Knowledge sharing, complex environments and small-worlds

This paper is about knowledge sharing vision appropriate for a complex environment. In these environments, traditional views of knowledge sharing as informing a hierarchical, centralised leadership may be misleading. A complex environment is defined as one that emerges unpredictable changes that require organisations to reconnect, to reorganise. Organisations need to be able to rapidly reconnect relationships so as to reflect new priorities, and to do so without causing change "bottlenecks". The empirical biologists have observed that some social species have evolved structures that enable them to do this automatically what ever the environmental change. These organisational forms have survived for millions of years without central planning; rather they use local knowledge is reconnect as required overall providing an appropriate strategic response. These organisational forms seem to result from the small-worlds phenomenon and it is self organising. Specifically, this paper will argue that this small-worlds, self organisation, phenomena is a useful vision for designing a knowledge sharing vision appropriate for a complex environment. The supportive evidence is provided in the form of identifying the empirical attributes of self organisation and small worlds to provide an explanation of how and why it works. The system thinking, biology (insect) and the social-network literature are used.

[1]  Sue Holwell,et al.  Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field , 1998 .

[2]  Christopher Alexander Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

[3]  Michael R. Lissack,et al.  On the Status of Boundaries, both Natural and Organizational: A Complex Systems Perspective , 2001 .

[4]  Patrick Wilson Second-hand knowledge , 1983 .

[5]  Mitsuru Ishizuka,et al.  A Document as a Small World , 2001, JSAI Workshops.

[6]  Vance A. Durrington,et al.  Using Social Network Analysis to Examine the Time of Adoption of Computer-Related Services among University Faculty , 2000 .

[7]  A. Georges L. Romme,et al.  Self-organizing processes in top management teams: A boolean comparative approach , 1995 .

[8]  J. Mingers Systems Typologies in the Light of Autopoiesis: A Reconceptualization of Boulding's Hierarchy, and a Typology of Self-referential Systems , 1997 .

[9]  John Scott,et al.  Software Review : A Toolkit for Social Network Analysis , 1996 .

[10]  H. Russell Bernard,et al.  A Pseudomodel of the Small World Problem , 1979 .

[11]  A. Hare,et al.  Handbook of small group research , 1962 .

[12]  S. Borgatti,et al.  Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration , 2002 .

[13]  Louise K. Comfort,et al.  Self-Organization in Complex Systems , 1994 .

[14]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[15]  Fabrice Roubelat,et al.  Scenario Planning as a Networking Process , 2000 .

[16]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Self-Organization in Biological Systems , 2001, Princeton studies in complexity.

[17]  Mike Metcalfe,et al.  Sourcing forecast knowledge through argumentative inquiry , 2004 .

[18]  P. Checkland Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective a , 2000 .

[19]  M. Mizruchi Social Network Analysis: Recent Achievements and Current Controversies , 1994 .

[20]  Les Gasser,et al.  A Design Theory for Systems That Support Emergent Knowledge Processes , 2002, MIS Q..