Capabilities and Roles of Enterprise Wikis in Organizational Communication

Christian Wagner, Andreas Schroeder

Abstract

Purpose: The article alerts technical communicators to wiki technology, an emerging new medium that allows dispersed groups to create shared content via collaborative editing and different-time communication. Wiki-based collaborative content creation enables new communication practices and thereby challenges several assumptions of existing media choice theories.

Method: Analysis of empirical evidence from 32 published case descriptions and reports to evaluate wiki technology in a corporate context based on the defining characteristics of three media choice theories (i.e., media richness theory, theory of media synchronicity, and common ground theory).

Results: Wikis meet or exceed capabilities of several other communication and collaboration media, and thus provide a credible alternative to other business communication technologies currently in use. Further, distinct media capabilities of wikis are not fully represented by current media choice theories, suggesting the need to extend media choice theories to recognize these unique capabilities.

Conclusion: The unique features of enterprise wikis enable new collaboration practices and challenge some of the core theoretical assumptions of media choice theories. The refactoring capability of wikis is identified as a unique feature that enables new forms of collaboration and communication in organizations. An implementation that wishes to successfully leverage wiki-enabled collaboration opportunities must carefully consider challenges of human interaction such as free-riding, or conflict of values.

Keywords: Wiki; Content refactoring; Collaborative writing; Media capability; Business communication

Practitioner’s Takeaway

• Wikis support a considerable variety of communication activities and provide a credible alternative to other business communication technologies currently in use.
• Their unique refactoring capability allows wikis to support communication processes which are usually associated with those communication media that provide a high social presence (i.e., processes of negotiation and consolidation).
• Wikis can also serve as documentation and negotiation platforms that complement face-to-face communication.
• Implementing a wiki in the organizational context requires careful decisions whether to adopt the open principle and allow every staff to overwrite the existing content, or to impose restrictions and allocate formal editing roles.

---

Introduction

Wikis are a recent innovation in information technology with the potential to significantly alter communication practices in organizations. Evidence of this opportunity is available on the public Internet, where a large number of wiki-based communication and collaboration platforms allow distributed users to create and discuss content collaboratively. On Wikipedia, Wikitravel, or Wikinews, collaborators not only write the content jointly, they also discuss it in parallel on the sites’ discussion pages. For some encyclopedic entries on the popular Wikipedia.org platform, more than 100 users have contributed to the content creation, thereby integrating their knowledge and skills (Voss, 2005). The success of these online wikis has sparked considerable interest by organizations to adopt this technology to support their internal communication and collaboration processes. A report by the Gartner Group has predicted that by the end of 2009, half of all Fortune 500 firms will have adopted wiki technology (Shreeve, 2007). Although this prediction has not yet been confirmed, it suggests a strong belief in the impact and desirability of the technology. Several proponents of wiki technology even expect that wikis will become the internal communication media of choice for organizations and go as far as to state that it will effectively replace email (e.g., Mader, 2008). Corporate examples such as Google’s “Goowiki” intranet demonstrate the conviction held by some companies about the benefits of replacing traditional technologies for organizational communication with wiki technology (Goowiki, n.d.). What justifies these strong beliefs in wiki technology as a tool for communication and collaboration? Our article attempts to answer this question from the perspective of media choice theories.

In order to understand the potential impact of wiki technology and to grasp its implications for the technical communications profession, it is useful to analyze wiki capabilities and to compare them with other established communication and collaboration tools, so as to assess the task-technology fit (Maruping & Agarwal, 2004). In this article we therefore evaluate wiki technology based on the defining characteristics of three media choice theories, drawing on empirical evidence from 32 published case descriptions and reports. We identify that wikis meet or exceed capabilities of several other communication and collaboration media, and thus provide a credible alternative to other business communication technologies currently in use. Our literature-based research also reveals that the distinct media capabilities of wikis are not fully represented by present media choice theories, and that there is a need to extend them in order to allow for these unique capabilities. We conclude by discussing the implications enterprise wikis have for the role of technical communicators.

Wikis in the Enterprise

Wiki technology and the principles of wiki-based collaboration have gained significant popularity through online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.org, which has become one of the 10 most popular Web sites in the world (sixth most popular site since September 2009, according to Alexa.com). However, in its original conceptualization wiki technology was not developed for the purpose of a public Internet-based encyclopedia but as an internal communication and collaboration platform. The inventor of wiki technology, Ward Cunningham, originally developed the c2 wiki (also known as “Ward’s Wiki”) to support the effort of his project team in maintaining version control for a software development project. The underlying design objective was to create “the simplest online database that could possibly work” (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001, p. 15). The c2 wiki quickly metamorphosed into an open knowledge-sharing and collaboration environment, and is still maintained by a large community of software developers. Its popular use as a technology platform for the encyclopedia Wikipedia arose only several years later in 2000, when Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales were looking for a collaboration technology to overcome their stalling initiative to create a free, online encyclopedia (Sanger, 2005).

Wikis are best explained within the larger context of social software. Social software is broadly defined as “software that supports group interaction” (Shirky, 2005, p. 185), which also includes other Internet-based applications such as blogs, networking sites, and social bookmarking tools. The key attributes of wikis and other social software tools are the following (Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007): content is created and controlled by the users; content is highly dynamic with frequent, often unpredictable changes; quality assurance of the content is largely peer-based and unstructured; social software applications themselves are mostly lightweight, platform independent, and highly portable. The emergence of social software and the underlying concept of user-generated content have important implications for communication research. Sonia Livingstone (2003) explains, for instance, how social software transforms the role of the audience from being a passive observer to being an active participant. She suggests that in these social software environments what is traditionally defined as “audience” should be redefined as “users” to better account for the ways individuals actively engage with these social software tools.

Wiki technology adds a new facet to the concept of user-generated content. While in other applications such as forums, blogs, or social networking sites the content generation process resembles a mosaic of separate individual contributions, the wiki-based content creation process describes a confluence of individual contributions. It is one of the basic design principles of wiki technology that “the structure and text content of the site are open to editing and evolution” (Cunningham, n.d.). Based on this design principle, wiki users refactor (Fowler, Beck, Brant, Opdyke, & Roberts, 1999) content that has been posted earlier and thereby modify, extend, or adjust its meaning. The refactoring capability of wikis allows for new communication practices. Instead of passively reading content that has previously been posted on the wiki, users actively edit content. This has interesting knowledge management implications, as wikis are not limiting communication to the exchange of information (as in the case of email), but allow for the integration of information and the creation of new knowledge artifacts. The refactoring process enables a higher-order communication process that bridges the boundary between communication and collaboration: by editing each other’s content, users not only communicate their perspectives or share their information but also contribute to the creation of new or enriched content.

To some extent, wiki-based content creation is comparable to the process of collaborative writing, with distributed individuals integrating their expertise into one jointly created document. The main difference between collaborative writing and the editing process in a wiki environment is the open principle: in a wiki-based environment, no coordinator distributes tasks or consolidates the distributed efforts. The users themselves decide how they can best contribute to the content creation process. Moreover, wikis provide more facets than traditional collaborative writing environments, blurring the line between the use of the wiki environment as a collaboration and communication tool. Some project teams, for instance, use the wiki as a shared communication tool to replace email communication, with the added benefit that the aggregate communications are made persistent, so as to create a “collaborative work product” describing the project work. Other teams may focus less on communication, but specifically target joint development of a shared knowledge asset. The underlying technology characteristics reflect this duality of collaboration and communication. The widely popular Mediawiki platform (e.g., used by Wikipedia), for instance, contains both content pages and “talk pages.” If the content pages themselves are used mainly for collaborative content creation, then the talk pages enable an ongoing discussion about the collaborative effort. This separation between collaboration and “talk” occurs in other wikis through the comment function (e.g., Twiki, Tikiwiki) or through writing “above the line” for collaboration and “below the line” for communication in other wikis (e.g., c2 wiki).

Although wiki-based communication and collaboration practices have demonstrable advantages (Wagner & Bolloju, 2005), they also create a number of challenges. The process of collaborative content creation is predicated upon the fact that users integrate their diverse perspectives such that the overall content converges toward common agreement (Leuf & Cunningham, 2001). Convergence, however, is not necessarily guaranteed, and instead of integrating each other’s perspectives, users may simply overwrite each other’s contributions (Viégas, Wattenberg, Kriss, & Ham 2007). The effective use of wiki technology thus requires some kind of governance processes, mechanisms, and mindsets that ensure that user interactions remain constructive. For open, Internet-based wiki platforms, escalation procedures, such as dispute resolution processes, take effect when users cannot constructively integrate their perspectives or act in destructive ways (Viégas, Wattenberg, Kriss, & Ham 2007)). In the context of enterprise wikis, formal roles will be allocated that oversee and facilitate the content creation process. The other core issue of wiki-based collaboration is that the content remains in a “state of flux.” Unless somebody actively “freezes” the wiki content, users can continue to add to it, integrate new perspectives, or change the entire essence of the content. While this permanent “state of flux” allows users to constantly update the content, it limits the ability of the wiki to serve as an “authoritative source,” both on the World Wide Web or in the context of an enterprise. While the open principle of wiki technology creates substantial opportunities for new forms of communication and collaboration, it also introduces issues into the organizational communication environment that need to be considered when using wikis for different communication or collaboration processes.

Despite these possible challenges, wiki technology offers a distinct set of characteristics that are increasingly used to support a variety of communication and collaboration processes in organizations. An example of such a wiki-based collaboration is provided by Foremsky (2005), who describes an effort at IBM to promote corporate blogging. In this case, it was found necessary to create clear guidelines so IBM staff would have assurance about the scope of their blogging efforts. Instead of developing these guidelines by corporate lawyers or other small expert groups, all IBM employees were invited to participate in the guideline development for a period of 14 days using a shared wiki. IBM staff who had an interest in blogging started drafting these guidelines and continuously refined the content by adding, deleting, or rephrasing until a set of guidelines had developed where the concerns of all interested parties were integrated. A comparable use of wiki technology to foster staff engagement in strategic issues is provided by Danis and Singer (2008), who describe how wiki technology was used to allow research staff to contribute to the development of the strategic planning objectives of their institutes. In addition to the staff engagement, the strategic planning process was reconceptualized from being an annual exercise to becoming an ongoing distributed effort with the wiki serving as a “living document” enabling these efforts.

The emerging literature on enterprise wikis (e.g., Majchrzak, Wagner, & Yates, 2006; Zammuto, Griffith, & Majchrzak, 2007; Danis & Singer, 2008; Blascke & Stein, 2008; Yates, Wagner, & Majchrzak, 2009) offers a range of further examples explaining the different ways in which wiki technology is applied within the organizational context. Wikis are used in the organizational innovation process with individual staff integrating product and market information, thereby creating and continuously refining an overview of the market niche in which they operate (Barth, Vilela, Timoszczuk, & Mussoi, 2008). An area where wikis are commonly used is in requirements engineering, where diverse stakeholders with different backgrounds collaboratively identify and clarify the specifications of software applications. Decker, Ras, Rech, Jaubert, and Rieth (2007) describe how wiki technology facilitates the involvement of users in the formulation of systems requirements and can serve as a tool for the ongoing management and documentation of changes in user requirements. Yang, Wu, Koolmanojwong, Brown, and Boehm (2008) describe how wikis can assist, not only in the formulation and documentation of user requirements, but also in the negotiation between users and systems developers. Similarly focusing on software development project teams, Phuwanartnurak (2009) describes how wiki technology helps diverse members in interdisciplinary teams to consecutively integrate their perspective into the overall systems design. It is of particular interest in this case that they not only use the wiki technology to mediate between dispersed team members but also as tool to support face-to-face meetings. Meeting notes would be added into the wiki in real time, ensuring that everybody agreed with these notes at the time. In their survey, Majchrzak et al. (2006) identified a further range of ways wikis are used in a software development context supporting aspects as diverse as technical communication, issue tracking, and internal workflow. Also, other organizational functions have been found to employ wikis for ad hoc collaboration, hashing out ideas, and brainstorming. Further areas of application include general information and knowledge management, such as vacation schedules, personal blogs, and repositories for policies and guidelines. The examples show the diverse ways wikis already support today’s organizations.

Theories of Media Choice

In order to systematically describe wiki technologies, we draw on media choice theories as a framework for categorization and comparison with other communication media. Media choice theories have been frequently used in communications research (e.g., Sheer & Chen, 2004; Flanagin & Metzger, 2001; El-Shinnawy & Markus, 1998; McGee, 2000) and other research domains (e.g., information systems, human computer interaction) to identify and compare the underlying characteristics of different communication media. These theories focus on two aspects—namely, systematically assessing communication media with regard to their core capabilities, and explaining the fit between communication media and the communication task.

The essential message of media choice theories is that based on their characteristics, different media have different communicative capabilities that, based on their fit with the communication task, result in more or less effective communication. Within media choice theories, communication media are understood as systems or software applications that enable or support communication activities. These theories consider a wide scope of communication media, and their analysis includes not only traditional forms of communication, such as face-to-face conversations (Dennis & Kinney, 1998), but also software applications. Markus (1994), for instance, recognizes electronic mail as a communication medium and evaluates its effectiveness for managerial communication by comparing it with phone or face-to-face conversations, while Blaschke and Stein (2008) explicitly refer to wikis as a communication medium. Hence, for the purpose of the present research, we consider wikis as a medium and focus on media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), theory of media synchronicity (Dennis & Valacich, 1999), and common ground theory (Clark & Brennan, 1991), since these theories have established a diverse catalogue of media capabilities that allow us to systematically characterize wiki technology and to compare it with other communication media. The different theories and their method of characterizing communication media are briefly reviewed below.

Media Richness Theory

Media richness theory (MRT) was originally introduced by Daft and Lengel (1986) to explain media choices of managers in organizational contexts. MRT focuses on two core premises (Dennis & Kinney, 1998): (1) communication media differ in richness (the ability to change the understanding of information) and (2) performance improves when managers match the richness of the media with the communication task. Building on social presence theory (Short & Christie, 1976), MRT argues that some media, which the theory identifies as rich, create a higher social presence that, in turn, facilitates understanding between the individuals involved in the information processing task. Depending on the characteristics of the information processing task, different levels of media richness are required. For example, in the case of ambiguous information, it is advisable to employ rich media, or even face-to-face communication.

Following this theoretical proposition, MRT categorizes communication media with respect to their inherent richness (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Four media capabilities are used to determine the richness of communication media: multiplicity of cues, immediacy of feedback, language variety, and personal focus (see Table 1). Multiplicity of cues describes the number of ways that information can be communicated through the medium (e.g., text, voice, physical gestures). Immediacy of feedback describes the extent to which a medium facilitates rapid responses. Language variety refers to the ability of the medium to convey natural language (instead of only numeric information). Personal focus describes whether a medium supports the personalization of messages. As an example, email is classified as a relatively lean communication medium due to its low immediacy of feedback and low multiplicity of (communication) cues.

Table 1. Media Assessment Based on MRT (adapted from Newberry, 2001)

Medium	Multiplicity of cues	Immediacy of feedback	Language variety	Personal focus
Face-to-face	High	High	High	High
Videoconference	Medium	High	Medium	Medium
Email	Low	Low	Medium	Low
Synchronous audio	Low	High	Medium	Medium
Text-based chat	Low	High	Low	Low
Asynchronous audio	Low	Low	Low	Medium

Several studies have used MRT and the categorization of communication media to explain the choice of communication media and their impact on organizational communication. Recent studies, for example, have focused on the constructs of multiplicity of cues and immediacy of feedback to investigate the impact of computer-mediated communication on decision quality (Kahai & Cooper, 2003), or the mediating role of national culture and message content on the choice of communication media (Sheer & Chen, 2004). While there has been mixed evidence regarding the empirical testing of MRT, this framework for assessing media capabilities has been very influential (Martz & Reddy, 2005).

Theory of Media Synchronicity

The theory of media synchronicity (TMS) provides a different perspective on media choice by focusing on the ability of media to synchronize communication and collaboration processes in groups (Dennis & Valacich, 1999). It extends MRT by arguing that “[the ability of a medium] to change understanding within a time interval is linked not only to its social factors but also to its information processing capabilities” (p. 2). While MRT focuses on the fit between media capabilities and characteristics of the information processing task, TMS focuses on the fit between media capabilities and the underlying communication processes required. These communication processes are characterized as conveyance (an exchange of information), or convergence (the development of shared meaning).

TMS categorizes communication media with regard to three information processing capabilities (parallelism, rehearsability, reprocessability) and two social capabilities (immediacy of feedback and symbol variety) (Dennis & Valacich, 1999). Parallelism describes the number of simultaneous communication processes that can coexist effectively; rehearsability refers to the ability to fine-tune messages before sending; reprocessability focuses on the ability to reexamine information after the communication event; immediacy of feedback follows its MRT-based equivalent; and symbol variety subsumes the multiplicity of cues and language variety of MRT.

Following TMS for most communication scenarios, the convergence process is best supported by a communication medium that offers low feedback and high parallelism to allow group members to autonomously obtain information and independently focus on the deliberation of its meaning. Email provides such capabilities, as indicated in Table 2. The conveyance process is best supported by communication media that enable high immediacy of feedback and low parallelism to allow group members to synchronize their interaction and to integrate their deliberation process. Face-to-face interactions provide such a combination of capabilities.

Numerous studies have drawn on TMS and have used the range of media capabilities to categorize the communication technologies available in today’s organizations. Building on TMS, studies have focused on the use of different communication media for conflict management and other interpersonal communication processes (Maruping & Agarwal, 2004), their role in deceptive communication (Carlson & George, 2004), and how training of virtual teams can mediate the relationship between media choice and mutual understanding and satisfaction among team members (Cornelius & Boos, 2003). Researchers found that TMS often provides an alternative explanation for media choice, which explains some of the inconsistent research findings that have been identified in several MRT-based research studies (DeLuca & Valacich, 2005).

Common Ground Theory

Common ground theory (CGT) (Clark & Brennan, 1991) offers a different perspective of communication and the required media capabilities. It focuses on the use of communication media in the presence or absence of common ground between communication partners. Common ground is established through shared experiences and shared knowledge and also as an interactive process during the communication event. In this respect, grounding can be compared to convergence—the development of shared meaning. While MRT and TMS focus on the fit between media capabilities and information processing tasks or communication processes, CGT focuses on the common ground as enabler of communication, which in turn determines the communication media that can be effectively employed.

Individuals who are initially lacking common ground require a highly interactive medium that allows for the expression and joint negotiation of common ground. To determine the interactive capabilities, communication media are characterized with regard to their simultaneity, sequentiality, reviewability, co-presence, visibility, audibility, contemporality, and revisability. Simultaneity describes the ability to send and receive information at the same time, while sequentiality specifies that turns cannot get out of sequence. The other capabilities are equivalent to the ones described in MRT or TMS. Reviewability refers to the ability to reexamine information after the communication event (cf. reprocessability in TMS); revisability refers to the fine-tuning of information before the communication event (cf. rehearsability in TMS). Co-presence, visibility, and audibility describe aspects of media richness: co-presence refers to face-to-face interactions, while contemporality is comparable to immediacy of feedback. Based on this assessment, email technology is not appropriate for communication in the absence of common ground, as it lacks the other social and interactive media capabilities that support the grounding process (see Table 3).

Unlike MRT and TMS, which have been developed specifically in the context of computer-mediated communication, CGT has its origin in general communication theory. However, the theory has been well adopted by researchers focusing on computer-mediated collaboration, with a range of studies building on its propositions and framework for assessing media capabilities. In a range of studies, the impact of particular media capabilities on achieving common ground has been established (Kraut, Miller, & Siegel, 1996; Convertino, Ganoe, Schafer, Yost, & Carroll, 2005; McCarthy, Miles, & Monk, 1991), while other studies have also found contradicting evidence that yet needs to be consolidated (Birnholtz, Finholt, Horn, & Bae, 2005).

Research and Findings

To better understand the function of enterprise wikis and the position they can fill in organizational communication, we embarked on a research project that systematically identified the media capabilities of wikis and analyzed their role in established media choice theories. We chose the media choice theories outlined above, as they provide well-established frameworks that offer us a systematic method for assessing and comparing the media capabilities of wiki technology. As wikis have only recently become a popular communication medium, none of the theories (to our knowledge) previously considered, let alone empirically assessed, enterprise wikis. To address this research gap, we opted for a qualitative meta-analysis of case descriptions and publicly available reports on wiki use in organizations. Conducting a meta-analysis is an appropriate and important analytical framework for comparative research on common issues with different but related empirical backgrounds (Mantarazzo & Nijkamp, 1997). It is meaningful for this study context, as it allows us to access a large variety of ways enterprise wikis have been used and allows us to integrate these individual descriptions on a more abstract or theoretical level. By conducting a meta-analysis, we add value to existing case descriptions and reports, as meta-analysis “provides a means for enhancing the contribution of qualitative findings to the development of a more formalized knowledge that is meaningful and useful to the discipline” (Zimmer, 2006, p. 312).

For the purpose of the meta-analysis we focused on publicly available descriptions of enterprise wikis. Relevant publications were identified through academic databases (EBSCOhost, Business Source Complete, IEEE Xplore, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect), Google Scholar, and Google Web search. Our inquiry focused on the following key words and terms: wiki, enterprise wiki, firm wiki, corporate wiki, workplace wiki. We excluded generic sales descriptions and product reviews of enterprise wikis. Based on the range of searches conducted, we shortlisted 32 descriptions of enterprise wikis for further analysis. In collecting these descriptions, we deviated from the exploratory approach suggested by Yin (2003), namely to incrementally add cases until no new phenomena are revealed. We instead used a confirmatory approach. Estimating that approximately 1 in 4 descriptions would reveal information about media characteristics, and seeking ideally (on average) 8 confirmatory statements per characteristic determined our target of 32 descriptions. All descriptions of enterprise wikis were prepared between 2001 and 2008 and included 10 case studies, 15 reports, and 7 empirical research studies (short summaries of the contributing publications are provided in Appendix 1).

Our analysis focused on mapping the defining characteristics of enterprise wikis (as provided by the diverse descriptions) against the media capabilities of the three media choice theories. The mapping was guided by the definitions of the media capabilities, and corresponding examples of their application are provided in Appendix 2. We assessed the media capabilities based on insights provided in the descriptions of enterprise wiki use, and at the same time included a comparison with other communication and collaboration media. The media capabilities of enterprise wikis, as identified in the analysis, are summarized in Table 4. The table shows our assessments and references to the particular sources that contributed to the assessment. Overlaps between the media capabilities of the different media choice theories are highlighted in the media characteristic column of Table 4. On average, each characteristic was confirmed 7.14 times, which was close to our target of 8 confirmatory references.

Table 4. Media Assessment of Wiki Technology

Media Theory	Media Characteristic	Assessment of Wiki Capability	Source
Media Richness Theory (MRT)	Immediacy of feedback Extent to which the wiki provides users with rapid responses	Low–Medium Several cases point to the high speed of wiki-based communication processes. But in comparison to chat-based or face-to-face interactions, wikis do not provide a high immediacy of feedback.	Low: 3, 9, 12, 29 Medium: 2, 13, 20, 23, 25
	Multiplicity of cues Number of ways information is communicated (e.g., text, verbal cues)	Low–Medium Wikis are largely text based but are increasingly integrated with pictures and videos to provide additional communication cues. Still, the multiplicity of cues for information exchange is limited when compared to other tools such as videoconferencing.	Low: 18, 21, 22 Medium: 10, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30
	Language variety Ability to convey natural language	High Wikis allow users to input natural language as well as tables and numbers.	10, 14, 15, 18, 21–23, 25, 27, 29, 30
	Personal focus Extent to which the wiki supports the personalization of communication	Low Wikis are largely a many-to-many communication medium; messages are directed to groups and not to individuals.	8, 20, 23, 25, 29, 31, 32
Theory of Media Synchronicity (TMS)	Symbol variety (Overlap with multiplicity of cues and language variety of MRT)	Low–Medium Wikis are largely text based but are increasingly integrated with pictures and videos to provide additional communication cues. Still, the multiplicity of cues for information exchange is limited when compared to other communication tools such as videoconferencing.	Low: 18, 21, 22 Medium: 10, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30
	Immediacy of feedback (Overlap with immediacy of feedback of MRT)	Low–Medium Several cases point to the high speed of wiki-based communication processes. But in comparison to chat-based or face-to-face interactions, wikis do not provide a high immediacy of feedback.	Low: 3, 9, 12, 29 Medium: 2, 13, 20, 23, 25
	Parallelism Amount of communication processes that can effectively coexist	High Wiki users can collaborate on the same document simultaneously. Wikis provide probably one of the highest levels of parallelism among all communication tools.	6, 7, 12, 16, 20, 23, 28
	Rehearsability Fine-tune messages	High Every editing and posting can be reviewed on the screen before it is submitted to the wiki.	Direct references in literature are lacking
	Reprocessability Ability to reexamine information after the communication event	High Wiki-based content remains a reference point after the initial communication event. Even deleted or modified messages can be reverted to identify previous content.	2, 8, 11, 14, 20, 30
Common Ground Theory (CGT)	Co-presence, Visibility, Audibility Face-to-face interactions and media richness	Low Wiki users are largely dispersed.	1, 4, 5, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26
	Simultaneity Ability to send and receive information at the same time	High Wiki users who are editing content are simultaneously reviewing changes and other postings.	2, 14, 19, 20, 22, 25, 32
	Contemporality (Overlap with immediacy of feedback of MRT, TMS)	Low–Medium Several cases point to the high speed of wiki-based communication processes. But in comparison to chat-based or face-to-face interactions, wikis do not provide a high immediacy of feedback.	Low: 3, 9, 12, 29 Medium: 2, 13, 20, 23, 25
	Reviewability (Overlap with reprocessability of TMS)	High Wiki-based content remains a reference point. Even deleted or modified messages can be reverted in order to identify previous content.	2, 8, 11, 14, 20, 30
	Revisability (Overlap with rehearsability of TMS)	High Every editing and posting can be reviewed on the screen before it is submitted to the wiki.	Direct references in literature are lacking

Our meta-analysis of the literature on enterprise wikis allowed for an identification of their particular media capabilities. Most capabilities were clearly identified through a minimum of three sources and were considered valid by the raters. Only descriptions concerning the immediacy of feedback were found to be lacking a meaningful reference point, as they seemingly overstated the rapid interactions on wiki platforms, even though wikis are by design an asynchronous communication platform. A comparison with other communication media, such as videoconferencing, helped to put the immediacy of feedback capability of enterprise wikis into perspective. Two media capabilities (rehearsability, revisability) did not have sufficient backing from the available literature to provide meaningful insights. In this case, raters drew on their expertise to derive a categorization.

Discussion

The summary in Table 4 identifies wikis as a capable technology for communication and collaboration in organizations where careful (rehearsed and revised) discourse is desirable, and where communication results are repurposed. Two important findings of the capability assessment need to be highlighted and further discussed: the similarities between wikis and email technology, and the opportunity to extend media choice theories by establishing refactoring as a new media capability.

Comparing the media capabilities of enterprise wikis with other communication media, a surprising similarity to email technology emerges. Emails and wikis exhibit similar capabilities across most categories, suggesting that they overlap with the niches they occupy within the corporate media landscape: they are asynchronous, lean media that draw their strengths from rehearsability and reprocessability. Hence, both media assist people in carefully formulating their communication and allow users to thoroughly decode the communication they have received (Olson & Olson, 2000). The observation that there is an overlap in the media capabilities of email and wiki technology is confirmed by a number of reports describing how wiki adoption has reduced the use of internal emails in organizations (e.g., Suarez, 2008). However, in addition to these similarities, wikis offer a distinct set of advantages for internal communication needs. Email is a client-based technology that distributes multiple, independent copies of identical messages to all receivers, congesting email servers and leading to versioning problems. A wiki, on the other hand, is a server-based technology that allows users to view the same single document, relieving the communication infrastructure of duplicated messages, and counteracting the circulation of multiple versions. This underlying structural difference seems to make the wiki the better choice for a large number of internal communication events in organizations. When interpreted through the lens of media choice theory, the only significant difference between the media capabilities of these two technologies is the ability of email to personalize messages. Based on this ability it can be assumed that emails will remain the media of choice for communication tasks that require personalization. However, only a small fraction of current email messages within organizations require such a personalization (Lynch, 2008), while a large number of messages distribute generic information, which is sometimes ironically referred to as “corporate spam.” For this kind of communication, wiki technology would seem to be ultimately superior to email—once corporate users become sufficiently familiar and comfortable with wiki use.

The analysis has also revealed a shortcoming in the ways current media choice theories categorize media capabilities: they do not consider the refactoring of content in their analysis. However, content refactoring clearly constitutes an important capability that is unique to wikis: users continuously modify content after the initial communication event. This capability is significant, as it turns a discrete text-based communication event into an ongoing communication process that (ideally) incrementally increases the information quality. In order to address this issue, we believe that future media choice studies should include the refactoring capability in their theorizing and media assessment, as it constitutes a capability that has a significant impact on two of the established media choice theories, CGT and TMS.

The refactoring capability of wikis challenges some of the core assumptions of CGT, which focuses on the development of common ground among communication partners (Clark & Brennan, 1991). CGT stipulates that the development of common ground between communication partners requires rich media, since lean, text-based media does not provide the necessary verbal or nonverbal cues. However, the refactoring capability and the wiki way of collaboration seem to defy this assumption. During the refactoring process, users continually negotiate meaning and assumptions, and the jointly developed content eventually represents the shared knowledge of the participants. Wiki technology thus seems to suggest that an extension to CGT is needed. The refactoring feature must be recognized in its ability to let users develop common ground even though wikis are text-based, lean media and do not convey additional verbal or nonverbal cues.

The refactoring capability also has significant implications for TMS. TMS posits that the communication processes of conveyance and convergence require different sets of technologies, each with a distinct combination of media capabilities. However, the present analysis suggests that wiki technology is able to successfully support both these communication processes. Convergence, the development of shared meaning, is very well supported through the refactoring capability and the subsequent development of common ground among users. Conveyance, the presentation of information, is supported through rehearsability and reprocessability, which allow users to effectively publish content for a large audience. By effectively supporting both information processing tasks, wikis question some of the core assumptions of TMS and suggest an extension of the theory.

Implications and Conclusion

Enterprise wikis have only recently received attention from research and organizational practice (Kane & Fichman 2009; Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007; Yates et al., 2009). Wikis constitute a new medium that is usable for a variety of communication and collaboration purposes. Thus, in order to better understand the role of wikis in organizations and to differentiate wikis from other communication and collaboration media, it is necessary to understand wiki capabilities and their impact on organizational communication and collaboration.

Our investigation has created a number of implications for theory and practice. From a theoretical perspective, we have grounded enterprise wikis and their capabilities in established media capability frameworks, and have identified how the unique features of enterprise wikis challenge some of the core theoretical assumptions of these theories. We have identified the refactoring capability as a new media capability that makes the wiki a unique tool that enables new forms of collaboration and communication in organizations. Despite a focus on rigor and objectivity, the methodology adopted for the study has created a number of limitations of the present research. In particular, our study is based on secondary data that also include nonacademic descriptions of enterprise wiki use. Although we cannot ensure the validity of these secondary data, by including a larger number of cases and reports and by focusing on general trends among the diverse descriptions, we assume that the introduced bias is negligible. However, future research could address this limitation by directly investigating enterprise wikis and their particular use in organizations.

Our study has identified that wikis provide a distinct combination of media capabilities that create opportunities for new information technology–based organizational communication and collaboration practices. However, to leverage these opportunities requires a careful implementation and management of these tools that considers the socio-technical issues the implementation of a new information technology creates. In the context of implementing an enterprise wiki, a number of questions must thus be addressed:

For Which Communication and Collaboration Activities Should Wikis Be Used?

Based on their distinct range of capabilities, wikis support a considerable variety of communication activities. The refactoring capability, for instance, enables communication processes usually associated with communication media with a high social presence, such as the processes of negotiation and consolidation (Sullivan, 1995). A good example of this is the identification of user requirements for the development of new software systems (Decker et al., 2007). In this context the wiki is used as a documentation and negotiation platform that complements the face-to-face communication among business analysts and system users. By continually refactoring the system’s scope, business analysts and system users integrate their understanding of the new system until common ground with regard to the system features is reached. The wiki contributes further to the negotiation and consolidation process by the fact that users can thoroughly examine (high reviewability) any modifications to the systems specifications and carefully prepare their responses (high rehearsability).

The same capabilities make wikis equally suitable for supporting the idea generation process: setting up a wiki for hashing out ideas allows users to integrate and build upon each other’s ideas (Majchrzak et al., 2006). The distributed nature of the wiki allows users to contribute without being inhibited by the physical presence of other contributors. While the use of emails and discussion boards would provide the same advantages of the geographical distribution, the refactoring capabilities of wikis provide the distinct advantage of encouraging users to build upon and refine each other’s ideas. Document creation is another communication task where wikis provide distinct advantages over the common practice of sharing documents by attaching them to emails. The refactoring capability allows users to synchronously or asynchronously work on the same document without the issues of versions control.

In addition to communication activities where wikis offer distinct opportunities, there are other activities where their media capabilities do not offer a distinct advantage over other media. Wikis are very suitable for quickly publishing information to a wider audience, such as providing project updates to stakeholders. By allowing users to rehearse their contribution before posting it and to revisit content over longer periods, wikis provide benefits to organizational communication similar to discussion boards or common intranet sites. Hence, wikis not only provide a distinct set of opportunities for distinct communication tasks but also provide opportunities and forms of use that overlap with other tools commonly encountered in organizations.

How Should the Content Creation Process be Governed?

Most public wikis rely on peer-based monitoring, and very few formal rules and access rights are put in place to control the content creation process. The content creation process in Wikipedia, for example, is largely governed by fellow editors who spot mistakes and modify content (Viégas, Wattenberg, & McKeon, 2007). Only in cases of considerable disruption are formal governance processes triggered to safeguard the content creation process. Using a wiki in the organizational context requires decisions whether to adopt the open principle and allow every staff to overwrite the existing content, or to impose restrictions and allocate formal roles. Such decisions on the governance of wiki-based interaction need to be based on the particular communication activities as well as on the nature of the content to be created.

Unlike in open wikis where users can rather anonymously modify content, users in an organizational wiki will be logged in, and any kind of editing activity will be associated with a particular author. The risk of users intentionally vandalizing content in an enterprise wiki is very low. It is rather a key concern that the wiki-based content might not be authoritative: a user might have added false content or content that is not in line with larger strategic objectives of the organization. Especially in larger project teams where members are geographically distributed, users might not have enough background information to judge the validity of the wiki content. Therefore, information in the wiki has to be dependable in order to be acted upon. For these kinds of communication activities, some form of approval process is necessary that shows team members that the information in the wiki has been viewed and authorized for further use. Such authorization processes, on the other hand, may stifle users’ interaction speed and creativity, which are among the main benefits of wiki technology. For every domain and communication activity, organizations need to weigh the benefits an unrestricted wiki creates in terms of flexibility and creativity against the risks of users accessing and using invalid information.

How Do We Create the Social Dynamic and Enthusiasm Among Staff?

The significant success of Wikipedia and other public platforms is the result of the interest and enthusiasm among users in sharing and creating knowledge artifacts. There is no guarantee that a comparable level of interest and enthusiasm can be created for wikis in an organizational context. The open Internet provides a high level of anonymity that allows users to engage with limited personal consequences. In the context of an enterprise wiki where contributions are linked to user logins, users might not readily engage in such a dynamic refactoring process, as they do not want to expose themselves or fear to be wrong. Users might be hesitant to refactor previously created content, as they might offend the original author. Creating the enthusiasm within organizations that is necessary for changing the established communication and collaboration practices is thus one of the most critical challenges for the establishment of enterprise wikis.

To overcome these kinds of implementation challenges, it is advisable to focus on the use of wikis in small teams where members have established a high level of trust. These environments will help users to gain experience in a relatively sheltered context where mistakes or problems are easily rectified or solved. Once users have gained more experience and can see the benefits of wiki-based communication, they may be more prepared to use wikis in larger or more anonymous teams. Another strategy that has proven very successful in the implementation of wiki technology in organizations is focused on the nomination of wiki champions (Mader, 2008). That is, individual staff across the organization have the role of sharing not only the enthusiasm but also the expertise of wikis. Wiki champions explain the wiki concepts to their colleagues and assist them in the wiki use. The nomination of wiki champions has shown to be a very valuable strategy for overcoming the initial adoption barrier among staff in an organization.

Lessons Learned

Wiki technology provides organizations and their staff with opportunities for new collaboration and communication practices, but in order to leverage these opportunities one has to recognize best-fit applications of the technology. As this research indicates, wikis are particularly well suited for tasks high on language variety, parallelism, reprocessability, and rehearsability — i.e., the task environment at Motorola’s Systems-on-Chip Design Technology, where 60+ collaborators from different nations successfully interact for new product development (see Twiki success stories at http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Main/TWikiSuccessStoryOfMotorola). In contrast, the Los Angeles Times’s “Wikitorial” (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007), which ignored the medium’s low simultaneity, caused contributors to overwrite each other’s contribution, among other problems. In the end, that wiki failed after only three days of intensive use. Consequently, a careful implementation and management is required that expressly considers the socio-technical environment in which the technology is used, so as to assure the best fit of task and technology. Organizing a successful implementation and adoption requires specialists who understand the technology as well as the opportunities for communication practice. Individuals charged with the implementation require a specific skill set (Clark & Andersen, 2005; Rainey, Turner, & Dayton, 2005): they need to create enthusiasm about the technological capabilities but at the same time maintain an in-depth interest in the intricacies of communication and the importance of content quality. If this is ignored, users may fall back to the use of alternative media with similar (but lesser) capabilities, simply because of convenience and familiarity. In order to properly establish wikis in the enterprise, it is essential for such perspectives to be represented in the development of a wiki strategy as well as the ongoing management of the wiki platform.

References

Auer, S., Jungmann, B., & Schönefeld, F. (2007). Semantic wiki representations for building an enterprise knowledge base. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4636, 330-333.

Barth, F. J., Vilela, G. T., Timoszczuk, A. P., & Mussoi, A. L. G. (2008). Wiki as a tool for improving the innovation process. Paper presented at the WikiSym ’08, Porto, Portugal.

Bean, L., & Hott D. D. (2005). Wiki: A speedy new tool to manage projects. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 16, 3–8.

Birnholtz, J. P., Finholt, T. A., Horn, D. B., & Bae, S. J. (2005). Grounding needs: Achieving common ground via lightweight chat in large, distributed, ad-hoc groups. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR.

Black, E. L., & Kilzer, R. D. (2008). Web 2.0 tools ease renovation service disruptions at the Ohio State University libraries. Public Services Quarterly, 4, 93–110.

Blaschke, S., & Stein, K. (2008). Methods and measures for the analysis of corporate wikis: A case study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.

Bock, G., & Paxhia, S. (2008). Taking stock of today’s experiences and tomorrow’s opportunities. In Collaboration and social media (1-66). Cambridge, MA: The Gilbane Group.

Carlin, D. (2007). Corporate wikis go viral. BusinessWeek. Retrieved December 8, 2009, from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070312_476504.htm

Carlson, J. R., & George, J. F. (2004). Media appropriateness in the conduct and discovery of deceptive communication: The relative influence of richness and synchronicity. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 191–210.

Clark, D., & Andersen, R. (2005). Renegotiating with technology: Training towards more sustainable technical communication. Technical Communication, 52, 289–301.

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: APA Books.

Convertino, G., Ganoe, C. H., Schafer, W. A., Yost, B., & Carroll, J. M. (2005). A multiple view approach to support common ground in distributed and synchronous geo-collaboration. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Coordinated & Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization, London.

Cooney, L. (2006). Wiki as a knowledge management tool. Sophia Antipolis, France: Ecole de commerce et de management, CERAM.

Corb, G. (2008). Johns Hopkins University. Atlassian. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/casestudies/johnhopkins.jsp

Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training. Communication Research, 30, 147–177.

Cunningham, W. (n.d.). Wiki design principles. Cunningham & Cunningham, Inc. Retrieved December 21, 2009, from http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiDesignPrinciples

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

Danis, C., & Singer, D. (2008). A wiki instance in the enterprise: Opportunities, concerns and reality. Paper presented at the CSCW ’08, San Diego, CA.

Decker, B., Ras, E., Rech, J., Jaubert, P., & Rieth, M. (2007). Wiki-based stakeholder participation in requirements engineering. IEEE Software, 24, 28–35.

Delio, M. (2005). Enterprise collaboration with blogs and wikis. InfoWorld. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/03/25/13FEblogwiki_2.html.

Deluca, D., & Valacich, J. S. (2005). Outcomes from conduct of virtual teams at two sites: Support for media synchronicity theory. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii.

Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9, 256–274.

Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity. Paper presented at the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii.

Dove, M. T., & Calleja, M. (2005). The eMinerals collaboratory: Tools and experience. Molecular Simulation, 31, 329–337.

Ebersbach, A., Glaser, M., & Heigl, R. (2008). Wiki: Web collaboration. New York: Springer Verlag.

El-Shinnawy, M., & Markus, M. L. (1998). Acceptance of communication media in organizations: Richness or features? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 41, 242–253.

Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research, 27, 153–181.

Foremsky, T. (2005). IBM is preparing to launch a massive corporate wide blogging initiative. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2005/05/can_blogging_bo.php

Fowler, M., Beck, K., Brant, J., Opdyke, W., & Roberts, D. (1999). Refactoring, improving the design of existing code. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Gilbane, F. (2005). Blogs & wikis: Technologies for enterprise applications? Gilbane Group, Inc. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://gilbane.com/artpdf/GR12.10.pdf

Goowiki. (n.d.). The unofficial Google wiki. Google.com. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://google.wikia.com/wiki/Goowiki

Hasan, H., & Pfaff, C. C. (2006). The wiki: An environment to revolutionise employees’ interaction with corporate knowledge. Paper presented at the 18th Australia Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Sydney.

Havenstein, H. (2007). Top secret: DIA embraces Web 2.0. Analysts are turning to wikis, blogs, RSS feeds and enterprise “mashups.” ComputerWorld. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command= viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011671

Havenstein, H. (2008). Top secret: CIA explains its Wikipedia-like national security project. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command= viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=13&articleId=9095638&intsrc=hm_topic

Heck, M. (2005). TWiki: Open source with a corporate following. InfoWorld. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/03/28/13FEblogwiki-rev3_1.html

Janssen, S. (2008). JavaPolis. Atlassian. Retrieved December 8, 2009, from http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/casestudies/javapolis.jsp

Johnson, N. F., Clarke, R. J., & Herrington, J. (2008). The potential affordances of enterprise wikis for creating community in research networks. Paper presented at the Emerging Technologies Conference 2008, University of Wollongong, Australia.

Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 263–299.

Kakizawa, Y. (2007). In-house use of Web 2.0: Enterprise 2.0. NEC Technical Journal, 2, 46–49.

Kane, G. C., & Fichman, R. G. (2009). The shoemaker’s children: Using wikis for information systems teaching, research, and publication. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 33, 1–22.

Kraut, R. E., Miller, M. D., & Siegel, J. (1996). Collaboration in performance of physical tasks: Effects on outcomes and communication. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Cambridge, MA.

Leshed, G., Haber, E., Lau, T., & Cypher, A. (2007). CoScripter: Sharing “how-to” knowledge in the enterprise. Paper presented at the GROUP ’07, Sanibel Island, FL.

Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the Web. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Lio, E. D., Fraboni, L., & Leo, T. (2005). TWiki-based facilitation in a newly formed academic community of practice. Paper presented at the WikiSym ‘05, San Diego, CA.

Littlefield, D. (2005). Share and enjoy. Building Design, 1678, 24–25.

Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature of audiences: From the mass audience to the interactive media user. In A. Valdivia (Ed.), Companion to media studies (pp. 337–359). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Lynch, C. G. (2008). Enterprise wikis seen as a way to end “reply-all” e-mail threads. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from
http://www.cio.com/article/197101/Enterprise_Wikis_Seen_As_a_Way_to_End_Reply_All_E_Mail_Threads

Mader, S. (2008). Wikipatterns. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing.

Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Corporate wiki users: Results of a survey. Paper presented at the WikiSym ‘06, Odense, Denmark.

Mantarazzo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (1997). Meta-analysis for comparative environmental case studies: Methodological issues. International Journal of Social Economics, 24, 799–811.

Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5, 502–527.

Martz, W. B., & Reddy, V. K. (2005). Looking for indicators of media richness theory in distance education. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii.

Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective: Theoretical models and conceptual analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 975–990.

McCarthy, J. C., Miles, V. C., & Monk, A. F. (1991). An experimental study of common ground in text-based communication. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans.

McGee, L. (2000). Communication channels used by technical writers throughout the documentation process. Technical Communication, 47, 35–50.

Newberry, B. (2001). Raising student social presence in online classes. Paper presented at the WebNet, Orlando, FL.

O’Leary, D. E. (2008). Wikis: “From each according to his knowledge.” Computer, 41(2), 34–41.

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139–178.

Parameswaran, M., & Whinston, A. B. (2007). Research issues in social computing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 336–350.

Pereira, C. S., & Soares, A. L. (2007). Improving the quality of collaboration requirements for information management through social networks analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 86–103.

Phuwanartnurak, A. J. (2009). Did you put it on the wiki? Information sharing through wikis in interdisciplinary design collaboration. Paper presented at the SIGDOC ’09, Bloomington, IN.

Rainey, K. T., Turner, R. K., & Dayton, D. (2005). Do curricula correspond to managerial expectations? Core competencies for technical communicators. Technical Communication, 52, 323–352.

Rowe, D., & Drew, C. (2006). The impact of Web 2.0 on enterprise strategy. Cutter IT Journal, 19(10), 6-13.

Sarrel, M. D. (2007). Wicked productive wikis. PC Magazine, 26, 88.

Sheer, V. C., & Chen, L. (2004). Improving media richness theory: A study of interaction goals, message valence, and task. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 76–93.

Shirky, C. (2005). A group is its worst enemy. In J. Spolsky (Ed.), The best software writing (183–210). Berkeley, CA: Apress.

Short, J., Ederin, W., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley.

Shreeve, J. L. (2007). The end of e-mail: Discover new ways to stay in touch. The Independent. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-end-of-email-discover-new-ways-to-stay-in-touch-458638.html

Suarez, L. (2008). Can social tools really replace email? Toolbox.com. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/elsua/can-social-tools-really-replace-email-they-already-are-part-ii-25793

Sullivan, C. B. (1995). Preferences for electronic mail in organizational communication tasks. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 49–64.

Szybalski, A. (2005). Why it’s not a wiki world (yet). Big White Box. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from http://andy.bigwhitebox.org/papers/wiki_world.pdf

Thoeny, P. (2005). TWiki success story of Wind River. TWiki.org. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://www.twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Main/TWikiSuccessStoryOfWindRiver

Sanger, L. (2005). The early history of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A memoir. In C. DiBona, M. Cooper, & D. Stone (Eds.), Open Sources 2.0, (307-339). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

Udell, J. (2004a). The social enterprise. InfoWorld. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/03/26/13FEsocial_1.html

Udell, J. (2004b). Year of the enterprise wiki. InfoWorld. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/12/30/01FEtoycollab_1.html

Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., Kriss, J., & Ham, F. V. (2007). Talk before you type: Coordination in Wikipedia. Paper presented at the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii.

Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & McKeon, M. M. (2007). The hidden order of Wikipedia. In D. Schuler (Ed.), Online communities and social computing. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Voss, J. (2005). Measuring Wikipedia. Paper presented at the International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Infometrics, Stockholm.

Wagner, C., & Bolloju, N. (2005). Supporting knowledge management with conversational technologies: Discussion forums, weblogs, and wikis. Journal of Database Management, 16, i–viii.

Wagner, C., & Majchrzak, A. (2007). Enabling customer centricity using wikis and the wiki way. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 17–43.

Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, D., Wu, D., Koolmanojwong, S., Brown, A. W., & Boehm, B. W. (2008). WikiWinWin: A wiki based system for collaborative requirements negotiation. Paper presented at the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, Hawaii.

Yates, D., Wagner, C., & Majchrzak, A. (2009). Factors affecting shapers of organizational wikis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Pre-published online, 2009. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123207031/PDFSTART

Yin, R. B. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zammuto, R. F., Griffith, T. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18, 749–762.

Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 311–318.

Appendix 1: Summary of Contributing Publications

#	Short description [publication genre]
1	Auer, Jungmann, and Schönefeld (2007) elaborate on the use of semantic wiki representations and their contribution to the management of an enterprise knowledge base. The study provides several examples of business scenarios in which these semantic representations can add value to organizations. [Research study]
2	Bean and Hott (2005) describe the virtues of wiki technology and provide a number of descriptions on individual uses of wiki technology. The authors systematically compare the advantages and disadvantages of wiki technology. [Report]
3	Black and Kilzer (2008) describe the case of a U.S.-based university library that uses wiki technology (and other Web 2.0 tools) to coordinate diverse stakeholders when undergoing construction. The wiki was used as a reference source for staff, faculty, and the wider community. [Case]
4	Bock and Paxhia (2008) describe the benefits and drawbacks of wikis and other social software tools for supporting organizations. The report compares a range of software products and their capabilities. [Report]
5	Carlin (2007) reports on the use of wikis in organizations. A particular focus is put on the fact that several wiki implementations are grassroots initiatives and not part of a strategic implementation effort. [Report]
6	Cooney (2006) discusses the opportunities and constraints of implementing wikis at a U.S.-based automotive retailer. A focus is put on the use of the wiki for product documentation and for supporting project management. [Case]
7	Corb (2008) describes the use of a wiki within the IT systems administration of a university in the United States. The wiki is primarily used for process documentations, for building a knowledge base, and for collaboratively developing specifications and policies. [Case]
8	Delio (2005) describes the wiki use in a range of companies and compares how particular wiki features add to specific organizational objectives. [Case]
9	Dove and Calleja (2005) describe how wikis are used to coordinate a cross-institutional international science research project. The description focuses on the use of the wiki for depositing and editing information when writing papers or grant proposals, to manage task lists, and to provide a repository for project information. [Case]
10	Ebersbach, Glaser, and Heigl (2008) describe the overall wiki concept and the range of ways wikis can be used in the context of an organization. The report provides detailed steps and guidelines for the implementation and use of wiki technology. [Report]
11	The Gilbane report (2005) outlines the opportunities and drawbacks of using wiki technology in an enterprise context. The report compares the application areas of blogs and wikis and gives practical recommendations for their implementation. [Report]
12	Hasan and Pfaff (2006) investigate the implementation of a wiki technology in an enterprise context. The study focuses on the socio-technical dimension of the implementation effort and outlines the particular challenges encountered. [Research study]
13	Havenstein (2007) describes the use of wikis and other Web 2.0 tools at the U.S. Department of Defense’s lead intelligence agency. The study commends these tools and supports the instant need for information and the speed in which statements and conclusions are backed up with comments from other authors. [Case]
14	Havenstein (2008) describes how the CIA uses a wiki platform for staff to share and edit nonclassified information. Wiki technology and the associated wiki processes became vital for workgroups, departmentwide, or agencywide collaboration. [Case]
15	Heck (2005) elaborates on the versatility of the wiki tool. The report focuses on the opportunities for integrating a further range of applications and the flexibility these applications create for the organizational use. [Report]
16	Janssen (2008) describes how a wiki was used to support the organizing of a Java user conference. The wiki was used to extend the content creation to the conference attendees and other interested parties. [Case]
17	Johnson, Clarke, and Herrington (2008) describe the affordances of enterprise wikis and investigate their contributions to supporting research teams. The study applies the community of practice framework (Wenger, 2008) and investigates to which extent this framework can explain the emerging social processes in a wiki environment. [Research study]
18	Kakizawa (2007) elaborates on the features of wiki technology and other Web 2.0 tools. The study compares different products and describes their benefits and drawbacks for enterprise use. [Report]
19	Leshed, Haber, Lau, and Cypher (2007) investigate the different ways wiki technology is used in the context of an organization. The study focuses on identifying how users share their work processes through the use of wiki technology. [Research study]
20	Leuf and Cunningham (2001) describe the benefits wikis and wiki-based collaboration can provide organizations. The descriptions of wiki use cover application areas as diverse as business, research, and project management. [Report]
21	Lio, Fraboni, and Leo (2005) investigate how wiki technology can contribute to the development of a community of practice. A particular focus is put on investigating the user behavior and social dynamics among the wiki users. [Research study]
22	Littlefield (2005) discusses the use of a wiki in the architecture business. The wikis are built around key competence areas and provide open access for adding new insights or instant collaboration. [Report]
23	Mader (2008) reports on the use and implementation of wikis in a variety of organizations and scenarios. The focus of the descriptions is on conveying practical examples of how wikis can add value to the organization and how successful implementations can be supported. [Report]
24	Majchrzak, Wagner, and Yates (2006) investigate the use of wiki technology in organizations. Their focus is on empirically assessing the different ways wikis are used in organizations and determining the contributions this technology can provide. [Research study]
25	O’Leary (2008) describes the functionalities of wiki technology and elaborates on their range of applications in the corporate context. The study systematically compares the benefits and drawbacks of wiki technology for corporate use. [Report]
26	Pereira and Soares (2007) investigate the opportunities wiki technology can provide for the requirements engineering process. The study systematically compares the key features of wikis and traditional content management systems. [Research study]
27	Rowe and Drew (2006) report on the use and contributions of wiki technology and other Web 2.0 tools for the corporate context. The report offers practical recommendations on the implementation of wiki technology in the organization. [Report]
28	Sarrel (2007) describes the case of a U.S.-based media company that uses wiki technology to facilitate the collaborative writing process. The study offers recommendations on the establishment of wiki technology in a corporate context. [Case]
29	Szybalski (2005) describes the concept of wiki technology and the issues of its implementation in the organizational context. The report focuses on comparing the affordances of wikis and blogs and derives conclusions for their particular area of use in the enterprise context. [Report]
30	Thoeny (2005) describes the use of a wiki in a U.S.-based software development company. The company uses its wiki to keep track of the technology schedules, milestones, interdependencies, meeting minutes, code reviews, and general storage space for related documents. Wiki sites are set up for organizationwide purposes as well as information management tools for ad hoc teams. [Case]
31	Udell (2004a) reports on the social dynamics of wiki technology and other Web 2.0 tools in the organizational context. The report describes how the technology can modify the social interaction between staff members and contribute to a better integration among team members. [Report]
32	Udell (2004b) reports on the use of wiki technology in the enterprise context. Several software products are compared, highlighting the particular benefits for the organizational use. [Report]

Appendix 2: Examples of Mapping Descriptions of Wiki Use to Media Capabilities

Categorization of Media Capabilities of Wiki	Example of Wiki Characterization in the Literature
Low immediacy of feedback (MRT, TMS), low contemporality (CGT)	“The wiki has been set up to enable information and task lists to be deposited and updated. For immediate issues, IM tools are regularly used. The experience of IM is that you know who is available at any particular instance, and it is very quick to send a message and get an immediate reply” (Dove & Calleja, 2005).
Medium multiplicity of cues (MRT), medium symbol variety (TMS)	“The CIA now has users on its top secret, secret and sensitive unclassified networks reading and editing a central wiki that has been enhanced with a YouTube–like video channel, a Flickr-like photo-sharing feature, content tagging, blogs and RSS feeds” (Havenstein, 2008).
High language variety (MRT), high symbol variety (TMS)	“Each group is using [the wiki] in a little bit different way. It can be any combination of: Sharing a project notebook; tracking features, issues, milestones, meeting minutes or release notes; sharing files; listing experts in a field; sharing a glossary of terms; keeping track of test results; keeping track of Balanced Scorecards and more”(Thoeny, 2005).
Low personal focus (MRT)	“Blogs and wikis play opposite roles [. . .] blogs are based on an individual voice; a blog is sort of a personal broadcasting system. Wikis, because they give people the chance to edit each other’s words, are designed to blend many voices. Reading a blog is like listening to a diva sing, reading a wiki is like listening to a symphony” (Delio, 2005).
High parallelism (TMS)	“One of the virtues of a wiki format is that there is a blurred line between authoring and dissemination [. . .] second something is authored, someone else can edit it [while others can] comment upon those edits” (Havenstein, 2007).
High reprocessability (TMS), high reviewability (CGT)	“The quality control is done maintaining a historic of versions and allowing old versions to be reestablished in case the subsequent version is not considered the best [. . ..] wikis supply an excellent way to annotate evolutions in the projects” (Pereira & Soares, 2007).
Low co-presence, visibility, audibility (CGT)	“Airline team members logged onto the wiki from connections all over the United States to continually post information for use in identifying and resolving issues regarding this newly developed service offerings” (Bean & Hott, 2005).
High simultaneity (CGT)	“Anyone looking at a page who wants to make a contribution simply clicks on ‘edit,’ adds their comments or attachments to a dialogue box and clicks ‘save’” (Littlefield, 2005).

About the Authors

Christian Wagner, PhD, is professor of information systems and director of the Centre for Applied Knowledge and Innovation Management, City University of Hong Kong. He earned his PhD in business administration from the University of British Columbia, Canada, in 1989, and thereafter served as a faculty member at the University of Southern California, before joining City University in 1996. Wagner’s research focuses on the development and study of decision support systems, creativity support, and knowledge management with wikis and weblogs. He is a member of the Society for Technical Communication. Contact: iscw@cityu.edu.hk.

Andreas Schroeder, PhD, is a lecturer for information systems at the Business School of the University of Buckingham, UK. After he received his PhD in information systems from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand in 2008, he worked as a research fellow at the Centre for Applied Knowledge and Innovation Management, City University of Hong Kong, and in the Computing Department of the Open University, UK. He joined the University of Buckingham in 2010. His research focuses on the management of organizational knowledge and the use and practices related to social software, especially wiki technology. Contact: andreas.schroeder@buckingham.ac.uk.

Manuscript received 24 February 2009; revised 23 December 2009; accepted 8 January 2010.