ENTERPRISE PORTALS

ENTERPRISE PORTALS AS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS FOR KNOWLEDGE USE
JOYLINE MAKANI
Killam Memorial Library, Dalhousie University, 6225 University Ave.
Halifax, NS, B3H 4H8 Canada
E-mail:makani@dal.ca

SYED SIBTE RAZA ABIDI
Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, 6050 University Avenue
Halifax NS B3H 1W5 Canada
E-mail: sraza@cs.dal.ca
This paper conceptually explores enterprise portals as knowledge management systems in the context of knowledge use as a core knowledge management activity. Knowledge use activities are discussed through the lens of the theory of activity systems, which emphasize the interplay of worker actions, language, technologies, social structures, implicit and explicit rules, history and institutions. Drawing from the activity systems theory, the paper also discusses potential tools and methods that can help enterprise portals to support effective knowledge use in enterprises.
1. Introduction
Knowledge management (KM) offers, a new class of application systems, referred to as knowledge management systems (KMS), “designed to allow users to access and utilize the rich sources of data, information and knowledge stored in different forms, and support knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and continuous learning for the knowledge workers” (Razmerita, Angehrn, and Maedche, 2003). KMS go beyond providing easy access to knowledge assets; rather they are designed to address different categories of users with different needs, roles and preferences. Hence, we posit that designing and implementing effective KMS is a significant contributing factor to the successful practice of KM in organizations.
Enterprises are assigning a great deal of time and financial resources to developing KMS. In an enterprise today one can find collections of different, sometimes incompatible KMS, dispersed throughout the enterprise, which are designed to support different enterprise-wide knowledge-worker needs (Benbya, 2008). But recent developments have indicated KMS initiatives in enterprises as ineffective (Benbya, Passiante, and Belbaly, 2004) due to the incompatibilities that exist between the on-the-ground systems and processes. Since KMS are meant to support worker processes they need to be viewed as part of a much larger whole and as such all KMS components need to function as a single unit. As Benbya, (2008) suggested, a KMS should serve as an umbrella, under which all stand alone systems may coexist, operate independently for solving internal problems, and collaborate across organizational boundaries with other systems on common problems for achieving shared goals.
This viewpoint has contributed to a recent surge in the popularity of enterprise portals as KMS. Enterprise portals offer organizations with a rich and complex shared knowledge management workspace for the creation, exchange, retention and reuse of knowledge--if built correctly, enterprise portals can act as “the brain” of the enterprise that equips knowledge workers “with all the knowledge and vital information required to successful perform their engagements” (Benbya, 2008, p. 64). Knowledge management is a process involving a number of knowledge activities which include knowledge acquisition, knowledge use, knowledge sharing, and knowledge storage. In this paper we focus on the knowledge use activities. There is nominal research focusing on the application of enterprise portals as KMS. Also, the relationship between enterprise portal design and knowledge use is not well researched, theoretically as well as empirically. This paper, therefore, explores the use of enterprise portals as KMS and how an enterprise portal’s design supports knowledge use by knowledge workers in an enterprise setting.
Drawing from the theory of organizations as activity systems (Blackler, 1993), we theoretically explore enterprise portals as KMS and how their design support knowledge activities in organizations. In particular, we use Blackler’s (1993) activity systems framework, with its emphasis on the interplay of actions, language, technologies, social structures, implicit and explicit rules, history and institutions, as an analytical lens to examine three interconnected topics—i.e., knowledge management, enterprise portals as KMS, and knowledge use in enterprises. An enterprise portal as a KMS is only useful and successful if a high percentage of knowledge workers use it. Knowledge workers, being users of the enterprise portal, conduct specific tasks which demand different uses of the same or sometimes even different knowledge resources. Therefore, the efficacy of an enterprise portal serving as a KMS can be measured by its ability to provide the integrated knowledge sources and present optimal knowledge to the user at the right time. We argue that, the key to the efficacy of the enterprise portal as a KMS is to provide each knowledge worker with a customizable or personalized, task-oriented knowledge portal that gives access to the right knowledge content from multiple sources in the context of the work and contributes to the building and sharing of the collective enterprise knowledge. In demonstrating the usefulness of activity theory as an analytical lens, we also present recommendations for tools or applications that could be considered in the design of enterprise portals to support knowledge use.
This paper presents conceptual foundations helpful for future research on enterprise portals as KMS. The paper is organized as follows: we first discuss Blackler’s (1993) activity systems framework and its application to enterprise KM and the accompanying KMS. We then provide a brief definitional analysis of knowledge, knowledge management, KMS, and enterprise portals in the context of activity theory. Using activity systems theory as a foundation we then explore enterprise portals as KMS and how their design can support knowledge use in enterprises.
2. Theoretical Underpinning: Blackler’s Framework
In order to both identify and evaluate the underpinnings of enterprise portals as KMS and their support for effective knowledge use in enterprises, we rely on Blackler’s (1993) activity systems framework. This framework, applied to the analysis of enterprise portals as KMS, encourages a particular analytical view, that is, “away from a concern with the management of experts to a concern with the management of expertise, from an emphasis on plans and strategy to an analysis of activity and activity systems, and from a preoccupation with objective knowledge to a concern with the management of collective instability” (Blackler, 1993, p. 20). As Blackler (1993) argued, activity as a concept draws attention to relationships between motives and the contexts of action, and invites enquiry into the processes through which knowledge workers enact the activities in which they participate. The link this general approach promises with KM and knowledge use in enterprises is clear: the settings for different activities are not determined by objective, physical features but are provided by those who engage in them, i.e. the knowledge workers and their communities. The definition of activity as a social phenomenon, as explained by Blackler (1993), underscores the social constructivists approach to knowledge management that has been recently expounded by a number of scholars (Plaskoff, 2003; Tuomi, 1999; Brown and Duguid, 1998). In this paper we view socialization activities as core drivers to knowledge use in enterprises, and thus key components in an enterprise portal as KMS toolkit.
Key aspects of the activity systems theory, as presented by Blackler (1993), pertinent to the conceptual exploration of enterprise portals as KMS and knowledge use include: (i) People do not just think, they act on the world and they do this collectively. A highly appropriate observation which helps to explain knowledge use and the overall coherence of the different actions of the knowledge workers as they perform their tasks on the enterprise portal; (ii) Mediating mechanisms, such as tools, language, social rules and the division of labour, transform the relationships between individuals, communities and shared endeavours. This aspect highlights the need for appropriate embedded tools or mechanisms that facilitate workers’ thinking and acting on the world, individually or collectively; (iii) Novices learn by participating in activities and activity systems. This aspect points to the need for enterprise portals to support creative, interpretative and process oriented aspects of learning which is most likely to be tacit than explicit; and (iv) Activities are socially and historically located. This suggests the need for enterprises portals as KMS to be equipped with the capabilities to evolve over time in line with the evolvement of the enterprise activities.
As depicted in Figure 1, drawing from the activity systems framework, the appropriate approach to the analysis of enterprise portals as KMS that enable effective knowledge use activities in organizations can be the exploration of the enterprise’s complex “routines, improvisations, setting conditions, and (often implicit) under-standings” (Blackler, 1993, p. 18). From a knowledge use perspective, analyzing enterprises as activity systems encourages one to stand back and perceive the overall pattern that enterprise wide routines and outcomes fall into. In fact, the activity systems approach emphasizes factors essential to knowledge use, i.e. the interplay of actions, concepts, tools, social structures, implicit and explicit rules, history and institutions. In this vein the theory of activity systems depicts the enterprise as an activity system embedded within a broad external network of activity systems (Blackler, 1993). Knowledge use, therefore, can be analyzed as an activity.

Fig. 1: Blackler’s (1993) Activity Systems Framework
It is also important to note that enterprises provide a socially constructed context for actions and therefore, cannot sensibly be divorced from their contexts. And as workers perform their tasks they interpret and negotiate such contexts (Blackler, 1993). Figure 1 shows that enterprise routines act as the unifying mechanism of the overall system. As Blackler (1993) argues it is through such routines or repetitive patterns of behavior, that co-operation, rather than conflict, becomes the norm in complex organizations. This framework, therefore, appears well suited for making sense of enterprise portals as KMS research, as well as how KMS can effectively support knowledge use in enterprises. It provides a multidimensional approach to the analysis of enterprise portals as KMS. In our opinion the framework pictures a number of complex relationships very well.
3. Knowledge, Enterprise Knowledge Management, and Enterprise Portals as KMS: A Discussion
Enterprise knowledge management refers to the process of identifying and leveraging the collective knowledge in an enterprise to increase the enterprise’s purported innovativeness, responsiveness, and competitiveness on the market (von Krogh 1998; Hackbarth, 1998). Two consistent forms of enterprise portals appear in the literature: extranet portals providing business-to-business or e-commerce solutions, and intranet portals sometimes referred to as knowledge portals, which enable knowledge workers to obtain and share specialized knowledge that is related to their specific tasks (Benbya, 2008; Dias, 2001; Mack et al., 2001). This paper explores enterprise intranet portals and their application as KMS in enterprises. For enterprise portals, to successfully enable KM processes within the organization, they need to integrate knowledge from multiple functions or systems, provide access to the knowledge, and facilitate communication throughout the organization (Firestone and McElroy, 2003). Enterprise portals are, thus, driven by technologies which provide a customized single gateway to a wide and heterogeneous collection of data, information, and knowledge (Kim, Chaudhury and Rao, 2002; Detlor, 2000).
