Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Narrating Your Work: an approach to supporting knowledge sharing in virtual teams

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

We propose an approach to enhancing knowledge sharing and connectedness in distributed teams. Termed ‘Narrating Your Work’ (NYW), the approach involves members of distributed team using a microblogging tool to post regular updates about their current work, accomplishments, and issues. The NYW approach was evaluated within a geographically and temporally distributed team at Shell International for a period of one month, using a mixed-method research design. Methodology comprised of a quantitative survey, followed by semi-structured interviews and analysis of microblogging updates posted during the month in which the approach was being trialled. The evaluation results suggest that NYW was viewed as a valid and practical approach to enhancing knowledge sharing and connectedness. A range of barriers and enablers that could impact the future application and embedding of the approach are identified and recommendations for implementation are outlined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardichvili A, Page V and Wentling T (2003) Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management 7 (1), 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur WB and Lane DA (1993) Information contagion. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 4 (1), 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assudani RH (2009) Dispersed knowledge work: implications for knowledge intensive firms. Journal of Knowledge Management 13 (6), 521–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes SJ, Bohringer M, Kurze C and Stietzel J (2010) Towards an understanding of social software: the case of Arinia. In Proceedings of HICSS-43, Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 5-8 January, Koloa, Kauau, HI, [WWW document] http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/wirtschaft/wi2/publications/understanding_social_software.pdf (accessed 22 November 2012).

  • Bawden D and Robinson L (2009) The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science 35 (2), 180–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrend FD and Erwee R (2009) Mapping knowledge flows in virtual teams with SNA. Journal of Knowledge Management 13 (4), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belanger F and Allport CD (2008) Collaborative technologies in knowledge telework: an exploratory study. Information Systems Journal 18 (1), 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bietz M (2013) Distributed work: working and learning at a distance. In Technology-Enhanced Professional Learning: Processes, Practices and Technologies (Littlejohn A and Margaryan A, Eds), pp 28–38, Routledge, London/New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boursinou E, Lukic D and Margaryan A (2012) Narrating Your Work (NYW) Methodology Toolkit. Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. [WWW document] http://www.scribd.com/doc/81960954/Narrating-Your-Work-NYW-Methodology-Toolkit (accessed 22 July 2013).

  • Coakes EW, Coakes JM and Rosenberg D (2008) Co-operative work practices and knowledge sharing issues: a comparison of viewpoints. International Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals 28 (1), 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Zwart H (2011) The ‘Narrating your work’ experiment. [WWW document] http://blog.hansdezwart.info/2011/03/18/the-narrating-your-work-experiment/ (accessed 22 July 2013).

  • DiMicco J, Geyer W, Millen DR, Dugan C and Brownholtz B (2009) People sensemaking and relationship building on an enterprise social networking site. In Proceedings of the Forty-second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '09) (Sprague RH, Ed), p 106, Los Alamitos, CA.

  • DiMicco J, Millen DR, Geyer W, Dugan C, Brownholtz B and Muller M (2008) Motivations for social networking at work. In Proceedings of the 2008 Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 08) Conference (Begole B and MCDonald D, Eds), pp 711-720, ACM, San Diego, CA.

  • Di Maggio P and Powell W (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich K and Shami NS (2010) Microblogging inside and outside the workplace. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2010) (Hearst M, Cohen W and Gossling S, Eds), pp 42-29, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA.

  • Franssila H, Okkonen J, Savolainen R and Talja S (2012) The formation of coordinative knowledge practices in distributed work: towards an explanatory model. Journal of Knowledge Management 16 (4), 650–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A, Mattarelli E, Seshasai S and Broschak J (2009) Use of collaborative technologies and knowledge sharing in co-located and distributed teams: towards the 24-h knowledge factory. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18 (3), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoegl M and Proserpio L (2004) Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Research Policy 33 (8), 1153–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M and Senges M (2010) Learning to be a programmer in a complex organization: a case study on practice-based learning during the onboarding process at Google. Journal of Workplace Learning 22 (3), 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RB and Onwuegbuzie AJ (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33 (7), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan AM and Haenlein M (2011) The early bird catches the news: nine things you should know about micro-blogging. Business Horizons 54 (2), 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotlarsky J and Oshri I (2005) Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Information Systems 14 (1), 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling S, Kehong H and Haixia P (2010) Essential factors of affecting knowledge sharing in virtual teams. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Innovation & Management (Deng M, Ye J, Kaminishi K, Duysters G and DeHoyos A, Eds), pp 1080-1083, Wuhan, Hubei, China.

  • Margaryan A (2008) Work-based Learning: A Blend of Pedagogy and Technology. AV Akademikerverlag, Saarbruecken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan A and Littlejohn A (2008) Repositories and communities at cross-purposes: issues in sharing and reuse of digital learning resources. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24 (4), 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews T, Whittaker S, Moran T and Yuen S (2011) The new organizational ecology: symbiotic relationships between collaborations. IBM Technical Paper.

