Local social knowledge management: A case study of social learning and knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries

2.1. Knowledge management

The body of knowledge management literature is fragmented and represents many approaches. Patriotta [4] has described the evolution of different paradigms within knowledge management, naming approaches such as a resource-based approach, a cognitive approach, a knowledge-based view, a situated approach and a techno-science approach. He discussed epistemological assumptions underpinning existing theories of organizational knowledge, pointing out that the nature of knowledge has been widely debated, and knowledge has been proved to be a multifaceted phenomenon. The four approaches described show how differently the character of knowledge has been understood in the different approaches in the literature of knowledge management.

Theories focused on organizational structures, objects and routines are labelled as a resource-based approach [4]. This view has focused on knowledge capture and knowledge products, assuming these to be crucial for knowledge production. The cognitive approach stresses perception, belief and sense-making [4]. The mental models of individuals were thought to be representations of reality, and knowledge was valued as a storehouse of these representations. Accordingly, the manipulation of the representations was regarded as the key knowledge activity [4]. One example of an approach focusing on the manipulation and management of representations is organizational learning theory [16]. Organizational learning results from the individual adoption of strategies, norms and assumptions underlying organizational practices. Learning is a kind of interplay between individual minds and public mental maps of the organizations. In this interplay it becomes crucial how meaning is constructed out of the flow of actions and events, and how the freshly constructed meaning is crystallized into knowledge structures. Sense-making [17] is needed only when something unusual, a discrepancy requiring conscious attention has surfaced.

According to Patriotta [4], the two approaches mentioned above, the recourse-based view and the cognitive view, account for the majority of the literature of knowledge management theories. In the map of sociological paradigms, produced by Goles and Hirschheim [18], much of the literature of knowledge management represents the functionalist paradigm with implicit origins in positivist thinking. These approaches have tended to discriminate knowledge from practice and undervalue the importance of action [4].

Some of these theories have progressed to a knowledge-based view [19, 20] emphasizing learning and transformation processes rather than storing existing knowledge. Knowledge creation is assumed to take place in the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, for example in Nonaka’s and colleagues SECI-model [19]. Knowledge creation models have been criticized [21, 22] as being too general to be able to explain knowledge creation in detail. Knowledge-as-a resource theories have not described thoroughly how the transformation processes take place since the focus stands on outcomes rather than processes that lead to such outcomes. According to Patriotta [4], knowledge should be looked at ‘in action’ so that knowledge, or rather the activity of knowing, can be understood through its practice and not as an unchanging, abstract phenomenon. Patriotta prefers the distinction between background and foreground knowledge instead of talking about tacit and explicit knowledge. Knowledge needs, acquisition and processing come to the front when something unusual happens in the work context. After the processing, knowledge might transmit to the background or stay in active form. Ciborra and Lanzarra [23] also point out the two-fold structure of practical knowledge. They make a distinction between the visible aspect of knowledge referring to practices and routines, and background knowledge. Background knowledge is tacit underlying knowledge concerning practices and routines.

Patriotta [4] emphasizes the changing nature of knowledge and knowing. He concluded that managing knowledge requires the handling and settling of controversies and debates, particularly in situations where new knowledge needs to be created and tested, and where actors hold different perspectives and criteria about how to proceed (e.g. where pieces of knowledge are evaluated or related to others). In the transformation, knowledge and knowing also bind into structures, codes and patterns, which become progressively accepted within a community.

Recently, there has been a growing interest in interpretive approaches like phenomenology, constructivism and the situated approach in the literature of knowledge management [24]. The situated approach has produced a stream of literature stressing the importance of practices [25], situated action [26] and situated activity systems as the formative context of knowledge production [27]. In these approaches, knowledge is seen as socially constructed [4]. The focus is on the situated context where human action and interaction take place. Context has been described as ‘a fabric of interrelated meanings’ by Patriotta [4]. Context might be a working environment with dimensions like time, space, structures, working activities, experiences and culture [3, 4, 24].

