Knowledge Exchange Protocols: A Second Study

Transcription

1 Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, No. 2 (2003) c ikms & World Scientific Publishing Co. Knowledge Exchange Protocols: A Second Study Richard Herschel Decision & System Sciences Department, St. Joseph s University, Erivan K. Haub School of Business, 5600 City Avenue, Philadelphia, PA , USA Hamid Nemati ISOM Department, Bryan School, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA David Steiger The Maine Business School, 5723 Donald P. Corbett Business Building, Orono, ME , USA Abstract. In the knowledge management domain, the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge is critical because it is a prerequisite to the knowledge amplification process wherein knowledge becomes part of an organization s knowledge network. Moreover, this process is strategically important because it enhances an organization s ability to create new knowledge that is inevitably expressed through the organization s capabilities, products, and services. The conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge is particularly relevant to information technology (IT), because IT can only partially facilitate tacit knowledge management, while it offers a substantial number of techniques to support the management and sharing of explicit knowledge. In this paper, knowledge exchange protocols are examined as a vehicle for improving the tacit-toexplicit knowledge conversion process. In a second experiment testing the use of knowledge exchange protocols, initial findings are confirmed: while structure may significantly improve the tacit-to-explicit knowledge conversion process, it also matters how the structure is employed in this process. Keywords: Explicit knowledge; Knowledge exchange protocols; Knowledge management; Structuration; Tacit knowledge. 1. Introduction This paper reports the findings of a study that seeks to replicate the experimental process and findings of research presented in the Journal of Knowledge Management by Herschel, Nemati, and Steiger (2001). That study examined the effects of using knowledge exchange protocols on the tacit-to-explicit knowledge exchange process a process meant to articulate or externalize personal or organizational experience. That is, it examined the impact of structuring on presentation and recall of rich narrative information. Grounding their approach in the structuration literature (e.g., Bousfield, Esterson, & Whitmarsh, 1958; Burns, Clift, & Duncan, 1990; Cole, Frankel, & Shap, 1971; Horowitz, 1969), the experimenters found that structuration mattered when information was recalled, but not relative to how information was presented. These findings were important for two reasons: 1. They are contrary to prior research findings in that structuring information (in this case, a rich narrative) was found not to be as essential to the expressed understanding of information as the nature of the recall format. 2. It suggested a focused use of structuration in the tacitto-explicit knowledge conversion process. 2. Knowledge Exchange Protocols A knowledge exchange protocol is a process that structures information exchange such that the provider of the information and/or the recipient of the information can systematically present/recall information in a focused herschel@sju.edu nemati@uncg.edu dsteiger@maine.edu 153

2 154 R. Herschel et al. Table 1. A sample SOAP knowledge exchange protocol Jim, Slim /22/00 Subjective [a brief narrative of the patient s expressed complaints] Recent onset of fever, diffuse aches, sore throat, clear rhinorrhea, and non-productive cough Objective GEN: I11 appearing [a description of the specific Heent: inflamed pharynx, TM s normal, PERLA, activities used to better learn conjunctiva WNL, nasal congestion the true nature of the Neck: tender anterior cervical adenopathy patient s situation] Lungs: clear to auscultation, equal BS Heart: RR & R, no murmur, gallop, or rub, not enlarged ABD: soft BJE: mild diffuse muscle tenderness Neuro: alert, no meningeal signs Skin: no rashes or lesions Assessment [A decision about Influenza #487.1 what is wrong with the patient] Plan [a prescribed course of action for the patient to alleviate the problem(s)] Tylenol, bedrest, and fluids until fever free and feeling improvement in symptoms for 24 to 48 h (Typically persons with influenza are ill for one week) manner. One of the best examples of a knowledge exchange protocol is the SOAP protocol that is used in the medical community (see Table 1). The SOAP protocol is used to structure and document situation-oriented, physician/patient clinical encounters. SOAP provides a consistent framework for: structuring clinician patient narratives, understanding the clinician s thinking about perceived problems and issues, learning about techniques and tests employed by the clinician in the knowledge creation process, and sharing the clinician s reasons for actions taken to address patient issues. In other words, the SOAP process provides a consistent mechanism for documenting: 1. what the physician understands about their patient s situation (sense-making activities), 2. how the physician closes gaps in their understanding about the patient s situation (knowledge creation), and 3. what actions the physician takes relative to treatments (decision making). Use of the SOAP protocol allows clinicians to accumulate knowledge about their patients over time. Moreover, by structuring the documentation of the patient clinician dialogue and the clinician s thinking and actions, tacit knowledge is being externalized and can be shared with another clinician. Herschel et al. (2001) believe that the use of protocols similar to SOAP that structure the tacit-to-explicit knowledge conversion process is important in order to make the process productive yet more efficient. In their experiment they assessed whether structure, operationalized in the form of SOAP, was a transferable mechanism that could be used to functionally facilitate knowledge management efforts Exploring knowledge exchange protocol effects: a second study to confirm findings There are two forms of knowledge: explicit knowledge and tacit (implicit) knowledge. While both forms of knowledge are important, usually one is managed at the expense of the other (Earl & Scott, 1998; Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). However, while emphasizing one strategy over another may alleviate several operational knowledge management issues, it can also compromise knowledge creation activities. Indeed, to ignore the interaction of explicit and tacit knowledge is to potentially inhibit innovation vis-à-vis the generation of new capabilities, products and services (Choo, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Weick (1995) has stated that the best way to share tacit knowledge in order to make it explicit is via the use of rich narratives. However, he has said nothing on how the use of structuring the narrative or its recall can affect understanding and recall of the information presented. This omission is important because the conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge is often time consuming and problematic (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Earl & Scott, 1998). Hence, Herschel et al. wanted to know

3 Knowledge Exchange Protocols 155 Table 2. Summary of hypotheses Hypotheses H1a H1b H2a H2b H3a H3b H4a H4b Structuring knowledge presentation improves the understanding of the main point by the respondents Structuring knowledge recall improves the understanding of the main point by the respondents Structuring knowledge presentation increases the number of methods recalled by the respondents Structuring knowledge recall increases the number of methods recalled by the respondents Structuring knowledge presentation increases the number of comments that respondents made Structuring knowledge recall increases the number of comments that respondents made Structuring knowledge presentation improves the richness of the understanding of the knowledge exchanged Structuring knowledge recall improves the richness of the understanding of the knowledge exchanged whether a listener s ability to articulate what they had understood depends on whether the rich narrative is highly structured (e.g., via a knowledge exchange protocol), on whether the recall process is highly structured (e.g., via a knowledge exchange protocol), or both. Theoretically, if a rich narrative consists of a main learning objective and some specific methods or steps for achieving it, then the structuration literature suggests that: structuring knowledge presentation should improve the understanding of the main point of the narrative by the respondents (what they assimilate), structuring knowledge recall should improve the understanding of the main point by the respondents (what they can articulate), structuring knowledge presentation should increase the number of steps recalled by the respondents, and structuring knowledge recall should increase the number of steps recalled by the respondents. In addition, structuration literature suggests that use of structure should increase the verbalization of those queried. Hence, structuring knowledge presentation should increase the number of comments that respondents make, and structuring the knowledge recall format should increase the number of comments that respondents make. Herschel et al. were also curious to explore whether the impact of structuring a knowledge exchange via a narrative would be verifiable by the unobtrusive assessment of a disinterested third party. That is, they wondered whether a subjective assessment of explicit understanding could assess whether: structuring knowledge presentation improves the apparent richness of the articulation of the knowledge exchanged, and whether structuring knowledge recall improves the apparent richness of the understanding of the knowledge exchanged. These questions served as the basis for their hypotheses, and they were repeated in the second replication experiment. The hypotheses are