Knowledge Sharing in Teams of Heterogeneous Experts

  • Gerhard Strube
  • Susanne Thalemann
  • Barbara Wittstruck
  • Kerstin Garg
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 5)


The members of web design teams are experts with different backgrounds. Studying the communication of knowledge within those (such) teams, we found shared knowledge that consists of common background knowledge about the rough structure of the web design process, along with shared meta-knowledge of roles and responsibilities. Further shared knowledge that arises from communication among team members concerns design decisions, which can be conceived of in terms of design parameters. These are the pivotal elements of knowledge discussed during team meetings. We suggest how to place the shared knowledge thus constructed in a model of team members’ knowledge consisting of a header visible for all team members, and a private body that contains the individual expertise. We identify potential barriers and biases in the communication of knowledge among team members, and present interview data on coping strategies in the domain of web design.


Team Member Project Manager Shared Knowledge Design Decision Transactive Memory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Breuker, J. & Wielinga, B. (1985). KADS: structured knowledge acquistion for expert systems. Proceedings of 2nd Banff Conference on Expert Systems and Their Applications.Google Scholar
  2. Burdman, J. (1999). Collaborative web development. Strategies and best practices for web teams. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In Castellan, J. Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making. Current issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dawson, P. J. (1997). Web design and HCI: Problems and promises. Retrieved Feb. 6, 2001 from Scholar
  6. Dörner, D. (1976). Problemlösen und Infomationsverarbeitung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, G. (1994). Domain-oriented design environments. Automated Software Engineering, 1, 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goto, K., & Cotler, E. (2001). Web ReDesign: Workflow that works. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Khosafian, S., & Abnous, R. (1990). Object orientation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, R. (2002). Web ReDesign [Book Review], Retrieved June 8, 2003, from Scholar
  12. Lewis, C. M., & Sycara, K. P. (1993). Reaching informed agreement in multispecialist cooperation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moran, T., & Carroll, J. (Eds.). (1996). Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Nückles, M., & Bromme, R. (2002). Internet experts’ planning of explanation for laypersons: a web experimental approach in the internet domain. Experimental Psychology, 49, 292–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rice, J. C, Merrill, P. F., & Hawkins, C. L. (1996, October). Procedures for creating useful web sites. WebNet 96. Retrieved Feb. 16, 2002 from html.Google Scholar
  16. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (submitted). Learning to collaborate: an instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings.Google Scholar
  17. Schwabe, D., Rossi, G., & Barbosa, S. (1996). Structured web site design. Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Schank, R. C, & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Shneiderman, B. (1997). Designing information-abundant websites: Issues and recommendations. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2002 from Scholar
  20. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stasser, G. (1992). Pooling of unshared information during group discussion. In S. Worchel, W. Wood & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (p. 48–67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Stefik, M. (1995). Knowledge systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  23. Strube, G. (1996). Knowledge-based systems from a socio-cognitive perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 15, 276–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Voß, A., Bartsch-Spörl, B., Hovestadt, L., Jantke, K. P., Peterson, U., & Strube, G. (1996). FABEL. Künstliche Intelligenz, 10(3), 70–76.Google Scholar
  25. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Strube
  • Susanne Thalemann
  • Barbara Wittstruck
  • Kerstin Garg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations