The influence of shadow IT usage on knowledge sharing

Abstract

Employees increasingly use unauthorized technologies at the workplace, which is referred to as shadow IT. Previous research identifies that shadow IT is often collaborative systems used by employees to collaborate, communicate, and share content with coworkers, clients, or external partners. Based on these previous findings, we propose that shadow IT usage may positively influence organizational knowledge sharing (KS), which is central to knowledge management practices. Thus, this research aims to (1) identify the types and occurrences of shadow IT used by employee in the workplace, (2) investigate how KS (donation and collection) occurs via shadow IT, and (3) investigate how shadow IT influences KS. This is an exploratory study based on a qualitative approach. We performed interviews with IT users to answer the research question. Our findings identify that most of the interviewees use collaborative systems and mobile devices unauthorized by the IT department to share knowledge and communicate with their coworkers. The most common IT cited are WhatsApp and Skype, as well as solutions to store and share content, like Google Drive. In addition, several employees reported using shadow IT mainly because organizations do not provide suitable tools to communicate efficiently. We conclude that shadow IT can facilitate KS, primarily when people are geographically distributed since these unauthorized systems provide real-time communication. Our theoretical contribution is to expand current knowledge about shadow IT and reinforce the importance and prevalence of informal and decentralized KS within organizations. As for the practical implications, our article can help IT managers to better understand the usage of shadow IT and how they can balance the risk and benefits of this phenomenon.

Keywords

Collaboration IT management knowledge sharing shadow IT

Introduction

With the increased use of cloud services and mobile devices, also increases the use of shadow IT within organizations. Shadow IT is defined as any IT solution used by employees to perform their work tasks without the approval and formal support of the IT department (Györy et al., 2012; Haag and Eckhardt, 2017; Rentrop and Zimmermann, 2012; Silic and Back, 2014). This phenomenon has been widely discussed in commercial news and report, being considered one of the top concerns of CIOs (Chief Information Officers) and IT managers. In a recent survey among 200 global CIOs, 83 percent of them report experienced some level of shadow IT usage, and nearly 72 percent of executives do not know how shadow IT is being used within their organization (Newman, 2016).

The literature suggests that employees may implement a wide range of solutions, using shadow IT in a variety of ways (e.g. Huber et al., 2017; Zimmermann et al., 2017). Furthermore, previous research on shadow IT shows that most technologies listed as shadow IT within companies are collaborative tools such as communication and content sharing solutions (e.g. Rentrop and Zimmermann, 2012; Silic and Back, 2014). Examples of these systems are WhatsApp, Dropbox, Skype, Facebook, Google Apps, among others.

Since the rise of the Internet, a growing number of collaborative tools such as communication and content sharing software have allowed individuals work at different sites to create and share knowledge, which is a reality for several companies nowadays. Although much knowledge is shared between colocated individuals, the case for creative activity to occur in a geographically distributed environment, either in globally dispersed research and development units of large companies or in online communities, is becoming increasingly relevant (Amin and Roberts, 2008).

The importance of knowledge management (KM) for firms is not something new. According to the theory of the knowledge-based view (KVB), knowledge is owned by employees and is considered as the most strategically important of the firm’s resources for the growth and sustained competitive advantage of the modern organizations (e.g. Grant,1996; Shin and Kook, 2014). Technology, in turn, plays a strategic role in the knowledge sharing (KS) process, because it facilitates communication and collaboration among employees (e.g. Ipe, 2003; Manhart and Thalmann, 2015). Recently, the use of social media (SM) in organizations has become more popular. Previous research on SM shows how companies can use it to improve communication and collaboration, the opportunities it represents for knowledge creation, and KS with coworkers (Väyrynen et al., 2013). However, most of these collaborative technologies such as SM and other communication and content sharing solutions are considered informal and unauthorized by IT managers, called shadow IT.

Companies encourage the heavy use of e-mail for communication and KS. However, e-mail, in particular, can be a great waste of time, giving employees a sense of being occupied instead of helping them achieve useful results for the business (Goodwin, 2014). For this reason, employees search for technologies that promise more effective communication, for example, SM and instant messaging software. On the one hand, some research argues that the use of collaborative systems like SM can represent a risk to knowledge protection (e.g. Manhart and Thalmann, 2015; Väyrynen et al., 2013). In a similar vein, the use of collaborative shadow systems also can provide several information security concerns (e.g. Fürstenau and Rothe, 2014; Walters, 2013). On the other hand, Silic and Back (2014) found that employees extensively use shadow IT software that influences their productivity and enables faster and better collaboration and communication.

Within this context, we propose that shadow collaborative technologies can facilitate KS, providing benefits to organizations. Thus, this study aims to answer the following general research question:

RQ: How does shadow IT influence KS?

This study intends to address this question by investigating how shadow IT influences KS among employees within companies. KVB was chosen as the primary theoretical anchor to this research, because the main tenet of the approach is that knowledge is the most strategically important resource, as well as it can offer a theoretical basis for understanding several of recent organizational innovations and trends (Grant, 1996). We interviewed employees from different organizations and sectors in order to (1) identify the types and occurrences of shadow IT used by employee in the workplace, (2) investigate how KS (donation and collection) occurs via shadow IT, and 3) investigate how shadow IT influences KS.

The research here takes an individual level perspective to investigate shadow IT. Considering that shadow IT emerges at the employee level, understanding the individual behavior regarding the use of technology is central to cope with shadow IT (Haag, Eckhardt and Bozoyan, 2015; Furstenau, Rothe and Sandner, 2017). Similarly, Haag and Eckhardt (2017) organizations should better understand the mechanisms underlying shadow IT, its causes, and consequences in order to deal with this challenge.

Shadow IT is still understudied in the Information Systems (IS) literature, being considered a relatively unexplored topic that demands further and new perspectives to understand the phenomenon (e.g. Haag and Eckhardt, 2017; Silic et al., 2017). We take that as a motivation to investigate shadow IT regarding the KM process within organizations.

This article is structured as follows. The study reviews the literature on shadow IT and KS in ‘Literature review’ section. ‘Research method’ section outlines the research methodology. ‘Results’ section presents the findings of the qualitative data analysis. ‘Discussion’ section discusses research findings, implications for the academic community and practitioners, research limitations, and suggestions for future research. The article concludes with a summary of the findings from this study.

Literature review

Shadow IT

Shadow IT is defined as any hardware, software, or services built, introduced, and used to work without explicit approval or even knowledge of the organization (e.g. Haag and Eckhardt, 2017; Silic and Back, 2014). To a better definition of shadow IT, Haag and Eckhardt (2017) highlight that shadow IT distinguishes from closely related concepts such as workaround, bring-your-own, and IT consumerization. Although those concepts carry some similarities, there are crucial differences that characterize shadow IT as a unique and relevant concept (Haag and Eckhardt, 2017).

The definition of shadow IT usage is also crucial to understanding this phenomenon. Haag and Eckhardt (2014) define individual shadow IT usage as ‘the voluntary usage of any IT resource violating injunctive IT norms at the workplace as reaction to perceived situational constraints with the intent to enhance the work performance, but not to harm the organization’. This definition claims that shadow IT users act by theirselves with the primary objective of effective and productive completion of work tasks which is jeopardized, for instance, by malfunctioning or inadequate organizational IT systems or instructions (Haag and Eckhardt, 2015). Thereby, it is important to take into account the employee’s objective related to the use of shadow IT, that is, to perform work tasks more efficiently and, consequently, increase individual productivity (e.g. Haag et al., 2015; Silic and Back, 2014).

Individuals, workgroups, or whole business units can use shadow IT as a form of decentralized computing to perform work tasks depending on their needs (e.g. Fürstenau et al. 2017; Zimmermann and Rentrop, 2014). Previous studies suggest that employees may implement a wide range of solutions, using shadow IT in a variety of ways, such as a ready-made spreadsheet, cloud services, or a self-developed application (e.g. Huber et al., 2017; Silic and Back, 2014; Zimmermann et al., 2017). Considering the several instances of shadow IT, we reviewed the literature in an effort to clarify how individuals use shadow IT at work. Table 1 summarizes four types of shadow IT usage based on the shadow IT literature.

Table 1.

Types of shadow IT.

Shadow IT usage types	Description	Authors
Cloud services	Internet-based software and software as a service, such as communication and content sharing software to communicate and share work information with coworkers, clients, and partners, among other cloud services that are not authorized or is unknown by the IT department. These systems are also called as mobile shadow IT once it can be accessed outside the workplace and examples of these systems are WhatsApp, Facebook, Skype for Web, Dropbox, Google Apps, and so on.	Rentrop and Zimmermann (2012); Gyory et al. (2012); Fürstenau and Rothe (2014); Silic and Back (2014); Haag and Eckhardt (2014); Zimmermann et al. (2014); Gozman and Willcocks (2015); Huber et al. (2016); Walters (2013); Walterbusch et al. (2017).
Self-made solutions	Solutions developed by employees on the company’s computers to perform their work tasks. For example, an excel spreadsheet or an application developed by employees.	Jones et al. (2004); Rentrop and Zimmermann (2012); Fürstenau and Rothe (2014); Zimmermann et al. (2014); Huber et al. (2016).
Self-installed applications	Software installed by employees to perform their work tasks, on the company’s computers. For example, downloaded a freely available software on the web.	Fürstenau and Rothe (2014); Huber et al. (2016); Jones et al. (2004); Rentrop and Zimmermann (2012); Silic and Back (2014); Zimmermann et al. (2014).
Self-acquired devices (hardware level)	Devices such as notebooks, servers, routers, printers, or other peripherals purchased by employees. These devices are purchased directly from retail rather than being ordered through the official catalog of the IT department. It includes the use of applications in the employee’s personal devices at the workplace. For instance, smartphones, notebooks, tablets, and so on.	Gozman and Willcocks (2015); Huber et al. (2016); Rentrop and Zimmermann (2012); Silic and Back, (2014); Zimmermann et al. (2014).

Four types of shadow IT emerged from the literature, comprising the hardware and software level of shadow IT. The first, called unauthorized cloud services, represents the software accessed through the Internet (e.g. Fürstenau and Rothe, 2014; Walterbusch et al., 2017) and, thereby, to be used, it does not need to be installed in any device. Self-developed solutions are solutions developed and used by employees on the company’s computers to perform their work tasks (e.g. Zimmermann et al., 2014; Zimmermann et al., 2017), which may vary from a simple excel spreadsheet to a more complex application developed by employees to be used by a whole business unit. Self-installed software applications are those installed and used by employees on the company’s devices (e.g. computers, smartphones, or tablets provided by the company) (e.g. Jones et al. 2004; Silic and Back, 2014). This type of shadow IT usage involves solutions that are often freely available on the web and need to be downloaded and installed prior to use, instead of accessed via Internet. Finally and forth, the self-acquired devices represent the hardware layer of shadow IT, since it represents the devices purchased and owned by the employees instead of the company’s devices, including the use of applications in the employee’s personal devices at the workplace (e.g. Rentrop and Zimmermann, 2012; Zimmermann et al., 2017). Figure 1 shows how these four types can occur within companies.

Figure 1.

Occurrences of shadow IT.

Knowledge sharing

The theory of the KVB was chosen as the main theoretical anchor to this research. Grant (1996) states that the knowledge-based theory offers a theoretical basis for understanding several of recent organizational innovations and trends. According to the KVB, knowledge is the most strategically important resource of firms (Grant, 1996). KVB posits that companies are organized to perform two different objectives: generation and application of knowledge (Chou, 2005). Thereby, the primary role of the firm and the essence of organizational capability are the integration of knowledge (Grant, 1996).

Individuals play an essential role in the KBV. Knowledge is owned by employees, that is, the individual is the main repository of knowledge and most of this knowledge can only be exercised by individuals that own it (Grant, 1996; Oliveira et al., 2015). In that sense, companies need to encourage employees to share knowledge at work, including by providing the suitable technology to create, store, and share knowledge (e.g. Ipe, 2003; Maki-Komsi et al., 2005).

The development of knowledge can be seen as a key element in achieving competitive advantage and superior performance. Previous studies suggest that companies growth is not sustainable without the dynamic redevelopment of knowledge-based resources and capabilities that provide to companies the ability of discovering new opportunities, integrating and creating multiple knowledge streams, as well as applying the existing knowledge to work tasks (e.g. Chou, 2005; Kearns and Sabherwal, 2006; Saarenketo et al., 2009).

Finally, Chou (2005) argues that collaborative and social processes are crucial to achieving efficiency and effectiveness in the creation and application of knowledge. Thereby, social interactions, communication, information, and content sharing, including mediated by technology, are important to support and enhance the dynamic development of knowledge within organizations.

Nonaka and Konno (1998) differentiate between tacit and explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be expressed in words and numbers. For instance, a document, once it is formalized, can easily be communicated and shared. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is highly personal and hard to formalize, making it difficult to share and communicate with others.

In this article, we consider KM based on Schultze and Leidner (2002). According to these authors, KM is the generation, representation, storage, transfer, transformation, application, embedment, and protection of organizational knowledge. The process of KS can be considered central to KM. Iskoujina and Roberts (2015) argue that in the process of sharing, knowledge is not only distributed but also transformed in the act of articulation, interpretation, and absorption. Therefore, when knowledge is shared, new knowledge is being created.

To Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2004), KS is the process where people mutually exchange their knowledge and jointly create new knowledge. Furthermore, the authors consider that KS consists of donating and collecting knowledge. Knowledge donation is communicating one’s own knowledge to others, while collection is consulting with colleagues and having them share their knowledge.

The relationship between KS and incentives is discussed further by the studies. Ipe (2003) explains how significant changes had to be made in the incentive system to encourage individuals to share their knowledge, particularly through technology-based networks in organizations, such as technology-based systems that facilitate the speedy sharing of knowledge. The author argues that the key to successfully managing knowledge is now seen as dependent on the connections among the individuals within the organization. Similarly, Maki-Komsi et al. (2005) suggest that factors such as the communication of required information and agility of the tools in use contribute to successful KS. However, organizations have to find a balance between KS and knowledge protection, an increasingly important issue due to recent developments in SM and mobile technologies, which generally facilitate KS (Manhart and Thalmann, 2015). Moreover, Väyrynen et al. (2013) argue that stronger SM penetration further increases the number of informal networks; consequently, this aspect gains even more relevance as employees can use these informal networks to share knowledge. Thus, technology plays a strategic role in the KS process, because communication and collaboration, as well as KS are crucial to success and survival of organizations.

Shadow IT influences KS

Finally, we develop the proposition that guide the research based on the literature discussion previously. Previous studies have identified that employees frequently use unauthorized technology to communicate and collaborate at work (e.g. Shumarova and Swatman, 2008; Silic and Back, 2014), as well as to share information and knowledge among workmates (e.g. Steinhüser et al., 2017).

Silic and Back (2014), for instance, found that employees extensively use shadow IT software that boosts their productivity and enables faster and better collaboration and communication. In their exploratory study, Silic and Back (2014) investigated the details of software identified as illegal and unapproved within companies. They identified that several organizations productivity solutions (e.g. Google apps) and communication software (e.g. Skype) are cited as shadow IT. The authors concluded that Skype, Google Talk, and Facebook video calling are the three main applications used by employees to communicate and collaborate at work.

Accordingly, we propose that shadow IT positively influence KS among employees within organizations. To investigate this proposition, we applied a qualitative method, which is described in the next section.

Research method

The method used for research was an exploratory study based on a qualitative approach. This sort of research is conducted when the subject is relatively unknown. Shadow IT is a currently misunderstood and relatively unexplored phenomenon (Silic and Back, 2014). Moreover, we could not find any research that relates KS and shadow IT. Therefore, an exploratory study is necessary, since shadow IT is a new topic and its relevance to managers and the importance of KS to companies are continuously increasing.

Qualitative data were collected through interviews with IT users, with the aim to gather IT user’s perceptions concerning KS through shadow IT. The technique used for data collection was an interview guide with open questions, based on the research literature. (1) Types and occurrences of shadow IT used by employees in the workplace, (2) KS (knowledge donation and collection) via shadow IT, and (3) how shadow IT influences KS according to the interviewees. A PhD professor in KM and an IT expert proofread the interview guide in order to validate the questions. In addition to the interviews, observations and notes were taken regarding the company and area the interviewees work and the IT they use to perform job activities to deepen understanding their context.

Because shadow IT is a behavioral phenomenon that arises from the employee, research focused on the individual. Thus, we performed interviews with 10 IT users from different companies. The selection of the interviewees was made, based on the following criteria: The individual should have a formal job in a company, be an IT user, and use shadow IT to perform tasks at work, all of which was verified through investigation prior to performing the interview. The interviews last, on average, 1 hour. Table 2 displays the interviewee’s profile.

Table 2.

Interviewees.

Interviewees	Interviewee’s job title	Company’s sector	Time working with current company	Code
Interviewee 1	Sales executive	Publishing industry	3 months	I1
Interviewee 2	IT analyst	Transportation sector	8 years	I2
Interviewee 3	Consultant	Consulting	1 year and 8 months	I3
Interviewee 4	Legal advisor	Public sector	1 year and 3 months	I4
Interviewee 5	IT analyst	Public sector	6 years	I5
Interviewee 6	Administrative assistant	Education sector	1 year and 8 months	I6
Interviewee 7	Marketing analyst	IT industry	2 years	I7
Interviewee 8	IT analyst	Bank industry	2 years	I8
Interviewee 9	Salesperson	Commerce	20 years	I9
Interviewee 10	Account manager	Bank industry	3 years	I10

Data analysis was based on all the sources of information used in the data collection stage, such as interviews, observations, and notes, taking into account theories and concepts that support the topic. Content analysis was the data analysis technique applied to this research, because it easily detects the presence or absence of predefined variables (Oliveira et al., 2009). Content analysis consists of a set of techniques to analyze communication in order to obtain indicators (quantitative or otherwise) that infer knowledge concerning the conditions of producing/receiving messages (Bardin, 1977). According to Dubé and Paré (2003), exploratory research must define a priori the constructs in order to help make sense of occurrences, ensure that important issues are not overlooked, as well as guide the interpretation and focus when conducting theory-building research. Following this orientation, data codification was made a priori based on the literature review.

Results

The results are reported according to the three main parts of the interview guide: (1) types and occurrences of shadow IT used by employee in the workplace, (2) KS (knowledge donation and collection) via shadow IT, and (3) how shadow IT influences KS according to the interviewees.

Types and occurrences of shadow IT

The first part of the interview guide aimed to identify how employees use shadow IT to work. Next, we explain the context of interviewees and the shadow IT used by them based on the types of shadow IT and its occurrences

Interviewee 1 (I1) is a sales executive who works in the commercial department from a company in the publishing sector. I1 uses Facebook and LinkedIn as work tools, mainly to look for clients’ information. The information collected is shared with coworkers via WhatsApp using a personal smartphone, and via Salesforce in the company’s computer. The company implemented and paid the license of Skype for business. However, employees do not feel encouraged and motivated to use that solution, which can represent a lost investment. Moreover, the solution called Salesforce was adopted by the head of the commercial department as an independent initiative without permission and support from the IT department. Salesforce gathers all information about company’s sales and its clients in one place, which can be accessed by all employees of the commercial department and related areas.

Interviewee 2 (I2) is an IT analyst of a company from the transportation sector. I2 uses Google Drive, which is not an official solution provided by the employer, as a control spreadsheet to gather information about projects (project deadlines, who performs each task, details about what should be done, etc.). The spreadsheet in Google Drive provides mobility to the user to create and store content using company’s computer and personal devices. Organizational e-mail is the company’s official communications solution.

Interviewee 3 (I3) is a consultant who works for a consulting company. The company’s official solution to create, store, and share content is Google Drive. However, I3 autonomously adopted Microsoft Box to create and store content, and as a backup solution to the official system. Organizational e-mail is the company’s official communications solution. I3 also reported that some employees from the same business unit developed a work solution with a simple programming language, and they use it to perform daily work task without the approval and support of the IT department.

Interviewee 4 (I4) is a legal advisor in the public sector. I4 uses WhatsApp to communicate and collaborate with workmates. The primary reason to use WhatsApp is due to the inefficiency of the official communication software provided by the organization. This official solution is an instant messages software. However, I4 reports that either the message takes too long to arrive or fail to deliver to the remittent. Besides the instant messages software, the organizational e-mail is the other official way to communicate.

Interviewee 5 (I5) is an IT analyst in a public sector organization. I5 and colleagues installed an instant messaging software called Pidgin on their company’s computer to enhance communication. The organization provides an instant messaging software that is similar to a social network as the official solution to communicate, in addition to the organization e-mail. However, the instant messaging software is not efficient, because it is very heavy to run and slow to use. Consequently, no employee uses the software in the workplace.

Interviewee 6 (I6) is an administrative assistant of a company from the educational sector. I6 uses WhatsApp via personal smartphone, as well as the web version of WhatsApp and Facebook via company’s computer to communicate and share content with coworkers. There is no instant messaging software provided by the company and the official system to communicate with coworkers is the organizational e-mail.

Interviewee 7 (I7) is a marketing analyst of a multinational company from the IT industry. I7 and coworkers in the marking team use Skype to communicate and collaborate with clients and external partners. The official communication system provided by company’s IT department at the time of the interview was Microsoft Link. Skype was not included on the list of authorized software. However, the user needs to talk to customers and external partners who do not use Link. Therefore, they autonomously adopted Skype without IT approval and support, because it is a more commonly used communication tool to meet their work needs.

Interviewees 8 (I8), 9 (I9), and 10 (I10) share some similarities, representing a common organizational context. I8 is an IT analyst in a regional bank and uses communications tools at work such as WhatsApp and Telegram through personal smartphone and the web version of WhatsApp through company’s computer. The organizational e-mail is the official way to communicate with coworkers and there is no instant messaging software provided by the company. Interviewees 9 and 10 also have a very similar context. I9 is a salesperson in a company from the commercial sector and I10 is an account manager in a bank. In both companies, they use communication solution such as WhatsApp and Skype through personal smartphones to communicate with coworkers (including the head of the business unit) and with clients. Their companies do not provide an instant messaging software, being the organizational e-mail the official solution to communicate. Figure 2 shows the summary of the types and occurrences of shadow IT used by interviewees.