  • Morrison EW (2002) Information seeking within organizations. Human Communication Research 28 (2), 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller J and Stocker A (2011) Enterprise microblogging for advanced knowledge sharing: the references@BT case study. Journal of Universal Computer Science 17 (4), 532–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panahi S, Watson J and Partridge H (2013) Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools. Journal of Knowledge Management 17 (3), 379–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontefract D (2012) Microblogging can help build your organisational culture. Global Focus 6 (1), 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raeth P, Smolnik S, Urbach N and Zimmer C (2009) Towards assessing the success of social software in corporate environments. In AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, 6-9 August, San Francisco, CA. [WWW document] http://works.bepress.com/philip_raeth/5/ (accessed 22 November 2013).

  • Richter A and Riemer K (2009) Corporate social networking sites: Modes of use and appropriation through co-evolution. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne, Australia. [WWW document] http://www.kooperationssysteme.de/docs/pubs/RichterRiemer2009_ACIS2009_SNS.pdf (accessed 22 July 2013).

  • Riemer K and Richter A (2010) Tweet inside: microblogging in a corporate context. In Proceedings 23rd Bled eConference eTrust: Implications for the Individual, Enterprises and Society, 23 June 2010, Bled, Slovenia. [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/bled2010/41/ (accessed 22 November 2013).

  • Riemer K, Diederich S, Richter A and Scifleet P (2011) Tweet talking: exploring the nature of microblogging at Capgemini Yammer. Working paper BIS WP2011-02, University of Sydney, Australia. [WWW document] http://hdl.handle.net/2123/7226 (accessed 22 July 2013).

  • Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York/London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen B, Furst S and Blackburn R (2007) Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics 36 (3), 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roussel CS and Deltour F (2012) Beyond cross-functional teams: knowledge integration during organizational projects and the role of social capital. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 10 (2), 128–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seebach C (2012) Searching for answers: knowledge exchange through social media in organizations. In Proceedings of the Forty-fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2012) (Sprague RH, Ed), pp 3908-3917, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.

  • Staples DS and Webster J (2008) Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal 18 (6), 617–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhüser M, Smolnik S and Hoppe U (2011) Towards a measurement model of corporate social software success — evidences from an exploratory multiple case study. In Proceedings of the Forty-fourth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, pp 1–10, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA doi:10.1109/HICSS.2011.447.

  • Thom J, Helsley S, Matthews T, Daly E and Millen D (2011) What are you working on? Status message Q&A in an enterprise SNS. In Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECCSCW 2011) (Bodker S, Bouvin NO, Lutters W, Wulf V and Ciolfi L, Eds), pp 313-332, Springer, Dordrecht.

  • Usoro A, Sharratt MW, Tsui E and Shekhar S (2007) Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 5 (3), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche P, Gijselaers WH, Segers M and Kirschner PA (2006) Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: team learning beliefs and behaviours. Small. Group Research 37 (5), 490–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virtanen K (2013) Developing social capital within companies through Enterprise 2.0. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Turku, Finland [WWW document] http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/88954 (accessed 11 November 2013).

  • Vuori V and Okkonen J (2012) Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an intra-organizational social media platform. Journal of Knowledge Management 16 (4), 592–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner C (2006) Breaking the knowledge acquisition bottleneck through conversational knowledge management. Information Resources Management Journal 19 (1), 70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JM, O'Leary MB, Metiu A and Jett QR (2008) Perceived proximity in virtual work: explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies 29 (7), 979–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Qu Y, Cody J and Wu Y (2010) A case study of micro-blogging in the enterprise: use, value, and related issues. In Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10) (Mynatt et al, Eds), pp 123–132, ACM Publications, New York.

  • Zhao D, Rosson MB, Matthews T and Moran T (2011) Microblogging’s impact on collaboration awareness: a field study of microblogging within and between project teams. In Proceedings of the 2011 Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS) International Conference (Smari WW and Fox JC, Eds), pp 31-39, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Philadelphia, PA.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank colleagues at Shell International for their participation in the study. The authors are grateful to Mrs. Jennifer Watson (Glasgow Caledonian University) for proofreading the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, U.K.

    Anoush Margaryan & Eleni Boursinou

  2. Glasgow School of Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, U.K.

    Dane Lukic

  3. Bits of Freedom Foundation, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Hans de Zwart

Authors
  1. Anoush Margaryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleni Boursinou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dane Lukic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans de Zwart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anoush Margaryan.

Appendices

Appendix A

Questionnaire survey

Section 1. Getting some factual data about your participation in ‘Narrating your work’

  1. 1

    How often did you post a ‘Narrating your work’ status update? *

    • ° Once a day or more

    • ° A couple of times a week

    • ° Once a week

    • ° Less than once a week

  2. 2

    How much time (on average, in minutes) did you spend writing these updates every week? * Please just put a number (like 2, 34 or 612).

  3. 3

    How often did you read other people's ‘Narrating your work’ updates? *

    • ° Once a day or more

    • ° A couple of times a week

    • ° Once a week

    • ° Less than once a week

  4. 4

    How much time (on average, in minutes) did you spend reading other people's updates every week? Please just put a number (like 2, 34 or 612).

  5. 5

    Where did you mostly post?

    • ° To all my followers using the #nywlob tag/topic

    • ° In the private ‘HRIT LoB NYW’ group

    • ° To both in equal measure

Section 2. Your personal opinion on ‘Narrating your work’

To what extend you agree with the following statements?

  1. 1

    The ‘Narrating your work’ experiment has made me feel more connected to the rest of my team. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  2. 2

    Expressing what I’ve done in a day/week through Yammer is easy for me. □ Strongly disagree□ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree.

  3. 3

    My understanding of the Yammer technology was a limiting factor in how often I posted a #nywlob update. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  4. 4

    I see little value in ‘Narrating your work’. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  5. 5

    The #nywlob updates prevented the team from doing ‘double work’. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  6. 6

    I would recommend ‘Narrating your work’ as a methodology to other virtual teams. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  7. 7

    Lack of time/priority was a limiting factor in how often I posted a #nywlob update. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  8. 8

    The #nywlob updates lacked structure, context and/or business purpose. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  9. 9

    The value of ‘Narrating your work’ is intangible and social: it creates an ambient awareness of each other. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  10. 10

    The ‘Narrating your work’ experiment has given me a better idea of the scope/breadth of the work that our team is doing and the stakeholders surrounding us. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  11. 11

    Feeling comfortable about publicly sharing my work was a limiting factor in how often I posted a #nywlob update. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  12. 12

    The ‘Narrating your work’ experiment has given me more insight into the work my peers are doing. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

  13. 13

    The value of ‘Narrating your work’ is practical: the content is helpful and it is easy to ask questions/get replies. □ Strongly disagree □ Disagree □ Neutral □ Agree □ Strongly agree

Section 3. Three open questions

The more effort you put into these, the more valuable your contribution is. Please, please, please try and put some full sentences in here!

  1. 1

    What was your favourite type of ‘Narrating your work’ update (in content, length and timeliness) to read? Can you link to an example?

  2. 2

    What would be your preferred next steps in how we, as a team, continue with ‘Narrating your work’?

  3. 3

    Do you have any other comments about the experiment?

Thank you!

Thank you for taking the survey! You will hear about the results soon…

Appendix B

Interview protocol

<Name of the interviewee>: Phone Number: <number>: Interview: <date and time> AUDIO FILE NAME: XYZ.mp3

Confirm how information will be recorded and used

The interview will be recorded. The information you provide will be anonymised.

Introduction

Introduce myself and thank them for their time. Indicate that we expect to spend up to an hour.

Could you please very briefly tell me about your role in the team and within Shell?

Connectedness

  • In what ways NYW posts brought you into contact with people you had never communicated with before? Please give concrete examples.

  • How do you perceive connectedness? What are the elements that make you feel more connected after the experiment?

  • Do you feel that physical proximity is an enabler for connectedness? Co-located team members=stronger connectedness? Do you feel any particular members of the team play crucial roles in facilitating connectedness?

  • In what way did NYW enhance connectedness?

Tools

  • Are you familiar with other microblogging tools?

  • Are you regularly using Yammer? Would you recommend another kind of tool for Narrating Your Work?

  • Is it desirable to encourage open rather than private posting of updates? Why?

Innovation

  • Did the original experiment lead to co-creation of ideas and innovation? Please give concrete examples.

  • Could you think of examples of problem solutions or new initiatives/projects arising from the NYW experiment? Please describe.

Change

  • Did NYW stimulate concrete actions and improvements (e.g. giving feedback, changing the way you do things)?

  • Did you receive constructive feedback during the experiment?

  • To what extent do you feel you actively reflected on your work during the NYW experiment?

    • ° What did you learn?

    • ° How did you learn?

    • ° Why was it valuable (can it be reused etc.)?

Motivations

  • What motivated you to engage with NYW? Could you highlight the most motivating factor to participate in NYW? (Please name only one.)

  • Do you still Narrate Your Work in Yammer? If so, in which group do you post your status updates? Why?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Margaryan, A., Boursinou, E., Lukic, D. et al. Narrating Your Work: an approach to supporting knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Knowl Manage Res Pract 13, 391–400 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.58

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.58

Keywords

Search

Navigation