DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Pareto Ratio and Inequality Level of Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Knowledge Collaboration: Analysis of Behaviors on Wikipedia

지식 공유의 파레토 비율 및 불평등 정도와 가상 지식 협업: 위키피디아 행위 데이터 분석

  • 박현정 (이화여자대학교 경영연구소) ;
  • 신경식 (이화여자대학교 경영대학)
  • Received : 2014.08.06
  • Accepted : 2014.08.27
  • Published : 2014.09.30

Abstract

The Pareto principle, also known as the 80-20 rule, states that roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes for many events including natural phenomena. It has been recognized as a golden rule in business with a wide application of such discovery like 20 percent of customers resulting in 80 percent of total sales. On the other hand, the Long Tail theory, pointing out that "the trivial many" produces more value than "the vital few," has gained popularity in recent times with a tremendous reduction of distribution and inventory costs through the development of ICT(Information and Communication Technology). This study started with a view to illuminating how these two primary business paradigms-Pareto principle and Long Tail theory-relates to the success of virtual knowledge collaboration. The importance of virtual knowledge collaboration is soaring in this era of globalization and virtualization transcending geographical and temporal constraints. Many previous studies on knowledge sharing have focused on the factors to affect knowledge sharing, seeking to boost individual knowledge sharing and resolve the social dilemma caused from the fact that rational individuals are likely to rather consume than contribute knowledge. Knowledge collaboration can be defined as the creation of knowledge by not only sharing knowledge, but also by transforming and integrating such knowledge. In this perspective of knowledge collaboration, the relative distribution of knowledge sharing among participants can count as much as the absolute amounts of individual knowledge sharing. In particular, whether the more contribution of the upper 20 percent of participants in knowledge sharing will enhance the efficiency of overall knowledge collaboration is an issue of interest. This study deals with the effect of this sort of knowledge sharing distribution on the efficiency of knowledge collaboration and is extended to reflect the work characteristics. All analyses were conducted based on actual data instead of self-reported questionnaire surveys. More specifically, we analyzed the collaborative behaviors of editors of 2,978 English Wikipedia featured articles, which are the best quality grade of articles in English Wikipedia. We adopted Pareto ratio, the ratio of the number of knowledge contribution of the upper 20 percent of participants to the total number of knowledge contribution made by the total participants of an article group, to examine the effect of Pareto principle. In addition, Gini coefficient, which represents the inequality of income among a group of people, was applied to reveal the effect of inequality of knowledge contribution. Hypotheses were set up based on the assumption that the higher ratio of knowledge contribution by more highly motivated participants will lead to the higher collaboration efficiency, but if the ratio gets too high, the collaboration efficiency will be exacerbated because overall informational diversity is threatened and knowledge contribution of less motivated participants is intimidated. Cox regression models were formulated for each of the focal variables-Pareto ratio and Gini coefficient-with seven control variables such as the number of editors involved in an article, the average time length between successive edits of an article, the number of sections a featured article has, etc. The dependent variable of the Cox models is the time spent from article initiation to promotion to the featured article level, indicating the efficiency of knowledge collaboration. To examine whether the effects of the focal variables vary depending on the characteristics of a group task, we classified 2,978 featured articles into two categories: Academic and Non-academic. Academic articles refer to at least one paper published at an SCI, SSCI, A&HCI, or SCIE journal. We assumed that academic articles are more complex, entail more information processing and problem solving, and thus require more skill variety and expertise. The analysis results indicate the followings; First, Pareto ratio and inequality of knowledge sharing relates in a curvilinear fashion to the collaboration efficiency in an online community, promoting it to an optimal point and undermining it thereafter. Second, the curvilinear effect of Pareto ratio and inequality of knowledge sharing on the collaboration efficiency is more sensitive with a more academic task in an online community.

전체 결과의 80%가 전체 원인의 20%에 의해 일어난다는 파레토 법칙(Pareto principle)은 상위 20%의 핵심 고객에 대한 우선적인 마케팅을 비롯하여 기업 경영의 많은 부분에서 적용되어 왔다. 파레토 법칙과는 대조적으로, 80%의 사소한 다수가 20%의 핵심적인 소수보다 우월한 가치를 창출한다는 롱테일 법칙(Long Tail theory)은 ICT(Information and Communication Technology)의 발전과 함께 새로운 경영 패러다임으로 주목 받아오고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 경영 현장에서 양대 흐름을 형성해온 이러한 법칙들이 변화무쌍한 글로벌 가상화 환경에서 기업의 핵심적인 성공 요인이라고 할 수 있는 가상 지식 협업에는 어떻게 관련되는지를 규명하는 것이다. 이를 위해, 대표적인 가상 지식 협업 커뮤니티인 위키피디아에서 품질 최상위 등급인 피쳐드 아티클(Featured Article) 레벨로 승급된 2,978개의 아티클에 대한 협업 행위를 분석하였다. 즉, 각 아티클 그룹에서 편집 횟수 기준 상위 20%에 속하는 참여자들의 총 편집 횟수가 전체 편집 횟수에서 차지하는 비율인 파레토 비율(Pareto ratio)이 지식 협업 효율성과 어떤 관계를 가지고 있는지를 도출하였다. 그리고, 이러한 연구를 편집 참여를 통한 지식 공유에 대한 전체적인 불평등 정도를 나타내는 지니 계수(Gini coefficient)의 영향 및 그룹의 작업 특성을 반영하도록 확장하였다. 결과적으로, 지식 공유의 파레토 비율과 지니 계수가 증가하면 지식 협업 효율성도 높아지지만, 이러한 변수들이 일정 수준 이상으로 증가하면 오히려 지식 협업 효율성이 낮아지는 역 U자(inverted U-shaped) 관계가 있음을 확인하였다. 그리고, 이러한 관계는 인지적 노력을 상대적으로 더 많이 요구하는 학문적인 특성의 작업에서 더 민감하게 작용하는 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. Amabile, T. M., The Atmosphere of Pure Work: Creativity in Research and Development, In The Social Psychology of Science, W. R. Shadish and S. Fuler (eds.), Guilford Press, New York, 1994, 316-328.
  2. Ancona, D. G. and D. F. Caldwell, "Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.37, No.4(1992), 634-665. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393475
  3. Anderson, C., The Long Tail TV: Conclusion, The Long Tail Blog, 2005. Available at http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/01/long_tail_tv_pa_2.html (Accessed 6 July, 2014).
  4. Anderson, C., The Long Tail, Wired, 2004. Available at http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html (Accessed 6 July, 2014).
  5. Anderson, C., The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More, NY: Hyperion, New York, 2006.
  6. Anthony, D., S. W. Smith, and T. Williamson, "Reputation and Reliability in Collective Goods: The Case of the Online Encyclopedia Wikipedia," Rationality and Society, Vol.21, No.3(2009), 283-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463109336804
  7. Bantel, K. A. and S. E. Jackson, "Top Management and Innovations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?" Strategic Management Journal, Vol.10, No.S1(1989), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100709
  8. Bock, G.-W. and Y.-G. Kim, "Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing," Information Resource Management Journal, Vol.15, No.2 (2002), 14-21.
  9. Bock, G.-W., R. W. Zmud, Y.-G. Kim, and J.-N. Lee, "Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate," MIS Quarterly, Vol.29, No.1(2005), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669
  10. Bono, J. E. and R. Ilies, "Charisma, Positive Emotions and Mood Contagion," The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.17, No.4(2006), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.008
  11. Byrne, D., The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, 1971.
  12. Carr, N. G., "The Ignorance of Crowds," strategy+ business, Vol.47(2007), 1-5.
  13. Chatman, J. A., "Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vo.36, No.3(1991), 459-484. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393204
  14. Chen, X.-P., X. Yao, and S. Kotha, "Entrepreneur Passion and Preparedness in Business Plan Presentations: A Persuasion Analysis of Venture Capitalists' Funding Decisions," Academy of Management Journal, Vol.52, No.1(2009), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.36462018
  15. Chi, N. W., Y. M. Huang, and S. C. Lin, "A Double- Edged Sword? Exploring the Curvilinear Relationship between Organizational Tenure Diversity and Team Innovation: The Moderating Role of Team-Oriented HR Practices," Group and Organization Management, Vol.34, No.6 (2009), 698-726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601109350985
  16. Constant, D., L. Sproull, and S. Kiesler, "The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice," Organization Science, Vol.7, No.2(1996), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.119
  17. Cox, T. H. and S. Blake, "Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Competitiveness," Academy of Management Executive, Vol.5, No.3(1991), 45-56.
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M., S. Abuhamdeh, and J. Nakamura, Flow, In Handbook of Competence and Motivation, A. Elliot et al. (eds.), The Guilford Press, New York, 2005, 598-698.
  19. Dahlin, K. B., L. R. Weingart, and P. J. Hinds, "Team Diversity and Information Use," Academy of Management Journal, Vol.48, No.6(2005), 1107-1123. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573112
  20. Davenport, T. H., Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results from Knowledge Workers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2006.
  21. Dawes, R. M., "Social Dilemmas," Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.31(1980), 169-193. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125
  22. Faraj, S., S. L. Jarvenpaa, and A. Majchrzak, "Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities," Organization Science, Vol.22, No.5(2011), 1224-1239. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0614
  23. Li, F., Y. Li, and E. Wang, "Task Characteristics and Team Performance: the Mediating Effect of Team Member Satisfaction," Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol.37, No.10(2009), 1373-1382. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.10.1373
  24. Geister, S., U. Konradt, and G. Hertel, "Effects of Process Feedback on Motivation, Satisfaction, and Performance in Virtual Teams," Small Group Research, Vol.37, No.5(2006), 459-489 https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292337
  25. Gibbert, M. and H. Krause, Practice Exchange in a Best Practice Marketplace, In Knowledge Management Case Book: Siemens Best Practices, T. H. Davenport and G. J. B. Probst (eds.), Publicis Corporate Publishing, Erlangen, Germany, 2002, 89-1015.
  26. Gini, C., "Concentration and Dependency Ratios (in Italian)," English Translation in Rivista di Politica Economica, Vol.87(1997), 769-789.
  27. Grant, R. M., "Prospering in Dynamically- Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration," Organization Science, Vol.7, No.4(1996), 375-386. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.4.375
  28. Gruenfeld, D. H., E. A. Mannix, K. Y. Williams, and M. A. Neale, "Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.67, No.1(1996), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0061
  29. Hackman, J. R. and G. R. Oldham, "Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.16(1976), 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
  30. Highsmith, J. A., "Solving Design Problems More Effectively," MIS Quarterly, Vol.2, No.4(1978), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/248902
  31. Hoffman, L. R., The Group Problem-Solving Process, In Group Processes, L. Berkowitz (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1978, 101-114.
  32. Hoffman, L. R. and N. R. F. Maier, "Quality and Acceptance of Problem Solutions by Members of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Groups," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.62, No.2(1961), 401-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044025
  33. Hsu, M.-H., T. L. Ju, C.-H. Yen, and C.-M. Chang, "Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Virtual Communities: The Relationship between Trust, Self-Efficacy, and Outcome Expectations," International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol.65, No.2(2007), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003
  34. Humphrey S. E., J. D. Nahrgang, and F. P. Morgeson, "Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.92, No.5 (2007), 1332-1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
  35. Jackson, S., Team Composition in Organizations, In Group Process and Productivity, S. Worchel, W. Wood, and J. Simpson (eds.), Sage, London, 1992, 1-12.
  36. Jackson, S. E., A. Joshi, and N. L. Erhardt, "Recent Research on Team and Organizational Diversity: SWOT Analysis and Implications," Journal of Management, Vol.29, No.6(2003), 801-803.
  37. Jehn, K. A., G. B. Northcraft, and M. A. Neale, "Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.44, No.4(1999), 741-763 https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054
  38. Kankanhalli, A., B. Tan, and K. Wei, "Contribution Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation," MIS Quarterly, Vol.29, No.1(2005), 113-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148670
  39. Kiesler, S., J. Siegel, and T. W. McGuiere, "Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication," American Psychologist, Vol. 39, No.10(1984), 1123-1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123
  40. Kollock, P., The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace, In Communities in Cyberspace, M. Smith and P. Kollock (eds.), Routledge, New York, 1999, 220-239.
  41. Lakhani, K. and E. von Hippel, "How Open Source Software Works: 'Free' User-to-User Assistance," Research Policy, Vol.32, No.6 (2003), 923-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00095-1
  42. Lakhani, K. and R. Wolf, Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects, In Perspectives in Free and Open Source Software, J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, and K. Lakhani (eds.), MIT, Cambridge, 2005.
  43. Levenson, A., "Talent Management: Challenges of Building Cross-functional Capability in Highperformance Work Systems Environments," Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol.50, No.2(2012), 187-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00022.x
  44. Li, F., Y. Li, and E. Wang, "Task Characteristics and Team Performance: The Mediating Effect of Team Member Satisfaction," Social Behavior and Personality, Vol.37, No.10(2009), 1373-1382. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.10.1373
  45. Lin, N., Social Capital, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2001.
  46. Mackay, J. M., S. H. Barr, and M. G. Kletke, "An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Decision Aids on Problem-Solving Processes," Decision Sciences, Vol.23, No.3(1992), 648-672. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1992.tb00410.x
  47. McFadyen, M. A. and A. A. Cannella, "Social Capital and Knowledge Creation: Diminishing Returns of the Number and Strength of Exchange," The Academy of Management Journal, Vol.47, No.5(2004), 735-746. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159615
  48. Milliken, F. and L. Martins, "Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups," Academy of Management Review, Vol.21, No.2(1996), 402-433.
  49. Morgeson, F. P. and S. E. Humphrey, "The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and Validating Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, No.6(2006), 1321-1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
  50. Morgeson, F. P. and S. E. Humphrey, Job and Team Design: Toward a More Integrative Conceptualization of Work Design, In Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, J. Martocchio (ed.), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, London, 2008, 39-92.
