Using Storyboard For Modeling Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

AKHMAD RIZA FAIZAL
________________________________
Using Storyboard for Modeling Computer-mediated
Communication (CMC) and Knowledge Sharing Among
Users of European Navigator
Supervisor Sirje Virkus
Master thesis
International Master in Digital Library Learning
2009
Abstract
Purpose researching users of digital libraries is no different than doing research about users in
other web development, the key is their satisfaction. Storyboard as a technique has been widely
known in the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI), particularly as a tool for measuring
usability and experience of a product from users qualitative point of view. Nevertheless, there is
not much research documented that has applied such a technique to the digital library field. This
research attempts to apply storyboard as a qualitative method for modeling CMC and knowledge
sharing among users of European Navigator (ENA) and discuss the steps conducted in order to
produce the storyboard. European Navigator is a Rich Internet Application (RIA) that provides
high quality research and educational material on the history of European integration.
Design/Methodology/Approachthe steps were as follows; pilot interviews conducted and

findings translated into a list of questions, the context of use based on the conceptual framework
was built, based on context of use and pilot interviews, researcher then created a task-based
scenario, selecting and inviting participants and providing a briefing about the research, conducting
interview which was then followed by the play scenario, scenarios given and time imposed, after
the time expires, each participant submitted the result then consolidated with the results of the work
of others. All consolidated data was described in an affinity diagram, a brainstorming session
conducted and then, the final storyboard presented along with conclusion of the research.
Findingsas a case study, researcher investigated how 8 graduate students who were studying in
Tallinn University in spring semester 2009 under the program International Master in Digital
Library Learning (DILL) class 2008, as ENA users, communicate in order to work collaboratively
and share knowledge. A storyboard is proposed which was based on the models that were found.
Originality/value the research combine multi approach research design by combining computermediated communication (CMC), knowledge management especially knowledge sharing, and user
experience study in a digital library environment. Using a storyboard for CMC study in digital
library never been conducted before therefore this research can be considered as a pilot study.
Keywordsstoryboard, users communication model, digital library, knowledge sharing,

computer-mediated communication
Master thesis
International Master in Digital Library Learning
2009
2
DECLARATION
I certify that all material in this dissertation which

is not my own work has been identified and that no material is
included for which a degree has previously been conferred upon me
Tallinn, June 29th, 2009
Akhmad Riza Faizal
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank:

1. Allah swt., for everything.
2. My parents, my wife and my son for your supports and patience for the past 2 years.
3. Sirje Virkus, as my supervisor, a friend, and my teacher during my education in this
program and in the future.
4. The professors in the DILL program; Ragnar Audunson, Ragnar Nordlie, Nils Pharo, Tor
Arne Dahl, Aira Lepik, Anna Maria Tammaro, and Vittore Casarosa. Thank you for the
lessons, and very valuable opportunities that I received during my study in DILL program.
5. The visiting professors in DILL program; Steve Pepper, Michael Koenig, Ron Day, Abdul
Sattar Chaudry, Sue Myburg, and others.
6. Gillian Oliver. Thank you for your valuable comments for the thesis.
7. Andrea Zanni, Barulaganye Hulela, Florence, Mirembe, Issac Ohaji, Nickson Khiwa,
Mehrnoosh Vahdat, Muluken Wubayehu, Wachiraporn Klungthanaboo, Roriana Hanani,
and Petra Apers. Thank you for your all participation in this research.
8. My classmates in the DILL program, especially for Katherine Howard and Le Dieu Tran.
Thank you for your support for this research, also for the last moments we were in Tallinn.
9. Frederic Andres, Ghislain Sillaume, and Laurent Eilrich in CVCE. Thank you for your
valuable input and assistance during my internship in CVCE, so that inspired this research.
Also to Marriane Backes who has given me the opportunity to visit CVCE in Luxembourg.
I hope I can visit you again in the future.
10. Kersti Hele, Karin Oolu, Ott Kagovere, Merje Songe, and Maria ygarden. Thank you for
your administrative supports during my education in the program.
11. Last but not least, to all my friends in DILL program and those who I met during my study
in the program and when I did this research. Thank you to be in the right place at the right
time.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND
1.1. Background.
13
1.2. Objectives, aims, significances, and research questions.
16
1.3. Methodology for the research.
16
1.4. Outline of this report..
17
1.5. Scopes and key assumptions..
18
1.6. Conclusion.
18
Chapter 2. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Theoretical framework: a literature review
19
2.1.1. The strategy for searching references
19
2.1.2. Knowledge sharing
21
2.1.2.1 On discourse about sharing tacit and explicit knowledge.
21
2.1.2.2. Causal conditions, action/interaction in knowledge sharing practices.
23
2.1.2.3. Ties and capabilities in knowledge sharing..
26
2.1.2.4. ICT and motivations for knowledge sharing
27
2.1.3. Computer-mediated communication (CMC)
29
2.1.3.1 On discourses about CMC and its competencies.. 29

2.1.3.2 Task-media fit hypothesis..
32
2.1.3.3 CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. 34

2.1.4. Social software: a short review..
35
2.2. Conceptual Framework..
37
Chapter 3. THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Introduction to the Methodology
42
3.2. The research procedure...
44
3.3. Schema of the research procedure..
52
3.4. Type of Data 52

3.5. Data Collection Techniques
52
3.6. Data Analyzing Technique.
54
3.7. Physical Environment.
54
3.8 Technical Requirements..
55
3.9. Research Constraints.
55
3.10. Ethical Considerations..
56
Chapter 4. ABOUT THE EUROPEAN NAVIGATOR (ENA)

4. 1. Background...
57
4.2. ENA Features.
59
4.3. ENA Information Ecosystem.
67
4.4. ENA Metadata
68
Chapter 5. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

5.1. Data collection process...
70
5.1.1. Interview stage and the implementation of the scenario 70

5.1.2. Brainstorming stage..
71
5.2. Data Analysis..
71
5.2.1. Data from interviews.. 71

5.2.2. The Informants profile...
72
5.2.2.1 Informant 1 (Info1)....
72
5.2.2.2. Informant 2 (Info2)...
73
74
76
77
78
79
80
5.2.3. The actions map analysis...
81
5.3. The initial storyboard
86
5.4. The brainstorming.
89
5.5. Revisions to the storyboard
91
6. The final storyboard
91
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Implications

6.1. Introduction
94
6.2 Conclusions to the research questions.
94
6.2.1. Model of CMC among users of ENA
98
6.2.2. Model of knowledge sharing among users of ENA..
99
6.2.3. Model of CMC and knowledge sharing among users of ENA..
101
6.3 Conclusions to the research problems.. 102

6.3.1. Can storyboard be used for modeling CMC?............................................. 102
6.3.2. Recommendations for ENA developer..
103
6.3.2.1. Recommender system...
103
6.3.2.2. An active discussion forum for users
104
6.3.2.3. Other recommendations
105
6.4 Limitations..
106
6.4.1. Limits on subject analysis.
106
6.4.2. Limits on object analysis 106

6.4.3. Limits on methodology used.
106
6.5. Implications for theory 107

6.5.1. In relation with Knowledge Sharing..
107
6.5.2. In relation with computer-mediated communication.
107
6.6 Implications for further research.. 108

6.6.1. User environment design and paper prototyping...
108
6.6.2. Anonymity, hyperpersonal, media and semiotic 108

Epilog
110
List of references.
111
Appendices
Appendix 1. Development of the research procedures
Appendix 2. The list of questions
Appendix 3. The scenario
Appendix 4. Interview transcript form
Appendix 5. Initial storyboard
Appendix 6. The final storyboard
List of Abbreviations
ASAP
- As Soon As Possible
CBR
- Case-based Reasoning System
CD
- Contextual Design
CD-ROM
- Compact Disc-Read Only Memory
CMC
- Computer-mediated Communication
CoP
- Community of Practice
CSCW
- Computer-Supported Collaborative Work
CVCE
- Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l'Europe (Virtual Resource Centre for

Knowledge about Europe)
DILL
- Digital Library Learning
EC
- European Commission
ECMD
- ENA Content Management Database
ENA
- European Navigator
EU
- European Union
FtF
- Face to Face interaction
HCI
- Human-computer Interaction
HTML
- Hyper-Text Markup Language
ICT
- Information and Communication Technology
IKM
- Information and Knowledge Management
IM
- Instant Messaging
IR
- Institutional Repository
IRC
- Internet Relay Chat
IT
- Information Technology
KS
- Knowledge Sharing
LE
- Literacy Education
LISTA
- Library, Information Science & Technology Abstract
MMOG
- Massively Multiplayer Online Games
RIA
- Rich Internet Application
SECI
- Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization
SIG
- Special-interest Group
SNS
- Social Networking Site
TIP
- Time, Interaction, and Performance
UWD
- University Web Development
UX
- User Experience
VLE
- Virtual Leaning Environment
VoIP
- Voice-over Internet Protocol
List of Illustrations
Illustration 1. The European Navigator (ENA) front page
60
Illustration 2. Album feature in ENA
61
Illustration 3. Media Library feature in ENA
62
Illustration 4. Thesaurus feature in ENA
63
Illustration 5. Glossary feature in ENA.
63
Illustration 6. Reference list feature in ENA.
64
Illustration 7. Multilingual feature in ENA
65
Illustration 8. Zooming capability in ENA
66
Illustration 9. Collaborative work support and feedback in ENA..
67
Illustration 10. ECMD interface for metadata
69
10
List of Figures
Figure 1. Interrelation of actions between CMC and knowledge sharing 39
Figure 2. Conceptual framework of the research.
40
Figure 3. The research procedure....
52
Figure 4. ENA 2006 information ecosystem 67

Figure 5. Model of CMC among users of ENA..
98
Figure 6. Model of knowledge sharing among users of ENA.
100
Figure 7. Model of CMC and knowledge sharing among users of ENA....
101
Figure 8. The first proposed model for research procedures...
117
Figure 9. The second model of research procedures...
118
Figure 10. The third model of research procedures.
119
11
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparisons between inferior and superior consequences teams
24
Table 2. Task performing strategies
25
Table 3. IT strategies in relation with collaborative work..
25
Table 4. Knowledge sharing and creation strategies..
26
Table 5. List of social software.
37
Table 6. Functional matrix for the task-based scenario based on the expected
strategies of action...
47
Table 7. Strategies description
48
Table 8. Dissemination of selected actions
83
Table 9. Compiled actions map..
84
Table 10. The affinity diagram..
85
12
Chapter 1.
Research Background
This chapter discusses the background and ideas that affect the researcher to
conduct this research. Afterwards, objectives, aims, significances and questions for the
research are presented. Later, the method used in this research is outlined, as well as the
structure of this thesis. Finally, the scope and key assumptions of this research are
presented.
1.1. Background
The idea for this research came while the researcher was doing his internship in
Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l'Europe (Virtual Resource Centre for Knowledge
about Europe CVCE), a research institute that develops and maintains European
Navigator. European Navigator (ENA) is a multimedia and multilingual Rich Internet
Application (RIA) that can be used to retrieve historical documentation and institutional
development of a united Europe from 1945 onwards. As with any other digital library,
especially a thematic digital library, developers always need data that can explain to them
how their users actually use their digital library or, so to speak, their user experience. The
reason is simple; they want to build a better digital library than before. A digital library
that is more intuitive, familiar and beneficial to their users.
Nonetheless for ENA, the problem is that user behavior always changes and there
is a need for digital library developers to keep up with their user demands. Speaking of
user demands also means speaking of user satisfaction with user expectations as the key to
the kingdom. Satisfaction is all about what the user says or thinks about his interaction
with the product. The user might report that the product was easy to use, that it was
confusing, or that it exceeded his expectations. The user might have opinions about the
product being visually appealing or untrustworthy (Tullis & Albert, 2008). Thus the
developer needs to conduct relevant studies with an emphasis on understanding what their
user wants. The purpose is to have a clear view of the kind of activities that their users
undertake while using the digital library. Hopefully, by capturing the trends based on user
behavior, the developer will have a robust data for enhancing their process of digital
library development. Keep it in mind that the researchers proposition is in the context of
evaluation of an existing digital library. The argumentation may vary in the case of
designing digital library from scratch although the needs might be similar.
13
One of many activities that users of digital library do while using the website is
computer-mediated communication (CMC). CMC may be defined as interaction between
two or more intelligent agents that rely on ICTusually a personal computer and
networksas its primary medium (Ess, 2007). There are two types of CMC which are;
synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (Drake, 2003). A
synchronous CMC process is a real time interaction and characterized with direct feedback
between communicator and communicant. An example is the usage of an internet relay
chat (IRC) system. On the other hand, an asynchronous CMC such as usage of email is not
a time dependent interaction. The researcher agrees with Hooff & Weenens argumentation
(2004), taking the idea from Walther (1996), that some specific characteristics of CMC
such as reduced social cues and asynchronous communication can lead to socially richer
communication, to stronger group members identification with their group and to more
collective behavior.
Knowledge sharing can be conceived as a typical example of collective
behaviorall members of the collective need to contribute for a collective good (i.e.
shared intellectual capital) to come into existence. This viewpoint also complements Fahey
& Prusak (1998) who pointed out that facilitating knowledge flow can only be
accomplished through enhancing all types of communication. Allport & Blanger (2008)
noted that, in terms of knowledge telework, he or she might have contribution to determine
the successful process for transferring the knowledge. Especially for succession it is
important that the knowledge sharing process achieves its objectives. Conflict of interest
among individuals then colours the intensity of communication. With regards to capturing
this kind of activity, the researchers argued that the phenomena cannot be contextualized
by using non visualization technique of research.
Storyboard is commonly used in the Human-computer Interaction (HCI) field as a
method to describe a low fidelity prototype of a system or product with emphasis on User
Experience (UX). The User Experience (UX) storyboard is a very effective method that
helps architects and designers determine what will go into the User Interface (UI) before
worrying about the details of specific UI elements (buttons, pull-down menus, etc.). The
UX model encourages good interface architecture. In fact, it serves as a sort of contract
between the UI team and the development team, ensuring that developers don't just "make
it up" as they go (Heumann, 2003). There are some benefits of using storyboard for design
especially for the development of a website such as a digital library interface. One of the
benefits is that the technique provides enough array of visualization. Regarding the user
14
interaction with the digital library interface, the visual conception can thus be used as the
model for development.
In the case of European Navigator (ENA), the current version of ENA is available
at URL http://www.ena.lu/ is the version that been launched in 2006. The department of
Communication at CVCE has conducted evaluation surveys of ENA in 2005 and 2006 by
focusing on the usage of ENA in general. Overall, users are quite satisfied with
appearance, utilization, and content of ENA (CVCE, 2005; CVCE, 2006). Although the
surveys provide enough data about users perception nonetheless how the user actually use
the application remains unclear. Several researchers from the University of Metz, France in
the first semester of 2008 attempted to study ergonomic factors of ENA. They found that
users of ENA can be divided into two main categories. First, there are users who only use
ENA for its particular high quality content (content-driven). Second, there is a kind of user
who more interested in using ENA because ENA is a searchable database with more
advanced technology features (search-driven).
Nevertheless, all those kinds of user are not just using ENA as a feature, they are
using ENA as part of their working system. The teacher used ENA as a part of teaching
activities in their class. The student used ENA as a database for working on their
assignment. The researcher uses it for references in their article, so on and so forth. Thus,
the perspective for developing ENA needs to be reversed. Instead of asking users about
their perception of existing features and content, the developer should seek for clarity of
actual user behavior. The questions should focus on how ENA is really beneficial to the
user in terms of it helping users in their respective activities. How the users, whether as
individuals or as a members of a group, have actually done something using ENA, at least
as a tool in addition to their work. Moreover, the main interest should address how ENA
can leverage user interaction in order to share knowledge among them whilst ENA remains
as the knowledge transfer medium.
Usability is usually considered as the ability of the user to use the application to
carry out a task successfully, whereas user experience takes a broader view, looking at the
individuals entire interaction with the application, as well as the thoughts, feelings, and
perceptions that result from the interaction (Tullis & Albert, 2008). Enhancing user
experience would lead to a more successful application and the best way to start the
development is by having information that can describe the experience in the best medium
that humans can perceive, visualization. Therefore it is important to have visual data about
15
user experience in order to develop ENA into a more intuitive application that can leverage
users to share their knowledge.
1.2. Objectives, aims, significances, and research questions.

a. Objectives:
1. To examine how digital library users communicate to share knowledge among them.
2. To have better understanding of how ENA has been used among its users.
b. Aims:
1. To use storyboarding as a qualitative method for studying computer-mediated
communication and knowledge sharing in a digital library.
2. To develop a computer-mediated communication (CMC) model of usage of ENA in
collaborative environment.
c. Significance:
1. As a contribution to enrich qualitative research methods in digital library and
communication studies and to develop a relationship between both fields.
2. As an input and recommendations for CVCE to enhance their user experience.
d. Research Questions:
1. How are ENA users using computer-mediated communication to share knowledge
among them?
2. What would a storyboard of the model look like?
1.3. Methodology for the research

The focus of this study is to collect data as well as to show that storyboarding can
be used for the visualization of CMC and knowledge sharing practice among users of
European Navigator. The problem of this research therefore, as is reflected in the research
questions, emphasizes the need for qualitative data rather than the quantitative. Therefore,
the methodology for this research is qualitative. Strauss & Corbin (1998) noted that
qualitative research can be used to explore substantive areas about which little is known or
to gain novel understandings (Stern, 1980 in Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In addition,
qualitative research can be used to obtain details about phenomena such as feelings,
thought processes, and emotions that are difficult to extract or learn about through more
conventional research. Thus, the method to apply storyboarding needs to adjust with the
research problem.
16
The researcher took contextual design, a method for designing user interface
(Holtzblatt, 2005), as the reference method for applying the storyboard. The method has
proven itself as one of the most reliable methods for designing digital library interfaces
(Notess, 2005). Since this research does not test the information system per se, it attempts
to adjust implementation of contextual design only by looking in particular at the
communication flow of user interactions. In general, the principle steps that the researcher
conducts in order to gather the data are:
1. Selecting participants,
2. Conducting pilot interviews and interviews,
3. Designing context of use and projecting it into task-based scenario,
4. Implementing the scenario,
5. Draw the initial storyboard,
6. Respondent validation by conducting brainstorming session with participants of
this research.
The outcome of the brainstorming session is the final storyboard as the model of CMC and
knowledge sharing among user of European Navigator. All the interviews, scenario
implementations and brainstorming session were video recorded as the validation of the
research.
1.4. Outline of this report

This masters thesis is in six chapters. These are:
Chapter I. Research background; this chapter includes the background and matters
raised in it for the research.
Chapter II. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework; this chapter discusses the
theoretical basis that is used and proposes a conceptual framework for this research.
Chapter III. The Research Methodology; this chapter examine the procedures that can
be applied to research and have been applied in this research following the steps
adopted in order to obtain research data.
Chapter IV. About ENA; this chapter describes features of the 2006 version of ENA and
also discuss the information ecosystem and metadata that are owned by ENA.
Chapter V. Data Analysis and Findings; this chapter presents analysis of gathered data
as well as the results from interviews, scenario application, and the brainstorming
sessions of this research. At the end, the narration of the storyboard will be presented.
17
Chapter VI. Conclusions and Implications; this chapter discusses the conclusions that
can be drawn from this research as well as the implications that may result, in both
applied and theoretical perspectives.
1.5. Scopes and key assumptions

1. This is qualitative research hence the data generated cannot be generalized to ENA
users in general. The data obtained in this research is based on characters of the
participants and can be applied in research only on the conditions mentioned in this
research.
2. With regard to the CMC and knowledge sharing, the researcher assumes that the
usage of ENA that are examined and then described in the storyboard reflects the
behavior of users that can be found in the usage of ENA hereafter.
3. Although it still needs further examination, the use of social software is assumed
valid for all participants in this research.
4. This study does not implement all the stages in contextual design. It should be noted
that this research does not test the entire system of ENA.
5. The results of different models, as indicated in this research, may be found when
researching different thematic digital libraries.
1.6. Conclusion
In order to develop a better ENA and at the same time leverage their user
experience particularly in computer-mediated communication (CMC) and knowledge
sharing, a storyboard for the use of modeling activities needs to be developed for research.
The research done with contextual design method is adopted with some adjustments to the
formulation of the research problem. The report is then presented and discussed in six
chapters. In the next chapter, the researcher will discuss the theoretical foundation based
on two main topics in this research. Firstly, the researcher will present discussion around
the concept of knowledge sharing from previous research in the field and show how the
term can be related to the use of technology. Secondly, the researcher will examine
previous studies on CMC in relation to collaborative work and knowledge sharing.
Afterwards, the researcher will discuss the conceptual framework in order to obtain and
present data in this research project.
18
Chapter 2.
THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The previous chapter has discussed the problems in this research with a focus on
the computer-mediated communication (CMC) and knowledge sharing (KS). The goal in
this research project is to model the CMC and knowledge sharing practices among users of
European Navigator (ENA) by using the storyboard. This chapter is divided in two parts.
The first section reviews some literature for the theoretical framework of knowledge
sharing and the CMC. The section begins with the strategy used by the researcher to find
references that are used in this literature review and for the research as overall. Later, the
researcher continues the literature review with discussion of knowledge sharing in practical
terms, focusing on the correlation of technology and knowledge sharing practices.
Furthermore, the review discusses CMC and research related to the use of CMC in
collaborative work. The relationship between CMC and KS presented at the end of the
theoretical study. In the second section, the conceptual framework of this research is
discussed. This framework used as the reference for the researcher as well as the
underpinning perspective for designing the research procedures and instruments that will
be used in this research.
2.1. Theoretical framework: a literature review

This section is discusses the strategy that the researcher used for searching
references for this study as well as theories and findings from previous and past research
that are related to the problem that is currently addressed. The theoretical section begins
with discussion of knowledge sharing then follows this with computer-mediated
communication.
2.1.1. The strategy for searching references

The researcher combined offline and online searching strategies in seeking
references for the study. The searching process for the references was conducted between
October 2008 and February 2009 in two universities, Parma University, Italy and Tallinn
University, Estonia. Offline, the researcher looked for secondary data from books about
qualitative research methods, knowledge sharing and computer-mediated communication
(CMC) in Parma University and Tallinn University libraries. In addition, the researcher
also got some additional book references from the collection owned by CVCE during his
19
internship in Luxembourg, especially references about contextual design and usability

study. Online, the researcher used the journal access services in both universities. In
addition, the researcher also used Google Books (http://books.google.com) and WorldCat
(http://www.worldcat.org) by OCLC for books, presentations and articles that relate to
contextual design, CMC, knowledge sharing and digital library interface design. Between
October to November 2008, the researcher used common keywords for the search that was
carried out at Parma University since he had not yet formulated a specific topic.
However, the databases that the researcher used for searching journal articles at
Parma University were Emerald Fulltext, SpringerLink and Wiley Interscience. Keywords
used were; 'computer-mediated communication',
'computer mediated communication',
'CMC', 'synchronous CMC ', 'asynchronous CMC', 'usability and digital libraries', 'interface
design and the digital library', 'knowledge management and the digital library', 'CMC and
the digital library', 'digital library interface design', 'communication and digital libraries'.
Although most of the articles that were collected were still in a broad context, the
researcher has found a lot of input from various research articles on the CMC, especially
from Hoff & Weenen (2004) research about the relationship between CMC and knowledge
sharing. Nevertheless when the researcher did his internship at CVCE Luxembourg, from
November 2008 until January 2009, he finally developed the specific topic and received
approval to undertake the project. At that time, what researcher had in mind was that CMC
would leverage the development of ENA. Since CVCE does not have access to journal
database services the searching process was not developed further though.
The researcher then continued searching both online and offline at Tallinn
University in February 2009. For books, the researcher used Google books as the search
engine, it is effective for quotes that researcher needed in accordance with the directions of
research. Journal databases which researcher used in Tallinn University were; Cambridge
Journals Online, EBSCOHost Web particularly at the Communication & Mass Media
database, Educational Resource Information center database, Library, Information Science
& Technology Abstract (LISTA) with full text database, Emerald Fulltext, Oxford
Journals, Sage Journals Online, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Springer lecture notes in
computer science, Wiley InterScience (humanities and social sciences, information science
and computing). Keywords that the researcher used were more specific because the
researcher had determined the topic that would be discussed in the research. The keywords
were; 'CMC and knowledge sharing ', 'knowledge sharing and technology', 'usability
design digital library', 'contextual design digital library', 'contextual design, contextual
20
design knowledge sharing ', 'contextual design CMC ', 'semiotic contextual design',
'semiotic usability', 'knowledge management CMC ', 'CMC ', 'European Navigator ',
'thematic digital library', 'qualitative case study digital libraries'. However, other keywords
that were used cannot be included as they were not recorded. This was because some
search activities were performed spontaneously or the results obtained from the search
were not significant.
2.1.2. Knowledge sharing

In this subsection, the researcher discusses discourses on the definition of tacit
and explicit knowledge, as the foundation for knowledge sharing. Afterwards, it continues
with discussion of causal conditions and action/interaction in knowledge sharing practices.
In the last part, ties and capabilities in knowledge sharing as well as ICT and motivations
for knowledge sharing are brought to bear.
2.1.2.1 on discourse about sharing tacit and explicit knowledge
Knowledge sharing is generally analyzed based on two types of organizational
knowledge: explicit and tacit (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Explicit knowledge is
documented knowledge, generally available in rules, procedures, manuals and databases.
Explicit knowledge is first filtered to determine the appropriate content, and then it is
shared within the organization. Tacit knowledge is not documented, and it is very specific
to the individual and situation (Nonaka, 1991). Sharing tacit knowledge is more difficult
than explicit knowledge sharing, in that the emphasis should not be on the content, but
rather knowledge flow. Facilitating such knowledge flow can only be accomplished
through enhancing all types of communication (Fahey & Prusak, 1998). The process for
enhancing shared knowledge also needs to be supported by technology especially when it
involves an online environment (Hew & Hara, 2007).
Williams (2006) attempts to bring discussion about tacit and explicit knowledge a
step further by combining it with the concept of articulation in linguistic. He looked back
to what Nonaka has said about tacit and explicit knowledge and also referred to the
concept of the socialization, externalization, combination and internalization (SECI)
model, which outlines different Ba (interactive spaces) in which tacit knowledge can be
made more explicit. He argued that the tacit/explicit distinction reminds us that knowledge
and skills do not have to be formalized for them to be shared. This confirms the view that
observation and apprenticeships have been useful ways of learning for millennial;
21
Williams noted, by quoting Barthes, a semiotician, that speech is only one mode of
semiotics; that sharing and exchange require the establishment of social relationships,
within a common set of values, and that trust is a useful and often necessary element in
this.
Furthermore, Williams (2006) stated that data implicitly contains parameters from
the domain of information; and information implicitly contains parameters from the
domain of knowledge and theoretical knowledge. By using the concept of articulation the
perspectives can be reversed, the articulations of knowledge are to be found in information,
the articulations of information are to be found in data, and the articulations of data inform
and shape our experience. Thus he distinguished three dimensions of articulation in
relation with knowledge as the final result, which are: ante-formal information, intuition,
and formal information. The Ante-formal information is information, in distinction to data,
which is generated when data is used in the identification and classification of events,
rather than just facts a higher level taxonomy, which also includes basic algorithms:
notions of sequence, con-sequence, interaction and relationships.
Intuition is an element of ante-formal information, and a component of tacit
knowledge. Ante-formal information can be very explicit but, rather paradoxically, it can
also include intuition, and it is certainly an element of what many scholars, as Williams
argues, mean by the term tacit. It might be more useful to confine ourselves to intuition,
because it quite accurately describes what might otherwise be called knowledge. The next
articulation is the social and intellectual capital of formal information, which is the
outcome of the strategic choice to forgo some of the play and slippage of everyday
language, in order to transcribe and transform particular aspects of everyday conversation
into formal information (Williams, 2006). From these articulations Williams reached a
conclusion that knowledge can be seen as narrative. Narratives in this sense are not
primarily complex stories; they are a series of material events and achievements within
particular discourse communities, which shape the environment as they proceed, and
which in a sense are only incidentally able to be recorded and told as narrative texts.
If knowledge is narrative, or at least in part narrative, then the question about how
one can share knowledge also becomes a question of how one shares story (Williams,
2006). If a story in this sense consists of an account of how someone constructed a series
of good fits between procedural information and specific contexts, then the person who
listens to that story needs to decide whether it would be useful to create similar narratives,
or whether they need to create a new narrative, based perhaps on the story they have just
22
been told. Taken the concept of storytelling for knowledge sharing from Prusak, Williams
argued that story telling is most useful when it elicits a new story in the mind of the
listener, i.e. the listener either thinks of a similar or related story of their own, or starts to
create afresh a story of their own.
2.1.2.2. Causal conditions, action/interaction in knowledge sharing practices

Endress et. al., (2007) is see knowledge sharing as a set of behaviors about
knowledge exchange which involve the actors, knowledge content, organizational context,
appropriate media, and societal environment. They agree with Polanyi (1969 in Endress et.
al., 2007) that complex knowledge sharing can be defined as transferring information that
is specific to the organization (or group) and that involves subjective insights, intuitions,
hunches and know-how.
Dalkir (2005) also noted that, in terms of communities of
practice, knowledge sharing is not just providing access to data and documents. The
practice itself is more about interconnecting, in terms of two way communication, the
social network of people who produced the knowledge. Therefore, a good knowledge
management system should include information not just of the people who produced the
knowledge but also on those who will make use of it. There is as much value in talking to
people experienced in using knowledge as there is in talking to the original authors (subject
matter experts) (Dalkir, 2005).
One way to facilitate knowledge sharing is by making the knowledge visible.
Knowledge sharing can be made more visible by making the interactions online visible in
some way so that "I know that you know xyz" and "I know that you know that I know
abc." Visible interactions help create mutual awareness, mutual accountability, and mutual
engagement to knit group members more closely together (Dalkir, 2005). In addition,
Dalkir also attempts to look closely at the types of exchanges that occur in knowledge
sharing. He points out that the majority of knowledge exchanges consist of requests,
revisions, modifications, or some form of repackaging, publications, references (e.g.,
telling people about, asking who knows about), recommendations, reuse, and
reorganization (e.g., adding metadata). Hence, regarding the kind of technologies to be
used, Dalkir emphasized that different knowledge-sharing technologies or channels should
always be seen as complementary and as mutually exclusive. All types of communications
represent some form of conversation, and each communication medium has its strengths
and weaknesses. It is important to choose the appropriate mix of channels in order to
optimize knowledge sharing.
23
In relation to what Dalkir discussed, Huang et. al., (2008) attempt to clarify
understanding about knowledge sharing and creation processes in a professional network
as a community of practice (CoP). They conducted grounded theory research using several
special interest groups (SIGs) in a teachers professional virtual community network in
Taiwan called SCTnet.
They defined the process of knowledge sharing and creation by
sequences of causal conditions, action/interaction strategies and consequences. Through

the analysis, they have identified several factors that made obvious differences in adopting
strategies, and in turn resulted in different consequences. They induced the causal
conditions in two levels: individual level (actively asking for help, habit of cooperation,
propensity to share, perception of communication media), and group level (group roles,
knowledge creation roles, group norms, cohesiveness, and leadership style) (Huang et. al.,
2008). To be in accordance with the purpose of this project the researcher places more
emphasis more on the individual level of the causal conditions. At this level Huang et. al.,
(2008) have compared extremely different examples of inferior and superior consequences
of SIGs to identify the causal conditions, as shows in table below:
Table 1. Comparisons between inferior and superior consequences teams

(Adopted from: Huang et. al., 2008)
Category
Concepts
Inferior
Superior
Individual Actively ask for
Very few
Sometimes
help
Habit of cooperation Very few
Above medium
Propensity to share
Lack of enthusiastic
Higher level of
members.
enthusiastically
sharing knowledge.
Not everyone is willing
to share their own
information.
One didnt share
anything until others
shared.
Perception of
They view SIG as a
They use SIG not
communication
coordinating platform.
only for coordination,
media
but also knowledge
sharing and creation
platform.
In relationship to how an individual in the professional network behave in
addition to the collaborative act they have in the professional community network, Huang
et. al., (2008) also identified several concepts. They classified the concepts as task
performing as part of collaboration strategies that lies within the group-individual relation
24
in the network. This category defined several problem-solving actions/interactions that

occurs while a person is involve in collaborative work within their network. The concepts
pointed to the process of knowledge flow and how the knowledge itself has been
transferred within the collaborative work. The concepts and descriptions of the category
are described below:
Table 2. Task performing strategies (Huang et. al., 2008)

Task Performing
Concept
Description
Initiating
Stimulate the group, and provide new ideas or
thought.
Information/opinion seeking Seek information or opinion from the group for
individuals to make judgments.
Information/opinion
Provide information or opinion.
providing
Coordination
Integrate ideal and practicality, and avoid
meandering.
Orienting
Instruct the group correct goals and direction.
Evaluation
Describe the task accomplished, and evaluate the
outcomes.
Recording
Recording resolutions and plans.
The study by Huang et. al., (2008) also specifies strategies for using information
technology (IT) by analyzing the interaction in special-interest groups (SIGs) including
discussion board, message board, online chatting, document sharing, and recommending
websites. Strategies for using IT are labeled based on teams intentions and purposes (task
or social). For instance, a SIG member posted a message on the discussion board to ask
how to use ftp software. This action is classified as an information exchange strategy
for performing tasks. Table 3 lists the definitions and examples of using IT strategies.
Table 3. IT strategies in relation with collaborative work.

(Huang et. al., 2008)
Strategies
Definition
Examples
Interflows of emotional
- Emotional expression about life,
Emotional
expressions between
heavy loadings of school tasks or
expression
members.
team tasks.
- Admire members work or
encourage members to work.
Inform messages needed
- Scheduling meeting agenda or
House keeping
for better coordination and
division of labor.
enable team going on.
- Minutes keeping.
25
Acknowledgement
Transfer confirmation or
answer message.
Information
exchange
Share information,
resources or experiences
with members.
Idea release
Propose ideas or
suggestions toward some
topics.
Integrating knowledge,
documents or experiences
into new knowledge
objects
Creative revision
- Calling for participation or asking

for obeying the team rule.
- Acknowledgement of documents
reception, or meeting notification.
- Thanks for others answer.
- Information/resources sharing or
recommendation.
- Share experiences of life, usage or
operations, and so on.
- Suggest some alternatives, and
share viewpoints.
- Inviting ideas.
- Combination of knowledge.
Also, Table 4 shows the knowledge sharing and creation strategies that Huang et. al.,
(2008) proposed based on their research on special-interest groups (SIGs) in a virtual
professional community network.
Table 4. Knowledge sharing and creation strategies. (Huang et. al., 2008)
Strategies
Description
Knowledge contributing
Contribute domain knowledge.
Catalyst providing
Provide ideas or information to stimulate new
knowledge flows.
Knowledge/catalyst
Combine knowledge/catalyst to generate new
integrating
knowledge flows.
Task performing
Perform task to trigger new knowledge flows.
Listening
Ask or wait for knowledge flows from others.
2.1.2.3. Ties and capabilities in knowledge sharing
The substance and type of ties in a network can have important implications for
action. Marouf (2007) looked at business ties and social ties to find how they affect
knowledge sharing. The definitions given were as follows; Business ties are defined as the
linkages between units that are based on common business tasks, mutual interests, and
shared goals that benefit all the involved parties, whether they personally like each other or
not. Social ties, in contrast, are defined as the linkages between units that are based on
emotional, non-instrumental relations, in which individuals engaged in these interactions
regard one another as friends. She pointed to frequency of interaction and closeness of the
relationship as dimensions that affect the strength of ties, either business or social.
26
Marouf (2007), based on Granovetter (1973, in Marouf, 2007), stated that weak
ties are efficient for knowledge sharing because they provide access to novel information
and people that would otherwise be disconnected from the group seeking knowledge.
Strong ties or relationships she thought hindered new information and new enterprise
knowledge because such relationships are comprised of small groups of actors who already
know what everyone knows. It was established that the strength of business relationships,
in comparison with the strength of social relationships, contributes measurably more to the
sharing of both public and private knowledge. This is in contrast to the study of the open
source community which says that such voluntary organizations allows for knowledge
sharing due to other factors like status.
Marouf (2007) proposed four types of knowledge in terms of how people in
business and social context codified it, which are public codified knowledge, public noncodified knowledge, private codified knowledge, and private non-codified knowledge. She
arrived at the conclusion that knowledge-sharing networks do not exist in some isolated
bubble by themselves. Elements such as basic organizational structure and existing
conditions of uncertainty play a crucial role in understanding knowledge sharing patterns
between units. She suggested that focusing on the formal hierarchical structure as a
coordinating mechanism, while ignoring the informal lateral relations seems to inhibit the
sharing of private non-codified knowledge.
2.1.2.4. ICT and motivations for knowledge sharing

Hendriks (1999) argued that information and communication technology (ICT)
can make a difference for knowledge sharing. He suggested that looking at motivations
that drive the practice of knowledge sharing, can provides the appropriate focus for
conceiving the difference. Thus he identified four main areas where ICT can accommodate
knowledge sharing practice. Firstly, ICT may be effective in lowering at least some
barriers involved in knowledge sharing. He discerns three types of barrier: temporal
distance, physical distance and social distance. Temporal distance relates to how we can
preserve knowledge over time. ICT may prove useful here in several forms, e.g. a
knowledge base, thesaurus, or dictionary. Physical distance is more related to geographical
boundaries. Last, social distance, as the most problematic barrier, is involved with mindset
and conceptual frames of the knowledge parties, the knowledge owners and
reconstructors. Hendriks noted that ICT may be of assistance here too, for instance, in the
form of tools facilitating social translation.
27
Secondly, ICT may facilitate the access to information bases storing data that are
relevant beyond the individual level. Hendriks used the example of a document imaging
system (DIS). Much knowledge in organizations resides in a semi-structured or
unstructured form in documents. A DIS may prove helpful to tap into the knowledge
contained in documents, by allowing group members to identify each others documents
without having to read or memorize all of them. Thirdly, ICT may be introduced with the
purpose of improving the processes involved in knowledge sharing. Instances for this ICT
assistance are case-based reasoning systems (CBR) and expert system for assisting
knowledge sharing. Fourthly, ICT may help locate the various elements relevant to the
process of knowledge sharing. What Hendriks pointed out in this instance is the use of
meta-knowledge as a form of technology for assisting knowledge sharing by locating and
providing accessibility of relevant information bases.
Hew & Hara (2007) attempt to explore more deeply what motivates individuals to
share knowledge in an online environment. Based on their literature review, they identified
several factors that motivate an individual to share knowledge in an online environment.
Such motivations are; reciprocity, personal gain, altruism, commitment to the group, ease
of technology use, and external goals. According to Nowak and Sigmund (2000 in Hew &
Hara, 2007), there are two possible types of reciprocity: direct and indirect. In direct
reciprocity, two individuals play the roles of receiver and giver of favors, while indirect
reciprocity, also called generalized reciprocity, occurs when help given to one person is
reciprocated by someone else and not by the original recipient of the help. Personal gain is
related to improve ones motivation to gain their own welfare by such means as pay,
prizes, recognition, and enchancement of self-esteem.
Individuals may also share knowledge in an online environment because they are
altruistically motivated. Altruism is a motivator in which one seeks to increase the welfare
of another person (Hars & Ou, 2002). Hew & Hara (2007) suggest that the most commonly
proposed source of altruism is empathic emotion. Prior research suggests that altruism can
encourage people to contribute knowledge in online environments. At a higher level,
altruism affects ones desire to increase the welfare of a collective (i.e., any form of a
group of people). People typically act from collectivist motives because they identify with
or value the groups vision or purpose. Individuals may treat other group members as kin
and thus be willing to do something beneficial for them. Ease of technology use may also
motivate people to share knowledge. According to Wang & Fesenmaier (2003), it is
conceivable that people will be less likely to interact and share knowledge if the
28
communication technology is confusing, technically demanding, and difficult to use. Easy

to use technology, on the other hand, facilitates knowledge sharing.
From such categories of motivations, Hew & Hara (2007) conducted a qualitative
case study of three Internet listserv environments. These were as follows; firstly, Advanced
Nursing Practice (ANP) is an Internet listserv environment for nurses who are interested in
advanced practice nursing. Secondly, University Web Development (UWD) is an Internetbased listserv environment which provides a discussion venue for web developers who are
responsible for designing, implementing, and maintaining a web site for a higher education
institution such as a university or a college. Lastly, Literacy Education (LE) is an Internetbased listserv environment which serves educators who are interested in issues of literacy,
primarily among children aged 3 to 12. Hew & Hara found that reciprocity and altruism as
a commitment of the individual to their group (collectivism) are the dominant motivators
for knowledge sharing in those three online environments. Although technology is not the
primary factor nevertheless it does play the key role in knowledge sharing. Hew & Hara
also reported that the presence of pseudo-anonymity afforded by the technology as well as
the convenience of using email-based listserv were the two main comments for expressing
the ease of use of the technology.
2.1.3. Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

In this subsection, the researcher discusses the definition of computer-mediated
communication (CMC) and its competencies, task-media fit hypothesis, and previous
research about CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing.
2.1.3.1 On discourses about CMC and its competencies.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be defined as interaction between
two or more intelligent agents that relies on ICTusually a personal computer and
networksas its primary medium (Ess, 2007). Similar to the definition above, Olaniran
(2006) states that computer-mediated communication consists of electronic-mediated
communication systems (e.g. e-mail, instant messengers, computer conferencing, and
video-conferencing) that facilitate communication interaction among people. There are two
types of CMC which are; synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated
communication (Drake, 2003). A synchronous CMC process is a real time interaction and
is characterized by direct feedback between communicator and communicant. An example
of synchronous CMC is the usage of an internet relay chat (IRC) system. On the other
29
hand, an asynchronous CMC interaction such as usage of email is not time dependent.
Paulus & Phipps (2008) argue that each CMC mode has particular affordances.
Asynchronous environments may be more convenient and linear, but participants may
spend more time establishing their presence with participatory contributions. Synchronous
environments may support interactive negotiation of meaning, but participants initially
may find conversations difficult to follow and more prone to technical difficulties.
An & Frick (2006) note that with the advent of the Internet, CMC has been one of
the most widely used communication modes, both synchronous and asynchronous. In
educational settings, asynchronous communication remains dominant. In comparison with
face-to-face communication, a major disadvantage of text based CMC is the lack of visual
and auditory cues (Vrasidas & McIsaac, 2000). On the other hand, CMC has a number of
advantages over face-to-face instructional settings. First, CMC is place and time
independent. In CMC, students can work in convenient places with highly flexible
schedules. Second, when compared with face-to-face instruction, CMC provides students
with more time to analyze and reflect on content and to compose thoughtful responses.
Finally, CMC can provide a more comfortable environment and discussion opportunities
for students who do not perform well in spontaneous face-to-face discussion because they
are shy or because their native language is not English. There were significant positive
correlations between perceived comfort with computer technology and perceived comfort
with CMC, as well as between experience with CMC and perceived comfort with CMC.
Students who were comfortable with computer technology and had more experience with
CMC tended to feels more comfortable with CMC.
Booth & Hulten (2003) used a phenomenographic approach to understand where
the learning is occurring in asynchronous dialogue. They examined two groups of
engineering students as they completed a design task. Booth & Hulten (2003) created a
taxonomy of necessary, though not sufficient, contributions to discussions which open a
dimension of variation to afford an opportunity for learning. They describe variation
as an essential aspect of learning in that things are seen in distinctly new ways when a
dimension of variation opens around a phenomenon or aspect of a phenomenon that once
was taken-for-granted . . . Lack of understanding is linked with being unaware of the
potential for variation seeing only that which is taken-for-granted (pp. 6970). The most
educationally productive conversations, then, are ones that open a dimension of variation
which provide an opportunity for learning to occur. Booth and Hulten (2003) identify four
30
types of contributions to such conversations and through their analysis identify speech acts
associated with each type of contribution.
Participatory contributions are those which acknowledge the presence of others
and include speech acts such as addressing group members by name, referring to anothers
post, acknowledging each others contributions, and encouraging each other. Factual
contributions are those which refer to the problem being discussed. Some factual speech
acts include state, propose, elaborate, extend, explain, and ask. Reflective contributions
consider the problem situation from a new angle by questioning what has been said
through speech acts of agreeing, disagreeing, comparing, isolating a detail, or problematic.
Finally, learning contributions appear as the culmination of two or more threads of
parallel or even conflicting lines of argument, and continue with a clearer goal to the
argument or with a concrete outcome such as a refined speculation (p. 81). Learning
contributions may include speech acts such as discerning, refining, and opening a
dimension of variation. However, Booth and Hulten emphasize that such acts are really
only identifiable in context.
Spitzberg (2006) argues that CMC is tentatively defined as any human symbolic
text-based interaction conducted or facilitated through digitally-based technologies. This
working definition includes the Internet; cellular phone text, instant messaging (IM), and
multiuser
interactions;
email
and
listserv
interactions;
and
text-supplemented
videoconferencing (e.g., decision support systems). Spitzberg suggests that this definition
requires actual people to be engaged in a process of message interchange in which the
medium of exchange at some point is computerized. There are some electronically enabled
or enhanced, or otherwise mediated, forms of communication that might not qualify as
CMC, including use of megaphones, hearing aids, or dedicated analog teletype systems.
Furthermore, many media not ordinarily considered computers are included, as more and
more media involve digital technologies. This definition also intends to draw attention to
the role of computer-assisted convergence in the technologically-mediated processes of
communication. The proposed theory is not strictly constrained to online interaction.
Instead, it applies to any interpersonal communication process mediated through computerassisted technologies. For example, when someone elects to use IM rather than use
vocalized phone or face-to-face (FtF) interaction, this choice reflects a set of decisions
about the functional value of that medium in that context.
Thus regarding knowledge representation, Spitzberg (2006) noted that knowledge
is represented primarily by cognitive characteristics reflecting such constructs as planning,
31
uncertainty reduction, familiarity, expertise, and other indicators of comprehension.

Knowledge can be highly compartmentalized or a more general dimension of perceived
ability. A person may know a lot about hardware and software, yet little or nothing about
how to compose a message sensitive to status differential between sender and receiver.
Knowledge can be operationalized through such constructs as self-monitoring, planning,
cognitive complexity, and experience. Skills are the repeatable, goal-oriented behavioral
tactics and routines that people employ in the service of their motivation and knowledge.
Spitzberg (2006) identified over 100 distinct skills in the communication competence
literatures that relate to CMC. However, he also argues that these skills probably reflect a
more parsimonious set of skill clusters and dimensions. Specifically, at the microscopic
level, interpersonal skills reduce CMC to four basic skill clusters: attentiveness (i.e.,
displaying concern for, interest in, and attention to the other person or persons in the
interaction), composure (i.e., displaying assertiveness, confidence, being in control),
coordination (i.e., displaying deft management of timing, initiation and closure of
conversations, topic management, etc.), and expressiveness (i.e., displaying vividness and
animation in verbal and nonverbal expression).
2.1.3.2 Task-media fit hypothesis

Daft & Lengel, (1986) present the idea that the degree of richness of a
communication medium is dependent on the capacity of the medium to process ambiguous
communication, and suggests that richer media are more effective for equivocal tasks, and
leaner media are better for unequivocal tasks. This theory is well known as media richness
theory. According to the theory, face-to-face communication is considered to be the
richest, while other media are thought to be leaner since they have fewer contextual cues
and slower feedback compared to face-to-face (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Simon & Peppas
(2004) attempt to apply the media richness context to designing product web sites. They
highlight that through rich media, more social, non-verbal and complex cues (e.g. gestures,
vocal inflection, touch, stance) can be communicated and greater feedback can be
provided. Messages should be communicated through channels possessing the minimum
sufficient richness capacity (Pinsonneault et al., 2002), for when the richness is
inappropriate to the complexity of the situation, messages are likely to be misinterpreted or
misunderstood.
Simon & Peppas (2004) give the example of when the use of rich media is used to
convey information related to simple decisions it may create conflicting cues, potentially
32
distracting the receivers attention from the message itself. The overabundance of
information and cues provided by rich media in the context of simple tasks is likely to
make the decision process unnecessarily complex and long. Suh (1999) explains the
relationship between a task and media richness as follows:
a.
When a medium is too rich for a task (choice of a product), inefficient communication
can result due to the distraction of non-essential cues and information; and
b.
When a medium is too lean for a task, then inefficient communication may result
because insufficient cues and information are transmitted.
McGrath and Hollingshead (1993 in Mennecke, Valacich, & Wheeler, 2000) have
extended media richness theory by mapping specific task types to various communication
environments in a model called the task-media fit hypothesis. They hypothesized that
tasks performed in overly rich or lean communication environments will not be performed
as effectively as when performed in the best-fitting communication environment. Instead
of increasing effectiveness, the use of media richer than what the task requires may act as a
distraction such that communication that is nonessential for effective task performance
will be exchanged. Media providing less richness of information than the task requires may
act to constrain communication such that the media is not capable of transmitting the types
of or amount of communication needed to effectively address the task. These
communication distractions or constraints are likely to negatively affect task performance.
It is possible, however, for lean media to have the ability to convey rich communication
(Mennecke, Valacich, & Wheeler, 2000) since it has no difference in term of medium
effectiveness to give feedback (Watts, 2007).
Mennecke, Valacich, & Wheeler (2000) attemped to evaluate the predictive
accuracy of the task-media fit hypothesis on two of the remaining three general task types
of the model in the hypothesis, an intellective and a negotiation task. They conducted the
quantitative research based on four media types which are face-to-face (FtF), video, audio,
and computer-based communications.
One important difference between the media
continuum of the task-media fit hypothesis is that face-to-face, video, and audio
communication support oral communication while computer-mediated communication
supports the exchange of text-based messages (although the capabilities of computermediated communication are rapidly expanding). This difference between treatments might
imply that one medium is at an inherent disadvantage. For some tasks, face-to-face
communication may have an advantage over other media, while for other tasks, computermediation may be optimal. One hundred and fourteen students, predominately sophomores
33
and juniors, were recruited from business and speech communication courses to participate
in their experiment. They adjusted the student participation in the research as a mandatory.
Overall, the research results provides limited support for the task-media fit
hypothesis. When addressing an intellective task, the participants using audio and video
communication were predicted to have the highest performance, followed by computermediation, and then followed by face-to-face. No differences were found between
audio/video and face-to-face communication. On the other hand, when addressing a
negotiation task, the pattern of results was largely consistent with the predictions of the
task-media fit hypothesis. The participants using face-to-face communication were
predicted to complete the task most quickly, followed by video, and then followed by
audio and computer-mediated. No significant differences were found between participants
using face-to-face and video communication. In sum, when addressing a negotiation task,
objective task performance was found to be largely consistent with the predictions of the
task-media fit hypothesis.
However, Mennecke, Valacich, & Wheeler (2000) identify that their findings
clearly present opportunities for future theoretical and empirical research. Firstly, their
research suggested that more robust theories of media and performance are needed.
Extensions to current theories should include aspects of the entire group process in
addition to the predicted influence of media on task performance. Such theorizing needs to
precisely define how media characteristics simultaneously interact with both group
processes and task execution. For example, some media may better support process
communication or process structuring while other media might be more supportive for
information dissemination and task execution. Secondly, there are unlimited empirical
opportunities related to testing the task-media fit hypothesis in the context of group process
theories such as the time, interaction, and performance (TIP) theory. In this context, TIP
theory suggests that when examining media richness, a more atomic view of group
processes and task definitions may be needed.
2.1.3.3 CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing

Hoff & Weenen (2004) investigated the relationship between CMC use and
knowledge sharing. They starts their research by distinguishing the concept between
knowledge donating and knowledge collecting, two acts as part of knowledge sharing
practices. Knowledge donating means the process of communicating to others what ones
personal intellectual capital is, in this sense the intellectual capital can be seen as what
34
ones knows. On the other hand, knowledge collecting is an act of consulting colleagues in
order to get them to share their intellectual capital. Hoff & Weenen distinguished both as
active processes, either actively communicating to others what one knows, or actively
consulting others in order to learn what they know. Nevertheless, both processes have a
different nature, and can be expected to be influenced by different factors. Where donating
knowledge constitutes sharing ones intellectual capital with others (which, in
economically rational terms, means more costs than benefits), collecting knowledge means
enabling oneself to profit from others intellectual capital (in which situation the benefits
are possibly much larger than the costs).
Hoff & Weenen (2004) did hypothetical whether the use of CMC has a positive
influence on organizational members willingness to both donating and collecting
knowledge. They are tested their hypothesis in two case studies, one in a staffing agency
and the other in a consultation firm. They found that both within and outside of the
department where respondents of their research work, knowledge collecting positively
influences knowledge donatingthe more knowledge a person collects about the
department or the organization, respectively, the more he or she is willing to donate
knowledge to this environment as well. At the conclusion, they highlight the theoretical
implications of their research as follows. Affective commitment is indeed an important
determinant of knowledge sharing, specifically of knowledge donating. They found that
CMC use was also a positive influence on commitment, lending support to theories that
explain how the lack of social cues in CMC can create positive conditions for affective
commitment.
They also issue a reminder that it is important, however, to realize that these
relationships may become somewhat more complicated as successful CMC tools may
replace the use of richer media such as face-to-facewhich, despite the fact that a lack of
social cues can work positively on these variables, may result in a less rich social climate
in the organization, and through that, in less affective commitment. The distinction
between knowledge donating and knowledge collecting is an important distinction, which
should receive more attention in theories about knowledge sharing.
2.1.4. Social software: a short review

Social software is not just about new application, and the emergence is more to
connected humanity rather than technology (Bryant, 2007). It should be kept it in mind
35
that, social software is not the same as Web 2.0 although social software has emerged as
major components in Web 2.0 (Alexander, 2006) but the history of this technology might
goes in different direction than the web itself. Christopher Allen (2004) has done a
splendid work to trace the history of social software. He related the terms and the existence
of software back to 1940s when Vannevar Bush wrote; the famous article, As We May
Think, then to the emergences of late development of, so called, collaborative technology
such as ARPA, Licklider and augmentation technologies (1960s), Office automation and
Electronic Information Exchange System/EIES (1970s), Groupware and ComputerSupported Collaborative Work/CSCW (1980s and 1990s).
Allen (2004) pointed that the term social software was not commonly use until
late 2002 when Clay Shirky organized the Social Software Summit in November 2002.
In fact, the definition of social software is still vague, Clay Shirky defined social software
as simply software that support group interactions (Allen, 2004; Futurelab, 2006) while
other practitioners like Tom Coates see social software as augmentation of human's
socializing and networking abilities by software, complete with ways of compensating for
the overloads this might engender (Allen, 2004; Farkas, 2007). Futurelab, a non-profit
organization based in UK, attempted to define social software by showing some key
attributes of social software in relation to education which are that it; delivers
communication between groups, enables communication between many people, provides
gathering and sharing resources, delivers collaborative collecting and indexing of
information, allows syndication and assists personalization of priorities, has new tools for
knowledge aggregation and creation of new knowledge, and delivers to many platforms as
is appropriate to the creator, recipient and context (Futurelab, 2006).
Taking it from a different point of view, Dotsika & Patrick (2006) suggest that
social software effectively is a convergence of the thinking of the domains of social
networks, human-computer interaction (HCI) and web services. Rather than requesting the
users to adapt to the software, social software attempts to fit with users environment so
that the software can be more intuitive and attract users to continue use it (Dotsika &
Patrick, 2006). This change, shifting from pull to push technology, has been influenced and
matched with the development of the web, refers to OReilly term Web 2.0 (OReilly,
2005), thus applications of such software can be found in most of web technology 2.0.
Table 5 lists various categories of social software from different perspectives. Wikipedia
attempted to list the categories from a functional approach, Futurelab see the range of
36
social software in relation to education technology, while Dotsika & Patrick view social
software in terms of web services.
For the past several years we see how several popular social media such as
Facebook, Twitter, blogs, Second Life and Youtube become more prominent and a huge
hit by attracting millions of people to be a part of their website development. These
phenomena, are splendidly described by Bernoff and Li (2008) as the groundswell, a
social structure in which technology puts power into the hands of individuals and
communities, not institutions. The rise of groundswell, as a trend where people use
technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional
institutions like corporations has influenced how users share their knowledge through
CMC. Time is less and less being seen as a constraint. The boundaries that distinguished
between synchronous and asynchronous CMC has been alleviated by simultaneous reply of
micro blogging in Twitter or collaborative text editing in GoogleDocs. The prominence of
social software or social media also enhances the way people embrace the technology as
part of their everyday activities especially for collaborative work. Thus it would be
interesting to explore whether social media contributes to the CMC process in this
research.
Wikipedia (2008)
blogs, clipping, instant
messaging, internet forums,
internet relay chat,
eLearning, Massively
Multiplayer Online Games
(MMOGs), media sharing,
media cataloging, personals,
social bookmarking, social
cataloging, social citations,
social evolutionary
computation, social
networks, social scripting,
virtual worlds, and wikis.
Table 5. List of social software

Futurelab (2006)
Text-based software
(Weblogs, wiki, social
bookmarking and tagging,
fan fiction sites, RSS),
Audio-visual software
(Codeck, Broadcast
Machine, radiowaves),
spatial and geographic social
software (Google Earth),
Finding like minds (profile
matching systems, affinity
systems, personal networks),
mobile phone software (Push
toTalk, Mobiluck)
Dotsika & Patrick (2006)

Online services, online
networks (social and
business), collaborative
shared/writings,
Tools/Services
(communication, group
discussion, media sharing),
Open standards (web
services, content
aggregation, network
sharing, persona identity,
reputation system), New
forms of collective action
(Open Source, Civil
Society Projects, Smart
Mobs)
2.2. Conceptual Framework

Based on the theory that has been discussed above, the researcher needs to
identify the data that must be collected in this research. The research of Huang et.al.,
37
(2008) provides the researcher some insight of the actions that can be expected when users
do CMC in relation with knowledge sharing. However, the next challenge is how to
formulate the actions so that the researcher can design a context that can be used in the
storyboard. Initially, the researcher hoped that data from the interviews may be able to
create a foundation for building the context of use for the storyboard. Unfortunately, the
results were not sufficient for this. Researchers need to redesign the context of use that can
accommodate fairly common actions, but at the same time must reflect of the use of ENA
itself. The scope of the research is such that on the implementation of the storyboard as
part of the development of a thematic digital library there is also a consideration for the
researcher to restrict the data that must be examined. Hence the conceptual framework is
designed as a basis for the development of context of use of the scenario that will be
applied to the participants in this research.
So the researcher designed a scheme associated with the behavior of CMC and
knowledge sharing based on the concepts of Huang et. al., (2008). The researcher designed
the complexity of actions based on some considerations; firstly, the scheme is needed to
facilitate identification of the data required for the research. Secondly, the scheme stands
as the basis for the development of context of use that will be used in the designing the
task-based scenario. Thirdly, based on Huang et. al., (2008) and Hoff & Weenen (2004)
findings, the researcher concluded that it is possible to combine the behavior of CMC and
knowledge sharing because in practice both acts are united. Therefore, the researcher
makes use of Huang, et. al.,(2008) findings on task performance (as a part of the
collaboration strategies), IT strategies, and knowledge creation and sharing strategies.
To enrich the research results, the researcher also combined practices of CMC and
knowledge sharing in accordance with the definition provided by Hoff & Weenen (2004).
Figure 1. shows the relationship that arises from interactions between CMC and knowledge
sharing.
In Fig. 1, the researcher relates three categories proposed by Huang et. al., (2008)
of knowledge sharing practices with knowledge sharing activities proposed by Hoff &
Weenen (2004) in conjunction with CMC. The researcher uses the categories identified by
Huang et. al.,(2008) because the categories are clear enough to be interpreted into causality
actions. Those action categories are associated with lines; each category has a different
color. The researcher did not differentiate based on the intensity of the action hence there
are no differences in the thickness of line or whether they are continuous. The process of
communication between each action is assumed to be the same and to be two-way, hence
38
arrows are not used to indicate direction. In the scheme we also see that not all CMC
actions can be associated with the subcategories. However, knowledge donating activity is
associated with activities such as; information/opinion providing, orienting, and evaluation
in the category of task performing. When the donating activity is associated with IT
strategies, the activity displays its functions as emotional expression, information
exchange, and idea release. This is also the case in the creation and knowledge sharing
strategies, closely related to knowledge donating as an activity that contributes to
knowledge, as a catalyst and provider triggering new knowledge flow.
Figure 1. Interrelation of actions between CMC and knowledge sharing

(Adapted from Huang et. al., 2008; Hoff & Weenen, 2004)
More significant results are uncovered if we follow the causality flow that is
implied by the scheme. For instance, knowledge collecting activity related to
information/opinion seeking activity. One of the relationships that can be identified from
information/opinion seeking is listening activity. This sequence can be read so that the
collecting activity is directly related to the information/opinion seeking activity and not
directly related to the listening activity. In another example, knowledge donating activity is
39
related to evaluation and implies on the use of IT for the acknowledgement. These
implications allow the researcher to determine the actions that will be included in the taskbased scenario, and moreover that the biggest benefit is that the implications are very
useful as a basis for the determination of variations and alternative actions that may appear
from the results of the tested scenario. The scheme that been visualized is not perfect but
enough to help the researcher in distinguishing actions and labeling sequences of acts that
will be examined in the task-based scenario. A conceptual diagram of this research is
shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 2. Conceptual framework of the research.

The focus of this study as shown in Fig. 2 is on the interaction between individuals
who are working collaboratively. Interaction between individuals is assumed to take place
via two-way communication with other individuals in the same group. Communication is
going to be assisted by a computer device thus constitutes a computer-mediated
communication. CMC activity performed by individuals is associated with the practice of
knowledge sharing among them, so they carry out the action focused on the activities of
knowledge collecting and donating. Reciprocal actions are facilitated by social software as
the means for collaboration among individuals. In connection with ENA, individuals also
play the role of users of ENA. Due to the limited accessibility that is provided by ENA and
the specific characteristics that the user has in this research, the type of action that has been
correlated with the usage of ENA is restricted to accessing activity. Although two users are
shown in the diagram, this research only focuses on a single-person perspective. Drawing
two users is used only to facilitate the illustration of two-way communication. The user is
assumed has the same context with the opponent.
40
The knowledge donating and collecting activities are facilitated by use of a

collaboration tool; in this case the role of social software is expected to contribute to the
collaborative work. As depicted in the chart, there are two contexts that will be inspected.
The contexts are; first, that the CMC is a communication process, consisting of knowledge
collecting and donating, from an individual with a computer device to another individual.
In spite of a similarity or difference in their acceptance of meaning, feedback is assumed tp
occur within the process of collecting and donating the knowledge. The tool for the
collaborative work is facilitated by social software. In the second context, the knowledge
sharing process covers all activities of individuals interacting with other individuals and
partnering with ENA as part of disseminating the knowledge. Hence, instruments of this
research are reflection from merged of the two contexts.
This chapter has discussed the theoretical framework used in this research. The
research findings by Huang et. al., (2008) on knowledge sharing practices in a professional
virtual network helped the researcher to define the categories used for designing the
context of use for the storyboard. Combining this with the concepts relating to knowledge
sharing developed by Hoff & Weenen (2004), the researcher designed a diagram that
connected subcategories from these two resources. To facilitate and leverage the planning
process of research procedures and instruments, the researcher developed the conceptual
framework with a focus on data from single-person perspective. In the next chapter the
methodology will discussed and the procedures used in this research.
41
Chapter 3.
THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In the preceding chapter, we discussed the theoretical basis of the CMC and
knowledge sharing as well as the conceptual framework used in obtaining data for this
research. This chapter will discuss the methodology of this research. It begins by setting
out the arguments relating to the use of storyboard, and then continues with discussion of
the models of research procedures that can be applied in this project. The discussion is then
followed by details of the procedures implemented in this research after explanation of
each step. In the last part of this chapter, techniques of collecting data, the required
environmental conditions, and limitations of this research are discussed.
3.1. Introduction to the Methodology

This research is using a qualitative approach. Silverman (2005) pointed out that a
methodology refers to the choices we take about cases to study, methods of data gathering,
forms of data analysis, etc., in planning and executing a research study. Thus, the
methodology in this research is designed to answer the proposed research questions which
also show an alternative method to approach the given problem. There are many methods
that can be used to describe how users communicate or, in a general context, behave using
CMC either quantitative or qualitative, or both. The reasons the researcher has chosen to
use storyboard are as follows;
a. Storyboard as a method in Human-computer Interaction (HCI) proved to be the best
method to provide a simple means of understanding the relation of one element to
the overall scheme, and how various knowledge elements can become
interconnected (Lindeman & Varvel Jr., 2004). By seeing the interconnectedness,
the developer is able to design a better deliverable in term of customer
understanding.
b. Storyboard as a method can give a better description of user interaction since the
method itself provides an overview of the system (Usability Net, 2006).
c. Using storyboard as a method in the CMC field is something that can be consider
as a new approach to study human communication process.
Storyboard is defined as a low fidelity prototype consisting of a series of screen
sketches (Usability Net, 2006). To apply the storyboard as a method, the researcher took
42
the concept from Contextual Design (CD) as a popular human-centered design method
from the field of information systems design (Notess, 2005). Looking at it more generally,
methods in CD are within the field of contextual research. Contextual research method is
differentiated from usability test since this involves a site visit to understand how the user
actually does things. While usability test is a device-oriented evaluation process,
contextual research method is a user-oriented discovery process. While usability test
focuses on the relationship between device or service and user, contextual research is a
method that focuses more on the user environment including physical, psychological,
cultural circumstances (Kim, et. al., 2007).
The full Contextual Design process consists of six steps (Holtzblatt, 2001; Notess,
2005, Beyer, et. al., 2004);
a. Contextual inquiry; Field interviews with users in their work places while they
work, observing and inquiring into the structure of their own work practice.
b. Work modeling; researcher projected the reported data into formalized work
models. Work models include flow, sequence, culture, artifact, and physical.
c. Consolidation; data from multiple observation sessions are combined, yielding a
holistic picture of work practice. Individual work model types are consolidated, and
the work notes are organized into an affinity diagram.
d. Work redesign; using a visioning and storyboarding process, the researcher
generates ideas for improving the work practice.
e. User environment design; the functions and structures needed by the redesigned
system are expressed in a detailed architectural model.
f. Paper prototyping a series of transformations are applied to the user environment
design to create testable paper prototypes, which are taken back to the field and put
in front of users. Data from contextual prototype interviews are incorporated back
into the design process.
Notess (2005) posited that apart from its potential practical uses, CD might also
be valuable as a methodology for descriptive research. It is primarily the first three steps
that might be helpful: contextual inquiry, work modeling, and consolidation. The current
difficulty is that these steps, while fairly well specified, are not defined rigorously enough
to be employed consistently. This is not unusual for a design process, where adaptability is
desired. To become a research method, the constructs expressed in the work models need
to have operational definitions, and the inquiry, modeling, and consolidation processes
must be defined in such a way as to guarantee reproducibility of results. Despite this lack,
43
it is worth considering that the CD models in particular might be a useful first step towards
a more standardized, comparable language for specifying qualitative fieldwork results.
This research project is not an information system design per se thus the
researcher attempted to adjust the process to build the storyboard in order to be appropriate
for the research problem and to fit suit with research constraints and limitations. The
adjustments are:
a. The researcher chose semi-structured interview as the initial data collection
technique for creating a scenario instead of conducting contextual inquiry because
the interview requires less time and resources than the whole contextual inquiry
process.
b. The research does not focus on testing ENA as a system, rather aims to facilitate
understanding of an aspect of ENA users, in particular the communication process
among users. Thus, the researchers approach is emphasizes only on the
communication and knowledge flow model of users behavior.
c. The research does not attempt to follow the storyboard result in the later phase as
would be the case in contextual design, but presents the outcomes as
recommendations for the consideration of ENA developers.
3.2. The research procedure

The final procedure that the researcher used to obtain the data for the research as
well as testing the storyboard resulted from three preceding developments. For more
explanation about the development of the research procedure, please see Appendix 1. This
fourth or the final model was developed by the researcher after getting input from the
participants that they had insufficient time to attend the interview stage and the
implementation of scenario separately. The researcher also has time constraints to perform
the observation, thus the process of collecting data had to be adjusted to the needs of
research. In this latest model, the changes were mainly focused on the initial data
collection procedures. In the three previous procedures, the process of information input to
the application of the storyboard was focused on the task-based scenario and emerging role
of the research supervisor to conduct cross-checking against the data collected and
procedures. To shorten the time and still retain the same quality of data, an alternative
scenario was developed based on information from the pilot interview instead interview.
The researcher argues that the data obtained from the pilot interview is enough to create
44
the categories of activities that required in the scenario. The researcher also used the
categories of behavior have been used in previous research, as this is in the theoretical
framework.
The advantage of this fourth model lies in the working flow which is very concise
and efficient in terms of cost. This is a distinctive feature, especially if we want to do
testing and development of the system of interaction that consists of many parts. The
fourth model also enables the researcher to adjust the method with other usability testing
techniques for example, to combine the storyboard and performance testing. The final
model of the research procedures or steps is:
1. Conducting pilot interviews and translate it into a list of questions.
At this stage, the researcher conducted interviews in order to design questions to get the
necessary information in this research.
a. Pilot interviews.
The purpose of pilot interviews in this research, as suggested by Bartholomew et. al.,
(2000), is to generate items for the list of interview questions. The researcher
developed an interview guide based on topics in this research. Five international
students were interviewed, and the result was a list of questions for the main
interview.
b. The List of Questions
The researcher classified the research questions into four main topics which are:
Internet Adoption; the purpose of this topic is to gather data about participants
internet uses and preferences.
Uses of social software; questions in this topic focus on involvement of participants
with social software as the latest fashion of web technology. Relevance with the
research problem is that data was obtained about participants familiarity as well as
their experiences using social software. This topic attempts to clarify whether there
will be opportunities to embrace web technology with use of ENA. For operational
definitions, the researcher took the social software categories based on the list made
by Wikipedia (see Table 5.). The researcher used the Wikipedia list of social
software instead of the others because of two reasons; first, the list was categorized
using common labels that are already familiar to by the social software users since
the article its self was constructed by users. Second, is to avoid misinterpretation of
social software platforms.
45
Collaborative work; the topic explores participants experience working in

collaborative projects as well as working in computer-supported collaborative
environments. The topic also particularly investigates the form of computermediated communication that participants engage with while working on the
collaborative projects.
European Navigator (ENA); in this topic, participants are questioned about their
impressions of ENA. Participants are also asked to use ENA and utilize features
that ENA has. The aim of this topic is to gather data about activities that an ENA
user carries out while using the website. The complete list of questions can be seen
at Annex. 2.
2. Build the context of use based on the conceptual framework.
The researcher developed the context of use based on the conceptual frameworks
that have been examined and described in chapter 2. The references that are used in
designing the context of use were taken from several studies such as that of Huang,
et.al., (2008) which is about the knowledge sharing process in virtual communities, also
from Hoff & Weenen (2004) into the relationship between CMC and knowledge sharing
practice. Based on map the relationship between behavior and the use of KS practice
CMC (see Fig. 1) and the conceptual framework (Fig. 2), the researcher formulated the
activities into the scenario.
3. Based on context of use and pilot interviews, researcher then create a task-based
scenario.
By combining individual and situated-like group task, the scenario will emphasize
communication process among participants as the users of ENA. The researcher divides
the scenario in three acts based on the roles of KS and CMC as described in Appendix.
3. The functional matrix (Table 6.) is designed to map all the related action that appears
as the usage behavior regarding CMC and knowledge sharing. The white space
indicates all the possible actions, the grey area indicates all the expected variety of
actions from the scenario, and the check mark indicates the determined action. Not all
the categories and relationship behavior can be inserted in the scenario since the time
available for the implementation of the scenario is not long. Hence the scenario is
designed to be played within 60 minutes. Please note that the scenario that is developed
has been designed in such a way to fit the participants characteristics. Different
scenarios may be provided for different participants characteristics.
46
Table 6. Functional matrix for the task-based scenario based on the expected strategies of action:
Variety of Action
Act I (S11-S13)
Actor attempt to look for
info. that his friend has
asked using ENA
Actor names documents
that have relation with
some topics in ENA
Actor clarify what
specific information his
friend has requested
Act II (S21-S22)
Processing specific
knowledge requested by
using ENA
Recommending some
additional references
(technical knowledge)
Act III (S31-35)
Recommending
collaboration tool
software
Sharing knowledge by
using ENA and social
software
Clarifying the
contributed knowledge
with others
Solving the unexpected
situation.
Praised the work of
others.
CMC strategies
C1
C2
T1
T2
Task performing
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
I1

