Page 401 -

384 Chapter 11

Research to date indicates that organizations need better guidelines to improve their
knowledge processing practices concerning valuable and reusable content ( Patriotta
2004 ). Alavi and Leidner (2001) undertook a comprehensive review of knowledge
management systems used to “ support and enhance the organizational processes of
knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer and application ” (p. 114) and con-
cluded that “ while much theory exists . . . little empirical work has been undertaken ”
(p. 126) and that “ research is needed to address several important issues regarding
knowledge storage and retrieval ” (p. 128).
Given the lack of integrated theories for conceptualizing knowledge use and reuse,
the fi eld of information studies offers a number or relevant models and concepts that
can guide the inquiry. This research calls for a user orientation because knowledge use
will be examined at the micro and individual level. One relevant user-oriented model
is Wilson ’ s model of the information user who experiences an information need,
which may encompass cognitive and emotional needs, and will place demands on
information systems and information sources ( Wilson 1981 , 1999 , 2000 , 2010 ). If the
need is successfully fulfi lled, information will be used to some extent and ultimately
information transfer and/or information exchange will take place. It is easy to draw
a parallel model with knowledge users ’ needs and demands on knowledge infrastruc-
ture and knowledge resources for learning and innovating. On the other hand, infor-
mation users will use information systems and services only if they perceive some
value-added dimension such as system noise reduction, quality, adaptability, and time
and cost savings ( Taylor 1986 ). Similarly, a knowledge user will make an effort to use
a knowledge resource, if they perceive that the resource will add some value to exist-
ing knowledge.
Choo ’ s theory on organizational knowing is also highly relevant. Choo (2001 , 2003 ,
2006 ; Choo et al. 2006 ) views organizational knowing as mediated (with rules, roles,
and technology), situated (located in time and space), provisional (often tentative),
pragmatic (oriented toward goals), and contested (sometimes affected by confl icts).
More importantly, organizational knowing involves various processes of sense making,
knowledge creation, and decision making, which all work as a cycle and which, by
defi nition, affect knowledge use and reuse.
Crossan et al. (1999) presented a model of organizational learning called “ the 4I
framework ” that identifi ed four key processes (intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and
institutionalizing) as being critical to organizational learning (introduced in chapter
4; see also fi gure 4.3). This model was further refi ned with respect to the fi rst three
steps, but the fourth step, institutionalization, has not been explored extensively
( Crossan and Bedrow 2003 ). The fourth or institutionalization step is a prerequisite
for the complete processing of knowledge resources.