Where do lost ideas go?

The summer is usually when I do my best blog posts. This summer (the first as a "Doctor" in which I will not be working on my dissertation), I am using my time to apply for jobs. This is very time consuming as there are many different requirements schools demand depending on the position. One of the jobs I am applying to is as instructor in writing and critical inquiry. Most writing positions demand a writing sample (which I'm having difficulty identifying as to what is relevant). So I decided to revise one of my previous blog posts.

Where do lost ideas go?

My process for writing my dissertation makes me wonder about what happens to ideas that are created and then lost while I write. I try to write at least two hours a day. When writing at home, I am often interrupted. As a result, I find I have to continually read what I have written and try to capture the thought I had. However, as I am creating the knowledge, what happens if it is lost? Was it truly an important thought? Upon rereading what I have written (in order to recapture an idea I might have lost), might I not create a deeper understanding of what I am writing? And where does that idea go that was lost? Is that lost knowledge? Or is it just part of the process of idea generation and knowledge building?

I occasionally see this with my own students, who have created a speech using PowerPoint. In their presentations, they will sometimes forget to mention something and may go back to it. I am continually asking them, however, how important that piece of information is for the audience to understand the speech. If speaker has forgotten to present a specific piece of information, perhaps it is not really necessary for the audience. The speakers may still have that knowledge in their head which allows them to understand what they are saying. In fact, that specific piece of information was a building block for presenters as they were creating their speech (and a basis for their speech as a whole), but the knowledge may not be necessary for the audience to understand the speech.

I think of it like a building that is built on the ruins of others. The original building creates a foundation and even a structure upon which a new building can be constructed. However, it is not necessary that the new building be constructed exactly the same as the original. More often than not it is improved upon, creating its own flavor or style. It is a unique creation in the end, which also can be built upon. This is the same for edits or lost versions of anything that we write. We may have a structure or framework from which to work, but our ideas evolve and become unique as we revise our writing (or try to reconstruct documents that have been lost because of computer glitches!).

It is difficult to let go of the lost ideas, just as it is difficult to create something new rather than going back to the original design. The process as we discard, change, and/or create something new helps us to have a deeper understanding in general of the topic. Writing helps us document our thinking, although not all thoughts will be put down. This might be the underlying reason for why project based learning creates a deeper level of learning than can be measured in a finished product or even a test.

Knowledge Genres

For weeks, I have been grappling with the "categories of knowledge" I developed in my knowledge grid. During my defense, my adviser pushed me to define what these categories were. Needless to say, my inability to define what exactly these "categories" were and what they represented made me revisit and revise my dissertation. It took a while, but I finally realized that "category of knowledge" did not really reflect the concept I was trying to express. On the other hand, these categories were the central concept of my findings; these came before I was really able to identify what my findings were.

I finally decided I would need to name these concepts using a new term. The closest I came to expressing these "categories of knowledge" were knowledge genres. Once I had a term to describe this concept, I was able to create a framework to identify knowledge genres which eventually I will use to identify design features to optimize knowledge creation.

Defining Knowledge Genres

Genres standardize rituals and rhetoric, influence work patterns, promote particular ways of acting, and set orientation to thinking (Berkendotter & Huckin, 2005; Dias et al., 1999; Nonaka, 1994). In analyzing collaborative writing in distributed groups, genres could be applied to different ways in which knowledge is organized, created, accessed, and used. I refer to this structuring of knowledge as knowledge genres.

I identified two underlying bases for the structuring of knowledge genres which I call transactional knowledge and negotiated knowledge. Transactional and negotiated knowledge both are grounded in the social interaction of the distributed group, but are used for different purposes, create different work patterns, result in different perceptions of ownership and agency, and set different orientations of thinking. The result is different structures in the organization, creation, storage, and access of knowledge which creates different knowledge genres.

Framework for Identifying Knowledge Genres

Based on the findings, an emerging structure to understand knowledge genres was developed. The framework for identifying knowledge genres includes four dimensions:

• type of knowledge;

• level of perceived agency and ownership (individual, intragroup, intergroup, extergroup);

• purpose of knowledge creation (transactional or negotiated); and

• situational factors such as location, level of interaction between distributed group members, time, and external influences.

This section with will discuss the emerging theoretical basis of the framework, and then apply the framework to two examples of knowledge genres referenced by the study participants.

Three types of knowledge

The traditional categories of knowledge are content (or explicit knowledge), competency (or tacit knowledge), and expertise (which is performance based). However,there is a need to redefine the categories as the parameters of knowledge are reconceptualized in the context of distributed groups. Defining knowledge according to depth of knowledge or level of internalization is an insufficient basis for defining knowledge and knowledge creation in a distributed group because knowledge can be partaged. In addition, a social and knowledge networks may have knowledge which may not apply or be perceived as having value to all current situations. However, access to social and knowledge networks can create social spaces that allow for the creation of knowledge for distributed groups or individual members in the future.

Based on the findings discussed in the previous chapter, the definition of knowledge based on depth of knowledge could be expanded to be knowledge genres defined by level of tangibility. Unlike the traditional collaborative knowledge model, the model developed through this study proposes a continuum of tangibility within knowledge genres where three types of knowledge attributes (tangible representation of knowledge, processes and tacit knowledge, and partaged knowledge) are actually on a continuum of tangibility.

The three types of knowledge attibutes I identify as:
1. Tangible representation of knowledge which can be represented by policies, forms, formats, curriculum, degrees or credentials, records, and other artifacts at the individual, group, departmental, organizational, and/or professional level;

2. Procedural and tacit knowledge, which includes an understanding of work processes and the knowledge created as a result of those processes; and

3. Partaged knowledge, which was knowledge created through the linking of ideas, social relationships, cognitive interaction, and/or cultural interaction.

Knowledge genres are used by distributed group members to identify, discuss, understand, value, and create shared mental models and relevant knowledge at all four levels of interaction (individual, intra-group, inter-group, extern-group). The choice of genre is dependent upon environmental factors, power structure(s), knowledge networks, and work task requirements. At one end of the continuum is knowledge that can be identified as transactional and at the other end is knowledge that is negotiated. As knowledge becomes less tangible, groups are able to create knowledge through interaction and negotiation (negotiated knowledge). In other words, partaged knowledge is negotiated or knowledge that is created through group interaction.

In the emerging theory of distributed group knowledge creation, the type of knowledge defined as tangible representation of knowledge is close to Kolb’s (1984) comprehensive knowledge. This is knowledge that can be articulated, represented in various forms (such as visuals, documents, presentations, interviews), and stored for future use. Unlike the more traditional content or explicit knowledge, tangible representation of knowledge may include implicit knowledge. For example, educational credentials (e.g., licensing, degrees) tangibly represent certain knowledge that may include implicit and explicit knowledge. These credentials can be used as currency within a group, thus making knowledge appear tangible. However, within a traditional model of knowledge creation or knowledge management theories, the knowledge that credentials represent would be considered a competency or implicit knowledge that would be expected to be applied in any given situation. In the traditional model, the knowledge that credentials represent would then be both implicit and explicit knowledge, fitting into two different categories: content knowledge and competency (Cook & Brown, 1999; Cook & Yanow, 1993). The emerging theory of distributed group knowledge creation, therefore, needs to allow for a broader definition of knowledge genre attributes that includes abstract and tacit knowledge that can be represented through visuals, documents, and artifacts and stored for use by others.

In reconceptualizing the term competency to procedural and tacit knowledge, knowledge genre attributes move the concept of individually held knowledge and know-how to a socially constructed understanding of how things work within a given situation. It expands the concept of individually possessed knowledge about procedures and processes from a purely cognitive definition (competency) (Allee, 1997; Contu & Willmott, 2003; Raelin, 2008) to a socially constructed understanding of the situation in which procedures and processes are used (requiring analytical ability), the intangible variables that affect the situation, and the interpersonal relationships and meaning negotiation that create social cognition (Herling, 2000). The term competency, does not capture the alignment of knowledge within distributed group power structures, the withholding or use of knowledge based on perceived value, the negotiation of knowledge, the development of knowledge networks, or the distancing of work from the individual based on perceived ownership or agency. In the study, processes and procedures represented work quality expectations, reconciling processes and procedures between group members and departments, and understanding the environment in which work was situated. This indicates a much deeper level of socially constructed understanding, situational analysis, and understanding of how and why things function a certain way, which requires the new term procedural and tacit knowledge.

The use of distributed groups has allowed for both collaboratively constructed knowledge, also referred to as a shared mental model (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001) and the distribution of knowledge throughout an organization (Nonaka, 1994; Raelin, 2008) However, there is no term for knowledge that can be both shared and divided for future use. I use the term partaged knowledge for knowledge that one would need to be able to access and link to other knowledge (i.e., linking ideas, putting into context). The term partaged knowledge is derived from the French word partager, which means both to share and to divide. Partaged knowledge might be internal, such as what happens during an individual’s writing process. Initially there may be many ideas, seemingly without any correlation (divided). Through the writing process, an author must link together those ideas into one cohesive whole (thus the sharing or putting together through interaction of ideas).

Partaged knowledge can also happen with group processes in which members come into the group (especially a distributed group) with different expertise, access to resources, cultural influences, and experience/mental models of the work (divided resources and expertise). Through their work processes, group members’ knowledge is partaged or distributed through knowledge networks throughout the group and beyond. This partaged or distributed knowledge is then accessed when needed and modified or translated for use within a given situation. Partaged knowledge, therefore, includes the ability to co-create knowledge, divide the knowledge for later use, access the knowledge when needed, and translate or interpret the knowledge for a given situation. Partaged knowledge is the most valuable for knowledge-based organizations as it allows for knowledge to be evenly distributed throughout the organization, thus making organizations less vulnerable should an employee leave (Allee, 1997). It also allows for others who are not directly exposed to content, work processes, experience, and/or environments to be able to access knowledge outside of an individual’s knowledge base. Knowledge can be part of the network internal to the group, external to the group, within the profession, internal to the organization, and external to the organization. However, partaged knowledge is difficult to quantify, control, and capture because it is situated, visceral, and colocated.

Partaged knowledge is created through creative practices (writing, design, problem solving) rather than through the imposition of formats or processes. In the traditional knowledge model, expertise is an intangible form of knowledge held at varying degrees by individual group members and demonstrated through performance (Herling, 2000, Nonaka, 1994. Yaklief, 2002, 2010). Expertise assumes that knowledge boundaries are static and access to knowledge ultimately is based on the individual and his or her ability to use the knowledge. In the emerging theory of distributed group knowledge creation, expertise, tacit knowledge, and content can be held by individuals, the group, the organization, or even stakeholders in the form of partaged knowledge. It is not enough for an individual to be able to access information. Rather, it is important to link ideas; add knowledge to the group and/or organization; store the knowledge within a network for future use by others; value knowledge situated in differing power structures and knowledge networks; and link new meaning to established meaning, negotiating the creation of new knowledge boundaries within the distributed group knowledge system.

Partaged knowledge also differs from expertise in that partaged knowledge is the possibility of future knowledge creation when it is needed. Partaged knowledge is the possibility to access and create knowledge within a knowledge network in the future. Even the concept of what knowledge may be needed is abstract with partaged knowledge, although partaged knowledge is based upon a knowledge network that will allow those who are part of the network to access knowledge when needed. To access and use the network, individuals, groups, and organizations need to understand where and when to create knowledge.

Location of knowledge creation, agency, and ownership

The traditional model of knowledge creation locates knowledge and ownership of knowledge with the individual (Nonaka, 1994; Raelin, 2008). Nonaka further identified an individual’s level of autonomy as a requirement for organizational knowledge creation. The granting of autonomy is termed agency. In the traditional model, the idea of agency and ownership are separate with agency being controlled by the power structure and ownership tied to work task artifacts (Lundsford, 1999; Lundsford & Ede, 1992). An individual who contributes to the work task artifact would be a partial owner of the knowledge created through the distributed group process merely by contributing to the process. The degree of ownership would depend on the level that agency was granted.

However, this study suggests that agency plays an important role in how distributed group members and their knowledge networks perceive ownership. The perception of ownership and agency is as much an individual construct which relates to social identity theory as it is a socially defined construct created through interaction by distributed groups based on perceived agency at the intra-group, inter-group, and exter-group levels. The findings of this study suggest that agency is not as much granted as perceived as being granted by those within the power structure through the use of genres (communication and knowledge), perceived value of individual contributions, distributed work processes, and perceived ownership of the final work artifacts and created knowledge. In the study, the greater level of perceived individual agency to create knowledge within a distributed work task, the greater perception of individual ownership over the knowledge and work task artifact.

The emerging theory for knowledge creation in distributed groups, therefore, would use a continuum to identify perceived level of agency and resulting ownership depending on the distance between the individual group member and the perception of where knowledge was created. In other words, an individual without individual agency may perceive that knowledge is created and owned by the organization when group processes, contributions to created knowledge, and knowledge genres are dictated by the organization. Even though the individual contributed work to the creation of knowledge and distributed group artifacts, the individual did not have agency. As a result, ownership moves from those completing work tasks to those that dictate discourse communities, knowledge genres, and work values, norms, and processes. An individual can create distance between his or her perceived level of ownership of work in order to maintain his or her social identity when individual agency is taken away. Therefore, the location of agency (individual, intra-group, inter-group, and exter-group) will have an effect on the location of perceived ownership.

The continiuum I developed to represent the distance between the individual and the level that he or she perceives the location agency and ownership of knowledge creation in distributed groups places high individual agency at one end and low individual agency at the other. The greater the level of individual agency the closer an individual perceives ownership of created knowledge by the individual. On the other end of the continuum, the absence of individual agency in distributed group processes, the greater distance in ownership between the individual and the knowledge created through distributed group processes.

Situating knowledge boundaries

There are a number of situational and environmental factors that affect the creation of knowledge and the use of knowledge genres in distributed group work. As discussed in previous chapters, knowledge creation in distributed groups are situated in the work patterns and power structures within which distributed groups work (Contu & Willmott, 2003; Foss & Pedersen, 2002; Goodwin, 1994; Laufer et al., 1998; Sternberg & Horvath, 1999). Those work patterns and power structures affect how knowledge is valued; where knowledge is created, stored, accessed, and used; who has access to valued knowledge within the workplace, discourse communities, communities of practice, and the power structures; and when different types of knowledge is accessible from (often) competing power structures, knowledge networks, and social networks.

Theories in group communication (Akoyo, et al., 2002; Engleberg & Allison, 2007; Galanes, 2007; Gersick, 1988), communities of practice (Boland, 1992; Haythornthwaite et al., 2000; Johnson, 2001), discourse communities (Hagtvet & Wold, 2003; Parks, 2001; Russel, 1997), and organizational culture (Collis, 1999; Cook & Brown, 1999; Goodwin, 1994; King & Frost, 2002) apply to the study findings that situational factors such as the power structure, access to resources, and social interaction affect knowledge creation in distributed groups. Expanding on these theories, I identified situational factors that affect a distributed group’s knowledge creation as: (a) knowledge networks, social networks, work environment, and power structures of distributed groups including the choice and application of tools; (b) the creation, choice, dissemination, and use of formats; (c) membership in discourse communities; (d) modality of interaction; and (e) the use, creation, modification, storage, application, and collection of distributed group artifacts. Many of these factors both affect and have an effect on the power structure(s) that control the environment and knowledge boundaries in which distributed groups create knowledge. Based on the findings of this study, I propose that creation of knowledge genres are bound by three situational attributes in distributed groups: temporal orientation, access to resources, and level and modality of interaction.

Temporal orientation is the perceived amount of time allowed for negotiation, creation, interaction, and storage of knowledge created by distributed group processes. Any given situation can require that either individual members or the distributed group as a whole create knowledge in a short time period (i.e., minutes or hours) or knowledge is created over a long period of time (i.e., months or years). In the study, if the knowledge needed to accomplish a task was located away from the individual (e.g., within a knowledge network, community of practice, or discourse community), temporal orientation was more long term. The temporal orientation also affected and was effected by group members’ perception of when the knowledge would be needed (immediately, in the short term, in the future). Knowledge genres, therefore, can be bound by how long it takes to convert knowledge into an accessible tangible representation that is valued by those who will use the knowledge, how long it will take for a member to access valued knowledge, how long knowledge will be relevant to and/or stored by those within a knowledge network, and how static the knowledge is.

Another way in which knowledge boundaries were established in the distributed group work processes were through the allocation and access of resources such as communication modalities, social interactive spaces (e.g., conference rooms, collocated offices, online spaces), content experts, and personnel, both within and outside of the organization. Knowledge could be structured based on the resources available and the expectation of the power structures.

Knowledge genres are also bound by the social structures that create the environment and social spaces that affect interaction between individual distributed group members and social circles within which they work (intragroup, intergroup, and extergroup levels). These interactive boundaries are affected by tools given for interaction (i.e., software, office space, communication tools, storage of artifacts); discourse community values, norms, and rules of interaction; and place, time, and opportunity to interact with others at different levels. Knowledge genres may be limited through control of the social structures within which a distributed group works, such as limiting who is allowed to interact, the format of the interaction, power structures valuing some forms of interaction over others (e.g., weekly meetings or interaction via the internet), and choice of discourse community (e.g., preference for one department or profession over another). However, knowledge genres may also have flexibility built in which allows for greater level of interaction and knowledge building. By establishing a more flexible structure for interaction between levels of the power structure, there may be greater control by the individual group member by giving the individual greater agency to create knowledge.

Each of these situational attributes help to define the knowledge boundaries used in the creation, storage, access, and use of knowledge while at the same locating the knowledge in the environment in which it was created.

Examples of Knowledge Genres

There were a number of knowledge genres used by participants in this study. Two of the knowledge genres study participants referred to the most when describing their work and the work of others in the distributed group were credentials and professionalism. Using the framework to identify knowledge genres outlined above, this section will identify the attributes of the knowledge genres credentials and professionalism used in this study. While perception of what credentials and professionalism was varied from group member to group member, department to department, and profession to profession, there was a shared knowledge boundary in which these genres (credentials and professionalism) were framed.

Credentials.

Credentials are the establishment of tangible representation of knowledge possessed by the individual. Credentials can take the form of reports and other documentation of individual work; degrees, drafts, postings, or notes that contribute to the group process; and transactional knowledge such as degrees, awards, and job titles. Unlike the traditional knowledge model, credentials within a distributed group is a socio-cognitive construct. Credentials represent valued knowledge that can be used or transformed into an identifiable form to be used as currency for the individual (e.g., future jobs), within the group, between groups, and externally (e.g., product or service sales). The value of the knowledge is situated within the power structure and environment in which the individual works. Credentials are situated within the knowledge needed for a particular task.

Credentials, unlike documentation, deliverables, and certification, are perceived by the individual as being owned by the individual to dispense whenever the individual believes it is to his or her advantage. As a result, a group member might have hidden credentials that they feel are undervalued or not needed by the group. Credentials also may be tied to the individual’s social identity, so the undervaluing of the individual credentials may result in a group member disengaging from the group, withholding knowledge, or presenting knowledge in a form that is inaccessible to group members (e.g., unfamiliar formats, technical jargon, limited access documents). In the last case, the individual then becomes invaluable to the group as the credentialed individual is the only one able to translate knowledge into a form that is identifiable and useful for the group.

The form that credentials can take may change depending on the who is perceived as owning the distributed work task, the alignment between levels of agency and shared mental models, and perceived location (either individual members or the distributed group as a whole) within the work task power structure. Professional credentials, such as degrees, licenses, and membership in a professional organization, will always have relevance at the extergroup level, but may not have relevance at the intergroup level when organizational and professional qualifications for a specific task are not aligned. When there is misalignment at one of the levels, then credentials may be presented in multiple forms (e.g., diploma for the organization and license for the profession).

Credentials usually represent access to discourse communities and knowledge networks that an individual perceives are relevant for a certain work task. Credentials also may be used as a starting point for interaction between an individual and others (at intragroup, intergroup, or extergroup levels) in terms of resources, expectations, and work patterns for a given task. Finally, credentials tend to have a long term orientation, as it takes a long time to develop credentials. Credentials tend to be composed of static knowledge, and once established, credentials can be stored with the individual for future use.

Professionalism.

Professionalism is trans-organizational which means that there needs to be interorganizational interaction for professionalism to exist. This interaction can come in the form of interaction and training with stakeholders, professional organizations, and professional institutions (e.g., professional training programs, higher education programs). The interaction creates both a shared mental model for the profession and an understanding of where and how to access resources within the profession so that it is unnecessary for an individual to know all aspects of the profession, but will have access to all professional knowledge when needed. In other words, professional knowledge is partaged throughout the profession and professional knowledge networks. Professionalism and professional knowledge exists outside of the individual(s) through formation of professional alliances and networks (Nonaka, 1994).

Once a person is identified as a member of the profession, he or she will need to understand where, when, and how to access community resources. However, membership in a profession is socially constructed through professional discourse communities and sub-communities (i.e. Healthcare profession and the sub-community of Healthcare Counseling profession). There are definitive knowledge boundaries that create a broad professional structure within which there is great flexibility for interaction, knowledge creation, and power structures for individual and distributed group work patterns. While the professional knowledge boundaries are fairly static, those individuals that identify themselves as members of the profession may have flexible knowledge boundaries based on interaction with others, both inside and outside of the profession. The individual will align his or her own individual knowledge boundaries with the profession, based on cognitive dissonance created through interaction with others. In other words, with knowledge perceived as professional knowledge, there is a low level of individual agency and, therefore, a high perception of ownership by the profession.

Professional knowledge, because of its partaged nature within the diverse environments in which knowledge creation occurs, is more susceptible to competing power structures. Because professional knowledge is situated in the work processes and social and knowledge networks within which a distributed group works, resources and temporal orientation vary. Therefore, the most valued members of the profession are those that understand how to access professional resources; translate professional knowledge into a form that those within and outside of the profession can understand; and create new knowledge that both fits within the professional knowledge boundaries and yet is situated within the distributed group’s work environment.

Conclusion

The framework presented to identify and understand knowledge genres used by distributed groups differs from the Traditional Model of Organizational Knowledge Creation, in that the framework (a) uses an expanded understanding of knowledge that recognizes that knowledge can be held outside of the individual within distributed group knowledge networks; (b) identifies the attributes that bind the knowledge creation process within the social and knowledge networks situated in the distributed group processes; (c) expands the location of knowledge creation through interaction and perception of influence to include social spaces outside of the organization (externgroup); and (d) identifies the relationship between agency and ownership, and the ability for individuals to contribute to a collaborative artifact without having perceived individual ownership.

Knowledge ownership

This is my third finding of my dissertation. I will post the first finding next week.

Ownership of Knowledge

The greater the level of ownership that an individual feels towards a project or piece of work, the more likely he or she will align that work to personal values and knowledge. An individual’s personal values and knowledge might be related to his or her perceived profession, desire to be accepted by the group (project group, department, organization), or the cultures that informed the individual’s work (social, organizational, professional). Just as important is an individual or group’s perceived agency in the creation and use of knowledge within the collaborative process.

According to Skitka’s (2003) AIM model of Social Identity Theory, a greater level of ownership may create higher stakes for the individual within a group. A group member would want to be tied more closely to the other group members’ norms if the individual member perceives him or her to have a higher level of ownership in the work or work processes. Therefore, if his or her work is not accepted by the group, more than his or her work is questioned; his or her social identity and group acceptance is at risk. On the other hand, if the work is perceived as conforming to the norms and values outside of the group, as the quarterly report did, the group member would perceive the ownership of the work as someone else’s. As a result, his or her social identity within the group is not at risk. As a result, he or she might be more open to changes in the final product, work processes, or group knowledge boundaries, especially if those changes are perceived as coming from those outside of the group and the organization’s power structure.

In the group studied, there was the perception that knowledge could be located, owned, and/ or accessed either by an individual or the group when needed. Externally owned knowledge (e.g. the funding agency or organization owning either transactional or negotiated knowledge) did not always need to align with personal epistemologies for collaboration to take place within the distributed group. However, with internally owned knowledge (both transactional and negotiated knowledge), the more work was perceived as being owned by an individual, the greater the necessity that the epistemologies were aligned with the organization, group, and group members in order for collaboration to take place.

As discussed in the traditional model of knowledge management, when faced with information or an event on the group level that contradicts an individual’s personal identity construct (value, knowledge, epistemology, personal schema), that person has three choices: modify his or her own personal identity; modify the group’s beliefs, values, or understanding; or leave the group in order to maintain the individual’s personal identity (Levesque et al., 2001; McGrath et al., 2000; Moreland & Levine, 2001; Skitka, 2003; Whitworth et al., 2000). However, there is a fourth option that the group in this study used: create distance between the individual and the ownership of the work, contribution to the work, and/or knowledge needed to complete the work. In other words, knowledge needed to develop the final product or outcome is created and owned by the group, department, organization, or an external entity rather than the individual.

Related to the concept of ownership is the perceived agency an individual may have over his or her own work. Agency is the perceived ability an individual has to contribute, influence, and participate in the collaborative process. Using Nonaka’s (1994) model of intention, autonomy, and fluctuation discussed in chapter 2, agency is dependent upon both individual attributes (intention and efficacy) and situational factors (power structures and the environment). The greater the perceived agency for a task, process, or final product, the greater the level the individual perceives ownership over his or her work or work products (i.e. writing, designs, etc…). While an individual may feel a sense of ownership towards the knowledge used to create a group product having been part of the group that created it, he or she may not have felt a sense of individual agency in the creation of the knowledge due to influences at the group, departmental, or professional levels.

In the traditional model of organizational knowledge creation outlined in a previous blog post, ownership of knowledge was based on the location of the group work (individual, intragroup, intergroup, organization). This model did not account for influence outside of the organization on knowledge creation and access. Most knowledge management models (Conceicao, Heitor, Gibson, & Shariq,1998; Cook & Brown, 1999; Foss, & Pedersen, 2002; Nonaka, 1994), for example, assumed that knowledge was held by individuals within the organization. Information could then be transferred from individuals to others within the organization, thus creating knowledge at different levels. Occasionally, there was discussion of transferring the knowledge to external stakeholders (Mason & Lefrere, 2003; Yakhlef, 2002). However, the ultimate owners of the knowledge, to be kept or given away, were the individuals where the knowledge was housed (Cook & Brown).

In this study, however, the closer to the individual that agency was granted, the higher the level of ownership (and the closer to personal identity) the individual felt for that knowledge. Location for agency and ownership of work can be placed on a continuum in which perceived ownership of knowledge by external stakeholders grants individuals the lowest level of individual agency. On the other end of the continuum is knowledge that is perceived as being owned by the individual, resulting in the greatest level of individual agency.

In looking at the Quarterly Report, for example, the traditional model previously outlined would place the writing as an individual product, with high individual agency and ownership. This is because each individual wrote his or her own section, which often was edited by Robert; but much of the original writing was in the words of the individual contributor. The location of the work was somewhere between the individual and group levels. However, participants repeatedly distanced themselves from ownership of the quarterly report. In fact, the purpose and format of the Quarterly Report was perceived as being imposed on the individual and project group by the funding agency. Therefore, there was very little perceived agency in writing the Quarterly Report at the individual and even project group level. The Quarterly Report was perceived as being owned by the funding agency who imposed the format, valued knowledge, and discourse style on the project group.

