MANAGING KNOWLEDGE IN A VOLUNTEER

MANAGING KNOWLEDGE IN A VOLUNTEER-BASED COMMUNITY
JOHN S. HUCK
School of Library and Information Studies, University of Alberta,
3-20 Rutherford South, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2J4, Canada
E-mail johnscotthuck@yahoo.ca
RODNEY AL† and DINESH RATHI*
School of Library and Information Studies, University of Alberta,
3-20 Rutherford South, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2J4, Canada
†E-mail: canada_rodneymbal@yahoo.ca *E-mail: drathi@ualberta.ca
The study explores the current state of knowledge management (KM) in a volunteer-based community. A knowledge audit was conducted at a volunteer-based community workshop to identify knowledge needs, gaps, sources, sinks and pools. While the study identified several knowledge needs, the study found that the personal motivation of volunteers is tied to their personal knowledge needs. Addressing the personal knowledge needs of volunteers may help develop a strong pool of volunteers and help sustain the organization. A strong KM system would address current problems and facilitate the process of building the community of volunteers. The study recommendations include both technological and non-technological methods to address identified problems and to manage the knowledge in the volunteer-based community.
1. Introduction
Knowledge Management (KM) has been an area of research for some years now, and its theoretical foundations as well as importance are considerably established in the literature (Nonaka, 1994; Cook and Brown, 1999; Baskerville and Dulipovici, 2006). KM has found strong application and use in For-Profit Organizations (FPOs), primarily in large organizations that require large scale application, but there has been limited focus on issues related to KM in a small Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) or Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) and even less in the area of volunteer communities. Communities of practice (CoP) has been a much discussed topic in FPOs as a way of sharing and disseminating knowledge among the members of the community in the FPOs, but it is a lesser explored concept in voluntary organizations from a KM perspective. Management of knowledge has been a challenge in FPOs and it seems also to be the case in a community with a charter of volunteerism, but KM’s significance in any domain cannot be underestimated. There are many issues that deserve exploration concerning KM in volunteer communities. For example, what are current KM practices, what are knowledge needs, how can KM benefit them, what are the technological barriers to adopting KM systems, what is the perception of KM among volunteers, etc.
This paper explores the current state of KM and the knowledge needs of volunteers in a volunteer-based community. A knowledge audit was used to identify needs, sources, gaps, channels, sinks and pools in the knowledge management of the community. The paper presents a KM framework which includes both technological and non-technological solutions to potentially fill the identified gaps, streamline the channels, augment the sources of knowledge, and increase knowledge sharing in the community.
2. Literature Overview
2.1. Community Bicycle Workshop: An Introduction
Community bicycle workshops provide communal space and equipment where urban cyclists can do their own bike repairs and learn how to do bike repairs. Most of these workshops are operated by volunteers. Primary services are bike repair and maintenance, but additional services may be provided, such as: bike education; “Earn-a-Bike” programs for youth (Programs, 2008; Ledlie, 2008); donation of bikes to developing countries (About Bikes Not Bombs, 2008); bike rentals (Bikestation Santa Barbara, 2008); bike parking; and even showers, lockers and change rooms. An emerging “Bicycle Collective Network” focuses on community bicycle workshops providing a directory of workshops across North America and tools for establishing new workshops. These community bicycle workshops provide common ground for this face-to-face interaction among bicycle enthusiasts. However, emerging Web 2.0 technologies are also often used to exchange information, maintain contact, share stories, and participate in bicycle culture.
2.2. Communities of Practice (CoP)
The group examined in this study has its own, unique, organizational structure. A distinct volunteer community, centered around a community bicycle workshop, it demonstrates characteristics of a community of practice (Kolbotn, 2004), which has been defined as “a group whose members regularly engage in learning and sharing similar goals, based on their shared mutual common interest” (Evans, 2005). CoP members “share a passion for something ... and who interact regularly in order to learn” (Wenger, 2004). The members of this group share a common interest in using bicycles for transportation. The workshop community is embedded in a broader community of cyclists who use the workshop. These clients are ultimately the workshop's source of volunteers, and so the boundary between the community and the volunteers is permeable.
