Leveraging Knowledge Communication for Innovation Framework, Methods and Applications of Social Network Analysis in Research and Development
Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) am Fachbereich Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin vorgelegt von Tobias Müller-Prothmann Berlin, August 2005
Please cite as: Müller-Prothmann, Tobias (2006): Leveraging Knowledge Communication for Innovation. Framework, Methods and Applications of Social Network Analysis in Research and Development, Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang.
Eingereicht im Prüfungsbüro Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft am Fachbereich Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin 1. Gutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gernot Wersig 2. Gutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Horst Völz Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 13. Dezember 2005
Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gernot Wersig, whose expertise, experience, and critical remarks added considerably to the subject, structure, and content of my doctoral thesis. I appreciate his vast knowledge and skills in many areas of research. Moreover, he was the best boss I could imagine during my work as a research associate at the Freie Universität Berlin, Institute for Media and Communication Studies, Department of Information Science. Gernot, thank you! I would like to thank my second advisor, Univ.-Prof. Dr. Horst Völz, who gave me useful hints from the perspective of a natural scientist that extended my own scope as a sociologist, economist and researcher in information and communication science. I am also very grateful to Andrea Siegberg (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft e.V., Headquarters / D3 Knowledge Management, Sankt Augustin) and Ina Finke (Fraunhofer Institute for Production Systems and Design Technology, Berlin) for providing me the opportunity to undertake empirical case studies within their organizations as well as for their co-operation, suggestions, and support for my research. Thanks also to all the experts who participated in the survey as well as to all the members of the Fraunhofer-Wissensmanagement Community and the participants of the advanced training program “Unternehmertum in der Wissensgesellschaft” at the Freie Universität Berlin who participated in the case studies. I must also acknowledge Chris Lawer (Cranfield School of Management and The OMC Group, UK) for critical and fruitful comments and his valuable contribution in reviewing and correcting draft versions of articles for publication. Appreciation also goes out to my colleagues, especially Dr. Petra SchuckWersig and Charlotte Jenkel, who provided me with social support, and to our student staff, Michael Scharkow and Steffen Müller, who provided me with technical support. I would also like to thank my parents for the support they provided me throughout my entire life and Alexandra without whose love, encouragement, and editing assistance, I would not have finished this thesis.
Berlin, December 2005 Tobias Müller-Prothmann
vi
Contents
List of Tables
xi
List of Figures
xiii
1
2
Introduction
1
1.1 1.2 1.3
1 2 5
Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Perceptions of Knowledge, Knowledge Society and Knowledge Management
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
The Emerging Knowledge Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Basic Descriptions and Characteristics of the Knowledge Society . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Knowledge Society and the Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perspectives, Conceptions and Social Construction of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Epistemology of Knowledge Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Data—Information—Knowledge: Knowledge as Capacity for Action . . . . . 2.2.4 Knowledge as a Symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 Social Construction of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.6 A Network Model of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.7 Expertise and Specialized Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.8 The Production of Innovative Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.9 Knowledge and Habitus or: Practical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.10 Knowledge as an Empirical Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.11 The Framework of a Pragmatic Conception of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.12 Knowledge and its Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Constitutional Conditions of Knowledge Management and its Institutionalization . . . 2.3.1 Sociological Institutional Analysis and Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 The Principle Idea of Knowledge Management: Knowledge as a Competitive Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Knowledge Management and its Frame of Reference: Flourishing Knowledge Creation Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Knowledge Management and Sanctioning Mechanisms: In Search of Measuring Knowledge Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Consequences: Technology Orientation and Capitalization of Knowledge . . . 2.3.6 Competition between Principles and other Interdependencies: The Rise of Multiple Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.7 Current State and Future Developments of the Institutionalization of Knowledge Management: Summary and Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Today’s Knowledge Management Practices and Future Perspectives – Expert Views . . 2.4.1 About the Expert Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Central Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Recent Advances of Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
9 9 13 15 15 15 16 18 19 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 30 30 32 33 33 34 35 37 38 38 41 43
viii
Contents
2.5
3
Communities and Social Networks in Organizational Knowledge Communication
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4
2.4.4 Today’s and Tomorrow’s Challenges of Knowledge Management . . . . . . . 2.4.5 Methods, Measures, and Instruments of Knowledge Management . . . . . . . Communication and Management of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 About Conceptual Approaches to Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Components and Practices of Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 The Conceptual Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Knowledge Communication and Management: Limits and Potentials . . . . . 2.5.4 Organizational Knowledge Communication and Knowledge Transfer as the Focal Point of Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.5 Networks as Institutionalized Intermediaries of Knowledge Communication . .
4.2
54 57 60 63
Organizational Knowledge Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.1.1 About Theories of Organizational Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.1.2 Communication of Knowledge in Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.1.3 Structural Theories of Organizations and Communication . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.1.4 About the Concepts of Formal and Informal Organization . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.1.5 Informal Knowledge Communication and the Role of Communities and Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 The Role of Communities for Knowledge Communication – Expert Views . . . . . . . 71 3.2.1 Perceptions of Knowledge Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3.2.2 General Importance and Role of Knowledge Communities . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.2.3 The Importance and Role of Knowledge Communities in R & D and Innovative Knowledge Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Sociological Perspectives and Limits of the Community Concept – “Classics” revisited 75 3.3.1 About Perceptions and Conceptualizations of Communities . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.3.2 “Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft” (Community and Society) . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.3.3 The Social Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.3.4 Limits of the Community Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Knowledge Communities, Communities of Practice, Knowledge Networks – Expert Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 3.4.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 3.4.2 An Expert View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.4.3 Similarities and Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 3.4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Social Network Perspective and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 3.5.1 Knowledge Community and Its Critiques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 3.5.2 Network Definitions and Social Network Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.5.3 Social Networks and Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3.5.4 The Social Capital of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3.5.5 Definition and Concept of Knowledge Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Social Networks and the Generation of Innovations
4.1
45 47 50 50 50
The Generation of Innovations in the Knowledge Society 4.1.1 The Generation of Innovation and R & D . . . . 4.1.2 Innovation and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Entrepreneurs as the Drivers of Innovation . . . . Knowledge Management in R & D – Expert Views . . . 4.2.1 Role and Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Methods, Measures and Instruments . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Key People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
103
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
103 103 106 108 109 109 110 112
ix
Contents
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5
4.2.4 Personal Networks and Communities in R & D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Networks and Knowledge Communication in R & D Environments . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 R & D, Knowledge and the Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 R & D Management: Knowledge and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Internal and External R & D Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 R & D Networks and the Dimension of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Social Networks in R & D Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 Communication and Management of Knowledge in R & D Networks . . . Institutionalization of Knowledge Transfer in R & D: Networks as Intermediaries 4.4.1 Networks as a Third Form of Organization Beyond Market and Hierarchy 4.4.2 Institutionalized Intermediation through Social Networks in R & D . . . . 4.4.3 Advantages and Examples of Institutionalized Innovation Networks . . . Entrepreneurial Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Networking and the Entrepreneurial Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 The Entrepreneurial Capital of Structural Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limits of the Network Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Big Mother: The Metaphor of Social Net(work)s and its Critiques . . . . 4.6.2 Limits of Social Network Analysis as a Theoretical Framework . . . . . 4.6.3 Limits of Social Network Analysis as an Empirical Method . . . . . . .
Social Network Analysis as a Knowledge Management Tool
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
113 114 114 116 120 123 124 126 129 129 130 132 135 135 137 139 139 140 141 145
Introduction to Social Network Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 5.1.1 About the Approach of Network Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 5.1.2 Social Network Analysis as a Methodical Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 5.1.3 Social Networks and Knowledge Networks: Definitions and Basic Properties . 147 5.1.4 Basic Network Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Social Network Analysis as a Knowledge Management Tool – Method Development . 153 5.2.1 Aims of Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5.2.2 Fields of Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 5.2.3 Multi-level Social Network Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Application of Social Network Analysis as a Knowledge Management Tool – Basic Steps158 5.3.1 Basic Steps and Conditions of Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5.3.2 Creation of Personal Involvement and Organizational Openness . . . . . . . . 159 5.3.3 Definition of the Analytical Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 5.3.4 Conceptualization of the Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 5.3.5 Identification of Network Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5.3.6 Strategies to Gain Commitment: Other Involved Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 5.3.7 Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 5.3.8 Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 5.3.9 Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 5.3.10 Interventions and Follow-up Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Case Study 1 (Pre-test Study): Leveraging Organizational Expertise . . . . . . . . . . 173 5.4.1 Social Network Analysis as a Method for Identification of Expertise and Knowledge Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 5.4.2 Basic conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 5.4.3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 5.4.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 5.4.5 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Case Study 2 (Evaluation Study): Entrepreneurial Network Evolution . . . . . . . . . 188 5.5.1 Social Network Analysis for Evaluation and Support of Entrepreneurial Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
x
Contents
5.6
5.7
6
5.5.2 Subjective Relevance of Knowledge Exchange for Entrepreneurial Action . . . 189 5.5.3 Knowledge Network Characteristics and Central Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 5.5.4 Network Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Case Study 3 (Application Study): Inter-organizational Knowledge Community Building210 5.6.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 5.6.2 Social Network Analysis as a Method for the Evaluation and Support of Interorganizational Community Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 5.6.3 Subjective Relevance of Knowledge Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 5.6.4 Communication Media Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 5.6.5 Communication Network Characteristics and Central Actors . . . . . . . . . . 217 5.6.6 Domain-related Knowledge Networks and their Characteristics . . . . . . . . . 222 5.6.7 Evolution of the KM Community Building Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Leveraging Knowledge Communication Networks – Approaches to Interpretations and Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 5.7.1 Whole-Network Properties and Knowledge Communication . . . . . . . . . . 227 5.7.2 Knowledge Communication and Impact of Network Structures . . . . . . . . . 228 5.7.3 Roles and Positional Models of Knowledge Communication Networks . . . . . 230 5.7.4 Measuring the Boundary-spanning Character of Inter-Organizational Networks 234 5.7.5 Examples of Interventions for Leveraging Knowledge Communication in Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Conclusion and Outlook
6.1 6.2 6.3
241
Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Research Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Bibliography
249
List of Tables
2.1 2.2 2.3
Four Aspects of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge Management Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge Networks Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 3.2
Types of Network-Like Structures: A Snapshot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Basic Network Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.1 4.2 4.3
Basic Characteristics of R & D Management Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Innovation Phases and Key Communication Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Network Levels and Knowledge Management Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.1 5.2
Adjacency Matrix of Social Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Descriptive Statistics of Subjective Relevance of Knowledge Exchange and Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Descriptive Statistics of Subjective Relevance of Domain-related Knowledge Exchange and Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Correlations of Domain-related Relevance of Knowledge Exchange . . . Case Study 2: Correlations of Dimension-related Relevance of Knowledge Exchange . Case Study 2: Entrepreneurial Activity and Relevance of Networking . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Reciprocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Actor Degree Centrality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Domain-related Networks: Density and Centralization . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Blocks of the Knowledge Exchange Network for Project and Customer Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Domain-related Actor Centralities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Domain-related Central Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Comparison between All Actors and Central Actors 1 . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Comparison between All Actors and Central Actors 2 . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Descriptive Statistics All vs. Central Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Central Actors in t2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Central Actors in t1&t2 and All Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Descriptive Statistics of Relevance of the KM Community . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Descriptive Statistics of Relevance of Co-operation and Information Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Correlations Relevance of Knowledge Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Descriptive Statistics of Communication Media Use . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Correlations Frequency and Relevance of Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Centralization and Density of the Communication Network . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Communication Network E-I Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Communication Network Blocks According to Frequencies . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Blocks of Organizational Sub-groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Centrality and Density in Domain-related Networks . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27
16 53 62
149 191 191 194 195 196 198 198 200 201 201 202 204 204 205 208 208 212 213 215 216 218 219 220 221 221 223
xii
List of Tables
5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33
Case Study 3: Members of Main Components in Domain-related Networks Case Study 3: k-cores and Cut-points in Domain-related Networks in t2 . . Case Study 3: Central Actors within Domain-related Networks in t2 . . . . Case Study 3: E-I Index of Domain-related Networks in t2 . . . . . . . . . Roles, Network Positions and Popularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aims, Examples and Solutions for IT-based and Social Interventions . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
223 225 225 225 234 237
List of Figures
1.1 1.2
Overview Methodical Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview Conceptual Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
The Knowledge Ladder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expert Survey: Recent Advances of Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . Expert Survey: Challenges of Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expert Survey: Methods, Measures, and Instruments in Knowledge Management Knowledge Life Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Framework of Knowledge Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
17 43 46 48 51 59
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Expert Survey: Expert Survey: Expert Survey: Expert Survey: Expert Survey:
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
Structures of the Technological Design Process . . . . . . Expert Survey: Knowledge Management in R & D . . . . . Expert Survey: Knowledge Management Methods in R & D Expert Survey: Key People in R & D . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21
Characteristics of Knowledge Communities . . . . . . . . Role of Knowledge Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of Knowledge Communities in R & D . . . . . . . . Communities versus Knowledge Networks . . . . . . . . Communities of Practice versus Knowledge Communities
3 8
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
72 73 74 91 92
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
105 110 111 112
A Graph of Social Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Network Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Matching Method for Expert Identification . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Seniority Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Self-assessment of Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Experts Project Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Contact Persons Project Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Experts Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Contact Persons Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Experts Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Contact Persons Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Experts Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Contact Persons Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Experts External Key Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 1: Contact Persons External Key Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: General, Project-specific and Expected Relevance of Networks Case Study 2: Relevance of Domain-related Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Detailed Relevance of Domain-related Networks . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Simple Network in Circle View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
148 151 152 175 177 178 179 180 180 181 182 182 183 183 184 184 184 192 192 193 199
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
xiv
List of Figures
5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39
Case Study 2: Multiplex Domain-related Network in Circle View . . . . Case Study 2: Domain-related Networks in Circle View . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Multiplexity of the Core Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Actual Relevance of Knowledge Exchange . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Communication Network in t2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 2: Communication Network in t2 with Different Strengths . Case Study 3: Relevance of the KM Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Relevance of Co-operation and Information Exchange . . Case Study 3: KM Community Use of Communication Media . . . . . Case Study 3: KM Community Frequencies of Media Use . . . . . . . Case Study 3: KM Community Frequencies and Relevance of Contacts Case Study 3: Communication Networks in t1 and t2 . . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Frequencies of Internal and External Communications . . Case Study 3: Collapsed Communication Network in t2 . . . . . . . . . Case Study 3: Collapsed Multiplex Domain-related Network in t2 . . . Formal Versus Expert Structure in a Research Organization . . . . . . . “Silo” and “Spaghetti” Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example of a Network Structure for Expert Knowledge Communication
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
199 200 203 205 207 207 212 213 216 217 218 219 220 222 224 230 235 238
