190 likes | 293 Vues
This research explores the creation and impact of IT standards in web-based industry consortia, focusing on group dynamics in standards organizations and factors influencing standards setting processes. The study uses a conceptual model to analyze individual and thematic centrality during different stages of standards development.
E N D
Investigation of Information Retrieval Accuracy from Knowledge Management Systems Ryan C. LaBrie Department of Information Systems W. P. Carey School of Business Arizona State University
Agenda • Motivation • Theory • Measurement • Method • Other Issues
Motivation • Conceptual framework • Literature Review • Research model • Research method • Hypotheses • Data • Measurement • Implications
Motivation • Strategic importance of IT Standards • Lack of IT Standards research in IS area • Little empirical treatment on IT Standards research • Unbalanced research emphasis
Research Question • How are IT Standards created and formalized as a Knowledge Product for the community served? • What group dynamics drive Standards Organizations in their pursuit of the development of IT Standards? • Explore factors that impact IT Standards Setting Process in Web-based industry consortia. • Explore the relationship between the factors and group dynamics focusing on individual and thematic centrality. • Examine the transition of the centrality over different stages of standards setting process.
IT Standards • Emphasis • Economic/Strategic focus • Technical focus • Organizational focus • Theoretical Treatment • Game theory • Installed base • Switching cost (Klemperer, 1987) • Lock-in (David, 1985) • Network externalities (Katz & Shapiro, 1985) • First mover advantage, RBV
IT Standards Organizations • Formal Standards Development Organization • Highest level of Standards Setting • de jure Standards • ISO, ITU, IEEE and so on • Participation is internationally recognized • Standards-oriented Industry Consortia • National Cooperative Research Act (1984) • de facto Standards • OASIS, HR-XML Consortium, • Industry specific • Use the Internet
Conceptual Model Time Individual Centrality Group Heterogeneity (Proxy: Group composition) People- focused analysis People- focused analysis email data Standards Type (Infrastructure vs. Business process oriented) Theme- focused analysis Theme- focused analysis Thematic Centrality
Group Environment • Electronic Communities of Practice • Communities of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1990; Lave and Wenger, 1990; Brown and Duquid, 1991) • A group of experts with Informal, work-related social relationship • Important for knowledge sharing and creation • (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). • The emergence of electronic or online CoP due to the Internet • IT Standards Development in Online Knowledge Communities (OKCs) • Open Source Software (OSS) Development • “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” (Raymond, 1999): • Proprietary software development versus OSS project
Group Heterogeneity • Group Size • Very large-scale conversation (100~200 participants) • As group size increases, problem-solving becomes more efficient until some optimal size is reached (Shaw, 1981; • Dennis et al., 1990) – the Law of Diminishing Returns • Use of Computer-Mediated Communication • Help increase the size of a group (increase heterogeneity) • Help reduce social queues, making OKCs more task-oriented • Tends to cut across organizational boundaries, breaking down hierarchies (Kiesler 1986; McGrath, 1990) • Group Heterogeneity • Large participants often leads to heterogeneity, which might cause low degrees of centrality • The more numbers of participants, the lesser the centrality. • Proxy: Group composition - Vendor and end-user organizations
Standards Types • Infrastructure-oriented IT Standards • A group of core technologies to form a technical framework that provides an infrastructure on which organizations can perform business transactions. • Compatibility is emphasized. • Requires input from a lot of human resources • Work best in decentralized organizational structure • Business process-oriented IT Standards • The documented agreements that define procedures for horizontal and vertical business transactions performed over the Internet. • Feasibility is emphasized. • Requires central authority to collate multiple solutions • Work best in centralized organizational structure
Group Process: Dynamic Centrality • Individual Centrality in Social Network • The extent to which the individual is linked to others in the group: Central individuals exchange messages with a large number of members in a group • Thematic Centrality in Semantic Network • The extent to which the theme or topic is linked to others in the discussion. Central themes or topics emerge much more times than less central themes. • Why Dynamic? • A standards setting process is a sequential and iterative process consisting of distinct stages such as standards draft proposal, adaptation through feedback, and adoption of standards (Marpet, 1998). • Not every group displays the same pattern over time: Poole’s (1983) contingency model of group development - Stages of standardization process as breakpoints
Research Method Step 1. Social Network Analysis (social and semantic network) Step 2. Factorial Design: 2 X 2 ANOVA design (Standards type X Group Heterogeneity) Standards Type Business process oriented Infrastructure oriented I (++) II(-+) Time: Standards setting process Centrality (Individual and Thematic) Centrality (Individual and Thematic) Low Group Heterogeneity III(+-) IV(--) Centrality (Individual and Thematic) Centrality (Individual and Thematic) High
Assumptions • Tasks are successfully implemented. • The individual centrality is positively related with the individual performance (Ahuja et al., 2003), and Individual performance tends to be consistent with group performance. • In OKCs, thematic centrality generally overpowers individual centrality. • CMC helps reduce social queues, making OKCs more task-oriented • CMC tends to cut across organizational boundaries, breaking down • hierarchies (Kiesler 1986; McGrath, 1990)
Hypotheses H1: Creation of infrastructure oriented IT standards is negatively related to both individual and thematic centrality. H2: Creation of business process oriented IT standards is positively related to both individual and thematic centrality. H3: Increase in heterogeneity of a group is negatively related to both individual and thematic centrality. H4: Decrease in heterogeneity of a group is positively related to both individual and thematic centrality. H5: Creation of infrastructure oriented IT standards in a high heterogeneous environment is negatively related to both individual and thematic centrality. H6: Creation of business process oriented IT standards in a low heterogeneous environment is positively related to both individual and thematic centrality. H7: Variability of the centrality will decrease over time. H8: Individual centrality will be less stronger, while the thematic centrality will become more stronger over time.
No Project Team No. of Participant No. of Email Member Non-Member By Member By Non-Member Total 1 Transport, Routing & Packaging 24 (13%) 160 (87%) 1,908 (56%) 1,507 (44%) 3,415 2 Core Components 8 (4%) 175 (96%) 603 (38%) 995 (62%) 1,598 3 Registry and Repository 4 (4%) 105 (96%) 481 (35%) 875 (65%) 1,356 4 Business Process Methodology 12 (9%) 125 (91%) 806 (63%) 483 (37%) 1,289 5 Technical Architecture 22 (15%) 123 (85%) 648 (52%) 610 (48%) 1,258 6 Marketing Awareness 7 (9%) 75 (91%) 131 (33%) 267 (67%) 398 7 ebXML Requirement 12 (15%) 67 (85%) 247 (82%) 54 (18%) 301 Data • Email archives from ebXML, DocBook, and Business Transaction
Measurement • Standards Types • Degree of technical specification • Industry standards • Group Heterogeneity • Use group composition as proxy • Proportion of vendor and end-user organizations in a group • Individual Centrality • Degrees, Betweenness, and Closeness • Social Network Analysis Software (Social Network) • Thematic Centrality • Count of appearance of the theme • Social Network Analysis Software (Semantic Network)
Implications • For practitioners • Understanding IT standards setting process in Web-based industry consortia • For researchers • Understanding the group dynamics of collaborative decision making process in Online Knowledge Communities
Thank you for your time. Questions, comments? ryan.labrie@asu.edu www.public.asu.edu/~rlabrie