  51. Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal, "Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage," Academy of Management Review, Vol.23, No.2(1998), 242-266.
  52. Nemeth, C., "Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence," Psychological Review, Vol.93, No.1(1986), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23
  53. Nemoto, K., P. A. Gloor, and R. Laubacher, "Social Capital Increases Efficiency of Collaboration among Wikipedia Editors," Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, (2011), 231-240.
  54. Nonaka, I., "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, Vol.5, No.1(1994), 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
  55. Nonaka, I., K. Umemoto, and D. Senoo, "From Information Processing to Knowledge Creation: A Paradigm Shift in Business Management," Technology in Society, Vol.18, No.2(1996), 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791X(96)00001-2
  56. Oldham, G. and A. Cummings, "Creativity in the Organizational Context," Productivity, Vol.39, No.2(1998), 187-194.
  57. Oldham, G. R. and J. R. Hackman, "Not What It Was and Not What It Will Be: The Future of Job Design Research," Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.31, No.2/3(2010), 463-479. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.678
  58. O'Connor, K. M. and W. L. Adair, Integrative Interests? Building a Bridge Between Negotiation Research and the Dynamic Organization, In Leading and Managing People in the Dynamic Organization, R. S. Petersen and E. A. Mannix (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2003, 163-184.
  59. O'Reilly, C., "Corporations, Culture, and Commitment: Motivation and Social Control in Organizations," California Management Review, Vol.31, No.4 (1989), 9-25.
  60. O'Reilly III, D. F. Caldwell, and W. P. Barnett, "Work Group Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.34, No.1(1989), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392984
  61. Park, S. J., J. W. Kim, H. J. Lee, H. Park, D. Han, and P. Gloor, "Exploration of the Online Culture for Virtual Multinational Teams through Multilingual Network Analysis of Wikipedia," Paper Under Review.
  62. Pelled, L. H., K. M. Eisenhardt, and K. R. Xin, "Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.44, No.1 (1999), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029
  63. Raymond, E. S., The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, O'Reilly, CA, 2001.
  64. Reagans, R. and E. W. Zuckerman, "Network, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams," Organization Science, Vol.12, No.4(2001), 502-517. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.502.10637
  65. Short, J., E. Williams, and B. Christie, The Social Psychology of Telecommunications, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., London, 1976.
  66. Simon, H. A., The New Science of Management Decision, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, 1960.
  67. Smith, K. G., C. J. Collins, and K. D. Clark, "Existing Knowledge, Knowledge Creation Capability, and the Rate of New Product Introduction in High-Technology Firms," Academy of Management Journal, Vol.48, No.2(2005), 346-357. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.16928421
  68. Spreitzer, G. M., S. G. Cohen, and J. G. Ledford, "Developing Effective Self-managing Work Teams in Service Organizations," Group and Organization Management, Vol.24, No.3(1999), 340-366 https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601199243005
  69. Sproull, L. and S. Kiesler, "Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication," Management Science, Vol.32, No.11(1986), 1492-1512. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492
  70. Steiner, I. D., Group Process and Productivity, Academic Press, San Diego, 1972.
  71. Stewart, G. L., "A Meta-analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance," Journal of Management, Vol.32, No.1(2006), 29-55.
  72. Tsui, A. S. and C. A. O'Reilly, "Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads," Academy of Management Journal, Vol.32, No.2(1989), 402-423. https://doi.org/10.2307/256368
  73. Van der Vegt, G. S. and J. S. Bunderson, "Learning and Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Importance of Collective Team Identification," Academy of Management Journal, Vol.48, No.3(2005), 532-547. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407918
  74. Van Maanen, J. and E. Schein, Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization, In Research in Organizational Behavior, L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), CT: JAI Press, Greenwich, 1979, 209-264.
  75. Wasko, M. and S. Faraj, "It Is What One Does: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Monnunities of Practice," Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol.9, No.2/3(2000), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(00)00045-7
  76. Wasko, M. and S. Faraj, "Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice," MIS Quarterly, Vol.29, No.1(2005), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148667
  77. Williams, K. Y. and C. A. O'Reilly, Demography and Diversity in Organizations, In Research in Organizational Behavior, B. M. Staw and R. M. Sutton (eds.), JAI Press, 1998, 77-140.
  78. Yang, H.-L. and C.-Y. Lai, "Motivations of Wikipedia Content Contributors," Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.26, No.6(2010), 1377-1383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.011

Cited by

  1. 개방형협업 참여자의 지식창출·지식공유 구조와 혁신 성과: 오픈소스 소프트웨어 개발 커뮤니티를 중심으로 vol.18, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.15813/kmr.2017.18.4.012