CoP theory is particularly applicable in this setting because it recognizes social structure and social participation (Lavé and Wenger, 1991) as a basis for developing shared meaning and engaging in knowledge building (Hara and Kling, 2005). Wenger (2000) has identified three basic elements of CoPs. First, members of the community share “joint enterprise” in an area, in this case a bicycle workshop for the bicycle community. This brings members together towards a common cause, namely, promoting bicycle culture in society. Second, members share mutual forms of engagement and create consistent interaction. Finally, the community shares a common repertoire of language, routines, tools, events, and resources around bicycles, an artifact of ‘mutual common interest’ for this community. A CoP generates an atmosphere of learning and sharing in a community and has been used in FPOs to foster knowledge sharing both in tacit and explicit form (Duguid, 2005). The literature identifies the power of CoPs to weave an organization, specifically FPOs, around knowledge needs, steward specific competencies, and provide a home for diverse identities (Wenger, 2000). CoPs provide support for social structure and participation in managing knowledge in an organization (Lavé and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2000), and volunteer in CoPs “hold valuable experience and knowledge” (Kolbotn, 2004). CoPs are trusted forums for communication using various media (Hanley, 1999) which could include technology-based communications to supplement face-to-face CoPs (Hara and Kling, 2005). Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) present an interesting case of development and use of CoPs in FPOs to create and share knowledge, and the adoption of technologies for advancement of CoPs goals.
2.3. KM in NPOs/NGOs
KM has its roots in the domain of business, and so its theory and early developments focused on the needs of large corporations and international businesses (Blair, 2002; Nonaka, 1994; Prusak, 2001). More recently, the discussion of KM in NPOs/NGOs has gained momentum, primarily focusing on large NGOs/ NPOs (Gilmour and Stancliffe, 2004; Larson et al., 2005; Lettieri et al., 2004). There is a new shift toward understanding the KM needs of smaller NPOs/NGOs and volunteer communities (Lemieux and Dalkir, 2006; Gregory and Rathi, 2008). The literature discussing KM in small NGOs/NPOs is very limited, and deserves substantially more research to understand the issues, needs and challenges of adopting KM in small NGOs/NPOs and volunteer-based communities.
NPOs have needs similar to FPOs, such as efficient operations, human resources (i.e., volunteers), IT resources, and customer service (i.e., community members). Thus KM is important for NPOs/NGOs (as for FPOs) to meet such challenges as competition for sponsors, effective and efficient operations, and public promotion (Lettieri et al., 2004; Kipley et al., 2008; Helmig et al., 2004; Kong and Prior, 2008). Drawing on the small business literature, Hume and Hume (2008) argued that a small scale NPO, such as a community organization, has fewer resources to implement large scale KM systems, such as intranets and portals as deployed in large FPOs, but just as much to gain from them, as KM in FPOs can “enhance product development and/or service delivery”.
Matzkin (2008) suggested that resource poor NPOs that lack technological capability or familiarity should look to non technological solutions, such as reducing employee turnover, as a way of retaining implicit knowledge in the organization. Hume and Hume (2008) proposed that the best way to advance knowledge sharing among members is to exploit the strengths of the small NPO, with its “stronger informal network”, start small, build incrementally and mimic expensive KM functionality with cheaper, more common technologies, such as email. Others have also argued for a “technical robust communications exchange network” (Kipley et al., 2008). Although Hume and Hume (2008) did not suggest free webware or open source products (OSS), these are possible options for small volunteer-based communities and NPOs that would fit into their framework.
3. The Study
A knowledge audit of the chosen community was conducted to understand how the community manages and shares knowledge, identify their knowledge needs, and examine ways that current theories, tools and technologies can augment or enhance the current state of knowledge sharing within the community.
The study was conducted at the workshop of a bicycle community in a major Canadian city. The workshop operates from an industrial garage in the city where bicyclists can use workspace, equipment, and bike tools to do repairs or maintenance on their own bicycles. The workshop is operated by a bicycle advocacy society whose Board of Directors (Board) funds, directs, and oversees the workshop. The workshop is staffed with ‘mechanics,’ primarily volunteers, to advise and guide clients on bike maintenance and repairs. The workshop regularly receives donations of used bikes and bike parts. Used bikes are checked, repaired, and then resold to support the bicycle society. The physical space of the community bicycle workshop includes the workshop floor, a small office area (for volunteers and staff), a showroom (to show bicycles that are for sale), a parts room (containing used bike parts), and a yard (filled with used bikes). The community bicycle workshop is operated primarily by volunteer bike mechanics throughout the year. During their ‘winter season’ (September to May), the facility is open two or three days per week. This varies from year to year, depending on volunteer commitment and involvement. During the summer months, the workshop is able to open six days per week because paid staff is hired. This study was conducted during the winter, and so did not concern itself with the paid mechanics. At the time of this study, the volunteer core for the workshop included approximately eleven members, mostly male.
The team of volunteers included both senior volunteers, with significant experience and time spent volunteering at the workshop, and casual volunteers. All volunteers provided assistance to clients ranging from greeting clients, answering questions about using the workshop, finding tools, and suggestions on how clients can repair their bicycles. The senior volunteers provided a supervisory role, including opening and closing the workshop, coordinating volunteers, and pricing bicycles for sale.
3.1. Knowledge Audit for Data Collection
A knowledge audit is a process to create a map of an organization's knowledge assets and needs. It “plays a key role in identifying a knowledge management strategy” and the current state of KM in an organization (Liebowitz et al., 2000). Thus a knowledge audit, based on the framework proposed by Burnett et al. (2004) and Liebowitz et al. (2000), was conducted at the volunteer-based community to understand the sources, flows, pools, gaps and channels related to its KM, the types of knowledge needed to support the community, and the goals and motivations of volunteers which would impact the knowledge sharing within the community.
The data for the audit was collected from three primary sources. First, one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted using prepared questions to facilitate discussion with five current volunteers, all male. These interviews ranged from 30 to 45 minutes and were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Three participants were ‘casual’ volunteers, who had no supervision duties, and two were ‘senior’ volunteers, who were supervisors and had been with workshop for over two years. Second, photographs were taken of the entire workshop, including the shop floor, parts room, office, showroom, and outside yard. Third, current and archival content was collected from the group's website.
4. Findings
The interviews (after transcription) and data collected from other sources were analyzed to identify knowledge needs, sources, channels, gaps, sinks and pools. The details of which are presented in the following sub-sections.
4.1. Knowledge Needs
The knowledge needs can be broadly divided into three categories, with some amount of overlap. These are technical, operational and personal knowledge needs. The personal knowledge needs of volunteers are central to their motivation as volunteers; these include socializing with other cyclists and bicycle experts, identifying people with specialized knowledge or other resources, expanding their bicycle skills, and sharing their knowledge. Operational knowledge needs include basic operations of the workshop, such as social skills to work with people; fixing the heating system; familiarity with the protocols, policies and precedents at the workshop; tracking sales; workshop safety; and determining prices to resell used bicycles. Technical knowledge needs include basic repairs such as flat tires, or adjusting brakes and gears; customizing or modifying bikes; specialized repair, such as racing bikes or tandem bikes; and knowledge of specialized bikes tools, such as the headset press. However, a key finding is that most technical bicycle problems were basic and could be solved easily by the volunteers. The most important feature of these knowledge needs is that the need arises almost always when the problem is at hand. In other words, the knowledge need must be solved immediately. If a knowledge source is not immediately available, then it cannot satisfy the knowledge need.
4.2. Knowledge Source
The internal sources were primarily people themselves or documentary information. Other internal sources of knowledge include formal courses run at the workshop, books in the workshop, and signage on the walls. The findings indicate that people are, by far, the most important internal source of knowledge, such as other volunteers, readily available experts, or even other clients in the workshop. This finding is in line with the immediacy of knowledge articulated regarding KM in the business domain (Kersten, 1993). The external sources included: people, such as experts who are not part of the workshop community or bicycle sales agents; two specific websites (Sheldon Brown's website and the Park Tools website); and referring clients to commercial bicycle shops.
4.3. Knowledge Channels
There are both formal and informal channels of sharing knowledge. Like many small NPOs, the knowledge sharing in the community occurs mainly through informal channels (Gregory and Rathi, 2008). Currently, the primary channel for all knowledge sharing and dissemination is face-to-face communication, which simulates an apprenticeship model. A large number of volunteers learn new skills or solve problems by observing other volunteers in action, asking questions, trial and error on their own, or execution with the guidance of another volunteer. Interestingly, the workshop layout deliberately encourages volunteers and clients to interact and share knowledge. Bicycle repair stands are arranged in a circle so that the users can see what others are working on, and help each other. From time to time, training courses are offered by volunteers about bicycle repair – other volunteers are invited to attend. A phone in the workshop is used to find answers to operational questions (but rarely to solve repair questions). The website of the parent society solicits repair questions and posts answers – it appears that this channel is underutilized. Email and a listserv are used to communicate between the Board and volunteers, though the volunteers themselves rarely use email/listserv to communicate amongst themselves. The channels for communication from the Board include in-person contact (some volunteers are members of the Board), email and messages posted on the parent society website, etc. Finally, referrals are another type of knowledge channel, such as referring one volunteer to another volunteer for advice.
4.4. Knowledge Gaps
As other studies in human computer interaction (HCI) and information seeking have found, the participants hesitated to explicitly identify and articulate their needs. The participants felt that the current operations worked well enough; however, they did point out several weaknesses in the systems. Through their comments several implicit gaps were identified in knowledge sharing. A few of those gaps are presented here.
First, the findings suggest that communication within the community (among volunteers) is low. Outside of their volunteer hours, the volunteers have minimal interaction. A few reasons for low communication include volunteers guarding their personal time from onerous volunteer obligations, as well as keeping communication simple and not time consuming. Second, there is a gap in exchanging knowledge related to policy and operational needs of the volunteers. This has emerged due to a communication gap between the Board and the volunteers. The lack of clear policies and procedures creates problems, such as conflicting interpretations of policies and inconsistent practices. Other examples are inconsistent or improper labeling of bicycles that are for sale, inability of volunteers to answer questions raised by clients about programs of the bicycle society, and no formalized training of volunteers (especially regarding safety procedures, first aid, and customer relations). These gaps, in particular, have led to a certain level of disorganization in the workshop. Third, there is no mechanism to communicate and verify referrals of a client by a volunteer on one night to a volunteer on another night. Such communication would allow volunteers to prepare in advance to serve clients when they arrive for help. This existing knowledge gap can create poor service for clients and information lost in the client interaction. Fourth, there exists a knowledge gap in identifying experts to provide knowledge for solutions. There is no system to solve the perennial question: “who knows who knows who” (Contractor, 2007). This is a big issue identified even in KM for FPOs. While the senior volunteers have developed their own knowledge networks, new volunteers can only access these knowledge networks through senior volunteers or by “asking around”. Identifying experts is occasionally important for resolving technical knowledge needs but it also relates to volunteers’ personal knowledge needs.
4.5. Knowledge Sinks
Knowledge sinks are often created by broken communication systems, lack of policy and procedure, etc. Thus email seems to have created the conditions for knowledge sinks, where the information does not reach its intended recipients. For instance, requests from the Board for input or feedback often receive no reply; therefore, it is difficult to verify how widely the information was dispersed. One participant indicated he was not on the email list until recently. Participants believe that a set of policies for the workshop exist, but these policies are mostly unwritten. Changes to these policies sometimes become lost in communication. Understanding how to fix the heating system is an excellent example. The heating system suffers recurring failures, but the knowledge on how to fix the heating is only shared with a few volunteers. Failure to retain this knowledge creates a knowledge sink – and sometimes cold volunteers.
4.6. Knowledge Pools
Several untapped or underutilized sources of knowledge were identified. The most significant one is the people whose expertise or skills go unrecognized. Volunteers tend to approach the same people for answers to particular topics. This means that other volunteers might have the same or better knowledge about the particular topic but their expertise goes unrecognized because other volunteers are not aware of this expertise. Another important source is undocumented history or previous solutions to previous problems. The books and manuals, especially on new bike technologies, were identified as an important source for knowledge, but volunteers rarely took information from books. This was either because books were poorly located or volunteers preferred a social explanation of a solution over reading the information. Similarly, tools such as blackboards and whiteboards are available in the workshop, but they are not fully used (often remain blank). These tools, for example, could be used to leave messages for other volunteers who work other shifts. Community members might not be fully aware of existing knowledge sources on the internet from other community bicycle workshops that could help address operational or technical issues. In addition, there is very rich pool of ex-volunteers or members who have left the group but no system to tap into this vast pool of knowledge. Thus this knowledge of ex-volunteers, gained through years of experience working at the workshop and with other community members, is lost. Serendipitous discoveries made by members of the community can be a good knowledge resource but unfortunately cannot be shared with other members due to lack of well organized system which could support sharing of such discoveries.
5. Discussion and Recommendations
The surprise and key finding that emerged from the knowledge audit was that, of the three types of knowledge identified, personal knowledge needs i.e., knowledge needs of the volunteers, is potentially far more important than operational or technical knowledge needs. It was found that a motivated and dedicated volunteer is far more valuable to the workshop than a technical guru. While the majority of clients needed help only with basic repairs (easy for most volunteers) and specialized repair problems were comparatively rare, opening hours depended on the commitment of volunteers. Therefore, workshop operations rely on volunteer participation, which depends on volunteer motivation, which is connected to a set of personal knowledge needs. Attracting new volunteers and keeping existing volunteers motivated, then, becomes key to determining the scope of services that the workshop can offer. New volunteers could be casual users of the workshop drawn from the periphery of the CoP into core participants. Addressing these volunteer motivations may help address the longevity and sustainability of the community. A CoP in a volunteer community needs to sustain the altruism of its members and aid the establishment of trust throughout the community (Kolbotn, 2004). Thus any proposed KM for a volunteer community should focus on meeting personal knowledge needs of the volunteers, rather than on solving efficiency problems, a key consideration in FPOs.
Based on the findings, including the unexpected finding, the researchers recommended both technological and non-technological solutions to manage knowledge in the community. The technological solution (Figure 1) includes the development of a multi-faceted KM system assembled from commonly available web 2.0 technologies, which have been identified as flexible and empowering user-centered tools for KM purposes (Avram, 2006), and which are commonly used by a majority of individuals in their personal life. The various facets of the proposed KM system will address different aspects of the technical, operational and personal knowledge needs, streamline the current knowledge sources and identified pools, remove knowledge gaps and sinks, and augment the existing knowledge channels.
The technological system includes four components. First, a wiki is proposed for collaborative authoring of policies and procedures documents. This addresses the gap between Board and volunteers that relates to oversight and training, as well as the gap between volunteers who develop responses to emerging operational challenges. Second, a private blog is proposed as a record of events, to aid sharing of new knowledge or serendipitous discoveries and as a stable communications channel amongst the Board and volunteers. This addresses the knowledge sink of operational knowledge coming from the Board via the email list, where universal receipt of messages cannot be assured, and calls from the Board for volunteer input often go unanswered. The blog space can be used to share and exchange knowledge and post new information or serendipitous discoveries for the benefit of other volunteers. It also addresses the communications gap between volunteers working on different nights of the week that results in lack of coordination on policies and projects or the incomplete referral of clients to an expert volunteer working on a different day. Third, a knowledge network using a social network application is recommended. This will facilitate communication among volunteers, address the gap between specialized technical knowledge needs and identification of experts in the volunteer community, tap into knowledge pools of unrecognized expertise and peripheral and former volunteers, and aid in making successful referrals. As a supplement to this network, profiles of the volunteers could be made public on the society's website. The ability to locate expertise is relevant both to technical and personal knowledge needs. Finally, additional channels are proposed to aid passive and active sharing between volunteers and the wider workshop community. Passive sharing could include posting videos, pictures and stories on the society's website, on a public blog, or on photo and video sharing sites with a link on the society’s website. Active sharing could include expanded offerings of formal repair courses (“learn and serve programs”). These measures augment the existing knowledge channels within the community and help leverage the pool of underutilized expertise.
The non-technological measures include organization of knowledge elements within the physical space of the workshop and use of available whiteboards and spaces as knowledge sharing and dissemination space. Non-technological components accomplish some of the same tasks mentioned above, but have the advantage of quick implementation and can help pave the way for acceptance of the technological measures within the culture of the workshop. For example, as an extension of the volunteer profiles on the website, photos and profiles could also be posted on the walls of the workshop; the existing whiteboard and chalkboard could be better located and used as a communications channel; a means could be provided for clients to identify volunteers when they are on duty (e.g., badges, labels, aprons); repair books and other information resources currently dispersed throughout the workshop could be co-located, organized, and labeled; and the computer could be moved out of the office area onto the shop floor to help integrate the technological solutions into the workflow of the space.
All of the components of the proposed KM exploit the capacity of social media for efficient communication and collaboration. Face-to-face communication in the workshop space remains the primary channel. However the social media, as proposed in the framework, would supplement and enhance the current KM and encourage knowledge sharing “within”, by removing spatial and temporal barriers to communication between volunteers, and “between” (Hurley and Green, 2005), by facilitating communication and linkage with other geographically distributed communities.
6. Conclusion and Future Work
The proposed KM framework is ideally suited to support volunteer motivations that include the passion for learning, sharing knowledge with others, socialization and meeting new people, and pursuing bicycle customization projects that require the kind of specialized knowledge waiting to be tapped with the community. The KM system proposed here will support these personal knowledge needs, in addition to meeting some of the other operational knowledge needs already identified. It improves internal communication channels and is directed both internally and externally to peripheral members of the workshop community. Furthermore, it is muti-faceted, allowing volunteers to choose their level of participation, fits the budgetary constraints of the organization, and respects the culture of the community, as identified by one of the participants, who said “we're kind of anti-technology nerds”, explaining, “we like new when it's cheap and efficient” [Nov 8, 2008, Interview C].
In the future we would like to explore other volunteer-based communities to confirm whether the personal knowledge needs related to volunteer motivation and dedication, as identified in this community, are indeed more important than other knowledge needs for a volunteer community to achieve its mission and goals.
Acknowledgments
We thank the volunteer community for participating in the study. The study would not have been successful without their help, support and commitment to this project.
References
“About Bikes Not Bombs”, (2008) Bikes Not Bombs, Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.bikesnotbombs.org/about
Avram, G. (2006) “At the crossroads of knowledge management and social software”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1): 1-10.
Baskerville, R. and Dulipovici, A. (2006) “The theoretical foundations of knowledge management”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4: 83-105.
“Bikestation Santa Barbara”, (2008) Bikestation, Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.bikestation.org/santabarbara/index.asp
Blair, D. C. (2002) “Knowledge management: Hype, hope, or help?”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 53: 1019-1028.
Burnett, S., Illingworth, L. and Webster, L. (2004) “Knowledge auditing and mapping: A pragmatic approach”, Knowledge and Process Management, 11(1): 25-37.
Contractor, N. (2007) From Disaster to WoW: Enabling Communities with Cyberinfrastructure, Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/46949/1/noshir.pdf.
Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. (1999) “Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing”, Organization Science, 10: 381-400.
Duguid, P. (2005) “The art of knowing: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice”, Information Society, 21(2): 109-18.
Evans, J. (2005) “A common goal”, Information Scotland, 3(6), Retrieved Nov. 2, 2008, from www.slainte.org.uk/publications/serials/infoscot/vol3(6)/ vol3(6)article2.htm.
Gilmour, J. and Stancliffe, M. (2004) “Managing knowledge in a international organization: The work of Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO)”, Records Management Journal, 14(3): 124-128.
Gongla, P. and Rizzuto, C. R. (2001) “Evolving communities of practice: IBM global services experience”, IBM Systems Journal, 40(4): 842-862.
Gregory, A. and Rathi, D. (2008) “Open source tools for managing knowledge in a small non-profit organization”, International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM), October 2008.
Hanley, S. S. (1999) “Communities of practice: A culture built on sharing”, Informationweek, 731 (26 April, 1999), 16ER-17ER.
Hara, N. and Kling, R. (2005) “Communities of practice with and without information technology”, Proceedings of the ASIST, 39: 338-49.
Helmig, B., Jegers, M. and Lapsley, I. (2004) “Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research overview”, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2): 101-16.
Hume, C. and Hume, M. (2008) “The strategic role of knowledge management in nonprofit organisations”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(2): 129-40.
Hurley, T. A. and Green, C. W. (2005) “Knowledge management and the nonprofit industry: A within and between approach”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 6. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.tlainc.com/articl79.htm
Kersten, G. E. (1993) “Negotiation support: Development of representations and reasoning”, Theory and Decision, 34: 293–311.
Kipley, D. H., Lewis, A. O. and Helm, R. (2008) “Achieving strategic advantage and organizational legitimacy for small and medium sized NFPs through the implementation of knowledge management”, Business Renaissance Quarterly, 3(3): 21-42.
Kolbotn, R. (2004) “Communities of practice in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution”, In: P. Hildreth & C. Kimble (Eds.), Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice : 70-78, Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Kong, E. and Prior, D. (2008) “An intellectual capital perspective of competitive advantage in nonprofit organisations”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(2): 119-28.
Lavé, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Larson, P., Levy, J. and Schmitz, M. (2005) “The nonprofit world in California: knowledge management on a shoestring”, Information Outlook, 9(11): 38-41.
Ledlie, T. (2008) “Classes & programs”, The Bike Kitchen. 8 Nov. 2008. Retrieved December 2, 2008 from http://www.bikekitchen.org/programs.htm
Lemieux, S. A. and Dalkir, K. (2006) “The case of a nonprofit artistic organization”, Information Outlook, 10(1): 13-16.
Lettieri, E., Borga, F. and Savoldelli, A. (2004) “Knowledge management in non-profit organizations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6): 16-30.
Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Montano, B., McCaw, D., Buchwalter, J., Browning, C., Newman, B. and Rebeck, K. (2000) “The knowledge audit”, Knowledge and Process Management, 7(1): 3-10.
Matzkin, D. S. (2008) “Knowledge management in the Peruvian non-profit sector”, Journal of Knowledge Management , 12(4): 147-59.
Nonaka, I. (1994) “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science, 5(1): 5-37.
“Programs”, (2008) PEDAL: Pedal Energy Development Alternatives, Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.pedalpower.org/?q=education
Prusak, L. (2001) “Where did knowledge management come from?”, IBM Systems Journal, 40(4): 1002-07.
Wenger, E. (2000) “Communities of practice: The structure of knowledge stewarding”, In: Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (Eds.) Knowledge Horizons: The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management, Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Wenger, E. (2004) “Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice”, Ivey Business Journal, 68(3): 1-8.