Towards extending traditional informal learning tools in the workplace with social functionalities

Abstract

Companies commonly implement knowledge-sharing platforms to promote informal learning in the workplace. These platforms can suffer from lack of use. Enterprise social media (ESM) are other means of communication that are increasingly proposed to workers as a frame for collaboration and knowledge sharing. They nevertheless present risks of misuse that may threaten both effective learning and enterprises, return on investment. In this paper, we discuss the principles and features of social media and present to what extent they promote informal learning in the workplace. We then propose to implement, in a real context, a user-centred design methodology. Outcomes show positive feedback from users in terms of feature usefulness, user satisfaction and benefits. We are currently working on further evaluation to consolidate and generalise our findings on the value of comments, ratings and reflexive indicators to socialise traditional knowledge-sharing tools and sustain their use for informal learning in the workplace.

Full text

1
Towards extending traditional informal learning tools in the workplace with social
functionalities
Carine Touré, Christine Michel & Jean-Charles Marty
International Journal of Learning Technology, vol. 12, n°2, pp. 119-150.
doi : 10.1504/IJLT.2017.086381.
Abstract
Companies commonly implement knowledge-sharing platforms to promote informal learning in the
workplace. These platforms can suffer from lack of use. Enterprise social media (ESM) are other means
of communication that are increasingly proposed to workers as a frame for collaboration and knowledge
sharing. They nevertheless present risks of misuse that may threaten both effective learning and
enterprises’ return on investment. In this paper, we discuss the principles and features of social media
and present to what extent they promote informal learning in the workplace. We then propose to
implement, in a real context, a user-centred design methodology to 1) extend a traditional knowledge-
sharing tool with social features; and 2) show how these social features can be adapted to match the
needs of workers and give them a more propitious and sustainable learning environment. Outcomes of
the implementation in a real context show that: 1) added social functionalities promote workers’
participation, visibility, reputation and group awareness; 2) applying a user-centred approach to the
design of the tool showed a specific distribution in the management of the different features, according
to role distribution in the community of practice: it was perceived by workers as a guarantee of better
use of the social features; and 3) adding reflexive indicators gives great potential to the tool to trigger
positive intrinsic benefits, positive attitude and continuous use of the learning tool. A first qualitative
assessment shows positive results from our design choices in terms of feature usefulness, user
satisfaction and benefits in the given context. We are currently working on further evaluation to
consolidate and generalize our findings on the value of comments, ratings and reflexive indicators to
socialize traditional knowledge-sharing tools and sustain their use for informal learning in the workplace.
Keywords
Informal learning in the workplace, knowledge-sharing tools, enterprise social media, user-centred
design, adult learner profile
I.
Introduction
Informal learning is of central importance for companies because it accounts for over 75 per cent of
learning in the workplace (Bancheva & Ivanova, 2015). It is the most important way of acquiring and
developing the skills and competences required at work. Task variation in jobs, participation in
temporary groups, opportunities to consult experts, changes in duties and work roles, participation in
communities of practice, facilitation of informal communication, problem solving, innovation, structures

2
and incentives for knowledge sharing are all examples of strategies and environments set up within
enterprises that allow employees to share their knowledge and expertise and stimulate informal learning
(Skule, 2004).
The knowledge management (KM) research field, which works on most of those issues, provides tools to
promote, manage and maintain knowledge sharing in the workplace. Two broad classes of strategy to
promote informal learning by managing and maintaining knowledge sharing can be identified in the KM
literature: those based on companies’ informational capital, and those that rely on companies’ human
capital and which use collaboration to foster informal learning (Ackerman et al., 2013; Wenger, 1998). In
the latter case, learning is social and comes from experience sharing, collaboration and participation
through discussions, collective work, content exchange (notes, drafts, various documents, etc.). These
learning processes usually take place within groups of workers sharing common practices and
interacting, being communities of practice (CoP). Interactions between individuals occur either face-to-
face (classical CoP) or through digital artefacts (online CoP). Some tools, among others commonly
employed to support online CoP activities, are intranet, search engine or yellow pages of experts (Alavi &
Leidner, 2001). These tools comprise a range of knowledge management systems (KMS) that we will call
‘traditional’ KMS. The issue with such traditional KMS is that they encounter a lack of effective and
continuous use for various reasons, including a lack of adaptation to the workers’ needs and to their
learners' profile (Hager, 2004). This fact is not surprising as these traditional tools, most of the time, fail
to meet the requirements and principles adequate to promote learning as it has been taught by cognitive
science, the research field that has tried to understand how people learn and that proposes answers to
improve it (Graesser, 2011). Graesser (2009) enunciates those principles, 25 in all, and argues that new
learning environments need to be developed to train people about meta-knowledge (meta-
comprehension: getting to know oneself and one’s own comprehension processes; meta-
communication: knowledge about one’s communication processes; meta-emotion: knowledge about
one’s nature and regulation of one’s emotion; meta-social: knowledge about social interactions, status,
politeness norms) for self-regulated learning. Among those principles, we are particularly interested in
those promoting meta-social knowledge and self-regulation, which are interactivity, fun, feedback and
control. These principles match the adult learners profile and are of central importance for CoP, as they
are social informal learning groups in the workplace (Wenger, 2006).
Besides that, we cannot talk about informal social learning groups in the workplace without considering
the rise of brand new web platforms called enterprise social media (ESM) that are used by companies to
support collaboration and information sharing among workers and that imitate popular social
networking sites (Dennerlein et al., 2015; Leonardi, Huysman, & Steinfield, 2013; Riemer & Scifleet,
2012). They combine informational and social capital and can be put in a third class of company
strategies to manage collaborators’ knowledge and know-how. They have social functionalities like blogs,
wikis, forums, comments, ratings, etc. and differ from traditional KMS in that they are fun, interactive
and respond to the usefulness and gratification needs of users (Ersoy & Güneyli, 2016).
ESM appear as solutions to meet workers’ learning needs as they can see in these media the concrete
benefits of what they are learning. Indeed, workers most often freely join CoPs and continuous
participation is not mandatory. Enterprises may encounter long-term engagement issues of workers in

3
knowledge-sharing processes. CoP members may lose the motivation to participate if the required
efforts to submit their expertise or to participate in online groups are not recognized. They need to see
feedback from others and we observe that ESM can provide the means to support meta-social
knowledge and self-regulation, and thus fulfil workers’ requirements. They are, however, not without
their inconveniences, since misuse issues like waste of time, waste of internet resources, colleague
harassment, etc. have been observed (Turban, Bolloju, & Liang, 2011).
Our work has two goals: 1) we review social media functionalities that present characteristics meeting
the meta-social knowledge needs and self-regulation supporting informal learning in the workplace; and
2) we present an instantiation of how traditional KMS—particularly knowledge-sharing platforms for
online CoPs—can be enriched with social functionalities to promote adequate informal learning in the
workplace without the identified shortcomings of ESM. We try to answer the following questions: What
principles and functionalities of social media promote meta-social knowledge and self-regulation and are
adapted to support informal learning within CoPs in the workplace? How can these functionalities be
designed and displayed to users to fit their requirements and prevent risks of misuse that are inherent in
the use of common ESM?
To answer these questions, we present in section II a review of strategies taking place in the workplace
to share and maintain knowledge—what is traditionally done to promote informal learning and the
limitations of such approaches. We then present an overview of social media principles and
functionalities and discuss how these principles support informal learning activities in the workplace. We
intend to identify whether the features offered in social media are appropriate to promote conditions of
content sharing and collaboration, while maintaining users' motivation. In section III, we briefly discuss
the results from the state of the art and describe our proposition—a design methodology, part of a more
global design cycle—which aims to effectively implement knowledge-sharing artefacts according to
users’ requirements. By including workers in the design process of their knowledge-sharing platform, our
objective is to capture their contextual needs and improve their engagement in effective usage. We
argue that a user-centred approach allows proper adjustment of the social features to the context and
users, and so mitigates the risks of misuse. Section IV is the central part of our paper, since it describes
the implementation of our proposition in an industrial context. We use the methodology to adapt social
features promoting informal learning activities in this context and add them as extensions to an existing
knowledge-sharing tool, which was also designed by the authors with our methodology (cf. section
IV.1.a).
A qualitative evaluation to assess user satisfaction and potential learning effectiveness of the tool was
conducted after four months of usage. Section V shows the results and discusses the relevance of the
choice and adaptation of the social media features implemented.
II.
State of the art
Learning occurs throughout life. An approach to education named lifelong learning has been articulated
since the 1970s to provide the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in a rapidly changing world
(Sharples, 2000). Learners need not be tied to particular locations. A memorandum on lifelong learning
published by the Commission of the European Communities (2000) includes three types of lifelong