The location of agency and ownership of work and the perceived ownership of knowledge is an important distinction to make as a traditional model would look to capture the individual contributions, interpreting it as expertise at the individual level. However, since the knowledge can be transactional, much of the individual knowledge was withheld or not captured because the individual knowledge the group possessed was not perceived as having value for the organization and funding agency. As Ronda discussed in the group interview:

Ronda: You know one thing the quarterly report doesn’t do is it doesn’t capture…it…it fails to capture a lot of work that is, eh, either a false start or kind of cons…concept building or teaching one another. And that’s…that’s been an incredibly important subtext of this all of this interdependence has been teaching one another about our work. And the quarterly report doesn’t ever…it’s only interested in what you did. Meaning, like what have you got evidence for. (Group interview).

In addition, the quality of the work, since it was perceived as being owned by the organization and funding agency, did not affect the social identity of the individual; therefore, there was little time and effort put into writing the Quarterly Report as it had very little individual knowledge value. Contrary to what Dias et al, (1995) claimed, genres only promote a different way of knowing which can be used as a starting point for group knowledge creation if there is a sense of agency and ownership of the knowledge. Without agency and a sense of personal ownership, the genre cannot trigger cognitive dissonance or negotiated knowledge.

In addition to the project group’s influence, individual members’ membership in a profession and department also had an impact on his or her social identity which in turn influenced perceived agency which in turn influenced perceived ownership. Professional and departmental processes, formats, and visions influenced an individual’s work as part of their desire to maintain the group norms within the profession or department. Each profession and department had its own focus and vision that was unique to the profession or the department. Each profession and department has its own codes, means of highlighting information important to the profession or department, and processes for creating professional and departmental artifacts which defined professional or departmental vision and value knowledge (Goodwin, 1994). Moving from the department to the distributed group, the project group in the study began to create its own lens (codes, highlighted information, the way in which information was sequenced, accessed, exchanged, and recorded), through which valued knowledge was identified. Each group member came to the project with a professional and departmental vision, which became the basis for developing the project group vision and culture.
For example, participants spoke about the difficulties of the project group in working with the Video Production department due to the rigid professional vision and work processes used in Video Production. Elearning was used to using a much less formal process for video creation and set a less rigid standard for video production. As the healthcare counseling project progressed, the Video Production department was given less agency in developing the video and the ownership of the video moved from Video Production to the project group. However, the project group began to revisualize the quality of the video so that it was different from both the elearning and the Video Production standards, yet still acceptable to both departments. The final video product moved location of ownership from the departments to the project group, yet also created negotiated knowledge within the departments through alignment of professional and departmental vision.

Within the collaborative process, tensions would arise when there was a question of legitimate ownership of knowledge or there was a struggle to grant or remove agency. For example, conflicts over writing styles based on differing professional standards often resulted in the realigning of negotiated knowledge. This realignment was sometimes interpreted as diminishing the agency to use certain professional knowledge that others in the group may have valued less than another profession’s knowledge. An example of this would be the conflict the group had over the language used for an elearning module. While Ronda believed a certain tone of language was needed as part of effective engagement strategies in instructional design, Phillip believed the language would be inappropriate for the healthcare profession. For those whose self-concept was strongly tied to the profession such as Phillip, Ronda’s questioning the use of traditional healthcare rhetoric could be perceived as others questioning his professionalism or expertise within the profession and, thus, his self-concept. However, as Skitka’s (2003) accessible identity model implies, the cognitive dissonance created through different professional standards could be resolved by group members identifying others as part of a different profession. In other words, different perceptions of valued knowledge and expertise might be caused by different professional alliances, but these differences might be accepted by project group members of differing professions because of perceived differences of professional alliances within a distributed group. As a result, Ronda aligned her work with Phillip, but at the same time relinquished individual ownership in exchange for the group knowledge and granted Phillip a greater level of agency in the creation of the elearning modules. However, she maintained her individual professional knowledge ownership on what makes a good elearning module.

At other times, differing knowledge about the same topic were allowed to coexist with ownership being shared within the group or between levels (departments, organizational, or stakeholders). For example, even though the negotiated knowledge about the curriculum was the basis for the training manuals and elearning modules, there were differences in the final products produced within different departments, even between those from the same profession. The training manuals developed for the face to face training deparment and the elearning developed for the IT department had fundamental differences. The curriculum knowledge upon which the manuals and modules were based was perceived as being owned by the project group, funder, and organization as a whole. The knowledge used to deliver the curriculum (which tended to be transactional knowledge) was owned separately by individual group members and their departments. The curriculum was perceived as being very valuable at all levels of the project. As a result, it was important to participants that there was a sense of ownership at all levels. The variation in the delivery of the curriculum could be attributed to a sense of lack of agency by individuals (i.e. Olivia and David) and departments (elearning and Video Production); differences in perceived value; or by the transfer of ownership to other levels or project members.

The process of modification and reconciliation of processes and formats helped the project group began to identify ownership of transactional knowledge (certain processes and documents). It also helped individuals to align their knowledge and create negotiated knowledge with other levels of the power structure (group, department, professional, organization, stakeholders). Literature on communities of practice and discourse communities observed the same outcomes when those within the communities experienced cognitive dissonance (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Goodwin, 1994). In this study, however, when knowledge could not be aligned, than the individual could distance ownership of a product or the knowledge upon which processes and outcomes were dependent. In some cases, the department maintained ownership (which the group accessed when needed); at other times the group or a subgroup (i.e. the elearning group or the face to face trainers) claimed ownership. Individuals that did not perceive themselves as having a high degree of agency, did not have a strong sense of identity with the knowledge, and/or did not perceive value to the knowledge. They were better able to distance themselves from the ownership of the knowledge used in collaboration.

Transactional and Negotiated knowledge

I have revised my dissertation to include three major findings. This is one of the findings: there are two types of knowledge used in distributed workplace collaborative writing, transactional and negotiated. Next week I will discuss ownership of the writing.


Transactional and Negotiated Knowledge

There are two different types of knowledge used in distributed group processes: transactional and negotiated. Transactional knowledge was knowledge and expertise of perceived value often used as currency within the power structure. In order for knowledge to be used as currency, it would need to be of value, accessible by others, identifiable, stable (with clearly defined knowledge boundaries), and available in either a tangible form or tangibly represented. As explained in the previous section, knowledge of perceived value often were used as currency within the power structure, with study participants sharing, accessing resources, or withholding their knowledge based on their analysis of situational factors within the environment. The use of transactional knowledge is similar to the concept of knowledge used by the knowledge management theorists discussed in Chapter 2. Negotiated knowledge is knowledge created as a result of cognitive dissonance, overlapping knowledge boundaries, and a desire to create shared meaning and mental models. Negotiated knowledge is dynamic, difficult to identify (intangible), and dependent on situational factors. When expertise and perceived knowledge is shared, there is a process of negotiation in which meaning is created and knowledge boundaries are recreated. The concept of knowledge and knowledge creation identified by organizational learning theorists can be termed as negotiated knowledge.

This finding moves away from defining knowledge according to level of internalization and tangibility (explicit/implicit, tacit, content/competency/expertise) to defining knowledge according to its purpose. In addition to knowing what and knowing how (Cook & Brown, 1999; Nonaka, 1994; Sternberg & Horvath, 1999), employees and organizational entities need to have the ability of knowing where and when. Knowledge can be held outside of the individual within knowledge networks for current and future use. Employees that have access to a wide breath of knowledge when it is needed will be the most valuable to the organization, coworkers, and departments.

Transactional knowledge can be located with the individual member, within the group, in multiple departments, or within organizational or professional knowledge networks. In fact, transactional knowledge may be partaged throughout the organization or networks, stored within knowledge networks, and retrieved quickly when needed. For a service organization, especially, transactional knowledge is the product, and as such, the ability to convert knowledge into something tangible becomes an added value to the organization. Transactional knowledge can take the form of content or apprehensive knowledge. Negotiated knowledge, on the other hand can be internalized, located within a community of practice, or embedded deep throughout an organization or network. Negotiated knowledge requires interaction with others and is, thus, time consuming to create. It is the closest to Kolb’s (1980) comprehensive knowledge with the process of negotiation not only creating new knowledge, but also the relationships and understanding of the situational factors in which future negotiations/knowledge creation can take place. Access to negotiated knowledge is used to develop knowledge boundaries at various levels within which collaborations takes place. Negotiated knowledge is important for the functioning of a service organization, but may not be perceived as the organization’s product.

In the study, transactional knowledge or knowledge that was represented in a format that was identifiable, could take the form of documents, models, visual representations, interviews or testimonials, assessments such as quizzes and tests, credentials such as diplomas or training credits, web or training tools, and brands. The more tangible the knowledge was perceived, the easier it was for that knowledge to be traded or used as currency or valued transactional knowledge.

The use and offering of valued transactional knowledge could be banked and used as a currency for future access to resources. Phillip, for example, spoke about the importance of his work with this project group for future positions in the organization, “This is where my education is, all my experience is here. I feel really comfortable, confident, you know, in this field. So I probably want to stay here and this…this ac…this would, um, compliment the experience I’d already have. So could transfer into…into moving me into some other position, maybe, in the future.” In this case, Phillip could use his education and work experience to obtain another position. His resume and college degree were tangible representations of knowledge that he could use in another job or organization.

Transactional knowledge in recognizable formats such as reports, credentials, or group artifacts/products could also increase the value of an individual, group, or department who had access to valued knowledge. The quarterly report was important to the organization because it could be used as currency for future projects with the project funder. Transactional knowledge could also take the form of work processes. Many study participants spoke of how this project could be a model for future projects both within and outside of the organization. The model was a tangible representation of effective work processes that could be stored and replicated by others in a similar environment. As a result, the ability to create a model for similar projects within the organization or the healthcare profession was perceived as knowledge that could be traded, sold, replicated, or withheld depending on its value to others inside and outside of the organization.

Access to transactional knowledge was controlled depending on its perceived value. The video group, for example, withheld their expertise from the project group. Olivia did not offer her expertise and knowledge about video production to the project unless it was requested because she believed decision makers and those in a position of authority did not value that knowledge. She only did the work that was dictated to her by those higher up in the organizational power structure. Any value that she could have added to the project group’s work was withheld if not requested by the project group or the organizational power structure. In this way, she maintained ownership of her knowledge, withholding it rather than giving it away when it would not be valued.

Members of the group also managed access to transactional knowledge partaged throughout their knowledge network. In order to access the transactional knowledge, group members would need to know where the knowledge was stored (i.e. documents, artifacts, personal expertise or knowledge) within the knowledge network, have the resources to retrieve the knowledge (permissions, time, computer program access), and filter the knowledge so only knowledge of value was provided. A member’s knowledge network then became currency for use in their work environment, to be used or withheld at various levels internal and external to the project group. Olivia, for example, seemed to be a strong gatekeeper to her network, partly because of her perception that the group and those in authority did not value her knowledge, but also because she was unsure of her place within the project and organization. She maintained her network outside of the organization and group so that it would not be corrupted should she have to leave the organization. On the other hand, other group members protected their networks from specific members, again so their network was not corrupted (lack of trust, poor reputation, associations with undesirable experts, ideas, or policies). Paul, Helen, and Ronda all expressed concern about Robert interacting with those within their networks. He was perceived as having done damage in the relationships with those within their knowledge networks. There was a fear that further interaction with Robert would result in limited access or the disintegration of their networks. The negative impact Robert would have in turn would dimension the value of the network that they used as currency to access situated knowledge. In other words, their transactional knowledge would lose value.

While transactional knowledge was based on knowledge identified as something tangible or the ability to be made tangible (through documentation, visuals, processes, etc…), negotiated knowledge was dependent upon discussion and interaction. This interaction could include communication between coworkers, resources, documentation, the environment, and/or communication tools such as project management software. The purpose of discussion and interaction was to create shared meaning, norms, and mental models. The participants used terms such as “being on the same page”, “understanding where they [other group members] were coming from”, and “they (don’t) get it” when discussing their interaction and group meanings.

Some of the factors participants identified as being important for creating
negotiated knowledge included: 1) an openness to ideas, 2) feedback, 3) a sense of trust from those with whom the meaning would be negotiated, 4) awareness of where the starting point should be, 5) a sense of relationship with those involved and perspective taking abilities, and 6) cognitive dissonance or the awareness that there was a difference in understanding. According to the project group members, management had a problem with negotiated knowledge because creating shared meaning was time consuming, often without results or identifiable (transactional) valued knowledge.

Group members used a number of communication modalities to create negotiated knowledge. These included:

• Face-to-face communication in the form of formal discussions (e.g. regular “check-ins” and updates), working meetings (e.g. planning, departmental, content), weekly meetings, and informal discussions (e.g. breaks, water cooler or hallway conversations);

• Written communication in the form of scripts, online postings, programming codes, work approvals, reports, emails, planning documents, project task checklists, and feedback solicitations;

• Visuals in the form of write board diagrams, maps that represented content, flow charts, powerpoint slides, video footage, and representative photos.
These different modalities could trigger cognitive dissonance and helped participants discover differences both within and outside of the project group. The cognitive dissonance, once identified, then was the basis for negotiated knowledge, with participants defining the boundaries of their own understanding. Each participant created new knowledge boundaries through negotiated discussion.

The use of either transactional or negotiated knowledge for a group task depended on the perceived value of the knowledge by individual members and others they interacted with, the power structure, access to resources available for the task, time available for the task, and other situational factors.

Group members would use negotiated knowledge when there was time to negotiate, there was cognitive dissonance which was affecting the quality of individual and group work, and there was support for negotiation by those high within the power structure. Sometimes project group members were able to internalize redefined vision, ideas and/or meaning to create negotiated knowledge which became the basis for the project work. Phillip described the process the group went through in adapting content for elearning:

So we kind of, like, arrived at some middle postion. So it’s kind of a neat…ah, you know working relationship. And what it does is gives you o…other ways to think about things that you just wouldn’t have thought of. You know, you…you don’t know to think of those…things if you don’t know. (Phillip, interview 1).

This meaning making and perspective taking leads to higher order thinking and knowledge creation (Ede & Lunsford, 1990; Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997; Hagtvet & Wol, 2003; Jarvela & Hakkinen, 2002). Through group discussions, the sharing of prototypes, and negotiated group processes, the project group defined the knowledge boundaries of what elearning modules should look like and accomplish. This collective vision then allowed the project group to work distributively as long as their work was contained within the shared knowledge boundaries. Once there was an event that triggered cognitive dissonance, such as the project management requiring more elearning modules, the knowledge boundaries would need to be renegotiated. Those within the power structure were willing to allow project group members time to negotiate knowledge, especially in the beginning, in order to build relationships between departments, create a shared mental model from which the group could work, and create group norms that would expedite work tasks later in the project. However, towards the end of the study, less and less time was allotted for the renegotiation of knowledge boundaries as negotiated knowledge became less valuable to those in authority.

At other times, both transactional and negotiated knowledge was used at the same time, but at different organizational levels. The project group members simply were able to understand a different perspective while they maintained their own personal epistemologies and schema for the work task. In other words, there were two levels of meaning and beliefs for the work task: personal and group. The project group’s shared schema would inform group processes, but individuals could distance themselves from the dissonance caused by differences between group and personal epistemologies by handing ownership over to the project group. At this point, personal knowledge became transactional as their personal knowledge boundaries were not perceived as being as valuable as the group’s negotiated knowledge. An example of this was the quarterly report (see Appendix C: Writing Tasks for a more detailed description). While each group member had an idea what the quarterly report should include and the format it should take, the group allowed Robert and the funding agency’s vision to dominate. The project group’s negotiated knowledge about the quarterly report was established through group meetings, discussions on the project software, and feedback from managers and colleagues. However, the project group members distanced themselves from ownership of the quarterly report which allowed them to maintain their own knowledge boundaries on what effective report writing should be compared to the knowledge boundaries on what the quarterly report should look like. Helen, for example, noted that she thought the quarterly report had too much information (transactional knowledge she withheld), yet provided Robert with information he required to write the quarterly report because it was not her report, therefore it did not reflect on the quality of her personal work. Helen was able to maintain her social identity within the project group and organization by distancing ownership to the quarterly report (Skitka, 2003).

In the creation of the document that had perceived value, however, the use of negotiated knowledge in the form of reconciliation of differences between personal and group knowledge boundaries was important. For example, there were tensions between members of the stand-up training, elearning, and management groups over what exactly the Subway Map represented (see Appendix C). There were differences in interpretation, often based on the different understanding of how end-users/trainees would learn, need to know, and use what they learned. Management wanted to use transactional knowledge, in the form of the draft of the Top Ten List, by halting further discussion of the document due to time constraints and pressure to complete the project by the funders. Because the Subway Map would result in the actual final product each group member would contribute to the project, the Subway Map was perceived as being much more valuable by the project group members. In other words, knowledge workers might be able to accept different knowledge boundaries in their work when they do not perceive the work as their own, but they would try to exert their own knowledge boundaries when they feel the work was perceived as theirs (each individual taking ownership for the work). This increased the value of the negotiated knowledge, making it more important that there were shared knowledge boundaries. As a result, the project group members continued to create negotiated knowledge through discussions outside of management’s channels of communication (meetings and project group only online spaces). In this case, the same event triggered the creation of transactional knowledge (the Subway Map) and negotiated knowledge (discussion of the document on alternative communication channels).

Participants also used a combination of negotiated and transactional knowledge by creating knowledge networks that could be accessed in the future. They would develop relationships with others that allowed individuals to maintain their vision, schema or individual beliefs, but also allowed individuals to understand the perspectives of other group members. This negotiated knowledge was based on shared cognition, shared mental models, cognitive dissonance, perspective taking, and social relationships (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003). Within this context, there might be knowledge external or internal to the group which could be accessed in the future (transactional knowledge). This future transactional knowledge is unknown (and, thus, could not be defined) until it is needed. However, through social interaction, knowledge networks were established which could be accessed when needed. Paul discussed the knowledge needed working on one of the project tasks as being a puzzle in which different pieces were held by different people (transactional knowledge). Access to those pieces were based on the social relationships that project group interaction created (negotiated knowledge).

Knowledge accessed from a knowledge network could be both transactional and negotiated. The interaction group members had in negotiating knowledge created relationships both within and extending outside of the group. Group members could act as translators of knowledge for resources within their own knowledge networks. Specifically, each group member had his or her own knowledge network which they accessed when they needed to find intellectual and cognitive resources (e.g. answers to questions, feedback, information, expertise or specialization). At times project group members’ knowledge boundaries might not allow them to communicate and/or understand other project group members’ knowledge networks. When this happened, other project group members would need to mediate understanding or translate knowledge between the various knowledge networks. Because the knowledge was of value and in a tangible format, it would be considered transactional knowledge to the person who accessed or stored the knowledge. However, for the person who needed the knowledge, the format was not accessible without negotiation of meaning. Once the knowledge was translated, it became negotiated knowledge.

A good example of this mediation of knowledge within a knowledge network was Ronda visiting healthcare provider students with Helen. Helen was able to speak to the students, many of which were also healthcare service recipients and then translate that knowledge into concepts and terminology that Ronda was familiar with. Ronda then incorporated this information into her elearning designs. Without Helen, however, Ronda might have had difficulty in interacting with the students, asking the correct questions for identifying their needs, and/or understanding the information the students provided as Ronda did not have first-hand experience or knowledge about the subject matter.

The most important group members were those that could create a bridge between the project group knowledge and department expertise, being able to access valued transactional knowledge and then translating that knowledge so those in other groups or departments could understand and use it (negotiated knowledge). In other words valued group members were able to use both types of knowledge. Ronda, Helen, Sam, and Paul especially, learned the discourse of the departments with which they worked. This is why they were perceived as being valuable within the project group. They had excellent negotiated knowledge skills that allowed them to move between departments while at the same time they were able to access transactional knowledge because of the relationships they had developed through their interdepartmental/intergroup negotiations. David commented on the void that was created when Ronda left the project, “now that she’s gone, ah…there’s…there’s really no longer that bridge between what we do and the development of the curriculum. So now it’s to the curriculum developers and then us. (David, interview 2).”

Throughout the study the two different kinds of knowledge were created and used in different ways for different purposes. In some cases, both transactional and negotiated knowledge was used in the same work task for different purposes at different levels within the collaborative writing process. Perceived ownership added to or decreased the value of the knowledge which in turn influenced the type of knowledge (transactional or negotiated) that was used.

Expertise, competency, and content

Three terms, expertise, competency, and content, are used interchangeably with knowledge, especially in the context of workplace learning and training. However, they may have multiple meanings depending on the theoretical constructs of the research. Therefore, it is important to discuss and define each of these terms as they relate to knowledge.

Content Knowledge

The traditional form of knowledge often is referred to as content knowledge. This is knowledge that can be possessed (Nonaka, 1994), as “what is known, or the corpus of knowledge that does not belong to any particular individual or context (Yakhlef, 2010, p.39).” Knowledge of content can be measured, identified (especially lack of content knowledge), and/or recorded and stored for use by those who would not ordinarily have access to the knowledge. As a result, content knowledge can also be abstracted for use by those that have never required a particular content knowledge, nor have had access to an environment or situation that required that content (Yakhlef, 2010). For example, a teacher in a rural area without access to internet service may not have access or use of learning management system (LMS) software. He or she may learn about the software, how to use it by using reading a textbook, or even receive some hands on training away from his or her classroom. However, he or she would be prepared on how to use the software should his or her school install the software, and be able to formulate ways in which to use the software in his or her teaching should the opportunity arise, without ever having to use the LMS.

Because of the ease in measuring content knowledge, most training and professional education focus on transferring content knowledge at the individual, group, and organizational level (Cook & Yanow, 1995; Yakhlef, 2002; Yakhlef, 2010). However, with the advent of the internet, for an individual to possess content knowledge is not as important as for an individual to be able to access and know how to use content knowledge. In other words, individuals need to have skills and experience to use content knowledge efficiently and effectively. This is then known as competence (Herling, 2000; Yaklief, 2010). Content knowledge without competency means an individual may have difficulty performing his or her work or changing his or her behavior as the situation requires (Herling, 2000; Laufer & Glick, 1998).

Competency

Herling (2000) defines competence as “an ability to do something satisfactory-not necessarily outstandingly or even well, but rather to a minimum level of acceptable performance (p.9).” At the organizational level, the competency model of management is based on the identifiable skill sets needed to efficiently perform required work and the overall capacity among workers. Organizations need to identify skill sets, gaps in the skill sets, potential problems due to the gaps, and ways to manage/train so that the organization can perform efficiently (Herling, 2000; Sanghi, 2007). Training to develop competency may include interdepartamental cross-training, interaction with experts to develop performance expectations, guided practice, and the opportunity to engage in dialectic reflection (i.e. negotiating meaning with others) (Goodwin, 1994; Herling, 2000; Laufer & Glick, 1998; Sanghi, 2007;Yaklief, 2010). Content knowledge plays a part in competency training in that trainees must first either have the content knowledge or access to content knowledge in order to develop the skills that lead to perforance which demonstrates competency.

Expertise

Much has been written about organizational expertise, especially in the context of differences between the expert and novice. One common theme is that expertise requires a depth of understanding based on experience. An expert not only knows what (content knowledge) and how (competency), but also why and when to use knowledge (Allee, 1997). This requires a certain level of tacit knowledge about the domain and/or environment in which the application of knowledge is required (Sternberg & Horvath, 1999). Expertise requires the translation of content knowledge into practice, applying knowledge to the environment, problem, and/or situation, modifying content through discursive processes (Laufer & Glick, 1998;Yahlief, 2010).

Although researchers may not agree upon the order, many differentiate generalized expertise and specialized expertise. Specialized expertise is knowledge that comes from experience and learning within a specific domain, such as aerospace or endocrinology within the engineering and medical professions. Through focused interaction with the environment, professional artifacts, and other professionals within a community of practice, in-depth specialized understanding is created (Herling, 2000; Sternberg & Horvath, 1999; Yaklief, 2010). This specialized understanding often is then converted into content that can be disseminated back into the community of practice or to outsiders (who may then be interested in joining the specialized community of practice). While an individual may have a specialization, expertise requires knowledge within the domain that the community recognizes as important. Without the social acceptance of the specialization, there is no expertise.

Disseminating Content, Competency, and Expertise in the Workplace

Generalized expertise can either be developed through application of a specialized expertise across domains (Herling, 2000) or through a deep understanding of the domain as a whole, within multiple specializations within that domain linked together to create general expertise (Allee, 1997; Herling, 2000). Herling defines expertise as “displayed behavior within a specialized domain and/or related domain in the form of consistently demonstrated actions of an individual that are both optimally efficient in their execution and effective in their results (p.20).” He bases this definition on three componants required for expertise: knowledge, experience, and problem solving. In this case, knowledge is equivilent to content knowledge.

For this paper, we will differentiate expertise from competence and content knowledge through the depth of knowledge and understanding. Content knowledge can be defined as the information and explicit knowledge that can be stored, accessed, possessed and translated/abstracted outside of the situation/environment in which it was created. Content knowledge is static and is minimally impacted through social interaction except through the social valuation of the content knowledge. In other words, if the content knowledge is not identified as being valuable it may be lost, and if it has perceived exceptional value, it may be controled. Competency can be defined as the minimum skills and understanding of processes needed to effiently perform tasks within a given environment or situation. This requires tacit knowledge to conform to the situational and environmental requirements that impact performance. Expertise can be defined as a depth of understanding through experience, content knowledge, skills, and discoursive interaction with multiple settings, artifacts, and others. Expertise is dynamic in that knowledge and understanding is constantly changing as deeper meaning is developed through interaction.

A person who is perceived as having expertise and the ability to apply that expertise to varying, yet specific situations is an expert. Herling contends that an individual first specializes, using specialized content knowledge. Eventually, the competency in the specialized field will be added to an individual’s overall general knowledge moving an individual from competent to an expert in a specialized area to a generalized expert. However, as discussed above, some individuals may first have competency in a domain, then develop a general knowledge about that domain learning about different componants of the domain, then develop various specialties within the domain to understand the socio-cognitive aspects of the domain. As a result, new content knowledge is developed to give a deeper understanding of the domain.

Knowledge can then be desiminated through a group, department, or organization. Content knowledge is accessed by an individual, group, department, or even organization (in the form of training materials). Through interaction (both social and cognitive) with the environment and the content competency is developed. The longer that one performs competently in a dynamic environment (such as the workplace) the more expertise is developed. This expertise is then captured through artifacts such as finished products, reports, discussion, curriculum, and training which then can be desiminated to novices, in which the process begins again. Knowledge creation, therefore, is a dynamic process, rather than the static form that content knowledge represents (Allee, 1999; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Herling, 2000; Sanghi, 2007; Yaklief, 2010)

References:

Allee, V. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Akgun, A., Lynn, G., & Byrne, J. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 839-868.

Cook, S., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing . Oranizational Science, 381-400.

Cook, S., & Yanow, D. (1995). Culture and Organizational Learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 373-390.

Herling, R. (2000). Operational definition of expertise and competence. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8-21.

Laufer, E., & Glick, J. (1998). Expert and novice differences in cognition and activity: A practical work activity. In Y. Engeström, & D. Middleton, Cognition and communication at work (pp. 177-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 14-37.

Sanghi, S. (2007). The handbook of competency mapping: Understanding, designing and implementing competency models in organizations, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Sternberg, R. & Horvath, J., eds. (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice: researcher and practitioner perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.

Yaklief, A. (2010). The three facets of knowledge: A critique of practice based learning theory. Research Policy, 39-46.

Organizational learning theories

My dissertation not only looks at distributed group collaboration, but also how that effects organizational learning. The following is my discussion on organizational learning, including how I differentiate knowledge management from organizational learning.


Organizational Learning Theories

There are two prevailing schools of learning theory at the organizational level. The first is based on the idea of organizational knowledge management in which knowledge is codified into information which the organization and individuals can access, monitor, acquire, and store (Allee, 1997; Contu & Willmott, 2003; Raelin, 2008). Similar to Kolb’s (1980) apprehensive and comprehensive knowledge, this school of organizational learning theorizes that the process of codification creates knowledge which can be stored and accessed for use when needed by those within the organization (Raelin; Yakhlef, 2002). Organizational knowledge then becomes the aggregate of individuals’ knowledge and experience (Allee, 1997; Cook & Yanow, 1995). As Raelin describes DiBella, Nevis, and Gould’s three-step approach to organizational learning from a knowledge management perspective, knowledge is acquired, shared, and utilized by members of the organization. Rouwette and Vennix (2008) describe the information processing approach used within knowledge management which includes attention to identification of problems, encoding information so group members create shared meaning, store information perceived as valuable which creates organizational memory, create informational retrieval processes, create workspace processes that support organizational culture, and create communication structures that support sense-making and feedback from individuals and groups within the organization.

Knowledge management based theories of organizational learning begins with codified knowledge that can be retrieved and stored from members of the organization (Cook & Brown, 1999, Nonaka, 1994). For knowledge to be useful, therefore, individuals need to be able to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Knowledge that cannot be codified would not be useful to the organization as knowledge would not be able to be retrieved and stored for use by others within the organization. As a result, organizational processes need to be structured so that tacit information can be transformed into codified knowledge thus resulting in organizational learning. Using Anderson’s ACT cognitive model, Nonaka explains, “declarative knowledge has to be transformed into procedural knowledge in order for cognitive skills to develop…it can be argued that transformation is bidirectional (p. 18).” In other words, codified knowledge needs to be in a form that fits into organizational procedures, but also organizational procedures can produce knowledge that then needs to be codified for organizational use.

My working definition of knowledge management is the access, monitoring, acquisition, and storage of organizational information which is codified into a common format in order for those within the organization to participate in sense-making, group decision making and problem solving, and the creation of shared mental models at the group, departmental, and organizational level. While organizational learning may need to access some forms of knowledge management, organizational learning is not synonymous with knowledge management. In addition, not all organizational learning requires knowledge management, although knowledge management might augment organizational learning.

The second school of organizational learning theory is based on organizational members’ social and cultural interaction with the environment, often through the establishment of communities of practice within the workplace (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Cook & Brown, 1999; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Nonaka, 1994). Those within this school of organizational learning believe that learning within the organization is not based on individuals possessing needed knowledge, but rather learning is a construction of knowledge within the organizational environment. Cook and Yanow go one step further by placing learning into the organizational culture which establishes patterns of activity that create knowledge. They define organizational learning as, “acquiring, sustaining or changing of intersubjective meaning and/or the artifactual vehicles of their expression and transmission, through the collective actions of the group (p.280).” In other words, it is the interaction with the environment, stimulated through organizational practices such as collaborative writing, project management, and both formal and informal group discussions that create organizational learning opportunities. These work activities, both cognitive and social, create both tacit and explicit knowledge through social interaction and the organization of work patterns (Cook & Brown, 1999).

Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne (2003) further define the organizational learning process as “ a social process mediated by artifacts. This view thus emphasizes the importance of culture, communication, and group activities in organizations (p. 843).” While the first model presented above (knowledge management) assumes that knowledge is created and possessed at the individual level and is then dispersed collectively at the group and organizational level, this second model (constructed knowledge) theorizes that there are different types of knowledge created at each level (individual, group, and organizational). Organizational learning, therefore, is influenced by the social environment, organizational culture, and work patterns that are the result of political influences within the organization’s powerstructure (Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2003; Cook & Yanow, 1995; Nonaka, 1994). As a result, not all organizational knowledge can be culled and transferred to others within the organization (often through training) because the knowledge is imbedded in organizational practices and culture.

Both Cook (1995, 1999) and Nonaka (1994) concluded that there is implicit or tacit knowledge that is created within the confines of organizational boundaries. Looking at work patterns in various industries, they both concluded that knowledge is created through perspective taking, meaning making, and dialog necessitated when there was dissonance or differences in understanding within the work patterns. Perspective, meaning, and the form that communication takes are dictated by culture. In this study, we will use Cook & Yanow’s definition of culture:

We define culture in application to organizations as a set of values, beliefs, and meanings, together with the artifacts of their expression and transmission (such as myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals and ritual objects), that are created. Inherited, shared, and transmitted within one group of people (p. 388).”

Therefore, those who adhere to the second theory of organizational learning would conclude that organizational learning is bounded by organizational values, beliefs, and meaning, and transmitted and stored using organizational forms, formats, and processes that create the myths, symbols, metaphors, rituals, and ritual objects that become organizational artifacts representing the organizational culture. As a result, knowledge that is embedded within the organizational culture, would change when used outside of the environment in which it was created. Knowledge, therefore, can be dynamic as its affordance is dynamic (Cook & Brown, 1999).

The second theory of organizational learning has broader implications as knowledge could be created and transmitted both formally and informally. In the knowledge management perspective of organizational learning, knowledge is viewed as something that can be stagnate and captured for others outside of the culture and environment in which it was created. In the constructed perspective of organizational learning, knowledge may be converted from implicit to explicit formats, but any knowledge captured would need to be modified (or recreated) for a specific environment. As such, the process of knowledge creation could be learned, but the content would change depending on the environment.

Organizational learning is distinguishable from knowledge management. Organizational learning may not result in operational or behavioral changes at the individual, group, or even organizational level, and as such may be difficult to measure. In fact, Cook & Yanow (1995) give examples in which organizational learning may make subgroups or individuals less productive. Rather, organizational learning is the interaction that results in deeper knowledge and understanding at the organizational level. For this study, I will use Cook & Yanow’s definition of organizational learning:

The acquiring, sustaining or changing of intersubjective meanings and/or the artifactual vehicles of their expression and transmission, through the collective actions of the group.

References:


Akgun, A., Lynn, G., & Byrne, J. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 56 (7), 839-868.

Allee, V. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organizational Science (2003) 14 (3), 283-296.

Cook, S. & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4), 381-400.

Cook, S & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2 (4), 373-390.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Nonaka, I (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Raelin, J. (2008). Work-Based Learning. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.

Study Findings

As promised, here is the first draft of my study findings. I'd appreciate feedback.

The traditional model of collaborative knowledge is based on the type of knowledge (moving from tangible to intangible, explicit to tacit) and the place of collaboration (moving from the individual to the group to the organization). The assumption is that knowledge within an organization is housed and can be captured for use. However, with the rise in the use of distributed groups in the workplace, there is the recognition that knowledge that is distributed in the form of distributed cognition, may not be accessed in the same way that traditional organizational structures allowed.

For service industries, whose business is knowledge, it is very important that knowledge is accessible at the individual, group and organizational level, especially during the collaborative process. The collaborative writing process has the potential to make the knowledge creation and transfer process more transparent to group members. Therefore, this study looked at the collaborative writing process within a naturally occurring distributed group to determine what factors affected creation of knowledge within work collaboration for team members that may have had no previous interaction or limited interaction in completing their project. In order to answer the research question of what knowledge members of a distributed workplace group identify as being important when creating a group product and what factors influence the choice of what knowledge is important, I answered the subquestions:
1. How do individuals define “knowledge”?
2. What process or processes does a distributed group in the workplace use to create shared meaning and understanding during collaborative writing projects? What factors do they identify as shaping that process or processes?
3. What patterns of work activity are maintained and changed at the individual, group, and organizational level within a distributed group? Who do workers identify with in maintaining or changing work patterns in different contexts?

Individual definitions of knowledge

In answering the question of how individuals define knowledge, I first looked at the definitions the study participants gave for knowledge, know-how, content, and design. During the interviews, participants were asked to define the terms knowledge, know-how, content, and design. Knowledge and know-how definitions were elicited in the first set of interviews. In the second set of interviews, I asked participants to define design as this was a term used differently throughout the first interview when participants discussed topics such as information, knowledge, meaning making, and processes. Participants were also asked to define content as this was a term often used interchangeably with knowledge in the first set of interviews.

Knowledge
When asked to define the term knowledge, the study participants defined the term knowledge differently. There appeared to be three different groups among the participants: those that defined knowledge as something measurable or tangible (“information”, “content”, “things that you know”), those that had difficulty defining knowledge, and those that defined knowledge as something more intangible (“with knowledge, I know how to behave in any particular situation”, “shared meaning”). Surprisingly, those that identified knowledge as something tangible felt that they were within the organization and group’s power structure. They also were part of the traditional training group, which had a greater influence on the project according to the second round of interviews, 3 months later.
On the other hand, those that defined knowledge as something more intangible, were the most disgruntled with the project 3 months later. One participant had difficulty defining knowledge, also felt a disconnect from the group and organization throughout the project. On the other hand, another participant had difficulty initially in defining knowledge. However, eventually the definition he provided was fairly closely aligned with those within the power structure. Interestingly, both participants had difficulty in placing themselves within the organization and they also tended to be much more careful with the answers they gave during their interviews. This might be an indication that their understanding of knowledge would depend on the definition used by those they perceived as having power over their position within the organization, their departments, the group, and their profession.

These differing definitions of knowledge would indicate that knowledge workers need to be aligned with the epistemologies of their organizations to be satisfied. When there are different epistemologies, belief is in what knowledge is, within an organization, for example between departments, than there might be tension within distributed groups or between group members and those outside of the group. This tension was not obvious in the study group when they executed the routine collaborative written project (quarterly report) in which the format and even content was dictated from outside of the organization. Participants often noted that the quarterly report was not important to their work, but was a means to document the work group members had completed. As a result, it was not necessary that personal epistemologies aligned with the organization or the funder in writing the quarterly report. In other words, the quarterly report from the group needed to align with the funding organization’s epistemology. Additionally, the quarterly report was not perceived as being owned by either group members or the group itself. Rather, the organization (in the form of the Project Manager and Project Director) were perceived as owners of the report by the participants in the study.

However, in the creation of the document that required more group interaction and group ownership, differences in epistemologies were evident and became sources of tension. For example, there were tensions between members of the stand-up training, elearning, and management groups over what exactly the Project Map represented. There were differences in interpretation, often based on the different understanding of how end-users/trainees would learn, need to know, and use what they learned. Since the Project Map would result in the actual final product each group member would contribute to the project, participants felt a much stronger sense of ownership to the Project Map. In other words, knowledge workers might be able to accept different epistemologies in their work when they do not perceive the work as their own, but they would try to exert their own epistemologies when they felt the work was perceived as theirs (each individual taking ownership for the work).

So the greater level of ownership that an individual feels towards a project or piece of work, the more likely they will align that work to personal values and knowledge. Relating this to Skitka’s (2003) AIM model of Social Identify Theory (as discussed in Chapter 2), a greater level of ownership may create higher stakes for the individual within a group. A group member would want to be tied closer to the other group members’ norms if the individual member perceives he or she have a higher level of ownership in the work or work processes. Therefore, if his or her work is not accepted by the group, more than his or her work is questioned; his or her social identity and group acceptance is at risk. On the other hand, if the work is perceived as conforming to the norms and values outside of the group, as the quarterly report did, the group member would perceive the ownership of the work as someone else’s. As a result, their social identity within the group is not at risk. Therefore, he or she might be more open to changes in the document, especially if those changes are perceived as coming from those outside of the group and the organization’s power structure.

There was the perception that knowledge can be located, owned, and/ or accessed either by an individual or the group when needed. Externally owned knowledge (e.g. the funding agency or organization) did not always need to align with personal epistemologies for collaboration to take place within the distributed group. However, with internally owned knowledge, the more work was perceived as being owned by an individual, the greater the necessity that the epistemologies were aligned with the organization, group, and group members in order for collaboration to take place.

Content

Unlike knowledge, the definition of content was consistent throughout the group. In most of the definitions, the term “information” was included. In many cases, some description of a tangible product was included. The participants included descriptors such as: “a variety of media”, “source material”, “images”, “what goes in a page”, “curriculum”, and “whatever the written material is.” Additionally, most participants included skills and knowledge or the word know in their definitions. In many cases, the definition also included how content was applied.

Interestingly, however, is that while content was consistently defined, and often used interchangeably with knowledge, knowledge was not consistently defined. In other words, they defined content as a tangible subset of knowledge. While there might be differences as to what content is valuable or needed, the idea of what content is within a group did not seem to differ.

Know-How

Many of the definitions were similar for know-how. Often participants identified skill and process, “how to use” and “experience.” Those who defined knowledge as something that was possessed also implied that know-how was possessed.

While participants defined know-how differently, they all seemed to share a common understanding that know-how was not easily measured, had to do with a process or skill which helped to create know-how, and was informal learning. It also seemed that many of the definitions included how know-how was applied. Some of these included:

“

Application of both what to do and knowing how to use it, mainly in an efficient way.”

“I guess I know…I’m going to use as…I know the know-hows of web development, know-hows of graphic design.”

“…, know how get things done even if it’s delegating.”

“I guess that’s knowledge that translates….into an ability to do something.”

“…intuitive gut navigation.”

While content seemed static, know-how seemed more action oriented. Know-how also appears to be an individual concept. When defining know-how, the participants tended to use the first person. No one used a collective pronoun in their definitions.

Design

After the first series of interviews, I noticed that many of the participants used the term design, but each in a slightly different way. As a result, a definition of design was included in the second interview. In fact, the definition of design had very little in common from speaker to speaker. In addition, it seemed the most difficult term for the participants to define, most having long pauses before they answered.

Those from the stand-up training department tended to perceive design as a definitive construct using terms such as “strategies”, “content”, “framework”, and “curriculum.” For those in the elearning department, design was a more situated term to define, grounded in the creative and meaning making process. For example, “Design is the…planful…elegance and pattern…which gives…definition and meaning.” Not only is there some situated aspect to design, but those in the elearning department identified a sense of agency in their definitions.

Such a divergence in the understanding of what design is could lead to differences in understanding during the creation of a collaborative document, especially when there is no structure to the document, such as the Project Map. The first writing project, using a clearly defined structure was, “Well, the quarterly report’s always a by-product of individual contributions.” On the other hand, the second collaborative project studied was a document created by the group to help identify the various aspects of the elearning project. In discussing this document in a group interview, the difficulty in creating an agreed upon product was obvious:

Well, what formally…I think the … for the classroom trainers, they have a document. Module 1 contains X number of elements. Module 2 contains X number of elements. Eh…for me, there’s a sort of isomorphic mapping of those content elements onto a schema that reflects those same strains and tho…and that same order.

Later:

P: There’s a certain way to do that in the classroom. So, um… I think that’s…I don’t know if you can…say right now what your product is going to be. It’s going to be some type of elearning product.
R: Right. I mean…
P: But what it’s going to look like and how it’s…how it’s going to work is not…really isn’t there yet.
R: It isn’t really there... I mean, we have an idea…

Those in the stand-up training department seemed to perceive design in what Buchanan (1992) refers to as the categories of design: “Categories have fixed meanings that are accepted within the framework of a theory or a philosophy, and serve as the basis for analyzing what already exist (p. 12).” The elearning department looked at the possibilities of design, however. This is what Buchanan refers to as placement of design. “Placements have boundaries to shape and constrain meaning, but are not rigidly fixed and determinate. The boundary of a placement gives a context or orientation to thinking, but the application to a specific situation can generate a new perception of that situation and, hence, a new possibility to be tested. Therefore, placements are sources of new ideas and possibilities when applied to problems in concrete circumstances (p. 13).”

It appears that coming to the collaborative writing process from these two different approaches affects the knowledge creation and collaborative process. In the one instance, categories, the design is part of tangible knowledge: artifacts, clearly defined processes and skills. In the second instance of placement, design requires spatial knowledge, or the ability to link ideas and construct or create knowledge by building new ideas and theories. The categories of design, then, use knowledge that can be identified or represented tangibly (i.e. diagrams, processes, symbols, formats) whereas the placement of design requires environmental, social, and cognitive interaction to create knowledge networks where externally held knowledge can be accessed when needed. During the collaborative process within this distributed group, the different approaches in design resulted in tensions due to different expectations.

Three types of knowledge

In analyzing the data collected through interviews, documents, and online interaction, knowledge could be placed into three categories: tangible representation of knowledge which is represented by policies, forms, formats, curriculum, degrees or credentials, records, and other artifacts at the individual, group, departmental, organizational, and/or professional level; procedural and tacit knowledge, which would include an understanding of work processes and the knowledge created as a result of those processes; and partaged knowledge, which was created through the linking of ideas, social relationships, cognitive interaction, and/or cultural interaction.

These categories vary from the traditional model, namely content (or explicit knowledge), competency (or tacit knowledge), and expertise (which is performance based). The tangible representation of knowledge is close to Kolb’s (1984) apprehensive knowledge. This is knowledge that can be articulated, represented in various forms (such as visuals, documents, presentations, interviews), and stored for future use. Unlike the more traditional content or explicit knowledge, tangible representation of knowledge may include tacit knowledge. For example, educational credentials (e.g. licensing, degrees) tangibly represents certain knowledge that may include implicit and explicit knowledge. These credentials, as we will see later on, can be used as currency within a group. Within a traditional model of knowledge management within a collaborative group, this would be considered a competency or implicit knowledge that would be expected to be applied in any given situation. This is often used in Best Practices, for example, that can then be replicated and used throughout an organization. In comparing credentials to competency using the traditional model, the assumption would be that they are one in the same.

Using this new definition of tangible representation of knowledge though, a credentialed employee or group member may not know how to access the knowledge or apply the knowledge needed to complete work or contribute to the group because of the lack of understanding or experience with the complexities within the environment or the situation. He or she, however, does have some knowledge that may need to be reformulated in order to be relevant for a given situation. One participant, for example, had credentials in healthcare, but the group did not perceive him as having procedural or tacit knowledge for the project. In order for him to use the tangible representation of knowledge, he would need to learn how to apply it (creating know-how for the project).

Reconceptualizing competency to procedural and tacit knowledge, moves knowledge and know-how from the individually held ability to a socially constructed understanding of how things work within a given situation. It expands the term from cognitive individually possessed knowledge about procedures and processes (competency) to an understanding of the situation (requiring analytical ability), the intangible variables that affect the situation, and the interpersonal relationships and meaning negotiation that create social cognition. When participants discussed competencies in the interviews, they were often referring to tangible representation of knowledge rather than the intangible tacit knowledge. Their discussion of procedures and processes, however, often included such factors as work quality expectations, reconciling processes and procedures between group members and departments, and understanding the environment in which their work and the work of their group members were situated.

The term partaged knowledge is derived from the French word partager which means both to share and to divide. Partaged knowledge is knowledge that one would need to be able to access and link to other knowledge (i.e. linking ideas, putting into context). This might be internal such as what happens during an individual’s writing process. Initially there may be many ideas, seemingly without any correlation (divided). Through the writing process, an author must link together those ideas into one cohesive whole (thus the sharing or putting together through interaction of ideas).

The same can happen with group processes in which members come into the group (especially a distributed group) with different expertise, access to resources, cultural influences, and experience/mental models of the work (divided resources and expertise). Through their work processes, their knowledge is partaged through knowledge networks throughout the group and beyond. This knowledge is then accessed when needed and modified or translated for use within a given situation. Partaged knowledge therefore includes the ability to co-create knowledge, divide the knowledge for later use, access the knowledge when needed, and translate or interpret the knowledge for a given situation. Partaged knowledge is the most valuable for knowledge based organizations as it allows for knowledge to be evenly distributed throughout the organization, thus making them less vulnerable should an employee leave. It also allows for others who are not directly exposed to content, work processes, experience, and/or environments to be able to access knowledge outside of an individual’s knowledge base. Knowledge can be part of the network internal to the group, external to the group, within the profession, internal to the organization and external to the organization. However, partaged knowledge is difficult to quantify, control, and capture.

Partaged knowledge is created through creative practices (writing, design, problem solving) rather than through the imposition of formats or processes. While the traditional knowledge model identified expertise as an intangible form of knowledge held at varying degrees by individual group members demonstrated through performance, partaged knowledge recognizes that expertise, tacit knowledge, and content can be held by individuals, the group, the organization, or even stakeholders. Partaged knowledge is the ability to access expertise and tacit knowledge, when needed in the form that will fit the situation. Once accessed, the knowledge will then need to be translated, renegotiated, and appropriately applied to the situation. Since partaged knowledge is knowledge that one would need to be able to access and link to other knowledge, there must be a sense of internalization that allows for the linking and understanding of the knowledge.

Unlike the traditional collaborative knowledge model, the model identified through this study resulted in continuum of tangibility where each of the three types of knowledge (tangible representation of knowledge, processes and tacit knowledge, and pariaged knowledge) are actually on a continuum of tangibility, as shown in Exhibit 1 (Unfortunately, I can't seem to upload the images in this format).

As knowledge becomes less tangible, groups are able to create knowledge through interaction and negotiation. In other words, partaged knowledge is creative or knowledge that is created through the group process. Exhibit 1 also is a visual representation as to how knowledge becomes more spatial and less linear when it is partaged.

Each type of knowledge was manifested, accessed, created, and valued differently at the individual, group, and organizational level. By redefining the traditional model of collaborative knowledge within a distributed group, organizations will have a better understanding of how knowledge is used, created and recreated, transferred, withheld, managed, and lost at all levels (individual, group, departmental, organizational, and professional).

Level of Identity

The other set of factors that affect knowledge within a distributed group has to do with the level of identity to the knowledge. Using social identity theory (McGrath et al., Skitka, 2003; Van Knippenberg, 2000), the closer the knowledge is related to a person’s social identity, the more likely that person will want the group’s norms, values, and knowledge to be aligned to the individual. When faced with information or an event on the group level that contradicts an individual’s personal identity construct (value, knowledge, epistemology, personal schema), that person has three choices: modify his or her own personal identity, modify the group’s beliefs, values, or understanding, or leave the group in order to maintain the individual’s personal identity (Levesque et al., 2001; McGrath et al., 2000; Moreland & Levine, 2001; Skitka, 2003; Whitworth et al., 2000). However, there is a fourth option that the group in this study used: distance ownership of the work, contribution to the work, and/or expertise needed to complete the work. In other words, the product becomes the group’s, department’s, organization’s, or an external entity’s rather than the individual’s. Related to this is the perceived agency an individual may have over their own work. The greater the perceived agency for a task, process, or final product, the greater the level the individual perceived of ownership over their work or work products (i.e. writing, designs, etc…).

In the traditional model, ownership was based on the location of the group work (individual, intragroup, intergroup, organization). This did not allow for influence outside of the organization on knowledge creation and access. Most knowledge management models (Conceicao, Heitor, Gibson, & Shariq,1998; Cook & Brown, 1999; Foss, & Pedersen, 2002; Nonaka, 1994), for example, assumed that knowledge was held by individuals within the organization. Information could then be transferred from individuals to others within the organization, thus creating knowledge at different levels. Occasionally, there was discussion of transferring the knowledge to external stakeholders (Mason & Lefrere, 2003; Yakhlef, 2002). However, the ultimate owners of the knowledge, to be kept or given away, were the individuals where the knowledge was housed (Cook & Brown).

If knowledge ownership, however, is perceived as being something that is created through agency granted at different levels, the management of knowledge requires the granting of agency at different levels. The closer to the individual that agency is granted, therefore, the higher the level of ownership (and the closer to personal identity) the individual will feel for that knowledge. The new model for distributed collaboration, therefore, would use a continuum of the location for agency and ownership of the work.

Exhibit 2: Location of agency and ownership (not able to upload it to my blog)

In looking at the Quarterly Report, for example, the old model would place the writing as an individual product, with high individual agency and ownership. This is because each individual wrote their own section which often was edited by Robert; but much of the original writing was in the words of the individual contributor. The location of the work was somewhere between the individual and group levels. However, participants repeatedly distanced themselves from the quarterly report. In fact, the purpose and format of the quarterly report was perceived as being imposed on the individual and group by the funding agency. Therefore there was very little perceived ownership and agency in writing the quarterly report at the individual and even group level.

This is an important distinction to make as a traditional model would look to capture the individual contributions, interpreting it as expertise at the individual level. However, much of the individual knowledge was withheld or not captured as the individual knowledge the group possessed was not perceived as having value for the organization and funding agency.

As discussed in the group interview:

R: You know one thing the quarterly report doesn’t do is it doesn’t capture…it…it fails to capture a lot of work that is, eh, either a false start or kind of cons…concept building or teaching one another. And that’s…that’s been an incredibly important subtext of this all of this interdependence has been teaching one another about our work. And the quarterly report doesn’t ever…it’s only interested in what you did. Meaning, like what have you got evidence for. Um…what’s yo…what kind of paper can you point to that would, you know, document and, you know, documentation only goes so far.

In addition, the quality of the work, since it was perceived as being owned by the organization and funding agency, did not affect the social identity of the individual, therefore, there was little time and effort put into writing the quarterly report.

Distributed Group Processes

In looking at a distributed group collaborative writing processes, there were four levels in which meaning making took place: the individual, the project group and departmental (intra-group), the organizational (intergroup, including inter-departmental), and exterior to the organization (including the profession). Each level had different discourse communities with established norms, communication structures, valued knowledge, means of making meaning, and culture.

Placing the findings of this research within the organizational learning, knowledge management, and small group literature, the idea of group knowledge needs to be extended from the traditional model. The traditional model assumed that knowledge was ultimately located in the individual. Organizations only needed to capture and manipulate the knowledge through knowledge management, organizational training, and human capital development. However, in studying the collaborative writing practices of this distributed group, the construct of knowledge is more complex. It includes the social, environmental, political, formulaic, functional, locational, and cognitive factors that affect the perception and use of knowledge in knowledge intensive organizations.

Exhibit 3 is a summary of the types of knowledge accessed, used, or created by distributed groups during their work. This knowledge grid identifies twelve actions that happen during a distributed groups’ collaborative work process. These are dependent upon the location of agency and ownership of the work and the type of knowledge accessed, used, or created during collaboration. While the focus of the study was on the collaborative writing process, the summary could be applied to any distributed group processes, products, work tasks, projects, or communication.

Knowledge definitions need to be reconceptualized using the location of agency and ownership, on the one hand, and the type of knowledge based on tangibility/complexity on the other hand. The knowledge grid outline in Exhibit 3 is a starting point to understating the internal and external environment that affects knowledge use and creation by a distributed group. Each of the twelve types of knowledge represent the political, environmental, cognitive, and social factors that result in different types of perceived knowledge within a distributed group. The next section will look at each type in the context of group collaborative work.

Tangible Representation of Knowledge
Individual-Credentials: Credentials are the establishment of tangible representation of knowledge possessed by the individual. They can take the form of reports and other documentation of individual work; degrees, drafts, postings, or notes that contribute to the group process; and transactional knowledge such as degrees, awards, and job titles. Unlike the traditional knowledge model, credentials within a distributed group is a socio-cognitive construct. Credentials represent valued knowledge that can be used or transformed into an identifiable form to be used as currency for the individual (eg.. future jobs), within the group, between groups, and externally (e.g. product or service sales). The value of the knowledge is situated within the power structure and environment in which the individual works. As a result, perceived credentials will need to be identified and negotiated with each work task. In other words, standard credentials for distributed group work could result in misalignment between the knowledge needed to complete a work task and the actual individual knowledge needed for the work. Therefore, credentials are situated within the knowledge needed for a particular task.

Credentials, unlike documentation, deliverables, and certification, are perceived by the individual as being owned by the individual to dispense whenever the individual believes it is to their advantage. As a result, a group member might have hidden credentials that they feel are undervalued or not needed by the group. Credentials also may be tied to the individual’s social identity, so the undervaluing of the individual credentials may result in a group member disengaging from the group, withholding knowledge, or presenting knowledge in a form that is inaccessible to group members (e.g. unfamiliar formats, technical jargon, limited access documents). In the last case, the individual then becomes invaluable to the group as they are the only ones able to translate knowledge into a form that is identifiable and useful for the group.

Intra-Group-Documentation: Documentation is the transcription of group knowledge into formats that can be stored, accessed at a later date, and used as a collective memory by the group. The group documentation might take the form of meeting minutes, web-based postings, drafts of work (with feedback notes), work plans and checklists, and emails. Documentation of the group processes may be used to create shared mental models; communicate assumptions, interpretations, expectations, resources, and understanding of individual situated knowledge; or create a shared vision, cognitive dissonance, or a collaborative product in order to make the knowledge creation process transparent for those within and outside of the distributed group.

The main difference between credentials and group documents is that group documentation has input from multiple members. As the knowledge grid indicates, ownership and agency is on a continuum, from perceived ownership of a document being owned by a group member with input from other group members to group members claiming equal ownership of the document. The type of ownership and level of agency in producing a group product (such as a written report) depends on the perceived power structure, both internally and externally, a group member’s social identity within the group, the perceived value of individual group member input and contribution of knowledge to the group as a whole, and alignment between the individual and group in the vision of the knowledge work.

Interestingly, documents that are aligned with the group vision and accurately represent group vision become valuable because they make the group knowledge creation process more transparent. This can then be used to help improve a distributed group’s image, output, work environment, and standing within the organization.

Intergroup-Deliverables and Organizational Genres: Most organizations have standard formats, forms, and genres which are used to create documents that will be accessible across units, departments, and other working groups. These organizational genres usually translate knowledge from individuals and groups into standard representations of knowledge that can be understood between subgroups within the organization. The standards and structures that genres provide may also be referred to as style, standard forms (e.g. reports, printouts, templates), jargon, and communication protocols. These organizational genres in the form of standard formats then are used in delivering service products (also known as deliverables) to stakeholders external to the organization. In other words, the standard representations of knowledge is the product that is the core of an organization’s work, be it for profit (i.e. selling knowledge) or non-for-profit (i.e. providing the use of knowledge to benefit an external stakeholder).

Genres are used to create knowledge boundaries within the organization. As a result, ownership of the knowledge becomes collective within the group rather than the possession of an individual. While an individual may perceive that knowledge is aligned with the organization’s, they perceive that the organizational knowledge is owned at the organizational level. In other words, an individual must conform to organizational genres or they will need to either change genres at the organizational level (e.g. through approvals or training) or leave the organization. Often, organizational genres have been developed over time without any individual member realizing the change. Factors such as the environment, changes in vision, a dynamic power structure, and fluidity in interaction between groups (teams and departments) will affect organizational genres and expectations. At the same time, the organization itself often remains a stable structure within which the boundaries of the knowledge intensive work are established for individuals and groups. The organizational structures take the form of organizational genres. As a result, the organization establishes knowledge boundaries through organizational genres, which in turn are constantly being redefined as a result of the intergroup interaction within those organizational boundaries. So organizational genres are dynamic, especially when distributed groups are being used.

External-Professional Standards and Certification: Licensing, training using standard professional curriculums, and accredited degree programs are all ways in which professions provide tangible representation of knowledge the profession perceives as necessary to be part of their discourse community and community of practice. These representations of education and training, also referred to as content or subject matter, outline what a professional needs to know to delineate him or her from one profession to another.

Unlike the organization, an individual can self-select to be part of a profession, but those within the profession might not recognize that individual as a member of the profession. The profession, therefore, has ownership of the standards (professional genres) and knowledge which they may use as currency to control membership within the profession. An individual has the agency to align themselves with a profession, but they have little agency in the development of standards and certification unless they part of the professional power structure. As a result, professional genres are not impacted by distributed work the way that organizations are. Professional genres will be more static.

Procedural and Tacit Knowledge

Individual-Know-how: As discussed previously in this chapter, know-how is the application of knowledge, especially tacit knowledge. According to the definitions given by participants, know-how is an individual understanding of the situation and environment to which tacit knowledge is then applied. Because know-how is based on tacit knowledge, the boundaries of understanding are not well defined. As a result, it is important for the individual to interact with the environment, the task, and tacit knowledge to create a greater understanding of the environment and factors that will affect the performance of the individual. In the study, members that were exposed to a wider divergence of experiences were perceived as having a greater amount of know-how. Individuals with diverse experience were able to transcend the knowledge boundaries within their departments, moving between departments, organizations, professions, and external environments.

For an individual to be able to apply and develop know-how, they need to feel a high level of self-efficacy and agency within their environment. They need to be able to identify procedural knowledge and apply it to any given situation. In other words, the person with the ability to develop and use know-how will be able to identify patterns (cognitive, social, structural, and power) within the environment and develop procedures based on tacit knowledge appropriate to the environment. Those with little know-how will need to rely on others at the intra-group, inter-group, or external levels to establish procedures and translate implicit (tacit) knowledge about the environment.

To develop know-how, individuals need multiple experiences in multiple work contexts, time to understand the context of their work (including planning, feedback, and reflection), a safe environment in which the ambiguity of the work allows for trial and error problem solving, and dialog with others both internally and externally. The development of self-efficacy is also an important component to developing know-how because without self-efficacy, an individual will hand over the responsibility of knowledge development and procedures to the group.

Intra-group-Collaboration: Collaborative knowledge includes both cognition and social understanding of the group environment, including the external and internal factors that affect group procedures and tacit knowledge. Collaboration components include creating a shared mental model, developing group norms, perspective taking, and the ability to align multiple processes, procedures, and standards. This description of collaboration aligns closely with small group research and literature (Jarvela & Hakkinen, 2002; Levesques, Wilson, & Wholey, 2001; Lowery, Nunamaker, Curtis, & Lowery, 2005).

However, collaboration within the knowledge grid can be limited to knowledge within the group (intragroup knowledge) that might be difficult to access by non-members, those not perceived as having value to the group, or those who have limited access to the group’s processes. For example, the video group had limited access to the study group’s processes and therefore did little collaboration within the study group. The video group had limited procedural understanding of the study group’s processes and did not appear to share tacit project knowledge with the study group.

Collaboration needs time and communication space to develop group procedural understanding, trust, a shared vision, vision and task alignment with other groups that members are a part of, an understanding of the perspectives of group’s membership, and an understanding of the political and power structures that will affect the group’s work environment.

Intergroup-Knowledge Management: Traditionally, knowledge management was the culling and organization of information collected from individuals within the organization (Foss & Pederson, 2002). However, knowledge management within the knowledge grid situates information, routines, and understanding within the broader vision of the organization. Organizational routines, the context in which knowledge is managed, are “sequenced patterns of behavior and communication by multiple agents” within an entity influenced by power structure and organizational relationships (Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994, p. 555). According to Cohen & Bacdayan, knowledge is stored at the organizational level within the organization’s routines. The organization then will try to harvest knowledge by monitoring routines.

While a piece of information or routine might be relevant within a group or department, its relevance within the organization will change based on perceived importance by the organizational power structure, the relationship between groups and departments (including the level of communication), perceived situated usefulness by those within the organization, and alignment of organizational, departmental, group, and individual goals and vision.

For example, the video department had its own procedures to ensure access within the department of its knowledge resources on creating and producing quality videos (as defined by the department). There was a shared understanding of the video creation processes, based on the shared cognition of the department about video production. However, this cognition was not shared by those outside of the department. By simply collecting information about the video department’s production process, the organization would not be able to capture the tacit knowledge held by department members. In order for the tacit knowledge of the video department to be useful to the organization, the shared mental model of what good video production was would need to be developed within the video department to align with the organization’s mental model.

Therefore, it is not enough for knowledge management to be effective to simply collect and organize information and data. Information and data needs to be contextualized or situated. There also needs to be interaction between the power structure, departments, work groups, and individuals to negotiate and create a shared mental model. The collaborative writing process required at the organizational level, for example, is an opportunity for employees to create a shared mental model. The feedback mechanisms (i.e. editing, authorization, informal feedback) provide members of the organization to interact and create shared understanding (mental models) that manage cumulative knowledge. These all fit into the four modalities of knowledge creation: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalizations (Castelfranchi, 2004).

Another way to create shared knowledge at the organizational level is to provide interdepartmental cross training in order to develop a cumulative understanding. The result of collaborative writing and cross training can be that the knowledge is owned at the organizational level in which one person leaving the organization will not impact the organizational knowledge. On the other hand, individuals will only need to provide the organization with knowledge that the organization perceives as valuable using knowledge creation processes developed by the organization (Foss & Pederson).

External-Community of Practice/Best Practices. Within the knowledge grid, the professions create shared culture and values, goals, processes, understanding, and experience external to any one organization (Barab& Duffy, 2000). The profession accomplishes this through actions and interaction situated within the professional practice. Cook & Brown define practice as “action informed by meaning drawn from a particular group context (1999, p. 387).” In following a profession’s best practices as defined by those within the community of practice as being experts, members of the community create meaning through their actions (or practice).

Unlike an organization, the development of understanding and knowledge within a profession is more organic and less structured. As a result, tacit knowledge is more visceral and more difficult to transpose into explicit or identifiable form. Because the context of work, routines, and knowledge is situated in a broader environment, the knowledge that is known within the profession may be limited to a few universals. These universals or best practices owned by the profession become a way to identify membership within the community. As a result, the building blocks of the profession (best practices) have the potential to be greatly interrelated with a member’s social identity.

For example, the tone and jargon used in the healthcare counseling profession was an indicator of professional membership. When one of the study participants, not a member of the healthcare counseling profession, used a tone and jargon that study participants who were members of the profession did not perceive as being appropriate to the profession, professional members were almost offended. They felt a strong social identity with the healthcare counseling profession, so they would feel any breech of the profession’s shared understanding as unacceptable. It was difficult for them to convey to the member outside of the profession why her choice of tone and jargon was offensive because it was based on tacit professional knowledge that was difficult to identify.

Partaged Knowledge

Individual-Expertise: The definition of expertise within a distributed group needs to be expanded based on the idea that experts are able to access partaged knowledge. This means that an individual has the ability to access knowledge outside of their own mind. This external knowledge is part of an individual’s knowledge network. Individuals who access others knowledge networks then create what Boland and Tenkasi (1995) refer to as a knowledge net, from which to cull, filter, and highlight knowledge that can be used for a specific purpose (Goodwin, 1994). Expertise, then, is the creation and weaving of knowledge nets for specific purposes. The creation and weaving of the knowledge net is situated in an individual’s environment, task understanding, meaning-making, perspective, and social and cognitive abilities. Experts need to be able to identify the boundaries of their own knowledge; make connections with others though interaction, meaning-making dialogs, and perspective taking; create processes to access their own and others relevant knowledge in the time frame that it is necessary, and redefine knowledge boundaries that are situated in a specific context.

Expertise is also dependent upon an individual’s ability to recognize and react to fluctuations in the environment (Nonaka, 1994). To do this, an individual would need to continuously identify knowledge gaps (the difference between what is known and what needs to be known), understand relationships within the social environment (including perceived power, power structure, and perspectives), and identify relevant social and knowledge networks.

In order for expertise to be developed, individuals need to be given opportunities to create complex knowledge networks. These opportunities might include membership to a variety of distributed groups, cross-functional training, access to professional social networks and communities, access to a variety of communication tools and channels, and time, opportunity, and space for individuals to interact. Expertise is a continual process as the work environment is dynamic, rather than a static state.

Intra-group-Collaborative Design: Fundamentally, design is always done in the context of a group. Collaborative design gives ownership of the process and product to the group. However, design does more than develop a shared process and product. Collaborative design creates a shared mental model and understanding of the work task, identifies group member strengths, weaknesses, resources, and knowledge networks, and develops social relationships within the group. It also gives access to group member knowledge networks and group members that can translate knowledge from outside of the group so that it has meaning for the group. Design becomes both the categories (schemata, paradigms, values and perspectives) and the placement (possibilities) in the application of group knowledge (Goodwin, 1994, Nonaka, 1994).

A good example of collaborative design was the Project Plan which later became the project map. Since collaborative design is not static, this document provided both a framework which defined knowledge boundaries and a roadmap for knowledge creation within that framework. The framework became the basis for the shared mental model, which changed as the environment and external factors within which the group was located changed. The group accessed resources from the group’s knowledge network, translated knowledge and created new meaning from the knowledge net created by the group. They then developed new group perspectives by continually updating the Project Plan/Project Map. Nonaka (1994) refers to this group process as semantic knowledge. The insight created through the group design process “provides a new point of view for interpreting events that make previously invisible connections or ideas obvious or shed light on unexpected connections (Miyazaki and Ueno as cited by Nonaka, p. 16).”

To maximize partaged knowledge within the group, distributed groups need to have time to design collaboratively on a continual basis. It is important that group members have a mechanism to continually align perspectives and understand group members' knowledge networks as these networks redevelop. Interdepartmental training and cross functional training will also allow group members to update their knowledge networks, creating social and cognitive relationships outside their established networks. Training will also help identify group members that can act as an interpreter between and within groups and networks.

Intergroup-Organizational Culture: Each organization has its own patterns of work and knowledge that ebs and flows through it. These patterns and the continual creation of knowledge needed to maintain the patterns develop a shared system of beliefs, values, meanings, and symbols (artifacts, metaphors, and organizational rituals) that make up organizational culture (Cook & Yanow). Organizational culture not only informs work patterns, but the dynamic nature of organizational work patterns inform and mold organizational culture.

While knowledge management tries to control the work patterns, organizing knowledge to maximize efficiency, organizational culture gives context to work patterns, prioritizing competing demands and aligning knowledge within the organization whenever dissonance or changes create tension between parts of the organization. Organizational culture also gives meaning to work patterns, acculturating members and stackholders of the organization. These members and stackholders, in turn, create, pass on, maintain, and modify the organization’s cultural identity through their collective practices (Cook & Yanow, Nonaka). Knowledge is embedded within the culture. It is difficult to access this organizational knowledge by those unfamiliar with the organization, nor is this organizational knowledge held by individuals. Rather, the meaning of organizational rituals, artifacts, and symbols is created collectively by the use of rituals, creation of artifacts, and use of symbols (Cook and Yanow, Nonaka).

The project map is a good example of how knowledge is situated within the organizational culture and individuals align meaning through work patterns. This document was used a roadmap for the healthcare group’s work. However, individual interpretations of the project map did not align with the organization’s cultural value of the use of traditional stand-up training curriculum. The map was reinterpreted so that the work patterns changed. The project map document itself was not changed, but the work patterns that were based on the organizational culture did change.

External-Professionalism: The main difference between community of practice and professionalism is that while community of practice is a shared understanding (professional mental model) of the profession, professionalism knowledge exists outside of the individual(s) through formation of professional alliances and networks (Nonaka, 1994). Once a person is identified as a member of the profession, they will need to understand where and how to access community resources.

Professionalism is trans-organizational which means that there needs to be interorganizational interaction for professionalism to exist. This interaction can come in the form of interaction and training with stakeholders, professional organizations, and professional institutions (e.g. professional training programs, higher education programs). The interaction creates both a shared mental model for the profession and an understanding of where and how to access resources within the profession so that it is unnecessary for an individual to know all aspects of the profession, but will have access to all professional knowledge when needed. Conferences, professional training (and retraining), and active membership in professional organizations, therefore, will take on greater meaning as a means for an individual to participate in the knowledge networks where the profession’s knowledge is embedded. Without these activities, individual members will be excluded from the ownership of professional knowledge.

Implications

Organizations that are interested in capturing the knowledge created and used by distributed groups need to recognize the importance of each type of knowledge: knowledge that can be tangibly represented, tacit knowledge and know-how, and partaged knowledge. Partaged knowledge is often overlooked in traditional models and is especially important in distributed groups. As these groups come together, they create a shared, collective knowledge that is more than one individual can possess. Among the synergy created in distributed groups is the understanding of other members’ knowledge network in which knowledge is held outside of the group. However, by nature, the knowledge of distributed groups is dynamic, as members return to their own environments to create new meaning, understanding, culture, artifacts, and knowledge networks. To maximize knowledge creation and sharing within the workplace, organizations need to optimize their understanding of discourse communities, the power structures (formal and informal), and work patterns, that affect distributed group processes.

Discourse Communities

In the study, there were four distinctive discourse communities: 1) the profession(s) to which the study participants belonged; 2) the department(s) to which the study participants belonged; 3) the organization and the power structure within which the group operated; and 4) the group itself.

Not surprisingly, the most successful participants within the group were those that could move easily between and work within multiple discourse communities. Group members who were identified as being the ones that could contribute the most to the group and project, were those that had an ability to learn and move within new discourse communities. Other participants, along with supporting personnel external to the project were identified by numerous study participants as appearing to be unable to participate in the discourse community outside of their own profession or department.

Participants with power within the organization or group would be able to contribute to the project, as their discourse community could be made the standard for discussions. Those outside of the power structure, however, became disenfranchised, frustrated, and felt that their voice was not heard (when in fact their voice was not being interpreted correctly). One option to avoid this problem was for a new working discourse community to be developed for group processes and products. However, group members needed time to create the new heuristics for the created discourse community. As a result, the better option was to create distributed groups whose members could move between the two communities, thus becoming invaluable to the project. Because of group members’ ability to interpret messages from one community to the other, work could be completed simultaneously in each community. However, when those that were acting as interpreters either left the project or pulled back into one or the other community, the success of the group working within both communities was a burden on those that could move between both groups. This may have been why one of the group members complained that she felt she was carrying the burden of the project.

This finding about the discourse communities has a number of communication, training, and management implications. First, training should recognize the role of discourse communities in any new intervention. They should be prepared for miscommunication between discourse communities, parallel discussions, and the burden of change on those who do not necessarily have the expertise, but rather can move between discourse communities.
Second, there needs to be different channels of communication available for different discourse communities. These should not be exclusive of one discourse community or another, rather they should be available to open up dialogue between discourse communities. Formal channels might need to be set up to encourage and allow interaction between the different discourse communities.

Finally, there needs to be a way to ensure that group members are all adept at moving between the discourse communities so that the burden of work does not fall to one or a small group of people. This also ensures that when one person leaves the group, the group will not be paralyzed due to lack of interpretation between discourse communities.

Power structures and ownership

In comparing the two documents, the quarterly report and the project map, there was a difference in the perceived level of ownership. The quarterly report was perceived as being owned by the organization and/or the funding agency whereas the project map was perceived as being owned by the group and/or individual members. The amount of effort and the level of knowledge sharing decreased the further ownership was perceived by the individual. Related to this was an individual’s perception of their place within a task’s power structure. The more an individual perceived they had a higher level of agency within a work task , that their work was important to those within the power structure, and/or that they held a vital spot within the power structure, the greater level of ownership they claimed over a work product or process.

Study participants that indicated a high level of efficacy, ownership, and/or position of power over a specific work task or document tended to use more partaged knowledge to accomplish that task. Participants that perceived their knowledge as less valued, an outcome as owned by others, and/or having limited power over a specific work task or document tended to rely on knowledge that could be represented tangibly.

In order to access a deeper level of worker knowledge, therefore, group members need to feel as if their knowledge is valued. Previous research on information sharing in group decision making processes concur that there needs to be an environment that creates trust within a group, allows for disagreement or contrary information and opinion, rewards (intrinsic and extrinsic) for contribution to the group, and opportunity (through management and communication style) to create knowledge through environment, dialog, communication tools, and time to negotiate meaning (Galinsky & Kray, 2004; Larson, Foster-Fishman, & Franz, 1998; Jeffrey, Maes, & Bratton-Jeffrey, 2005; Miller, Jackson, Mueller, & Schersching,1987).

It is important that employees understand that there will be some work tasks and artifacts for which they will not be able to claim ownership. Government documents, for example, are owned by the government in that they must conform to government expectations. It is important in this case that knowledge that can be tangibly represented be used in creating the document. On the other hand, planning memos or documents to which group members can claim ownership can create tacit knowledge, or access partaged knowledge. Partaged knowledge will not be evident in the document, but will be evident through the effective use of group and group member knowledge in the creation of the document. Both types of documents and collaborative writing processes are important for the organization.
Those within the power structure need to hand over ownership at appropriate times in order to maximize knowledge creation within the organization.

One way to hand the ownership over to groups or individuals is through different types of feedback. During this study, managers and group members used different types of feedback which either provided ownership or withheld ownership at different levels of the process. For example, the IT Director gave specific stylistic changes to one group member needed to make for the quarterly report which took ownership away from from the group member and gave it to the IT Director. On the other hand, the IT Director signed off on the Project Map, giving approval for the document (a form of feedback) but maintaining the group’s ownership of the document. In the first case, ownership of the quarterly report was perceived as being owned by the funding organization and the organization itself whereas the second document was perceived as being owned by the group. Study participants, with the exception of the project manager, perceived very little knowledge creation from the quarterly report, but a high level of knowledge came out of the discussions and creation of the second document. The project manager, a member of the power structure (management) was a co-owner/creator of the quarterly report, so it is understandable why he perceived a greater level of knowledge creation from the quarterly report.

Work Patterns

The study group, like many distributed groups, had competing goals and priorities within which they were working. As reported in previous research on workplace writing (Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994; Martin et al., 2003; Mason & Lefrere, 2003; Yakhlef, 2002), the collaborative writing process can create organizational memory through the conversion of tacit knowledge into knowledge that can be tangibly represented. The tangibly represented knowledge is the result of filtering tacit knowledge and converting it into a form that can be saved and accessed by the organization. Not all tacit knowledge will be recorded, and the process used to convert tacit knowledge into recorded organizational knowledge may create new tacit knowledge. For example, one participant created new processes in order to capture the explicit knowledge required by the funding organization. The quarterly report itself became a record of organizational memory (knowledge that was represented tangibly). However, the new processes created to capture this information generated new implicit knowledge that the participant then used to identify resources needed by those providing the information (stakeholders of the project).

More complex written documents such as analyses, planning documents, visual or creative products and representations of works (e.g. blueprints, advertisements, project management, PERT or Gantt charts), however, are tied into the complex environment within which a distributed group works. These writing processes of distributed groups fall into Lowery’s (2004) expanded definition of writing outlined in Chapter 2:

The potential scope of [Collaborative Writing] goes beyond the more basic act of joint composition to include the likihood of pre- and posttask activities, team formation, and planning. Furthermore, based on the desired writing task, [Collaborative Writing] includes the possibility of many different control approaches, team roles, and work modes (p. 72-74).

In the case of a distributed team, there may be competing control approaches, team member roles and goals, and work mode pressures throughout the duration of a collaborative writing task. The complex collaborative writing task generates more than a final product: it also helps to create knowledge networks and an understanding of multiple environments that impact the distributed group. The written product within these complex environments often becomes visceral as the competing work patterns require changes in the final written product. Thus, a distributed group’s writing process becomes one of drafts, feedback within the group, changes in work patterns, feedback from individual members’ environments, changes in work patterns, changes in the interpretation of the written draft, and changes (if necessary) to the final draft of the written product to align work pattern expectations within the group and their knowledge networks.
As demonstrated in the differences between the professions, group, and departments, distributed groups need both time and opportunity to interact as a means of developing shared cognition and mental models. This, in turn, will provide group members the opportunity to access/develop tacit and partaged knowledge. In addition, the choice of group members within a distributed group may impact the amount of knowledge created by a group. Members of a group with social capital outside of their departments will be able to use expertise and knowledge that is perceived as having value outside of the group. For example, some of the study participants were able to work with group members outside of their own departments because they had expertise and the ability to communicate with those outside of the group. When one member's social capital outside of the group lost value, she was no longer as effective in her work and eventually left the organization.

References

Akgun, A., Lynn, G., & Byrne, J. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Human Relations, 56 (7), 839-868.

Barab, S. & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (eds.) Theoretical foundations of learning environments. pp. 25-55. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boland, R. & Tenkasi, R. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6 (4), 350-372.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21.

Cohen, M, & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as a procedural memory: Evidence froma laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), p. 554-568.

Conceicao, P., Heitor, M., Gibson, D., & Shariq, S. (1998). The emerging importance of knowledge for development: Implications for technology policy and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 181-202.

Contu, A. & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14 (3), 283-296.

Cook, S. & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4), 381-400.

Foss, N., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context. Journal of International Management, 8, 49-67.

Engleberg, I. & Wynn, D. (2007). Working in Groups. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Galanes, G. & Adams, K. (2007). Effective Group Discussion: Theory and Practice. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Galinsky, A. & Kray, L. (2004). From thinking about what might have been to sharing what we know: The effects of counterfactual mind-sets on information sharing in groups, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 606–618.

Gersick, Connie (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (1), 9-31.

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96 (3) p. 606-633.

Jarvela, S., & Hakkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning: The quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(1), 1-22.

Jeffrey, A., Maes, J., and Bratton-Jeffrey, M. (2005) Improving team decision-making performance with collaborative modeling. Team Performance Management 11 (1/2), p. 40-50.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a the source of learning and development. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Larson Jr., J., Foster-Fishman, P. & Franz, T. (1998). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 (5), 482.

Levesque, L., Wilson, J., & Wholey, D. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 135-144.

Lowry, P., Nunamaker Jr., J., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. (2005). The impact of process structure on novice, internet based, asynchronous-distributed collaborative writing teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

Martin, G., Massy, J., & Clarke, T. (2003). When absorptive capacity meets institutions and (e)learners: Adopting, diffusing and exploiting e-learning in organizations. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 228-244.

Mason, J., & Lefrere, P. (2003). Trust, collaboration, e-learning, and organisational transformation. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 259-270.

McGrath, J., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 95-105.

Miller, C., Jackson, P., Mueller, J., & Schersching, C. (1987). Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 92), 325-332.

Moreland, R., & Levine, J. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Skitka, L. (2003). Of different minds: An accessible identity model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 286-297.

Tuckman, Bruce (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. In Classics for Group Facilitators.

Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3), 357-371.

Yakhlef, A. (2002). Towards a discursive approach to organisational knowledge formation. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 319-339.