Hazel Hall's invited paper presented at Developing and sustaining a knowledge sharing culture, Warwick Business School, Warwick, 16-17 September 2008. The material presented here draws on the findings of Hazel Hall's doctoral research, the full details of which are available from http://hazelhall.org/publications/phd-the-knowledge-trap-an-intranet-implementation-in-a-corporate-environment/

1. “Culture” as culprit: using actor-network theory
to unpick power issues of knowledge exchange
in corporate environments
Dr Hazel Hall
Reader
School of Computing
Napier University
h.hall@napier.ac.uk

2. Presentation content
 “Culture”
 Frameworks
 Actor-network theory as framework
 Application of the framework
 Subversive behaviour and compromise
 References

3. Background
 Optimism associated with the development of systems to
promote knowledge sharing is misguided
 Examples in the literature go back to 1980s
 “Culture” often takes the blame
 The context in which it is hoped that knowledge sharing will be
engendered is stronger than the technology and staff provided for
the support of knowledge sharing activity

4. Early sociotechnical studies
Kling & Scaachi (1982)
 Argue that the operation and enhancement of computer
implementations are compromised by:
 shifting technical relationships
 fluid, complex social relationships
 Challenge assumptions that:
 Developers and users act in a rational manner
 Initiatives will be adequately resourced
 Key players command social and political power to motivate
widespread adoption

5. Explanations: sociotechnical studies
Kling & Scaachi (1982)
 Argue that the operation and enhancement of computer
implementations are compromised by:
 shifting technical relationships
 fluid, complex social relationships
“CULTURE”
“CULTURE”
 Challenge assumptions that: Developers and users work to
Developers and users work to
 Developers and users act in a rationalspecific,personal, short-term
manner
specific, personal, short-term
agendas; time and money is
 Initiatives will be adequately resourcedagendas; time and money is
squeezed; often key players do
 Key players command social and political power to motivate do
squeezed; often key players
not have political power.
not have political power.
widespread adoption

6. Alternative assumptions of “system”
A system is
 More than a set of neutral components
 A form of social organisation
 Subject to limitations of available resources
 Funding
 Political power
 Staffing
 A competitor for resources
“Culture” refers to power relationships in this context (Ekbia
& Kling, 2003)

7. Purpose of frameworks
Frameworks
 help make sense of data collected, and thus of phenomena (e.g.
organisational dynamics) observed
 act as a tool for diagnosis
 and thus aid the processes of:
 acquiring knowledge
i.e. important elements for research
 reflection
output to have real organisational impact
 action for change

8. Output of frameworks
Frameworks provide a means of formatting research
findings
 e.g., as a graphical representation of the organisation under
investigation
In using a framework it is possible to
 (re)organise data
 understand what it is that they represent
 present findings in a format that is understandable to others –
the representation can be used as a short-cut to shared
understanding

9. Actor-network theory as framework
History
 Developed in 1980s
 Michel Callon and Bruno Latour
Key concepts
 Non-humans, as well as humans, are actors
 Relationships between actors shift as they compete for
organisational resources, from tangible, e.g. office space, to
intangible, e.g. corporate attention
 Actor-networks grow through successful “translation”
 Actor-networks diminish/disintegrate when ties in the network
loosen

10. Actor-network theory example
 Case study organisation wanted explanations as to why the
efforts of its knowledge management staff to promote
information systems for knowledge sharing were sub-optimal.
 The organisation was understood as a mesh of competing actor-
networks.
 The success/failure of corporate initiatives was suspected to be
related to the degree to which particular groups enhanced or
diminished their organisational power-base.
 Service delivery could be examined with reference to historical
and social context of the organisation.
 The approach provided opportunities to reflect, learn, act.

11. Actors in the organisation
Knowledge System
System “Ordinary” staff
“Ordinary” staff
Knowledge
sharing as a usage
usage (not KM
(not KM
sharing as a Specialist KM staff
concept Specialist KM staff statistics
statistics specialists)
specialists)
concept members in
members in Senior sponsors of
Senior sponsors of KM as a
centralised unit KM as a
Shared centralised unit KM (not KM
KM (not KM External concept
Shared External concept
collaboration Mission specialists)
specialists) systems
collaboration Mission systems
space
space statements KM strategy vendors
statements KM strategy vendors
Senior staff with KM
Senior staff with KM Specialist KM staff
responsibilities (not KM Repositories
responsibilities (not KM Repositories Specialist KM staff
members in business
members in business
specialists)
specialists) System
System units
External consultants units
External consultants

12. Analysis episode 1
Mission
Mission
statements
statements
Senior sponsor of
Senior sponsor of Senior specialist
KM as a Senior specialist
KM (not a KM
KM (not a KM KM as a IM/KM staff member
concept IM/KM staff member
specialist)
specialist) concept 2 in centralised unit
2 in centralised unit
System
System
Specialist IT/KM staff
Specialist IT/KM staff
member 1 in
member 1 in
centralised unit
centralised unit

13. Analysis episode 2
Mission
Mission
statements
statements
Senior sponsor of KM (not
Senior sponsor of KM (not
aaKM specialist)
KM specialist)
Specialist IM/KM
Specialist IM/KM Senior specialist
Senior specialist
staff members in KM as aa
KM as
staff members in IM/KM staff member 22
IM/KM staff member
centralised unit concept
concept
centralised unit in centralised unit
in centralised unit
Senior specialist
Senior specialist
IM/KM staff member 33 System
System
IM/KM staff member
in centralised unit
in centralised unit
Some specialist
Some specialist
Specialist IT/KM staff IM/KM staff members
IM/KM staff members
Specialist IT/KM staff in business units
member 11in centralised unit
member in centralised unit in business units
“Ordinary” staff (not
“Ordinary” staff (not
KM specialists)
KM specialists)

14. Analysis episode 3
Mission
Mission
statements
statements
Senior sponsor of KM (not
Senior sponsor of KM (not
aaKM specialist)
KM specialist)
Specialist IM/KM
Specialist IM/KM Senior specialist
Senior specialist
staff members in KM as aa
KM as
staff members in IM/KM staff member 22
IM/KM staff member
centralised unit concept
concept
centralised unit in centralised unit
in centralised unit
Senior specialist
Senior specialist
IM/KM staff member 33 System
System
IM/KM staff member
in centralised unit
in centralised unit
Specialist IM/KM staff
Specialist IM/KM staff
members in business
members in business
units
units
“Ordinary” staff (not
“Ordinary” staff (not
KM specialists)
KM specialists)

15. Analysis episode 3
Mission
Mission
statements
statements Central position of
system, & its proximity
Senior sponsor of KM (not
Senior sponsor of KM (not to KM as a concept 
aaKM specialist)
KM specialist) confusion over what
Specialist IM/KM Senior specialist KM represented in the
Specialist IM/KM Senior specialist KM as aa
staff members in
staff members in IM/KM staff member 22
IM/KM staff member
KM as organisation
centralised unit concept
concept
centralised unit in centralised unit
in centralised unit
Senior specialist
Senior specialist
IM/KM staff member 33 System
System
IM/KM staff member
in centralised unit
in centralised unit
Specialist IM/KM staff
Specialist IM/KM staff
members in business
members in business
units
units
“Ordinary” staff (not
“Ordinary” staff (not
KM specialists)
KM specialists)

16. Analysis episode 3
Mission
Mission
statements
statements Distance between
policy documentation &
Senior sponsor of KM (not
Senior sponsor of KM (not “ordinary” staff
aaKM specialist)
KM specialist) explained lack of
Specialist IM/KM Senior specialist engagement in KM, &
Specialist IM/KM Senior specialist KM as aa
staff members in
staff members in IM/KM staff member 22
IM/KM staff member
KM as what it implied in terms
concept
concept
centralised unit
centralised unit in centralised unit
in centralised unit of behaviours
Senior specialist
Senior specialist
IM/KM staff member 33 System
System
IM/KM staff member
in centralised unit
in centralised unit
Specialist IM/KM staff
Specialist IM/KM staff
members in business
members in business
units
units
“Ordinary” staff (not
“Ordinary” staff (not
KM specialists)
KM specialists)

17. Analysis episode 3
Mission
Mission Ties between KM staff in
statements
statements business units
Senior sponsor of KM (not strengthened over time
Senior sponsor of KM (not (translation) at expense of
aaKM specialist)
KM specialist)
relationship with
Specialist IM/KM Senior specialist
Specialist IM/KM
staff members in
Senior specialist KM as aa centralised KM team & tool
KM as
staff members in IM/KM staff member 22
centralised unit
IM/KM staff member concept of implementation 
concept
centralised unit in centralised unit
in centralised unit commitment to KM
Senior specialist weakened
Senior specialist
IM/KM staff member 33 System
System
IM/KM staff member
in centralised unit
in centralised unit
Specialist IM/KM staff
Specialist IM/KM staff
members in business
members in business
units
units
“Ordinary” staff (not
“Ordinary” staff (not
KM specialists)
KM specialists)

18. Subversive behaviour & compromise
Attention to, for example
 “Promotion” of KM as a concept within in the organisation
 Alignments leading to (mis)understanding?
 Incentives for desirable KM-related behaviours
 “Location” of KM functions
 Centralised/decentralised
 Reporting lines
 Perceptions of KM roles
 Job titles

19. References
Callon, M. & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors
macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. Knorr
Cetina & A. Cicourel (Eds.). Advances in social theory and methodology:
towards an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 277-303).
London: Routledge.
Kling, R. Scaachi, W. (1982). The web of computing. Advances in Computers
21, 1-90.
Ekbia, H. & Kling, R. (2003). Power issues in knowledge management [Online].
Available: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/html/2022/164/WP03-
02B.html [5 September 2008].