Two words stand out from these definitions, i.e. gateway and information, which warrant further discussion in the light of enterprise portals as KMS. From a knowledge management perspective it is important to view enterprise portals as something more than just a gateway. To be considered a KMS, an enterprise portal should not just focus on content but also be able to connect knowledge workers with everything, as well as everyone they need. It should also provide the tools that the knowledge workers need to work together. Effective enterprise portals as KMS should be user-centric in that they should centralize enterprise knowledge access in a way that mirrors knowledge workers workflows. Furthermore, enterprise portals should be considered as larger in scope and scale than information management systems. Enterprise portals as KMS should go beyond providing single access to corporate information; instead they should present business specific data, information, and knowledge in context, to help knowledge workers perform their job tasks. In this paper, therefore, enterprise portals are regarded as KMS that provide comprehensive support for the knowledge workers’ job roles.
In the enterprise knowledge management literature knowledge is classified into two forms: “tacit” and “explicit” (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Stenmark, 2000). The explicit knowledge is regarded as knowledge that can be articulated, codified or communicated. Tacit knowledge on the other hand, is knowledge that cannot be easily articulated and thus only resides in people’s minds, and manifest itself through their actions. Critical to enterprise portals design as KMS are the underlying implications of tacit knowledge in the context of KM. Tacit knowledge is difficult, if not impossible, to capture and formalize in terms of procedures, algorithms, or guidelines (Abidi, Cheah and Curran, 2005). A review of the literature shows that most of the initial efforts in enterprise KM were focused on trying to explicate tacit knowledge since explicit knowledge can easily be captured and disseminated. This was done under the assumptions that the goal of supporting organizational knowledge is to make tacit knowledge explicit so that it can be systematized and made available to others (Allee, 2003). We view this as a technology driven goal which is aligned mostly to the information systems approach of codification. From an activity systems perspective we emphasize the multi-faceted nature of organizational knowledge and highlight the variety of knowledge that coexists in enterprise settings, such as individual, social, (Nonaka, 1994), declarative (know-about), procedural (know-how), causal (know-why), conditional (know-when), and relational (know-with) knowledge (Zack, 2002). In other words, enterprise portals as KMS’ strategy should focus on an extended broader scope of knowledge and not just focus on the codified knowledge (that is, explicit enterprise knowledge).
Also of fundamental importance to the success of enterprise portals as KMS is the distinction between information and knowledge and their accompanying systems, information management systems and knowledge management systems respectively. Effective enterprise portals as KMS are determined by, first and foremost, grasping the underlying aspects of KMS as compared to information management systems, as well as their inter-dependence. Some researchers argue that KMS are a new generation of information management systems (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Dalkir, 2005). We argue against this assertion and posit that although information management systems are not completely distinct from KMS, they are, but just a component of KMS (Davenport and Marchand, 2000). Equating information management systems and KMS is one of the fundamental mistakes that companies repeatedly make. To understand what KMS implies it is necessary to get a grip on what knowledge means in the context of enterprise KM. Knowledge is defined by a number of scholars as actionable information or the ability to interpret and relate information (Tiwana, 2001; Davenport, 1998). But as Patrick Lambe observed (2007) knowledge is not just expressed in documents containing information. It can be embedded in tools or in ways of doing things, processes routines and habits. Knowledge lies in connections, conversations between people, and intuitions (Tiwana, 2001). According to Tiwana (2001) new knowledge is created in part through collaborative processes that knowledge workers pursue as part of their daily tasks. This makes knowledge larger in complexity than information, thus warranting the use of not just information systems but also “informal channels” such as intelligent collaborative, decision making, forecasting, and planning tools, to enable knowledge creation and use.
Thus, KMS should be designed not just to allow access to knowledge or information resources but also to support worker activities or processes of learning, knowledge creation, knowledge use and knowledge sharing. They are, therefore, “designed for multiple users with different and changing requirements” (Dalkir, 2005). In other words, a KMS’s focus is on the people (knowledge workers) and their shared goals. In this regard technology is viewed as an important enabler to the entire KMS activity system, and not the primary driver for any KM projects.
A key challenge to enterprise portals as KMS is in the transformation of information to knowledge. One has to ensure that during this transformation the resulting knowledge is captured, stored and disseminated within context, a hard feat to successful manage and achieve. In other words considerable effort should be placed on the articulation of organizational knowledge with the development of “well-developed stocks of socially shared knowledge as prerequisites” (Tuomi, 1999). In other words the underlying organizational knowledge management strategy should be focused on the creation of intellectual capital and the building of core competencies. Of importance to enterprise portals design is the fact that in order for individuals within an organization to arrive at the same understanding of the information or data stored in a KMS a common knowledge base should be in existence (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
It is also important to note that recent epistemological and psychological theories have advanced that knowledge is not just passed from individual to individual but it is “socially constructed through collaborative efforts with common objectives” (Plaskoff, 2003, p. 163). In organizations most work is done as a collective, a cooperative venture, revealing that “most dispositional knowledge is intriguingly collective” (Brown and Duguid, 1998). Also, in enterprises interpersonal interactions have been recorded as essential elements for creativity and innovation. As Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer as cited in Leonard and Sensiper (1998) concluded, "even in the most solitary, private moment—the moment of insight itself—many creative individuals are aware of the deeply social nature of their creative process.” In other words, while individual creativity is important, exciting, and even crucial to enterprises, the creativity of groups is equally important. Thus although some scholars view knowledge as a commodity, as something people have, in this paper, in line with the social theory approach to KM, we regard knowledge as something people do. The view of knowledge as a social property stands at odds with the pervasive ideas of knowledge as individual (Brown and Duguid, 1998). Since knowledge is socially constructed, socialization processes are core to enabling the activities of knowledge use in enterprises. In other words the social communities are powerful sources of knowledge, and thus key components in an organizational knowledge management toolkit, and even crucial to business, the management of organizational tacit and explicit knowledge among community members is equally important. In enterprise KM communities facilitate the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit, thereby overcoming the barriers to the transfer of knowledge and thus facilitating the use of knowledge in context.
