Information, Knowledge and Teams

  • Malcolm Crowe


This paper will examine the shifts in perspective that have taken place in the Information Systems community in the last decade, as reflected in the published literature. Specifically, a trend is detectable where authors increasingly treat information almost as if it were data, rather than being inside the heads of the participants. Currently, it would seem that when authors write about knowledge, they do intend something inside people’s heads, and consequently considerable critical attention is being paid to writings on Organisational Learning or Knowledge Management. We discuss some of these controversies briefly in this paper.


Knowledge Management Organisational Learn Boundary Object Soft System Methodology Information System Research 
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. Bertalanffy, L. von and Rapoport, A. (eds.) (1956). General Systems Yearbook of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory, vol.1, Braun-Brunfield, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  2. Boland F. and Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). “Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing,” Organisation Science, 6:350–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  4. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  5. Checkland, P. B. (1989). “Soft Systems Methodology,” in Rational Analysis for a Problematic World, (J. Rosenhead, ed.), Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P. B. and Holwell, S. (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems - making sense of the field, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  7. Ciborra, C. U. (1993). Teams, Markets and Systems: Business Innovation and Information Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Ciborra, C. U. and Lanzara, G. F. (1994). “Formative contexts and information technology: understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations,” Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 4:61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciborra, C. U. ed. (1996). Groupware & Teamwork, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  11. Cronin, B. (2001). “Knowledge Management, organizational culture and Anglo-American higher education,”J. Information Science, 27:129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowe, M. K., Beeby, R. B., and Gammack, J. G. (1994). Constructing Systems and Information: a process view, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead (available as a full-text electronic book at Scholar
  13. Crowe, M. K. and Kydd, R. A. (1998). “Delegation and Interference: The Personal Workstation and the Corporate Network,” Proceedings, EuropIA98 7th International Conference on the Applications/Implications of Computer Networking in Architecture, Construction, Design and Urban Planning pp. 195–208.Google Scholar
  14. Crowe, M.K. and Kydd, R.A. (1999). “Culture, ideas, idiosyncrasy,”. in Synergy Matters: working with systems in the 21 st century, (A.M. Castell„ A.J. Gregory, G. Hindle, M. James and G. Ragsdell, eds), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Doyle, K. and Wood, R. (1991), “Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Dangerous Liaisons”, Systemist 13, p. 28–30.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, A. L., with Cornford, D. S. (1989). Computer Systems Development: history, organisation and implementation, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  17. Galliers, R. D. (ed.) (1992). Information Systems Research: issues, methods and practical guidelines, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  18. Hayes, N. (2001). “Boundless and bounded interactions in the knowledge work process: the role of groupware technologies,” Information and Organization, 11:79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J., and Mattila, M. (2001). “Critical aspects of Organizational Learning Research and Proposals for its Measurement,” British Journal of Management, 12:113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marshall, N. and Sapsed, J. (2000). “The Limits of Disembodied Knowledge: Challenges of Inter-project Learning in the Production of Complex Products and Systems,” in Knowledge Management: concepts and controversies, University of Warwick, 10–11 February 2000 ( Scholar
  21. Martin, W. J. (2001). “The role of knowledge content in e-commerce,” J. Information Science, 27:180–185.Google Scholar
  22. Mingers, J. (2001). “Embodying information systems: the contribution of phenomenology,” Information and Organization, 11:103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stowell, F. A. and West, D. (1994). Client-Led Design: a systemic approach to information systems definition, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  25. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Susman, G. and Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23:582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malcolm Crowe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PaisleyPaisleyUK

Personalised recommendations