Levy, M. (2009).
Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134. doi:
10.1108/13673270910931215
Moria Levy, CEO of the Israeli
Knowledge Management firm ROM Knowledgeware (Levy, 2009, p. 120) has worked
within the Knowledge Management environment since 1998 (“Company Employees,”
n.d. ¶1). Studying recent relevant
published articles, Levy examines whether Web 2.0 concepts and tools can
improve the integration of Knowledge Management (KM) within organisations. Levy discusses key Web 2.0 applications,
later comparing the principles, tools and attributes of each to corresponding
KM principles. The paper is divided into
a review of Web 2.0; implementation of Web 2.0 into organisations (Enterprise
2.0); and knowledge sharing in organisations (Knowledge Management 2.0).
When reviewing Web
2.0 Levy poses “So what is Web 2.0” (p 121) and attempts to answer by citing
other sources in relation to the definition and principles, emphasising it is
people oriented. She also attempts to
categorise and analyse Web 2.0 applications.
In relation to Enterprise 2.0 Levy states not all of its aspects can be
connected to KM and the use of Web 2.0 in organisations must be analysed by the
type of technology adopted as well as user orientation. Levy emphasises Web 2.0 applications and
tools are already used in many organisations, albeit mainly initiated by
departments within the organisations themselves than by head office. She suggests security issues, fear of losing
control and Web 2.0 hype are factors of resistance to Web 2.0. She believes younger employees use Web 2.0
and that adoption of Web 2.0 tools will occur more easily than acceptance of
the concept. Levy cites many different
references in this section and has drawn on a variety of credible sources,
indicating her depth of knowledge.
When describing
Knowledge Management 2.0, Levy highlights passive employees as an ongoing issue
that could be facilitated by Web 2.0 as it provides the opportunity to share
24/7 and could be seen as non-work related.
Levy uses four aspects (conceptual, principals, functional abilities of
tools & applications, and organisational culture) to compare KM and Web
2.0, providing tables highlighting comparisons in principles, and tools & attributes. Levy suggests organisation culture could be
another cause of resistance to the adoption of Web 2.0. Bebensee, Helms & Spurit agree stating it
could “have a major effect on the effectiveness of adopting Web 2.0
applications for KM” (p. 73). KM 2.0 was
another area Levy seemed comfortable, again drawing upon many different
references. Consequently, she has
thoroughly analysed and found similarities between KM and Web 2.0.
Levy closes by
recommending organisations prepare to let go of controlling information,
suggesting blogs and wikis as a good starting point. She believes Web 2.0 tools should be used not
only because they can enhance KM but because people will expect it. She also propositions using the younger
generation as catalysts for implementation, a concept Bebensee et al. concur
using findings from a recent Pew Research Institute study as evidence (Jones
& Fox., as cited in Bebensee, 2010, p. 68).
Overall, the article was difficult
to follow due to its poor structure.
Upon first read, it was arduous to understand what Levy was trying to
convey. The sentence structure was often
confusing and the numbering structure of Web 2.0 applications was
inconsistent. However, after several
readings, the article was found to be informative. Levy goes into great detail in her review of
Web 2.0, heavily referencing Tim O’Reilly while only briefly quoting a few
other sources (mainly in the one paragraph).
This could suggest bias. Ultimately
Levy’s own opinion/definition of Web 2.0 is unclear, suggesting she may not
have a clear understanding of it.
Bebensee et al. describe Web 2.0 very similarly to Levy (2010, p. 67)
but have managed to convey it much more concisely and effectively. Levy’s final recommendations are restrained,
however this makes sense if the KM arena is one where the acceptance of sharing
has been slow and there is an overall fear of losing control of
information. With the exception of the
definition of Web 2.0, Levy has drawn upon different articles by many different
authors to carefully compare the principles, tools and attributes of Web 2.0
and KM principles.
References
Bebensee, T., Helms, R., & Spruit, M. (2010).
Exploring Web 2.0 Applications as a Mean of Bolstering up Knowledge Management.
Proceedings Of The European Conference On Knowledge Management, 65-73.
Company Employees. (n.d.). Retrieved from ROM
Knowledgeware Ltd’http://www.kmrom.com/Site-En/Members/CompanyEmployees.aspx?MemberID=0&P=278
No comments:
Post a Comment