One of the views of knowledge portrayed in the literature critical to enterprise portals as KMS is that knowledge does not exist outside a “knower”, i.e. a human mind and is contextually bounded (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Tuomi, 1999). According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge “originates and is applied in the minds of knowers,” and thus, “values and beliefs are integral to knowledge, determining in large part what the knower sees, absorbs, and concludes from his observations” (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Knowledge is obtained from individual workers or their community or sometimes in organizational routines. This notion is affirmed by Nonaka and Konno (1998), who present knowledge as embedded in ba (space), “where it is then acquired through one's own experience or reflections on the experiences of others.” “ba as they pointed out is characterized by love, connection, trust, commitment, and care” (Nonaka and Konno, 1998, p. 7). This view of knowledge points to an important aspect of knowledge that differentiates knowledge from information. Knowledge in contrast to information cannot be separated from the context and if knowledge is separated from its context, it turns into information, since information can be communicated independently from context. To a certain extend knowledge is understood as information in context with value for the owner of this information which allows him to act. For instance, in order for a worker to make sense of documents stored in an enterprise portal a lot of contextual information is needed. Without contextual information, workers cannot not fully understand the rationale nor trust the source of the knowledge and therefore choose not to use it. Dalkir (2005) echoes this and emphasizes the importance of organizing content with context so that intended end users are aware of its existence and can easily access and apply this content.
The history of KMS initiatives in enterprises illustrates the importance of not separating knowledge from the context. As David Pauleen (2007) stated, a number of companies, under the assumption that technology harnessed to a great volume of information will make KM work, pursued what is referred to in the literature as the knowledge repository approach. They created vast document repositories, focusing more on storing content, while paying little or no attention to the process context, such as who created the content, what task he/she was performing, when, where, and why (Kwan and Balasubramanian, 2003). At Shell, for example, as cited by Benbya (2008), after spending a lot of money in building document databases which nobody searched and were quickly out of date, the company had to abandon the document repository approach to KM. Furthermore, Howe and Levin‘s (2007) account of KMS in accounting firms confirms the importance of context to knowledge use. Howe and Levin observed that KMS in accounting firms failed to capture the information that lies outside the “technological boundaries, such as little-known or personal facts about a client, special circumstances regarding a client process, or new procedures that might enhance the firm’s operations” (p. 4). As a result these KMS were hardly used. Also Hansen et al (1999) reported on a consulting company called Bain that suffered the same fate with their document repository. The results of Bain’s huge knowledge center or library of paper based documents initiative was aptly summed up in one partner’s remark that, “the center offered a picture of a cake without giving out the recipe” (Hansen et al., 1999 p. 113). In other words, the documents available in the knowledge center failed to convey the richness as well as the logic behind the knowledge, a factor that curtailed the documents’ usefulness to the partners. As a result the knowledge center’s value to the organization was very short-lived.
The above discussion underscores the problem of treating knowledge as an “it”—an entity separate from the people who create and use it (Davenport, De Long, and Beers, 1998). From enterprise portal design perspective traditional conceptions of knowledge as a commodity that can be divorced from context and traded or transferred as abstract data (Lave and Wenger, 1991) are both problematic and unrealistic. As stated above, applied to the issue of enterprise portals as KMS the theory of activity systems encourages a particular approach: away from an emphasis on plans and strategy to an analysis of activity and activity systems, and from a preoccupation with objective knowledge to a concern with the management of collective instability (Blackler, 1993). This is consistent with the view that knowledge is created during the execution of organization processes and thus in order to encourage knowledge use and achieve a higher performance, knowledge management processes must be embedded in the organization processes (Han and Park, 2009; Nissen et al., 2000).
We therefore support the view that knowledge management activities should be integrated within day-to-day business processes to ensure continual process improvement and facilitate learning. It is important that enterprise portals as KMS present an ideal environment to integrate the business process aspects with knowledge processes and actively support the worker in using and adding to knowledge resources by establishing rules for data, information, and knowledge collection, processing, and presentation (Benbya, Passiante, and Belbaly, 2004).
4. Enterprise Portals as KMS, & Knowledge Use
Knowledge use refers to the actual application of the enterprise knowledge within the organization. Scholars have presented knowledge application as one of the major challenges of knowledge management in organizations (Alavi and Leidner, 1999). We would argue that the major challenge to enterprise KM is really enabling knowledge use, especially considering the scarcity of the literature on the subject. Enterprise portals as KMS can only add value to an enterprise when they are used, and to the individual worker that value increases when use of the “knowledge in the KMS enables them to perform their work in ways that are more efficient, more effective and/or more satisfying” (Benbya and Belbaly, 2005). The discussion below also explores some of the opportunities that might be useful to the design of successful enterprise portals as KMS.
Knowledge use occurs whenever a knowledge worker is required to make a decision as part of a business process (Firestone and McElroy, 2003). When designing enterprise portals as KMS, consideration needs to be given to the integration of knowledge management activities into business processes. Since knowledge is created during the execution of business processes, in order for a knowledge worker to find value in the knowledge, and use it to achieve a higher performance, knowledge must be embedded in the business processes (Han and Park, 2009; Nissen et al., 2000). As Han and Park (2009) observed, if knowledge is separated from the business process context, it does not result in the right action being taken for the targeted performance. At Hewlett Packard, for example, they designed such a KMS that supports each phase of the consultants’ work process, i.e., “creation, opportunity evaluation, development and bid, negotiation and close, delivery” (Benbya, 2008 p. 34). In this way they were able to provide consultants with quality knowledge and enable faster response to their information needs, thus encouraging and facilitating effective knowledge use.
Consequently, enterprise portals as KMS could be viewed as strategic enablers of efficient business processes. The primary focus of the enterprise portal as a KMS should be on supporting worker processes with the knowledge needed to successfully perform their work activities as defined in workflow/process models. In general the tools or systems underlying the business process-oriented KM approaches rely on the existence of generic process models or workflow specifications, around which the knowledge capturing and provision strategies are organized (Holz et al., 2005). The literature shows that there are a number of KMS design initiatives comprising of workflow engines that adopt the perspectives of modeling approaches and facilitates the execution of business process models that enterprise portals might be modeled on (Kwan and Balasubramanian, 2003; Woitsch et al., 2004; Jablonski, Horn, and Schlundt, 2001; Papavassiliou et al., 2002; Böhm et al., 2005). However, the review of the literature on KMS which integrate knowledge into business processes reveals some shortfalls. Although the contributions of these systems to the development of knowledge management systems in enterprises cannot be refuted, these systems still warrant further development in order for them to be able to address fully knowledge needs and uses for specific users within enterprises. For instance, knowledge intensive and individual activities are only insufficiently supported. Also, KMS that integrate knowledge management activities into business processes modeling and enactment are fragmented and therefore cannot be easily reused or applied outside their original intended organizational unit. The literature shows that effective enterprise portals as KMS should not be created as standalone applications (Nevo and Chan, 2007). Instead, they should be more strongly integrated with the overall technology in the firm. Therefore, with regards to enterprise portals as KMS, there is an inherent need for research into infrastructure that integrates services from heterogeneous applications into specific integrated knowledge management systems addressing the needs of the enterprise as a whole (Nevo and Chan, 2007).
5. Proposed Infrastructure for Enterprise Portals as KMS
The theory of organization as activity systems reinforces the social constructionist theme, whilst presenting knowledge as dynamic and constantly evolving (Blackler, 1995). From a systems design perspective, since knowledge is socially embedded within communities, and as such is inseparable from practice (Brown and Duguid, 1998), for enterprise portals to be successful, they should focus on the tools and objects through which knowing and doing are achieved and how these activities are interlinked. Table 1 below summarizes our proposed determinants for designing enterprise portals to support knowledge management in organizations. It also elaborates on the portal capabilities as KMS by simultaneously providing examples of potential KM tools offering each capability.
Table 1: Enterprise Portals as KMS: Capabilities to support knowledge use activities
Portal
Capabilities Defining
Factors Description Knowledge use activities Potential KM Tools
Needs identification flexible and adaptable Integrating contextual information that accommodates the different perspectives of different roles into the workflow of organizational processes so that the knowledge is automatically captured when it is created and presented when it is needed. Actors can access knowledge resources needed to perform a task at the right time in the right place.
Actors can interpret and make sense of knowledge in the process of integration with their existing knowledge.
Business Process modeling (BPEL)
Decision Support Systems
Recommender Systems
Case Based reasoning systems
Search & retrieval intuitive, and easy-to-use interface Facilitating the location of desired knowledge. Actors have the ability to search for, locate, and extract meaning from the desired knowledge. Document management systems
Info-buttons
Collaborative tagging
Transactive Memory enabling talk in the enterprise as a mechanism for identifying potential sources of knowledge Recording of worker activities in real-time providing the direct connection between content and the people. Actors can communicate in real-time their current status and activities in posts distributed by instant messages, mobile phones, email or the Web. Social networking (analysis)
Blogs/Microblogging
Metaknowledge interactivity, and collaboration Assisting in the understanding and evaluation of available knowledge by providing the ability to tag knowledge automatically with the infor-mation about the knowledge. Actors can “remix”, display and use the knowledge they really seek Ontologies
Collaborative tagging (folksonomies)

To effectively support KM we conceptualize enterprise portals as comprising of activity systems that are embedded within, maintained and restricted by a broad external network of activity systems. Users of the knowledge are the actors who apply existing knowledge in their daily work tasks. They use knowledge, for instance, to solve problems they encounter. In this vein the enterprise portal could provide effective mechanisms for problem solving activities. Table 1, building on the capabilities required to support knowledge use activities as identified by Nevo, Furneaux, and Wand (2008), suggests that enterprise portals supporting knowledge use activities should provide flexible and adaptable needs identification capabilities, intuitive and easy to use search and retrieval capabilities, real-time transactive memory capabilities, and interactive and collaborative metaknowledge capabilities. Consequently, since every worker uses knowledge in a different way, it is suggestive to adapt the enterprise portal as a KMS to the requirements of the user as far as possible. For the support of knowledge intensive processes, for instance, flexibility is a critical factor (Davenport, De Long, and Beers, 1998). Thus, rather than viewing KMS as a separate entity, “more focus should be given to placing KM support in context and integrating KMS with other technologies, creating integrated knowledge support systems—business technologies enhanced with KM” (Nevo and Chan, 2007 p. 592). Also embedding mediating tools or mechanisms that facilitate knowledge workers’ thinking and acting on the world should be carefully considered. These mediating mechanisms can be in the form of microblogging tools and mashups as discussed below.
For instance, to provide mechanisms that are flexible and adaptable to the individual user needs, enterprise portal designers should consider the application of mashups. As Oren et al. (2007) observed, mashups are known to be dynamic, adaptive and user centred. A mashup brings together data, information and knowledge, content or functionality from more than one source and delivers the result via a single interface, typically without the source owner's participation (Madsen, 2009). Mashups present interesting application features that could be considered in the design of enterprise portals as KMS. These mashup features include; presentation level mashups, e.g. Amazon Light, which aggregates the backend data of Amazon to offer a customized search (http://www.kokogiak.com/amazon/); data level mashups, which focus on the extraction and combination of data from different sources, e.g. HEALTHmap (healthmap.org), a global disease alert map that shows where diseases have been reported; and logic based mashups which combine services with the corresponding application logic as found in price comparison websites like “kayak.com” (www.kayak.com) (Oren et al., 2007). From an enterprise portal perspective JackBe‘s (jackbe.com) Presto 2.0 is a good example of an enterprise mashup platform that brings to the enterprise user enterprise-ready mashup widgets known as “mashlets” used for common knowledge worker activities, such as analyzing sales data, tracking competitive information, performing professional research, completing enterprise risk analysis, supporting sales/client prospecting, improving customer service or providing quick access to any other kind of time-sensitive data directly to business users” (KM World, 2008).
The flexible nature of mashup applications allows for a better customization of the designated knowledge management activities to the concrete requirements of the actors as the users of the knowledge. Mashups can thus be employed to; (i) support collaborative content development, among knowledge workers, (ii) facilitate value-adds to enterprise portals as KMS and their communities of practice, (iii) offer customized and personalized services to the knowledge workers, and (iv) foster an interactive blended environment for the enterprise activity systems, providing multiple services for knowledge management. There are three core areas of concentration that an enterprise portal has to focus in terms of providing mechanisms enabling knowledge use in enter-prises: search-and-retrieval, interactivity, and collaboration. With mashups enabling features, knowledge workers as actors can “remix”, display and use the knowledge they really seek. Also opening up the enterprise portal as a single knowledge platform encourages experimentation, enabling creative uses of the knowledge. In this vein, mashups features if applied in the architecture of enterprise portals as KMS will enable a whole new range of possibilities. According to Reid (2009), people want everything that loads to be of maximum relevance because they are deluged with content all day. Thus, employing mashups to get the most from personalization appears to be the key toward providing visibility into content and access to tools. Also, mashups allow “information augmentation" through simple methods for the user. “Combining data with other useful and related data, reduces navigation and increases information gain for the user” (Makki and Sangtani, 2008).
Furthermore, a new emerging trend that has gained great popularity in recent months and cannot be ignored by enterprise portals designers is the use of microblogging tools. Microblogging is described as a new form of communication in which users can describe their current status in short posts distributed by instant messages, mobile phones, email or the Web (Java et al., 2007). Microblogging, by encouraging shorter posts, lowers users’ requirement of time and thought investment for content generation and thereby, fulfills a need for an even faster mode of communication. As Reid (2009) pointed out, microblogging tools, such as twitter have “brought something new to the internet that search and content applications had lacked until now: real-time data”. Thus, introducing microblooging tools that record activity by knowledge workers in real-time might aid in providing the direct connection between content and the people. Traction Software (tractionsoftware.com)’s recently announced Live Blog micro-messaging for TeamPage 4.0, offers an example of the application of micro-messaging technology in an enterprise setting. Traction’s Live Blog enables users to write brief notes from wherever they are and share them instantly over Traction’s Team- Page enterprise wiki platform. Everyone with access to that Live Blog sees a new highlighted note in seconds. Live Blog notes are stored in Team-Page’s hypertext journal so they can easily be tagged for follow-up; discovered in a TeamPage search; or forwarded as an automatically generated instant message, e-mail or RSS notification (KM World, 2009). However, although the use of microblogging tools in enterprises seems promising their application has not yet been widely adopted, especially with regards to the implementation of enterprise portals as KMS.
6. Contributions to Advancement of knowledge
This paper makes several contributions to the existing theoretical underpinnings of enterprise portals as knowledge management systems, thus contributing to the literature on knowledge use in organizations. Furthermore, the paper presents recommendations regarding the efficacy of existing tools and applications that can help the design of enterprise portals as KMS. We introduced Web 2.0 technologies such as microblogging, mashups, and business process enabling KM applications that can make enterprise portals work as KMS. Recommendations made in the paper, we anticipate, will help knowledge workers to quickly access, use and reuse relevant knowledge at the point of need.
7. Conclusion
A significant area of KMS research is the development of systems that enable knowledge use and reuse in organizations. In this context, the challenge is building KMS or enterprise portals as KMS that are meant to support worker processes, that are viewed as part of a much larger system and as such they have to be accountable to the whole enterprise system. In this paper, drawing from the theory of organizations as activity systems (Blackler, 1993), we theoretically explore enterprise portals as KMS and how their design support knowledge use activities in organizations. Using activity theory as an analytical lens, we also present recommendations for tools or applications that could be considered in the design of enterprise portals as KMS to support knowledge use. In summary the view of enterprise KM as comprised of activity systems of which knowledge use is core, emphasizes that the competitiveness of the company is depended on consumption or use of knowledge that results in actions that are of benefit to the whole company.
In this paper, we aligned with the theory of activity systems, and emphasized the role of knowledge workers as actors within a KM environment. We highlighted some potential KM tools that can be useful in enabling knowledge use. The discussion above has shown that the addition of such applications has the potential to improve access to knowledge objects in enterprise KMS by clarifying the meaning of the content. We contend that effective enterprise knowledge management is a question of tailoring technical and process solutions to fit the urgent and unforeseen needs of the context in which activities are being performed. Yet, much more research and insight is very much needed to guide the successful development and implementation of enterprise portals as KMS in enterprises.
References
Abidi, S. S. R., Cheah, Y., & Curran, J. (2005). A knowledge creation info-structure to acquire and crystallize the tacit knowledge of health-care experts. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 9(2), 193-204. Retrieved from IEEE database
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS, 1(2es) Retrieved from http://publications.ksu.edu.sa/IT%20Papers/KM%20Papers/KNOWLEDGE%20MANAGEMENT%20SYSTEMS.doc
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. Retrieved from JSTOR database
Allee, V. (2003). The future of knowledge : Increasing prosperity through value networks. Amsterdam ; Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Benbya, H., Passiante, G., & Aissa Belbaly, N. (2004). Corporate portal: A tool for knowledge management synchronization. International Journal of Information Management, 24(3), 201-220. Retrieved from http://choo.fis.utoronto.ca/fis/courses/lis2102/Readings/benbya.pdf
Benbya, H. (2008). Knowledge management systems implementation : Lessons from the silicon valley. Oxford: Chandos.
Benbya, H., & Belbaly, N. A. (2005). Mechanisms for knowledge management systems effectiveness: An exploratory analysis. Knowledge & Process Management, 12(3), 203-216. doi:10.1002/kpm.231
Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems and the reframing of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 863-884. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1020-1046.
Böhm, K., Engelbach, W., Härtwig, J., Wilcken, M., & Delp, M. (2005). Modelling and implementing pre-built information spaces. architecture and methods for process oriented knowledge management. J.UCS: Journal of Universal Computer Science, 11(4), 605-633. doi:10.3217/jucs-011-04-0605
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Amsterdam ; Boston: Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database
Davenport, T. H., & Marchand, D. A. (2000). Mastering information management. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge : How organizations manage what they know. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Detlor, B. (2000). The corporate portal as information infrastructure: Towards a framework for portal design. International Journal of Information Management, 20(2), 91-101. Retrieved from http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i385q-dt/readings/Deltor-2000-TheCorporate.pdf
Dias, C. (2001). Corporate portals: A literature review of a new concept in information management. International Journal of Information Management, 21(4), 269-287. Retrieved from Elsevier ScienceDirect Complete database
Firestone, J. M., & McElroy, M. W. (2003). Key issues in the new knowledge management. Hartland Four Corners, Vt; Boston, MA: KMCI Press; Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hackbarth, G. (1998). The impact of organizational memory on IT systems. Proceedings of the 4th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Baltimore, MD.
Han, K. H., & Park, J. W. (2009). Process-centered knowledge model and enterprise ontology for the development of knowledge management system. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7441-7447. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.09.031
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106-116.
Holz, H., Maus, H., Bernardi, A., & Rostanin, O. (2005). From lightweight, proactive information delivery to business process-oriented knowledge management. Journal of Universal Knowledge Management. Special Issue on Knowledge Infrastructures for the Support of Knowledge Intensive Business Processes, 0 (2), 101–127. Retrieved from http://www.jukm.org/jukm_0_2/holz/jukm_0_2_101_127_holz.html
Howe, P. E., & Levin, M. C. (2007). Knowledge management is all about people. Pennsylvania CPA Journal, 78(2), 36. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database
Jablonski, S., Horn, S., & Schlundt, M. (2001). Process oriented knowledge management. Proceedings. Eleventh International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, 77-84.
JackBe introduces presto 2.0.(2008). KM World, 17(6), 29-29. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis, 56-65. Retrieved from http://aisl.umbc.edu/get/softcopy/id/1073/1073.pdf
Kim, Y. J., Chaudhury, A., & Rao, H. R. (2002). A knowledge management perspective to evaluation of enterprise information portals. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(2), 57. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database.
Lambe, P. (2007). Organising knowledge : Taxonomies, knowledge and organisational effectiveness. Oxford: Chandos.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning : Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database.
Mack, R., Ravin, Y., & Byrd, R. J. (2001). IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 925-955. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database
Madsen, M. (2009). Mashups: Here comes the future again. SourceMedia, Inc. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database
Makki, S. K., & Sangtani, J. (2008). Data mashups & their applications in enterprises Retrieved from IEEE database
Kwan, M., & Balasubramanian, P. (2003). KnowledgeScope: Managing knowledge in context. Decision Support Systems, 35(4), 467-486. doi:DOI: 10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00126-4
Nevo, D., & Chan, Y. E. (2007). A delphi study of knowledge management systems: Scope and requirements. Information & Management, 44(6), 583-597. Retrieved from http://selab.iecs.fcu.edu.tw/course/96/km/Class/paper_03_01.pdf
Nevo, D., Furneaux, B., & Wand, Y. (2008). Towards an evaluation framework for knowledge management systems. Information Technology and Management, 9(4), 233-249. doi:10.1007/s10799-007-0023-9
Nissen, M., Kamel, M., & Sengupta, K. (2000). Integrated analysis and design of knowledge systems and processes. Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations, 13(1), 24-43. Retrieved from http://web.nps.navy.mil/~menissen/papers/irmj.pdf
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635068
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of "ba": Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company : How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oren, E., Haller, A., Hauswirth, M., Heitmann, B., Decker, S., & Mesnage, C. (2007). A flexible integration framework for semantic web 2.0 applications. Software, IEEE, 24(5), 64-71. Retrieved from IEEE database.
Papavassiliou, G., Mentzas, G., & Abecker, A. (2002). Integrating knowledge modelling in business process management. Paper presented at the ECIS2002 Conference: The Xth European Conference on Information Systems, Retrieved from http://imu.epd.ece.ntua.gr/Papers/C55-ECIS2002.pdf
Pauleen, D. (Ed.). (2007). Cross-cultural perspectives on knowledge management. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Plaskoff, J. (2003). Intersubjectivity and community building: Learning to lean organizationally. In M. Easterby-Smith, & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 676). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Razmerita, L., Angehrn, A., & Maedche, A. (2003). Ontology-based user modeling for knowledge management systems. Lecture notes in computer science, , 213-217. Retrieved from http://www.calt.insead.edu/People/liana/Papers/razmerita.pdf
Reid, C. K. (2009). Enterprise portals: Reborn and transformed by the social web. EContent, 32(3), 27. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database.
Stenmark, D. (2000). Turning tacit knowledge tangible. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference, vol.2 1-9. Retrieved from IEEE database.
Tiwana, A. (2001). The essential guide to knowledge management : E-business and CRM applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
Traction announces live blog.(2009). KM World, 18(2), 22-22. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database
Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Information Systems, Hawaii. , Track1 12. Retrieved from IEEE database
von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133-139. Retrieved from ABI/Inform Global database
Woitsch, R., Karagiannis, D., Hofferer, P., & Teuchmann, B. (2004). Process oriented knowledge management: A service oriented approach. Proceedings. 15th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, 471-475. Retrieved from IEEE database
Zack, M. H. (2002). Developing a knowledge strategy. Oxford University Press, USA.