One of the first examples of the application of situated approach was Hutchins’s [28] ethnographic study of the work practices of a ship navigation team. In this study, the navigation activity was conceptualized as a knowledge system. The context was identified as a form of organization, consisting of the task at hand, the role system, the representational artefacts and the equipment supporting the team’s activities. The conclusion of this study was that knowledge did not reside in the heads of the team members, but was situated in the structures and sense-making devices connecting the team’s activities into a coherent system. In other words, knowledge is highly dependent on the interaction of people, resources and routines present in a specific situation.

The constructionist perspective that Patriotta [4] labelled as a techno-science approach is rooted in the literature of sociology of science and technology. The focus of the approach is on the chains of transformations that knowledge undergoes over time and on conditions that lead to the institutionalization of knowledge outcomes.

During the last decade, there have been several attempts to integrate the different approaches to knowledge management into a joint framework [2, 4, 29]. These studies have acknowledged human resources and strategic management perspectives as well as aspects of information systems perspectives [2]. In his studies, Patriotta [4] proposed a phenomenological perspective and novel interpretations for the key concepts combined with a suggestion for a methodological framework for studying knowledge empirically. He suggested five shifts in terminology:

From abstract knowledge phenomenon to action-based knowing;

Knowledge has begun to be understood as situational and contextual in the literature of KM [29]. In addition, Orlikowski [30] argued that knowledge is connected with objects (e.g. things, elements, facts), while knowing is connected with action (e.g. practices). She emphasized that knowing is a changing capability and is performed in an active social interaction. Furthermore, she argued that knowing cannot be transferred with the help of artefacts or mediators. According to her view, sharing of knowing can take place only in a process where it is possible to learn the practice itself from other people. Therefore, knowing and capabilities can be examined only by studying practices as knowing is embedded in the practices and cannot be separated from them [30].

Also the concept of the local social knowledge management emphasizes the situational and contextual nature of knowing and learning processes, as can be perceived in the quotation below by Gertler and Wolfe [13].

This form of shared or networked learning assumes that neither the public sector nor individual private enterprises are the source of all knowledge; rather, the process of innovation and institutional adaptation is an interactive one in which the means for establishing supportive social relations and of communicating insights and knowledge in all its various forms are crucial to the outcomes.

This view has an emphasis on the interaction taking place in a specific context that is seen as crucial to the outcomes. The results of learning processes depend on what kind of knowledge and knowing is involved as well as how social relations and communication are performed. This interaction takes various forms depending on the kinds of social relations and knowledge people have.

2.2. Social learning in interorganizational networks

In this study knowledge management is understood as the management of knowledge sharing and learning processes, either existing or new ones. Huysman and de Wit [3] argued that linking knowledge management with organizational learning is helpful because it connects the various levels within an organization: individual, group and organizational. They thought that the linking might be expanded onto an interorganizational level as well, but they have not explored this further. As noted earlier, knowledge practices have previously been studied mainly as internal to an organization [31, 32]. However, knowledge practices are not in practice constrained to single organizations, rather, practices related to knowledge and knowing are often interorganizational [5, 10, 12, 13]. Rutten [5] found that experts may simultaneously occupy several regional networks where it is possible to circulate and develop ideas and thoughts. He claimed also that networks belong to wider networks, and that people act on many different networks at the same time.

In the definition of networks, different aspects have been stressed [5, 11, 15, 33, 34], but Powell et al. [6] defines a network as a place for developing innovations where the ideas, thoughts and know-how of participating members can be shared and tested, and learning possibilities found. A network enables access to knowledge, which might otherwise be unavailable for its members. Knowledge sharing and learning require social interaction between individuals, communities and organizations.

The concept of local social knowledge management has been used [13] in connection with networks extending beyond organizational boundaries and where innovations are assumed to evolve through collaborative knowledge sharing. According to Gertler and Wolfe [13], the key issue in local social knowledge management is how to create a developing social learning process in a region. The criteria for success are the commitment of key actors to strategy planning and the extent of knowledge on which the strategy is based. A regional strategy process can be seen as a social learning process in which individuals, organizations and institutions participate [13]. This social learning process promotes and maintains an innovative environment in a region. Several forms of collaboration have been identified to promote and maintain social interaction in regional development, for example, agreements, publications, conferences, alliances, joint systems, technological platforms, research projects, contract research, consultation, staff exchange, training, informal interaction and also networks [35–37].

In this study, knowledge practices are examined in the context of a project that explicitly sought to promote interaction across organizations, local networking and regional learning, in other words local social knowledge management. Pahor et al. [34] has found that learning often occurs in project settings, which mainly involve the transfer of tacit knowledge through participation and sharing of knowledge practices. Figure 1 presents a summary of the scope of environments and knowledge practices that people encounter when participating in projects.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Scope of participation and impacts on knowledge practices’ variety in project settings.

Networking helps solve larger complex problems in a regional development when there is not enough knowledge or knowing in individual organizations. Halbwirth and Olsson [38] found that organizations need to build networks in order to access relevant knowledge and know-how in specialized and dynamic environments. Challenges might also demand cooperation between public and private sectors. In this study, the theme groups discussing regional challenges were formed by the participants from local governments, research and developing organizations and enterprises.

The collaboration in networks can be classified according to how significant the exchange of knowledge is in their operations. While studying the networking of leaders, Ibarra and Hunter [33] discovered three distinct but interdependent forms of networking: operational, personal and strategic, as shown in Table 1. Operational networking helped the leaders manage their current responsibilities while personal networking boosted their personal development. The third form of networking opened the leaders’ eyes to new business directions and helped in identifying stakeholders that they would need to enlist.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

The three forms of networking [33].

	Operational	Personal	Strategic
Purpose	Getting work done; maintaining the capacities and functions required of the group	Enhancing personal and professional development; providing referrals to useful knowledge and contacts	Figuring out future priorities and challenges; getting support for them
Location and orientation	Contacts are mostly internal and oriented toward current demands	Contacts are mostly external and oriented toward current and future potential interests	Contacts are internal and external and oriented toward the future
Players and recruitment	Key contacts are relatively nondiscretionary; they are prescribed mostly by the task and organizational structure, so it is very clear who is relevant	Key contacts are mostly discretionary; it is not always clear who is relevant	Key contacts follow from the strategic context and the organizational environment, but specific membership is discretionary; it is not always clear who is relevant
Network attributes and key behaviours	Depths: building strong working relationships	Breadth: reaching out to contacts who can make referrals	Leverage: creating inside-outside links

Ibarra and Hunter [33] discovered in their study that almost all leaders underutilized strategic networking. Instead, networking that helped in daily tasks or in the development of personal know-how was broadly accomplished. The classification of the three forms of networking, operational, personal and strategic, is used in this study to help structure the empirical research data.

3.1. Context of the study

The studied regional innovation strategy project was conducted between 2006 and 2007 in the Finnish metropolitan area. The research data was gathered in 2007 and was analysed in a research project completed recently. In Finland, the metropolitan area contains several central regions: the Helsinki region, municipalities surrounding the Helsinki region and growing cities that are geographically near. There are about 1.5 million inhabitants in the whole metropolitan area and about 350,000 inhabitants in the region where the innovation strategy project was conducted. The studied strategy project included the municipalities surrounding the Helsinki region since the innovation strategy of the main Helsinki region had already been created earlier [41]. The emergence of regional centres of growth can be stimulated by promoting learning and regional networking [42].

About 20 development and finance organizations, 20 enterprises, 10 research or development organizations and 20 municipalities participated in the regional strategy process. Also, entrepreneurs from the region participated with the aim of bringing practical viewpoints to the planning process. Consequently too strong a focus on the public sector, which is often considered problematic in the planning of regional development strategies [43], was to be avoided. Three central actors in the region, that is, research organizations, public sector and enterprises, formed the basis of the regional development process. This is known as a triple helix model [44, 45]. The model has been applied in different ways depending on time and a region, but the central idea is the sharing of different knowledge bases stemming from the different roles and viewpoints of the actors in the region. The precondition for the success of triple helix-type cooperation is that the actors are willing to identify and confess the existence of different needs and interests as well as appreciate each others’ know-how [6, 45].

The region can be outlined geographically, even though it does not form a uniform functional entity. Regions are defined either with geographical outlines or with the help of cultural cohesion [15]. For example, Cooke and Schienstock [46] defined a region both in geographical and cultural terms. In cultural terms, a region does not need to have strict geographical borders, but certain criteria define it, and internal cohesion can be seen. The region explored in this study was described as a mosaic comprising several cultural areas [41]. The creation of the strategy aimed at the improvement of the preconditions for innovation activities of the enterprises in the region by establishing connections between the different actors of the region and by developing its cultural cohesion.

The development devices in the project were gathering information and research data, sharing viewpoints between the actors in the region, creating a common knowledge ground and creating shared conceptions, goals and social learning. The first task in the strategy project was to identify the essential challenges in the region. The challenges were processed by eight theme groups, with 10–20 invited experts in each. Each group discussed the theme from June to November 2006. The groups met from three to six times, and clarified matters and commented upon them between the meetings. The themes were: (1) development of the innovation environment; (2) social innovations; (3) knowledge-intensive business services; (4) utilization of the logistical location; (5) renewal of municipal and state sectors; (6) physical settings of the innovation environment; (7) establishment of key enterprises; and (8) citizen influence. The theme groups’ output was a description of the specific challenges in the region, strategies and proposals for overcoming those challenges and best practice examples.

The theme groups’ output was compiled by the project group into a strategy document with five objectives, each containing from four to seven procedural recommendations. The development objectives were the following: (1) development of entrepreneurship and innovation culture; (2) development of the innovation environment; (3) social innovations and innovativeness of working organizations; (4) new innovative business opportunities; and (5) establishing businesses and attracting investments. These development objectives were given priority in the financing of the projects in the region.

3.2. Gathering and analysing the data

The research data consist mainly of interviews of participants in the theme groups. Through interviewing it is possible to understand experiences and reconstruct events in which different interviewees have taken part [47]. The goal of the interviews in this study was to compile an explanation by piecing the experiences of the participants together. The conducted interviews focused mainly on events and processes in order to understand the studied phenomenon. The questions were semi-structured. The interviews were recorded and transcribed in full for analysis.

In addition, project memos and documents have been used to complement the interviews. Some of them were available from a wiki platform designed for the project, and some have been acquired from the project participants. I also participated in the starting and closing seminar of the project and in a few meetings of the theme groups. These observations were entered as note memos. Memos and work papers were used in the beginning of the study process in orientation to the knowledge practices of the project’s theme groups. These various documents supported the formulation of the general view and in the later phase, confirmed interpretations in the analysis of interviews. Memos and work papers were gathered during the project, and the interviews were conducted after the project ended. Preliminary analyses were done along the data gathering and they were completed in a research project recently.

I interviewed altogether 19 people between December 2006 and August 2007. The interviewees were selected to represent different roles. The interviewees were chairs of the groups (2), secretaries (4), experts (8) and information specialists (5). Classified by their background organization, the interviewees represented regional government (6, RG), enterprises (3, B) and research and development organizations (10, RD). The interviewees were also selected to represent different levels of experience in regional development processes. Novices (7) have fewer than five years’ experience, actives (6) have 5–10 years’ experience and seniors (6) have over 10 years’ experience from regional development. The selection of participants aimed at reaching maximum variety; however, the different sectors were not evenly represented in the theme groups. In the theme groups, there were fewer participants from enterprises than from research and development organizations.

The research data were classified into the following themes: the formation and operation of the theme group, need for information and information acquisition, sharing of experiential knowledge, creating a common understanding and use of information in the writing of the strategy text. The main interest was the human interaction between group members. The focus in the analysis was on identifying the themes arising from the data, and on abstracting the interview responses and documents to find phenomena that would describe the collaborative sharing and creation of knowledge in the theme groups and social learning in the region.

In the situated approach, knowledge is assumed to be embodied in practice and researchable through following workers’ everyday activities. The focus of the study is on the situations instead of individuals. Situations are presumed to shape the actions of the team members.

4.1. Formation of the theme groups and building a common ground

In the studied project, eight theme groups were formed to create ideas of how to develop the future of the region and to come up with concrete action proposals. The participants of the theme groups were chosen to represent business, public sector and research and development organizations in order to gain different points of view regarding the development of the region. Most of the participants coming from different sectors did not know each other before the project as they did not cooperate in everyday working processes.

The interviews reveal that, in the first meetings, the groups discussed the task assignment, for example, what kinds of results in which forms were expected. In the following meetings, groups discussed different viewpoints and thoughts on which the experts wanted to gain reinforcement or critical comments.

Many interviewees brought up the chaos and unorganized state of affairs in the beginning and middle phases of the project. Interaction during the project was not always perfect. Some points were discussed repeatedly if there were new participants in the meetings. Sometimes already agreed issues were not continued, but new ideas were found.

after the massive amount of ideas and data … where to find those grounds why some proposals would be sensible and good, you had to think all the time, and then there was the question of did we have all ‘essential knowledge’ in our hands, and then having to confine it. (Interviewee 18, Active–Chair–RD)

During the project, the participating members coming from different sectors explored the connections and links between the subjects of interest, expertise, work experience and networks. This exploration and linking process was explained by members of a theme group in the following manner:

the people came from different worlds and their backgrounds were different, but when we started the process, links [between participants] were formed through peoples’ work. (Interviewee 9, Novice–Expert–RG)

some had more examples concretely from the everyday world while others had a more theoretical point of view. Those built the abstraction on the level of concrete matters and discussed it this way. This kind of junction is actually pretty good; where the things connect in real life and where we have possibilities. (Interviewee 11, Novice–Secretary–RD)

The processes described in the excerpts have previously been termed in the literature of information studies as the creation of a common ground [2, 34, 48].

Groups with a great deal of common ground originally proceeded quickly to the formation of the concrete action proposals without discussing much in general. There were similar thoughts and mutual understanding about the most important development needs in the region. It seemed that the common ground helped members of the group to focus on a few commonly shared viewpoints. There was no need for compromises and, therefore, the outcomes of the group were broadly agreed on by the members of the group.

there were people who were interested in this matter and who know their own sector and its needs, and they reported it in the meetings. Synthesis and consensus were formed about what they have already created in their own environment, and then it was brought for other experts to process, select and prioritize. (Interviewee 10, Senior–Chair–RG)

In groups where little common ground arose originally, the focus of the activities was on discussions aimed at sharing different viewpoints. The outcomes of the groups were compilations trying to take into account all aspects of the theme under discussion.

the ideas and insights which the group’s members brought with them, sprang up from their backgrounds, from their expertise and tasks in their organizations. It was challenging while everyone talked from his/her own point of view, and you couldn’t catch the substance in the beginning. I was afraid we might not share a common understanding at all. But we gathered the different viewpoints in a matrix table template and people began to see their ideas as related to the others. (Interviewee 9, Novice–Expert–RG)

The success in creating a shared knowledge ground, finding and discovery of differences and commonalities in interests and knowledge bases can either foster or inhibit mutual learning [34, 48]. Gertler and Wolfe [13] have claimed, as noted earlier, that the knowledge that is shared in the strategy process affects the final result. The observations of the interviewees supported the idea:

the basic material formed looks much like the group itself. (Interviewee 7, Active–Secretary–RD)

we were able to influence the contents, of course, it would not have become like that if we had put someone alone in a chamber to think, the whole crew did this together. (Interviewee 13, Senior–Expert–RG)

If people have very similar knowledge bases, and share a great deal of common ground initially, there will be fewer variations in experiences and expertise, and consequently, less need for discussion. Processing the given task and task outcomes will be easier. However, if people bring different knowledge bases with them, there will be more diversity in the experiences and expertise. This will affect the results of learning how knowledge is processed during the task, and the outcomes that follow.

4.2. Forms of knowledge sharing

Collaboratively shared knowledge may be classified into document-based and human-related types. In their studies, Talja and Hansen [49] identified forms of collaboration related to acquiring and reuse of knowledge. The forms were sharing a need for knowledge, sharing knowledge acquisition strategies and results, sharing and processing knowledge objects and contents, and archiving knowledge into group repositories.

In the theme groups, knowledge was shared in both document-based and human-related forms. Typically shared documents were information sources that the participants had found useful in their everyday work, for example, books, articles or online documents that were produced in their own organization or otherwise regarded as good. Experts preferred to share the knowledge they had already filtered and processed earlier.

experts brought up the information they have in their organization, such as articles and links and all kinds of stuff. (Interviewee 10, Senior–Chair–RG)

The central ideas and contents of these selected information sources were summarized mostly individually and brought to the meetings. Their meaning for regional development was discussed collaboratively. The discussions aimed at sharing the viewpoints of the experts, entrepreneurs and local developers and finally, composing a shared view of the issues.

Someone read and then communicated the most substantial point [to the group]. (Interviewee 6, Novice–Information Specialist–RD)

The discussed information sources as well as recaps of ideas and thoughts and related discussion comments were saved to the wiki platform for later use. It was hoped that these sources of information would deepen the understanding about the background discussions related to the final action proposals in the strategy document.

However, it was more important to share the filtered and acknowledged knowledge already possessed by experts than to process new knowledge from the found documents. Groups gathered additional information also more systematically, but these information sources were not brought to the meetings. They were saved to the wiki platform for independent studying. This information was considered important for further procedures which might take place after the project.

A lot of material was left in-between, we didn’t have time to go through it, and that was why it was essential to gather data for the future … if we start something again, then we have an existing knowledge base, the cumulative production of knowledge is very essential during that journey. (Interviewee 11, Novice–Secretary–RD)

The wiki platform was used in this way mainly as a passive information repository even though the aim was to utilize it as a collaborative tool in knowledge sharing and creation. The members of the theme groups experienced the wiki platform as challenging and they found it difficult to reconcile their work practices with the system.

Many of us considered the idea of using a wiki pretty odd. Myself, I hadn’t used the wiki much, but for all I knew it wasn’t difficult to use. Anyway, it should have been well-trodden in daily activities before you prefer to use interactive platforms of that kind. I experienced that it was of no use for this project because we shared our things fluently and quickly by emails. (Interviewee 8, Active–Secretary–RD)

Time and efforts were invested in document-based sharing, but the most important form of sharing knowledge was oral conversation. The participants shared ideas, thoughts, insights, meanings and stories. In the discussions, the presentation of viewpoints and clarification of unclear issues were connected.

someone started to speak and someone else added something and commented, so our method of working proceeded that way … someone commented or said something, someone else added something or took a different point of view. (Interviewee 15, Senior–Expert–RG)

When studying, how people acquire and create knowledge, Weick [17] noticed that people’s actions are not based on decisions made on the basis of exhaustive knowledge. Rather, people trust their intuition if they do not have clear facts, or if the amount of the information is too big, or if the information requires specific knowledge in order to be understood. The following interview excerpt reflects Weick’s [17] ideas:

there was no absolute truth that should be found out, only some thoughts that led to the right directions. (Interviewee 7, Active–Secretary–RD)

In the theme groups, often only approximate information was needed in order to fill the knowledge gap. A summary, reduction of options, or a hint, was more important than absorbing a massive amount of new information during the project. Although knowledge acquisition in the form of documented knowledge was thought to be important and appreciated in the beginning of the project, when the project proceeded, sharing non-documented knowledge and experiences became more valued and emphasized.

Filling the knowledge gap by interpreting and pointing out weak signs was essential in trying to figure out the future of the region in the studied strategy process. In the literature, this kind of specific form of knowledge has been called self-transcending knowledge, which means the sensitivity to perceive weak signals and discover missing potential, and the ability to visualize things that do not yet exist [50]. In other words, it means sharing tacit background knowledge in order to learn.

In summary, the role of non-documented knowledge was more significant than the role of documented knowledge in the strategy process. As regards regional development and innovative operations, the importance of sharing tacit knowledge has also been stressed by other researchers [5, 10, 13, 34].

4.3. Knowledge creation as a learning process

The outcomes of knowledge sharing in the theme groups were common thoughts and insights into how to develop the region. First, regional development challenges and objectives were outlined in the interaction of the group. Then, the group shared ideas by filtering and summarizing topics, and discussing common points of view. Topics and viewpoints created by the theme groups were documented and finally compacted as concrete action proposals. Essential in the sharing of knowledge was to build a mutual understanding and create common meanings.

Although the aim of the project was to produce a strategy document, final outcomes were difficult to outline explicitly because knowledge sharing and creation proved to be a learning process. All learning outcomes were not possible to pin down in a short-term project when the learning also looped in broader networking in the region.