summarized in Table Research methodology To test these hypotheses about the impact of structuration (vis-à-vis knowledge exchange protocols) on tacit-toexplicit knowledge conversion, a second study mapping exactly to the methodology used in the first study was conducted at a University School of Business, and it employed a total of 318 students enrolled in 13 sections of an Introduction to Business Computing. The first study employed a comparable student population that numbered 238 from the same course in the previous academic year. The same two videos used in the initial study were employed. In these videos a student-advising expert provides advice to students on how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their class registration experience at the University s Business School. The two films differed in how information was structured. The first contained a rich, free form narrative, while the second film contained an equivalently rich narrative, except that it adhered to a SOAP structure made explicit in the film. The expert delivering the rich narrative on both films was the Director of Student Services who has been directly involved with the School student registration process for over 10 years. What is important to note is that the content of the films is identical. Each film includes: the Director s overview of student complaints voiced about the registration process over past years, the Director s review of tangible, documented evidence of student problems with the registration process, the Director s critical assessment of what students were

4 156 R. Herschel et al. doing to impede their own performance in the registration process, based on their complaints and the evidence discussed above, and the Director s specific recommendations (including methods) that students should follow to improve their performance in the registration process. However, in the SOAP film, students are told that the presentation was divided into four structured parts: 1. subjective: student complaints, 2. objective: documentation of problems, 3. assessment: Director s assessment of the situation, 4. plan: the Director s advice on how to solve the problems. These headings appeared in the SOAP video at the appropriate place. Meanwhile, the free form version contained the same information, without any headings, though in a different, but logically equivalent, order. The films used in this experiment represent the sharing of tacit knowledge via a rich narrative by the Director of Student Services. She is sharing her own experience and judgement she is not reciting information that can readily be found in any procedures manual or student catalogue. Again, equivalent in content, the films differ only in the structure of the presentation SOAP versus free form. While the exchange of information in verbal discussion is never perfect (Dennis, 1996), every effort was made to ensure that the content expressed in the two films was equivalent. When the films were being created, the Director of Student Services had visual access to a list of items that had to be covered in each film. Scripting of dialogue was not used, however, so as not to diminish the richness of the information content or the naturalness of the narrative. The films were professionally made and edited, involving numerous takes. The experimental process did not present too much information to study participants. As Alavi and Leidner (1999) noted: because knowledge is personalized, in order for one person s knowledge to be useful to another individual, it must be communicated in such a manner as to be interpretable and accessible to the other individual, and hoards of information are of little value: only that information which is actively processed in the mind of an individual through a process of reflection, enlightenment, and learning can be useful (p. 6). Both films were designed to meet Weick s (1995) requirements for a convincing narrative. That is, if the films and their contents were designed to be...something that preserves plausibility and coherence, something that is reasonable and memorable, something that resonates with other people, something that can be constructed retrospectively but also can be used prospectively, something that captures both feeling and thought, something that allows for embellishment to fit current oddities.... (p. 127) Each film, both approximately 5 min long, was shown in a classroom equipped with personal computers for each student. Students were shown only one version of the film. Once the film was over, students were immediately asked to recall what they had learned from the film by independently typing their comments at a Web site (where they could see only their own comments) designed specifically for this purpose. However, in this process, students were (unbeknownst to them) divided into two groups. The first group of students (including both those who had seen the free form film and those who had seen the SOAP version) were asked a simple question what did you learn from the Fig. 1.

5 Knowledge Exchange Protocols 157 film? This was called the free form recall form. The second group of students (also including both those who had seen the free form film and those who had seen the SOAP version) were provided a list of questions that specifically asked for feedback based on the structured SOAP protocol discussed earlier. Hence, the experiment included the following conditions (with the number of participants noted for each) shown in Fig. 1. Again, the goal was to get students to explain what they had learned from the film to see whether they could make the Director s shared tacit knowledge explicit. What was initially suspected was that those students who had seen the SOAP film and who were presented a SOAP recall form would outperform all of the students who had experienced any other combinations of film and recall forms. It is believed that structure matters... the more the better. The methodology used in this experimental process is consistent with prior studies examining tacit knowledge (Reber, 1989, 1993; Seger, 1994). It is also acknowledged that some researchers have questioned the generalizability of results based on the use of student subjects (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt, 1986). However, the validity of using students as surrogates for more experienced decision makers has also been defended by researchers (Greenberg, 1987). 3. Results A total of 318 students drawn from a core business course at the same United States university participated in this experiment. There were 152 freshmen (48%), 87 sophomores (27%), 58 juniors (18%) and 21 seniors (7%). There were 138 males (43%) and 180 females (57%). All students were enrolled at the same university and in the same introduction to information systems day class that includes multiple sections (classes). Ages ranged from 18 to 22. The eight hypotheses discussed earlier (Table 2) were tested using different statistical methods as prescribed by Campbell and Stanley (1963). These statistical methods have been used in comparable knowledge management studies (Reber, 1993; Seger, 1994; Herschel et al., 2001). Hypotheses H1a and H1b were tested using logistic regression method and hypotheses H2a, H2b, H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b were tested using ANOVA. In presenting the results, significance levels of 0.05 (α = 0.05) or better were considered to be statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using JMP Ver For each model, a stepwise logistic regression was performed with Gender and Students class level as the control variables. Using this method allowed exclusion of variables that were not relevant to each model. In all cases, Gender and Class level were found not to be statistically significant in predicting the dependent variable. Table 3 summarizes the conclusions of the tests of hypotheses Effects of knowledge exchange protocols on the recall of the main point To study the effects of knowledge exchange protocols on the recall of the main point, two hypotheses were analyzed: H1a (structuring knowledge presentation improves the recall of the main point by the respondents) and H1b (structuring knowledge recall improves the recall of the Table 3. Summary of hypotheses findings Hypotheses Result H1a Structuring knowledge presentation improves the understanding of the main Rejected point by the respondents H1b Structuring knowledge recall improves the understanding of the main Supported point by the respondents H2a Structuring knowledge presentation increases the number of steps Rejected recalled by the respondents H2b Structuring knowledge recall increases the number of steps Supported recalled by the respondents H3a Structuring knowledge presentation increases the number of comments Rejected that respondents made H3b Structuring knowledge recall increases the number of comments that Supported respondents made H4a Structuring knowledge presentation improves the richness of the Rejected understanding of the knowledge exchanged H4b Structuring knowledge recall improves the richness of the Supported understanding of the knowledge exchanged

6 158 R. Herschel et al. Table 4. Whole-model test results for the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on whether the respondent was able to recall the main point Model LogLikelihood DF ChiSquare Prob > ChiSq Difference <.0001 Full Reduced Table 5. Parameter estimates for the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on whether the respondent was able to recall the main point Term Estimate Std. error ChiSquare Prob > ChiSq Intercept <.0001 Knowledge presentation (SOAP vs. non SOAP) Knowledge recall (SOAP vs. non SOAP) <.0001 main point by the respondents). The two hypotheses were tested using the logistic regression method. Logistic regression is best suited for situations where the dependent variable is dichotomous. The results of logistic regression model indicates that the video treatment (whether the respondent viewed a SOAP video or not) was not statistically significant in predicting the recall of the main point. Hence, H1a was rejected. However, structuring the recall method was statistically significant in predicting the recall of main point. Hence, hypothesis H1b was supported. Whole-model test and parameter estimates results for the effects of knowledge exchange protocols on the ability of the respondent to recall the main point are summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Out of the total of 318 respondents, 141 (44%) were able to recall the main point and 177 (56%) were not. 51.1% (117 out of 229) of those who used the SOAP recall method were able to recall the main point, while only 50% (87 out of 174) of those who saw the SOAP video were able to recall the main point. Additionally, out of the 141 respondents who were able to recall the main point, 87 (62%) had seen the SOAP video and 54 (38%) had not, while in comparison, out of the 141 respondents who were not able to recall the main point, 87 (49%) had seen the SOAP video and 90 (51%) had not. Clearly, viewing the SOAP video had no effect on the ability to recall the main point Effects of knowledge exchange protocols on the recall of the number of steps recalled In all, five main steps were discussed in the experiment. The results of the experiment show that the number of steps that the students were able to recall ranged from 0 to 5 with an average of 1.27 and a median of 1. Two hypotheses were analyzed concerning the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on the number of steps recalled: H2a (structuring knowledge presentation increases the number of steps recalled by the respondents) and H2b (structuring knowledge recall increases the number of step & recalled by the respondents). ANOVA analyses were run to test the two hypotheses. ANOVA results show that the video treatment (whether the respondent viewed a SOAP video or not) was not statistically significant in predicting the number of steps recalled. Hypothesis H2a was rejected. However, structuring the recall method (whether the respondent used a SOAP recall procedure or not) was statistically significant in predicting the number of steps recalled. H2b was supported. Tables 6 and 7 show the results of the analysis of variance and the parameter estimates, respectively Effects of knowledge exchange protocols on the recall of the number of comments made The results of the experiment show that the number of comments made by the respondents ranged from 0 to 11 with an average of 4 and median of 4. To study the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on the number of comments made by the respondents, two hypotheses were analyzed: H3a (structuring knowledge presentation increases the number of comments that respondents made) and H3b (structuring knowledge recall increases the number of comments that respondents made). ANOVA analysis was used to test the two hypotheses. It was found that the video treatment was not statistically significant in predicting the number of comments that the respondent made. Hypothesis H3a was statistically rejected. Again,

7 Knowledge Exchange Protocols 159 Table 6. Analysis of variance results of the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on the number of steps recalled by the respondents Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F ratio Model Error Prob > F Total < Table 7. Parameter estimates for the knowledge exchange protocols on the number of steps recalled by the respondents Term Estimate Std. error t ratio Prob > t Intercept < Knowledge presentation (SOAP vs. non SOAP) Knowledge recall (SOAP vs. non SOAP) < consistent with the previous case, results show that structuring the recall method (whether the respondent used a SOAP recall procedure or not) was statistically significant in predicting the number of comments that the respondent made. Hypothesis H3b is supported. Tables 8 and 9 show the results of the analysis of variance and the parameter estimates, respectively Effects of knowledge exchange protocols on the richness of recall of the knowledge exchanged The last measure looked at in the experiment was the richness of recall. Richness was defined as the extent to which a subject s written account of their understanding of the film mirrored the depth of the film s actual content. A single coder read all subject accounts and coded his perception of subject content richness using a 1 7 scale, with 1 being minimal content richness and 7 being high content richness. The richness of recall scores ranged from 1 to 6 with an average of 2.81 and median score of 3. As in the two previous cases, to study the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on the richness of the recall score, two hypotheses were analyzed: H4a (structuring knowledge presentation improves the richness of the recall of the knowledge exchanged) and H4b (structuring knowledge recall improves the richness of the recall of the knowledge exchanged). ANOVA analyses were run to test the two hypotheses. As in the previous study analyses, video was not statistically significant in predicting the richness of understanding of the knowledge exchanged. Hypothesis H4a is rejected. However, it was found that the structuring of the recall method (whether the respondent used a SOAP recall procedure or not) was statistically significant in predicting the richness of understanding of the knowledge exchanged. Hypothesis H4b was supported. Tables 10 and 11 show the results of the analysis of variance and the parameter estimates, respectively. MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance) procedure uses the data covariance structure to simultaneously test the quality of means from different responses. The use of MANOVA is warranted when there is a strong belief that dependencies between measures may exist as indicated by correlation of the residuals in individual ANOVA models, that is, when the value of each measure may be related to the others. In this case, separate univariate analyses such as ANOVA would ignore the information contained in data due to the correlation. This may lead to falsely concluding a significant effect for a variable, when Table 8. Analysis of variance results of the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on the number of comments made by the respondents Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F ratio Model Error Prob > F Total

8 160 R. Herschel et al. Table 9. Parameter estimates for the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on the number of comments made by the respondents Term Term Estimate Std. error t ratio Prob > t Intercept Intercept < Knowledge presentation (SOAP vs. non SOAP) Video Knowledge recall (SOAP vs. non SOAP) Web < Table 10. Analysis of variance results of the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on the richness of the recall by the respondents Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F ratio Model Error Prob > F Total Table 11. Parameter estimates for the effect of knowledge exchange protocols on the richness of the recall by the respondents Term Estimate Std. error t ratio Prob > t Intercept <.0001 Knowledge presentation (SOAP vs. non SOAP) Knowledge recall (SOAP vs. non SOAP) in fact there is none or conversely, concluding no effect for a variable, when in fact there is one. As an added measure of the robustness of our statistical conclusions reached by the four ANOVA models, MANOVA was performed with the four dependent measures whether the respondent was able to recall the main point, the number of steps recalled by the respondents, the number of comments made by the respondents, and the richness of the recall. Tables show the results of the MANOVA model. These results further vali- Table 12. MANOVA whole test results with the standard set of four multivariate test statistics Test Value Approx. F DF Num DF Den Prob > F Wilks Lambda < Pillai s trace < Hotelling Lawley < Roy s max root < Table 13. MANOVA test results with the standard set of four multivariate test statistics for the knowledge presentation methods (SOAP vs. non SOAP) Test Value Exact F DF Num DF Den Prob > F Wilks Lambda Pillai s trace Hotelling Lawley Roy s max root

9 Knowledge Exchange Protocols 161 Table 14. MANOVA test results with the standard set of four multivariate test statistics for the knowledge recall methods (SOAP vs. non SOAP) Test Value Exact F DF Num DF Den Prob > F Wilks Lambda < Pillai s trace < Hotelling Lawley < Roy s max root < date the statistical conclusions reached earlier. Therefore, since the results of statistical analysis using MANOVA are consistent with those of the earlier four ANOVA models, ignoring the dependencies among our four dependent measures did not obscure the analysis. 4. Discussion and Conclusion Regardless of what film someone saw (free form or SOAP), participants who used the SOAP recall form substantially outperformed those who had been asked a simple question about what they had learned from a film. What this means is that rich narratives may facilitate tacitto-explicit knowledge conversion, but their effectiveness may critically depend on whether the recall process is structured. The findings are consistent with the first knowledge protocol study and with previous studies where structure is used to facilitate tacit knowledge exchange (Reber, 1989, 1993; Seger, 1994, Herschel et al., 2001). In these studies, information was presented to experimental subjects in either a somewhat randomized manner or in a structured manner. Results indicated that subjects using a structured process routinely performed better than those for whom the process structure was unclear. Hence the findings confirm what is suggested in Herschel et al. s first study: How tacit knowledge is shared may not matter relative to structure that is, it may be more important to worry most about the adequacy and richness of the narrative content than how it is structured! Use of knowledge exchange protocols may substantially increase people s ability to articulate what they learned from the rich narrative structuring recall may matter in helping to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. The importance of structure in helping to understand information seems intuitive; yet its impact is often ignored in the sharing of tacit knowledge within the knowledge management literature. Disciplines such as law and medicine have understood the importance of structuration on information exchange, and they employ it routinely. Given the findings of this and the previous study, use of structuration in the critical tacit-to-explicit knowledge conversion process warrants more attention and research. Methodologies that can potentially improve this process should be of interest to CKOs and knowledge management programs that seek to improve the efficacy and efficiency of the knowledge transfer process, especially because they are understandably under pressure to show demonstrable results of their efforts. A great deal of the knowledge management literature addresses explicit knowledge management processes. This is understandable because explicit knowledge is readily addressed via the use of technology. However, as Nonaka and Takeuchi and Choo warn, to ignore tacit knowledge and its conversion to explicit knowledge is perilous. Hence, more research in this area is warranted so as to provide mechanisms that promise greater ease in managing these processes. References Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges and benefits. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(7), Bousfield, W. A., Esterson, J., & Whitmarsh, G. A. (1958). A study of developmental changes in conceptual and perceptual associative clustering. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 92, Burns, J., Clift, J., & Duncan, J. (1990). Understanding of understanding: Implications for learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, Burton, A. M., Shadbolt, N. R., Hedgecock, A. P., & Rugg, G. (1987). A formal evaluation of knowledge elicitation techniques for expert systems: Domain 1. Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems. Reading University. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

10 162 R. Herschel et al. Choo, C. W. (1998). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford. Cole, M., Frankel, F., & Shap, D. (1971). Development of free recall learning in children. Developmental Psychology, 4, Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School. Dennis, A. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: You can lead a group to information, but you can t make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20 (4), Earl, M., & Scott, I. (1998). What on earth is a CKO? London, UK, London Business School. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis, verbal reports and data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The science of the sophomore revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999, March April). What s you strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), Hart, A. (1992). Knowledge acquisition for expert systems. New York: McGraw-Hill. Herschel, R., Nemati, H., & Steiger, D. (2001). Tacit to Explicit Knowledge Conversion: Knowledge Exchange Protocols. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), Horowitz, A. B. (1969). Effect of stimulus presentation modes on children s recall and clustering. Psychonomic Society, 14, Kim, J., & Courtney, J. (1988). A survey of knowledge acquisition techniques and their relevance to managerial problem domains. Decision Support Systems, 4(3). McGraw, K. L., & Harbison-Briggs, B. K. (1989). Knowledge acquisition, principles and guidelines. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McGraw, K. L., & Westphal, C. R. (Eds.). (1990). Readings in knowledge acquisition. New York: Ellis Horwood. Neimark, E., Slotnick, N. S., & Ulrich, T. (1971). Development of memorization strategies. Developmental Psychology, 5, Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Patel, V., Arocha, J., & Kaufman, D. (1999). Expertise and tacit knowledge in medicine. In R. Sternberg & J. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in professional practice (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Reber, A. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, Reber, A. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press. Reder, L. M. (1985). Techniques available to author, teacher and reader to improve retention of main ideas of a chapter. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rossi, E. (1964). Development of classificatory behavior. Child Development, 35, Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of learning in computers and people. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Schultz, T. R., Charness, M., & Berman, S. (1973). Effect of age, social class and suggestion to cluster on free recall. Developmental Psychology, 8, Seger, C. (1994). Implicit learning. Psychological Bulletin, 115, Sharda, R., & Steiger, D. M. (1996). Inductive model analysis systems: Enhancing model analysis in decision support systems. Information Systems Research, 7(3), Steiger, D. M. (1998). Enhancing user understanding in a decision support system: A theoretical basis and framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(2), Tuthill, G. S. (1990). Knowledge engineering: Concepts and practices for knowledge-based systems. Blue Ridge, PA: TAB Books. Vaughan, M. E. (1968). Clustering, age and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 6, Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking (enlarged edition). New York: Harper & Row.

11 Knowledge Exchange Protocols 163 David M. Steiger is an Associate Professor of Management Information Systems at the University of Maine. He received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering and M.B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin and a PhD in Management Science/Information Systems from Oklahoma State University. Between his M.B.A. and PhD degrees, he spent 15 years in various analysis and managerial positions in industry, applying the concepts of information systems and management science. Professor Steiger s research interests include knowledge management, decision support systems, model analysis systems, and inductive artificial intelligence technologies. His articles have appeared in Information Systems Research, Management Science, Journal of Management Information Systems, Interfaces, ORSA Journal on Computing, European Journal of Operational Research, Decision Support Systems, and Journal of Knowledge Management. Mailing address: The Maine Business School, 5723 Donald P. Corbett Business Building, University of Maine, Orono, Maine , USA. dsteiger@maine.edu Hamid R. Nemati is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the Information Systems and Operations Management Department of The University of North Corolina at Greensboro. He holds a doctorate degree in Management Sciences and Information Technology from the University of Georgia and a Master of Business Administration from The University of Massachusetts. He has extensive professional IT experience which spans many years in various consulting, business intelligence, and analyst positions with a numer of major corporations. His research specialization is in the areas of Organizational Data Mining, Decision Support Systems, Data Warehousing, and Knowledge Management. Richard Herschel is Chair of the Decision & System Sciences Department of St. Joseph s University in Philadelphia. He has published extensively in the area of Knowledge Management.