Figure 2.

Types and occurrences of shadow IT used by interviewees.

As can be seen in Figure 2, all interviewees reported that they use some sort of communication or content sharing system to work, mainly cloud-based solutions and installed applications. Seven out of ten interviewees use personal smartphones to access and use these systems in the workplace. Regarding the mandatory solutions, organizational e-mail was cited by all interviewees as the official systems to communicate. Moreover, four interviewees reported that the organizational e-mail is the only system available to communicate at work, because their companies do not provide instant messaging software.

KS through shadow IT: Donating and collecting knowledge

The second part of the interview aimed to investigate how KS occurs through shadow IT. We divided the questions into two groups: donation and collection of knowledge. In the following, we present and explain the findings.

First, we asked interviewees if they tell their coworkers when they learn something new and if they share information they have with their colleagues using shadow IT. Nine out of ten interviewees reported that they use shadow IT to share that knowledge. ‘You must share. Otherwise, the work will not go on, and you’ll have an activity overload’ (I6). Furthermore, the context regarding the job activities represents a determinant factor to use shadow IT. For instance, I7 says ‘I need to talk with clients and partners, so when I must share something with someone outside the company, we are dependent on shadow IT’. In that sense, the mandatory solutions do not meet the need of employee’s job activities, diving employees to use shadow IT.

Six out of ten interviewees reported that they usually tell their coworkers what they are doing using shadow IT. ‘Yes. It’s not just telling them. It’s a matter of aligning our work activities’, said I5. Likewise, I4 explained, ‘I do not tell everything I am doing, but when I have something new to share (like a non-routine process or information), I share that with my colleagues’.

Regarding collect knowledge using shadow IT, the interviewees said that they use shadow IT for asking coworkers when they need to learn something new or obtain certain knowledge is less frequently. However, the interviewees reported some specific situational features for sharing knowledge using shadow IT. I1 explained

Yes, I share a lot. The company encourages collaboration and knowledge sharing; it must have. So, I also share via Shadow IT. But that depends on the profile of the information. The rule is what is fastest and objective. It does not depend on the criticality of information.

This sense of urgency appeared very often in the interviewees’ statements. ‘Using shadow IT, communication is less formal and becomes more agile’, said I3. Other situational features that drive employees to use shadow IT include the importance they attribute to certain knowledge, that is, when they judge some knowledge as relevant to coworkers, especially when the coworkers are not in the same place (geographical dispersion), creating a sense of urgency to donate that knowledge.

Regarding the type of knowledge (technical or managerial), employees donate and collect both types using shadow IT. This factor depends on the interviewee’s job profile, whether their tasks are more technical or managerial, and the current phase in which they find themselves in the work process. I5, for example, explains

Both types. It depends on the moment that we are in a particular process. When we are in the middle of an activity, it is technical. When the activity has not yet started, it is more managerial, to organize the activities.

Interviewees report that the frequency they use shadow IT to share knowledge varies from daily to twice a month. The frequency depended on the solution, the profile of information, and the work task. Solutions such as Skype and WhatsApp are used more frequent (daily) to share knowledge that demands higher sense of urgency or when an instant and dynamic communication is needed to perform a task. Similarly, collective solutions (e.g., Salesforce) are implemented and used by an entire department because they are crucial to perform daily tasks. Thus, this type of collective shadow IT represents an ‘official’ solution to the commercial department, being used to perform several tasks and processes in that business unit.

Shadow IT influences KS: Interviewee’s perceptions of the pros and cons

The third and last part of the interview guide aimed to investigate the interviewees’ perceptions regarding the pros and cons of shadow IT usage to share knowledge. In the following, we present the IT user’s perceptions based on the questions.

First, we asked them why they use shadow IT to communicate and share knowledge with their coworkers, clients, or external partners. It is important to note that most interviewees, when answering, compared shadow IT to the formal solution provided by the IT department, which in most cases was the organizational e-mail because it is the mandatory systems to communicate and share content with coworkers for many organizations.

We identified several similarities in the answers. The following words appear very often in the interviewees’ answers: instantaneous, agility, faster, dynamic, immediacy, practicality, and speed. These elements show the sense of urgency that can be considered the most important aspect that drives employees to use shadow IT to communicate and exchange knowledge in the workplace. For instance, I3 explain

Shadow IT facilitate, save time. Email has restrictions due to its formalism; it seems that it is more formal than WhatsApp. It (shadow IT) is more dynamic. Like you use it (WhatsApp) in a personal way, you also use it in the professional situations, and it seems that you have more access to people.

The geographic dispersion was cited by seven interviewees as a factor that influences the usage of shadow IT. A geographically distributed environment is a reality of digital and cross-country companies, which demands a high level of communications and interactions mediated by technology. Several situations cause the geographic dispersion reported by the interviewees such as incompatibility of schedules among coworkers, the company has different physical units, some employees have to interact with external partners frequently, and some employees must visit clients and, consequently, they are sometimes outside the workplace. Thereby, the necessity of faster communication, especially in the context of geographic dispersion, drives employees to use more instantaneous and dynamic systems such as WhatsApp and Skype. I5, for example, explains:

More agile and faster. It (shadow IT) facilitates the effectivity of actions, help to achieve goals, mainly when I need remote access. The more tools I have, higher the chance to successful meet results. When I need interactivity to share certain knowledge, I use shadow IT. This solution is more effective because it is instantaneous, the communication is faster and interactive.

In a second moment, we asked what is the pros and cons of shadow IT usage to share knowledge. Considering that most systems used as unauthorized solutions by the interviewees are collaborative systems such as instant messaging software, the answers show that the primary benefit is that shadow IT enables them a faster and more dynamic communication. Employees obtain knowledge almost instantaneously by using shadow systems. Nine out of ten interviewees believe that shadow IT can facilitate KS since most of the shadow systems they use are communication and content sharing software. I7, for example, explains

Yes, for sure. In our context, we need to use SIT to continue activities because our tasks are based on communication with clients and external partners. Knowledge Sharing depends on good communication. People need to understand each other, so we need a communication channel that offers fast communication. If I were to explain a job only through e-mail, I would take a week to complete the task. Using Skype, I do it in one hour, so I have greater productivity.

Related to the negative side of using shadow IT to share knowledge, solely three out of ten interviewees reported negative outcomes. I1 and I2 reported that shadow IT represents a risk to organizational information security. I1 also pointed out that the shadow IT implemented and used by all employees in the commercial department does not have technical support in the case of failures. In addition, I2 considers that shadow IT can cause redundancy of information, which can damage operational efficiency and increase costs to manage. Finally, I10 cited that shadow IT can scatter attention, because personal and professional information is accessed and handled in the same solutions.

Discussion

The study aimed to investigate how shadow IT influences KS considering the donation and collection of knowledge. The results also uncover the reasons why employee uses shadow IT in the workplace. In this section, we discuss the findings from this research, implications for theory and practice, as well as the study’s limitations and suggestions for further research.

Findings

First, this study identifies the types and occurrences of shadow IT used by employee in the workplace. Consistent with the previous research (e.g. Silic and Back, 2014), our results show that several shadow IT used by employees is collaborative tools such as communication and content sharing solutions (e.g. Skype and Google Drive). Furthermore, employees frequently use personal smartphones to access these solutions to communicate with coworkers (e.g. WhatsApp and Facebook) with no formal Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies (e.g., French et al., 2014).

Second, our findings show that employees donate and collect knowledge using shadow IT very frequent (e.g. daily). In general, companies motivate collaboration among employees although they do not provide suitable solutions to collaborate. Employees use shadow IT to align activities, mainly to avoid overload of tasks or delays. In addition, the results show that when there is something new to donate that is crucial to work, shadow IT is frequently used because it is considered more agile and faster, meeting the need of a higher sense of urgency.

Third, the results show how shadow IT influences KS and uncover some reasons why employees use shadow IT in the workplace. Existing literature suggests that there are several differences between business units needs and the solutions provided by the IT department (e.g. Fürstenau and Rothe, 2014; Haag and Eckhardt, 2015; Rentrop and Zimmermann, 2012; Walterbusch et al., 2017). The findings here show that employees use shadow IT either because the company does not provide suitable solutions to perform work tasks or because it does not encourage employees to use systems provided by the IT department.

The results also show that the organizational e-mail is the only official solution to communicate and, in most cases, no instant messaging solution is provided by the IT department. Only two interviewees reported that their company provides instant messaging software. However, the solutions do not work efficiently and employees abandon it consequently. Thus, the results are consistent with the literature, showing that organizations do not provide to employees the suitable tools to perform their work tasks, which drives employees to use shadow IT in the workplace.

Related to the benefits of using shadow IT, the results show that shadow IT enables faster communication and facilitate content sharing. Therefore, we conclude that shadow IT facilitates KS, because it boosts communication, collaboration, and information exchange. The literature supports the results. Previous research suggests that technology-based systems that facilitate speedy KS and better connections among individuals within the organization stimulate employees to share their knowledge (Ipe, 2003), as well as the agility of the tools in use also contribute to successful KS (e.g. Maki-Komsi et al., 2005).

Existing literature also suggests that individuals are more likely to share knowledge with others through informal interactions than using formal systems (e.g. Ipe, 2003). Our results show that employees frequently compared shadow IT to the organizational e-mail, classifying the latter as a more formal way of communication and, consequently, less dynamic and agile. The interviewees also reported that organizational e-mail has a lower sense of urgency. Therefore, shadow IT acts, at least, as a supporting tool that facilitates and speeds up KS within organizations.

Regarding the negative consequences of shadow IT, solely three interviewees reported negative outcomes. This result is consistent with the previous research (e.g. Haag and Eckhardt, 2014; Silic et al., 2017), which suggest that employees do not consider to do anything wrong when using a shadow IT, as well as they do not have the intention to harm the organization.

Theoretical and practical implications

Theoretical implications

This research provides theoretical and practical implications. For the academic community, our contribution is to expand current knowledge about shadow IT, since it is a currently misunderstood and relatively unexplored phenomenon (Silic et al., 2017). Haag and Eckhardt also state that it is crucial to understand the phenomenon from further and new perspectives to explain and control its challenges and exploit its opportunities. In that sense, the study here provides several contributions. First, we contribute by shedding lights on how employees use shadow IT in the workplace. We theorize and empirically validate the types and occurrences of shadow IT with employees who use shadow IT to perform their work tasks.

Second, we clarify in some extent the causes of shadow IT. It is crucial to investigate the employee’s behavior regarding the reasons to use shadow IT in order to understand the phenomenon because Shadow IT emerges from at the individual level (e.g., Gyory et al., 2012). Third, we also contribute to the discussion on the consequences, showing that shadow IT positively influences KS by enabling faster and better communication and collaboration among employees and their interactions with clients and external partners. Forth, KS is a central process of KM and technology plays a strategic role in the KS process, especially in the modern and digital organizations context. We take, thus, KS within organizations as a new perspective to explore shadow IT usage from employee’s perspective.

Last and fifth, as Davison et al. (2013) suggest, our research reinforces the importance and prevalence of informal and decentralized KS within organizations. It is important to consider here that the pervasiveness of technology in private and professional lives is changing how people communicate, interact, and socially behave, increasing the dependence on technology to interact with each other (e.g. Turkle, 2011). Within this context, the use of shadow IT become interesting to investigate the informal and decentralized ways of sharing knowledge and how it is affecting organizations.

Practical implications

The practical implications of this study encompass two relevant topics for organizations: to improve KS and to manage shadow IT. Our research can aid IT managers cope with shadow IT by clarifying some causes and outcomes of shadow IT usage, what is needed to balance the risks and benefits from this phenomenon.

This research also offers insight regarding KS within organizations and how it can be boosted providing the suitable tool for IT users. In that sense, the results here signals to organizations that the IT department is not providing adequate tools to employees, which can cause severe consequences to organizations. First, communication, collaboration, and KM are crucial to the success of organizations. Therefore, providing a suitable solution to effectively communicate and share information with coworkers becomes an essential factor to motivate employees to share their knowledge, as well as avoid shadow IT usage.

Second, users will autonomously find a solution if the IT department does not provide an adequate solution, bringing security risks to organizational knowledge. In most situations, employees are not aware of the potential risks behind shadow IT (Silic and Back, 2014). Employees either believe that they are not doing anything wrong or are not aware of it, because they do not know the organization’s IT policies (e.g. Silic et al., 2017). However, organizational IT departments are also responsible for this deviant behavior by not providing appropriate systems for employees to perform their tasks. Consequently, users carelessly accept possible security incidents and damages to organizational IT assets, according to Haag and Eckhardt (2015). Thus, two primary measures should be done. First, continuously monitor the users’ needs and expectations to provide a suitable solution. Second, IT managers must pay attention to create initiatives and take actions to engaged and active users in the information security policies.

Third, the literature suggests that the first requirement performance expectancy of a workgroup is ‘speed’ in the contemporary teamwork environment (Shumarova and Swatman, 2008). Users are demanding an instantaneous and faster communication to perform their tasks and to maintain high individual performance. Thus, managers must be aware of the social capabilities needed by business units and employees to efficiently perform their tasks. As the results here reveal, many business units have to interact with external partners and clients very often, being communication and collaboration capabilities central to their work performance. CIO and IT managers should invest in technologies that enable employees instantaneous and dynamic communication not only with coworkers, but also with external partners and clients.

Limitations and further research

The relatively small sample can be considered a limitation. Although we tried to diversify the sample by interviewing employees from different companies and sectors, the generalization of the results can be somewhat limited. However, this study provides some avenues for future research.

The shadow IT literature states that it may be used by one individual or a group of individuals, emerging an individual and collective level of use of shadow IT. We identified here some cases when shadow IT is used by a whole team or business unit, such as Salesforce used by employees of the commercial department and Skype used by a whole team of the marketing department. In that sense, a multilevel perspective needs further investigation, including a group-level approach to understand how workgroups collectively support shadow IT usage and what are the negative and positive consequences for the group (Haag and Eckhardt, 2017).

Another avenue for future research is regarding security risk of shadow IT in the KM context as well. Although one major issue for firms is finding a balance between sharing and protecting knowledge, KM literature has tended to concentrate on the facilitation of KS rather than on knowledge protection (Manhart and Thalmann, 2015). With this in mind, our suggestion for future research is to investigate whether the benefits of shadow IT usage to KS compensate the risks related to it, such as the risk to knowledge protection, since shadow IT usage is frequently related to security information risk in the literature.

Conclusion

Previous studies identify that collaborative software often appears as shadow IT. Considering the increasing use of shadow IT within organizations and the importance of KS in the KM process, this study analyses how shadow IT influences KS.

We found that several collaborative solutions and mobile devices are used by employees without IT permission to support KS. The most common shadow IT found is WhatsApp and Skype, as well as solutions to store and share content, for example, Google Drive. The study also reveals that several employees use shadow IT primarily, because organizations do not provide suitable tools for effective communication. Finally, the findings from this study suggest that shadow IT can facilitate KS, particularly when people are geographically distributed, because these systems provide faster and dynamic communication and boost collaboration among coworkers, external partners, and clients. Consequently, employees can obtain the knowledge they need almost instantaneously.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil) and CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – Brazil).

References

Amin

Roberts

(2008) Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice. Research Policy 37(2): 353–369.

Bardin

(1977) Análise De Conteúdo. Lisboa: Edition 70.

Chou

(2005) Knowledge creation: absorptive capacity, organizational mechanisms, and knowledge storage/retrieval capabilities. Journal of Information Science 31(6): 453–465.

Davison

Martinsons

(2013) Information technology to support informal knowledge sharing. Information Systems Journal 23(1): 89–109.

Dubé

Paré

(2003) Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Quarterly 27(4): 597–635.

French

Guo

Shim

(2014) Current status, issues, and future of bring your own device (BYOD). Communications of the Association for Information Systems 35(10): 191–197.

Fürstenau

Rothe

(2014) Shadow IT systems: discerning the good and the evil. In: Proceedings of twenty second European conference on information systems, Tel Aviv, IL.

Fürstenau

Rothe

Sandner

(2017) Shadow systems, risk, and shifting power relations in organizations. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 41(1): 3.

Goodwin

(2014) No more e-mail? Why companies are turning to collaboration technology. In: ComputerWeekly. Available at: http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/No-more-email-Why-companies-are-turning-to-collaboration-technology (acessed 17 January 2018).

10.

Gozman

Willcocks

(2015) Crocodiles in the regulatory swamp: navigating the dangers of outsourcing, SaaS and shadow IT. In: Thirty sixth international conference on information systems, Fort Worth, USA.

11.

Grant

(1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(S2): 109–122.

12.

Györy

Cleven

Uebernickel

. (2012) Exploring the shadows: IT governance approaches to user-driven innovation. In: The 20th European conference on information systems (ECIS), Barcelona, ESP.

13.

Haag

Eckhardt

Bozoyan

(2015) Are shadow system users the better IS users?–insights of a lab experiment. In: Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth

14.

Haag

Eckhardt

(2014) Normalizing the shadows – the role of symbolic models for individuals’ shadow IT usage. In: Proceedings of the 35th international conference on information systems, Auckland, NZL.

15.

Haag

Eckhardt

(2015) Justifying shadow IT usage. In: Proceedings of the 19th Pacific Asia conference on information systems, SIN. Paper 241.

16.

Haag

Eckhardt

(2017) Shadow IT. In: Business & Information Systems Engineering, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1007/s12599-017-0497-x

17.

Huber

Zimmermann

Rentrop

. (2016) The relation of shadow systems and ERP systems—insights from a multiple-case study. Systems 4(1): 11.

18.

Huber

Zimmermann

Rentrop

. (2017) Integration of shadow IT systems with enterprise systems – a literature review. In: Proceedings of the twenty first Pacific Asia conference on information systems , Langkawi, MAS.

19.

Ipe

(2003) Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review 2(4): 337–359.

20.

Iskoujina

Roberts

(2015) Knowledge sharing in open source software communities: motivations and management. Journal of Knowledge Management 19(4): 791–813.

21.

Jones

Behrens

Jamieson

. (2004) The rise and fall of a shadow system: lessons for enterprise system implementation. In: Australasian conference on information systems (ACIS) , Hobart, AUS.

22.

Kearns

Sabherwal

(2006) Strategic alignment between business and information technology: a knowledge-based view of behaviors, outcome, and consequences. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3): 129–162.

23.

Maki-Komsi

Poyry

Ropo

(2005) Learning and knowledge building in distributed work environment. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks (eJOV) 7: 34–55.

24.

Manhart

Thalmann

(2015) Protecting organizational knowledge: a structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management 19(2): 190–211.

25.

Newman

(2016) 2016: The state of shadow IT. Available at: http://www.digitalistmag.com/resource-optimization/2016/02/11/2016-state-of-shadow-it-04005674 (acessed 17 January 2018).

26.

Nonaka

Konno

(1998) The concept of ‘ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review 40(3): 40.

27.

Oliveira

Curado

CMM

Maçada

ACG

. (2015) Using alternative scales to measure knowledge sharing behavior: are there any differences? Computers in Human Behavior 44: 132–140.

28.

Oliveira

Maçada

ACG

Goldoni

(2009) Forças e fraquezas na aplicação do estudo de caso na área de sistemas de informação. Revista de Gestão USP 16(1): 33–49.

29.

Rentrop

Zimmermann

(2012) Shadow IT. Management and control of unofficial IT. In: Proceeding of the sixth international Conference on digital society (ICDS) , Valencia, ESP, pp. 98–102.

30.

Saarenketo

Puumalainen

Kuivalainen

. (2009) A knowledge-based view of growth in new ventures. European Business Review 21(6): 531–546.

31.

Schultze

Leidner

(2002) Studying knowledge management in information systems research: discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly 26(3): 213–242.

32.

Shin

Kook

(2014) Can knowledge be more accessible in a virtual network? Collective dynamics of knowledge transfer in a virtual knowledge organization network. Decision Support Systems 59: 180–189.

33.

Shumarova

Swatman

(2008) Informal eCollaboration Channels: Shedding Light on “Shadow CIT”. In: BLED Proceedings, Paper 18 , Bled, Slovenia, 5–18 June 2008, pp. 371–394.

34.

Silic

Back

(2014) Shadow IT – a view from behind the curtain. Computers & Security 45: 274–283.

35.

Silic

Barlow

Back

(2017) A new perspective on neutralization and deterrence: predicting shadow IT usage. Information & Management 54(8): 1023–1037.

36.

Steinhüser

Waizenegger

Vodanovich

. (2017) Knowledge management without management – shadow IT in knowledge-intense manufacturing practices. In: Proceedings of the 25th European conference on information systems , Guimarães, POR.

37.

Turkle

(2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other. New York: Basic Books.

38.

Van den Hooff

De Ridder

(2004) Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(6): 117–130.

39.

Väyrynen

Hekkala

Liias

(2013) Knowledge protection challenges of social media encountered by organizations. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 23(1–2): 34–55.

40.

Walterbusch

Fietz

Teuteberg

(2017) Missing cloud security awareness: investigating risk exposure in shadow IT. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 30(4): 644–665.

41.

Walters

(2013) Bringing IT out of the shadows. Network Security 2013(4): 5–11.

42.

Zimmermann

Rentrop

(2014) On the emergence of shadow IT – a transaction cost-based approach. In: The twenty second European conference on information systems, Tel Aviv, ISR.

43.

Zimmermann

Rentrop

Felden

(2014) Managing shadow IT instances–a method to control autonomous IT solutions in the business departments. In: Twentieth Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS), Savannah, USA.

44.

Zimmermann

Rentrop

Felden

(2017) A multiple case study on the nature and management of shadow information technology. Journal of Information Systems 31(1): 79–101.