Collaborative information seeking

As shown in Chapter 1, information seeking is the process where humans purposefully seek information that will satisfy their information needs. The concept “collaborative information seeking” is defined by Hertzum (2008: 958) as “the information-seeking activities performed by actors to inform their collaborative work combined with the collaborative grounding activities involved in making this information part of the actors’ shared understanding of their work”. According to Hertzum (2008: 958), these activities can occur in a collaborative context but can also be performed by individual team members.

As shown in Chapter 3, certain elements in the context or work environment of users affect their information-seeking behaviour. The contextual elements that seem important in a collaborative environment include collaborative grounding, and information

155

5.7.1.1 Collaborative grounding

Collaborative information-seeking activities include “collaborative grounding” (Hertzum 2008: 960). According to Clark and Brennan (1991: 128), Gazan (2010: 694), Hertzum (2008: 958), and Olson and Olson (2000: 144,157-166), collaborative grounding

activities are aimed at actively constructing a shared understanding among collaborators. This seems similar to the concept “learning-in-working”, which was originally identified by organisational scientists Brown and Duguid (1991: 53). Both concepts include an understanding of the information needs of groups, the information- seeking processes and information channels through which information is understood, filtered and distributed among collaborators. Brown and Duguid (1991: 53) point out that arriving at a shared understanding is important to avoid misunderstandings among team members.

In addition to the importance of arriving at a shared understanding, Hertzum (2010: 648, 960) also noted that collaborative grounding may assist collaborators in identifying the core persons in a project team. Such identification can support cross-disciplinary information exchange among project team members.

5.7.1.2 Information sources

An individual’s perception of the expertise level of an information source also has an impact on collaborative information seeking (Su & Contractor 2011: 1257). The individual’s social communication with other team members and their information seeking interaction with the knowledge source further influences the team’s collective information seeking.

5.7.1.3 Projects

Starting a new project can be challenging when it comes to information seeking.

Research and development management researchers Ernst and Vitt (2000: 116) argued that this could be because a new group of people are required, to use new resources and to find new ways of working together. In addition, each individual has his or her own expectations of what has to be done.

156

In addition, Bruce et al. (2003: 143) observed that team members use a variety of strategies for getting the information they needed. These include asking team members or people outside the team, such as colleagues they had previously worked with on other projects.

5.7.1.4 Tasks

As shown in Chapter 2, the context (i.e. the environment and the domain) in which the task arises affects engineers’ information-seeking behaviour. This is supported by Hyldegård’s (2006) study. She found that even though teams demonstrated cognitive information-seeking experiences similar to individuals, these experiences resulted from information-seeking activities, work-task activities and intragroup interactions

respectively.

An important factor affecting task-based collaborative information seeking seems to be the establishment of a collective focus among team members (Foster 2009: 101). This explains why Hertzum (2010: 652) reckoned that collaborative grounding is the main challenge in collaborative information seeking.

In addition, the nature of the task (i.e. the structure and the complexity of the task) also has an impact on engineers’ information-seeking behaviour (Foster 2009: 85).

5.7.1.5 Information overload

The concept “information overload” is defined by David Allen and Wilson (2003: 34) on a personal and an organisational level. On a personal level, they defined information overload as “the perception ... that the flow of information associated with work tasks is greater than can be managed effectively, and a perception that overload in this sense creates a degree of stress for which his or her coping strategies are ineffective”. At an organisational level, they defined information overload as a “situation in which the extent of perceived individual information overload is sufficiently widespread within the

organisation as to reduce the overall effectiveness of management operations”. The main distinction between these two definitions highlights the fact that the concept, when viewed from a personal point of view, is a perception. However, when viewed from an

157

organisational point of view, it reflects “a situation-in-action” which requires management to intervene.

Information overload arises when the use of information communication technologies is being abused (Allen & Wilson 2003: 38-39). According to David Allen and Wilson (2003: 35), this generally happens when people indiscriminately disseminate papers or

electronic documents. For example, Whittaker and Sinder (1997) noted that email overload creates problems for personal information management and hence results in perceptions of information overload.

In the field of engineering, Robinson (2010: 654) reported that the respondents in his study spent more time receiving information they had not requested, and also spent more time giving unrequested information than in providing requested information. Kratzer, Leenders and Van Engelen (2008: 274) observed similar behaviour. In their analysis of leadership structures in engineering design teams, they observed that team leaders who dominate discussions and searches for innovative solutions are prone to information overload.

Aurisicchio, Bracewell and Wallace (2010: 708) reported on the effect information overload has on engineers’ information-seeking behaviour. According to them, engineers who perceive an overload of information, find it time-consuming and

complicated to seek information from amongst the multiple sources they had received. 5.7.2 Communication

The concept “communication” refers to the “process of sending or exchanging

information” (Shah 2012: 13). According to Brashers (2001: 491), people “engage” in or avoid communication so that they can reduce their uncertainty and satisfy their

information needs. Shah (2012: 13) maintained that communication is one of the core requirements for successful collaboration. Hansen and Järvelin (2005: 1110) observed that communication, as a collaborative information behaviour activity, can be document related or human related.

158

5.7.2.1 Human related communication

Human related communication can be direct or indirect (Hansen & Järvelin 2005: 1110). a. Direct communication

Direct communication can be explained by using an example of an engineering project where team members discuss a problem they need to solve and to reach consensus on how they should proceed in specific situations. During such discussions, engineers negotiate their technical needs (Cheimets, Gordon & Tull 2009: 26; Lappalainen 2009) and apply their communication skills (Friedel & Liedtka 2007: 30; Pinelli 2001: 140; Tenopir & King 2004: 48). As indicated by Sonnenwald and Lievrouw (1996: 182), communication is the means utilised by team members to make their contributions to a project. In addition, Hertzum (2010: 652) found that it is not only faster to communicate information orally, but the communicator also has instant assurance that the recipient did receive the information.

b. Indirect communication

Apart from person-to-person information exchange, Ellis and Fisher (1994: 66, 70-72) noted that team members do not necessarily communicate directly with each other. Hansen (2002: 234) explains that this happens when certain information becomes available outside the team and intermediaries are used to pass the information on to the rest of the team. For example, Katz and Tushman (1979: 145-146) reported that, in engineering, interaction with sources external to a team is essential for product

development. To facilitate this type of indirect communication, Hansen (2002: 234) and Katz and Tushman (1979: 139) noted that certain persons in a project team assume specialised boundary-spanning roles. These persons then deal with external

professional and consultant domains. The manner in which these people deal with external information resembles Katz and Tushman’s (1981: 103) description of

gatekeepers. According to them, gatekeepers are individuals who are connected with internal colleagues and external sources of information.

159

The importance of boundary-spanning roles in collaboration was also observed by Sonnenwald and Lievrouw (1996: 182) and Tushman (1977: 587). According to them, boundary-spanning roles can be classified according to the type of boundaries they span, which could be organisational, task, discipline, and personal boundaries. Indirect communication is also facilitated through document-related collaborative information behaviour activities. These involve the creation of, or using of, documents such as working notes and reports (Hansen & Järvelin 2005: 1110). For example, Hertzum and Pejtersen (2000) reported on two studies where engineers searched for documents to find people and searched for people to obtain documents. Du Preez (2008: 209) and Leckie et al. (1996: 187) also reported that engineers produce tender documents, engineering drawings and reports to communicate project-related

information.

Ernst and Vitt (2000), Hansen (2002: 234) and Hirsh and Dinkelacker (2004) observed that indirect communication can potentially affect the effectiveness of team members’ information seeking and productivity. The reason they give is that, especially in the initial stages of a project when the communication roles have not yet been established, all team members may not receive the information or the wrong information is passed on.This lack of formal communication structures then constrains team members’ use of the knowledge structures and the sources of information available to them within the team, since they simply don’t know whom to ask.

5.7.2.2 Factors affecting communication

As with information seeking, certain factors seem to affect successful collaboration. One of the factors that seems to affect successful collaboration is team leadership.It is the responsibility of team leaders to coordinate their groups’ activities with other groups in the team. As observed by Lee and Cho (2011: 214), communication within a group can become segregated if the team leader allows group members to form smaller

groups. They observed that when this happens, communication and information sharing within a group become segregated and this then impedes of the team’s ability to learn, perform and satisfy their clients.

160

In instances where team leaders dominate a team’s communication, Kratzer et al. (2008: 273) and Leenders, Van Engelen and Kratzer (2003: 85) observed that the leaders’ dominance inhibited the team’s creativity and information sharing.

5.7.3 Information sharing

In his review of the literature on information sharing, Wilson (2010) found that information behaviour researchers did not focus much on information sharing.

According to Burnett (2000: 2), “information sharing” is fundamentally a social act. It is also a means for accomplishing something (Ikeya, Awamur & Sakai 2011: 90). Reddy and Jansen (2008: 257, 264) defined information sharing as “activities that a group or team of people undertake to identify and resolve a shared information need”. This definition is endorsed by Fidel et al. (2004: 944) and Talja and Hansen (2006: 114). They regarded information sharing as an interactive process which incorporates both explicit and implicit information exchanges among a group of people who share a problem. As observed by Reddy and Jansen (2008: 257, 264), information sharing allows team members to collect pieces of information which can be put together to resolve information needs that arise from the shared problem. Also, they can only share information they have already acquired (Hansen & Järvelin 2005: 1102; Poltrock et al. 2003).

One of the functions of information sharing in a collaborative work environment is that members of a work team will reduce the duplication of effort. Cross, Rice and Parker (2001: 440) and Olson, Grudin and Horvitz (2005: 1985) explained this when they indicated that members of a work team, who belong to the same functional and

hierarchical position in an organisation, are likely to have the same information needs and require the same information resources.

However, information sharing should not be confused with expertise sharing.

Knowledge managers Tiwana and Bush (2005: 88) noted that expertise sharing has a competitive side where individuals tend to protect their knowledge. According to them, this is especially the case when the experts’ knowledge cannot readily be observed or codified. When considering the nature of consulting engineers’ work, it seems possible

161

that consulting engineers share information and expertise when they are involved in an engineering project.

Also, information sharing does not necessarily involve information seeking (Talja & Hansen 2006: 128). This is because people sometimes give (share) existing information without seeking information themselves. For example, collaborators sometimes

proactively recommend or forward information or contacts to colleagues (O'Day & Jeffries 1993: 3; Poltrock et al. 2003: 242; Prekop 2002: 539; Sonnenwald & Pierce 2000: 468; Twidale et al. 1997: 769); share documents and document histories with team members (Hansen & Järvelin 2005: 1114; O'Day & Jeffries 1993: 4), and create documents or records for use by others (Hansen & Järvelin 2005: 1115; O'Day & Jeffries 1993: 5). In order to be able to share information, McDonald and Ackerman (1998: 1) noted that individuals first need to identify and select the resources (expertise) that can be shared. This process involves choosing among people with the required skills and expertise.

5.7.3.1 Means of sharing information

Information can be shared verbally or electronically, as well as formally or informally. Oral information sharing occurs when team members communicate the information they share directly to team members during formal meetings and at conferences and

seminars, or through informal encounters (Ellis & Haugan 1997: 393; Pilerot & Limberg 2011: 320). According to Hayter (2006: 28), informal information sharing encounters are often incidental and opportunistic, arise out of chats and take place in a safe and caring environment. Scheduled coffee and tea breaks seem to be one such setting that would facilitate information sharing (Birnholz 2005: 114-115; Brown & Duguid 1991: 45; Engel, Robbins & Kulp 2011: 561; Sonnenwald 2008: 656; Twidale, Nichols & Paice 1997: 769).

Much information is also shared electronically (Ellis & Haugan 1997: 393). Electronic mail, bulletin boards and mailing lists are used for these purposes (Finholt 2002: 76). Some organisations also encourage the creation of discussion groups and open forums organised around specific subjects (Anderson, Glassman, McAfee & Pinelli 2001: 151).

162

Pilerot and Limberg (2011: 321) determined that web-based social networks, such as LinkedIn and Facebook, are potentially information rich areas that are utilised by many for information-sharing purposes.

Making recommendations is another method that is frequently used to share

information. Nichols and Twidale (2011: 209-211) maintained that recommendations are a mechanism that is used to cope with a large quantity of information and to enable people to locate the required information more efficiently. Furthermore, if the persons making the recommendations are experts in their field, the recommendations are then based on authoritative information.

5.7.3.2 Context

As with information seeking, certain contextual elements seem to have an effect on information sharing. One such element refers to the type of information that is sought. Chatman (1996: 198) observed that the type of information that is being sought will determine the extent to which the information is shared. For example, Beldad et al. (2011: 224) and Chatman (1991: 440; 1996: 196) observed that people will not share information when the information is of a personal nature and when they perceive sharing the information to be a threat to their privacy.

5.7.3.3 Personal

Individuals’ previous experiences of sharing information also seem to have an effect on information sharing. For example, Beldad et al. (2011: 227-228) found that people’s previous experiences of information sharing often determine their willingness to share information. However, in instances where the expected benefits from the disclosure of the information outweigh the costs (risks) that are incurred, Beldad et al. (2011) found that people would share information. This would even be in instances where they don’t completely trust a situation.

163