Web 2.0 and Knowledge Management

The subject of the following review is Moria Levy’s article, Web 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management published in the Journal of Knowledge Management in 2009 (Vol. 13, Issue 1). Levy is the founder and CEO of ROM Knowledgeware, a knowledge management solutions firm in Israel. She holds a Master’s degree in Computer science and a PhD in knowledge management. She has 25 years work experience in the computer field, and twelve years experience in knowledge management. Levy’s article is divided into three main parts. The first part concentrates on Web 2.0. She then went on to explain Enterprise 2.0, the application of Web 2.0 on organizations. The third part, the core of her article, tries to show the nexus of knowledge management (KM) and Web 2.0 into four aspects. This review will highlight the important issues on Levy’s article on how knowledge management can be enhanced with Web 2.0.

Levy’s approach in introducing Web 2.0 to the reader is similar to those of other authors.  She presented several different definitions of Web 2.0 from different sources, giving the reader a hint of the controversial nature of the term Web 2.0. However, she gave emphasis on the eight principles of Web 2.0 that are connected to knowledge management, to name a few: web as a platform, services development, collective intelligence, and active participation of users. She also touched several popular applications such as wiki, blogs, RSS, tagging, and social networking to further explain what Web 2.0 is.

The second part of the article introduces the term Enterprise 2.0 as an implementation of the Web 2.0 infrastructure and/or tools by organizations (Levy, 2009, p.125).Because Enterprise 2.0 has only several aspects connected to KM, Levy proposes a quadric to analyze Web 2.0 used by organizations based on the type of technology adapted and the type of user that is being addressed (Levy, 2009, p.125). An application of Levy’s matrix could be found in an article written by Bebensee, Helms, & Spruit (2010). However, despite of some tools and applications of Web 2.0 being used in several organizations, there is no study undertaken on the level of adaption of these tools and most usage is not for “production” (Levy, 2009, p.127). Skepticism abounds about its relevance for companies. Levy (2009, p.127) points out that security and lose of control are issues that are of utmost concern from CIOs.  In addition, other factors such as hierarchy anarchy, rejecting social computing, “heard it all before” attitude and not trusting employees are possible barriers to organizations from implementing Web 2.0 (Tebbutt cited in Gilchrist, 2007, p.130).

In the third part, without giving an introduction of what knowledge management is, Levy compares knowledge management to Web 2.0 into four aspects. Readers who are not familiar with the concept may refer to introductory knowledge management literatures like Dalkir (2005). The author’s conceptual aspect of comparing KM to Web 2.0 is based on her argument that KM is based on specific needs that require analysis, KM solutions, as well as processes and technology that fits (Levy, 2009). She suggests that “Web 2.0 tools and its perpetual beta capability is the appropriate technology that can support KM” (Levy 2009, p128). Based on the comparison of the eight principles of Web 2.0 to that of KM,  she argues that aside from the main difference (of decentralized Web 2.0 against the centralized, controlled nature of KM), “Web 2.0 principles are part of the traditional KM core concepts” (Levy, 2009, p.129). Similarly, the comparison of the tools and attributes between Web 2.0 and KM reveals that despite of the existence of gaps between the two, "most Web 2.0 applications and tools have roots in KM tools” (Levy, 2009, p.129). Based on the statement of Snowden (cited in Levy, 2009) that social computing is about different tools that co-evolve with each other, with people, and with the environment, Levy (2009) suggests that Web 2.0 tools can help KM evolve. Under organizational culture, Levy pins her hope to the younger generation to be the catalysts of changes in KM due to their easy adaptation socially and technologically, a notion disputed by some analysts. Bechina and Ribiere (2009, p.62) believe that motivation, i.e., people inclination of using Web 2.0 technologies is the decisive element and not the age. Levy (2007, p.132) also points out that “Web 2.0 focuses on people while knowledge management focuses on organisations but  in order to benefit from the trust that Web 2.0 has, the focus has to be changed”. Tebbutt (cited in Levy, 2009, p.132) also see the change needed on KM on focusing on people. However, for this to happen, the above mentioned barriers from implementing Web 2.0 into organizations need to be resolved.

In her concluding remarks, Levy gave a sound practical advice of the application of web 2.0 in KM. She sees its significant impact and calls for this new wave of technology to be adopted in knowledge management in the application level (Levy, 2009.) However, in the conceptual level, she calls for organizations to be cautious and to move slowly for knowledge management is not mature enough to let go its centralized control and because organizations are much smaller than the web, different rules apply (Levy, 2009).

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.

Bechina, A.A.A., & Ribiere, V. (2009). Is the Emergence of Social Software a Source of Knowledge Management Revival? Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, 56-65.

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Boston : Elsevier/ Butterworth Heinemann.

Gilchrist, A. (2007). Can Web 2.0 be Used Effectively Inside Organisations? Information World / Bilgi Dunyasi, 8(1), 123-139.

Levy, M. (2009). Web 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134.