The outcomes were more than our action proposals. The most important outcome was the process of sharing and creation together. We believed that the learning process might grow out from the project settings. (Interviewee 14, Senior–Expert–RD)

Knowledge was created in group conversations and recap discussions. It was not always easy to sum up the new knowledge.

the most difficult thing was perhaps when we started to move from analysis of ideas to concrete matters, there was a big gap. Maybe some earlier experiences could have helped in figuring out how we are going to turn this into development actions. (Interviewee 9, Novice–Expert–RG)

In some theme groups, knowledge was processed with systematic methods like a world cafe learning method. World cafe is a group working method with round table discussions, which aim at fostering collaborative learning and collective insight [51]. On each table there was a large sheet of paper for writing down or drawing ideas and insights by members of the table group. After a while, the group moved to the next table while the host of the table remained to explain to the second group the ideas the first group had developed. The second group commented on, recapped and accumulated the existing ideas. At the end, after all groups had visited all tables, the hosts presented their final outcomes, and there was a general discussion about the issues. It was possible to attain the level of self-transcendent knowledge by applying the method. The world cafe method bears a resemblance to SECI knowledge creation model by Nonaka and colleagues [10] where the transformations of tacit and explicit knowledge take place in socialization, externalization, combination and internalization processes.

World cafe was the key method of sharing ideas in our group. Animated discussions with short case presentations were given by the members of the group. I liked the method, it came in handy as we were active talkers, quick on the uptake and knew our field of expertise pretty well. We produced many viewpoints that way. (Interviewee 8, Active–Secretary–RD)

Knowledge was also processed by outlining the different possibilities of choosing a focus, a frame for analysis, or by drawing a mind map.

in the first meeting, the group had made a certain frame of analysis related to the concept or phenomenon of social innovation. We outlined the ways in which it can be looked at. There were three or four different points of view, which we agreed to look at. (Interviewee 9, Novice–Expert–RG)

After the ideas and thoughts were developed in the collaborative discussions, secretaries and chairs who led the work summarized the work into a final output. Other participants could comment on the outcome in meetings or by email.

secretary and chair made the summary pretty much alone, of course the group members then could comment on it, but they had summarized our discussions quite well. (Interviewee 9, Novice–Expert–RG)

Only one group used the possibility to formulate their outcome on a wiki platform openly. The other groups formed their outcomes in meetings and by email. Face-to-face discussions were preferred because they enabled the creation of knowledge through the sharing of visions and insights.

We were supposed to create something new together, and I felt it difficult to write down ideas. To present my ideas, and then follow those presented by somebody else, and comment on each others’ ideas separately. You have to explain a lot to express yourself. It was much more efficient when there was a possibility to talk. (Interviewee 19, Active–Expert–B)

The chairs and the secretaries had a significant role in the activation of the use of the wiki platform in the groups where it was used. In many cases, the participant members were dependent on the gatekeepers’ design and policy regarding the presentation platform. Through the selection and summary of the group’s conversations, the secretaries and chairs performed a role of gatekeepers in knowledge creation.

Many interviewees pointed out that the final output in the form of a strategy document included only a part of the knowledge the group had created.

in the group, ideas and understandings were formed on the basis of tacit knowledge as well. But in the form that the ideas were in the action proposals, quite a bit has been lost, and the entire process of how we got all those background ideas and materials is gone. (Interviewee 7, Active–Secretary–RD)

However, part of the co-created new knowledge remained in the memories of the participants as experiential knowledge. Many participants said that the sharing of experience-based knowledge had been important, regardless of whether it influenced the final formulation of objectives and action proposals.

you had to be able to choose whether this idea is the brilliant one or less brilliant. The choice was based on extensive experience, lots of accumulated knowledge so that we could merge new information into it and decide whether it is useful. (Interviewee 17, Active–Expert–RG)

The accumulation of knowledge and experiences was considered important. Finding new information or increasing the amount of knowledge was not experienced as essential as the filtering and evaluation of existing knowledge. The key outcome from the group discussions consisted of jointly improving the interpretations and understandings concerning the meaning and quality of existing knowledge for the task at hand in the strategy process. In the strategy-making process, the participants were creating the future actively, and their innovation competence had to be directed towards the future, instead of taking advantage of knowledge capital directed towards the past. The ability to be renewed through sharing of tacit background knowledge across sectors and organizations in this case formed the crucial ‘creative capital’ [52].

4.4. Local social knowledge management

A key issue in local social knowledge management is how to generate an effective, ongoing social learning process into a region through networking [13]. The goal of local social knowledge management is to promote and maintain innovativeness and encourage a regional mindset that boosts knowledge sharing and collaborative learning across organizations.

Three different kinds of reasons for sharing knowledge came up in the interviews. They were:

Comparing the reasons with the categorization of network tasks presented by Ibarra and Hunter [33], similarities can be found. The purpose of the operational networks is to get the work task done while the purpose of the personal networks is to enhance professional development. Strategic networks are needed for figuring out the future priorities and challenges.

Ideas that had arisen in other contexts prior to the regional strategy planning project, for example, from literature read prior to the project or ideas shared in other networks, were brought up for discussion and testing in the work groups. Experts wanted to get comments on these ideas and views on whether they were good or not, and how they could be developed.

the theme of our group was what I had to think about in my everyday work so I thought I could get some support and exchanges of thoughts in a subject matter that relates to my work. (Interviewee 15, Senior–Expert–RG)

In the strategy work, the participants got new ideas that they could take further to other contexts, to their own workplace or other networks. When asked about their experiences from participating in the project, one interviewee stressed the ongoing nature of reflection and work on the topics dealt with before, during and after the project:

It [the idea] did not come in the group, but immediately after it, in the context of these other networks where I participated after this work … in the networks I got those ideas due to this group work. (Interviewee 18, Active–Chair–RD)

Different networks are closely connected to each other. The interviewed experts took part in many simultaneous networks where they could circulate and develop their ideas and thoughts effectively:

I have discussed the theme of our group in other networks, too. Almost at the same time there were two other projects with different people joining in, and we processed similar kinds of issues from slightly different perspectives. (Interviewee 15, Senior–Expert–RG)

Networks may belong to wider networks, and people act on many different networks and levels at the same time [5]. Powell and colleagues [6] have pointed out that, to further knowledge, it is essential to have possibilities to develop and test arising ideas, to obtain comments on one’s own thoughts and to have feedback on know-how and expertise in networks. Even though all of the knowledge shared and developed in the groups was not used in the concrete project output, in the final strategy document, this kind of informal interaction was considered as encouraging and grounds for an ongoing learning process.

It is usually assumed and claimed that mutual trust and confidence are a requirement for knowledge sharing and creation [13, 53–55]. Furthermore, it is assumed that the building of mutual trust is a result of long-lasting processes [55]. In the interviews, participants saw value in the testing of thoughts and in the collaboration and knowledge sharing during the project, even though these were only short-term.

The project served as a discussion forum for different people to bring out their thoughts. We would weigh the ideas together and how to develop them further. I believe that was the best value of the project. (Interviewee 7, Active–Secretary–RD)

This lends support to Rutten’s argument [5] that trust based on long-term interaction is not necessarily the key factor in all networks aiming at collaborative knowledge creation. Rutten suggested that the content of interaction is more important than the duration of interaction for building mutual confidence. That the endowment of the trust does not necessarily require long-lasting collaborative processes is an important insight. In short-term projects, such as the one studied here, the participants are not used to working together. However, the success of such collaborations may not depend so much on the amount and structure of interaction as on the content of it. The success of the groups’ collaborations was based on to the experienced importance of the themes to the participants.

Creating a common knowledge ground requires continued effort; therefore, in short-term projects, the achieved common understanding does not necessarily last long. As members of the community acquire new knowledge, the common ground starts to weaken quickly if the new knowledge is not continually shared and processed in the group. According to Hertzum [48], if knowledge is not processed together, the result is that it will not spread evenly, that it will be interpreted in different ways, and a shared understanding will not be formed. Therefore, a recently gained mutual understanding disappears quickly after the sharing of knowledge ends. This can prevent the further development of the social learning process in the region.

Maintaining the recently achieved common knowledge ground was not, however, essential in the studied context as there were other benefits for the participants from the project. It can be argued that the planning project enabled knowledge sharing, creation and social learning, which promoted personal, communal and regional development. The experiences of social learning in the theme groups were formed during the discussions in which the participants with different knowledge bases took part. The learning experiences were described as insights or widening of horizons.