Levy, M. (2009). Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134.
Purpose: The purpose of this research was to establish a connection between Web2.0 and the topic of knowledge managment (KM)in hopes of finding ways that Web 2.0 tools could be used to support and enable KM.
Methods: The method used for the study was a methodological critique and comparison of articles related to Web 2.0 and KM from the time period of 2005-2007
Main findings: The main finding of this study suggest that Web2.o offers a new way of approaching KM, including a fresh batch of tools that might enable KM in ways not previously conceived. The author suggests that both Wiki’s and Blog’s offer a way to capture knowledge and find experts, but in general Web 2.0 should be used because it is new and different from old
Analysis: I found this study informative in terms of providing a lot of background and coverage of the various articles and themes reviewed. That said, part of the issue for me with this study was my ignorance of never having read a research article using this methodological approach. I really had no idea of what a “good” study should look like using this approach. To me, it read more like a long literature review, followed by a commentary of claims by the author, of which these claims had very little research support. To that end, it was beneficial to look comparatively at the Web2.0 principles verses the KM principles, to see where the overlap and similarities exist between this new and old approach.
While the detailed literature review sections seemed well done, the summary section seemed brief (~1 pg) in proportion to the total critique (11 1/2 pgs) and it felt very informal – even opinion like. I would have liked more meat in this section in terms of why these differences and similarities are so important going forward. Having the author say “something is out there, something is changing, adopt it smartly” leaves more than a bit to be desired.
Perhaps this is how these type of reports read, but after reading mostly quantitative based research I wasn’t sure what to make of the results.