Information and Knowledge Management using ArcGIS ModelBuilder

Giovanni Camponovo
A graphical summary of these papers and the relative motivation is shown below.
Table 3: Motivations in wireless communities
Psychological factors Social factors Utilitarian factors
Author type Interest competenc
enjoymen e self-
t esteem
altruistic
values
social
relations
social
influence
reciprocity
Utility
(pers.
need)
Utility
(rewards)
(Bina and
pure
Giaglis, 2006)
(Lawrence et
pure
al., 2007)
atlruism,
collective
rewards
interest competence relatedness
ideology
identificatio reciprocity connectivity (insignifican
n
t)
intrinsic competence atlruism,
(Wong and
Clement, pure
2007)
(Cho, 2008) pure
(Shaffer, variou
2010) s
(Camponovo
and Picco- hybrid
Schwendener
2010)
(Camponovo
and Piccohybrid
Schwendener,
2011)
collective
rewards
relatedness
ideology
identificatio reciprocity connectivity (insignifican
n
t)
promoting
cooperative
reduce
access
connectivity
membership
costs
(low)
providing social
professional
fun learning
free WiFi networking
related
goals
use
expand
technical
connectivity save money
access
skills
cheap
feeling altruistic contact with sense of
reciprocity connectivity router,
competent reasons members community
revenue
cheap
technical spirit of
reciprocity connectivity router,
interest sharing
revenue
It appears that while motivations are very heterogeneous, utilitarian motivation (obtain free
connectivity), together with altruistic motivation (help others by offering access) and competence (the
possibility to learn and show technical skills) are the most frequently cited motivations. While the mix
of utilitarian and altruistic motivation may seem strange, it is worth noticing that with the diffusion of
flat-fee broadband connections offering free access to others does not have any impact on costs or
personal use.
What is more interesting is that social and intrinsic motivations are higher in pure communities,
whereas utilitarian motivations are more salient in hybrid communities. This may be explained by the
presence of a firm in hybrid communities, their greater use of rewards (which tend to have a negative
effect on intrinsic motivation (Gagné and Deci, 2005)), their larger size (which increases utility due to
network externalities (Economides, 1996) and reduces the strength of social ties among members
(Olson, 1971)) or because they emerged later (thus attract late adopters that are more attracted by
tangible aspects (Moore, 1999)).
3.4 Motivations in virtual communities of practice
Virtual communities of interest or practice are without doubt the most studied virtual communities,
probably because they have a much longer tradition than the other types (they exist since more than
30 years in the form of Usenet newsgroups and forums) and have been widely adopted inside
organizations (in particular to help communication and share knowledge among employees). A
selection of the most relevant empirical studies of member motivations in such communities is shown
in the next table.
The investigation of motivation for contributing to organizational communities of practice aimed at
sharing knowledge inside organizations has produced a large body of literature that focuses on the
importance of sharing knowledge as a foundation for a firm’s competitive advantage (cf. Grant, 1991)
and the importance of personal beliefs, institutional structure and context (cf. Bock et al., 2005 for a
nice literature review).
With regard to empirical studies about the motivations of individuals, various authors have been
inspired by different theories and have consequently found rather heterogeneous results as shown
below in table 5. For instance Bock et al. (2002; 2005) found that contributors are driven primarily by
anticipated reciprocal relationships, a sense of self-worth by contributing and an organizational climate
that is fair and innovative, but may be hindered by extrinsic rewards. In contrast, (Kankanhalli et al.,
603