H OW COULD KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES BE FACILITATED ?

Much of the prior research on knowledge sharing in VCs focuses on individual-level factors and behaviour (Publication 1, see also Kollock, 1999; Daugherty et al., 2005). In terms of facilitating knowledge sharing, these represent an important but insufficient set of factors. While many authors refer to VCs as “true” communities with certain boundaries, norms, shared language and common practices, they do not refer to community-level collective knowledge, which is paradoxical. It is argued that both levels should be incorporated into further research in order to better understand the dynamics of knowledge: while motivation may be enough to enable individual contributions, actual knowledge-sharing patterns rely on shared conversational practices, norms and language, manifesting how social capital is also of the essence in VCs.

Table 11 summarises the perceived knowledge-sharing facilitators fromPublication 1.

Table 11. Facilitators of knowledge sharing in virtual communities

Wasko & Faraj 2000, Lee et al. 2006 Wasko & Faraj 2000 Personal characteristics Viewing knowledge as a public good

Active, help-giving orientated personality

Lower position in the organizational hierarchy

Wasko & Faraj 2000 Ridings et al. 2002, Usoro et al.

2007, Hsu et al. 2007 Wiertz & de Ruyter 2007 Wasko & Faraj 2000 Chiu et al. 2006 Chiu et al. 2006

The results reported inPublications 4-7 are further discussed in order to complement the above findings. As noted in Publication 4 concerning the use of weblogs in a corporate environment, Web 2.0 channels allow companies to enhance both formal communications (e.g., strategic goals), and establish and maintain informal knowledge-sharing relationships across the organisation, thus providing support for company-internal VCoPs. In this respect, a socio-technical perspective promotes understanding of how conversational technologies interact with the surrounding organisational context. BothPublications 4 and5 stress how it is particularly the organisational culture that facilitates knowledge sharing: as the community of employees basically determines both the structure and content of Web 2.0 applications, asupportive culture in which people are trusted and encouraged to contribute is called for. As the interviewees within

the ICT company pointed out, a key barrier to the use of weblogs and wikis is the lack of confidence: not all employees are comfortable with the idea of sharing knowledge openly. They may also be unable to identify the potential uses and roles of weblogs and wikis without practical guidance and internal training, even if they have unmet needs and could benefit from using them.

With regard to technology,Publication 5 emphasises the role of the aesthetic dimension in terms of lowering the cognitive barriers of employees to collaborate and share knowledge using conversational technology: it is noteworthy that aestheticism here refers to making wikis look and feel like ‘our place’, and coherent, not incorporating a fancy appearance or a variety of features. According to the feedback and suggestions from the surrounding community, the conversational technology is constantly modified to better suit the needs of the users, thus facilitating interaction. In a similar vein,Publication 7 points out how developing the community site fully relied on customer feedback and discussions within the VCC. All in all, knowledge sharing is thus facilitated by ongoing development and modification, which enhance the community’s ability to match the needs of members, referring to theflexibility of conversational technologies.

It is worth noting that even when VC participation is eventually driven by “me-intentions”

instead of “we-intentions” (see Publication 6), there is a collective structure (shared culture) underlying the interactions. In other words, while members emphasised the fulfilment of their personal needs, they related how it was particularly the blunt and honest culture that attached them to this specific community and not to another: it formed the binding force, and invisible code, that gave form to the VC. In a similar vein, Franco et al. (2000) note that hostile behaviour could eventually help a virtual community to define its common values and thus strengthen the community structure. Again, VCs do not need to be harmonious to be communities: they are contingent achievements that are constantly evolving and producing themselves, and do not take some fixed or ideal form (Keleman & Smith, 2001; Fuchs, 2007, see also Chapter 2.4).

Finally, VCCs provide companies with an enticing opportunity to understand customer needs and preferences. The actual patterns of knowledge sharing are nevertheless driven by the different roles members take within the community (Publication 7), and it seems to be of specific

importance to allow customers more credit and responsibility as co-creators of the product. In other words, the level of member engagement in knowledge sharing is affected by how much they are able to influence the community, and respectively the company’s actions. On the hosting company’s side, nurturing participation requires an understanding about the community culture.

For instance, Moon & Sproull (2001) note how rewards and ‘tokens’ encouraging member activities tend to be context-specific: hence, they only have meaning for a specific community.

In sum, knowledge sharing in VCs is facilitated by means of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, personal characteristics, collective social capital, shared culture, and appropriate features of conversational technologies. Within the broader social context, company-hosted VCs benefit from an organisational culture that favours the open sharing of knowledge.