Creation and recreation: motivating collaboration to generate knowledge capital in online communities

The results of a research project that examined the factors that motivated individuals competing to win an award of @$10,000 to interact collectively in a Yahoo e-group are presented. The project was the apparent willingness of competitors to help their rivals when only one prize was available. The findings revealed that the initial impetus for members to join the group was to discover information for personal benefit. Over time, however, individual desire to reciprocate the help received from the group developed out of the online interactions. Other results from the study *challenge the findings of previous research on the value of strong social capital in online communities; *confirm that in order to motivate active participation in online environments incentives offered should match the values of the group in question; *advocate that a balance needs to be achieved in determining the degree of focus in a discussion group's activities: a narrow focus leads to action amongst members and diminishes the requirement for social support and community control; *reveal that decisions on a community's size may determine its power to support genuine collaboration and new knowledge creation: all-inclusive membership provides opportunities for individual learning, but true knowledge capital is generated in smaller, less public groups. These findings highlight issues that businesses may wish to consider when there are plans to create virtual communities of practice to meet corporate goals. This is particularly important with reference to furnishing environments where employees are willing to work collaboratively in the creation of new knowledge. This article is based in part on a paper presented at The Sixth International Virtual Communities Conference, Church House Conference Centre, Westminster, London, 16-17 June 2003.

[1]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[2]  Steve Sawyer.  Knowledge Markets : Cooperation Among Distributed Technical Specialists , 2001 .

[3]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[4]  D. Swanson.  In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work , 2001 .

[5]  Jörg Strübing,et al.  Bridging the Gap: On the Collaboration between Symbolic Interactionism and Distributed Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Multi-Agent Systems Research , 1998 .

[6]  Elin K. Jacob,et al.  The Dynamics of Classification Systems as Boundary Objects for Cooperation in the Electronic Library , 1998, Libr. Trends.

[7]  Josh Lerner,et al.  The Simple Economics of Open Source , 2000 .

[8]  S. Faraj,et al.  The Web of Knowledge: An Investigation of Knowledge Exchange in Networks of Practice , 2001 .

[9]  Wai Fong Chua,et al.  The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: a field study of an implementation of activity-based costing , 2001 .

[10]  Michael E. D. Koenig,et al.  Knowledge Management for the Information Professional , 2000 .

[11]  Staffan Ulfberg,et al.  How We Cracked the Code Book Ciphers , 2000 .

[12]  Gee-Woo Bock,et al.  BREAKING THE MYTHS OF REWARDS , 2002 .

[13]  M. Denscombe.  The Good Research Guide , 2003 .

[14]  Hazel Hall,et al.  Borrowed theory: Applying exchange theories in information science research , 2003 .

[15]  Simon Singh,et al.  The Code Book , 1999 .

[16]  Hazel Hall,et al.  Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets , 2001, J. Inf. Sci..

[17]  D. Sandy Staples,et al.  Exploring Perceptions of Organizational Ownership of Information and Expertise , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[18]  E. Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier , 2000 .

[19]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Communities of practice: Performance and evolution , 1994, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[20]  Hazel Hall,et al.  Organizational knowledge and communities of practice , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing , 2002, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[22]  Kathryn Henderson,et al.  The Role of Material Objects in the Design Process: A Comparison of Two Design Cultures and How They Contend with Automation , 1998 .

[23]  Francis Harvey,et al.  Boundary Objects and the Social Construction of GIS Technology , 1998 .

[24]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .