Information and Knowledge Management using ArcGIS ModelBuilder

Giovanni Camponovo
A different criteria is employed by Porter (2004), who based on community structure distinguishes
between member-initiated and organization-sponsored communities: the former is established and
self-managed by members and can have a social or professional orientation, the latter is established
and managed by either a commercial, non-commercial or governmental organization. This distinction
is also made by Camponovo and Picco-Schwendener (2010), who differentiate pure communities
(built and managed by members in a self-organized way) and hybrid communities (built and managed
by an organization that supports individual members that are willing to participate).
Because both criteria are expected have an important impact on members’ motivations, we propose
here to use an integrated taxonomy that combines both criteria which is shown in the figure below
(remark that a community may also span over more than one community type at the same time).
Table 2: Taxonomy of virtual communities (adapted from Markus 2002, Porter 2004)
Type Social orientation Professional orientation Commercial orientation
Subtype
memberinitiated
organizationsponsored
Entertainment
(e.g. gaming,
user-generated
content)
Relationship
building
(e.g. common
interests)
Expert
network
(e.g.
practice,
knowledge)
Learning
(e.g. open
source)
B2B
(e.g. brand,
e-markets)
C2C
(e.g. P2P,
auctions)
This framework is used as a basis for the following chapters dedicated to describing the motivation in
the various types of communities. Our choice of community is made firstly by choosing three types of
communities according to their goal: a social-oriented type of community like communities of interest,
a professional-oriented community like open-source communities and a commercial oriented
community like a wireless community (C2C). Then within the three types we will make a further
distinction based on community structure, distinguishing between member-initiated and organizationsponsored
communities.
3.3 Motivations in wireless communities
A nice starting point for describing research on motivation in wireless communities is a literature
review (Bina and Giaglis, 2005) that identifies 8 papers that propose a first list of motivations
(cooperative spirit, gain prestige, challenge telecom firms and promote free communication) without
empirical investigation.
The first attempt to study these motivations empirically developed a theoretical model with a broad
mix of intrinsic (enjoyment, competence, autonomy, relatedness), obligation-based (reciprocity,
shared values) and extrinsic motivations (explicit rewards, external pressure, self-esteem, ego
involvement, connectivity needs, human capital, career prospect, altruism). The model was tested
with surveys in Greece (Bina and Giaglis, 2006) and Australia (Lawrence et al., 2007), finding that
different groups of members participate with different mixes of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, with
the former being more prevalent.
Subsequent studies in Canada (Wong and Clement, 2007; Cho, 2008) found that similar short-term
motivations based on personal interest (fun, learning, social, professional networking, free access) are
complemented by long-term motivations based on public interest (promoting inclusion in the
Information Society, media democracy, civic activism). A recent paper (Shaffer, 2010) found similar
self interest motivations like gratification from using technical skills, obtaining free access and public
interest motivations like contributing to expanding broadband access.
Finally, (Camponovo and Picco-Schwendener, 2010) analyzed motivations in large ‘hybrid’ community
(supported by a firm) finding that unlike in pure communities members are motivated mainly by
utilitarian (free network access) or psychological (idealism and feeling competent) rather than intrinsic
or social motivations (socializing with peers or feel part of a community).
602