Transactive Memory Systems in the ‘Digital Age’

Chapter
Part of the Innovation und Entrepreneurship book series (INNOV)

Abstract

The increasing ubiquity and the rapidly improving performance of the information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies have fundamentally changed the way in which we process information. For the past thirty years, transactive memory systems (TMS) theory has helped us understand how individuals co-specialize and divide cognitive labor. However, the underlying assumptions of the theory no longer adequately represent the changed reality of collective information processing. Therefore, new research progress will require realigning those assumptions with technology-induced changes to reflect the onset of digitalization. As a foundation for future research, this paper proposes several conceptual changes in TMS theory. In particular, this paper investigates digitalization’s impact on boundaries of knowledge processing systems, transparency of meta-knowledge and transaction partners, and information processing capacity and demands. Implications for TMS theory are discussed, in particular for the type of cues used to infer expertise and credibility, for the scope of these inferences, and for more collective and collaborative forms of expertise assessment. Furthermore, this paper adapts and expands the structural TMS component ‘meta-knowledge’ and introduces a new process to TMS theory. Together, these changes contribute to our understanding of collective information processing in the digital age.

Keywords

transactive memory systems digitalization boundaries technology and social knowledge processing systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. 2012. Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3): 355–375.Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A., Gans, J. S., & Goldfarb, A. 2017. What to expect from artificial intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(3): 23–27.Google Scholar
  3. Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Keskin, H., & Lynn, G. S. 2006. Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1): 95–111.(c)Google Scholar
  4. Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. 2005. Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8): 1105–1120.(b)Google Scholar
  5. Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. 2002. Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12): 1029–1037.(c)Google Scholar
  6. Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. 1998. An organizational memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 796–809.(c)Google Scholar
  7. Austin, J. R. 2003. Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 866–878.(b)Google Scholar
  8. Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. 2013. Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2): 471–482.Google Scholar
  9. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4): 432–445.(c)Google Scholar
  10. Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. 2004. Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6): 633–644.(c)Google Scholar
  11. Brennen, J. S., & Kreiss, D. 2016. Digitalization. In K. B. Jensen, E. W. Rothenbuhler, J. D. Pooley, & R. T. Craig (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy: 1–11. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. 2014. The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies (1st ed.). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  13. Cambridge English Dictionary. 2017. Boundary. Available online: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/boundary.
  14. Carlsson, B. 2004. The digital economy: What is new and what is not? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 15(3): 245–264.Google Scholar
  15. Child, J. T., & Shumate, M. 2007. The impact of communal knowledge repositories and people-based knowledge management on perceptions of team effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1): 29–54.(a)Google Scholar
  16. Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. 2010. The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: A field study. MIS Quarterly, 34(4): 855–870.(a)Google Scholar
  17. Cornelissen, J. 2017. Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
  18. Cross, R., Ehrlich, K., Dawson, R., & Helferich, J. 2008. Managing collaboration: Improving team effectiveness through a network perspective. California Management Review, 50(4): 74–98.Google Scholar
  19. Cullen-Lester, K. L., & Yammarino, F. J. 2016. Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2): 173–180.Google Scholar
  20. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Dai, Y., Du, K., Byun, G., & Zhu, X. 2017. Ambidexterity in new ventures: The impact of new product development alliances and transactive memory systems. Journal of Business Research, 75: 77–85.Google Scholar
  22. Dai, Y., Roundy, P. T., Chok, J. I., Ding, F., & Byun, G. 2016. ‘Who knows what?’ in new venture teams: Transactive memory systems as a micro-foundation of entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Management Studies, 53(8): 1320–1347.Google Scholar
  23. Dayan, M., & Basarir, A. 2009. Antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity in new product development projects. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(1): 18–29.(c)Google Scholar
  24. Davenport, S., & Daellenbach, U. 2011. ‘Belonging’ to a virtual research centre: Exploring the influence of social capital formation processes on member identification in a virtual organization. British Journal of Management, 22(1): 54–76.Google Scholar
  25. Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2): 159–201.Google Scholar
  26. De Boer, P., Towne, B., Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R. J., Han, Y., Nickerson, J. V., & Fisher, L. H. 2017. Putting the pieces back together again: Contest webs for large-scale problem solving. 20th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2017), Portland, OR: 1–15.Google Scholar
  27. De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. 2008. Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1): 22–49.Google Scholar
  28. DeAndrea, D. C. 2014. Advancing warranting theory. Communication Theory, 24(2): 186–204.Google Scholar
  29. Ding, W. W., Levin, S. G., Stephan, P. E., & Winkler, A. E. 2010. The impact of information technology on academic scientists’ productivity and collaboration patterns. Management Science, 56(9): 1439–1461.Google Scholar
  30. Doukidis, G. I., Mylonopoulos, N., & Pouloudi, N. (Eds.). 2004. Social and economic transformation in the digital era. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  31. Drucker, P. F. 2003. Managing in the next society. New York: Griffin.Google Scholar
  32. Ellis, A. P. J. 2006. System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 576–589.(c)Google Scholar
  33. Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. 2004. The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5): 325–344.Google Scholar
  34. Espinosa, J. A., Cummings, J. N., Wilson, J. M., & Pearce, B. M. 2003. Team boundary issues across multiple global firms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4): 157–190.Google Scholar
  35. Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. 2000. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46(12): 1554–1568.(b)Google Scholar
  36. Fayyad, U. M., Grinstein, G. G., & Wierse, A. 2002. Information visualization in data mining and knowledge discovery. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  37. Fraidin, S. N. 2004. When is one head better than two? Interdependent information in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(2): 102–113.(a)Google Scholar
  38. Galbraith, J. R. 1974. Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3): 28–36.Google Scholar
  39. Garner, J. T. 2006. It’s not what you know: A transactive memory analysis of knowledge networks at NASA. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36(4): 329–351.(a)Google Scholar
  40. Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. 2010. First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 111(2): 102–115.(b)Google Scholar
  41. Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 584–602.Google Scholar
  42. Goles, T. 2000. The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead…long live the paradigm: The legacy of Burrell and Morgan. Omega, 28(3): 249–268.Google Scholar
  43. Google Cloud Platform. 2017. Google cloud speech API documentation. Available online: https://cloud.google.com/speech/pricing.
  44. He, J., Butler, B., & King, W. 2007. Team cognition: Development and evolution in software project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2): 261–292.(c)Google Scholar
  45. Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. 2015. Transactive memory systems and firm performance. Organization Science, 26(4): 941–959.Google Scholar
  46. Hilbert, M., & Lopez, P. 2011. The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332(6025): 60–65.Google Scholar
  47. Hofmann, D. A., Lei, Z., & Grant, A. M. 2009. Seeking help in the shadow of doubt: The sensemaking processes underlying how nurses decide whom to ask for advice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5): 1261–1274.(c)Google Scholar
  48. Hollingshead, A. B. 1998a. Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5): 423–442.(b)Google Scholar
  49. Hollingshead, A. B. 1998b. Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74(3): 659–671.(b)Google Scholar
  50. Hollingshead, A. B. 2000. Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3): 257–267.Google Scholar
  51. Hollingshead, A. B. 2001. Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6): 1080–1089.(b)Google Scholar
  52. Hollingshead, A. B., & Brandon, D. P. 2003. Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory systems. Human Communication Research, 29(4): 607–615.(c)Google Scholar
  53. Hollingshead, A. B., & Fraidin, S. N. 2003. Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4): 355–363.(b)Google Scholar
  54. Jackson, P., & Klobas, J. 2008. Transactive memory systems in organizations: Implications for knowledge directories. Decision Support Systems, 44(2): 409–424.(c)Google Scholar
  55. Jackson, M., & Moreland, R. L. 2009. Transactive memory in the classroom. Small Group Research, 40(5): 508–534.(b)Google Scholar
  56. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, Y. 2017. Retrieval of knowledge across team boundaries. In F. Tell, C. Berggren, S. Brusoni, & A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Managing knowledge integration across boundaries. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. 2008. Knowledge collaboration among professionals protecting national security: Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks. Organization Science, 19(2): 260–276.(b)Google Scholar
  58. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. 2007. The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4): 783–808.(b)Google Scholar
  59. Kilduff, M. 2006. Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. The Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 252–255.Google Scholar
  60. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, 12: 333–375.Google Scholar
  61. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Leonardi, P. M. 2015. Ambient awareness and knowledge acquisition: Using social media to learn ‘who knows what’ and ‘who knows whom’. MIS Quarterly, 39(4): 747–762.Google Scholar
  63. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. 2010. What’s under construction here? Academy of Management Annals, 4: 1–51.Google Scholar
  64. Lewis, K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 587–604.(b)Google Scholar
  65. Lewis, K. 2004. Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11): 1519–1533.(b)Google Scholar
  66. Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. 2007. Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 103(2): 159–178.(b)Google Scholar
  67. Lewis, K., & Herndon, B. 2011. Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22(5): 1254–1265.Google Scholar
  68. Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. 2005. Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6): 581–598.(b)Google Scholar
  69. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. 1995. Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4): 384–393.(b)Google Scholar
  70. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. 1999. Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1): 14–19.Google Scholar
  71. Littlepage, G. E., Hollingshead, A. B., Drake, L. R., & Littlepage, A. M. 2008. Transactive memory and performance in work groups: Specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation. Group Dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 12(3): 223–241.(c)Google Scholar
  72. Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. 1997. Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2): 133–147.(c)Google Scholar
  73. London, M., Polzer, J. T., & Omoregie, H. 2005. Interpersonal congruence, transactive memory, and feedback processes: An integrative model of group learning. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2): 114–135.(c)Google Scholar
  74. Majchrzak, A., Cherbakov, L., & Ives, B. 2009. Harnessing the power of the crowds with corporate social networking tools: How IBM does it. MIS Quarterly, 8(2): 103–108.(c)Google Scholar
  75. Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Hollingshead, A. B. 2007. Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18(1): 147–161.(b)Google Scholar
  76. Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R. J., & Johns, T. 2011. The age of hyperspecialization. Harvard Business Review, 89(7/8): 56–65.Google Scholar
  77. Michinov, E., Olivier-Chiron, E., Rusch, E., & Chiron, B. 2008. Influence of transactive memory on perceived performance, job satisfaction and identification in anaesthesia teams. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 100(3): 327–332.(b)Google Scholar
  78. Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. 2009. Investigating the relationship between transactive memory and performance in collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(1): 43–54.(c)Google Scholar
  79. McDonough, E. F., Kahnb, K. B., & Barczaka, G. 2001. An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(2): 110–120.Google Scholar
  80. Mei, W., Friedkin, N. E., Lewis, K., & Bullo, F. 2016. Dynamic models of appraisal networks explaining collective learning. 55th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 3554–3559.Google Scholar
  81. Mell, J. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. 2014. The catalyst effect: The impact of transactive memory system structure on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4): 1154–1173.Google Scholar
  82. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. 2010. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3): 413–439.Google Scholar
  83. Moreland, R. L. 1999. Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations. The management of knowledge: 3–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(b)Google Scholar
  84. Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. 2003. Transactive memory in dynamic organizations. Understanding the dynamic organization: 135–162. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.(b)Google Scholar
  85. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. 1996. Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups: 57–84. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(b)Google Scholar
  86. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. 1998. Training people to work in groups. Theory and research on small groups: Social psychological applications to social issues: 37–60. New York: Plenum Press.(b)Google Scholar
  87. Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. 2000. Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 117–133.(b)Google Scholar
  88. Moussaid, M., Garnier, S., Theraulaz, G., & Helbing, D. 2009. Collective information processing and pattern formation in swarms, flocks, and crowds. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(3): 469–497.Google Scholar
  89. Mullen, B., & Goethals, G. R. 1987. Theories of group behavior. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  90. Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. 2017. Research Policy call for papers for a special issue on digitization of innovation and entrepreneurship. Accessible after login at the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division Listserv-archives: http://aomlists.aom.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1705&L=TIM&D=0&P=12157.
