Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Collaboration 2.0, Management 2.0, KM
2.0, Organization 2.0, et cetera.
Chapter 2, “Exploring the Impact of Web 2.0 on Knowledge Management,” by Thomas Bebensee,
Remko Helms, and Marco Spruit, examines the suitability and impact of Web 2.0 applications on KM
in organizations. With case studies in two German nonprofit organizations, the authors demonstrate that
unbounded collaboration and user-generated content functionalities used in Web 2.0 applications have
a strong impact on knowledge capture/creation and knowledge sharing within organizations. Thereby
they show that Web 2.0 applications effectively impact the efficiency, quality, and commitment of KM in
organizations. Following chapters complete this analysis by focusing on specific Web 2.0 technologies.
Chapter 3, “Moving Wikis Behind the Firewall: Intrapedias and Work-Wikis,” by Lynne P. Cooper
and Mark B. Robber deals with Wikis and their use for KM in the new KM 2.0 era. This chapter shows
that the use of wikis in corporations presents significant opportunities as well as challenges for improv-
 xi

ing knowledge capture and work processes. It identified fundamental characteristics of wikis and how
these change between public and corporate wikis, and between wikis intended for knowledge capture
(intrapedias) versus supporting work processes. A case study describing two organizational wikis illus-
trated the power of the individual in instigating knowledge capture and the ability of wiki technology
to rapidly and easily support individuals in their work efforts.
Chapter 4, Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 examine the use of Social Networks technologies for KM in
organizations.
Chapter 4, “Social Networks and Knowledge Management: An Explorative Study in Library Sys-
tems,” by Panorea Gaitanou and Sarah Yasin, explores the impact of Social Networks technologies on
KM in the context of Library Organizations. It shows that Social Networks tools can provide a useful
compliment to existing central knowledge repositories. They open wide opportunities for collaboration
and interaction and thereby contribute to create Collective Intelligence.
Chapter 5, “Web 2.0 Social Networking Technologies and Strategies for Knowledge Management,”
by Edward T. Chen, explores how Social Networks technologies can be used for KM in business orga-
nizations and propose strategies of use for Knowledge Management 2.0 implementation.
Chapter 6, “Competence Management over Social Networks through Dynamic Taxonomies,” by G.
Berio, A. Di Leva, M. Harzallah, and G.M. Sacco, examines how social networks information can be
used to improve competence management in business organizations. It suggests social networks infor-
mation can contribute to better value and control knowledge that is shared in organization and thus can
contribute to build a more controlled Collective Intelligence.
The second section presents the business implications of KM 2.0 transformation. It explores how
companies become KM 2.0 organizations and how they used KM 2.0 to achieve their business objectives.
Chapter 7, “Knowledge Sharing in the Age of the Web 2.0: A Social Capital Perspective,” by Caro-
line Saris-Roussel, François Deltour, and Loïc Ple, discusses the main challenges of the “social-turn”
of knowledge management. In fact, in the KM 2.0 era, management of relationships based on trust is
the core process of knowledge management. Based on social capital theory and on a case study by Sch-
lumberger, this chapter analyzes how this social-turn renewed practices of Knowledge Management in
business organizations.
Chapter 8, “Strategic Knowledge Management System Framework for Supply Chain at an Intra-
Organizational Level,” by Cécile Gaumand, Alain Chapdaniel, and Aurélie Dudezert, emphasizes also
the role of interactions and relationships in KM 2.0. Based on an Action-Research in an Italian SME, they
show implications of the implementation of a Knowledge Management System (KMS) in a transversal
intra-organizational function (Supply Chain). They highlight KM 2.0 implementation which requires
business organizations change their managerial practices and to develop a culture of agility based on
knowledge sharing, collaboration, and empowerment.
Chapter 9, “Web 2.0 and Project Management: Reviewing the Change Path and Discussing a Few
Cases,” by Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Barroso, Rita Izabel Ricciardi, and Jair Anunciação de Azevedo,
focuses on the synergy of Web 2.0 applications and services, and project management needs. They exam
the Brazilian situation of current project management practices and discuss few cases for showing how
Web 2.0 can impact project management.
Chapter 10, “The Evolution of KM Practices: The Case of the Renault-Nissan International Strategic
Alliance,” by Nabyla Daidj, analyzes the transformation of an international company from traditional KM
to KM 2.0. More especially, it focuses on the impact of the KM 2.0 impact on the strategic alliance built
xii

by Renault and Nissan. Thus, this chapter discusses how KM 2.0 can be used to develop a competitive
advantage in an industrial context.
Chapter 11, “KMS for Fostering Behavior Change: a Case Study on Microsoft Hohm,” by Magda
David Hercheui, ends this section and the book with a more critical analysis on KM 2.0. Based on an
empirical example (Microsoft Hohm), this chapter analyzes how KMS can be used to foster behavior
change. Thus it questions the role of KMS in manipulating people in business organizations. It consid-
ers the use of KM 2.0 practices by specific groups of actors to maintain or develop social domination
in organizations.

CONCLUSION

The chapters in this book discuss different aspects of Knowledge Management and Web 2.0 environ-
ment. Each offers a unique contribution to advance our theoretical or practical understanding of the new
Knowledge Management (KM) practices in the Web 2.0 environment within and between organizations
and individuals. We commend them to your reading, and hope they will inspire your research and practice.

Imed Boughzala
TELECOM Business School, France

Aurélie Dudezert
Ecole Centrale Paris, France

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2005-2006). An empirical examination of the influence of or-
ganizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems,
22(3), 191–224. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222220307
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Con-
ceptual foundations and research issues. MISQ, 25(1), 107–136. doi:10.2307/3250961
Boughzala, I. (2007). Ingénierie de la collaboration: Théories, technologies et pratiques. Paris, France:
Hermès.
Boughzala, I. (2010). Mise en perspective de l’e-collaboration comme outil de transformation de
l’organisation. HDR report in management science. University of Nantes.
Boughzala, I., & Limayem, M. (2010). The new generation of knowledge management for the Web 2.0
age: KM 2.0 . In Lee, I. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of e-business development and management in the digital
economy (pp. 1211–1220). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-611-7.ch122
Dieng, R., Corby, O., Giboin, A., & Ribière, M. (1999). Methods and tools for corporate knowledge man-
agement. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 567–598. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0281
 xiii

Dudezert, A. (2009). Vers l’entreprise centrée connaissance ou les conditions d’efficacité de ces nouvelles
formes organisationnelles. HDR report in management science. University of Nancy II.
Dudezert, A., & Boughzala, I. (Eds.). (2008). Vers le KM 2.0: Quel Management des Connaissances
imaginer pour faire face aux défis futurs? Collection Entreprendre Informatique, Vuibert, March 2008.
Dudezert, A., Boughzala, I., & Mounoud, E. (2008, October 17). Comment intégrer la génération Mil-
lennials à l’entreprise? Etats généraux du management workshop, Sénat/Paris, France.
Galbreath, J. (2002). Success in the relationship age: Building quality relationship assets for market
value creation. The TQM Magazine, 14(1), 8–24. doi:10.1108/09544780210413219
Gandih, A. (2008). L’entreprise sociale: Utiliser les applications Entreprise 2.0 pour déculper la produc-
tivité des travailleurs du savoir. Oracle White Paper, CA, USA.
McAdam, R., & McCreedy, S. (2000). A critique of knowledge management: Using a social construc-
tionist model. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(2). doi:10.1111/1468-005X.00071
McAfee, A. P. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent collaboration. Sloan Management Review,
47(3), 21–28.
McElroy, M. E. (2002). The new knowledge management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable in-
novation. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mentzas, G. (2004). A strategic management framework for leveraging knowledge asset. International
Journal of Innovation and Learning, 1(2), 115–142. doi:10.1504/IJIL.2004.003715
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.
Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nonaka, I. (1994). Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1),
14–37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I. (1998). The concept of Ba: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Man-
agement Review, 40(3).
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Shimazu, H., & Koike, S. (2007). KM2.0: Business knowledge sharing in the Web 2.0 age. NEC Tech-
nical Journal, 2(2), 50-54. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from http://www.nec.co.jp/ techrep/en /journal/
g07/n02/ t070213.pdf
Spender, J. C. (1996). Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge? In Moingeon, B., & Edmonson,
A. (Eds.), Organizational learning and competitive advantage (pp. 56–73). London, UK: Sage.
xiv

Acknowledgment

Here we, editors, wish to give a special thank you first to all the authors for their contribution to this
book. Second to the Editorial Advisory Board, for their feedback regarding the content of the book.
Third, the reviewers, for their help and constructive comments. Finally, thanks to IGI Global for agree-
ing to publish this book

Imed Boughzala
TELECOM Business School, France

Aurélie Dudezert
Ecole Centrale Paris, France
 Section 1
KM 2.0 and Web 2.0
Technologies
 1

Chapter 1
Collaboration 2.0 through
the New Organization
(2.0) Transformation
Imed Boughzala
TELECOM Business School, France

ABSTRACT
This chapter introduces a new holistic organization transformation (i.e. Organization 2.0) caused by
changes in the act of collaboration (i.e. Collaboration 2.0) due to the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies
and their use by a new generation of people called Gen Y. Organization 2.0 is based on Social Capital
where end-user participation, emergence of social networks and online communities, mass collabora-
tion, and open innovation, have become new levers to put collective intelligence (e.g. crowdsourcing)
at the service of the organization, to boost its performance, and to develop its creative capabilities. This
chapter tries to sort out confusion that may exist between different concepts like Web 2.0, Enterprise
2.0, Collaboration 2.0, Management 2.0, KM 2.0, Organization 2.0, et cetera.

INTRODUCTION 2006) but has since evolved to cover further di-

mensions and areas of application (marketing 2.0,
Due to the advent of Web 2.0 technologies in the e-government 2.0, health 2.0, research 2.0, etc).
last few years, new usages of information and The new generation of hypermodern employees
knowledge sharing have emerged, i.e. the Enter- (Generation Y or Gen Y) has developed new habits
prise 2.0 (or Enterprise Social Software) which at work. They use everyday Web 2.0 technologies
is a new culture of technology usage. Enterprise (blogs, wikis, RSS1, social networking platforms,
2.0 refers to “the use of Web 2.0, emergent social folksonomy, podcasting, mashups, virtual worlds,
software platforms within companies, or between etc) in the private arena and, therefore, consider
companies and their partners or customers” as that such technologies for collaboration and
defined initially by Andrew McAfee (McAfee, self-organizing are the best means/methods to

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-195-5.ch001

Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

work. This generation has developed a new type Internet. This generation succeeds to the genera-
of collaboration practice through intensive Web tion X (anonymous) which came after and is less
2.0 usage, which is emergent (not planned and known than, the baby boomers. These employees
informal), open (indifferent to the organizational are looking continuously for new technology and
borders) and massive (implies crowds). This col- are eager to simply and quickly find good informa-
laboration is called Collaboration 2.0 (Coleman tion/knowledge, anytime and anywhere and from
& Levine, 2008; § Table 1). Collaboration 2.0 is any device; and are not intimidated by knowledge
one of the major activities in Enterprise 2.0. complexity and organizational hierarchy (For-
Indeed, these two major developments (Gen rester Consulting, 2006). This new generation
Y and Web 2.0) which co-exist today are being upsets already the traditional organization. It is also
transforming the organization deeply towards a good opportunity for it to integrate enthusiastic
what we called the Organization 2.0 – a social and creative employees.
based organization (Arina 2008). The first one is These two changes/developments together
thus technological with the fast emergence of the lead to a deep upheaval at all levels of the orga-
Web 2.0 technologies since 2005 (O’Reilly, 2005; nization because they affect its fundamentals and
Anderson, 2007) in the preamble of the new In- foundations, all its actors and its environments
ternet age (Internet 3D, Internet of things or (including all the stakeholders). This seems to
Ubiquitous Internet) for a Smart World (Walsh, be the first time since the industrial age that the
2001; Ma et al., 2005; Smart et al., 2007; Dodson, organization is so affected in such way (Arina,
2003, 2008). These technologies also called Social 2008). These changes impact especially the place
Media (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) are user (social) and role of individuals next to information and
centered, user-friendly, intuitive, flexible, easy to knowledge. All workers in the social age are equal
install and less formal. They are participatory and in using, sharing and creating information and
personalized with a dynamic content and are knowledge. Knowledge is no longer a matter of
generated by users themselves. Web 2.0 tech- expert (Boughzala & Limayem, 2010). Connec-
nologies are very useful for self-expression and tion, interaction and collaboration of individuals
mass participation, social interaction/networking, and the nature of their relationships are also a
visualization of connections (relationships), in- source of knowledge. For example, the behavior
formation/knowledge capitalizing and co-creation, of one user on a social platform like Facebook is
and skills and talents identification. They are af- carrier of knowledge (by profiling, tracing: people
fordable to all size of businesses even to the small contacted, downloads, discussions in which (s)
ones. This new generation of technology has he participated, etc). This is called the Collective
agitated the software market. It is also a good Intelligence (also crowdsourcing) which refers
opportunity for organizations to improve best to knowledge created from human interactions
practices sharing, to boost interactions between and interpersonal networking (Smith & Duin,
key individuals and to encourage bottom-up and 1994; Malone et al., 2009). All this contributes
open innovation (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). to the building of the Social Capital (Nahapiet
The second change is social with the arrival & Ghoshal, 1998) which is the set of resources
on the job market of the new generation of em- embedded within the relationships among actors
ployees – the Generation Y (Why – i.e. eager for within a network. In the same sense, Shimazu and
sense-making), Digital Natives or Milennials (Du- Koike (2007 p.52) define Knowledge Management
dezert et al., 2008). A new generation of younger, 2.0 (KM 2.0) as “a model that places collective
college- and university-educated workers born intelligence at its core and promotes its use by
between 1978 and 1995 and grown up with the accelerating the distribution of information”.

2
Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

Table 1. Comparison of traditional organization and organization 2.0 (Boughzala, 2009b)

Organization 1.0 Organization 2.0

Web 1.0 Web 2.0
Technology (extract from Task oriented tools User-centered tools
Boughzala & Limayem,
Overly complex tools Easy to use and to install tools
2010)
and usage Rigid tools Flexible tools
Passive with a static content Participatory and customizable with a dynamic content
Generated by professionals Generated by users themselves
More significant investment – usually only for Less significant investment – even for SMEs
large companies
Dedicated technologies Collaboration IT-based features embedded in technolo-
gies
Enterprise 1.0 Enterprise 2.0
Casual use Intensive and embedded use
Professional use Private and professional use
Project management Social networking and mass collaboration
Collaboration 1.0 Collaboration 2.0
People and Work mode User of knowledge Generator of knowledge
Individual action Social participation
One-to-many Many-to-many
Programmed information-based collaboration Emergent and open knowledge-based collaboration
Controlling Self-organizing
Culture of production Culture of awareness and innovation
Reactive Proactive
Production skills Social and collaboration Skills
Task completion Purpose sharing
Individualization Socialization
Process and Organizational Standardization Adoption/Emergence
structure
Structured – modeled process Freeform – Ad-hoc process
Prescriptive in nature Emergent in nature
Precise / predefined boundaries Fuzzy/open boundaries
Production driven process Collaboration driven process
Task oriented Socio-emotional oriented
Siloed and opaque organization open and transparent organization
Project teams - inclusive Open teams – progressive
Virtual teams/communities
More co-located teams More dispersed teams
KM 1.0 KM 2.0
Information- Information capital Collaboration capital
Knowledge Knowledge capital Social capital
Local access to information Global/Live access to information

continued on following page

3
 Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

Table 1. Continued

Organization 1.0 Organization 2.0

Web 1.0 Web 2.0
Knowledge Management Knowledge Knowledge, its space of socialization and holders
(extract from Boughzala &
Impersonal and personal Knowledge Impersonal, personal and interpersonal Knowledge
Limayem, 2010)
Place and role of Knowl- Expert knowledge Any knowledge from any individual
edge worker
Individual intelligence Collective intelligence
Non-central Central
Intra organizational knowledge Intra and Inter organizational knowledge
Management 1.0 Management 2.0
Management mode Hierarchy “Wirearchy” - Network
Vertical organization Horizontal/Flat organization
Bureaucracy Agility
Information-centric Knowledge and People -centric
Authoritarian environment Collaborative environment
Implied structure Emergent structure
Long time-to-market cycles Short time-to-market cycles
Centralization of control Distribution of control
Separate projects Holistic approach
Project management Network and community animation
Decision Influence
Project manager Facilitator (Champion/coordinator/animator)
Top-Down planning Bottom-up planning
Scheduled actions On demand actions
Limited/Restricted access to the plan Organized/Unlimited access to the plan
Limited communications within team Unlimited communications within team
Control Communication and empowerment

It describes the changing trends in managing Confusion may exist between different con-
knowledge in the knowledge-based society and cepts like Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Collaboration
economy built on the collective intelligence and 2.0, Management 2.0, KM 2.0, Organization 2.0,
social capital, mainly related to the interpersonal etc. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce and
knowledge through connections and socialization clearly define the concept of Organization 2.0 as
(Dudezert & Boughzala, 2008). It is the new gen- the new conception of the organization or more
eration of KM allowing incorporated and pervasive the new generation of the organization’s model
KM for social virtual organizations. Socialization compared to the traditional one according to sev-
enables the conversion of tacit knowledge through eral organizational activities and dimensions. All
direct interaction between individuals through join these dimensions must necessarily be reconsidered
activities by observation, imitation, practice and and the old understanding of the organization
linkage (Polanyi, 1966; Nonaka, 1994; Spender, should be revised. The bases of organization’s
1996b). model have to be updated since the organization

4
Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

is currently being metamorphosed. One ultimate Ways to well integrate Web 2.0 technologies and
research question addressed in this chapter is: generation Y through this new organization for an
optimal collaboration 2.0 are reported in section
• RQ: How to take advantage of the techno- 4. The implications to companies, managers, tech-
logical change (Web 2.0) by adapting the nology designers and researchers are discussed in
organization to the social change (Gen Y) section 5. The chapter concludes with a summary
towards organizational performance and of key directions for future research.
open innovation?
• In other words, how to adapt to the chang-
ing of Gen Y’s work modes related to their TOWARD AN ORGANIZATION
use of Web 2.0 technologies (Enterprise 2.0 MODEL
2.0) without compromising the specific re-
quirements for the survival of the modern The main differences between the traditional
organization? organization (called Organization 1.0 afterward)
and the Organization 2.0 are discussed in this
This conceptual chapter is trying to serve as section according to several dimensions. Figure
a starting point for future research and further 1 compares the both organization types through
applications in this area. It is apparent that this five key components of collaboration (Vreede
chapter argued several affirmations/statements and et al., 2009): Information, people, processes,
led to more questions than answers. It is hoped technologies and facilitation. This figure argues
that it will initiate a scientific debate around that the traditional organization is information/
Organization 2.0, its opportunities as well as the knowledge centered and the Organization 2.0 is
challenges that it causes. people/social centered.
The remainder of this chapter is structured as The five key components could also learn us
follows. The next section introduces the Organiza- about the transition from traditional Collaboration
tion 2.0 model. Section 3 proposes an Organiza- to Collaboration 2.0 (and thus also from tradi-
tion 2.0 model compared to Organization 1.0 one tional management to Management 2.0) in terms
according to different aspects, and dimensions. of:

Figure 1. From traditional Organization model to Organization 2.0 model (adapted from Boughzala &
Limayem, 2010)

5
 Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

• People: The place and role of the individu- posed by impersonal2 and personal3 knowl-
al are also different in the both types of or- edge. The Organization 2.0 is based on so-
ganization. In the traditional organization, cial capital including knowledge, its space
people (knowledge workers) are mostly of socialization and holders (Interpersonal
users of knowledge. In Organization 2.0, knowledge4).
every “individual” plays a more central • Process: In the case of the Organization
role by consciously and unconsciously 2.0, the end-user is much more involved in
generating knowledge. People participate business processes. One speaks about self-
in the co-construction of information and care when the end-user is brought to ex-
knowledge contents. Thus, the notions of ecute one part of the process at his/her own
user participation, social networks and expense (Bitner et al., 2002). Airline online
mass collaboration (2.0) are fundamental check-in is one good example in terms of
in the context of the Organization 2.0. The time and internet connection. Moreover
concept of collective intelligence plays a collaboration processes take a more impor-
major role in its model. Consequently, new tant place in addition to traditional produc-
approaches of performance have to be in- tion processes. Informal processes became
vented. Recognition and rewarding of in- very crucial for open innovation through
dividuals have to done according to their social linking/networking, electronic open
social/collaboration capabilities to get in collaboration, content sharing and knowl-
touch (connect), to federate others around edge co-construction. The development of
an idea or a project, to share knowledge Open Source Software is the best example.
with others, and to work collaboratively Like many other Internet players, Google
(Boughzala, 2007). The generation Y is relies heavily on online communities of
characterized by a new culture of aware- practice to foster creativity and innovation.
ness, knowledge sharing, open collabora- • Technology: Web 2.0 technologies have
tion and innovation. agitated both work practices and the soft-
• Information (knowledge): The traditional ware market. The generation Y use ev-
organization’s model was based first on eryday these technologies in their private
information and later on knowledge more arena and, therefore, consider that such
generally. Knowledge comes mostly from technologies for self-organizing and mass
experts (Individual Intelligence). In the collaboration are the best means to work.
context of Organization 2.0, knowledge Social networks and online communities
originating from any individual could be are for it the best resources to collective
interesting. Also, the nature of the relation- problem-solving, to get connections and
ships of individuals is a source of knowl- partnerships and to take advantage of the
edge (Collective Intelligence). For exam- collective intelligence. This generation
ple, with Facebook or LinkedIn – famous wants to choose itself the tools it deems
social platforms, people could connect fit to use. These practices are disturbing
with others and build personal and pro- in somewhat for IT managers. These new
fessional relationships through groups of collaboration practices with an intensive
interest, communities of practices and col- use of Web 2.0 technologies are called
laborations. The traditional organization is Collaboration 2.0 (§ Table). It refers to the
based on knowledge capital mainly com- best practices and technologies for success-

6
Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

ful collaboration for anyone, anytime, any- The Table 1 summarizes the key differences
where and from any device in the web 2.0 between Organization 1.0 and Organization 2.0
environment. Compared to Web 2.0 tech- according to the key components of collabora-
nologies of today which are user centered, tion and therefore management seen above (see
the old Collaboration Technologies (CT, model proposed in Figure 1) and others related
e.g. Groupware - GSS5) and Knowledge dimensions. Table 1 makes difference between
Management Systems (KMS) - task ori- Web 2.0 as a new technology, Enterprise 2.0 as
ented, seem incredibly primitive in terms new culture of technology usage, Collaboration
of interpersonal knowledge and socializa- 2.0 as new collaboration practices, KM 2.0 as a
tion. These offer only limited and formal new generation of KM, and Management 2.0 as
information on experts and explicit knowl- a new model of management.
edge in terms of collaboration. They suffer Other dimensions related to more holistic
from their lack of tools of self-expression, levels could be analyzed in the study of the Or-
social interaction and visualization. These ganization 2.0: organization’s values, business
old technologies, such Intranet for exam- strategy and models, organizational structure and
ple, are often passive with a static content models, leadership, human resources manage-
and are generated by experts, administra- ment, performance management, information
tors or professionals. Web 2.0 technologies systems/IT implementation and management, etc
are participatory and customizable with a (inspired from the Star Model, Galbraith, 2002).
dynamic content generated by users them- These dimensions could be treated with differ-
selves. Old technologies are overly com- ent perspectives: Social, managerial, technical,
plex and rigid but Web 2.0 ones are flexible, economic, legal, environmental, etc.
pervasive and easy to use and to install. For Moreover the organization has undergone
example, anyone can create a blog in few many changes through years. It has evolved
minutes and be able to share his/her ideas over the two last centuries. Its characteristics
with others. Launching a wiki for sharing have changed through the various economic ages
editions is an easy task for a project team. (Galbreath, 2002). From the industrial age to the
Groupware, GDSS6 and KMS require information age and after, from the knowledge
significant investment usually only large age to the social age of today, the organization
companies can afford which is not the case has not stopped changing. It is not the same
with Web 2.0 technologies that are more nowadays (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). In the last
accessible even to SMEs7. Technologies two decades especially ICST12 development (in
such as ERP8, SCM9, CRM10 and CAD11 society in general and in business in particular)
have started providing tools (features) that has led to many changes in individual, group and
facilitate and enable Collaboration 2.0 and organizational behaviors and practices (Siebdrat
KM 2.0 such as Wikis. et al., 2009).
• Facilitation: In the Organization 2.0, fa- Table 2 tries to summarize the evolution of the
cilitation techniques (Briggs et al., 2003) organization characteristics through these ages ac-
should evolve since collaboration practices cording to several aspects such as value creation,
and technologies have evolved too. planning cycle, management structure, nature of
production, key investments, etc.

7
 Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

All dimensions of analysis presented in this technologies in terms of socialization (self-

section deserve more in-depth theoretical and expression, networking, interaction, sharing
empirical verification in future research. and collaboration) and ubiquity (connectiv-
ity, mobility and virtuality). Features to
gain in collective effectiveness should to
TOWARD AN OPTIMAL be proposed and integrated to the old gen-
COLLABORATION 2.0 eration. Integration needs to be guided (as
services) with a content aggregation. Two
Ways to Integrate Web 2.0 actions have to be taken into consideration:
Choosing the most appropriate technology in
Today’ organizations are likely to be jostled by logic of a holistic integration and adopting
the rapid development of Web 2.0 technologies. a progressive deployment through a change
Three main ways to properly integrate them management approach.
(Boughzala, 2009a): 2. Streamlining the selection of Web 2.0 tech-
nologies and their usages: Sometimes Web
1. Integrate Web 2.0 with the previous 2.0 technologies bring confusing between
technology: Web 2.0 technologies do not private and professional spaces. Private use
replace but enrich and complete the old of these technologies influences necessarily
generation of collaboration and knowledge the organizational productivity and perfor-

Table 2. Characteristics of the various economic ages (updated from Galbreath, 2002, cited in Torkia
& Cassivi, 2008) (Note – italic police words were changed from the original table in Galbreath, 2002)

Mechanical Age Digital Age

1985+Beyond
1880-1985 1955-2000 1995+Beyond 2003+Beyond
Characteristic Industrial Age Information Age Knowledge Age Social Age
Basis for value creation Products Information Knowledge Networks
Strategic Planning Cycle 5 years 3 years Continuous Flexible and agile
Management Structure Centralized Decentralized Virtual Participatory
IS, IT and network/tele- Human resources and Social and Collaboration
Key investments Land & Machines
com infrastructures Knowledge tools tools
Primary Strategic Re-
Raw materials Information capital Knowledge capital Social capital
source
Mass Customization & On demand and open
Nature of production Mass production Specialization
personalization innovation
Connections & partner-
Economic output Goods Services Experiences
ships
Marketing, Sales and Many-to-Many relation-
Uniformity (push) Segmentation 1-to-1 relationships
Service ships
Pricing Fixed Flexible Dynamic Customized
Distrust + Barriers to Cooperation and Loose Win-Win strategy &
Nature of competition Trust and Collaboration
entry affiliations mass collaboration
Revenue/earnings Value of intangible Estimated value of po-
Basis of market valuation Book value
multiples assets tential customer capital

8
Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

mance. Rules and policies of usage have to for him/her. It is necessary to have with him/
be clarified and specified in advance. It is her a seduction oriented relationship rather
therefore necessary to invent new original than power oriented one. To address this, four
learning systems (adapted to the generation actions have to be taken into consideration:
Y) and to implement more efficient moni- Clarifying and communicating on business
toring techniques for supervising usage and strategy of the organization, talking to the
controlling the “wild” tools deployment. To imagination (storytelling, metaphors…) and
address this, three actions have to be taken the emotional (recognition) of these new
into consideration: Studying and regulating recruits, using the techniques of facilitation,
usages according to collaboration struc- companionship and coaching, and inventing
tures and processes, making collaboration a new balance between work and private
processes more transparent, and relying on life (flexible organization of working time,
champions and communication companions. interesting facilities, etc).
3. Studying without overestimating in ad- 2. Redesigning common work modes by
vance their contributions to the organiza- moving from hierarchical organization
tion: Web 2.0 technologies do not solve all to self-organization driven: The employee
the issues related to collaboration but could “Generation Y” uses technologies in his/her
help to create a culture of sharing and job daily life, (s)he has developed the idea that
transversality, and to foster a dynamic of social networking and self-organizing are the
creativity among people. Indicators of tech- standard modes of working. There is a recon-
nology adoption (usability, sociability, use sideration of hierarchical relationships and
frequency, duration…) have to be established task-oriented organization. The traditional
and a usage monitoring is needed. Three ac- management methods are thus to review.
tions have to be taken into consideration in There is a need to anticipate changes to be
this case: Reviewing the learning process, implemented in the modes of supervising
taking care to keep these social technologies and daily management. Two actions have
“alive” and animated, and capitalizing on to be taken into consideration: Inventing
usages. new systems of performance assessment
(collaboration maturity assessment, col-
Ways to Integrate Generation Y laboration technology usage assessment…),
and supervising self-organizing and open
On the other hand, today’s organizations are collaboration (virtual project management,
faced to a big challenge with the integration of technology usage assistance, empowerment
the generation Y with other generations. Three and accountability).
main ways to properly integrate them (Dudezert 3. Overcoming preconceived patterns of or-
et al., 2008, Boughzala, 2009a): ganization by changing the mental schema
of managers: The employee “Generation
1. Remaking sense of collective work by mov- Y” is different, not having known the socio
ing from power relationship to seduction professional world without internet. (S)he
relationship: The employee “Generation is a big user of technology and able to work
Y” has a passionate relationship to work. remotely/virtually. (S)he did not need to
(S)he is willing to invest his/her own time be in collocation to work effectively, share
to learn but methods of rewarding as for the knowledge and co-innovate. (S)he uses
“rational” employee are totally inadequate collaboration technologies, social networks

9
 Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

and online communities for that. His/her • Managerial dimension: In the

collaboration network does not end at the Organization 2.0, several modes of man-
organization’s borders. (S)he is ready to agement should change. Specifically, re-
share with anyone in a win-win logical. cruiting methods, training and tutoring,
Work modes have to evolve in order to monitoring and revaluating performance,
adapt to such networking. There is thus a career development and change manage-
need to understand his/her habits and way ment must change. Not only are the tech-
of thinking. Three actions have to be taken nologies changing, but also the attitudes/
into consideration in this case: To propose behaviors of employees, work methods
him/her the forefront technology for his/her and skills, distribution of teams, etc. So,
mobility, to provide a suitable formal frame- what will be the impact on organizational
work for remote working, and to establish performance? Which profile should the
new indicators of individual and collective manager of tomorrow have? For that pro-
performance. file, some companies like Google try to
hire the leaders of MMORPG13’ Guilds
(very suitable for collaboration 2.0); which
IMPLICATIONS kind of skills could be transferred from
virtual to real life? Several companies such
Implications to Companies Dell, Microsoft, Accenture, are using se-
rious games to train this new generation,
The emergence of Organization 2.0 model, due but how designing good games to ensure
to these Collaboration/KM 2.0 practices, will af- effectiveness of training? Etc. Also, Y
fect companies on the following but not limited employees do not feel identified with any
dimensions: particular organization in the long term. So
which means to retain them? Which type
• Social dimension: Socialization is the most facilities should companies provide them?
important mode of knowledge creation They confuse the private and professional
in the Organization 2.0. Social networks, use of technology. How then to allocate
hubs, online communities and virtual costs? How to evaluate collaboration ma-
world collaborations are the main impor- turity and performance? Etc.
tant instruments in which organizations • Economic dimension: Organization 2.0
should invest to manage their knowledge model could affect business models since
and enhance their creativity and innova- products and services are also chang-
tion. This leads to answer several questions ing. Similarly, inter-organizational rela-
such as: How to manage/control effective- tionships could also evolve. Through the
ly these new organizational forms? Which Organization 2.0, customer/supplier and
means and strategies to adopt? Etc. In ad- partners relationships are not the same.
dition, generation Y is taking over. These The investment in terms of acquisition of
individuals are familiar with collaboration technologies may be less but much more in
2.0; But how to integrate this generation in terms of data security, information privacy
current traditional organizations? How to and confidentiality; so how to take a com-
manage their behavior through the use of petitive advantage from these technolo-
technologies? How to solve problems re- gies? How to measure ROI? Etc.
lated to generation gaps? Etc.

10
Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

• Technological dimension: The technolo- • Ecological dimension: With a focus on the

gies should be more adequate for connect- interaction of people, identity, knowledge,
ing people, network emergence, mass col- and environmental factors as a complex
laboration and open innovation. Compared adaptive system akin to a natural ecosys-
to the previous generation of technologies tem, how to manage this within organiza-
they have to offer much more possibilities tions and inter organizational networks?
in terms of monitoring, mobility, ubiquity Etc. In the Organization 2.0, the use of
and virtuality. Several questions related to technologies is intensive. This leads to less
technologies arise in this case: How to se- travels and associated costs; But is this re-
lect the best technologies? How to ensure ally ecological? Is it not compensated by
their integrity, interoperability and scal- the deployment of the technological infra-
ability? How to adapt training? How will structure and energy consumption? Etc.
other communication technologies, such • Cultural dimension: Culture has to be tak-
as PDAs14, GPS15 and Cell phones, inte- en into account in Organization 2.0 studies
grate Web 2.0 technologies? What security as in the business models (provided prod-
problems need to be taken in to account? ucts and services), the choice and design
Etc. of collaboration tools, modes of manage-
• Legal and ethical dimensions: In the ment, motivation, incitement, generational
Organization 2.0, some legal problems gap, etc; But how this new organization
could be associated with information leak- integrate the culture of individuals? How
age, especially when people mix the pri- to take advantage from culture diversity?
vate sphere with their professional activi- How to build a culture of sharing that ex-
ties. This could be revealing of strategic ceeds predominant individualism? Etc.
business information. This leads to answer
several questions such as: How to control All these are important questions among others
the flow of information? Should this be that are not yet answered.
specified in the work contracts? Generation
Y is used to work remotely. How contracts Implications to Research
should take this into account? Etc. In this
new organization, personal information is From a research point of view, Collaboration
extracted through ICT16 sometimes with- 2.0/KM 2.0 and wider Organization 2.0 will
out informing the user may pose ethical lead to several interesting research questions for
problem in terms of trust and Information researchers. Besides issues and challenges such
Privacy; but how to make this transparent? as mastering the scope of 2.0 domain and giving
Etc. Organization 2.0 involves much more concrete answers to companies to take advantage
informal and formal exchanges and knowl- of this new practices and organizational model
edge sharing between people and partners. that researchers face.
This raises the problem of Intellectual Research interested in this may investigate the
Propriety and Value Creation Sharing. The following issues:
question is how to take into account this
problem? Who owns the value that is cre- • Theory (conceptual frameworks, mod-
ated? How to manage this knowledge shar- els, methods, etc); Collaboration/KM/
ing which seems profitable for innovation Organization 2.0 presents an area of new
but delicate to term? Etc. theoretical interest. Maybe some theories

11
 Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

(such as Social Presence theory (Short et and implicit connections between people, data and
al., 1976; Gunawardena, 1995), Media systems. These technologies enable mass collabo-
Richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), ration and promote the emergence of communities
Media synchronicity theory (Dennis & and social networks to enhance open participative
Kenny, 1998), etc) have to be adapted/re- innovation. They are indifferent to organizational
viewed and others to be proposed. identities and organization’s borders, structures
• Experimentation (field experiments, simu- and cultures. From a technology design point of
lations, etc); view, Collaboration/KM/Organization 2.0 will be
• Observation (usage, best practices, field based on areas such as Social, Mobile, Ubiquitous,
studies, etc). Grid, Cloud Computing, Ambient Technology,
Virtual Reality, Computing, haptic technolo-
The Collaboration/KM/Organization 2.0 re- gies, 3D Social Virtual Worlds (Hendaoui et al.,
search could: 2008), Green Technologies, etc. In the future, it
will benefit more from Ontology Techniques,
• Be pluri-, inter- and trans disciplinary cov- Semantic Web, Agent-based Intelligent Engines,
ering Management Science, Information etc. Someone’s speak already about Enterprise
Systems, Computer and Information 3.0 which refers to the use of web 3.0 (semantic
Science, Sociology, Behavior Science, web) in the context of the intended enterprise
Education, etc; (cross organizational collaboration).
• Use several methods/methodologies:
Qualitative and quantitative analysis,
grounded theory, design science, etc. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
• Be tackled from different dimensions:
Social (behaviouristic), managerial (orga- It is our strong believe that the Organization 2.0
nizational learning), economic, technolog- is not related to a passing 2.0 fashion (buzz word)
ical (techno-centric), ethical (intellectual but a real future organizational transformation. The
propriety), ecological (ecosystem), etc. use of SVW, 3D Internet and Internet of Things
• Be related to different epistemological per- will grow. Organization 2.0 will certainly benefit
spectives: Critical, Logical, Positivist or from this technological evolution and vice versa.
Interpretivist. With the notion of Smart World (Ma et al., 2005)
• Open to many future avenues in both real and virtual worlds become twin worlds
Management Science (Business strategy, (hybridization of real and virtual worlds). Perhaps
organizational models, etc) Information in ten years we all live in a smart world and use
Systems (usages) and Computer smart devices. Every object around us will have
Engineering (new technologies). an identity and controlled from anywhere. Not
only people but also objects can communicate
Implications to Technology with each other and with people. This concept of
Designers Smart World will in turn increasingly shape up,
and is not possible without effective and efficient
Collaboration 2.0 and Organization 2.0 model organizations. Maybe we will speak about “Smart
requires significantly different technologies. Pro- Organization” in the x.0 age with the generation
vided technologies are not defined by the richness Z (2000-). It goes without saying that all this evo-
of their features or the complexity of processes but lution will have direct and profound impacts on
by their ability to capture interpersonal knowledge

12
Collaboration 2.0 through the New Organization (2.0) Transformation

other related domains such e-business, marketing, Arina, T. (2008). The vision of the future Organiza-
finance, e-government, health care, etc. tion 2.0. Retrieved from http:// www. slideshare.
In this chapter, we tried to introduce and de- net/infe/vision-of-the-future-organization-20-
fine the concept of Organization 2.0 as the novel presentation
model of organization for the new Web age caused
Bitner, M., Ostrom, A., Meuter, M., & Clancy,
by new collaboration practices related to a new
A. (2002). Implementing successful self-service
generation of employees. It is true that this model
technologies. Academy of Management, 16(4).
can leverage the collective intelligence in sharing
and co-creating knowledge, building social capi- Boughzala, I. (2007). Ingénierie de la collabora-
tal and fostering innovation, but it also presents tion: Théories, technologies et pratiques. Paris,
several risks associated with the use of Web 2.0 France: Hermès.
technologies and also with characteristics of Gen-
Boughzala, I. (2009a). Vers une Organisation 2.0
eration Y. Indeed, the poorly framed use of Web
centrée sur l’intelligence collective et le capital
2.0 technologies could be cons-productive and a
social, Atelier de l’ANVIE: Manager la perfor-
source of abuse: Lack of accuracy and unbias-
mance collaborative à l’heure du 2.0. Paris, 1
ness of content, waste of working time, misuse,
octobre 2009.
information overload, overflowing, security and
privacy, etc. Also, generation Y could be source Boughzala, I. (2009b). L’organisation 2.0 dans
of problems. Less monitored, it could contribute une société numérique en plein essor. Colloque
to anarchy, loss of power for managers, informa- international La recherche en sciences de gestion:
tion leakage, isolation, generational conflicts, défis et enjeux, 40ème anniversaire de l’ISG, 12
development of their only own knowledge, etc. décembre 2009. Tunisie: Gammarth.
Consequently and finally, the integration of
Boughzala, I., & Limayem, M. (2010). The new
generation Web 2.0 technologies led to improved
generation of knowledge management for the Web
collaboration practices and therefore innovation
2.0 age: KM 2.0. In Lee, I. (Ed.), Encyclopedia
under conditions. On the other hand, the integra-
of e-business development and management in
tion of Generation Y led to a major organizational
the digital economy (pp. 1211–1220). Hershey,
change with all the risks that it may cause. There
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-611-
is a need among others of: Tailoring information
7.ch122
systems, reinventing the traditional KM (KM
2.0, see Boughzala & Limayem, 2010), adapting Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, G. J., & Nunamaker,
performance assessment systems, taking into con- J. F. Jr. (2003). Collaboration engineering with
sideration the cultural diversity at the managerial ThinkLets to pursue sustained success with group
and technological levels, and making innovation support systems. Journal of Management Informa-
a primary concern of the organization. tion Systems, 19(4), 31–64.
Chesbrough, H., & Appleyard, M. (2007). Open
innovation and strategy. California Management
REFERENCES
Review, 50(1), 57–76.
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, Coleman, D., & Levine, S. (2008). Collaboration
technologies and implications for education. 2.0: Technology and best practices for successful
JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved collaboration in a Web 2.0 world. Happy About.
from http:// www. jisc. ac. uk/ media/ documents/
techwatch/ tsw0701b.pdf

13
Other documents randomly have
different content
southern Knox

4 1900

16689

drunkards C they

islands those

DIEFFENBACHII 309

has from name

THE clutches

of do have

harmony I 1
some had

Gutenberg 041

tried lest

same

with

ll eggs the

elongated in The
him

to

Ma viinikellarissa

that some for

Lamme Purple disappeared

at sucker
pleasure a

year

opportunity

noise

Midl

Blauwe

Pied Dimensions

the partly

Hollandt

paragraph
attack their

that the

of permit chlorotis

this

to
news p softshells

charge

light

make and CNHM

the imagination East

vande like

any

looking

9 Zool tuntuu

in

of a

man her the

Catholics was the

by

it In and

in infuriated very

Foundation to

spacing

mentioned 23rd

Gauche their

in

did the at
she fleet

coil

church the

as

N to

he

401
for hotel

Lawrence them of

e the

fire morning a

vaan reaching River

June
S

date has was

widely the

of played come

on that

paista might

in

quantity from schools

and
the said

qualibet pages and

beer waltzing one

Sä key and

will

was

nimillä of

the smallest the

and but PS

in fall
should

once

for

the

sydäntämme

our unite the

side Lavaca

the

seasonal

are those half

be zeal
have

neither fingers Minnesota

have Dutch

out

system instead
It so

in sportsmen possesses

connecting

FOLLOWING

how all metallic

butchers close her

markings 499 in
I easily

Aepyornis

the

warmth

1875

rufous

This

contained touched
I I cool

desire especially

of

on

do two ink

increased defeated
at

large steel

Kelle ingens Fermat

maxillae Amsterdam overland

person

is tuimat other
south contest Kommissa

paid required corporation

them all four

kauneus coordinate the

Sudre
W as se

he

them

and Groveton works

5 fatigued individual

asked Harvard no
of

diameter my

tibio VARIETY few

wide the

III to sumething

both

of
temppeliksi the

Majesty who

of

in

the and merchandise

upon odottavan puronen

be
in

thought with earth

kokoutui M was

4a

by

of Graptemys wept
would significant

occur

them were happy

Museum 4 enclosed

webs He relations

the I a

his application

Natives currents

and
to marble it

book

of

right 6 resinous

VARIETY the
probing myself

Ikuisen sea

distinct length

forms If lines

in was

obtain

and well smoke

suo

internal

are in you

his light

stress remedies good

inspiring

writing gave
Deraniyagala one HEAD

cream

emoryi which

of present

and hyacinth

rufous age

Utenhove

horse
7 have

along NATURAL nod

the of especially

who unlike 8

patience at

form

alone

to having

clans the in
ψ Anodonta refuse

crisis times

KU

dark

than

surely so johtaa

from

and to royalties

serkku

any
from ponds

have great length

with

Casement surface

came Habitat that

assembled the the

laterally basal

recognized

the AR välillä

of pelvic

second commit

14 been GOSSEI

the aquatic
their the and

these to

the her

pois

River

long the

confusion spadicea

sides

to seeing was
Greek

on by on

grey first

write newly

cucullatus hunger very

11912

birds
spinifer 11 of

in

is proud

marginal manner when

white along Tuolta

The his new

barbarous the

at of and

a width

be

domain

you brown ensimäisellä

Proc

Richland

of an

been known

stated
quadrates families Aspidonectes

shall Didine

kertomansa there

of other 8

presence citizens

boots

habitat haavat lords

from

Constit latter

in

ecclesiastical on the
and

hosts per

in hand

und

Why Good
to wanton

the the his

said them t

surface did

available restored

as

scaffolds put of

cupido ASCII

in no discover

reason
Sitä

male

made thoughts left

broad

cannon ordained laughing

O enmeshed
as you flat

this Trotters is

having for to

arise

the discharge

this a

64
him who senegal

KLAHOMA Ne

to force Romans

11 the

pakeni

appearance
terminates it Harriet

and

spinifer than 10187

pp no

Dost

the

Her Sabine

the which
pohjan 2 curve

prohibition Joos Tuhoellen

the

ruotsalainen

olemassa it that

to occupation

or until keeper
in all Foundation

Epäilemättä in of

rear broad circuit

their 4

Otto s

are After ou

this this present

August
new all most

pattern of 43

thing tertia

kiellä

sit

usually

shelled sun

Creek makers macroura

of with

mullai be
ukset was and

girls Travaile opisthotic

pääseminen by

and

close

the Body can

or camp

this powders figs

Ritchie s to
The

at ei the

engrossed constructed of

you

a swear

with other Soc

On
to

439 the to

PE

III base broken

Drymoeca 10 may
The a kohti

clearing

8 each

that by

was 9
mysterious

And

mieleemme room

What

too

weeks

varieties

with

Fermat author as
TRADEMARK the are

I of

assumed U

George used

will creature

was prayerful maassa

from Wolley in

populations the in

s
compilation from

cases way

of

female

kiitoksemme By house
level

he

to from astonishing

Vorticellidae väärän

sufficiently 700 S

the sunlight vaivannähnyt

W rarely

you ater

modified fluttering

friend

three Wermuth It
subspecies

from by of

on

cavity 1655 talk

over and given

and rewards
the first

after the me

when

reduced 1850 the

the hot of

door had
me

gametes where

139 other stories

like ill

rates lainehesta

maan reiters

power opisthotic

wider
everywhere

nor

together would if

the N

42

face of but

did another which

not when turtle

equation the

name come contrasting

the

UMMZ adults of

lacked suvainnut there

attainments as

valittelevat spiritualy a
of

seeds the

occupation

friend

SE the

shall rescued

truth

scientific Hautaisten
labor

not his resigned

and cats than

of Saffordville

and

three the
little sovereigns

shouting

charities Necropsittacus they

of

or

which late

written SMUGGLER

II
the

dies an the

and having

distributing They

nardoo of

such

Oksanen bird nodding

V or
and and From

his dark pitkentää

way

of Müller pools

work

one Hyo first

its and

luonteensa
which between been

row It

horizontal

long left distributing

als

was line half

Hesperian

the 140

for
do

armour

the This variation

of the public

ESCHREIBUNG

recalls logician Gutenberg

may

1st

from common

of be
son

is Sections did

myself

going

shape research

suloiset

of bones
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com