David Byrne is a musician and a writer and lives in New York City. An extract from one of his articles appeared on the MIT Technology Review. The article talks about the ubiquitous presence of Artificial Intelligence embedded in the social interaction software and networks that we meddle with, day in and day out relentlessly. We take it so granted, that I was compelled to write about his unique perspective on the effects of AI (Artificial intelligence) on our social life. You can find the article here.
Here, in the following paragraphs, you will find my perspectives (my 5 cents to it) on ‘Can AI really drive happy accidents leading to social interaction’ riding on David Byrne’s arguments.
We are swayed by the AI networks for social interaction
We as humans are so preset with the current way of life using all kinds’ of smart devices for communication and interaction that we have often forgotten to realize what it means to have a real human-to-human interaction. In fact, would like to appreciate MIT Technology Review for giving such a clever title as “Eliminating the Human” in the article.
David argues that we are swayed by the artificial cues and matches thrown by AI (Artificial intelligence) that we have failed to recognize our natural instincts as social animals to trust our own intuition for social interaction and collaboration that consumes us.
There is a generalization, and the pattern is obvious. We are entering into a world, which increasingly does not favor human interaction. For example, if we go to the ever popular Amazon.com, the site acts and behaves like a machine and gives us recommendations on what to buy based on our past interests and even the review conversations are machine like.
Social networks are engineered predominantly by male software engineers
So are the other modern outlets like music stores, driver-less cars, online ordering and home delivery, speech recognition and personal assistants, big data and even popular social networks. Though social networks have the social interaction part, they are less real. They are the simulated version of our interactions. The entire interaction happens from a software engineer’s point of view. Partly because, the software engineering crowd is predominantly male and they do seem to share the feeling that human interaction is all noise and has less simplicity and efficiency.
Artificial intelligence is all the rage right now and one of its most significant areas of impact are bots.
Bots are basically conversational software robots. Most of the time, you will find them in messaging and chat applications, but since they’re very collaborative in nature, experts predict that bots will be applied in a variety of collaboration tools in the future.
Until now, bots have proven to be extremely useful. They help businesses automate conversations and tasks, schedule meetings, pay online, or get started with an app. All that without interacting with another human being. In 2017, bots are bound to start changing our workplaces too.
Here are some essential points to show you how bots will change workplace productivity and collaboration in the near future.
Workplace Productivity & Bots
Bots have an immense potential for professional productivity because they can help employees handle their tasks without having to switch them.
An example of a bot that impacts productivity is the Tomatobot. The Pomodoro technique helps countless workers to break up their tasks into small productive chunks and focus on achieving more within a shorter period of time. Now there’s a bot to help them do it.
The productivity bot will send timer reminders straight to your Slack channel. The user can type in what they have completed at the end of each session and the bot will show them their accomplishments within a specific period of time.
Another interesting bot is Ace. It can track tasks, polls, expenses, and more features directly within Slack.
Trello for Slack is another interesting option for transferring information between one platform and another. Instead of switching from Slack to Trello, users can update cards directly from Slack. Moreover, the bot features plenty of buttons for many popular Trello tasks to help workers get more done in a shorter time.
Communication, Collaboration, and Bots
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that bots are also being considered for their potential in facilitating internal communications between employees. In many organizations, intranet systems work as central repositories or reference systems rather than tools for interactive engagement.
And since remote work is booming, the problem of collaboration and communication is serious. Bots might provide an answer to that need. Organizations will soon be using bots for answering short culture-related questions or helping remote workers get in touch with the right person inside the company.
For example, bots will help remote users to see all the projects another user is working on, or projects that are being developed in a different department. The bot might suggest related projects or find the document a user needs.
An example of such a bot in Slackbot. One of the best bots available on the market, Slackbot is a personal assistant that lives inside the communication platform Slack.
Adopting social media in workplaces is both an art and a science and they both go hand in hand together. For that matter, conducting business analysis also has shades of both art and science and not much relevance is given to the ‘art’ portion of it these days.Conducting Business Analysis is a mandatory precursor and a must do exercise even before we attempt to carry out and adopt enterprise tools in workplaces.
For the benefit of some of us, the IIBA (International Institute of Business Analysis) a much-recognized body in this field, defines Business Analysis as a ‘practice to bring in a change in an organizational context by defining the needs and recommending solutions to the stakeholders’.
Fair enough! but then in the recent years, the implementation and adoption of social media tools in organizations has brought the ‘art’ portion of business analysis to the forefront. This is not to say that logical analysis and methodological rules are no less important either.
There is much written about the logical analysis and rules of implementation. What I attempt to write below is my natural understanding of how ‘adopting social media in workplaces’ can be taken up.From a business analysis perspective and to bring in a positive productive change and intended benefits there are three approaches to adopting social media in workplaces. They are:-
The all at once together approach.
The bottoms up approach.
There are myriad tools which run inside workplaces and not all of them have the connecting power nor the acceptance among employees, as social media tools. Once they are implemented, they become a way of life inside the organization subject to their usage and popularity among the employees. Its usage builds social capital.Having said this, there are ample opportunities for people in the HR function.
People who work as HR Generalists, HR business analysts and OD (Organizational development) consultants can intervene and learn from these exercises. Even to the extent that they can glean for information and conduct the organizational scan, which they do regularly as part of their jobs for measuring employee satisfaction levels.
In the next few paragraphs I attempt to write about a chapter taken from the book “The wealth of Networks – How social production transforms markets and Freedom” written by Yochai Benkler.
Yochai Benkler is the professor of Entrepreneurial legal studies and Co-Director of the Berkman centre for Internet and Society at Harvard University. The book was first published in 2006. Yochai Benkler wrote about the future of the internet and how the internet is changing the society. The book is widely considered as an authority in the realm of our socially and digital networked world. The book with about 515 odd pages talks about the information economy and how we are all influenced by it and its contents stands true even after ten years since its publication.
What I attempt to do in the next few paragraphs is my own interpretation and understanding of one of the chapters in the book titled ”Social ties: Networking together’.
Yochai Benkler: The Internet’s influence on social relations is too soon to predict
Here, Yochai Benkler talks about two diagrammatically opposite views about how the Internet will affect the society and the community. The first one, which he elaborates as part of freedom and justice discourse is that individuals will start living somewhat disconnected and arid lives. This arid life will free us of the many worldly attachments like television and telephone and sometimes even our social relationships and make us grounded. Possible ! this effect was projected in the 1990’s. The other one was the ‘virtual communities’ where people interact, share and build a shared human communal existence.
New empirical evidence (Evidence which is hard, visible and experimented) shows that neither views will prevail. In fact it will be a mixture of the two. It is too soon to predict which way the direction of the Internet on social relations will take. It is obviously complex. Though Internet has clear effects on the human society, it will neither transcend or breakdown any particular aspect of it.
Thickening and loosening of relationships
Yochai Benkler elaborates further about the two types of effects that the Internet has on the human society. The first one is the thickening of relationships among previously not so tight relationships among friends, relatives and parents. The Internet has brought them together. Children who have moved away from their parents are now finding the Internet a boon. They do not have to coordinate a time to talk to them or pay for long distance communication. The days of the email have changed all of that. The same is the case with long parted friends.
But this thickening of social relationships has also led to loose hierarchical relationships among their family members and friends. As individuals start connecting together again, they have weaved a their own peer relations and support networks. This will dismantle the hierarchal relationships which might have been stifling to some on their freedom to express their views and opinion.
The second one is the loosening of ties and relationships. They are the ‘loose relationships’. Many virtual communities may or may not fit into this aspect but that is the fact. This new aspect of ‘loose relationships’ might displace many of the age old, one to many communication models which exists now in the Television and Radio mass media. This old model will be replaced by a newer many to many model which encourages interactive participation and sharing of information.
The effect of Internet on everybody will not be same but the magnitude will vary among social relations and networks. Yochai Benkler agrees that the usage of the Internet and rise in the individual capabilities will not aid in social fragmentation and alienation. There stills exists the fear of disintegration.
To dissuade this fear of disintegration Howard Rheingold put it quite subtly in his now classic book of 1993 – “Virtual community“. Human beings inevitably will form a community and colonies. We have a hunger for colonies just like bacteria do. A portion of the text from the book ‘Virtual community’ is below.
‘My direct observations of online behavior around the world over the past ten years have led me to conclude that whenever CMC [computer mediated communications] technology becomes available to people anywhere, they inevitably build virtual communities with it, just as microorganisms inevitably create colonies. I suspect that one of the explanations for this phenomenon is the hunger for community that grows in the breasts of people around the world as more and more informal public spaces disappear from our real lives. I also suspect that these new media attract colonies of enthusiasts because CMC enables people to do things with each other in new ways, and to do altogether new kinds of things—just as telegraphs, telephones, and televisions did.’
Yochai Benkler goes on to say that online relationships not only restrict themselves with just being on the Internet but also forge their way to a healthy offline face to face relationships as well. Such face to face relationships are alive and kicking and exist along with the online Internet relationships.
The strategy from MIT for digital platforms has never been so clear.
This article came up at the right time and at the right moment when I was browsing through the content at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Derived good insight by reading through the content. I am sure, the content would excite others as well in this field.
I would like to thank the authors from MIT executive education, Innovation@work blog, in posting this wonderful article. Some of the strategies are so mundane that it never occurred to us. There are so many ways that are possible to give our online digital platforms a new start.
The push and pull strategy with respect to a non-platform and a digital platform was very much relevant. The push strategy might work well in a traditional brick and mortar industry. The push is what is being followed through advertising and focused PR in traditional industries. The concept of reciprocity and attracting the users through rewards and recognition based pull strategies work very well in online platforms.
“Users should feel the need to come back”
As rightly pointed out, the needs and the reciprocity should be built into the platform. The reciprocity should be in such a way that needs promotes repeat users and referral cases.
Geoffrey Parker a research fellow at the MIT institute on the digital economy, says through his book “Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy – And How to Make Them Work for You”, that there has always been a dilemma in people who run and manage digital enterprises. They had the proverbial “Chicken and egg” question. But then, he says that both the “Push” and “Pull” strategies can be used intermittently on and off.
He goes on to propose 8 digital strategies for meeting this challenge and dilemma in his book and how successful digital platforms can be launched. Examples of world’s best global multinationals, who made it big on the Digital platforms were also provided.
Please find the 8 successful digital platform launch strategies from MIT executive education, Innovation@work blog.
Follow the rabbit strategy – Example: Amazon.
Piggy back strategy – Example: PayPal piggy backed on EBay.
The seeding strategy – Example: Adobe.
Marquee strategy – A common strategy adopted by a large number of companies. Providing incentives and rewards for people participation and contribution.
The single side strategy – Example: Open table.
The producer evangelism strategy – Example: Skill share
Big bang adoption strategy – Example: Twitter
The micro market strategy – Example: Facebook
Each of the 8 strategies presented were stellar. All of them have their own merits and demerits, some were pure pull, while others were push.
The big bang strategy adopted by Twitter needs to have a huge marketing budget backed by sponsors. Twitter’s big bang moment came up in 2007 when it hung up giant screens during the South by South west festival. Users were able to see their won tweets and their user base tripled by the end of the festival. This was a typical push strategy adopted by the company.
In my personal opinion, the marquee strategy can be used with a low budget and development costs. We develop the product in such a way it appeals to a certain cross section of producers and consumers. Once this section of consumers and producers get satisfied they will spread it and go on inviting others.
We invite readers to go through the below link for more resources on the 8 strategies.
Link from MIT executive education blog : http://executive.mit.edu/blog/8-ways-to-launch-a-successful-digital-platform
Hope you found this article interesting. Please do share us !
Social media platforms or social media network, knowledge sharing has been the lifeline by which people interact, self-organize and form a context.
Designing social media platforms for knowledge sharing has always been a challenge. So the question is, can Social capital come to the rescue? An analysis of the Social capital framework within the organization or a social set up provide us the answers?
Useful Note: By platform, we mean the computing platform and the necessary software code, rules and provisions required for running it.
A year 2003 article on The Economist “A question of wealth” talks about “How Nations and organizations become wealthy ? Harvard University professor Robert Putnam wrote a very famous influential essay “Bowling alone” where he says Americans would be far more unlikely to join the clubs and social circles in the 1990’s than they would in the 1950’s. He came to this conclusion after noting the decline in ‘Bowling league” memberships in America. Though this has been accepted uncritically, the basic and proven assumption is that all
All human beings by nature are social animals.
Sociologists believe that there is the hand of the growing field of Social Capital which sways wealth, power and status in favor of nations and organizations which have a high degree of Social capital with an emphasis on “Trust and Community” Let us explore this further and bring it to the context of designing social media platforms for knowledge sharing.
We have been seeing time and again that traditional tools for knowledge sharing and knowledge management have been failing the test of acceptance and “institutionalization”.
Useful Note: Wikipedia describes institutionalization as a process of embedding a social norm or a social behavior within a large organization or a social group.
Irrespective of where they are used, for in-house purposes within an organization or as an independent tool within the consumer web space, their acceptance is low. Systems for knowledge sharing cannot be designed from a technological perspective alone. We cannot just look down upon the social, informal and non-canonical nature of our interactions in social set ups and as they happen in other social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
We have to embed the knowledge sharing system within an existing social setup of which they are a part. Ignoring the social side of the network has been one of the key factors for the fall and resistance to such knowledge sharing tools.
Then how can such knowledge sharing systems be designed? The concept of “Social capital” and its analysis has been hailed as the best path forward by many contemporary researchers and practitioners in this field. We will look into their work in a little while from now as we move along. But before that we will understand, the current challenges to the design and development of knowledge sharing systems using social media platforms.
Current challenges of social media platforms for knowledge sharing
The importance and the value of managing knowledge and sharing can never be understated. We are living in a globalized world with increasing complexity. With geographically dispersed teams, the complexity increases. There is a saying that “the intellectual capital of a firm is far greater than the asset base and the intrinsic value it has”. There is of-course the competitive advantage attached to it.
But getting a good foothold and grasp of managing knowledge and sharing is critical. The challenges from an organizational perspective usually come from
The IT function- a key role player in facilitating knowledge sharing.
Management commitment, priorities and alignment.
Individual learning Vs. Community learning.
1.The key role of the IT function
The challenge is inherent in the fact that IT can support and improve knowledge sharing but it ignores the social conditions that facilitate knowledge sharing among groups. The successful outcomes of such systems come from paying attention to appropriate social context, norms, position, reward systems and leadership.
IT cannot be independent. It has to be embedded within the social norm. If it is not so, then it is a challenge and presents itself in various pockets of resistance within the groups.
Brown and Duguid in their book “Social life of information” wrote that
“Knowledge only has its use, if it can be related to people”.
People would like to know the context from whom it was originated and why? This provides the important “Meta knowledge”. This is also one of the reasons why recorded knowledge is not reused.
Tacit knowledge which exists in people’s minds need not be codified into structured explicit knowledge. This is where social media platforms come to the rescue. It supports elicitation of knowledge in its various forms and fills those gaps. Meta knowledge cannot be recorded in intranets or repositories they need social media platforms.
Huysman and De witt wrote in their book “Knowledge sharing in practice” that
People want to share experiences with other people with whom they look up for support and where there is trust, safety and mutual respect.
2.Management commitment and priorities
(If you are looking to build your own independent social media platform, then you can skip this section, this section is geared more towards in-house usage)
One thing is quite clear for successful knowledge sharing is that this initiative has to be a win-win situation. Increasingly, this goes in for a toss as the management from a top-down approach exert the need to control and monitor knowledge.
The very act of extracting knowledge from knowledgeable and experienced workers, builds resistance. But actually, this is an attempt to manage knowledge, make it more effective and available to others.
There is also a notion that when a core employee leaves, he or she takes away the core competency away from them.
There is a universally known fact that “employees don’t want to share knowledge anyway”. Management priorities of improving knowledge sharing is good. It is in the right direction but it has to be in a win-win situation.
3.Individual vs Community learning
Traditionally, so far what we have seen and still remains largely is that knowledge sharing is for individual gain and learning is supported at the level of individuals.
Most of the repository systems are built with this focus to enhance the flow of information to individuals. But what we are forgetting to acknowledge is that most knowledge is shared and generated within a social context and setup.
Learning these days cannot be separated from the social community. It is very much intrinsic to the existence of such knowledge that is generated. So knowledge sharing tools must support social relationships that exist among people and include it as part of the design requirements.
In the next section, we will take an introductory look into the framework for designing social media platforms for knowledge sharing and the ‘socio-technique’ analysis on which the social media platforms need to be designed.
An introduction to the Social capital framework
Existing research and several pioneering authors and practitioners have always been pointing out to the multidisciplinary aspects when designing social media platforms or social media networks. The disciplines range from Mathematics, Information technology, Economics, Sociology, Cognitive psychology and Ethnography.
From an IT perspective, when you want to create a sharing network, the primary aspect is to create an intranet which has 1. A shared information workspace – something like ‘sharepoint’ from Microsoft for example. 2. A communication space- which can use asynchronous mode like email or synchronous mode like video conferencing for people to share and bounce thoughts and ideas. 3. A collaboration space – like a groupware, workflow system where people can cooperate and complete work together.
The idea here is that the IT sharing network or the intranet and the social media platform need to converge and exist together. When such co-existence happens then that is the domain of the socio-technique and in other words, it is the social media platform which has knowledge sharing embedded in it that is coming to fruition.
There is a tremendous “interplay” between the social and technical aspects. This interplay is necessary and also continuously evolving. Understanding this interplay is a challenge and also the key success factor.
The development, implementation and use of such social media platforms needs to be flexible in order to adapt it to a particular environment, this makes it complex as well.
It is complex, due to a concept called ‘Drifting’. Social media platforms have the tendency to evolve and drift. It creates its own path, character and stance over time.
Useful Note: Drifting as a social concept, is the process of slowly moving away and taking one’s own path and self-organizing and evolving.
It has the capacity to self –organize, adds the human element of “Context” in all in its interactions, sharing and spreading in its usage.
Ethnography and its influence
Another important sphere of influence in the design of social media platforms for knowledge sharing is the subject of Ethnography. Ethnography, which is the study of cultures and their mutual understanding and differences does give us a method to this complexity.
But then the argument is that even though Ethnography carries out detailed studies on the work processes and their cultural settings and yet the gap exists when IT takes up the requirements for designing social media platforms for knowledge sharing.
Possible reasons are the complexity involved in translating the requirements and also we are dealing with two sets of people (IT function and the people working on Ethnography) who are divergently different in their approach, thoughts and ideas.
Perhaps the most important concept in understanding the social capital framework came from Bressand and Distler. This brings us to light when designing social media platforms we will have to study the underlying current of “Info-culture” in any set up.
Many a times, IT designers ignore this when designing an knowledge sharing system and analyze the ‘infrastructure’ and the ‘info-structure’. Infrastructure stands for all the physical hardware and software. The ‘info –structure’ is the formal organization, governing rules, formal business processes, hierarchies and strategy by which people exchange information and knowledge. The ‘info-culture’ is the social relationships and the culture that is prevalent in the group. It is social norm of how people relate to one another.
Many researchers at the forefront of the design for a new social media platforms express the need for an analysis of the ‘info-culture’ of the organizational setup. This is mainly argued as the third most important aspect in the analysis for design and not to be ignored.
The cultural norms, social relationships, safety and trust are the key concepts that need analysis. It is surprising that not much has been written about this in the contemporary literature for requirement analysis for design of social media platforms for knowledge sharing.
The social capital framework provides a promising potential to design social media platforms for success and acceptance.
What is Social capital? And how do we acknowledge it?
We might have heard about Physical capital, Financial capital, Economic capital and also Human capital. A relatively newer concept, Social capital has been in the news and has been researched and talked about a lot.
Social Capital is the sum total of the trust, social norms, and most importantly the mutual and shared understanding you have in a social relationship.
Social capital can then be used effectively for knowledge sharing. Increasingly, people have to come to know that social capital forms one of the important aspects for determining an organization’s economic growth.
Physical capital and Financial capital determine the economic prospects and growth of the organization in the short term. They are hugely dependent on the vagaries of various global movements and indications. It is the Social capital aspect through its economic actors, the relationships they foster with each other determines the long term economic growth and development of the organization.
Human capital on one hand looks at the individual abilities but –
Social capital utilizes the collective abilities of all the actors on the social media platform.
Needless to say, Social capital removes the bias of individual learning.
It is emphasized that the use of Social capital analysis in designing and developing social media platforms for knowledge sharing greatly reduces, if not altogether eliminates the risks and challenges posed by managerial and technological ones, which have seen earlier. A good degree of diagnosis and analysis of a group’s social setup, its Social capital and improving the Social capital level of that group will greatly enhance the adoption and acceptance of the social media platforms.
People will have more opportunity to share knowledge within themselves and will be motivated to do so even as they have abilities and the capacity to share knowledge (Tacit knowledge as well). These are some of the elements and structural underpinnings which we need to understand for analyzing Social capital for designing social media platforms.
As the trend moves from individual learning to community based learning, there is a growing importance and acceptance of knowledge communities within organizations and outside. They form a trust circle where people can safely exchange knowledge and collaborate with each other creating an environment for innovation to happen. Such open collaborative networks thrive on the degree of Social capital that exists within that group or community
Nahapiet and Ghosal in their book “Knowledge sharing in practice “ introduce three dimensions of Social capital namely, Structural, Cognitive and Relational.