  91. Nevo, D., Benbasat, I., & Wand, Y. 2012. Understanding technology support for organizational transactive memory: Requirements, application, and customization. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(4): 69–98.Google Scholar
  92. Nevo, D., & Wand, Y. 2005. Organizational memory information systems: A transactive memory approach. Decision Support Systems, 39(4): 549–562.(c)Google Scholar
  93. Oertel, R., & Antoni, C. H. 2015. Phase-specific relationships between team learning processes and transactive memory development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5): 726–741.Google Scholar
  94. O’Keefe, D. J. 2002. Persuasion: Theory & research (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  95. O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. 2010. Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21(1): 115–131.Google Scholar
  96. O’Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. 2011. Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36(3): 461–478.Google Scholar
  97. Orlikowski, W. J. 2002. Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3): 249–273.Google Scholar
  98. Ouardi, Y., Goyal, T., Graf-Vlachy, L., Mammen, J., Koenig, A., & Saunders, C. 2016. The cost of sharing: The effect of sharing inclination on information overload. European Conference on Information Systems. Available online at the SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2876149.
  99. Palazzolo, E. T. 2005. Organizing for information retrieval in transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 32(6): 726–761.(a)Google Scholar
  100. Palazzolo, E. T., Serb, D. A., She, Y., Su, C., & Contractor, N. S. 2006. Coevolution of communication and knowledge networks in transactive memory systems: Using computational models for theoretical development. Communication Theory, 16(2): 223–250.(b)Google Scholar
  101. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P.., & Stein, J. H. 2009. Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 109(1): 18–28.(b)Google Scholar
  102. Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. 2006. The effects of critical team member assertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32(4): 575–594.(b)Google Scholar
  103. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Bell, B. S. 2010. Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identification behaviors on team cognition development and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1): 192–200.(b)Google Scholar
  104. Peltokorpi, V. 2004. Transactive memory directories in small work units. Personnel Review, 33(4): 446–467.(c)Google Scholar
  105. Peltokorpi, V. 2008. Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology, 12(4): 378–394.(c)Google Scholar
  106. Peltokorpi, V. 2012. Organizational transactive memory systems. European Psychologist, 17(1): 11–20.Google Scholar
  107. Peltokorpi, V., & Manka, M.-L. 2008. Antecedents and the performance outcome of transactive memory in daycare work groups. European Psychologist, 13(2): 103–113.(a)Google Scholar
  108. Prichard, J. S., & Ashleigh, M. J. 2007. The effects of team-skills training on transactive memory and performance. Small Group Research, 38(6): 696–726.(a)Google Scholar
  109. Rau, D. 2006. Top management team transactive memory, information gathering, and perceptual accuracy. Journal of Business Research, 59(4): 416–424.(a)Google Scholar
  110. Rau, D. 2005. The influence of relationship conflict and trust on the transactive memory: Performance relation in top management teams. Small Group Research, 36(6): 746–771.(b)Google Scholar
  111. Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. 2005. Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6): 869–881.Google Scholar
  112. Ren, Y., & Argote, L. 2011. Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 189–229.Google Scholar
  113. Ren, Y., Carley, K. M., & Argote, L. 2006. The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52(5): 671–682.(b)Google Scholar
  114. Retelny, D., Robaszkiewicz, S., To, A., Lasecki, W. S., Patel, J., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T., Valentine, M., & Bernstein, M. S. 2014. Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams. Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), 75–85.Google Scholar
  115. Rulke, D. L., & Rau, D. 2000. Investigating the encoding process of transactive memory development in group training. Group & Organization Management, 25(4): 373–396.(c)Google Scholar
  116. Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5): 491–508.Google Scholar
  117. Schildt, H. 2017. Big data and organizational design: The brave new world of algorithmic management and computer augmented transparency. Innovation, 19(1): 23–30.Google Scholar
  118. Schneider, S. C. 1987. Information overload: Causes and consequences. Human Systems Management, (2): 143–153.Google Scholar
  119. Schreiber, M., & Engelmann, T. 2010. Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6): 1701–1709.(a)Google Scholar
  120. Schwarz, N., Newman, E., & Leach, W. 2016. Making the truth stick and the myths fade: Lessons from cognitive psychology. Behavioral Science & Policy, 2(1): 85–95.Google Scholar
  121. Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. 2007. The contingent effects of training, technical complexity, and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly, 31(2): 219–238.(a)Google Scholar
  122. Shepherd, J. 2004. Why the digital era? In G. I. Doukidis, N. Mylonopoulos, & N. Pouloudi (Eds.), Social and economic transformation in the digital era: 1–18. Hershey: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  123. Simon, H. A. 1981. The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  124. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Kraiger, K., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. 2009. Do familiar teammates request and accept more backup? Transactive memory in air traffic control. Human Factors, 51(2): 181–192.(a)Google Scholar
  125. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. 2011. Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043): 776–778.Google Scholar
  126. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. 1995. Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3): 244–265.Google Scholar
  127. Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3): 613–624.Google Scholar
  128. Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  129. van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. 2009. Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: When and why does it work? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2): 218–229.Google Scholar
  130. van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G. 2015. Information, attention, and decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3): 649–657.Google Scholar
  131. von Hippel, E. 2017. Free innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  132. Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. 2005. Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4): 373–398.Google Scholar
  133. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. 1991. Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 57–91.(c)Google Scholar
  134. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. 2002. Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.): 529–563. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  135. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. 2009. Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36(2): 229–253.Google Scholar
  136. Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2): 115–131.Google Scholar
  137. Wegner, D. M. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior: 185–208. New York: Springer.(b)Google Scholar
  138. Wegner, D. M. 1995. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13(3): 319–339.(b)Google Scholar
  139. Wegner, D. M. 2013. Personal homepage at the Harvard University. Available online: https://scholar.harvard.edu/dwegner/publications.
  140. Wegner, D. M. 2017. Google Scholar Citations. Available online: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=QZCy54UAAAAJ&hl=de.
  141. Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. T. 1985. Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships: 253–276. New York: Springer.(b)Google Scholar
  142. Wegner, D. M., Raymond, P., & Erber, R. 1991. Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61(6): 923–929.(b)Google Scholar
  143. Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. 2012. A social network as information: The effect of system generated reports of connectedness on credibility on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1): 199–206.Google Scholar
  144. Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. 2004. From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups. Communication Monographs, 71(3): 286–310.Google Scholar
  145. Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. 2012. Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5): 1398–1408.Google Scholar
  146. Yuan, Y. C., Carboni, I., & Ehrlich, K. 2010. The impact of awareness and accessibility on expertise retrieval: A multilevel network perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4): 700–714.(b)Google Scholar
  147. Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. R. 2007. Access to information in connective and communal transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 34(2): 131–155.(a)Google Scholar
  148. Yuan, Y. C., Monge, P. R., & Fulk, J. 2005. Social capital and transactive memory systems in work groups: A multilevel approach. Best Paper Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.(a)Google Scholar
  149. Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. 2010. Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication network ties as multilevel predictors of expertise exchange in transactive memory work groups. Communication Research, 37(1): 20–47.(b)Google Scholar
  150. Zhang, Z.-X., Hempel, P. S., Han, Y.-L., & Tjosvold, D. 2007. Transactive memory system links work team characteristics and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6): 1722–1730.(b)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FB WirtschaftswissenschaftenUniversität PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations