Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Frank Habermann, Jörg Fehlinger and Karen Schmidt
understanding, exchange ideas and assess information. For such a meeting, <strong>the</strong>y need a space,
ei<strong>the</strong>r physical or virtual. The easier communal rooms can be accessed, <strong>the</strong> better knowledge can
flow. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> ratio between individually occupied (fixed) rooms and communal (flexible)
<strong>of</strong>fice space should be 30/70 ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> opposite, which to <strong>the</strong> authors’ experience still is <strong>the</strong>
predominant business reality.
Information Technology: “Corporate knowledge maps”, “shared discussion forums”, “joint learning
platforms”; all <strong>the</strong>se terms are indicating <strong>the</strong> same: <strong>the</strong> classical raison d’être for knowledge
management is to provide a high level <strong>of</strong> commonality, very <strong>of</strong>ten manifested as so called
integrated s<strong>of</strong>tware solutions. In this regard, integration in <strong>the</strong> past almost became a killer
argument. If information technology (IT) was integrated, it automatically was “seamless”,
“efficient”, and “lean”. But this is a myth, because it tends to simplify <strong>the</strong> very disadvantages <strong>of</strong>
technical integration. Although creating an integrated user perspective is always a crucial
objective, integration <strong>of</strong> data and functions is not necessarily <strong>the</strong> right way <strong>of</strong> reaching this goal
(Habermann 2011).
Not only Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) has demonstrated that aiming for deep
integration increases complexity significantly. The reason for this is that integration requires a
common meta-model and changes to all involved sub-systems. Business projects that try to
overcome <strong>the</strong>se technical and organizational hurdles usually end up with massive implementation
costs. And <strong>the</strong> resulting IT architectures are characterized by disproportionate maintenance
efforts and exorbitant costs <strong>of</strong> ownership. (Themistocleous 2004, Boisots 2006)
Chaordic knowledge management does not favor integrated s<strong>of</strong>tware solutions. Instead, it is
looking for an alternative IT architecture that helps to overcome isolated legacy systems, without
endangering <strong>the</strong>ir existence. For supporting cross-organizational knowledge sharing <strong>the</strong> desired
technical model should be able to cope with various system instances and combine local
customization needs with <strong>the</strong> corporate demand for aggregated information. What chaordic
knowledge management is looking for is orchestration instead <strong>of</strong> integration! A demand which
goes along perfectly with service oriented architectures, cloud computing and s<strong>of</strong>tware as a
service.
4. Conclusions and outlook
“Knowing <strong>the</strong> owners <strong>of</strong> intellectual capital enables learning, saves time and saves money!” It is very
easy to see and understand <strong>the</strong>se benefits <strong>of</strong> corporate knowledge networks. And, in contrast to
earlier knowledge management philosophies and technologies, social s<strong>of</strong>tware seems to provide <strong>the</strong>
right instruments to utilize <strong>the</strong> full potential <strong>of</strong> corporate knowledge communities.
However, in <strong>the</strong> past, after <strong>the</strong> first wave <strong>of</strong> euphoria, enterprises faced serious problems in
implementing <strong>the</strong>se benefits. The two most significant obstacles are as follows:
Adapting management and leadership approaches: It is true that effectively managing talent,
knowledge and intellectual capital are crucial business issues. But this is a bird’s eye perspective.
The employees’ view is different. The first priority <strong>of</strong> an employee is his or her personal career
and this egoistic agenda is typically fostered by local structures and informal relationships, but
very rarely by enterprise-wide, top-down driven initiatives. This is <strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong>
many centralized knowledge management approaches has been prevented. And it is <strong>the</strong> reason
why employees like <strong>the</strong> decentralized concepts <strong>of</strong> Enterprise 2.0 much better. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand,
we have managers and <strong>the</strong>ir self-image as controllers and leaders. Traditionally <strong>the</strong>ir positions
and roles (as well as <strong>the</strong> bonus system) are based on <strong>the</strong>ir capabilities to provide high level
commonality, methodologically and technically realized by means <strong>of</strong> standardization, classification
and unification. Unfortunately, this runs against <strong>the</strong> paradigms <strong>of</strong> social s<strong>of</strong>tware and dynamic
knowledge networks. This essential conflict has stood <strong>the</strong> test <strong>of</strong> time. It frustrated knowledge
management enthusiasts in <strong>the</strong> nineties and is still interfering implementation <strong>of</strong> effective
corporate knowledge networks. Thus, enterprises have to face <strong>the</strong> truth. If <strong>the</strong>y want to eventually
succeed in utilizing <strong>the</strong> full potential <strong>of</strong> knowledge networks, <strong>the</strong>y have to find a well-defined
balance <strong>of</strong> interests and adapt <strong>the</strong>ir incentive systems accordingly. This article has outlined seven
major challenges in this regard. Consequently meeting <strong>the</strong>se challenges means a fundamental
shift <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existing management practice for many companies.
Handling individual and informal relationships: Knowledge sharing is a very personal relationship
(see e.g. Boone, 2001, Leistner 2010). If person A might be able to easily share knowledge with
404