Structural analysis of Social capital points to the network ties, the current organizational structure and also to network configurations.
Cognitive analysis points to the aspects of shared language, shared abilities and similar stories.
And finally, Relational analysis points to the aspects of social norms, trust and motivation.
Another interesting dimension was introduced by Adler and Kwon. They talk about Social capital classification in terms of opportunity, ability and motivation.
If we analyze both these approaches, we are talking about
“Who shares” and “How do they do that” this is from a structural opportunity standpoint. Research points that people within the same social hierarchy, create dense networks within themselves and there is opportunity for everyone to contribute within this group. “How do they do that” is something that needs to be explored. For example:- Top senior Managers working in MNCs form a leadership group within the organization.
“What is shared” this is from a cognitive ability standpoint. People with similar stories in their lives, connect. People also share and connect based on abilities. They will be able to offer advice and suggestion to others with whom they can relate to.
“Why and when” this is from a relational motivational standpoint. Social norms, trust and safety play a huge role and influence an entire gamut of people. Evidence and research proves that there is enough motivation among people to willingly contribute knowledge and suggestions based on trust and safety.
Simple requirement analysis for social media platforms
When we are doing a requirement analysis and information gathering the following table helps us in this task.
The table gives us a framework to start the requirements gathering with the research questions asked, important elements to consider, the various dimensions and the levels involved. Through this framework one can understand the stakeholders involved, the support and feedback needed from them.
A small note here, the stakeholders need not be within the same organization. If you are designing independent social media platforms for knowledge sharing, the stakeholders are much more diverse and heterogeneous. This makes the design much more interesting.
As discussed earlier, an analysis of Social capital provides an in-depth functionality that needs to be embedded into the social media platforms for knowledge sharing.
When we look at the structural dimension of social capital, the focus is more on network density in terms of the number of actors who are connected to each other. Studying such density would reveal “with whom people share knowledge” and “Who shares with who” and how do they do it.
If there is a requirement gap we bridge the holes functionally so that the structural map reaches far and wide and as well group penetration. For example: the concept of groups is so popular in Linkedin. The stronger the ties, they will share tacit information.
From a cognitive stand point, we analyze the group’s ability to understand each other and whether they have shared mutual understanding, shared stories and similar problems in life and career. If such ties are stronger and if their cognitive intelligence is high, they will be able to share tacit information as well.
A useful note:– Not much attention is given to this dimension. It’s good to lower the cognitive barrier, provide functionality in such a way that “like minds attract like minds”. Only if the cognitive barrier is low, people will be able to share their personal stories on social media platforms otherwise they will look at sharing the same on a one-on-one basis, face to face.
If there is an expert, his expertise requires validation and we contact him in person to validate his expertise. The same should happen on a social media platform as well where people will have access to such tools and they will transfer tacit knowledge where it is required.
We need to also understand that this requirements gathering also has to take into account the culture of the setup. Apart from standard methodologies for gathering information from hierarchical setups, methodologies used in Ethnography and pattern recognition supports the overall process.
In a relational dimension, we need to understand that whether members are motivated and are willing to share.
We have to address the question “What is in it for me to share?” This provides the motivational part along with shared norms, trust, safety and respect. Not answering this question makes social media platforms fail the test of institutionalization.
When there is “reciprocity”, then there is a no “motivational barrier”. The systems should facilitate or have such provisions for reciprocal response functionality. A good example is the “Facebook like”. Other things to take care are status differences, respect and trust.
Trust is one of the most important factors. If there is mutual trust then there is easier knowledge sharing, tacit as well. When people want to learn and want others to succeed as well, then such high motivation creates mutual trust which is highly beneficial to the success of social media platforms.
The stronger the ties between individuals, the greater the sharing of tacit knowledge happens. Sharing tacit knowledge requires a high degree of trust.
Finally, existing research reveal only this much. For further analysis and greater success, we need to carry out ethnographic studies for knowledge sharing. Appropriating IT to a specific social set up or organizational group is a challenge.
So far, not much has been written about how “IT will be used”. We once again comeback to the same saying that social media platforms usage is evolving and it is evolving culture and attitude. Groups constantly self-organize and we need to be cognizant of this fact when we are designing social media platforms for knowledge sharing.
I would like to thank the following authors for their in-depth research. I have referred the following books below. You can buy them on Amazon as well.
Social life of information, Burn and Duguid
Webwork information seeking and knowledge work on the www, Choo c Detlor and Turnbull