4
learning: formal, non-formal and informal. Formal learning takes place within institutionalized training
venues, like schools or universities. Non-formal learning occurs outside the institutionalized training
venues, like organizational training sessions taking place within companies. Informal learning is
presented as learning not necessarily intentionally undertaken or structured and that occurs during daily
experiences, while working or interacting with other people.
1.
Informal learning in the workplace
Informal learning in the workplace is characterized by the merger of learning with the everyday work
activities in which workers are engaged (Longmore, 2011). It is motivated by personal or individual need
and is the result of direct interaction with others and the environment. The development and use of
digital technologies, and the availability of computers with internet access on the desks of many
workplace employees, have greatly enhanced employee opportunities for informal learning. Employee-
initiated informal learning may involve conducting a web search to obtain background knowledge to
complete a specific job task, or participation in an online community of practice (Benson, Johnson, &
Kuchinke, 2002). Workers learn through participation in group activities, by working alongside others
and/or with clients, or by tackling challenging tasks (Eraut, 2010; Lans et al., 2004). Graesser (2011) sets
out principles to improve lifelong learning based on research in cognitive sciences that explain how
people learn. He argues that education can be improved by providing practical tools to operationalize
these principles and to teach learners how to learn. Some of these principles are fun, feedback, control
and interactivity to develop meta-social knowledge. Companies who want to provide effective learning
environments have to improve their ability to collect and disseminate the information needed and
support collaborators with IT technologies. They must allow workers to seek knowledge and know-how
during and/or after work time, to submit and review knowledge, to reflect on past activities to create
new knowledge and to collaborate and exchange with peers. In the literature, we can find samples of
technologies promoting informal learning. Ackerman et al. (2013) and Hahn and Subramani (1999) show
that there have been three generations of knowledge-sharing tools, privileged technologies for informal
learning in companies.
The first generation of informal learning environments was based on sharing knowledge through
document repositories and data warehousing (documents, records, etc.). Collaborators had to
understand how to use, maintain and reuse the formal and informal information available within these
repositories. The problems with this kind of artefact were multiple: it was not possible to reduce an
organizational and collective memory to a simple artefact; workers also encountered serious issues with
an information search: the adding of meta-data was laborious; and it was quite complicated to
contextualize the appropriate information, as communication and social interactions among workers
were difficult.
To fill the gap, the second generation focus was on expertise sharing. This differs from the previous
generation as the focus is on the practices of people engaged in the knowledge-sharing process; it is
about finding the most appropriate person who may provide the most appropriate information. In this
stream, we find CoPs that have been more readily adopted by companies to help practitioners express
and share their practices, and develop and exploit their knowledge (Pettenati & Ranieri, 2006; Wenger,
2006). CoPs represent a frame for learning through a variety of collective activities like problem solving,

5
requests for information, seeking experience, reusing assets, discussing developments, etc. The links
among individuals within CoPs can facilitate knowledge transfer and enhance the quality of information
received (Wang & Noe, 2010). Through the socialization processes available, an adequate flow of
knowledge is maintained. Issues can, however, be raised with the systems implemented to promote
recommendations and expert findings, like accuracy problems in developing people profiles and research
algorithms, or privacy protection and control (Ackerman et al., 2013).
The third generation is characterized by new kinds of collaborative information spaces that combine
repositories, communication and collaboration processes. As an example, Cabitza (2014) proposes
QUEST, a web-platform that disseminates clinical case reports within medical communities. Doctors can
seek information about specific cases; they can also seek domain experts and submit their own
experiences by filling in online questionnaires. This platform allows them to inform and train other
people and provides them with tools where knowledge is available and updated. Sharples (2000)
presents HandLeR, a lifelong learning device that proposes functionalities for organizing learning objects
(timelines, notes networks, etc.) and collaboration (synchronous and asynchronous communication,
search engine, tools for knowledge sharing). It is organized according to a handled learning technology
that aims to support learning from any location throughout a lifetime. Pham-Nguyen et al. (2009)
propose p-LearNet, a pervasive learning system. It was applied in the context of supermarkets where
employees continuously need to obtain and manipulate new information in their daily activities. For
example, a seller often needs to demonstrate new products or search for information on a product to
meet a specific customer request. The system, available on multiple devices, supports users either by
recommendations/automatic alerts according to the current situation or by providing a search engine
that proposes the most accurate results according to the worker’s request. Users can also search and
find co-workers, participate in discussions, make annotations, etc. This tool allows them to inform and
learn in the contexts in which they are involved and in a pervasive and continuous way. These platforms’
main focus is to provide tools to facilitate knowledge organization, learning object manipulation,
continuous accessibility, collaboration and team working. The main limitation of the examples given
above is the lack of adequate consideration, in the design process, of the user characteristics in the
workplace, which are essential contextual elements that can lead to a lack of long term and continuous
use of the learning tool. Indeed, workers display particular characteristics within work-based learning
contexts (Longmore, 2011). To develop meta-social knowledge, enhance communication with peers and
develop skills to self-regulate their learning, they need to feel reciprocity from peers; they need clarity
on goals and to be aware of the quality of shared information. They also need intrinsic benefits from
their actions (professional reputation enhancement, being better known in the community, being
informed that their actions have been appreciated by the others) (Wang & Noe, 2010).
Otherwise, we observe companies increasingly adopting social media as collaboration and knowledge-
sharing tools. Social media are particularly useful to find and connect with peers, to ask for help and
respond (Ackerman et al., 2013). They present particularities that may appear as a solution to address
users’ requirements and reinforce the informal learning environment in the workplace. In the next
section, we present the particular characteristics of social media, how they can significantly support
informal learning in the workplace and what their limitations are.

6
2.
Social media initiatives in enterprises
Companies increasingly adopt social media to enhance organizational performance, especially in the
context of knowledge sharing (Ellison, Gibbs, & Weber, 2015). These new modes of exchange and
communication are becoming more and more casual in users’ lives and they provide socialization
platforms that support business initiatives for knowledge seeking and sharing. In their paper, (Leonardi,
Huysman & Steinfield, 2013) define enterprise social media as:
‘Web-based platforms that allow workers to (1) communicate messages to specific co-workers
or broadcast messages to everyone in the organization; (2) explicitly indicate or implicitly
reveal particular co-workers as communication partners; (3) post, edit, and sort text and files
linked to themselves or others; and (4) view the messages, connections, texts, and files
communicated, posted, edited and sorted by anyone else in the organization at any time of
their choosing.’ (p.2)
Let us focus on social media principles that may support informal learning, and why.
a.
Added value of social media that encourage informal learning in the workplace
Visibility, persistence, participation and collaboration
Firstly, social media provide visibility and persistence of communicative actions. They thereby expand
the range of people, networks and contexts from which people can learn across the organization. They
offer a fast and simple means to publish information, to make communicative activities visible to others
in the organization and to reduce the effort needed to find out who has communicated about what.
Moreover, Ersoy and Güneyli (2016) argue that these characteristics of social media attract more people
and fulfil the need for user gratification. As features promoting visibility and persistence we can cite
updating status, defining profiles, connecting with or following people, uploading and publishing
content, etc. (Leonardi, Huysman & Steinfield, 2013). The ability to create a profile, customize and enrich
it offers people opportunities to highlight particular aspects of themselves (Stocker & Müller, 2013).
Secondly, social media promote learners’ participation, collaboration and conversational knowledge
management (wikis, comments, ratings). Comments within social media are an emblematic example of
expression and a communication tool for users to give their opinion and participate in the construction
of contents. Indeed, information captured within informal learning tools evolves and may become
rapidly outdated. Obsolete information is sporadically detected during consultation by anyone with
access. Within worker teams, casual ways to report mistakes are either by email or face-to-face in the
working group, with the risk of forgetting and knowing that collaborators may be geographically distant.
Comments have the advantage that workers can communicate and participate online and in a timely
fashion in the construction of the knowledge corpus (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010); they mitigate the risk of
forgetting. Comments can thus be used as efficient means to report a mistake or convey appreciation
regarding a particular knowledge object. They support learners in spotting and discriminating obsolete
information. Ratings within social media are another sample tool of interactivity and participation:
appreciated content is highlighted to attract collaborators’ interest so that they are led to read it and
benefit from the information. Ratings also play a role as an intrinsic motivator, as they help to build
authors’ reputations: they can see concrete feedback and the usefulness of their submissions if they are

7
acclaimed by peers (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Wikis for their part especially facilitate management
activities and innovation for problem solving, enhance reputation, make work easier and help
organizations to improve their business processes (Turban, Bolloju & Liang, 2011).
Awareness
Thirdly, social media allow people to be aware of who participates in the group and of what others do
(notifications, number of posts) (Zhao, Salehi, & Naranjit, 2013). This awareness through the display of
some reflexive information about what the user and others do supports communication among workers
and helps develop skills for meta-comprehension (understanding of how one learns). Indeed, Schön
(1987) shows that reflexive thought is a continuous cognitive process in which knowledge appears
through an iterative thinking process. A reflexive process allows learners to be conscious of what they
have to do and how to do it, to analyse their learning processes, to change and adapt their behaviours in
order to improve their way of learning. This way, users learn how to learn. The awareness of the action
being performed then becomes the source of knowledge and learning. As examples, we can cite
indicators of users’ and peers’ activity that we may find within social media like blogs. They are mostly
presented to users as home page notifications of new submissions, who and when, the number of
comments, status of contribution: they help users to be aware of what they and others do and to learn
from the activity of others. Content quality indicators we can currently find on wiki articles express
quality elements (readability, completeness, etc.) of the information provided and help users to develop
their own appreciation of the content and to evaluate how they can participate in its improvement.
Indicators are another tool that can support workers in discriminating misinformation potentially
available from online media. Moreover, group awareness allows workers to develop knowledge about
the social and collaborative environment in which the person is working (e.g. knowledge about the
activities, presence or participation of group members), supplying information to users to facilitate the
coordination of activities in the content space (space of collaboration where users exchange information,
discuss or solve problems) or the social space (space for positive group climate, effective and efficient
collaboration) (Janssen, Erkens & Kirschner, 2011; Joinson, 2008). They support communication within
CoPs.
However, the implementation of enterprise social media may present a number of potential risks that
can be classified into two groups: risks related to user-generated content published and risks related to
the use of social media (Turban, Bolloju & Liang, 2011).
b.
Identified risks and limitations of social media in the workplace
The first group of risks concerns the use of social media. The skills, abilities and attitudes of the users
towards social media can determine their success. Efficient use may require high levels of literacy and
technical proficiency in using hardware and software, cognitive skills for searching and retrieving data
and making judgements about their truthfulness and usefulness, and a willingness and ease to interact
with computers (Benson, Johnson & Kuchinke, 2002). Moreover, workers can be reluctant to participate,
or resistant; conversely, extensive use of social media may lead to wasting of time and abuse of internet
resources.

8
The second group of risks concerns the validity and quality of the information created and published.
Although social media present characteristics that may fulfil the learner profile in the workplace, they
may not be an adequate basic information corpus for effective learning. We can find a large number of
sources that could be characterized as misinformation and/or useless information. Indeed, knowledge
objects manipulated within informal learning tools need to be detailed and proofread, and are
sometimes technically complex; within social media, posts are very often brief and people give generic
information without giving details. This may be suitable for updates, but not for the construction of the
core information corpus. Moreover, people may engage in informal behaviour when using social media.
Activities like using improper language (information may be hateful, offensive, potentially damaging and
dangerous), publishing information that is confidential, using incomplete information or using ratings or
comments to harass colleagues may be common. The ability to discern the quality of the accessible
information is mostly incumbent upon users and they have little control in these environments (Benson,
Johnson & Kuchinke, 2002; Turban, Bolloju & Liang, 2011). These risks may negatively affect the social
and learning environment.
Turban, Bolloju and Liang (2011) offer some guidelines to reduce those risks: for instance, establish a
governance structure and policy; educate employees; implement an introduction phase; control,
monitor and filter the access; or obtain legal insurance. These solutions are unfortunately money and
time consuming, especially for limited IT budgets and companies that seek rapid and simple collaborative
solutions.
Graesser (2011) argues that computer technologies may educate learners to develop proper skills that
constitute meta-knowledge by designing learning environments operationalizing learning principles and
encouraging self-regulation (cf. introductory section). In the next section, we propose a design
methodology unifying diverse methods of human computer interaction (HCI), aiming to mitigate
concerns about the use of the technology and about the validity and quality of the information.
III.
Summary and proposition
Traditional informal learning environments and tools within the workplace may encounter some issues
due, among others, to the profile of workers, who are adult learners and need to be aware of the value
of their participation in the learning group: they seek concrete personal and professional feedback,
usefulness and gratification. Enterprise social media (ESM), which are increasingly used by enterprises,
supply functionalities that promote and facilitate collaboration, knowledge sharing, user motivation and
visibility, and information persistence. They also propose reflexive indicators that facilitate the analysis
and coordination of collective activities, social connection and learning.
These characteristics position workers and their needs at the heart of the learning environment, making
ESM appropriate tools to support informal learning in the workplace. However, significant risks and
shortcomings must be considered with ESM initiatives to see an effective return on investment and to
maintain a proper collaboration and learning environment.
Therefore, instead of using straightforward ESM for knowledge sharing and learning in working
environments, we propose to enrich traditional corporate knowledge-sharing tools with social media

9
characteristics as extended features. We posit that this may be an applicable solution to promote
informal learning in the workplace without the drawbacks of ESM. Features like comments, wikis,
discussion forums, ratings, etc. facilitate greater forms of participation and contribution (under the
condition that the design is adapted to users in their work context). This gradual appropriation of
knowledge-sharing tools promotes the production and capitalization of information, knowledge transfer
and sharing. Users’ activity can be made visible and valorised to stimulate learning by using reflexive
indicators and tools for awareness. Thus, the two important points to be raised to promote long-term
use and learning processes are: 1) to pay attention to the design of the different functionalities; and 2) to
continuously monitor usage activity.
To address these requirements, we propose to implement a design methodology which is part of a more
generic cycle of acceptance and the sustainable use of artefacts applied to knowledge-sharing tools. We
will succinctly describe the rationale of this generic cycle in the following subsection. Further details can
be found in (Toure, Michel, & Marty, 2014).
1.
Generic cycle of sustainable use of technologies
The information systems discipline is characterized by two paradigms: design science and behavioural
science (Hevner, March, & Park, 2004). The behavioural science paradigm mainly seeks to explain and
predict the use of information systems within organizations. Theories from this field of study ultimately
propose models of acceptance and the success of technologies that introduce beliefs, intentions,
attitudes and various factors impacting initial and continued use of technologies.
In our work, we studied several core models of acceptance of technologies: the technology acceptance
model (TAM) (Davis, 1989, 1993); the information system success model (ISSM) (DeLone & McLean,
2003); the unified theory of acceptance and use of technologies (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003;
Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012); the expectation and confirmation model (ECM) (Bhattacherjee, 2001;
Bhattacherjee, Limayem, & Cheung, 2012); and a couple of success models for acceptance of knowledge
management systems (Jennex & Olfman, 2006; Kulkarni, Ravindran, & Freeze, 2007). Analysis of these
models allowed us to observe a good level of coherence between models predicting initial use and those
signifying continuous use of technologies in the workplace. Indeed, the process of acceptance begins
with the initial beliefs that can be generated by external stimuli like system quality, service quality,
knowledge quality or information quality (cf. TAM, UTAUT or KM success models). Those beliefs
moderated by external factors like the age of the user or his experience impact the user’s attitude
towards the system, his intention to use it and therefore its effective use. After this initial cycle of use,
the user acquires an experience that helps him construct new beliefs or benefits (ease of use, usefulness,
effectiveness, learning), confirming or disconfirming the previous ones. This
confirmation/disconfirmation (cf. ECM or ISSM models) thus impacts his/her attitude (satisfaction or
dissatisfaction) and intention to use in the future, and so on. We can therefore infer a spiral model (cf.
Figure 1), our generic cycle of the sustainable use of technologies based on the deduced pattern of
acceptance core models. We argue that the sustainability of our process can be effectively ensured by
providing users with an artefact matching their profile and needs at each stage of this cycle.

10
Figure 1. Continual improvement pr ocess of artefacts.
Figure 1 presents a depiction of our continual process of improvement of technologies in the workplace.
A user-centred (UC) design methodology is applied to instantiate an initial artefact (Artefact v0), which is
used to generate some user experience, creating new beliefs that can be regulated by refining the
artefact with additional functionalities through another execution of the design methodology. This leads
to a new version of the artefact (Artefact v1). For example, in the case of informal learning tools in the
workplace, workers’ beliefs towards learning can be regulated by adding social media functionalities to
traditional knowledge management tools (Artefact v0). The result is an extended informal learning tool
(Artefact v1). We propose to show an example of how this can be done in section IV.
To implement the design paradigm in our context, we developed a user-centred methodology to collect
and analyse users’ needs, mainly by means of focus groups. This is detailed in the next subsection.
2.
A user-centred design methodology
Our design methodology proposes micro-level guidelines to operationalize our design paradigm process.
It was proposed and applied to improve the acceptability and usability of knowledge books, specific
types of traditional KMS in the workplace (Touré, Michel, & Marty, 2015).
Starting from classical methods of knowledge engineering (Boughzala & Ermine, 2007; Prax, 2003), we
were aware that they are incomplete because there is low consideration of the end user in the design
process, which often leads to KMS that are far from user expectations. The HCI research field is
dedicated to studying, planning and designing modalities of interaction between the user and the
computer. User-centred design is a philosophy and an approach that takes into account the needs,
expectations and characteristics of end users at every stage of the design process (Nielsen, 1993). As
user-centred methods aim to understand users’ activities and their needs, we can cite job shadowing or
contextual interviews (Prax, 2003), broadly used in KM for knowledge formalization, and focus groups
prove to be a powerful tool for artefact refinement. Tremblay and Hevner (2010) propose a detailed
description of how to conduct them. Moreover, the stream of information architecture (IA) aims to
present information in the most appropriate way, according to end users and their use context. IA is

11
preponderant in the construction of information quality within KMS. It proposes guidelines (bottom-up
and/or top-down approaches for structured information) to design information systems in a more
coherent, adaptable and simple way (Resmini & Rosati, 2011). Participatory design techniques and the
structuring of information offer ways for designers to better understand and adapt to users’ needs in the
case of knowledge books’ design and/or refinement.
Our methodology is adapted to traditional online KMS like knowledge books or document repositories.
Knowledge books are widely used in enterprises. They require updating and effective reading of the
content to be truly effective. To improve the ergonomics of knowledge books and make them more
attractive to users, we chose to rely on the five stages of the detailed step-by-step design framework for
web platforms proposed in HCI by Garrett (2011). The originality of our methodology (detailed in Figure
2) lies in the fact that its approach unifies methods coming from the knowledge management (KM),
information architecture (IA) and user-centred design (UCD) research fields. It has the following
characteristics.
- User-centred: By means of focus groups, it allows us to propose a tailor-made learning tool
that promotes the involvement of people. Workers involved in the design process are more
prone to communicate the solution and promote the effective usage of the tool by other
collaborators. Designers, by interacting with future users, better understand the context, giving
them the tools to propose better adapted interfaces for proper knowledge capitalization.
- Iterative: The functionalities proposed may be continuously improved and adapted to promote
sustainable usage.
- Micro-level: Every step of the methodology is directly applicable in the context.
- Implementing a mix of top-down and bottom-up approach for structured information and
visual design to ensure knowledge quality (facilitate contextual accuracy and timeliness of
information stored and linkages). These elements are of central importance within knowledge
books, helping to preserve the usage context and professional habits.
- Composed of five steps: Inspired by Garrett’s (2011) conceptual framework, they are:
collection and analysis of users’ needs; artefact and feature proposition; information
architecture; design of the skeleton of the platform; and visual design.

12
Figure 2. Our user-centred design methodology.
a.
Description of the five steps of the design methodology
Along the different steps of our methodology, the designer collaborates on the design of the artefact
with a set of users representative of the final end user population.
Needs collection and analysis
In this step, we propose to analyse the starting situation with the knowledge book, such as professional
practices, user needs, system objectives, etc. This information gathering allows us to work on capitalizing
knowledge, the business context and the expectations of both the users and the company. The objective
is to observe difficulties the users may encounter with the existing KMS and find appropriate solutions.
For a knowledge book, it is interesting to observe users’ reactions to the features, the models of
information organization and forms of navigation. Concerning the other aspects, immersion in the
industrial environment is required; matching methods and contextual interviews are appropriate means
to understand the environment of use and needs (Mathis, 2011). In addition, mind-mapping exercises
(Prax, 2003) used during focus groups can help better to understand the business vocabulary through
game characterization. Design-oriented focus groups are moderated meetings of a small group of
participants who discuss how promising they find an artefact, a version of a software application or how
they would change it (Cabitza, 2014). Mind-mapping methods are ludic ways to classify the important
business concepts into categories and super-categories that will help us to understand the workers’
activity and the information structuring. A first categorization is presented to users during the focus
group; they freely interact on the proposition and the model is taken into another stage following
agreement. The designer is equipped to propose a user, a context model and a set of specifications.

13
Artefacts and features proposition
This step is used to define the features of the artefact that meet the users’ needs. Information collected
in the first stage allows the designer to propose mock-ups. Workers ask questions if necessary and give
their point of view on each presented functionality. This leads to another version of functionalities which
can also be discussed until an agreement is reached.
Information architecture
This step addresses the interaction patterns adapted to the system. It consists of designing patterns of
interaction and structuring information models that are familiar to users and their work context. Two
approaches are often proposed to structure information: top-down and bottom-up approaches. In a top-
down approach, for example, content will be structured according to the corporate organization
(departments, services, teams, projects, etc.). In our case, we use a mix of top-down and bottom-up
approaches according to users’ preferences and the feature we are working on. Mind-mapping sessions
conducted during focus groups in the first step can help identify key concepts that will then be classified
regarding the chosen organization. Access modes to and from other information systems will also have
to be studied and integrated into the knowledge-sharing artefact so that users can keep a link with other
artefacts they currently use. This results in a data model that can be discussed until an agreement is
reached.
Skeleton design
This step is used to design the main functional zones and how they are interconnected. The final mock-
up of the platform is defined at this stage.
Visual design
The general graphical appearance and textual fonts will be determined in this phase. We recommend
setting the visual design in accordance with the charter of communication and graphical design of the
company to maintain users’ familiarity with interfaces. Moreover, improvements in usability can be
made according to users’ preferences and organization design policy.
To test our approach, we worked with a company which has a heterogeneous and complex technical
context of work and where the problem of informal learning needs is crucial and can be supported
through the publication of information on various technical tasks, updated according to peer practice,
experience and know-how. This is done by interaction and by recording workers’ experiences and know-
how. This context may be particularly representative of design issues that can reveal informal learning
platforms supporting online CoPs. In the next section, we present the use case conducted within a
French hydraulics company. The aims are: 1) to test how the social features previously identified may be
adapted to better promote informal learning in this particular context; and 2) to record lessons learned
and propose guidelines to support designers in similar contexts.
IV.
Implementation of our methodology in a French corporate context
1.
Context
The Société du Canal de Provence (SCP) is located in the south of France and specializes in services
related to the treatment and distribution of water for companies, farmers and communities. It employs a

14
significant number of collaborators, called operators. They are responsible for the maintenance of
hydraulic infrastructures (canals, pumping stations, water purification stations, etc.). Their intervention
territory is divided into ten geographic areas called operating centres (OC). Each OC corresponds to a
community of practice in which we find three positions: the operator (O), the coordinator technician (CT)
(an operator who also has the role of manager of the community), and the support and customer
relationship technician (SCRT). Any technical issue occurring in hydraulic infrastructures implies
consequences for the entire downstream hydraulics network. The operators need a wealth of knowledge
about their work: there is a lot of (sometimes dynamic) information to learn and knowledge sharing is
especially important.
a.
Presentation of the knowledge book
In 1996, SCP produced a knowledge book about the processes and hydraulics infrastructures. Access to
this information was through a tool named ALEX (aide à l’exploitation). It gathered its information from
returns on experience sheets developed in HTML format, and stored it within a directory on a dedicated
server in each OC. The tool was installed and available to all OCs but, throughout its twenty years of
existence, it was not used and the process of lifelong learning by experience thus failed.
We started to collaborate with this company on the ALEX project to evaluate the situation and propose
new solutions. An analysis of ALEX, which was made available, a visit to some water infrastructures, and
a meeting with the person responsible for the project to draw up an inventory of the situation allowed
us to identify issues on ergonomic, technical and human levels. Processes for accessing and updating
information were very long. Workers had to write documents first in .doc format and then turn it into
HTML format. Only a few workers had the time and the technical know-how to execute this process.
Those who were capable of submitting information into the system hardly received any feedback on the
usefulness of what they submitted.
ALEX was a typical sample of a traditional knowledge book. It needed a re-consideration of ergonomic
aspects, as well as new tools to motivate and stimulate the knowledge-sharing process and learning. We
thus applied our design methodology (see Figure 2) to refine the knowledge book.
b.
First refinement of the knowledge book
Constitution of the working group
Among the ten OCs in SCP, four were selected by those responsible for the project to act as pilot OCs.
We began the refinement process with the constitution of the working group with which focus groups
would be conducted. It was composed of eleven employees. They were invited by the management to
participate freely in the working group. They were chosen according to their different positions, thus
being representative of various trades within the company, and according to their use of the previous
version of the knowledge book. With that in mind, the working group was composed thus: four CTs and
two Os from the four pilot OCs selected; two members of the board responsible for the ALEX project
(one of them acted as the moderator of the different focus groups); two members of the IT; and one
member of the human resources department. Two of the three roles within OCs where represented so
that we had a user sample representative of almost all operators. This first refinement process took six
months, with six focus groups separated by about one month.

15
Data collection and needs analysis
The focus groups were moderated by the authors and a member of the working group (one of the
members of the board responsible for the ALEX project). Meetings usually began with a point from
previous focus groups, then included a presentation of the new propositions, followed by free
discussions on the propositions. We usually presented the propositions in a PowerPoint presentation.
The data collection from meetings was essentially done by taking notes and sometimes pictures of
participants’ attitudes. Notes were then recorded in a debriefing and validated by the moderator before
being sent to all participants to ensure the validity of what was preserved from meetings.
First refinement of the knowledge book
The main requirement that emerged from these meetings was to propose easier ways to search for,
submit and access knowledge. The new ALEX (see Figures 3 and 4) is a collaborative corporate wiki
organized according to the different OCs. The refined platform proposes three main functionalities: (1)
online submission and edition of an experience sheet using online media (pictures, documents, video);
(2) a search engine for natural language and keywords to tag information and a carousel for the
visualization of pictures; and (3) a contribution validation workflow. On each OC sub-site, experience
sheets are structured according to 11 types chosen by users. The proposed features fulfil the need for
visibility, collaboration, information persistence and knowledge sharing. This refinement corresponds to
the first occurrence in our continual improvement process presented in Figure 1.
Figure 3. General organization of the tool. The platform is organized according to the differ ent opera ting centres (OC). We
have a general front page from which we can access particular OC sub-sites. We added integration with other information
systems (NetView and Supervision) through links.

16
Figure 4. View of ALEX : an OC front pa ge. Boxes 1 and 2 show different types of browsing, with tabs at the top or with a menu
on the side. Box 3 presents a slideshow of pictures posted in the OC library. In box 4, we placed the submission options. Box 5
shows the research form.
At this stage, we had easier access to information, and improved visual and ergonomic aspects. A tool
evaluation showed us that the new ALEX was acceptable for initial use by workers; they nevertheless
raised the idea that this was a first impression that could change with further use if ALEX failed to meet
their needs (Touré et al., 2015). To pursue the improvement process of the knowledge book, and to
promote continuous use and sustainable informal learning, we propose adding social features.
In the following, we will focus on the next step of the improvement process, which corresponds in our
context to the implementation of the following functionalities: comments, ratings and a couple of
reflexive indicators.
2.
Involving users in the design of social functionalities within ALEX
To design the ALEX social functionalities, we continued our methodology with focus groups. In the same
way as before, we conducted five focus group sessions over seven months with the same working group;
each focus group session was separated by about four to six weeks. Meetings consisted of presenting
mock-ups of the new functionalities to the work group. Users interacted in an informal manner regarding
the proposition we presented, and reacted to approve it or made remarks to improve the functionality.
At the end of each meeting, debriefings were written and validated by the moderator, who also
attended the sessions. These reports helped us summarize in the following sections the feedback on the
different proposed features. The users’ propositions were then transmitted to the development team,
who implemented a prototype which was resubmitted to the work group for validation during further
working group sessions.
The functionalities proposed here were picked from the literature review and are representative of core
social media features that can enhance user reputation, visibility and reflexivity, characteristics
conducive to informal learning in the workplace. We proposed to design the following.

17
1) Comments and likes as tools of expression and communication for users to give feedback and
participate in the construction of content. These collaboration features enable workers to be involved in
knowledge co-construction and help maintain available up-to-date information, which are important
elements for quality learning processes.
2) Indicators of users’ and peers’ activities (adding in the home page notifications of new contributions,
who and when, number of comments) for users to be aware of what they and others were doing.
3) Indicators of information quality (adding to each contribution two content quality rates) for awareness
of content quality and validity, and facilitating collaboration on improvement of contributions.
The following works present insights on how a knowledge-sharing platform can be socialized and how
risks of misuse are mitigated by involving users in the design of the functionalities.
This stage corresponds to the second occurrence in our continual improvement process presented in
Figure 1. In the next section, we describe discussion topics from focus groups and the collected feedback.
a.
Functionality #1: ‘Comments’
As a feature for knowledge co-construction and participation, we proposed comments to mimic what is
commonly done in Web 2.0 knowledge construction tools like blogs or wikis, where anyone can give
their opinion or ask for corrections by adding comments. We proposed them in their classic form:
clickable links termed ‘Comments’ which, when selected, open up a writeable text field. They were
suggested for reporting mistakes or conveying appreciation regarding a particular experience sheet—for
example, if a piece of information is useful and should be generalized to another OC. Operators in any
role can communicate by comments so that everyone is allowed to participate in the construction of the
sheet.
Participants’ feedback
All the participants agreed with the idea of using comments as they are simpler means of communication
than emails. They also make the sheets interactive, as they can be seen as an ‘annotation tool’. However,
they noted that contributors must be informed when a new comment is added on their experience
sheet. Moreover, contrary to comments left within classic social networks, SCP collaborators asked for
moderation and archiving of comments to improve their readability and to control potential excesses or
harassment of colleagues. Validators (collaborators with enough expertise who are in charge of
electronic validation of experience sheets) will manage and ensure that propositions made within
comments are effectively taken into account for the improvement of sheets. They are also in charge of
archiving comments.
b.
Functionality #2: ‘Likes’
We proposed ‘Likes’ as a rating functionality to fulfil the need for workers’ intrinsic motivation, as
described in the literature review. All sheets are validated before being published, but this additional
tool is intended to allow OCs’ other roles to show their appreciation. Sheets that are rated are
highlighted to attract collaborators’ interest so that they are led to read it and benefit from the

18
information. The ‘Likes’ feature was initially proposed as a clickable link named ‘Like’. When selected,
the link changes into ‘Not Like’ and a counter is triggered, displaying the number of ‘Likes’ for this item.
Participants’ feedback
This functionality was discussed at length. Some participants were very enthusiastic about it as they are
already familiar with it in other social networks and consider it as ‘playful’ in a professional context.
Others had concerns about the real meaning of the term ‘like’, potential abuse (if a ‘Like’ is just given by
affinity and does not reflect the quality of a contribution) and the negative impact it could have on
contributors’ motivation if they do not receive any. Some participants thus asked for clarification by
relabeling the functionality to ‘useful sheet’. During the next session, where the resulting feature was
shown to users, they finally argued that the ‘Like’ functionality, in the context of SCP, is not a key
motivator for contribution but rather signifies the reactivity of other collaborators and the awareness of
their feedback, the feeling of being in a human community that works. Ultimately, they agreed to
consider ‘Likes’ as assessments of the sheet’s content usefulness expressed by readers and to leave the
term ‘like’ as is. It was interesting for us to notice the behaviour changes of several members in the
group once they felt more comfortable with the topic. The maturity of a concept in a group must
therefore be considered, and this reinforces the notion of the iterations we applied and needed in such
an approach.
c.
Functionality #3: Activity indicators
Activity indicators act as controls and reflexive parameters to be aware of everyone's activity. Several
pieces of information were proposed as representative of reflexive indicators: notifications of new
publications, authors and date of submission, last sheets read, view of contribution statuses, number of
comments received on a sheet, and so on. We presented to the work group some use cases of these
indicators. For example, when they take the time to submit a sheet, they need to know if and when the
validator takes their contribution into account. Activity indicators are also intended to facilitate the use
of the platform by giving indications of who submitted the sheet in order to be able to contact the
author for discussions, and what are the last submissions classified by type with the ability to directly
open a specific content.
Participants’ feedback
View of contribution status and number of comments: They met the requirements of all participants and
did not trigger any discussion. This is because the process of reviewing newly created sheets was so
embedded in their work process that they immediately integrated this indicator as natural.
Displaying the name of the first author: The proposition of displaying the name of the first author was not
considered significant. Indeed, most of the initial creation of sheets is done by interns who generally
leave the company after the training period and are not known by all the full time collaborators.
However, displaying the name of the last person to modify the sheet is more interesting.
Last sheets read by the current user and last sheets published in the OC: These indicators are
systematically displayed on the home page of the OC. This information is useful as it provides shortcuts
to access new information and facilitate information seeking. They otherwise constitute traces of past
actions to promote contextual learning. Visualization and access to past actions help workers put

19
themselves back in the learning context. They signify memory support in the face of the stress of
forgetting what was previously read.
d.
Functionality #4: Indicators of information quality
Three indicators were proposed here to express information quality: readability, completeness with
respect to the concept described, and relevance (Lee et al., 2002). This information is an appreciation of
the sheet that is made by the validator during the validation process of the sheet. The purpose is to
inform the user of the reading effort necessary in case of practical application of the information
displayed in a real working situation or problem resolution. These indicators may be critical and cause
the experiment to fail if the information displayed is not relevant.
Participants’ feedback
Readability: The evaluation scale of this indicator is compressed into four levels: operational—the
information on the sheet is immediately or quickly exploitable, such as alarms records specifically
describing each step to perform a corrective maintenance operation; support—can be used in case of
emergency but requires more analysis for information appropriation; acquisition—general information
to train the reader; and sharing—information that needs further work. The discussions were then about
the nomenclature of this indicator. ‘Acquisition time’ and then ‘term of use’ of the sheet were first
proposed, but not considered clear enough. An agreement was reached on the term ‘presentation level’.
This information is currently presented in natural language (level of readability literally written on each
experience sheet). The final objective is to represent it with an icon, which must be defined (stars, traffic
lights, etc.).
Completeness: This indicator assesses if the content of the sheet covers all the information required for
the concept described and the type of sheet. The evaluation scale of this indicator is on three levels:
weak, medium and good. As with the readability indicator, the completeness assessment of the sheet is
made by the validators and is currently presented in natural language.
Relevance: This indicator was not deemed appropriate, as content is relevant if accepted for publication
by the validator.
3.
The resulting social functionalities and discussions
The implementation of our methodology by means of focus groups resulted in a knowledge-sharing tool
extended with three social media features: comments, likes and indicators. According to users’ feedback,
they will be used in our context in particulars ways, as summarized below.
a.
Comments
Comments are proposed for people to give their opinion or ask for an information update. Users find this
feature valuable for expression and participation in the construction of contents. However, they
expressly asked for moderation and archiving by supervisors of OCs to mitigate excesses in users’
behaviour and ensure the quality of exchanged information. Comments are displayed at the bottom of
each current sheet.

20
b.
Likes
Likes were proposed for people to give appreciation on content freely. Initially, this feature raised
concerns among users, but they finally accepted it once they better understood and felt comfortable
with the concept. Likes are a tool by which users can show interest and make contributors aware of the
human community they are part of. Informing users about social functionalities, even in simple ways—
for example, during focus groups—can help prevent risks of misunderstanding and misuse. In ALEX, likes
are displayed at the bottom of each current sheet and they are represented by a small smiling emoticon.
c.
Indicators
We proposed three indicators of activity (contribution status page, name of first author, last content
read) and two indicators of information quality (readability, completeness). They were globally accepted
by users as valuable for awareness and facilitation of collaboration. Supervisors of OCs are again made
responsible for assessing information validity and quality. The contribution status zone is displayed on
each contributor’s personal page. Here, we find a list of all the current user’s published sheets, a list of
pending ones and a list of refused ones. The user can monitor online the state of his participation and
evaluate the reactivity of validators to his contribution. On homepages, we find two zones: last published
sheets and last read sheets. Titles of sheets are displayed with the names of the last people who
modified them. Text-based displays of indicators of readability and completeness are added to each
sheet.
Comments, likes and activity and quality indicator features were considered by users as acceptable
elements to socialize a knowledge-sharing platform, fulfilling users’ need for quality and motivation and
promoting a more effective informal learning environment in the workplace. People want collaboration
and participation support. They want to be motivated and content to be validated. They spontaneously
maintain a certain hierarchy in the distribution and use of the different features: not everyone is allowed
to do everything and roles within the physical community can be distinguished in the tool. This condition
is perceived as a guarantee of better use of social features in the context of traditional informal learning
tools—i.e. to ensure good information quality and validity, to moderate user behaviour and to promote
better user involvement.
In the next section, we conducted an evaluation to see if we had succeeded in transcribing users’ needs
and if the new functionalities satisfied other users who had not participated in the focus groups.
V.
Evaluation
At this stage of our study, it was unfortunately difficult to assess actual informal learning and the impact
of role distribution in the actual use of the tool. Indeed, we did not record enough ecological usage, as
the knowledge-sharing platform was still a prototype and was not made available to all SCP OCs (only
within the four pilot OCs). However, further evaluation towards this goal is currently taking place. For the
same reasons, we chose to conduct a qualitative evaluation in order to collect contextual information.
In this section, we will therefore do an a priori qualitative evaluation to assess user satisfaction with
social functionalities and try to gain an appreciation of the potential learning effectiveness of the
extended knowledge-sharing tool. ALEX with social functionalities was made available for four months.

21
We interviewed participants about the changes that occurred after the implementation of the extended
social features.
1.
Methodology
a.
Participant selection
Workers selected for evaluation come from SCP. We sent email invitations to 15 collaborators from the
four OCs concerned in the pilot phase of the ALEX project and occupying various positions: seven who
participated in the focus groups (forming group 1) and eight who did not (forming group 2). By
differentiating the two groups, the objective was to observe if the different choices made by the workers
involved in the design matched the needs of other collaborators in the company. We received ten
positive responses (66.7 per cent response rate), five from group 1 (who were involved in the design)
and other five from group 2. Among the ten people were one woman and nine men, with working
experience ranging between one year and 33 years (median number of years’ experience: 16). The
detailed profiles of the participants are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Detailed participant profiles. The limited number of females is due to the particular context of the SCP, which is
essentially male.
Groups
Participant
Seniority
Gender
Occupation
Group 1
: Participants in the focus groups
P1
16
M
Coordinator technician
P2
1
M
Engineer
P3
33
M
Coordinator technician
P4
20
F
Engineer
P5
13
M
Coordinator technician
Group 2
: Non-participants
P6
16
M
Operator
P7
28
M
Coordinator technician
P8
12
M
Operator
P9
20
M
Operator
P10
2
M
Operator

22
b.
Instrumentation
Criteria
We proposed to measure users’ social functionalities satisfaction by using criteria deriving from the TAM,
UTAUT and ISSM models of technology acceptance (DeLone & McLean, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The first considers perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as elements to assess positive
attitude and user behaviour. The second refines the criteria by considering users’ social characteristics.
They both imply the construction of satisfaction and positive attitude towards the technology. During the
use of the technology, these opinions consolidate or evolve according to the perceived benefits. The
criteria are depicted in Figure 5.
Successful use of the tool is related to positive satisfaction, attitude and intention; this is why we focus
on these criteria. The evaluation instrument is depicted in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Satisfaction evaluation instrument.
We measured learning effectiveness according to users’ utterances on impact on use, work habits and
performance. Indeed, learning effectiveness can be assessed by understanding how knowledge is
transferred between individuals and how acquired knowledge is applied and contributes to the
company’s strategic outcome (Bachvarova et al., 2012).
Data collection and coding
The interview topics and questions are presented in Table 2. Interviews were individual and lasted one
hour per person. The interviews were anonymously recorded with the permission of participants and for
ethical reasons they were assured of anonymity of records (Longhurst, 2010). During the interview, an
interface of ALEX was available to participants to support and corroborate their explanations when
answering the questions.
Table 2. Topics a nd questions used to conduct interviews.
Topics
Questions
Perceived benefits, satisfaction
Are the proposed functionalities useful and satisfactory, and do they
trigger intrinsic benefits among users and better motivate them to use
ALEX compared with the use of the first version of ALEX?
Usage intention
How do you perceive use of ALEX in the near future? At what

23
frequency? For what usage?
Impact on use
Do the proposed functionalities influence the use of ALEX compared
with its first version (facilitated submission and search for sheets,
collaboration on sheet construction, contacting peers and discussion)?
Impact on work habits and
performance
What is the impact of the new ALEX on work habits and performance?
The recorded interviews were coded by the author using a basic content analysis method (Chi, 1997),
applied as follows. We fully transcribed the data; we then segmented them into units of analysis
corresponding to the different criteria each time they were addressed by participants in the interview; at
this stage we sought for utterances expressing sentiments regarding participants’ beliefs (granularity is
varied, ranging from simple phrases to paragraphs or interchanges). We then assigned a polarity to each
selected utterance, which was further checked by an automatic sentiment analysis system. We analysed
participants’ appreciations according to the number of positive (+), neutral (=) or negative (-) statements.
2.
Evaluation results
We collected all criteria, altogether 111 utterances (n=111), 66 with a positive polarity (59.45 per cent),
14 with a negative polarity (12.61 per cent) and 31 neutral (27.92 per cent). We considered an utterance
neutral when participants said that they did not have an answer to a question or when it was not
possible to detect a polarity in the given answer. Results are presented in detail (according to the criteria
and the two groups) in Table 3.
a.
Results of users’ needs satisfaction
Figure 6 depicts users’ appreciation of the criteria. The boldest bars count positive appreciation, while
the lightest ones show neutral user appreciations. Negative appreciations are in the intermediate shade.
Details are reported in the next section.

24
Figure 6. Percentages of appreciations formulated by participants and classified by their polarity. We note that, except for
usage intention, appreciations are positive for all criteria.
Usefulness
Regarding comments, six out of ten participants explicitly found them useful: four from group 2 and two
from group 1). People used phrases like ‘handy feature’, ‘interesting’, ‘useful and fast to make a point’ or
‘very good, they foster collaboration’. One participant said that ‘since comments provide a way for all
users of ALEX, contributors or not, to collaborate and participate in the construction of the sheets, we
have a better chance of having more reliable final information’.
Regarding indicators, three out of ten participants explicitly found them useful: two from group 2 and
one from group 1. One participant identified the need to add an indicator 'status of comments' so that
everyone writing a comment can have a list of their comments posted and those that have effectively
been taken into account in a modification of a sheet. Another relates that:
‘… in the previous version of ALEX, we couldn’t really rely on sheets during maintenance
operations… as the information evolves rapidly, when someone notices a mistake or
something else… it was discussed face to face with the person supposed to operate the sheet’s
modifications … which was done… or not… for me, comments are a feature more rewarding
than oral exchanges, comments come from everyone… a trace of their viewpoint is kept, less
chance of forgetting or losing information as was common in previous versions’.
Indeed, having up-to-date information is an important part of information quality, positively related to
an effective use of the platform (DeLone & McLean, 2003). Users’ reactions to the usefulness of the
different ‘information quality’ indicators are mixed. Except participant P6, who clearly recognized their

25
usefulness, most of those who gave an opinion seemed not to understand the terms chosen by the work
group to describe the levels of readability and completeness indicators. Participant P6, however,
proposed another purpose for these indicators:
‘they can serve as sorting criteria for validators who want to follow the contributions of their
OC and need to have an overview of the sheets, those who are good, those which need to be
completed, etc.’.
Concerning ‘likes’, three out of ten participants explicitly found this functionality useful: one from group
2 and two from group 1. One participant qualified as ‘sympathetic’ the idea of adding this social
functionality and highlighted ‘a lack of communication and social components in the previous version of
ALEX’.
As shown in Figure 6, users’ appreciations are globally positive (52.5 per cent) towards the usefulness of
the social features proposed. Participants from group 2 (those who were not involved in the design
group) tended to have a more positive attitude (27.5 per cent) towards the functionalities compared to
participants from group 1 (25 per cent).
User satisfaction and benefits
Ninety per cent of users’ statements about satisfaction with the new ALEX and its features are positive.
They generally find the platform more modern and satisfactory overall; they did not find many negative
aspects. Participant P1 said that ALEX was ‘a renovated tool, similar to those findable in the internet
market, more playful and pleasant’, while participant P4 argued that Alex was ‘more user-friendly and
easier’.
Concerning the question of what benefits they gain when using ALEX and what motivated them with the
new functionalities, participant P5 employed the phrases ‘peers’ acknowledgment and feeling useful’.
Participant P9 said that he ‘likes to communicate and convey, to do their bit (…), spread information’.
Participant P3 said:
‘…as it is now easier to use, we have more time to submit and seek for information… I am
personally satisfied to participate in the building of the tool… inter alia to help the new
colleagues integrating in the company… but I would like to be aware of my exact role in the
tool and also have a kind of acknowledgement from the company…’
In these words, we identify the belief of social influence (being useful, spreading data, communicating,
acknowledgement) which arises from the use of the tool and motivates users. This is an interesting
finding, as intrinsic benefits like reputation, joy and knowledge growth positively leverage continued use
of knowledge-sharing tools (He & Wei, 2009).
Group answers comparison

26
Table 3. Users’ appreciation percentages.
Criteria
Use n=16
Usefulness
n=40
Satisfaction
n=20
Benefits
n=10
Impact on use
and work
n=11
Usage
intention
n=14
Means
SD
Appreciat
ions
Positive
appreciati
ons
n=66
50,0
0%
G1
=
37,5
0%
52,5
0%
G1
=
25,0
0%
90
%
G1
=
35,0
0%
60
%
G1
=
20,0
0%
72,7
3%
G1
=
27,2
7%
35,7
1%
G1
=
7,14
%
60,1
6%
G1
=
25,32
%
19,0
2%
G1
=
11,0
0%
G2
=
12,5
0%
G2
=
27,5
0%
G2
=
55,0
0%
G2
=
40,0
0%
G2
=
45,4
5%
G2
=
28,5
7%
G2
=
34,84
%
G2
=
15,0
9%
Negative
appreciati
ons
n=14
31,25
%
G1
=
6,25
%
15,0
0%
G1
=
5,00
%
0%
G1
=
0,00
%
0%
G1
=
0,00
%
0,00
%
G1
=
0,00
%
21,4
3%
G1
=
7,14
%
11,2
8%
G1
=
3,07%
13,4
0%
G1
=
3,43
%
G2
=
25,0
0%
G2
=
10,0
0%
G2
=
0,00
%
G2
=
0,00
%
G2
=
0,00
%
G2
=
14,2
9%
G2
=
8,21%
G2
=
10,2
4%
Neutral
appreciati
ons
n=31
18,75
%
G1
=
12,5
0%
32,5
0%
G1
=
7,50
%
10
%
G1
=
5,00
%
40
%
G1
=
30,0
0%
27,2
7%
G1
=
18,1
8%
42,8
6%
G1
=
28,5
7%
28,5
6%
G1
=
16,96
%
12,6
0%
G1
=
10,5
7%
G2
=
6,25
%
G2
=
25,0
0%
G2
=
5,00
%
G2
=
10,0
0%
G2
=
9,09
%
G2
=
14,2
9%
G2
=
11,60
%
G2
=
7,32
%
Note: n is the number of statements collected from the ten participants for each item.
PA is positive appreciation; NegA is negative appreciations and NeuA is neutral appreciations; (+) stands for positive answers, (=)
neutral answers and (-) negative ones.
For each criterion, we first give the percentage of appreciation of the two groups combined and then separately.
G1 indicates percentages of group 1: five participants who were involved in focus groups;
G2 indicates group 2: five participants who were not.
Table 3 shows the distribution of positive, negative and neutral responses among people from groups 1
and 2. Concerning satisfaction, group 2 expresses more satisfaction than group 1. This corroborates the
fact that we succeeded in transcribing future users’ needs. This is the same for usefulness, benefits and
usage intention, for which we collected more positive appreciations from the participants who were not
involved in the design. This may be related to the surprise effect in the face of the new artefact and
presents a motivating effect for further use. Members of group 1 involved in the design were less
surprised. The negative appreciations about usefulness in group 1 were given by participant P4
concerning quality indicators. This can be explained by the position of the participant (engineer) and his
seniority. He stated that ‘engineers use ALEX only in specific maintenance operation periods’ and they
will not have to use sheets as much; he thinks that quality indicators do not have particular usefulness
for him, but this remains a personal opinion that will need further evaluation to generalize.
b.
Results for potential informal learning
Regarding the question of the learning effectiveness of the social features added to ALEX, we proposed
an answer by evaluating their impact on usage habits and on daily work. The majority of participants said
they had not changed their ALEX usage habits. We report their answers in in more detail in the next
section.
Impact on use and on performance
At the time of the interviews, most participants did not mention any significant increase of use
compared with how they used previous versions of ALEX. Four out of ten participants were frequent
users (from twice a week to every day, according to the working tasks to perform), while the remainder
used it once a month or less. When asked why, most of them answered that they had enough experience

27
and knowledge of the hydraulics infrastructures. They also justified this by the fact that they were rarely
confronted with difficult or atypical issues they didn’t already know how to deal with, or needed more
frequent connection to ALEX.
We noticed almost the same reactions concerning the impact on working performances, except for
participants P1 and P2, who were new to the OC and argued that ALEX had been ‘a time saver to access
unknown intervention venues’ and to ‘get information about the components of my new OC’, and
participant P3, who said that ‘ALEX assisted during a drain, a common maintenance operation’ in water
infrastructures.
Usage intention
About half of the participants expressed a point of view in response to the question of usage intention,
with 35.71 per cent of appreciations showing the intention to use it more, especially for information
seeking. However, we observe a 42.81 per cent neutral appreciation rate. This can be explained be the
youth of the project and the particular conditions of the context. For example, participant P2 was about
to leave SCP (termination of his contract). He nevertheless participated in the evaluation and specified
that ‘ALEX usage perspectives are positive … under the conditions of a general advertisement campaign
within the company…’ Participant P1 also stressed the positive effect of the user-centred design
approach on workers’ involvement and on sustainability of the new ALEX:
‘… everyone participated in the refinement of the tool, the result satisfied more people and
strengthened the project… everyone sees more clearly its real interest, which was not
necessarily the case before, so I think it will be continuously used …’
We do not observe an increase in the use of the tool, but results concerning usage intention show
workers’ willingness to further explore information. Our goal to propose a tool more conducive to
informal learning is on track, since information seeking is a form of verification of knowledge and
learning in the case of informal learning.
VI.
Conclusive discussion
In this paper, we proposed to address the lack of acceptance and usage with which companies may be
confronted when they use traditional KMS for informal learning. We argued that social media present
functionalities that can improve the meta-social level of traditional KMS, making them better tools for
self-regulation and learning.
Our objective was to answer the following questions: What principles and functionalities of social media
promote meta-social knowledge and self-regulation and are adapted to support informal learning within
CoPs in the workplace? How can these functionalities be designed and displayed to users to fit their
requirements and prevent risks of misuse that are inherent in the use of common ESM?
We presented a general cycle of improvement of technologies and a micro-level design methodology to
operationalize the cycle. Our user-centred methodology was applied in a real context to test how a
knowledge-sharing tool can be extended by social features and how the features can be designed and

28
displayed. We involved workers in the design as a way of guaranteeing users’ needs and reducing the risk
of misuse of the platform. The outcomes of our study are summarized below.
Firstly, the traditional KMS is a precise and exhaustive information corpus of the formalized procedures
and know-how of the company. When based on this informational architecture, comments, likes, and
reflexive and information quality indicators are social features that help construct a better informal
learning tool. Indeed, comments foster participation and play a role in information quality. Likes give a
less formal appearance to the tool and feed the social reputation of workers and usefulness. Indicators
foster collaboration and bring support to information quality and verification. We noted that workers
spontaneously maintained a certain hierarchy in the distribution and the use of different features. For
example, they entrusted the moderation and validation role to validators who were in charge of ensuring
good information quality and validity, moderating peers’ behaviour and engagement. This is perceived as
a guarantee of better use of the learning tool. These findings can constitute guidelines for designers and
enterprises who are interested in improving their existing KMS or offer points that require focus for
those who are looking for adequate ESM settings.
Secondly, the qualitative evaluation we conducted showed that workers were satisfied with their new
tool. We also remarked that new beliefs arose from the use of the tool, such as social reputation,
usefulness and joy. Participants showed positive usage intention, especially for information seeking,
which is a way of knowledge verification and learning. However, the usage frequency did not change, as
workers considered themselves too experienced to change their habits. This is not surprising, as learners
most of the time are poor at estimating their skills, but this can change by learning and improving their
metacognitive skills (Glenberg, Wilkinson, & Epstein, 1982; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). We believe that this
will have a positive impact on tool usage in the long term. Further evaluation certainly needs to be done,
but these outcomes corroborate the fact that our methodology plays a role in sustainable use, defended
by our generic cycle of improvement of technologies. People engagement is supported half by
involvement in the design methodology and half by the social functionalities that give positive beliefs
and usage intention. Designers help users to express their latent needs and transcribe them; experts
have roles as content validators and community moderators; and the other workers participate in the
community. Results give us positive insights into the sustainability of our proposed model for informal
learning.
However, a couple of questions arise from the outcomes of our study. We first wonder if adapting the
moderation and control of social features to the enterprise hierarchy is not contradictory to the social
media principle, which is allows people to express themselves freely and flattens forms of hierarchy. We
also wonder if it is realistic to entrust to validators such a large additional workload. This role appears
necessary to guarantee a good functioning of the learning tool, but it may become difficult. We need to
consider whether these demands are effectively sustainable or whether we have to think of them as a
first acceptation stage, as a sort of temporary tool quality guarantee which will fade once the tool enters
the mores of workers, when it will be more widely used and trusted within the company.
We look forward to observing longer term results, first in SCP and then in other workplaces. To do this,
our next objectives will be to extend the deployment of the platform to more OCs, to study the

29
acceptance of the tool and to answer our general questions on the moderation and validation choices
we made.
References
Ackerman, M. S., Dachtera, J., Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2013). Sharing Knowledge and Expertise: The CSCW
View of Knowledge Management. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 22(4–6), 531–
573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-013-9192-8
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems:
Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. Retrieved from
http://mgmt.iisc.ernet.in/~piyer/Knowledge_Management/KM and KMS Conceptual Foundations
and Research Issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 March 201.pdf
Bachvarova, Y., Bocconi, S., van der Pols, B., Popescu, M., & Roceanu, I. (2012). Measuring the
Effectiveness of Learning with Serious Games in Corporate Training. Procedia Computer Science, 15,
221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.074
Bancheva, E., & Ivanova, M. (2015). Informal learning in the workplace. In Private World(s): Gender and
Informal Learning of Adults, 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-971-5
Benson, A. D., Johnson, S. D., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2002). The Use of Technology in the Digital Workplace: A
Framework for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(4),
392–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/152342202237518
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation
model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
Bhattacherjee, A., Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2012). User switching of information technology: A
theoretical synthesis and empirical test. Information and Management, 49(7–8), 327–333.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.06.002
Boughzala, I., & Ermine, J. L. (2007). Management des connaissances en entreprise-2ème édition revue et
augmentée. Paris: Lavoisier.
Cabitza, F. (2014). On a QUESt for a web-based tool promoting knowledge- sharing in medical
communities. Behavior and Information Technology, (October), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.934288
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying Qualitative Analyses of Verbal Data: A Practical Guide. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603
Commission of the European Communities. (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Education.
Lisbon. Retrieved from http://arhiv.acs.si/dokumenti/Memorandum_on_Lifelong_Learning.pdf
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness , Perceived Ease Of Use , And User Acceptance. MIS Quarterly,
13(3), 319–339.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology : system characteristics, user perceptions
and behavioral impacts. International Journal Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475–487.

30
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success :
A Ten-Year Update, 19(4), 9–30.
Dennerlein, S., Theiler, D., Marton, P., Santos Rodriguez, P., Cook, J., Lindstaedt, S., & Lex, E. (2015).
KnowBrain: An Online Social Knowledge Repository for Informal Workplace Learning. In 10th
European conference on technology enhanced learning, EC-TEL 2015 Toledo, Spain, september 15–
18, 2015 proceedings, 9307, 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3
Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L., & Weber, M. S. (2015). The Use of Enterprise Social Network Sites for
Knowledge Sharing in Distributed Organizations: The Role of Organizational Affordances. American
Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/Doi 10.1177/0002764214540510
Eraut, M. (2010). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273.
https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225245
Ersoy, M., & Güneyli, A. (2016). Social Networking as a Tool for Lifelong Learning with Orthopedically
Impaired Learners. Educational Technology & Society, 19, 41–52. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.19.1.41.pdf
Garrett, J. J. (2011). The elements of user experience - Centered Design for the Web and Beyond, 2nd
Edition (New Riders). Berkeley.
Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-
assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10(6), 597–602.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202442
Graesser, A. C. (2009). 25 principles of learning. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from
http://home.umltta.org/home/theories/25p
Graesser, A. C. (2011). CE Corner: Improving learning. Monitor on Psychology, 2–5.
Hager, P. (2004). Lifelong learning in the workplace? Challenges and issues. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 16(1/2), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410521486
Hahn, J., & Subramani, M. R. (1999). A framework for knowledge management systems : issues and
challenges for theory and practice. In ICIS ’00 Proceedings of the twenty first international
conference on Information systems, 302–312.
He, W., & Wei, K.-K. (2009). What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-
contribution and -seeking beliefs. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 826–838.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.11.007
Hevner, a. R., March, S. T., & Park, J. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS
Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
ISO 9241-11:1998(en). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-
1:v1:en
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that
matters. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1046–1058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.002

31
Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2006). A Model of Knowledge Management Success. International Journal of
Knowledge Management, 2(3), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2006070104
Joinson, a. N. (2008). “Looking at”, “looking up” or “keeping up with” people? Motives and uses of
Facebook. CHI 2008 Proceedings: Online Social Networks, 1027–1036. https://doi.org/978-1-60558-
01101/08/04
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of
Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241–251.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77(6), 1121–1134.
Kulkarni, U., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R. (2007). A knowledge management success model: theoretical
development and empirical validation. Journal of Management …, 23(3), 309–347.
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-122223031
Lans, T., Wesselink, R., Biemans, H. J. a, & Mulder, M. (2004). Work-Related Lifelong Learning for
Entrepreneurs in the Agri-Food Sector. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 73–
89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-3736.2004.00197.x
Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: a methodology for information quality
assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-
7206(02)00043-5
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and
prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12029
LongHurst, R. (2010). Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In N. Clifford, S. French, & G.
Valentine (Eds.), Key Methods in Geography, 117–132. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Longmore, B. (2011). Work-based learning: bridging knowledge and action in the workplace. Action
Learning: Research and Practice, 8(4), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2011.549333
Mathis, L. (2011). Designed for Use - Create Usable Interfaces forApplications and the Web (Pragmatic).
USA.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering (Academic P). USA.
Pettenati, M., & Ranieri, M. (2006). Innovative Approaches for Learning and Knowledge Sharing. In E.
Tomodaki & P. Scott (Eds.), Innovative Approaches for Learning and Knowledge Sharing, EC-TEL
2006 Workshops Proceedings, 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/11876663
Pham-Nguyen, C., Garlatti, S., Lau, B.-Y.-S., Barbry, B., & Vantroys, T. (2009). An Adaptive and Context-
Aware Scenario Model Based on a Web Service Architecture for Pervasive Learning Systems.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(3), 41–69.

32
https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2009092203
Prax, J. Y. (2003). Le Manuel du Knowledge Management - Une approche de 2ème génération (Dunod).
France.
Resmini, A., & Rosati, L. (2011). Pervasive Information Architecture - Designing Cross-Channel User
Experiences (Morgan Kau). USA.
Riemer, K., & Scifleet, P. (2012). Enterprise Social Networking in Knowledge-intensive Work Practices : A
Case Study in a Professional Service Firm. In 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems,
1–12.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner : Towards a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions (Jossey-Bas, Vol. 50).
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers &
Education, 34(3–4), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00044-5
Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal learning in
the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 8–20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-3736.2004.00192.x
Stocker, A., & Müller, J. (2013). Exploring Factual and Perceived Use and Benefits of a Web 2 . 0-based
Knowledge Management Application : The Siemens Case References +. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies.
Toure, C. E., Michel, C., & Marty, J. (2014). What if we considered awareness for sustainable Kwowledge
Management ? Towards a model for self regulated knowledge management systems based on
acceptance models of technologies and awareness. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Knowledge Management and Information Sharing, 413–418.
https://doi.org/10.5220/0005158604130418
Touré, C. E., Michel, C., & Marty, J.-C. (2015). Refinement of Knowledge Sharing Platforms to promote
effective use. In 11th IEEE International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet based
systems, 1–8. Bangkok.
Tremblay, M. C., & Hevner, A. R. (2010). Focus Groups for Artifact Refinement and Evaluation in Design
Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26.
Turban, E., Bolloju, N., & Liang, T.-P. (2011). Enterprise Social Networking: Opportunities, Adoption, and
Risk Mitigation. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce. Retrieved from
https://cisr-sslvpn-out1.insa-
lyon.fr/+CSCO+00756767633A2F2F6A6A6A2E676E6171736261797661722E70627A++/doi/full/10.1
080/10919392.2011.590109
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Hall, M., Davis, G. B., Davis, F. D., & Walton, S. M. (2003). User acceptance
of information technology : Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology :
Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. a. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human

33
Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Systems Thinker, 9(1991), 2–3.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from
http://www.ewenger.com/theory
Zhao, X., Salehi, N., & Naranjit, S. (2013). The many faces of Facebook: Experiencing social media as
performance, exhibition, and personal archive. Proceedings of the CHI ’13 Conference, Paris, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470656