47
I6
K1
KS strategies
K2
K3
K4
IT strategies
I3 I4 I5

I2

K5
Table 7. Strategies description (Huang et. al., 2008; Hoff & Weenen, 2004):
Knowledge donating
Knowledge collecting
CMC Strategies
C1 Communicate to other people
knowing about what.
C2
IT Strategies
Interflows of emotional expressions
between members.
I2
Inform messages needed for better
coordination and enable team going
on.
Acknowledgement I3
Transfer confirmation or answer
message.
Information
I4
Share information, resources or
exchange
experiences with members.
Idea release
I5
Propose ideas or suggestions toward
some topics.
Creative revision
I6
Integrating knowledge, documents or
experiences into new knowledge
objects
Knowledge sharing and creation strategies
Consulting colleagues in order to

get them to share their knowledge.
Task Performing
Initiating
T1
Stimulate the group, and provide

new ideas or thought.
Information/opinion
seeking
T2
Information/opinion
providing
Orienting
T3
Seek information or opinion from

the group or individuals to make
judgments.
Provide information or opinion.
T4
Coordination
T5
Recording
T6
Evaluation
T7
Integrate ideal and practicality, and

avoid meandering.
Instruct the group correct goals and
direction.
Describe the task accomplished,
and evaluate the outcomes.
Recording resolutions and plans.
Emotional
expression
House keeping
I1
Knowledge
contributing
Catalyst providing
K1
Contribute to domain knowledge.
K2
Provide ideas or information to

stimulate new knowledge flows.
Combine knowledge/catalyst to
generate new knowledge flows.
Perform task to trigger new knowledge
flows.
Ask or wait for knowledge flows from
others.
Knowledge/catalyst K3
integrating
K4
Task performing
(as the trigger)
K5
Listening
48
4. Selecting participants.
Users play important roles for the research to reach its goals. Therefore selecting who
will be the participants for the research was properly carried out. It was also necessary to
make sure that the selected participants indeed represent the end users of ENA. Actually,
this is not a difficult task considering ENA already has a niche target, which is the student
as their main user. However, the researcher also had to consider other research constraints
such as location, time and budget allocations, therefore some adjustment has been made to
meet the requirements for the research and at the same time still maintain the quality of
research such as sample representativeness and data validation.
a. User Criteria
The research focuses on usage of ENA as a source of information and also the usage of
social software among ENA users. Thus the criteria that researcher looked for were:
a. Users with capability to search, browse, and retrieve information from the internet
using browsers,
b. Users who have familiarity with using social software platform at least blogs, social
networking sites, and/or wikis.
c. Users who had experience working on collaborative tasks and using computer
technology in one way or another for accomplishing the work.
d. Users must have interest in with issues regarding European integration process since
that is the theme of ENA contents.
Participants for the research were expected to come from a wide range of experience
either using ENA or social software thus another optional preferences that the researcher
considered were participants interest in history of the European integration process and
their knowledge about ENA. As been described above, participants for this research are
international students studying at Tallinn University in the International Master in Digital
Library Learning (DILL) in spring semester 2009 class of 2008. They are 21 students who
came from 14 different countries. There was an argument presented against using the
selected participants as informants for the project when the researcher presented the
proposal at a research seminar in Tallinn University, March 2009. Namely whether the
selected participants are suitable and meet the characteristics as users of ENA. However,
the reasons for their selection are as follows;
As described in the ENA information ecosystem diagram in Chapter IV (Fig. 4). There
are two types of ENA user. One is the registered user of ENA with capability to retrieve
and post a document through CVCE. This type of user, such as researcher and domain
49
expert, is standing within the second zone in the ENA information ecosystem. The
other one, the biggest client of ENA, is what the researcher calls the potential user.
This is where students, including international students take their place in the
ecosystem. Now, based on statistics that the researcher received from CVCE (which
CVCE has requested remain confidential) about ENA visitors showed that the high
visitor traffic accessing ENA mostly comes from Luxembourg and countries
surrounding Luxembourg. It is because contents of ENA are included in school
curricula taught in Luxembourg and surrounding countries. Therefore, most of the
traffic also comes from students. In this case, there is similarity in proportion between
students in Luxembourg and countries surrounding it and the rest of the students in the
world or so to speak the international students. When the student who been taught about
the contents of ENA has to access ENA the first time, he or she has involve in nonpurposeful activity in order to get acquainted with it and become familiar in using
ENA. As is the case with any first time visitor to websites.
The selected participants are international students who study digital libraries and they
are familiar with using thematic digital libraries. Not only were those, the selected
participants chosen because they have met with user criteria for this research.
b. Number of Participants
This research was conducted in two stages based on data collection techniques which
are the interviews combined with the task-based scenario stage and brainstorming
stage. There is some suggestion from Holtzblatt (2005) that in terms of contextual
interviews for the smallest contextual research project, the researcher has to do at least
four interviews. The researcher has considered the number of interviews suggested by
Holtzblatt (2005) as well as the size of the population which is all the DILL students
class 2008. Thus the researcher decided to double the number of interviews to eight in
order to enrich the result and also to avoid the problem of lack of data that might arise
when researching using a small amount of informants. Therefore for the interview
stage, eight participants are selected to have a semi-structured interview with the
researcher. Afterwards the researcher invited four from the eight participants to
participate in brainstorming stage. Since this research is qualitative, the researcher does
not require sampling instead participant act as informants. The method that the
researcher used to determine the informants was as follows: First, the researcher
prepared a list of names based on student group assignment works undertaken in a
course that the students took in Tallinn University spring semester 2009, the
50
Information and Knowledge Management course. There were 4 working groups.

Second, the researcher used a lottery approach as the technique for determining
informants in the research. Names of all students in DILL program were written on
papers which were then collected, mixed up and put in a bowl, and then the researcher
took out 4 of 21 papers in the bowl. The researcher requested Karin Oolu, a program
assistant for DILL at Tallinn University, to draw 4 more names. The researcher used
this technique, to minimize subjectivity in choosing the participants. Third, the
researcher filtered the eight names that were selected so that each work group was
represented by 2 participants.
5. Invite the participants and brief them about the research.
At this stage, the researchers also set the time and place for the interview and to present
the scenario.
6. Conduct the interview which was then followed by the scenario. All activities recorded by
camcorder.
In this project, the researcher as the interviewer is using semistructured interview, also
known as a qualitative research interview (Nielsen, et. al., 2005), as the interview
technique since the technique is widely used in flexible design, either as the sole method
or in combination with others (Robson, 2002). The interviewer had prepared a list of
topics and wanted to get responses from the interviewee with some considerations such as
freedom in the sequencing of questions and in the amount of time and attention given to
different topics. The interviews with each participant were scheduled in different times,
and the questions for the interviews were open-ended questions.
7. Scenarios given, time imposed.
The participants undertook the scenario under time constraints while the researcher
observed how the participant carried out the scenario. The purposes of this phase are to
motivate participants to be more focused on the given task and to collect data from field
observation about pattern repetition and deviations. Deviation is important in order to
capture the range of variation in behavioral responses to the designated situation
(Schensul, 1999)
8. After the time expires, each participant submitted the result which was then consolidated
with the results of the work of others.
9. All consolidated data was described in an affinity diagram. Afterwards, the researcher
created drafts of the storyboard.
51
10.
Brainstorming session;
Four informants that represent the participants were invited to discuss about the given
scenarios, usage of computer-mediated communication to share knowledge, and usage of
European Navigator. The outcomes from this session provided the best scenario to be
drawn in to storyboard.
11.
The storyboard is presented; along with narrative of the visual.
12.
Conclusion.
3.3. Schema of the research procedure
Figure 3. The research procedure
3.4. Type of data

1. Primary data; data collected directly from informants (notes, interview transcripts, tasks
result, video records, storyboard).
2. Secondary data; data used to support research result (previous research data, articles,
books, clips).
3.5. Data collection techniques

a. Semistructured interview
Schensul (1999) stated that semistructured interviews combine the flexibility of the
unstructured, open-ended interview with the direction and agenda of the research
52
instrument to produce focused qualitative, textual data at factor level. The questions in
a semistructured interview guide are preformulated, but the answers to those questions
are open-ended, they can be fully expanded at the discretion of the interviewer and the
interviewee, and can be enhanced by probing. Moreover, semistructured interviews
differ from observational, questionnaire, and projective techniques in that they are more
interactional, provide more latitude for participant response, permit flexibility of
stimulus presentation to match of the situation, and yield a rich source of information
(Bartholomew, et. al., 2000). A list of questions had been prepared by the researcher
and divided into four topics based on the kind of information that the researcher wanted
to obtain. For reliability of the questions, the researcher has carried out pilot interviews
and had asked the supervisor of the research for review.
b. Task-based scenario
In usability study, scenario is basically a design envisionment technique consisting
of outlines (Design, 2005). Bromme, Hesse, & Spada, (2005) suggests that the taskbased scenario can be built as an evolutionary step in the development process by
using terminologies and concepts that can enrich the visualization. Because they were
task-based, the scenario allowed users to think about what they would like to do with
the system, rather than to articulate system requirements in an abstract context. The use
of scenario enables reflection in that they involve an explicit context, and experiential
in that they allow users to imagine or act out of activity (Bromme, Hesse, & Spada,
2005).
c. Brainstorming
Brainstorming has been closely associated with creative problem-solving movement,
where it is widely acknowledge as one of the best-known creative problem-solving
techniques (Runco & Pritzker, 1999). Runco & Pritzker (1999) also noted, when the
techniques is being used without further qualification, brainstorming may refer to a
wide range of different approaches intended to generate ideas more effectively than
through unstructured efforts. The technique may involve individual or group efforts,
and may be mediated by trained facilitators, electronic support system, training,
combinations of these and other factors. For this project, the researched adopted an
operational definition of brainstorming as an activity when researcher asked selected
participants to evaluate and give their feedback on the draft of the storyboard.
53
3.6. Data Analyzing Technique

Data analysis process began with the interview data and the task-based scenario was
completed. The process was:
1. The researcher provided a code for each question and the answers given by
informants in the interview process. The researcher summarized the condition of each
informant in relation to the CMC and knowledge sharing activities undertaken.
Results from this synopsis then become inputs for the researcher to determine the
exact conditions to be included in the storyboard.
2. A code is also assigned to each activity undertaken by informants applying the
scenario in the 'Scheduled observation results' table. Results from the table were used
by the researcher as input in determining the strategy used by informants. The
researcher checked every action performed by informants, according to the functional
table, onto the actions map.
3. Data from the actions folder were then consolidated into 'Dissemination map'
diagrams and 'maps compiled actions' diagram. The two diagrams were then
consolidated, for the second time; to become an affinity diagram that describes the
activity trends of the informants, the diagram also illustrates the action in accordance
with the categories tested.
4. Afterwards, the researcher combined conditions obtained through the interview and
the trend of events from the affinity diagram for initial storyboard design. In
contextual design, this process is called as envisioning. In principle, the researcher
determines the representation of the use and usefulness of the object to be inspected
and visualized into storyboard images. Elements to include in the storyboard are
sketch picture, captions, ENA feature (s), and dialog (if necessary).
5. Results from the initial storyboard were then presented and discussed with the
participants again in brainstorming session.
6. The researcher made revisions resulting from the brainstorming session. The results
were then presented as the final storyboard.
3.7. Physical Environment

Heumann (2003) has argued that in order to give more context when the researcher
is developing the user experience storyboard it is necessary to include also description
54
about the environments where the research was conducted. However, the physical
requirements that are listed below are the minimum:
a. Semi-structured interview and scenario plays:
A camcorder; Panasonic VDR-D50.
A laptop; Acer Aspire 5610Z.
A room with a desk and chairs.
b. Brainstorming:
A whiteboard.
A projector and screen.
A room with desk and chairs.
3.8. Technical Requirements

The minimum requirements were:
a. Semi-structured Interview and scenario plays:
Microsoft Word 2007.
Video CamSuite 1.0 for video transcribing and editing.
Mozilla Firefox version 3 and Internet Explorer 7 for the browsers.
b. Brainstorming:
Microsoft PowerPoint 2007.
3.9. Research Constraints

1. Budgetary constraint; the research did not have an adequate budget to conduct a large
scale project.
2. This research only considers students who are familiar with digital libraries and social
software.
3. The informants are from different cultures.
4. The informants are not ENAs main target users but might represent their biggest
potential users.
5. The research is based on ENA version 2006 and did not consider older or later versions
of ENA.
6. Time constraint; the research must be conducted within 6 month period, between
January to June 2009.
55
3.10. Ethical Considerations

1. All participants were notified about the purpose of this research and informed what
was expected of them.
2. All participants were told that the information they provided would be kept
confidential and they will be portrayed in this thesis anonymously.
3. All the participants took part voluntarily, nevertheless before, and at the time of the
research, all participants were given the right to withdraw from the research if they
wished.
4. The whole process of data collection was carried out at Tallinn University. Except for
the few participants who want the data collecting conducted in their own residence.
The researcher sees the need to describe the subject of this research in a separate
chapter due to the fact that a special version of the European Navigator (ENA) was used in
the research. In addition, this provides the standard information required in order to explain
what ENA is. In the next chapter, the researcher will present discussion on ENA itself as the
subject of this research as well as some background about creation of ENA by CVCE, a
research institute that developed the ENA. Topics discussed include the features and
information ecosystem that ENA has. Then, the chapter ends with a discussion of the
metadata used to organize the documents in ENA. This chapter was used by the researcher to
explain to the participants in this research about ENA.
56
Chapter 4.
ABOUT THE EUROPEAN NAVIGATOR (ENA)

After the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in this research are discussed
in chapter 2 and the methodology in this research also has been discussed in previous
chapters, this chapter discusses the subject of research. This chapter starts with background
information on ENA generally then explains the features in the ENA specifically. The
features are front page, album, media library, thesaurus, glossary, further reading,
multilingual capability, object zoom, and the collaborative work support and feedback.
Finally, this chapter discusses the information ecosystem that ENA has and the metadata
system that is used.
4. 1. Background
The European Navigator or ENA (http://www.ena.lu) is a multimedia and
multilingual Rich Internet Application (RIA) that can be used to retrieve historical
documentation and institutional development of a united Europe from 1945 to the present
day. Until the end of 2008, ENA has encompassed over 16.000 multimedia documents,
including mostly original material in the form of photos, film recordings, treaties, press
articles, and so on. ENA is designed, developed and maintain by the Centre Virtuel de la
Connaissance sur l'Europe (Virtual Resource Centre for Knowledge about Europe
CVCE). CVCE is a research institute based in Luxembourg with the objective to provide a
structure that accommodates three areas of interest;
1. The research, gathering, selection, processing and dissemination of information on the
European integration process;
2. The promotion of cutting-edge technology and the establishment of a point of
reference in the field of Digital Libraries;
3. The exchange of information, experiences and resources for the benefit of European
citizens and the world of education.
ENA is aimed at students, teachers, researchers, historians and all those who are interested in
European integration history and issues. For the development of ENA, CVCE receive
supports from the European Commission and the Luxembourg State (Ministry of State,
subsequently Ministry of Culture, Higher Education and Research).
57
The current version of ENA is ENA 2006 and the next version that will be launched
in 2010 is ENA 2010. However, the development of ENA started in 1998, as an interactive
CD-ROM application using Macromedia Director. Then, in 2000 it has evolved to be a
client/server application by using satellite for updating and transmitting the contents to the
user. Later, CVCE began to launch ENA as HTML/Java-based website in 2002. That was the
first time ENA could be accessed online by its user worldwide. In 2004, ENA was
transformed into a Rich Internet Application, in this first version ENA already has more than
5000 documents that can be searched, browsed and retrieved online in its original language or
English and French translations. The second version of ENA as RIA was launched in
February 3rd, 2006 with multimedia and multilingual features and more interactive interface.
The respond from user regarding the current version of ENA also increased significantly, as
shown by statistic, and in 2008 ENA was visited by more than 1, 8 million unique visitors
and the documents that have been consulted reached more than 8 million documents.
To attract more users, CVCE launched a flash-based widget application about ENA in
March, 2008 with rtl.com as the first website to embed the application and several blogs and
partner websites afterwards.
The response also showed some significant trends; during
December 2008 more than 164 thousand visitors have visited ENA through the widget. In
ENA 2006, browse capability also has been leveraged by more comprehensive structured
document which divided into four main folders, namely;
1. Home; contains information about ENA, and press release from CVCE regarding
ENA.
2. Historical Events; contains documents about European integration process since 1945.
3. Europe Organizations; contains information about structure of European Union (EU)
as well as other European institution bodies.
4. Special Files; Shows some analysis and documents of several European countries
contribution to the integration process of EU.
5. Interviews; contain high quality record of interviews with people who have made
contributions, direct and indirectly, and thought about European integration process.
6. ENA & Education; contain information about ENA contribution to education
activities including documents of textbooks, courses, and lectures regarding European
integration.
ENA's content is under constant development by CVCE and new materials are
regularly added to the documentary resources to cover all the different aspects of the
European integration process and to ensure that as many areas as possible ideological,
58
geographical and linguistic are represented. However, selection criteria for the documents
are based on several indicators; if regarding the source of the documents, CVCE select the
source by their closest connection to the editorial content, most clearly represent the events,
individuals and institutions involved. The other is related to document authenticity and
fundability such as documents must come from a collection that is historically objective and
neutral continually renewed and updated and constitutes the fundamental documents that
represent milestones in the history of Europe as it has progressed towards integration since
the end of the Second World War. At the same time, current research issues are also
considered, with the accent being placed on recent historiography. In the specific case of
creating the European Organizations section, the choice of material is based on very precise
criteria (legal instruments, learned articles, etc.). The organizations are presented both in the
light of the law currently in force and from a historical perspective, thereby demonstrating
how they have developed since their earliest days. This original approach brings real added
value to the ENA knowledge base.
4.2. ENA Features

1. FrontPage; The two-columns page is designed for easy browsing and has an interactive
multimodal interface. Identities of the page are represented by a small logo of ENA (top
left) and CVCE (top right), in this header there is also a small flash-based promotion about
new content of ENA. The most attractive part is the face-shifting cubes representing short
images of the content. They are distinguished by their background color which matches
with the icon color in the folders column. Next to the cubes pool there is a news box with
the latest content of ENA and a Dont Miss box that contains other documents that might
interest visitor. The searching capability is shown by a small box search just above folders
column, in the same row as the search box there are other features that can be used in ENA
such as Album, Media Library, Thesaurus, Glossary, and Further Reading, more
explanation about the features are described below.
59
Illustration 1. The European Navigator (ENA) front page
2. Album; this feature allows a user to create, manage and publish their own collection
of selected material that they found in ENA in one folder called my album. Besides
my album, the visitor also can look out for other collections/albums already published
by other visitors in public albums or consult albums that have been compiled by
CVCE researchers in ENA albums. However, in order to be able to create an album,
one must register first as an intended user and addition to managing a collection that
already exist; the user also could restore albums that might have been deleted or
remove from the list by using restore an old album link (top right in the album
frame). This feature is unique because one user might find one forgotten album is
interesting to him more than what the creator of the album itself might think of
(something like Mac Time Machine). After the visitor logs in as a user and is able to
create albums by clicking create album button in left top of the frame, in each album
the creator is required to make a synopsis of the album and this rule is also very useful
to give other visitors of the album a glimpse of what the album is all about.
60
Create an
album button
Link to restore
an album
Illustration 2. Album feature in ENA
3. Media Library; this feature allows visitor to browse ENA based on their medium
format and selected type of documents and the most interesting part is their interactive
maps and diagrams created by CVCE based on precise data concerning the issues.
These interactive media are also considered are very helpful in terms of helping
teachers or researchers who needs a kind of integrated material about issues in more
attractive visualization. The library contains 17 folders of documents which are not in
alphabetical order from video and sound clips to articles and table of figures, the
visitor also can browse the documents in icon or thumbnail forms. Beside the search
box in ENA front page, in media library frame there is also a search box facility with
the capability to focus more on interactive documents. However, the result from this
search box might not be as comprehensive as the search result in the front page
therefore it also provides a link to widen the search result to the entire database.
61
Illustration 3. Media Library feature in ENA.
4. Thesaurus; Thesaurus in ENA has adopted from Thesaurus Eurovoc edition 4.2, a
multilingual, polythematic thesaurus focusing on the law and legislation of the European
Union (EU). Eurovoc has been developed as a result of cooperation between the
European Parliament, the EC Committee and the Publication Office of EC with support
from DG XIII.1 The actual 4.2 version of Eurovoc was completed in June 2005 and the
latest version that is available at the Eurovoc website is Eurovoc v4.3. However, the
thesaurus features in ENA have not been really well developed since CVCE actually has
decided to stop using Eurovoc further and want to customize the thesaurus to fit the
structured content of ENA. However, visitor still can access the provided thesaurus with
less expectation; the results actually are quite good as a reference. As with the media
library feature, in the thesaurus frame visitors can browse the documents in icon or
thumbnails form and also can directly print the list of documents.
For more explanation see

http://europa.eu/eurovoc/sg/sga_doc/eurovoc_dif!SERVEUR/menu!prod!MENU?langue=EN
62
Illustration 4. Thesaurus feature in ENA.
5. Glossary; this feature contains only important terms regarding some content of ENA. The
glossary is currently being revised by Pierre Gerbet, Emeritus Professor at the Paris
Institute of Political Studies. There is nothing much to expect from this feature since it is
still under development nevertheless we still could read some of existing definitions or
explanations although some comprehensive issues might arise concerning reference and
context.
Illustration 5. Glossary feature in ENA.
63
6. Further Reading; this feature provide visitor with lists of reference for particular issues
regarding European integration process. However, some of the lists are only available in
French and do not indicate what kind of documentation the reference refers to.
Illustration 6. Reference list feature in ENA
7. Multilingual; So far, ENA has provided a multilingual interface for five EU languages
which are French (fr), English (en), German (de), Spanish (es), and Dutch (nl) thus if we
look more closely into each interface, actually there are only French, English, and some
parts are Dutch and German which currently working, CVCE is still constructing the
interface for Spanish and also for other missing parts in other languages, they are
focusing more on the French and English interfaces. The reason behind the decision was
since more of the visitors of ENA, based on statistics, come only from neighborhood
countries of Luxembourg and official language in CVCE is French therefore they see it is
more urgent to focus only with more prospective languages. Although there are
possibilities to expand the multilingual interface into other EU countries languages. The
multilingual feature is provided in the top right of the front page frame (under CVCE logo
in header), every time the visitor wants to change the language, they will be informed that
the frame will be closed and asked whether they wish to continue to the other language
interface. It is quite intrusive and does not really leverage their user experience on the
website; however, the reason why the question box appears will be explained more in the
metadata section.
64
Language
selection
box
Illustration 7. Multilingual feature in ENA.
8. Object Zoom; This feature enables visitors to expand documents they view in ENA
by selecting default object-zoom capabilities which are 100%, 125%, 150%, 175%,
and 200%. It is a pretty good and helpful feature for visitors who want to see some
detail within document such as small details in cartoon or portrait, even though it is
not convenient to see the entire front page also enlarged at the same time. ENA also
provides other options for visitors to maximize usage of the feature such as display
speed optimizer and sequential pictures that will visualize each picture in our selected
collection of pictures at a time in a frame. This might help visitors who do not have
high speed internet connection. However, the feature has different alternative
command (alt text) with zoom capability in latest internet browsers technology
therefore if we attempt to zoom a picture in a double size (200%) then we will find a
low compression issue and non-adjustable frame with the internet browser.
65
Illustration 8. Zooming capability in ENA.
9. Collaborative work support and feedback; ENA does support collaborative work
for its visitors by embedding several features that enable visitors to do activities like
in other application that use social software as an inspiration instead of a platform.
The concept of collaboration activities such as marking and sharing is represented in
two icons just above each document frame when visitors open a selected file, a add
document to album and link. In link icon, if visitors want to use it, there are also
three options for the visitors to copy the link therefore when s/he opens the link in a
new window, it will directly go to ENA front page and the selected document also
will appear at the same time, or to copy the title, caption, source and URL of the
document or just to send link of the document by email (it uses Microsoft Outlook by
default). Other features that are available are; document location in ENA taxonomy
(left bar in the front page), zooming capability, and language selection. ENA also
encourage visitors to leave feedback on each document therefore there is a comment
icons just next to the link icon, it will open a comment box that a visitor or registered
user can fill and the visitor/registered user also can subscribe to a newsletter from
CVCE using the same facility.
66
Language Zoom
selection
Add document
to the album
Location
of the
Link options
document
Comment
button
Comment
box
Illustration 9. Collaborative work support and feedback in ENA.
4.3. ENA Information Ecosystem

To have a more clear view of how ENA relates itself with the information
environment surrounding it, the researcher attempted to map the ENA information ecosystem
as shown in Fig. 4. The ENA information ecosystem is most related, currently, with the
proximity of CVCE established networks therefore three information zones based on
functionality have been distinguished to describe relationship. The zones are;
Figure 4. ENA 2006 information ecosystem.

67
1. Primary Information Zone

This zone is the main ecosystem of ENA and very related with the work of CVCE
since most information values chain in ENA have been govern by CVCE (collect-storevalidate-analyze-publish), the main characteristic of this area are authority and strong
information control.
2. Secondary Information Zone
In this area, ENA has built relations with some important stakeholders who can give
contributions to the content of ENA (through CVCE). The stakeholders are; personal and
or a group of contributor users, digital library and institutional repositories that have
cooperate with CVCE for documents exchange. The stakeholders in this zone, like
registered users, can create albums of documents as well as other functionalities such as
send, edit, and retrieve the documents in ENA.
3. Tertiary Information Zone
This zone represents the biggest group of ENA users which consists of all the noncontributor users of ENA, Digital Libraries and Institutional Repositories (IR) that have
put link in their website to ENA or act as a portal that could directing external queries to
ENA as a search result. Others are usage of social media such as ENA widget in some
personal blogs, ENA profile in Wikipedia and Freebase, ENA networks of excellence
(institutions, governments, associations, etc.) and the most important part is the role of
search engines such as yahoo and Google. The characteristic of stakeholders in this zone is
they only have access to retrieve the resources in ENA without any further action or as a
common visitor.
4.4. ENA Metadata

Documents in ENA are collected from physical and born-digital documents, each
document metadata assigned by CVCE using ENA Content Management Database (ECMD),
a custom application for content management system in ENA. Overall, there are 127
metadata elements and sub elements, consisting of administrative metadata (29), descriptive
metadata (70), preservation metadata, techniques and structure metadata. However, the
descriptions of all metadata are available online on http://rdtnews.cvce.lu/, the explanations in
this website are in French including the wikis feature for metadata submission. In ECMD,
each document has been classified based on its media type and publication which are
monograph, publication series, source of archive, electronic support, photo, and video/sound,
68
this feature enables ECMD to classify a document for multimedia purposes. To support the
multilingual database, each interface is language-based, for instance as shown in Illustration
10. the metadata for a document in French language, to appear in the English interface, the
metadata interface has to switch into English interface and repeat the filling process again.
These processes implied the database to has taxonomies based on their structure in each
language either in English, French or German. This also explains why the browsing window
closes every time users want to switch language.
Illustration 10. ECMD interface for metadata
Information Ecosystem that is located around ENA is the implications of the features
that are owned by ENA. The usage of ENA by the user then leads to the creation of relations
purposes in the vicinity of ENA. In the next chapter, the researcher presents the results of
interviews and data processing task-based scenario from the participants in this research.
There are eight participants in the interview session and each participant was selected by
random. The same participants then were then asked to perform a number of tasks based on
scenarios provided by the researcher; all processes are recorded with a camcorder.
69
Chapter 5.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The first chapter presented the background and formulation of problems in this
research. Then, in the second chapter, the researcher discussed the theoretical framework of
this research and submitted a conceptual framework. In the third chapter, the researcher
discussed research models and the final model of the research procedures used in this
research. In the fourth chapter, the researcher presented a review of ENA 2006 version. Next
in this chapter, the researcher presents the data from the interview process and the application
of the scenario. Later, research findings and initial storyboard presented. Finally, the results
of the brainstorming session and final storyboard are discussed.
5.1. Data collection process

In this subsection, the process obtaining data from interview, scenario, and
brainstorming are explained.
5.1.1. Interview stage and the implementation of the scenario.
The first stage was conducted simultaneously with the second stage of data
collection. The stages were conducted from 10 to 25 April 2009. Most of the data collection
was carried out at Tallinn University but 2 interviews were conducted in the interviewees
residence. Interview time was set 1 hour for each stage, while its implementation was
different for each informant. Technical obstacles that the researcher found were mostly
associated with the time and place for the interview. Due to the fact that informants were
busy with the assignments for their master's program. They could not participate in project if
all three stages of the research plan were required. They wanted a simpler process. Therefore,
the researcher redesigned the process, as shown in Fig. 3; so that procedures to collect the
data could be more concise. The list of questions used in the interviews can be seen in
Appendix 4. For the fourth interview topic, the researcher provided information about ENA
before the interview was conducted.
The scenario data was collected after the interview process was completed. The
researcher designed the scenario so that it could be played out within 60 minutes. The final
scenario was subject to a pilot study. The pilot study was conducted with one participant.
Results from the scenario pilot study were then used to revise the structure of the language
and sequence of tasks that needed to be performed. The entire interview process and the
70
implementation of scenarios were recorded using a camcorder. The recorded results were
stored in DVD format in accordance with standard playback requirements. For the
implementation of scenario with the informant 1 (Info1), the scenario was not printed out but
shown using Microsoft Power Point 2007 on the researchers laptop. Scenario for the
informants 2 and 3 was printed on 2 paper sheets so informants can read the entire
manuscript. For informants 4 to 8, the scenario was printed and cut per act that needs to be
played. Additional data sources at this stage were the scheduled observation results table and
the actions map.
5.1.2. Brainstorming stage

This stage was conducted after the researcher completed the analysis of results from
interviews and scenario implementation sessions. The discussion was held on May 16th, 2009,
at a cafe near the Tallinn University. The session started at 07.25 PM and finished at 08.30
PM. The researcher selected the time and place for this discussion after the four informants
who had been selected were not available at the time and place originally suggested at Tallinn
University. The agenda at this brainstorming session were; firstly, reading the synopsis of the
storyboard. Secondly, presenting the overall storyboard (a total of eight clips), from the
beginning (storyboard no. 1) to the end (storyboard no.8), using the researchers laptop.
Thirdly, returning to the first clip (no. 1), the researcher asked informants whether they
agreed or not with the storyboard. The researcher emphasized that the question is whether or
not the storyboard represents the behavior and their experience with all the topics discussed
and tested in this research. Then, the researcher asked whether the storyboard represents their
behavior of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and knowledge sharing (KS) with
ENA.
5.2. Data Analysis

In this subsection, the researcher presents the steps conducted to analyze data from
the interviews and follows this with by profiles of informants.
5.2.1. Data from interviews
Codes were assigned to each question and answer. The researcher also separated
interview data from each informant and assigned a code sequence based on the interviews,
for example, for interview with the first informant the code Info1 was given, and so on. Each
question submitted was given a code, as well as each of the answers obtained. The researcher
71
re-listened again to the recorded words of informants from the DVD using the standard
software from the camcorder, the VideoCam Suite version 1.0. The researcher then grouped
the answers to each answer space in interview transcripts. After the researcher finished
coding and categorizing informants answers, the next step to do was to analyze and conclude
the behavior of each informant. The outcomes are profiles of each informant based on
interview and scenario implementation data. Analysis related to the interesting findings also
included in the profile to support the research results. The analysis is based on prepared
topics and combined with the results of observation by researcher at time of scenario
implementation.
5.2.2. The Informants profile

In this part, profiles of eight informants are presented based on interview and
scenario findings.
5.2.2.1 Informant 1 (Info1)
Interesting findings from the research interview with informant 1, is that this was the
first time informant 1 used the software associated with the management of digital material
(A14). The finding is interesting, especially if considering the time informant accessing
internet is quite high at around 60 hours per week. The other facts related to whether the
informant was familiar with the use social software. Of 11 items of social software the
researcher asked about, the informant only used 5 items. The researcher then proceeded to the
question about the reasons for using social software. The informant used social networking
site (SNS), as one of the reasons, because according to her she feel closer to her friends and
more informal. For a more formal communication, the informant preferred to use email or
phone. For the other social software, the informant acknowledged that she used Wikipedia as
a source of reference rather than Google results because she assumed that Wikipedia is more
reliable. The data reinforce other data that the informant used the internet to search for,
among other sources of, information relating to academic study.
When asked about her experiences working in collaboration, the informant
mentioned that she has experience in collaborative work as a result of her internships in
bachelor degree study. However, the informant said that experience of collaborative work
was the best she had while working on the task of Topic Map in the class that she followed in
the DILL program. She learned how to work with other people although there was no clear
division of group structure. Email communication was the dominant technology used in the
working group that the informant was a part of. The division of tasks and the determination
72
of decision-making groups were also carried out through many face-to-face meetings.
Although the informant was familiar with the use of social software nevertheless the
informant was not using it in the collaborative project. The informant was then asked for her
opinions about ENA, as she was accessing it for the first time. The first impression that the
informant had about ENA was that she did not really understand the usefulness of dynamic
icons on the ENA homepage although the informant thought ENA design was good. The
Media Library was the feature and a part of the website that caught the interest of the
informant the most. The informant still needed more time to explore in ENA to say whether
the content was useful or not.
After the interview, the researcher asked the informant to play a role based on the
scenario that had been prepared. The informant preferred to search rather than browse for the
information required. Clarification is kind of action taken by the informant when she was
uncertain whether the required information was correct or not. The inclusion of source
caption for each document in ENA did provide enough credibility to help find document but
cannot convince the informant to use information provided in the document. External factor
that the researcher felt affected the selection of actions in this scenario is the time limit
searching, and user wanted to get the correct information as soon as possible. To feel more
confident, the informant chose to do a search on Google and Wikipedia. The informant
preferred to use email to exchange information rather than social software. While the choice
of the action taken by informant related to the task of S33 and S34, informant preferred to
send back information via email and if that group members did not respond to actions, the
informant preferred to do nothing.
5.2.2.2. Informant 2 (Info2)

This informant had the highest hours of internet access compared with other
informants, approximately 100 hours per week. However, this behavior is not directly related
to the use of social software by the informant. This can be seen from the 11 items of social
software that were asked, as with the previous informant, the informant only used 5 of them.
Blogs were another social software platform that the informant used; nevertheless the
researcher did not include it since the informant was not very active with its use. For
activities carried out with the internet, the informant accessed internet to help her academic
tasks, as entertainment, communication, emailing, and for up to date news from her
homeland. Although her laptop cannot be considered new, the informant depends on it a lot
for information seeking such accessing online databases. The informant has experience using
73
virtual learning environment (VLE) such IVA for DILL program namely Blackboard. The
informant used it to send messages to students in her class, also to make announcements in
classes taught. Privacy was the main issue that concerned the informant regarding the use of
social software. Hence, informant preferred to be a passive user of social software.
As for experience working on collaborative projects, the informant mentioned the
experience working on assignments that she gained through the masters program that she
was taking at the moment as her best experience. The informant thought this was because she
felt there was no domination of one member against another member, and all members had
the same contribution to the work. The division of tasks and coordination work was mostly
done by face-to-face meeting at first. Summary of communication was done online for
follow-up results of the meeting, coordination of the division of tasks, and asking for
opinions. An interesting finding related to the role that informant played as intermediator in
the group discussion because group members have different VOIP software. The informant
used social software in her collaborative group work because social software provides more
synchronization of communication, especially if the informant's opinion requires the other
group member responses quickly.
As regards using ENA, the informant did not like the opened window every time she
clicked on a new document. It also made her confused. Media Library was the most feature of
ENA that the informant was most interested in. The next stage was to play the scenario. It
was interesting that, the informant attempted to find a link to ENA through Google first.
After performing searches on the information asked in the scenario, informant generally only
focused on the top search results. The informant depended on a short description of each icon
beside the document. When facing uncertainties, informant preferred to send a message via
VoIP because of the synchronous communication facilities that the software held. The
informant preferred to wait for a response before searching for the information again. If the
delivered information still did not have any response from her colleagues, the informant
chose to repeat the activity and the confirmation directly with VoIP.

This informant accessed the Internet around 50 to 60 hours per week. Activities
conducted on internet centered on accessing email, reading news, and information searching.
Reasons for the informant to access the Internet were to socialize and relate with people, both
professionally and personally. YouTube was the most frequently media sharing website used
by informant. The informant mostly watched YouTube videos and searched for music and
74
lyrics of songs that she interested in. It was interesting that the informant used Wikipedia as a
source of alternative information when she needed clarity or definition of a topic covered in
class that she does not understand. The reason for the informant using social software is the
same as for her use of the internet, which is to communicate. Although, the informant
admitted her activities while in Europe may be different if she returned to her home country
because the infrastructure that has not been good there.
The informant had experience working in a collaborative project, with members
separated by geographic distance. The project was about developing organization standards.
The mode of communication used was formal, using technologies such as phone and email.
Email was used to send data about the project and progress reports. If the informant was
dealing with uncertainty in the project, the informant tended to request confirmation directly
from the person who responsible via phone. Because the internet infrastructure was minimal,
the project did not use any social software, so the next question was not asked. In the case of
the use of ENA, the first impression expressed was that the website was confusing. The
website owner's identity was not clear, in the opinion of the informant. The CVCE logo was
too small, causing informant to assume that the website ENA is not communicative enough.
Informant did not understand how she can obtain information by just browsing. Even when
she was accessing the documents folder, the informant was still unsure that the folder would
contain the documents that she interested in.
In the scenario session, the interesting finding was that the informant carried out a
lot of confirmation actions. The informant did not feel sure whether she was obtaining the
right information. Knowledge can be gained if we receive information that we can use as
appropriate. Irrespective of the result, the informant chose to repeat the search rather than
browsing documents. The action confirmed the finding from the previous informant that
users tend to do more direct communication rather than send a confirmation via email or a
medium that causes slower responses. In regard to the response, when the informant faced
dead-end on her disseminated information activity, the informant chose to talk directly with
colleagues who did not do what she suggested, although this was done through VoIP
conversation. At the end of the scenario, the informant carries out the same action as the
previous informant; she preferred to state her own opinion about the ENA content and send
direct messages to CVCE to complement the content.
75

The time that the informant spent accessing the internet is not too long compared to
the previous informants, about 40 hours per week. Summary of what the informant did when
he was accessing the Internet were mostly communication, checking the news, and emailing.
The reason for informants use of the Internet was to communicate, because it is cheaper than
using a conventional telephone or mobile phone. Another reason was because the informant
had to access his congregations website, a more religious reason. The informant
acknowledged that he was not an active user of social networking sites (SNS) and only uses
the media sharing website for searching spiritual song videos. The informant used Wikipedia
as a dictionary. It was interesting finding that the informant used the internet including social
software prioritizing religion over communication.
As for the informants experience working in collaborative projects, the informant
previous job closely related to collaborative work environment and networks. In his role as
the acquisition officer at his university library, he is required to communicate with both the
internal organization and stakeholders in the institution, such as book publishers. Despite his
performances, he does not use communication technology, in addition to the internet as the
infrastructure has not been good in his work place. Most work coordination was done on
face-to-face communication. The informant thought that ENA had a good design, and very
attractive. The informant was self-confident, as was demonstrated with his answer about
Robert Schuman. As with previous informants, the informant preferred to search rather than
browsing documents in the ENA. The reason given by him was that, the result structure was
too long; he needed a direct answer. The informant noted that the Album feature caught his
interest while the Media Library was also an interesting feature for him.
At the scenario session, the informant is confident about every act undertaken as
well as to the information that he found. When searching for the folder names that are
required in the task S12, the informant did not experience any problems at all, not quite he
said. As with previous informants, the informant preferred to spend time with the search via
the search box than browse the folder with the document that is in the ENA. For work that
required social software, informant preferred to use VoIP as a more synchronized
communication. Informant included results that he found in Google as part of the references
to be recommended to his colleagues. The informant preferred to confirm directly to his
colleagues if he found any problem disseminating information. To express praise, he
preferred to send what is in his mind directly without the need to coordinate with colleagues.
76

The time that the informant spent accessing the Internet, in Europe, was not more
than 35 to 40 hours per week. Activities varied between chatting, emailing, browsing for
information, and read the news. The reason the informant accessed the Internet was because it
was easy for him to get information, compared to going to the store to buy a book or
newspaper. The summary of what the informant does with the internet is not too much, so
that his use of social software was not a great deal. Social software that informant used were
media sharing website, SNS, Wikis, and instant messenger. The reasons for using such social
software were; the informants information needs, for recreational, references, and
communication. The informant background whose lives in a country with internet
infrastructure that has not been good. Thus, the informant became acquainted with the whole
internet when moving to Europe.
Asked about experience working on collaborative projects, initially, the informant
does not understand what this is, but after the researcher asked about his experiences working
in a team, the informant can then answer. His experience working in a collaborative project
did not require him to use advanced communication technology, even social software.
Internet facilities were minimal, creating a workplace culture that did not require that
informants use advanced communication technology to work together. Asked for his opinion
about ENA, he stated that website is fully featured. According to the informant, the browsing
capability in ENA is quite helpful, because it separates based on subject-area. As regards the
search results, the informant required facilities that can help him narrow the search results;
hence he only needed to look at some of the documents only. Media Library is a feature that
attracted the informants interest.
At the scenario session, no new finding emerged relating to the early actions
undertaken by informant. But at the stage where the informant needed to add references, he
did not do so; he assumed he could not find any reference for additional information required.
It was interesting finding that the informant found the information required by the scenario
but did not do this through searching but through browsing the folders in the ENA taxonomy
column. The finding appeared after the informant had difficulty determining the keywords
that would bring up the desired document. As for tools for collaboration work, the informant
recommended the VLE used by Tallinn University, IVA. As with previous informants, the
informant preferred to perform synchronous CMC, either for recommending or obtaining
confirmation. While the selected informants social software is VoIP software to support the
informants needs for face-to-face meeting.
77

Time spent by the informant in the internet was about 40 hours per week. Activities
the informant conducted included: emailing, searching for literature, reading news, listening
to music, and communication. Reasons for the informant to use the internet were, the need to
use the latest technology, and using the internet is inevitable. The informant used the media
sharing websites like YouTube to watch video and a number of lectures. Social software used
were SNS, Wikis, the Internet forum, instant messenger, and blogs. The reason she used
social software is because it is a part of class requirement. Nonetheless, the reason the
informant was using blogs was because she wants her thought to be read by other people.
As for her experience working in collaborative projects, the informant mentioned
one project that she joined before took the master program. She worked on a collaborative
project made by university in her home country. As secretary of the program, the informants
activities were concerned with coordination and communication with the members of the
project. About the mode of communication used, informant acknowledged that her use of
communications is generally formal, and email is the main tool used. If the informants email
does not get any responses from her colleagues she more preferred using the phone to carry
out confirmation. The informant did not use social software in the work because she was in
close contact with others; therefore the next question was not asked. Regarding the use of
ENA, it was interesting finding that the informant did not have any difficulty in answering
questions asked by the researcher. The informant quickly did a search. Informant thought that
the browsing capability of ENA was very good and informative. The Media library was a
feature that attracted the informants interest.
At the scenario session, the informant used additional paper for highlighting
important points that were required in the scenario. The informant found the name of the
folder quickly, but informants could not find references for the task S13. Hence, she asked
clarification for more specific information to her colleague. The action that the informant
does was stop there. For the next task, she sent links that she thought useful for obtaining the
answer. For the task of S33 and S34 (see Appendix 3), the informant chose to put a link to the
video document in social software that she recommended so colleagues can see the video,
despite time constraint. The informant did not select any tasks related to S34; she believed
that her colleagues were already clear with the video. To comment, informant did not need
opinions from her colleagues instead sent it solely.
78

The informant distinguished the time he accessing internet, between Europe and in
his home country, this was around 60 hours per week in Europe. In his home country, he used
to work pretty closely with internet so that he had a connection for 24 hours per day, 7 days a
week. Focusing on activities that informant does lately with internet, mostly these were
reading news, emailing, and watching movies. For the informant, the Internet is an integral
part of his life. However, his bigger reason to use the internet since the beginning is for study
and as a means to knowledge. As regards his use of social software, the same as before, the
informant was familiar with media-sharing websites such as Youtube and Facebook as SNS,
although passively. The informant used Wikipedia more as a source of reference for the
understanding of a topic. The informant also followed an online forum about the issues in his
home country.
As regards his experience in working on collaborative projects, the informant
mentioned a specific project. The project aimed to create a media center and source of
information about HIV for the country's national library visitors. The informant served as
secretary of the project. The informant considered the project as his best experiences in
collaborative working as he succeeded creating the final product of the project and this is still
used by the national library. Because the Internet is a minimal facility, the informant was
mostly working in manual condition without technology for the communication. When asked
about the use of ENA, the informant said that ENA provides different information from the
website in general. It was interesting that the informant had difficulty finding answers to
question Q43, thus he chose to stop and even give up. But after the researcher explained the
error, then the informant could correctly answer the question. As with previous informants,
the media library was regarded as the most interesting features by the informant.
At the scenario session, the interesting finding was that the informant did not seem
to be trying to do a lot of search activity information. He even tended to stop to find the
answer. Informant preferred to wait for confirmation and response before continuing the act.
The pattern of behaviors that the informant showed did not appear different from the previous
informants. The informant chose to use VoIP for communication, coordination and
confirmation. The informant skipped task S33 and S34, because he assumed that he did not
need to clarify anything to his colleagues. Similarly, the informant did not need his
colleagues opinions about the video and preferred to send comments via email to CVCE
solely.
79

Time spent accessing the internet for informants ranged from 40 to 60 hours per
week. The main reason the informant used the internet, at the moment, was because it is a
part of his work. The informant is using Ubuntu operating system to keep working in secure
online environment. The informant admitted that he does not use his laptop more than for
typing and internet access. The other activity carried out via internet is reading the hundreds
of updated RSS that he follows. The informant attempted to persuade the researcher that he is
always doing something with the internet. With regard to social software use, the informant
was using 10 of the 11 items mentioned by the researcher with additional social software
such as Twitter for microblogging, StumbleUpon, and FriendFeed. The informant
acknowledged that he uses social software because it is fun and also because the informant
works in Wiki Source.
On collaborative projects, the informant acknowledged that the work he did was
always in the collaborative area. The informant was working as an administrator for Wiki
Source, a project under Wikipedia, with the goal of providing material such as text and image
from digital books. The informant convinced the researcher that what the informant is doing
more work to create a digital library. All work done by the informant is in a virtual
workplace. The informant admitted that he had never met directly with colleagues in Wiki
Source physically, only once before, facilitated through Wiki Source internal system. Ninety
per cent of communication is done online with the informant utilizing VoIP software
facilities or SNS, email is the last options. About the use of ENA, the informant did not like
the composition and design of ENA homepage, "old fashion" he said. However, the
informant successfully answered the questions asked by the researcher.
At the scenario session, many interesting findings emerged. For task S11, informant
preferred to talk rather than write his act, the informant chose to follow the link from the
email received. For the next task, the informant did not manage to put the documents referred
to in his email. The informant chose to bookmark the document page with StumbleUpon, and
send the notification to his colleague. For the task of S21 and S22, the informant preferred to
use ENA external links that he found on Google as a reference. The finding is interesting, and
reinforces previous findings that ENA cannot act as a primary reference source for users.
Solutions to use social bookmarking facilities are also interesting as an alternative solution
for users who cannot download documents from ENA. However, the informant decided to
miss task S34 because informant tend not does anything before the informant received a
80
response from his colleague. The informant did not need the opinions of others to praise the
video found in ENA.
5.2.3. The actions map analysis

Data from the task-based scenarios derived behavior observed by the researcher on
each informant. The researcher noted actions accordance with the task in the scenario, the
results support the research, and the variations reflect the action of the selected subcategories
of action that has been set. The source that researcher used to confirm informants actions is
what informants type while implementing the scenario, the written results, and the scheduled
observation results table. Information from both sources was translated by the researcher into
the actions map in accordance with the subcategories and the sequence of tasks that are
required in the scenario. To strengthen the research analysis, the researcher again watched the
recording of informants during the scenario. Please note, not all informant activity was
recorded, for instance when the informant requested for clarification of the tasks then the
recording activity was stopped.
To analyze the informant actions, and assign them to the right subcategory then the
researcher had to:
1. Cross-reference between the behavior of informants and subcategory definitions as listed
in Table 6. Subcategory definitions were useful to determine the flexibility of action that
could be inserted in several categories. Example: informant 1 attempts to send a message
via email to her colleague, asking the purpose of previous question. Researcher groups the
action as [S11, C2, T2, T4], which means that the activity of 'knowledge collecting' of
informant 1 aims at the same time to look for opinions, and 'orienting'.
2. Re-check the 'Scheduled observation results' of informants and document the work of
informants to confirm the subcategory associated with the informant actions. Because one
can enter the action on more than one subcategory in a category strategy. Example:
informant number 5 (Info5) summons a face-to-face meeting with his colleagues about
issues that their group is facing (task S34). He sends a message through Skype (VoIP
software) to ask for his colleagues feedback and their opinions about the video. The
informant then chooses to wait for a response from colleagues before the action progresses
further. The action undertaken then the researcher grouped as [S34, C1, C2, T5, I4, K4,
K5], which means that the informant 5 actions to recommend a video (knowledge
donating) at the same time, also ask for colleagues opinion (knowledge collecting).
Informant 5 conveys a message for feedback (T5) through the information exchange
81
media (I4) on the activity that he did (K4) and does not take action before any further
response from colleagues (K5).
Analysis tables from the scenario implementation are divided into three, namely:
'dissemination of selected actions', 'compiled actions map', and the 'Affinity diagrams', as
merging from the dissemination table' and 'compiled actions map'. Explanations and
presentations are below:
82
Table 8. Dissemination of selected actions

Action
S11
S12
S13
S21
S22
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
CMC strategies
C1
C2

T1

Task performing
T2
T3 T4 T5 T6

T7

I1

I2

IT strategies
I3 I4
I5

I6

KS strategies
K1 K2 K3 K4

K5

The table above incorporates of variations in the action undertaken by all informants (number 1 to 8). The acquired data do not consider any
duplication of actions carried out by two or more informants. The purposes of this table are:
1. The category areas of action that represents the behavior of informants. This data is needed to help the researcher focus on consideration of
which can be inserted in the storyboard.
2. Dissemination of the variations to see the action carried out in a category that had been determined. This required the researcher to predict
trends based on the behavior of the subcategories. Example: subcategory T5 (Coordination) is not so popular among the informants, so from
all the actions made by informants, subcategory T5 only gets a check (Info5, S34).
The researcher used grayscale to measure the quality of actions based on variations in the subcategory of the table. Dissemination in the table,
using three standard grayscales, is: 5% darker, 15% darker and 25% darker.
83
Table 9. Compiled actions map
Action
S11
S12
S13
S21
S22
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
CMC strategies
C1
C2
2
6
4
7
1
7
2
6
7
5
7
5
6
3
5
7
4
5
8
T1
4
1
1
Task performing
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
2
1
3
5
2
6
2
3
3
6
7
1
6
4
3
2
4
2
8
T7
1
2
1
2
I1
1
1
2
1
I2
1
3
IT strategies
I3 I4 I5
2
1
5
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
2
3
6
5
3
2
1
4
I6
1
5
5
2
2
K1
3
2
3
6
4
5
KS strategies
K2 K3 K4
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
1
1
2
6
K5
3
5
3
1
3
The selected actions map above is a merger of number of actions chosen by all informants. In the table, the researcher did not use
grayscale but used figures to indicate the number of actions selected. For the table above, each action is calculated with the option of 0 for
unselected and 1 for the selected subcategory. The number is increased each time an action is counted. To indicate trend of actions, the
researcher used red to as the top trend in each subcategory of action, and is associated with the task in the scenario. The higher mark does not
indicate that the subcategory is better than the lower mark subcategories, but the trend means that the behavior selected is stronger with the
number of subcategories in higher mark. The red marks can be seen on every action subcategory. Results from the 'actions map' then researcher
merged with the dissemination diagram (Table 8) into an affinity diagram as shown below (Table 10.).
84
Table 10. The affinity diagram
Action
S11
S12
S13
S21
S22
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
CMC strategies
C1
C2
T1
Task performing
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
T7
I1
IT strategies
I2 I I I
3 4 5
I
6
K1
KS strategies
K2 K3 K4
K5
5
7
6
7
7
6
6
7
6
7
5
5
5
6
6
5
4
5
2
4
The table above is designed differently from affinity diagram that is usually displayed in contextual design (Holtzblatt, 2005).The
differences are:
1. Generally, the affinity diagram on the contextual design requires a team discussion. In this study, researcher worked alone, so that the
researcher need to design a special chart that can display a profile analysis based on the researchers own analysis.
2. The researcher needed to have a diagram that can combine two methods of data collection.
3. Interpretation session on contextual design (Holtzblatt, 2005) can be started 48 hours after the interview session and it can take many weeks
to get the Affinity diagram. For that reason, the researcher needed to design a chart that effectively able to showed the trends of informant
behavior with less time than the conventional contextual design. What is shown in the table above did supported the researcher need.
85
Initially, the researcher wanted to devise an effective way to describe the quality
of informants using the color depth. Nonetheless the researcher did not have the right
software for analyzing the data, if that exist, thus the researcher used only the grayscale to
describe the depth of informant actions. The researcher selected the color from white
[darker 5% to 50%], and black [35% lighter]. The darker color indicates more quality of
the action representing the behavior of informants. The researcher also included the figures
to indicate the depth of action. For instance, for subcategory I1 is shown by number 2
associated with task S33, it means that the recommendations related to the action of
knowledge, informants tend to use IT as a medium for emotional expression or interflows
compared with using IT in the other subcategories. The figure also shows that informants
prefer using 'rich media' to recommend documents from ENA.
5.3. The initial storyboard

After the researcher finish analyzing the data, then the next step was to design the
initial storyboard. Two elements to consider in making the storyboard in this research
were:
1. Conditions, as in the setting of the storyboard. The setting is needed to narrow the
perspective used in the final results of the research so that the research can answer
questions and solved the research problems. For this element, the researcher is used data
from interviews which are data from the usage of ENA and their experience in
collaborative works.
2. Sequence of actions (aka. The acts). The determination of the action and dialogue must
represent research findings.
For both elements, the researcher used a pattern from affinity diagram data and the results
from interviews as the additional reference.
Findings that the researcher concluded are:
a. For context and conditions, research findings are:
Finding 1; associated with the use of ENA, informants do more searching than
browsing to find information in ENA. The reason is unfamiliarity with the navigation
provided.
Finding 2; for all informants, Google is the most reliable search engine and it is used
most.
86
Finding 3; discussion between 2 people is a choice for most of the informants related
to the collaborative work.
Finding 4: users prefer using synchronous CMC to communicate quickly with
colleagues to confirm the knowledge that has been shared. They prefer expression
using rich media such as VoIP software.
b. While for the sequence of actions, researcher found:
Finding 5; activity 'knowledge donating' is more dominant in the use of ENA.
Finding 6; knowledge sharing activities do not directly result in an outcome through
a short conversation. Summary requesting clarification and further dominate the
development of knowledge.
Finding 7; in uncertainty, the user prefers to await the response from the sharing
partner rather than taking action to generate new knowledge. In addition, they
preferred to receive knowledge from sources other than ENA, or hear opponents
certified the intended documents in ENA than doing the search again. However,
confirmation is done on the certainty of the data as desired. This has the need for
ratings and recommendations to the certainty of information for the user of ENA.
Finding 8; ENA users who have done the compilation document and create new
knowledge for themselves tend to communicate what they know as the new
knowledge. Implications: the need for facilities such as a forum so users can
collaborate on the same topic.
Finding 9; if knowledge sharing obstacles are encountered in the distribution, users
tend to perform activities that could trigger a new knowledge circulation. They ask
colleagues about the new activity to try and avoid meandering
Finding 10; in praise of a job, users tend to express his/hers own opinion, and do not
need confirmation from others.
Finding 11; email has more options for sending digital documents relating to the task
combined with a chat to confirm the receipt of documents.
Finding 12; user tends to recommend the URL of the document they found in ENA
due to retrieval constraint that ENA has.
Finding 13; there is a need to reduce long search results.
Based on the findings on the two elements above, the researcher designed a
storyboard plot such as presented below. The researcher used the names Jane and John for
two characters in the storyboard without any purpose, only for a reason that the name is
87
quite familiar. Perspective that is used is the first person, and the mode of communication
used is interpersonal communication with emphasis on the use of VoIP software as the
means of communication. The researcher did not draw the characters directly, but used
images obtained through Google Images. For storyboard number 1 and 8, researcher got
the image after searching by using keyword "people using skype. For someone is typing
at the computer image, the researcher got it after searching by using keywords "people
using computers, free clip art". The initial storyboard is attached as Appendix 5.
Setting:
John is a good friend of Jane. Both John and Jane are master's students. Jane knows that
John has experience working on the same task. John has taught Jane about a website
called European Navigator, or also called ENA which can be used to search and retrieve
for documents about the history of European Union. Jane knows how to use the website,
nevertheless, for the tasks that she is working on, Jane asks for John help.
Narration:
The Schuman Plan
Jane has been given assignment to write an essay about Schuman Plan. She asks John for
his help to find related information to her assignment. Jane finds John online. She calls
John through VoIP software.
Jane: Hi John, I have to write an essay about Schuman Plan, would you help me to find
some information about it?
John. Okay, I will see what I can do...
John goes to ENA website; John knows how to use the website and the purpose of the
website. John is straightly typing the keyword Schuman Plan in the search box. The
results come out.
John: hmm to many results. I dont know which documents that Jane actually wants
John copies link to the documents using copy link feature and send it to Jane by email.
John email: Hi, here are some links to the documents that related to Schuman Plan, I dont
know which one you are looking for, so reply ASAP.
After a while, John received a response from Jane
Jane email: Hi John, sorry but this arent what Im looking for, would you try more?
The information that Im looking for relates to the French effort to Schuman Plan.
88
John starts to research the information.

John: maybe Mr. Google can help
John types French contribution, Schuman plan in Google, the results come up. There are
links to the documents in ENA. He clicks one of it and directly goes to ENA website. It is
an article about the birth of community of Europe. He wants to enrich the result so he
clicks Media Library feature.
John: maybe some videos and photos will convince her
John compiles link that he found in Google and URL of videos and photos in ENA. He
sends all the links to Jane via email.
John email: Hi Jane, Schuman Plan more relates to the background of community of
Europe. I send you links to documents related to Schuman Plan and background of
community of Europe in 1950 to 1956. There are some videos and photos that can enrich
your research. Enjoy!
John opens his VoIP software and sends a notification to Jane
John: Ive sends some documents, now its better than the last. Check your email.
Jane received the notification and reply directly to John by calling him through VoIP.
Jane: Hi John thanks. Ive looked at the documents, they all are useful and match to the
topic that Im working on. Nice work!
John: Youre welcome!
5.4. The brainstorming

Selection for participants in this data collection final stage was done by lottery.
From 8 names in two initial sessions, the researcher took 4 names. The selected
participants were informant 1, informant 2, informant 4, and informant 7. The
brainstorming session began with a reading of the storyboard synopsis, and presentation of
the storyboard from clip number 1 to 8. The researcher started the discussion by asking
informants whether they agree with the way the story is in the storyboard. On the
storyboard clip number 1, informant 7 agreed with the use of VoIP to communicate. The
researcher used Skype interface for VoIP example. Informant 2 said what if John does not
get Jane online? The researcher responded that the idea has been accommodated in the
setting of the storyboard. On clip number 1, Jane finds John online at the same time so that
she manages to call John. Informant 7 adds that for him, number 1 is sufficient that the
speech occurred because both are online at the same time.
89
Nevertheless, informant 7 argued that if he is John, he may simply go to Google

and type the keywords 'Schuman plan', and if there is a link that connects to ENA, he
would click on that. Informant 1 complemented informant 7, saying that she always search
on Google first. Informant 1 also compares data from different databases, not just one.
Informant 2 maintains, still on clip 1, if John knows ENA thus it is reasonable if John went
directly to ENA website. Informant 4 agrees with informant 2 opinions in the context of
these two characters, Jane know how to use the website, and Jane may have to do it alone.
But in the storyboard Jane seems still require assistance, therefore, she asks for John help.
Saw such debate from the informants, the researcher analyzed from the context that the
storyboard is well understood by the informants.
On the storyboard clip number 2 and 3, the researcher explained that he has
accommodated issues that been discussed previously in both clips. Informant 7 clarified
the behavior of John on the clip number 3. He thought if he is John, he would make
confirmation first to Jane about the required media format. To ask for more specific about
the information that she want. The researcher then showed clip number 4, where John got a
response from Jane about the more specific information. Informant 2 asked why Jane
refused links that John had sent. The researcher said that the clip attempts to show the
results from interviews and observations that the informants tended to make
recommendations and or listen to recommendations from friends. According to the
literature review that researcher has conducted, it is indeed related to knowledge sharing.
Summary of recommendations concluded in the clip number 5.
Informant 7 still insists that he would ask Jane about the format media required.
Informant 2 adds that when writing an essay, she would be more interested in text format.
Informant 1 reply her colleague statement, Jane may ask John to send the whole document,
regardless of format, whatever John thought would be useful for Jane. Informant 4
approves, for him John knew Jane well then John would like to make Jane satisfied. To
accommodate the issue then researcher decided to add a new clip between clips 4 and 5.
Informants are agreeing with this decision. The researcher then showed clips number 6 and
7. Informant 2 asks why John did not send it directly via Skype. The researcher explained
that based on conclusions from interviews with the informants, they preferred to send
documents via email. Informant 2 argued that it can also be done on Skype. Informant 1
doubted informant 2s question because she also used email to document the work of the
group. Informant 2 does not argue any further.
90
Informant 4 said that the clip number 6 and 7 actually represents what he always
did in collaborative work. Nevertheless, informant 2 still insists that she wants to send
links via Skype. Conversely, informant 1 attempts to keep in mind that she preferred for
documenting the work of the group therefore she likely to received the links via email
instead Skype. Informant 7 holds a view more or less the same. He also added an opinion
on clip number 7. Informant 7 does not see any advantage to send a notification to Jane via
Skype. According to him, Jane is the party that requested Johns assistance therefore it is
Jane's responsibility to always check her email. Informant 4 agrees with informant 7
opinions that John may take a week to fully explore all the information there is, and John
does not discuss the time when he will send information to Jane. So, according to the
informant 4, why does it need to be rushed? Based on the discussion, the researcher
decided to remove clip number 7. On presentation of the next clip (number 8), all
informants agree with what is displayed on the clip.
5.5. Revisions to the storyboard

Based on the brainstorming discussion, researcher carried out the following
revisions:
1. The addition of new clip, number 5, after the old clip 4, the contents are: John asks Jane
via Skype to see if there is a media format that Jane prefers. Jane said that she is more
interested in text documents, but she will accept any format that John thought will be
useful.
2. In the clip number 6, the old number 5, the picture will be added is ENA interface with
text documents.
3. Replacement caption in the clip number 6 from "maybe some videos and photos ... will
convince her" to "photos and video will enrich the final results of her assignment"
4. The old clip number 7 will be deleted.
5.6. The final storyboard

The end result of the storyboard can be seen in appendix 6. Researcher has made
some changes to the storyboard; marked with italics, in accordance with recommendations
from the brainstorming session, plot of the final storyboard as below (the setting is still the
same):
91
The Schuman Plan
Jane has been given assignment to write an essay about Schuman Plan. She asks John for
his help to find related information to her assignment. Jane finds John online. She calls
John through VoIP software.
Jane: Hi John, I have to write an essay about Schuman Plan, would you help me to find
some information about it?
John. Okay, I will see what I can do...
John goes to ENA website; John knows how to use the website and the purpose of the
website. John is straightly typing the keyword Schuman Plan in the search box. The
results come out.
John: hmm to many results. I dont know which documents that Jane actually wants
John copies link to the documents using copy link feature and send it to Jane by email.
John email: Hi, here are some links to the documents that related to Schuman Plan, I dont
know which one you are looking for, so reply ASAP.
After a while, John received a response from Jane
Jane email: Hi John, sorry but this arent what Im looking for, would you try more?
The information that Im looking for relates to the French effort to Schuman Plan.
John starts to research the information.
John: maybe Mr. Google can help
John types French contribution, Schuman plan in Google, the results come up. There are
links to the documents in ENA. He clicks one of it and directly goes to ENA website. It is
an article about the birth of community of Europe.
John typing keyword "Schuman plan" in ENA, the search results appear in many media
formats. He found Jane VoIP account is online. John calls Jane to confirm whether there
are particular media format that Jane search.
John: "Hi Jane, I found several documents relating to the" Schuman plan" but I need more
specific information if you search for documents with a certain format"
Jane: "Hi John, I prefer some more text, but not limited to, just send any documents that
you think useful for my assignment, thanks"
John backs at ENA. He gathered some text documents. He wants to enrich the result so he
clicks Media Library feature.
John: some more photos and videos will improve her assignment
92
John compiles link that he found in Google and ENA. He sends all the links to Jane via
email.
John email: Hi Jane, Schuman Plan more relates to the background of community of
Europe. I send you links to documents related to Schuman Plan and background of
community of Europe in 1950 to 1956. There are some videos and photos that can enrich
your research. Enjoy!
Jane received Johns email and reply directly to John by calling him through VoIP.
Jane: Hi John thanks. Ive looked at the documents, they all are useful and match to the
topic that Im working on. Nice work!
John: Youre welcome!
The final storyboard then sent back to the brainstorming participants to ask for
their approval. Feedback that researcher received from all informants are in agreement
with the model behavior that is displayed on the final storyboard. The storyboard was
successful in modeling computer-mediated communication and knowledge sharing among
users of European Navigator. With this, the final result of this research has been achieved.
Based on data analysis obtained through interviews and scenario implementation,

the researcher designed an initial storyboard. The initial images were then presented to
selected informants for brainstorming discussion. Results of the discussion were used by
the researcher to revise the storyboard. In the next chapter conclusions and implications of
this study, both for theory and practice, will be discussed.
93
Chapter 6.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter discusses conclusions as well as implications derived from findings
in this research. Beginning with an introduction to the research, the researcher would like
to recap previous chapters and remind readers of their importance. This is followed by
discussion of conclusions relating to CMC and knowledge sharing among users of ENA.
Recommendations and limitations from the research are presented. Finally, theoretical
implications as well as suggestions for further research are proposed.
6.1. Introduction
Among many aspects of digital libraries that can be studied for learning purposes,
computer-mediated communication (CMC) is an aspect of user behavior that caught the
researchers interest. The user can recommend, share, collect and discuss what they get
through the digital library, in both synchronous and asynchronous environments.
Therefore, CMC activity is not far from
knowledge sharing activities since with
communication the process of knowledge sharing can occur, and vice versa. Objectives of
this study are to examine how digital library users communicate to share knowledge
among them and to have better understanding how ENA has been used among its users. As
described in Chapter 1, the idea for this research began with the need to develop ENA
itself, in addition to the researchers interest in the development of web technology
nowadays. The researcher assumes that CMC and knowledge sharing activities of ENA
users will be a significant contribution to the development ENA hereafter and at the same
time provide feedback about ENA user behavior.
The researchers background that studied about CMC also motivated the researcher
to gain deeper understanding on the role of CMC in developing thematic digital library.
Storyboard in the implementation of CMC models have not been used before. The
researcher attempted to implement the storyboard to demonstrate that this technique can be
used in researching alternative CMC in the future. Regarding knowledge sharing activities
among users of the European Navigator, the researcher proposed the following questions;
how are ENA users using computer-mediated communication to share knowledge among
them? And what would a storyboard of the model look like?
In the second chapter, the researcher describes the theoretical basis for this
research. A study by Huang et. al., (2008) about knowledge sharing and creation processes
94
in a network as a professional community of practice (COP) gives a foundation to

determine what kind of activities might emerge from knowledge sharing practices. Huang
et. al., (2008) research presents a set of categories and subcategories in relation with one's
strategies of knowledge sharing. Another researcher used for the theoretical foundation of
this research is an investigation by Hoff & Weenen (2004) about relations between CMC
and knowledge sharing. As their whole research was to examine knowledge sharing as
antecedents of organizational commitment and CMC however they proposed
distinguishing knowledge sharing practices. They distinguished between the practice
knowledge collecting and knowledge donating. The researcher combined categories
posited by Huang et. al., (2008) and Hoff & Weenen (2004) as well as other research and
concepts proposed by other scholars such as task-media fit hypothesis, also strong and
weak ties in knowledge sharing to create the methodology for this research.
Procedure of this research is shown in Fig. 4. The main obstacle encountered
related to adjusting the time and resources available with the informants willingness to
participate in this research. Other problems that arose ranged from report deadline to
arranging the time for research interviews. However, the process of data collection was
done in three phases, namely the interview, the scenario application, and brainstorming
discussion. A pilot study was conducted to see the reliability of questions and scenarios
proposed in this research. All data collection activities, apart from the pilot studies, were
recorded by camcorder in DVD format. Informants in this research were graduate students
of the class of 2008 enrolled in the program Digital Library Learning, studying at Tallinn
University spring semester 2009. From 21 students in the class, the researcher chose 8
persons as volunteers for the interview and scenario application sessions, afterwards the
researcher selected 4 of the previous 8 persons as participants in brainstorming session.
Documentation as well as a description of features in European Navigator is
provided in Chapter 4. The researcher used the current version of ENA, the 2006 version.
It is important to explain ENA in a special chapter because the end result of this research is
not detached from the context, i.e. which version of ENA was used. In addition, when the
researcher did his internship in CVCE, the researcher had difficulties finding written
instructions or manual for ENA in the 2006 version. The researcher also needed
documentation to assist informants on the fourth topic of interview. Not only that, the
researcher also examines the information ecosystem (Fig. 4.) that ENA version 2006 has,
using the finding as a reason to chose the scope for informants of this research.
95
In the next chapter (Chapter 5), the researcher presents the data analysis and
findings of this research. Data analysis starts after the interview and scenario application
data are collected then researcher created profiles of each informant based on information
obtained. The researcher designed characteristics and conditions that can be applied to the
storyboard. Data from scheduled observation results and actions map are merged and
condensed into the affinity diagram (Table 10). The affinity diagram is then translated,
envisioning so to speak, to a sequence of actions that can be put in the storyboard.
After condition and sequence actions were defined, the next step was to design the
setting and narrative for the storyboard. Of the many alternatives that the researcher found,
interpersonal conversation was selected as the condition along with adjusted sequence
actions based on the tested scenarios background to be included in the initial storyboard
(Appendix 5). The researcher then presented the initial storyboard to the selected
informants in a brainstorming session. Some feedback that arose during the discussion was
then used as basis for revision of the storyboard. The final storyboard then was sent back to
the informants for their approval. Once approved, the final storyboard resulted as the final
deliverable of this research (Appendix 6). Next, the conclusions based on research
questions and problems are discussed. Also the limitations and implications for both theory
and practice which can be used as a reference for further researches are stated.
6.2 Conclusions to the research questions

The final storyboard (Appendix 6) reflects the answers of two research questions.
The first question is on how are ENA users using CMC to share knowledge with each
other. In the context of knowledge sharing, researcher found that, as the users of ENA,
informants use CMC more to communicate what one knows (Finding 5, 8, and 10) and to
make clarification about the knowledge that one shares (Finding 6, 7, and 9). While other
findings are more related with usage of ENA; informants do more searching than browsing
to find information in ENA (Finding 1), Google is the most reliable search engine and used
by all informants (Finding 2), email has more options for sending digital documents
relating to the task combined with chat to confirm the receipt of documents (Finding 11),
Users tend to recommend the URL of the document they found in ENA due to retrieval
constraint that ENA has (Finding 12), and there is a need to reduce long search results
(Finding 13).
96
However, in designing the storyboard the important element to consider is

storytelling. Williams (2006) noted that the concept of knowledge sharing itself is a
concept of articulation where the outcome is the result of many knowledge contributions.
In representing knowledge sharing practices, the researcher considered what Williams
posited, that it is very important to string together the findings into a unity of the whole
story. There is a beginning and an end and it can stimulate imagination through
visualizations and texts. In addition to what Williams has posited, that the question about
how one can share knowledge also becomes a question of how one shares story. But not
only can this be told, the important point presented by this research is to provide input in
form of information or solution. Input is not only useful for researcher but also useful for
CVCE as the institution that developed ENA. Therefore, the crucial step that the researcher
undertakes after the data analysis is concatenating the findings into a united story.
Elements included in the storyboard were picture and text caption and it was arranged so
that each image represented sequences of fragments of meanings and forms that can be
found in the real world (reliability).
It was not easy to design artificial sign that can visualize enough how a product is
used. Initially, the researcher took into account aspects of the relationship of the characters
that will be used in the storyboard, if they have a strong relationship or weak, whether in
business or social context. Marouf (2007) proposition about the influence of relationships
in business and social context helped the researcher to estimate more settings that will
apply in the storyboard. Although Marouf emphasized that weak ties hold more profitable
practice knowledge sharing in the context of business, in contrast to the social context. The
researcher saw that the use of ENA in the context of this research was not appropriate.
Therefore, the researcher chose the social context in which someone can share personally
with people openly (private non-codified knowledge). The use of context then influenced
all models designed by researcher.
Once the researcher had all the elements of storyboard the next step was to finalize
the behavior of the model examined, according to the second question of this research.
Based on the background issues, the researcher designed three models that could answer
the research question, of which the third model is a merger of two previous models. The
models are: CMC model, model of knowledge sharing, and the last is model of CMC and
knowledge sharing among users of European Navigator (ENA). The three models are
described below:
97
6.2.1. Model of CMC among users of ENA
Figure 5. Model of CMC among users of ENA
The setting of the model is that Jane knows John. The process of communication
that happens is two-way communication where feedback is done using the same channel as
the source message. The researcher distinguished between two CMC media which are
VoIP as a synchronous CMC medium, and Email as a medium of asynchronous CMC.
Although not included in the diagram, the communication activities conducted have
characteristics based on the medium used. Summary requesting clarification and
confirmation receipt of information is more likely to be carried out using VoIP as the
communication tool. Availability of good internet infrastructure and low cost
communication using VoIP strengthen the reasons why the informant is using the medium.
Motivations those informants have using VoIP are related to, the scenario setting that the
researcher prepared, informants own experiences in collaborative work, and their request
to have or to give quick response to any information required by colleagues. Email is
selected to deliver the documents related to the work of the group; other purposes of use
are for formal coordination and documented the achievement of collaborative work.
The interest of informants in the information also affects the use of CMC.
Informants classify information which needs to be coordinated with VoIP, or simply sent
using email. Therefore, the researcher created a communication event as a parable of
action. In the diagram, the path under the character represents a specific activity that
cannot be generalized with other communication activities. An informant is apt to look
98
ENA as an alternative source of information compared to Google which is only a search

engine. The researcher concludes that such activity is related to the customary process to
find information held by each informant. However, there are only two information seeking
activities that relates to the use of ENA and Google, searching and retrieving. The
researcher followed up the knowledge development with option to combine all the
documents that the informant found and they considered as important in addition to
informant strategy to use IT to consolidate the information into new knowledge.
The compiled information is then recommended by informant, in this case John, to
the parties that require information, in this case Jane. As the research findings are
discussed in chapter 5, informants tended to convey the information that they find, collect,
and understand that as new knowledge as if it is their own. Apart from informants hidden
agendas, the event shows a new motivation to share the knowledge that someone owned.
Thus with context associated with the use of CMC, such recommendations as new
knowledge is seen as part of CMC activity performed by informant. Remember, in the
application, the informant may choose one of the CMC media listed in the diagram or do a
combination of both. The diagram does support the task-media fit hypothesis, as derived
from media richness theory, where the informant selects VoIP as the 'rich media' to avoid
insufficient cues or information transmitted, and email as the 'lean media' to avoid the
distraction of non-essential cues and information.
6.2.2. Model of knowledge sharing among users of ENA

The model of knowledge sharing described in the diagram below (Fig. 6) is scoped
in interpersonal interactions. In accordance with precede model, knowledge-sharing
practices that the researcher is modeling here are on the social context of interpersonal
relations of two actors, namely John and Jane. Interactions among them to share their
knowledge are run in two-way communication. John might teach Jane how to use ENA or
simply convey what John knew from the search results in ENA, in this model the
researcher chose the second options to be displayed in the storyboard. Nonetheless with the
practice of knowledge sharing in general, sometimes we have situations where we cannot
be 100 percent confident with the information that we obtained. The condition is implied
with blockage of the knowledge flow. Therefore, the researcher proposed two options
based on reactions that informants expressed when they meet the information and come to
a standstill.
99
Figure 6. Model of knowledge sharing among users of ENA
Based on certainty as process, if the informant is certain about the information that
s/he holds the information will be forwarded to colleagues. If obstruction arises, the
retrospective process occurs. The information will then be filtered again by the informant
to consider other sources as references. In addition, the knowledge development found by
the researcher not associated with whether the document can be trusted or not, by
mentioning the source of reference or the creator of the document, but related to whether
the document was found appropriate and in accordance with what is needed by informants.
The informants uncertainty when asked whether the content that ENA owned was useful
was not related to the quality of the document, but whether informants needed the
information or not.
In the diagram above, the researcher also draws activities such searching and
retrieving as specific activities that must be differentiated from other knowledge-sharing
activities. Google is still an alternative reference for informants in order to build
understanding and knowledge about the working topic. However, specific activities
relating to the model of knowledge sharing have to be seen in a different light to the CMC
model. In the CMC model, outcome of the re-searching and re-retrieving of both sources of
references results in compiled documents as entities that need to be communicated. While
in the knowledge sharing model, documents compiled take place as part of creation process
of new knowledge.
100
6.2.3. Model of CMC and knowledge sharing among users of ENA
Figure 7. Model of CMC and knowledge sharing among users of ENA
The comprehensive answer that reflects both questions in this research is shown
above. The model is a merger of the two previous models. However, uncertainty is still an
option that can be encountered after the informant has managed the documents. This model
emphasizes the choice of communication channels that the informant made when
practicing knowledge sharing. Therefore, each recommendation, clarification, or request
always reflects back to the use of the right media for the right task (task-media fit
hypothesis). The conclusion captured in this model is that smoothness of knowledge flow
does not reflect the knowledge sharing expeditious. However, the process arise an option,
which in this case is the personal confident. Although the model seems too simplify the
events that may appear from the facts in the field.
Conversely, the reason for this simplification is to reflect the paradigm that the
simpler the sign, the more meaning it can represent. Even though knowledge cannot be
equated with the message, the message delivered by the informant can be understood and
the parties accept as knowledge. Thus transfer of knowledge in the model can be viewed as
a process of message transfer. The conclusion from this analogy also supported Walther
(1996) conclusion that some specific characteristics of CMC can lead to socially 'richer'
communication, to stronger group members identification with its group and to more
collective behavior. In accordance with the context of this research, knowledge sharing is
101
collective activity leveraged through the use of CMC. The third model as the last model of
this research is represented on the storyboard.
6.3 Conclusions to the research problems

After both research questions have been answered, the next fundamental query is
whether the research results obtained can be related to the research problem. As this is
qualitative research, the study does not attempt to propose generalization from cases
examined nevertheless presents a solution based on the characteristics of the problems
examined. However, significance will be increased if the researcher can link the results of
research with context of the problems. Hopefully, it will be able to provide inspiration for
further research. As explained in the research background, two main problems that
motivated the researcher to investigate understanding about CMC and knowledge sharing
among users of the European Navigator (ENA) are: Firstly, methodological challenges,
storyboard is much known in Human-computer interaction (HCI) field as a technique
recommended for user experience or usability studies. However, this technique is
neglected in the field of CMC thus the researcher was curious as to whether storyboard, as
a research method, can be applied to modeling CMC activity. Secondly, the idea for this
research was generated during the researchers internship in CVCE, Luxembourg. Hence
taking ENA as the research object, the researcher could design the study so that this can
also contribute to subsequent ENA development. The results from this research might not
be easy to read if readers do not a have basis in communication. Nevertheless the research
findings can be complemented with results from other fields of research to enrich the
existing development.
6.3.1. Can storyboard be used for modeling CMC?

The development of storyboard as visualization technique owns the favor from the
development of film industry (Jokela & Kantola, 2007). Practitioners in HCI field adopted
the technique to help the designers to design better information and interaction systems
between people and computers. However, this technique is not popular in CMC. There is a
discourse which explores problems in CMC more suited if only be approached and
examined with conventional qualitative approach, the results obtained are sometimes
difficult to implement though. Even so, the researcher hard to find any academic articles
that documented the use storyboard as a technique for visualized research results in CMC
102
or to give a trend picture in communications that occur on the examined subject, only some
were found. The researcher assumed that the confusion that hindered the implementation
of storyboard occurred because lack of understanding on how to implement storyboard as a
valid technique in CMC research. Notess (2005) noted that as a research method,
storyboard still has to face many challenges. Challenges include lack of explanation of the
operational definitions of storyboard itself.
Storyboard is designed to be a dynamic analysis techniques and equipped with the
editable ability though. Such ability invites discourse as to whether research method should
only provide a rigid interpretation. The researcher argues, based on this research, for
dynamic reality problems that demand an inter-reflective view across disciplines such as
CMC, the method to envisage the solution should also be a dynamic one. Models of CMC
five years ago might different from the model of CMC at this time, who used Skype five
years ago? Despite deficiencies, storyboard can serve as a standard point of view to
observe problems in CMC. The standard is also needed for design process to attempt to
understand social realities and solutions. Then, is storyboard applicable for studying CMC?
The answer is definitely YES. This research shows that by documenting the visualization
and display how peoples interaction is facilitated with their computer, we gain a better
understanding of how humans absorb communication technologies in their everyday lives.
Implications as well as alternatives can be shown by developing the storyboard based on
certain point of views.
Predicting the trends that are happening are also a benefit that can be perceived for
researchers and developers in CMC and thematic digital libraries studies by using
storyboard. Although for that we must be open to all the results that may appear. As in the
study, the researcher suspected that informants do not look at ENA as a credible reference
source among other sources of reference. Research findings are surprising, especially
considering that the informants are advanced users in finding information on the internet.
6.3.2. Recommendations for ENA developer

Some recommendations from this research are:
6.3.2.1. Recommender system
The research findings (Finding 7) noted that in cases of uncertainty, informants
preferred to wait for a response from the sharing partner rather than taking action to
generate new knowledge. In addition, they preferred to receive knowledge from sources
other than ENA, or hear opponents certified the intended documents in ENA than they
103
searching again. This behavior indicates the quality of a document is not only determined
by how the document is created but also how the document is used. Especially if we look
at the specific information that a thematic digital library has, the system provided should
improve the knowledge sharing performance and distinguished them from activities that
are not supported by these technologies (Hendriks, 1999). Among the many technologies
that can persuade and simultaneously increase the credibility of the source reference is the
persuasive recommender system.
This is a web technology that provides facilities to help users select the information
based on the credibility that was built by the users themselves, such as Google with its
universal search project that provides options such topic map, timeline, and rating. The
features will strengthen the users trust in the information presented. Based on the research
findings, the researcher concluded the need for a recommender system that is designed to
convince ENA users not only of the credibility of a specific document but also other
related documents. Results from the interviews and scenario applications found the need to
have facilities that can shorten the search results with a focus on certain criteria. A
common digital library feature, actually, namely advanced options. Important
infrastructure that must be prepared, of course, includes the metadata that can support
cross-reference classification and the algorithm that can analyze the ENA user's search
pattern. Nevertheless, recommender systems can be designed in many ways. Therefore, the
researcher recommends a rating system on each document window, in addition to the zoom
option, comment, or copy link features so that it can help ensure that users do a search on
the internal ecosystem of ENA.
6.3.2.2. An active discussion forum for users

Many things can be implemented to embrace the users including establishing a
discussion forum as media for the stakeholders. From the findings, the researcher found
that the informant was hindered when they wanted to use facilities provided in ENA such
the Album feature. Uncertainty about the use of these features and ambiguous words
from the 'Album' itself inhibit utilization by informants. The informants had difficulty to
resolve which documents were required (Finding 8). But it was not enough to just collect
the documents. The informants need confirmation, clarification or simply to ask about the
topics.
The researcher concluded that the 'Album' feature is need to more empowerment.
European Navigator needs to empower the users for its own sustainability. At least that is
104
the key point that Bernoff & Li (2008) concluded. Including the user as part of ENA
development will bring the website a step further than similar websites. The question of
what kind of forum should be developed, the researcher submits to the CVCE for ENA
developers to decide. Currently, many discussion forum software is available on the
internet, as well in many platforms, both propertiary systems and open source. There are
also many ways that the feature might be deployed, from the widgets service to a crossnetwork APIs such as embedding the European Navigator application in Google's Wave.
6.3.2.3. Other recommendations

Other recommendations are, firstly, the user experience, ENA version 2006 felt less
intuitive in helping the user find the desired document. In the scenario application, the user
is experienced difficulties either browsing or searching to find the location of documents
related to the topic Schuman plan. The column folders and the dynamic cubes' also do
not help much for the novice users since the user has to check through a documents
hierarchy one by one. Therefore, as regards the development of a better application in the
future, the researcher recommends a shallow information architecture design rather than
focusing on a deep hierarchy. The architecture must also be supported with a focus on
simple nevertheless elegant interfaces. In scenario application with time limitations, the
researcher found that informants were more focused on searching than browsing, the
implications of this indicates that the interface that emphasizes on a search feature such as
the search box will be more useful than emphasis on the browsing capability.
Secondly, based on the researchers findings about ENA information ecosystem
(Fig. 4.), it was concluded that ENA has an inclusive ecosystem in terms of information
flow and how the ENA-related sources of information. The researcher does not understand
the reasons behind the decision to put ENA as inclusive. In spite of the policy, the closed
system will be inhibiting too many user activities. Therefore, the researcher recommends
an ecosystem that empowering for users. The empowerment does not need to be defined as
a system for free nonetheless its emphasis is on how information flows expeditiously and
how the knowledge that is managed by CVCE can be accessed. By doing so, ENA will
take a role not only as information technology but also as social technology.
105
6.4. Limitations
Limitations of the research are:
6.4.1. Limits on subject analysis
Informant characteristics limit the research. Informants were all graduate students
in Erasmus Mundus program namely International Master in Digital Library Learning
(DILL), and were experienced in searching information on the internet. Based on interview
results, the researcher found that the informants access the Internet from 30 to 100 hours
per week. Findings focus on demonstrated informant behavior patterns so elements such as
the background and informant experiences also color the research results. However, the
researcher suggests that the characteristic can be applied widely to the behavior of other
users. The topics that the researcher used to gather the data either in interview or sequence
of acts in the scenario might limit the research results as well. Another consideration that
needs to be taken into account in this research is the models of research procedure for
collecting data and the research findings in overall is closely related to the multicultural
background of participants. Different models for research procedure as well as different
findings might be found when researching different target group of users.
6.4.2. Limits on object analysis

This study focuses on the use of ENA version 2006 as an example of a thematic
digital library. The information ecosystem characteristics of the 2006 version also limit the
research results. Different results may appear with different characteristics of the
information ecosystem. However, the research results cannot be generalized to all thematic
digital libraries, nonetheless can contribute as an input for developers to consider when
developing a thematic digital library. The behavior categories that are used to test the
object analysis also may have limited the results. Different storyboards can be produced by
using different categories based on behavioral trends obtained through research.
6.3.3. Limits on methodology used

Research procedure developed in this project is based on the character of subject
and object of research. Different procedures can be produced when using different
variables. However, the researcher succeeded in developing four types of research
procedures which all have been discussed in Chapter 3. The procedures enriched the results
not only theoretically but also in terms of practice. The researcher adapts the method from
106
contextual design which is conceived and developed by Holtzblatt (2005) with some
adjustments based on conditions met in the field. Application of other methods can enrich
the research results as well as does more validation through data triangulation. The use of
storyboard also limited the research results since not all elements of findings could be
included in the final storyboard.
6.5. Implications for theory

Based on the research conclusions and limitations above, the researcher attempts to
recommend a few things as the theoretical implications of this research, namely:
6.5.1. In relation with knowledge sharing
This study supports the behavior categories initiated by Huang et. al; (2008) about
knowledge sharing practice in virtual network. Henceforth the challenge is how to
determine and apply the categories and even strategies used in social interactions where
culture can be an independent variable that differentiates or conversely assimilates
elements from each category. The social context that is asserted in this research is also an
interesting topic to discover, ENA itself is open access though. This study supports the
hypothesis that the use of ICT can increase knowledge-sharing activities, despite the
motivation of the actors do. However, it is interesting to examine whether the use of ICT to
share knowledge is also influenced by personal factors such as selection of information, or
as an effort to build the image of someone's social network.
6.5.2. In relation with computer-mediated communication

This study supports the hypothesis that a person tends to choose the type of media
as a channel of communication associated with the tasks that need to be done (task-media
fit hypothesis). In addition, this research also supports the classification of two knowledgesharing related activities to the use of CMC in accordance with what is proposed by Hoff
& Weenen (2004). Based on the analysis of the affinity diagram (Table 10) generated
through observation and interviews, the researcher found that the activities of 'knowledge
donating' is the more dominant behavior of CMC for knowledge sharing, although this
research does not test the correlation between size of each category. Qualitatively, ones
activity using CMC to share knowledge has not directly affiliated with what the person
asked, for knowledge, from other people. This premise contradicts what Hoff & Weenen
(2004) found however the studies come from two different approaches and use different
measurement instruments as well.
107
6.6 Implications for further research

Implications from this research are:
6.6.1. User environment design and paper prototyping
Practical implication of this research is to apply the storyboard as the basis for ENA
development system. In contextual design, the next step can be done after the storyboard is
formed and the necessary functionality unveiled is to design the structure and architecture
as well as for the overall system of ENA. This phase is called the user environment design.
This research is not aimed to develop specific recommendations or structure which can be
inserted in ENA system. However, the conclusion and what the researcher proposed above
shows some of the user needs which can be a consideration for CVCE in developing a
forthcoming version of ENA. After the user environment has been designed so the next
challenge is to test prototype of ENA using paper prototyping. Prototype model is
recommended as part of the contextual design model; developers can nonetheless consider
using other prototype models to meet other conditions, if different from the methodology
used in this research. However, the continuation and development of the next stages of this
research storyboard, the researcher submits to CVCE decision as ENA developer. Another
suggestion is to test the method used in this research on some other target users as well as
using different informant characters. Procedures that the researcher proposed in this
research can take place as a foundation for future researches. The other interesting
challenge is to do a comparative study or triangulation using quantitative methods to
measure the amount of influence on each of the findings in relation to the use of CMC and
knowledge sharing activities.
6.6.2. Anonymity, hyperpersonal, media and semiotic

Findings and results of this research can lead to many implications as well as
application in many scientific topics related to the development of a thematic digital
library. In this research, the storyboard scope within interpersonal context between
characters. John and Jane are described as knowing each other. The challenge in the future
is to use storyboard to test the relationship between characters who do not have a preexisting knowledge of each other. Anonymity is one of the models developed in CMC,
Marouf (2007) mentioned that the activities of knowledge sharing are more active if done
by the actors who did not know each other. Categories designed by Huang et. al (2008)
108
also can be used as the foundation for analyzing the relationship of anonymity, although in
the end Huang et. al (2008) differentiate between inferior and superior attitudes.
Another implication to include anonymity as variable within interaction is the
hyperpersonal. Hyperpersonal is a computer-mediated communication (CMC) theory that
posits that users exploit the technological aspects of CMC in order to enhance the
messages they construct, to manage impressions, and facilitate desired relationships
(Walther, 1996). Indeed it would be an interesting challenge to see if hyperpersonal
factors, as well as motivations from the user to perform CMC itself, affect the selection of
knowledge that they want to share. As mentioned in the research background, to build
digital libraries that more intuitive, familiar, and benefits to users is aims, so to speak, of
every digital libraries developer, and other technologies that can simplify life. Therefore, it
is very interesting to contribute to the development of digital libraries from the perspective
of CMC and vice versa.
Media semiotic is the last area that the researcher wants to put forward in this
research. During the process of data collection, data analysis, and presentation of data, the
researcher found interesting data as to how the informants interacting with the ENA
interface basically rely on their own interpretation of the text and images available. For
instances, most informants interpreted the term album in the Album feature to be
related to a collection of photos or video. The interpretation is not incorrect, but also not
true. In addition, the word 'special files' in the folders column shows a different
interpretation when the informant accesses documents that are therein. Informants do not
assume that the documents listed in the folder 'special files' are something special and they
also do not understand why there are files that can be regarded as something special. The
findings imply that this is a problem in the semiotic of media used in the message
conveyed in ENA. This does of course signal the need for further research about this issue.
A good film is not determined by the director, producer or main stars, it is
spectators who set the quality. The analogy might not be too appropriate for ENA, but the
point of what the researcher wants to make is relevant. Error in designing signs in the
configuration text and images can bring different interpretations and implies use that is not
appropriate. Not only text and images, color and composition also affect the flow by users.
Is this problem important? Users interact with the digital libraries we are building only
through the interface that is presented in the presence of the user. Do we hope we can just
notify each user who does not know how to use our digital library? It is okay if only a few
hundred users, for example, experts and researchers. But what if the digital library is
109
visited by millions of users each year, month, or in a matter of days, such as ENA? It's
impossible. Therefore, it is important to consider what we serve to the user and not solely
because of interest according to the designer or funding. If this is not so, create your own
digital library on your computer and do not ask other people to see.
Epilog
Conclusions and implications are discussed in this chapter marks the end of the
report of this research. As a requirement for the researcher to get a master's degree in
Erasmus Mundus program Digital Library Learning (DILL). Nothing is perfect in this
world, so this research. Therefore, suggestions, critics, and comments are always welcome
for complementing and more shaping further research. Finally, thank you for read this
research. You are a good reader.
110
List of references
Alexander, B. (2006, March/April). Web 2.0; A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and
Learning? Educause Review , pp. 33-44.
Allen, C. (2004, October 13). Tracing the Evolution of Social Software. Retrieved June 12,
2008, from Life With Alacrity:
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the_evo.html
Allport, C. D., & Blanger, F. (2008). Collaborative technologies in knowledge telework:
an exploratory study. Info Systems , 18, 101121.
An, Y.-J., & Frick, T. (2006). Student Perceptions of Asynchronous Computer-Mediated
Communication in Face-to-Face Courses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication ,
11, 485499.
Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A. J., & Marcia, J. E. (2000). Coded Semistructured
Interviews in Social Psychological Research. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd, Handbook of
research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 286-311). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bernoff, J., & Li, C. (2008). Groundswell; Winning in a World Transformed by Social
Technologies. Boston, US: Harvard Business Press.
Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K., & Baker, L. (2004). An Agile Customer-Centered Method: Rapid
Contextual Design. XP/Agile Universe 2004 (pp. 50-59). Heidelberg: Springer.
Booth, S., & Hulten, M. (2003). Opening dimensions of variation: An empirical study of
learning in a Web-based discussion. Instructional Science , 31, 6586.
Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated
knowledge communication: and how they may be overcome. New York: Springer.
Bryant, L. (2007). Emerging Trends in Social Software for Education. Emerging
Technologies for Learning , 2, pp. 8-20.
Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur lEurope (CVCE). (2005). Questionnaire de
Satisfaction sur la Banque de Connaissances European NAvigator. Luxembourg:
Unpublished.
Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l'Europe (CVCE). (2006). Accessed from June 2008
to May 2009, from European Navigator: http://www.ena.lu/
Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l'Europe (CVCE). (2006). Questionnaire de
Satisfaction sur la Banque de Connaissances European NAvigator . Luxembourg:
Unpublished.
111
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media

richness and structural design. Management Science , 32 (5), 554571.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Amsterdam, Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Design, F. (2005). Usability Glossary: Context of Use. Retrieved January 25, 2009, from
Usability First: http://www.usabilityfirst.com/glossary/term_1073.txl
Dotsika, F. a. (2006). Towards The New Generation of Web Knowledge. VINE: The
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems , 36 (4), 406-422.
Drake, M. A. (2003). Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York: CRC
Press.
Endres, M. L. (2007). Tacit Knowledge Sharing, Self-efficacy Theory, and Application to
The Open Source Community. Journal of Knowledge Management , 11 (3), 92-103.
Ess, C. (2007). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosphy of Computing and Information. (L.
Floridi, Ed.) London: Blackwell Publishing.
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management.
California Management Review , 40, 265276.
Farkas, M. G. (2007). Social software in libraries: building collaboration, communication,
and community online. Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc.
Futurelab. (2006). Opening Education; Social Software and Learning. UK: Futurelab.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of ICT on the Motivation for
Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management , 6 (2), 91-100.
Heumann, J. (2003, November). User Experience Storyboards: Building Better UIs with
RUP, UML, and use cases. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from The Rational Edge:
http://www.therationaledge.com/content/nov_03/f_usability_jh.jsp
Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Knowledge Sharing In Online Environments: A Qualitative
Case Study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 58
(14), 23102324.
Holtzblatt, K. (2001). Contextual Design: Experience in Real Life. In R. O. H. Oberquelle
(Ed.), Mensch & Computer (pp. 19-22). Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner.
Holtzblatt, K. W. (2005). Rapid Contextual Design. San Fransisco: Elsevier.
Hooff, B. v., & Weenen, F. v. (2004). Committed to Share: Commitment and CMC Use as
Antecedents of Knowledge. Knowledge and Process Management , 11 (1), 13-24.
Huang, T.-p., Lin, F.-r., & Lin, S.-c. (2008). Knowledge sharing and creation in a teachers
professional virtual community. Computers & Education , 50, 742756.
112
Kim, H., Heo, J., Shim, J., Kim, M., & Park, S. (2007). Contextual Research on Elderly
Users Needs for Developing Universal Design Mobile Phone. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.),
Universal Access in HCI, Part I, HCII 2007 (pp. 950-959). Heidelberg: Springer.
Lindeman, M., & Varvel Jr., V. E. (2004, September). Online Courses as Learning Scripts:
Using Storyboards in Online Course Design. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from
http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/pointersclickers/2004_09/storyboard.pdf
Maraouf, L. N. (2007). Social Networks and Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Case
Study. Journal of Knowledge Management , 11 (6), 110-125.
Nielsen, C. M., Overgaard, M., Pedersen, M. B., & Stage, J. (2005). Feedback From
Usability Evaluation to User Interface Design: Are Usability Reports Any Good?
INTERACT 2005 (pp. 391-404). Rome, Italy: Birkhuser.
Nonaka, I. (1991, November-December). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard
Business Review , pp. 21-47.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Notess, M. (2005). Using Contextual Design for Digital Library Field Studies. Studying
Digital Library Users in the Wild-JCDL 2005 Workshop. Indiana, US: Indiana University.
Olaniran, B. A. (2006). Applying synchronous computer-mediated communication into
course design: Some considerations and practical guides. Campus-Wide Information
Systems , 23 (3), 210-220.
O'Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What Is Web 2.0; Design Patterns and Business Models
for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from O'Reilly:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Paulus, T. M., & Phipps, G. (2008). Approaches to case analyses in synchronous and
asynchronous environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 13, 459
484.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitionerresearchers. Oxford: Blackwell.
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (1999). Encyclopedia of Creativity: A-H. California:
Academic Press.
Schensul, S. J., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential Ethnographic
Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires. California: Rowman Altamira.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research (2nd Edition ed.). London, UK: Sage
Publications Ltd.
113
Simon, S. J., & Peppas, C. S. (2004). An examination of media richness theory in product
Web site design: an empirical study. Info , 6 (4), 270-281.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary Development of a Model and Measure of ComputerMediated Communication (CMC) Competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication , 11, 629666.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd Edition ed.). London, UK: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2008). Measuring User Experience; Collecting, Analyzing, and
Presenting Usability Metrics. US: Morgan Kaufmann.
UsabilityNet. (2006). Storyboarding. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from UsabilityNet:
http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/storyboarding.htm
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication:impersonal, interpersonal and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research , 23 (1), 3-43.
Williams, R. (2006). Narratives of knowledge and intelligence ...beyond the tacit and
explicit. Journal of Knowledge Management , 10 (4), 81-99
114
Appendices
115
Appendix 1.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROCEDURES

At first, it was uneasy for researcher to build a proper sequence of procedures for
this research based on principles in contextual design (CD). The researcher took
conception of whether a research method is from Strauss & Corbin (1998) as they noted
that a method is a set of procedures and techniques for gathering and analyzing data. In this
research, the challenge to set the procedures of research comes due to the availability of
informants who willing to volunteer in this research, lack of resources, and time constraints
for conducting the research. However, the researcher is stand on the principle that the
creation of storyboard is a bottom-up approach means the information flow that researcher
gathers must be start from the user to the developer not vice versa. Other consideration that
researcher took into account when designing the procedures is the contextual design, as
method itself, already had a conventional static work flow thus researcher has to maintain
some step in every model in order to be reliable for the research. The final model as being
use as the research procedure in this research crystallized through three previous models of
research procedures.
The first model based on assumption that analyzing data on group level might
produce more rich data than gathering information based on individual observation. The
researcher has set the model as combination between field and controlled environment
observations. The researcher found that there is no need to conduct observation for
describing communication process among users in group level for this research. What the
researcher need is to have a robust evidence of attitudes and activities that user does while
using ENA. Thus, the observation can be narrow it into individual level. However, this
first model has some advantages in helping developers take data from the user's
participation level with the possibility of a heterogeneous group, including:
Use of more controlled variables; this procedure focuses on the control experiment for
high number of users of the website and the application is applied to help the test as
well as the development of complex online features such as a customize online
registration form or feedback system within an organization. This is because this
procedure allows the participation of research by researchers as observers in the number
116
of the many applications and scenarios that can take turns. The model also provides a
good mechanism for data validation and response from the object of research.
This procedure enables a combination of two data gathering techniques (data
triangulation), such as observation and questionnaire.
Nevertheless, this procedure requires a large cost to bring the observers and create
conducive conditions for the observations such as provide a computer lab. In addition, the
length of time of the observation can be a constraint in development process.
Figure 8. The first proposed model for the research procedure
Therefore in the second model (Figure 2.), researcher proposed combination

between individual task and group task, whilst researcher still keep the feedback phase as
the respondent validation for the research. The model is good enough to answer the
research questions and more efficient in term of conducted steps. Nonetheless, as in any
other contextual research, the first challenge in design is to find a way in any means that
can lead researcher to understanding the user in their context circumstances (Kim, et. al.,
2007). As the first model seems is mislead likewise in the second model. The second
model is emphasize on efficient steps from scenarios result through data consolidation and
just assume that the best scenario result is the best raw data to be visualize into storyboard.
That calculation is only good on paper. After the researcher confined the characters of
informants, attempted to select the participants and conducted pilot interviews, the first
problems encounter on data repetition.
117
Figure 9. The second proposed model for research procedures
All the participants in the second model are international students who study in
Tallinn University under the program International Master in Digital Library Learning
(DILL) in spring semester 2009. The researcher found that all participants already had
experiences working in a group project. From a class assignment in Information and
Knowledge Management (IKM) class that they followed in Tallinn University during
spring semester 2009, the students were divide into four groups thus there are already four
group-work behaviors. If researcher does insist to continue to impose the scenario and take
the data from group level in the eyes of individual members thus there will be a lot of data
repetition. To avoid repetition of data, overlap information, and to be more efficient in time
hence researcher decided to change focus of research subject into individual perspective.
Other problem that occurs in the second model is there is no mediation phase between data
consolidation phase and feedback phase. Researcher refers back to the CD process and
found that the model is lack of visualization in consolidation phase. Usually in
consolidation phase the data is been draws in affinity diagram.
The initial steps in this second model are the same as the preceding model. The
difference is the absence of the third observer factor and summarily consolidation process
of the application scenario to the final storyboard. However, in this second model, there are
advantages that can be relied upon such as shorter time in the observation. In addition, the
observation can be adapted to existing conditions so that can be applied in the model of
knowledge development such as designing a simple interface and features of online
118
discussion. Validity of this procedure is also strengthened with the least intervention in the
observation data obtained and focuses on the response from the participants. In later model
researcher add the initial storyboard as the drafts of storyboard and as an addition to fit
with the design step and at the same time still be able to meet the research aim. In this third
model, researcher still based the assumption for the participants are the DILL students.
Figure 10. The third model of research procedures
In the third model, the respondent validation is not directly in the consolidated data
except through the process of initial storyboard. This step was decided because of the
consolidation of data cannot describe the behavior of the user directly, so necessary to the
projection in the visual material. In addition, if the first and second models, the participants
are asked to provide feedback on the results of data application scenarios that they did. In
this model the data collection is changed by using brainstorming technique. Brainstorming
method is selected because it makes it easier for the researcher to get a response about the
proposed storyboard so that finalization of the data can be done immediately.
Brainstorming is also chosen because this method is appropriate to use in order to generate
new ideas or improving old ideas. The superiority of this model lies in the third respondent
validation; it is more accurate than the second model. Same as in the second model, the
third model does not depend on the environment as controlled variables so that the
application allows researchers to retrieve data, even suggested, on the condition that the
user itself or be comfortable for the test.
119
However, researchers need to emphasize some of the steps in the third model that
distinguish it with the next model, are:
1. Describing context of use based on interview findings.
Context of use can be define as the situational factors that influence the use
and usability of a system, including environmental factors (physical conditions
such as space, time, temperature, noise), organizational factors (social network,
management
and
organizational
pressures,
and
work
processes),
and
technical/system factors (network connectivity, system configuration, system

stability), and broad social factors (family conflicts, career aspirations, economy,
ethical standards) (Design, 2005). For this research, researcher took operational
definition of context of use as:
Situational factors that influenced participants to use European Navigator

(ENA), social software and shared their knowledge.
A representation of user actual condition while using ENA. Examples of

conditions include: The users, tasks, equipment and the physical, social, and
organizational environments.
The context of use will be based on data from interviews.
2. Discuss the result with supervisor for third person perspective. Supervisor position
plays important role to validate the interviews data. Supervisor can take the place as
the experts that will give critical account about the research not only data but also
process within the research.
120
Appendix 2.
THE LIST OF QUESTIONS

Informant No....
Internet Adoption
1. How many hours per week do you approximately access the Internet?
2. What sort of activities do you do on the Internet?
3. What are the main reasons you use the Internet?
4. How old is your laptop?
Social Software usage:
1. Do you use; (if yes, how do you use the website?)
a. Media sharing website: (youtube, etc)
b. Social Networking Site (Facebook, etc)
c. File sharing website: (Rapidshare, etc)
d. Wikis: (Wikipedia, etc)
e. Social bookmark: (del.icio.us, etc)
f. Virtual learning environment: (WebCT, etc)
g. Internet forum: (Yahoo answer, etc)
h. Instant messaging: (Skype, etc)
i. Virtual worlds: (SecondLife, etc)
j. Blogs: (Blogspot, etc)
k. Others; please specify.
2. What are the main reasons you use those social software?
Collaboration work
1. Please describe your experiences in working within the collaborative project?
2. What was your role in the group?
3. What form of communication did you use in that collaborative work?
4. How did the group provide feedback?
5. Did your team use any communication technology to work on the project?
6. (Researcher will explain about social software) Did you or your group use social
software in your collaborative work?
7. How do you use the social software websites in your collaborative work?
European Navigator (Interviewer will show the website of ENA to the interviewee)
1. Is this the first time you are accessing ENA?
2. What is your first impression about ENA?
3. I would like to give you a task using ENA, feel free to use any feature that you think
might relate to the question, can you explain it to me, who is Robert Schuman?
What is The Marshall Plan?
4. What do you think about the browse capability (folder bar, icons, and dynamic
cubicles)?
5. What do you think about the search capability?
6. Which part of the site caught your interest?
7. Which features of ENA are you interested in?
8. What do you think about the content?
121
Appendix 3.
THE SCENARIO
Project
Using Storyboard for modeling computer-mediated

communication (CMC) and knowledge sharing among user of
European Navigator
Type of script
Task-based scenario
Duration
60 minuetes
Technical
environment
Browser
Mozilla Firefox 3, Internet Explorer 7
Writing
software
Microsoft Word 2007
Others
Video CamSuite 1.0
Recorder
Panasonic VDR-D50
Computer
Acer Aspire 5610Z
Equipments
A desk and a chair
Physical
environment
Brief
1. Thank you for your participation in this research. In this phase we ask you to play a role
as a graduate student who has been given a group assignment by your professor to write
an essay about the history of European integration in 1950-1956 with the emphasis on
the role of community of Europe.
2. The script contains a sequence of actions and we need you to fulfill the task. We
encourage you to do improvisation and determine action selection including usage of
social software. When you are prompted to take an action, it will be marked with a sign
<>, for instance <need to browse> means that you are asked to do some browsing,
and so forth.
3. In some actions, you are expected to answer the questions in writing. The question will
be marked with sign (). To answer the question, please use Microsoft Word that has
been provided.
4. During the process you will be recorded by video. Please note that you can ask for
clarification during the process and the recording will be stopped.
5. Please make yourself comfortable and we can start this scenario.
122
Act I
1. Imagine that you have been assigned to do a group assignment with some friends.
They are your classmates and you have studied with them for about 2 semesters.
So, you pretty much know their personalities. The setting is you are with your
laptop in a comfortable room.
2. The deadline is still two weeks away and your group is still working on the task
that is given.
3. One of the group members sends you a link of a website called European Navigator
through your email <need to open the website> and asks you to look for
information on the website that relates to the birth of the community of Europe.
(S11)
4. You have opened the website. The first page appears with French language. You
browse for a feature that can provide you with language selections <need to
browse> and select the language you prefer <need to select>.
5. This is the first time that you are accessing the website and you need some time to
adjust to the website <need to browse the website features>.
6. Now, you attempt to look for information that your friend has asked. <Need to do
searching or browsing>.
7. Aha! You find it. The birth of the community of Europe is related with some folder
documents which are: (names of the folders), ..., .., and.... (S12)
8. You are not sure which folder is actually asked by your friend. So, you clarify what
specific information he has requested <need to do communication>. (S13)
Act II
1. The setting is you are in the university library using a library computer.
2. You have received information from your friend regarding some specific
information that he would like to put in your group assignment. He asks, What
was the name of the plan that had marked the French effort to create equilibrium
123
in Europe after the Second World War? (find the answer, just short one, hint:
coal and steel, 1950)<need to search or browse> (S21)
3. Aha! You find the answer. You would like to send the information but you have a
second thought. You would like to add some references that can enrich the
information and might enhance the results of your group work. You look for more
references and you know the website has a similar kind of feature that can provide
bibliographic lists. <Need to use a feature>. (S22)
Act III
1. The setting is you are with your laptop in a comfortable room.

2. Another group mate asks you whether you can recommend a collaboration tool
software for your group work because most group members have the difficulty to
meet directly. You have an idea about it, and you share it with all of the group
members. <need to communicate> (S31)
3. Your group likes your idea. Good work!
4. Later, you find this cool classic video dated 9 May 1950 <need to search or
browse>. You think this video is a good material to be added in your group
assignment and you want other group members to know about this material by
posting it in your group collaboration software <need to post the video link> and
send the notification to all group members <need to send the notification>. (S32)
5. All of your friends now know the video. You ask them whether any of them has
taken notes from the video that might be useful for the group assignment <need to
communicate>. (S33)
6. Unfortunately, none of them had taken notes from the video <need to do
communication>. (S34)
7. You get over the problem. The group assignment is done. You manage to do the
presentation. You want to send a compliment to the ENA developer about the video
and to thank them for their brilliant work <need to do communication>. (S35)
Thats a wrap! Well Done!
124
Appendix 4.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT FORM
Informant No....
No. Code
Description
Internet Adoption
1.
Q11
How many hours per week do you approximately access the Internet?
A11
2.
Q12
What sort of activities do you do on the Internet?
A12
3.
Q13
What are the main reasons you use the Internet?
A13
4.
Q14
How old is your laptop?
A14
Social software usage
1
--
Do you use; (if yes, how do you use the website?)
1.a
Q21a Media sharing website: (youtube, etc)

A21a
1.b
Q21b Social Networking Site (Facebook, etc)

A21b
1.c
Q21c File sharing website: (Rapidshare, etc)

A21c
1.d
Q21d Wikis: (Wikipedia, etc)

A21d
1.e
Q21e Social bookmark: (del.icio.us, etc)

A21e
1.f
Q21f
Virtual learning environment: (WebCT, etc)
A21f
1.g
Q21g Internet forum: (Yahoo answer, etc)

A21g
1.h
Q21h Instant messaging: (Skype, etc)

A21h
1.i
Q21i
Virtual worlds: (SecondLife, etc)
A21i
1.j
Q21j
Blogs: (Blogspot, etc)
125
A21j
1.k
Q21k Others; please specify.

A21k
2.
Q22
What are the main reasons you use those social software?
A22
Collaboration work
1.
Q31 Please describe your experiences in working within the collaborative
project?
A31
2.
Q32 What was your role in the group?
A32
3.
Q33
What form of communication did you use in that collaborative work?
A33
4.
Q34
How did the group provide feedback?
A34
5.
Q35
Did your team use any communication technology to work on the project?
A35
6.
Q36
(Researcher will explain about social software) Did you or your group use
social software in your collaborative work?
A36
7.
Q37
How do you use the social software websites in your collaborative work?
A37
European Navigator (Interviewer will show the website of ENA to the interviewee)
1.
Q41 Is this the first time you are accessing ENA?
A41
2.
Q42
What is your first impression about ENA?
A42
3.
Q43
I would like to give you a task using ENA, feel free to use any feature that
you think might relate to the question, can you explain it to me, who is
Robert Schuman? What is The Marshall Plan?
A43
4.
Q44
What do you think about the browse capability (folder bar, icons, and
dynamic cubicles)?
A44
5.
Q45
What do you think about the search capability?
A45
6.
Q46
Which part of the site caught your interest?

126
A46
7.
Q47
Which features of ENA are you interested in?
A47
Q48
What do you think about the content?
A48
127
Appendix 5
Initial Storyboard
Hi John, I have to write

an essay about Schuman
Plan, would you help me
to find some information
about it?
Okay, I will see

what I can do...
Jane has been given assignment to write an essay about Schuman Plan.
She asks John for his help to find related information to her assignment.
She calls John through VoIP software.
J ohn goes to E N A we bs ite a nd s tr a ightly ty ping

k e y wor d S c hum a n P la n in the s e a r c h box .
The r e s ults c ome out.
Keyword
Number of results
Hmmto manyresults.
I don't know which documents
that Jane actuallywants
J ohn c opie s link to the doc um ents

us ing 'c opy link ' fe a ture
a nd s e nd it to J a ne by e ma il.
128
John sends an email to Jane
After a while...
John received a response from Jane
A link to a document in ENA
4
maybe Mr. Google
can help
John starts to research the information
129
maybe some videos

and photos will
convince her
He wants to enrich the result

so he clicks 'Media Library' feature
+
John compiles links that
he found in Google
and URL of videos and photos
in ENA. He sends
all the links to Jane
via email.
130
I've sends some documents,

now it's better than the last.
Check your email
John opens his VoIP software

and sends a notification to Jane
Hi John, thanks..
I've looked at the documents,
they all are useful and
match to the topic that
I'm working on.
Nice work!
You're welcome!
Jane received the notification and reply directly to John by calling him through VoIP
131
Appendix 6
The Final Storyboard
Hi John, I have to write

an essay about Schuman
Plan, would you help me
to find some information
about it?
Okay, I will see

what I can do...
1
Jane has been given assignment to write an essay about Schuman Plan.
She asks John for his help to find related information to her assignment.
She calls John through VoIP software.
132
John goes to ENA website and straightly typing

keyword Schuman Plan in the search box.
The results come out.
Keyword
Number of results
Hmmto many results.

I don't know which documents
that Jane actually wants
2
John copies link to the documents
using 'copy link' feature
and send it to Jane by email.
133
John sends an email to Jane
After a while...
John received a response from Jane
134
A link to a document in ENA
maybe Mr. Google

can help
John starts to research the information
John types 'French contribution,

Schuman plan' in Google,
the results come up.
There are links to the documents in ENA.
He clicks one of it
and directly goes to ENA website.
It is an article about
the birth of community of Europe
John typing keyword "Schuman plan" in ENA,

the search results appear in many media formats
135
Hi John, I prefer some more text,

but not limited to, just send any
documents that you think useful
for my assignment, thanks
Hi Jane, I found several document

relating to the" Schuman plan"
but I need more specific information
if you search for documents with
a certain format
John found Jane VoIP account is online. John calls Jane to confirm whether
there are particular media formats that Jane search.
136
some more photos

and videos will
improve her assignment
He wants to enrich the result

so he clicks 'Media Library' feature
John backs at ENA.

He gathered some text documents
137
+
John compiles links that
he found in Google and ENA.
He sends all the links to Jane
via email.
138
Hi John, thanks..
I've looked at the documents,
they all are useful and
match to the topic that
I'm working on.
Nice work!
You're welcome!
8
Jane received Johns email and reply directly to John by calling him through VoIP
139

Using Storyboard For Modeling Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Using Storyboard For Modeling Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AKHMAD RIZA FAIZAL

Supervisor Sirje Virkus

Design/Methodology/Approachthe steps were as follows; pilot interviews conducted and

Keywordsstoryboard, users communication model, digital library, knowledge sharing,

I certify that all material in this dissertation which

Tallinn, June 29th, 2009

Akhmad Riza Faizal

I would like to thank:

1.2. Objectives, aims, significances, and research questions.

1.3. Methodology for the research.

1.4. Outline of this report..

1.5. Scopes and key assumptions..

Chapter 2. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1.1. The strategy for searching references

2.1.2. Knowledge sharing

2.1.2.1 On discourse about sharing tacit and explicit knowledge.

2.1.2.2. Causal conditions, action/interaction in knowledge sharing practices.

2.1.2.3. Ties and capabilities in knowledge sharing..

2.1.2.4. ICT and motivations for knowledge sharing

2.1.3. Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

2.1.3.1 On discourses about CMC and its competencies.. 29

2.1.3.3 CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. 34

2.2. Conceptual Framework..

Chapter 3. THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.2. The research procedure...

3.3. Schema of the research procedure..

3.4. Type of Data 52

3.6. Data Analyzing Technique.

3.7. Physical Environment.

3.8 Technical Requirements..

3.9. Research Constraints.

3.10. Ethical Considerations..

Chapter 4. ABOUT THE EUROPEAN NAVIGATOR (ENA)

4.2. ENA Features.

4.3. ENA Information Ecosystem.

4.4. ENA Metadata

Chapter 5. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

5.1.1. Interview stage and the implementation of the scenario 70

5.2. Data Analysis..

5.2.1. Data from interviews.. 71

5.2.2.1 Informant 1 (Info1)....

5.2.2.2. Informant 2 (Info2)...

5.2.2.3. Informant 3 (Info3)...

5.2.2.4. Informant 4 (Info4)...

5.2.2.5. Informant 5 (Info5)...

5.2.2.6. Informant 6 (Info6)...

5.2.2.7. Informant 7 (Info7)...

5.2.2.8. Informant 8 (Info8)...

5.2.3. The actions map analysis...

5.3. The initial storyboard

5.4. The brainstorming.

5.5. Revisions to the storyboard

6. The final storyboard

Chapter 6. Conclusions and Implications

6.2 Conclusions to the research questions.

6.2.1. Model of CMC among users of ENA

6.2.2. Model of knowledge sharing among users of ENA..

6.2.3. Model of CMC and knowledge sharing among users of ENA..

6.3 Conclusions to the research problems.. 102

6.3.2. Recommendations for ENA developer..

6.3.2.1. Recommender system...

6.3.2.2. An active discussion forum for users