1964
Exploring Decision Rules for Sellers in Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Internet Auctions
Wilson, R. B. (1987). Auction theory. In J. Eat-
well, M. Milgate & P. Newman (Eds.), The new
Palgrave: A dictionary of economic theory.
London: Macmillan.
:LQJ¿HOG 1  (%D\ ZDWFK &RUSRUDWH
sellers put the online auctioneer on even faster
track Goods from IBM, Disney help dot-com
SLRQHHUSRVWDVXUJHLQSUR¿WV:K\PRPDQG
pop are mad. Wall Street Journal, A.1.
Witt, L. (2005). Building sales on eBay.
Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.
fortune.com/fortune/smallbusiness/answercen-
tral/0,15704,601929
Zanakis, S., & Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2005). Com-
petitiveness of nations: A knowledge discovery
examination. European Journal of Operational
Research, 166(2), 185-211.
ENDNOTES
1
It should be noted, however, that this study
H[ D P L Q H G W KH V D OHRIVWH U O L QJVL OYHU À D W Z D U H
including pieces manufactured in the 1890’s.
This study may only demonstrate the fact
that sales of collectible items will likely be
disproportionately affected by the quality of
the item and the level of detail in its descrip-
tion.
2
 ,QFODVVL¿FDWLRQWUHHVWKHGHSHQGHQWYDULDEOH

LVRIWHQUHIHUUHGWRDVWKH³FULWHULRQYDULDEOH´
We will adopt this usage.
1965
Exploring Decision Rules for Sellers in Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Internet Auctions
APPENDIX A
Table A.1. Academic disciplines investigating Internet auctions and citations of recent studies
Economics Marketing Information Systems Computer Science
(Budish & Takeyama,
2001; Easley & Tenorio,
2004; Lucking-Reiley,
2000a; Lucking-Reiley,
2000b; McDonald &
Slawson, 2002; Sinha
& Greenleaf, 2000; Stan-
GL¿UG6WDQGL¿UG
Roelofs, & Durham,
2004; Wilcox, 2000)
(Bruce, Haruvy, & Rao,
2004; Chong & Wong,
2005; Dholakia, 2005b;
Dholakia & Soltysinski,
2001; Ding, Elishaberg,
Huber, & Saini, 2005;
Geng, Stinchcombe, &
Whinston, 2001; Gilke-
son & Reynolds, 2003;
Kannan & Kopalle, 2001;
Stafford & Stern, 2002;
Subramaniam, Mittal, &
Inman, 2004)

(Ba & Pavlou, 2002; Ba,
Whinston, & Zhang, 2003;
Bapna, Goes, & Gupta, 2000;
Bapna, Goes, & Gupta, 2001;
Bapna, Goes, & Gupta, 2003;
Bapna, Goes, Gupta, & Karu-
ga, 2002; Gregg & Walczak,
2003; Hu, Lin, Whinston,
& Zhang, 2004; Oh, 2002;
Pavlou, 2002; Segev, Beam,
& Shanthikumar, 2001; Ward
& Clark, 2002)
(Ottaway, Bruneau,
& Evans, 2003; Por-
ter & Shoham, 2004)
APPENDIX B
Table B.1. Binary logistic and multiple regression analyses
Variables DVD MP3 Player
Criterion (Dependent)
Variable
Final Bid
Number of
Bids
Final Bid
Number of
Bids
,QGHSHQGHQW9DULDEOHV
Constant 1.972 10.47 -1.49 26.09
Initial Bid Price 0.027
**

-0.89
***
0.01
***
-0.13
***
Shipping Cost -0.783 -0.57
***
-0.03 0.20
**
Buy-Now Option 2.331
***
4.06
***
-0.51 2.64
Ending Time: WDM -0.421
**
0.23 0.65 1.18
Ending Time: WKM -1.288
**
-0.57 -1.02 -4.17
*
Ending Time: WKA 0.641 0.03 -0.82
***
0.11
Auction Duration 0.101 0.09 0.06 -0.05
Log (Positive Feedback) 0.317
**
0.39
***

0.13
*
-0.10
Number of Negative
Feedback Ratings
-0.265
*
-0.50
***
0.00 -0.01
Number of Pictures -0.196 -0.10 0.19
**
-0.23
Expedited Delivery -0.569 0.99 -1.30
***
-0.03
International Delivery -0.433
*
-0.26 0.31 0.04
Log-likelihood ratio -130.82
***
86.52
***
F-Value 25.73
***
32.23
***
Adjusted R
2
55.2% 51.4%


p<0.10

p<0.05

p<0.01
This work was previously published in the International Journal of E-Business Research, edited by I. Lee, Volume 4, Issue 1,
pp. 1-21, copyright 2008 by IGI Publishing (an imprint of IGI Global).
Section VII
Critical Issues
7KLVVHFWLRQDGGUHVVHVFRQFHSWXDODQGWKHRUHWLFDOLVVXHVUHODWHGWRWKH¿HOGRIHEXVLQHVVZKLFKLQFOXGH
VHFXULW\LVVXHVLQQXPHURXVIDFHWVRIWKHGLVFLSOLQHLQFOXGLQJHEXVLQHVVHWKLFVVHFXULW\LQHEXVLQHVV
DSSOLFDWLRQVDQGULVNPDQDJHPHQW:LWKLQWKHVHFKDSWHUVWKHUHDGHULVSUHVHQWHGZLWKDQDO\VLVRIWKH
PRVWFXUUHQWDQGUHOHYDQWFRQFHSWXDOLQTXLUHVZLWKLQWKLVJURZLQJ¿HOGRIVWXG\3DUWLFXODUFKDSWHUV
DOVR DGGUHVV HEXVLQHVV SURFHVV PDQDJHPHQW DQG LQWHOOHFWXDO SURSHUW\ HEXVLQHVV VWDQGDUGL]DWLRQ
DQGHOHFWURQLFVHUYLFHTXDOLW\2YHUDOOFRQWULEXWLRQVZLWKLQWKLVVHFWLRQDVNXQLTXHRIWHQWKHRUHWLFDO
TXHVWLRQVUHODWHGWRWKHVWXG\RIHEXVLQHVVDQGPRUHRIWHQWKDQQRWFRQFOXGHWKDWVROXWLRQVDUHERWK
QXPHURXVDQGFRQWUDGLFWRU\
1967
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 7.1
A Communications Model for
Knowledge Sharing
Charles E. Beck
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, USA
ABSTRACT
An integrative, systems-based model of knowl-
edge sharing can provide a way of visualizing the
interrelated elements that comprise a knowledge
management system. This original model, build-

ing on a rhetorical process model of communica-
tion, includes both the objective and subjective
elements within the human cognition. In addition,
LWFODUL¿HVWKHSXUSRVHDQGPHWKRGHOHPHQWVDWWKH
center for any effective knowledge system. The
model centers on the purpose elements of inten-
tions and audience, and the method elements of
technical tools and human processes. The output
of knowledge sharing includes objective products
DQGVXEMHFWLYHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQV)HHGEDFNYHUL¿HV
WKH WLPHOLQHVVDQGHI¿FLHQF\ LQ WKH SURFHVV RI
building both information and knowledge.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past quarter century, the theme of knowl-
edge management (KM) has appeared among the
WRS¿YHLQÀXHQFHVLQFKDQJLQJKRZRUJDQL]DWLRQV
work (Abell, 2000). Various thinkers, however,
focus on different concepts under the heading of
knowledge. Idealistically considered, knowledge
consists of information in use, and wisdom com-
bines knowledge with values (Lloyd, 2000). As a
practical aspect of business, successful companies
recognize intellectual assets as having an equal
VLJQL¿FDQFHZLWKWKHWDQJLEOHDVVHWV:LWKWRGD\¶V
economy driven by connectivity, a fundamental
shift in business models is occurring, whereby
information, knowledge, and relationships un-
derpin competitive advantage (Braun, 2002),
especially information built on new technologies
(Orr, 2004).

This chapter paper proposes a systems model
of knowledge sharing as a way to create knowl-
1968
A Communications Model for Knowledge Sharing
HGJHIULHQGO\ZRUNSODFHV$IWHUEULHÀ\GLVFXVV-
ing existing models, the chapter elaborates the
communication model that underlies underlying
communication. The proposed model begins by
clarifying the communication model that un-
derlies both explicit and tacit knowledge. It then
elaborates the systems elements of the knowledge
sharing model: the input status and assumptions;
the purpose elements of intention and audiences;
the method elements of technical tools and human
processes; the chaos creativity that integrates these
elements; the output products and interpretations;
and system feedback.
BACKGROUND:
PRIOR MODELS AND HEURISTIC
BASIS
In general, models help organize information,
$FFRUGLQJ WR 9DLO  ³0RGHOV HI¿FLHQWO\
capture, store, and help communicate enterprise
knowledge in many forms, ranging from stories
(verbal models) to diagrams (pictorial models)
to spreadsheets (quantitative models)” (p. 10).
Among the limited existing models for this new
¿HOG/HRQDUGIRFXVHVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDO
consultant in the knowledge industry; however,
this comprehensive approach results in a complex

and somewhat unwieldy model. Luan and Serban
(2002) propose a tiered knowledge management
model, capturing tacit knowledge within an orga-
nization. Malhotra (2004) provides two models,
differing by routine or structured information
and nonstructured/routine; however, the models
focus more on technology than on the human
element. The proposed model of knowledge
sharing attempts to overcome and provide a
FRPSUHKHQVLYHEXWVLPSOL¿HGPRGHOFDSWXULQJ
key relationships in a manageable, visual format
(Beck & Schornack, 2005). The proposed model
expands on a systems-based model of commu-
nication to identify the elements involved in a
knowledge sharing system. The model builds on
the underlying systems model (Figure 1).
The rhetorical process model expands this
simple system in two dimensions. The horizontal
division separates the objective in the subjective
parts of the process. Additionally, the integra-
tion section is further divided in half, creating
four elements within the central integration (see
Figure 2).
• The inputs to this process include the objec-
tive status and the subjective assumptions.
The integration begins at the top center of
the model, with the purpose elements of
intentions and audiences.
• The integration continues at the lower half of
the model with the method elements of genre

and process. Rather than following a linear
process, these four elements of integration
interact, labeled here as embodiment.
Figure 1. Basic systems model
INTEGRATION
Feedback
INPUT
OUTPUT
1969
A Communications Model for Knowledge Sharing
• The outputs of the model include both the
product and the interpretation. While the
products are the objective and observed
outputs, the interpretation is more subjective,
open to a broader view of the same products,
UHÀHFWHGLQWKHQRQSDUDOOHORXWSXWDUURZV
• 7KH¿QDODVSHFWRIWKHPRGHOIHHGEDFNRF-
curs throughout the entire model, rather than
just from the outputs back to the inputs.
PROPOSED INTEGRATIVE
SYSTEMS MODEL: OVERVIEW
The systems model of knowledge sharing takes the
elements of this rhetorical process and elaborates
those aspects that apply to knowledge manage-
ment sharing. In both the objective and subjective
halves of the model, inputs and outputs occur at
two levels, that of distinct individuals and that
of the organization. The critical integration ele-
ments of the model clarify purpose (intentions
and audience) and method (technical tools and

human processes). The interaction of purpose
and method embody the process labeled creativ-
ity/chaos in the model. The term chaos does not
PHDQFRQIXVLRQEXWUHÀHFWVWKHDVSHFWVRIFKDRV
theory which recognizes how disparate and ran-
dom actions may create patterns out of disparate
elements. The chaos/creativity interaction of
purpose and method results in output products
subject to multiple interpretations. Feedback,
FULWLFDOWRWKHSURFHVVUHYLVHVDQGUH¿QHVERWK
knowledge and information (Figure 3).
Inputs: Status
The inputs to the model on the left side include
the objective status and subjective assumptions.
Although inputs to the knowledge sharing system
t e n d t o r e m a i n r a t h e r s t a b l e , t h e y m a y c h a n g e o ve r
time, usually changing rather slowly.
6WDWXVWKHREMHFWLYHYHUL¿DEOHHOHPHQWVLQDQ\
human encounter, consists of two parts: the indi-
vidual and the organization. All communication
begins with the individual, whether a corporate
executive or a beginning clerical assistant. At the
individual level, status includes both the person’s
background (education, experience, gender) and
their role in the organization (job title, job de-
Figure 2. Rhetorical process model (Adapted from Beck, 1999, p. 32)
Genre
Process
Intentions
SUBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE
INPUT
Audience
Feedback
INTEGRATION
OUTPUT
Feedback
Assumptions
Status
Purpose
Embodiment
Method
1970
A Communications Model for Knowledge Sharing
VFULSWLRQVSHFL¿FUHVSRQVLELOLWLHV%HFDXVHWKH
k n o w l e d g e s h a r i n g v a r i e s b y t y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
WKHRUJDQL]DWLRQLWVHOIEHFRPHVDVLJQL¿FDQWVWD-
tus element, where organization may include the
overall company or a single department. Among
numerous ways to classify an organization, two
VLJ Q L ¿ F D Q W D V S H F W V L Q FO X G H VL ] H D Q G G LYH U V L W \ 6 L ] H 
indicates the number of people who may need a
given type of information or knowledge, based on
actual or potential interaction. Increasing numbers
raise the challenge of determining how to classify
and structure information for both internal and
external use (Adams, 2000). Additionally, the
diversity of an organization includes the range
of backgrounds, types of positions, knowledge
requirements, and nature of the tasks.

In clarifying the need for knowledge man-
agement systems, organizations must identify
the information infrastructure, ranging from
the external demographics to the informational
literacy competencies of the employees (Oman,
2001). Only then can an organization identify
the tools and the technologies through which
DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ ³NQRZV ZKDW LW NQRZV´ WKHQ
further clarify the practices and incentives that
make the information available to those who
QHHGLW³1HW5HVXOWV´&RPSDQLHVPLJKW
consider a new position of FKLHIOHDUQLQJRI¿FHU
or FKLHINQRZOHGJHRI¿FHU who designs, develops,
and coordinates new learning initiatives for the
organization (Raub & Von Wittich, 2004).
Inputs: Assumptions
The subjective assumptions within any knowledge
sharing system also consist of both individual
and organizational elements. For individuals,
assumptions include underlying values and
ethical standards: People act either from an
explicit set of values or from an implicit set of
behavioral principles, which they follow without
much conscious thought. Individual assumptions
also appear through the style in which someone
completes a task: informal or formal, deductive
or inductive, right-brained or left-brained, uptight
or laid-back. According to Zuckerman and Buell
UDWKHUWKDQWHFKQRORJ\³LW¶VKXPDQV
that drive a company and the information man-

agement efforts that are crucial to success” (p.
X). Ennals (2003) highlights this human face in
Figure 3. Model of knowledge sharing
INTENTIONS
Few
Short Term
Long Term
Informal -
Formal
HUMAN PROCESS
Individualistic
Comprehensive
Analytic -
Synthetic
TECHNICAL TOOLS
Limited
Extensive
Storage -
Connectivity
AUDIENCES
Feedback
Timeliness
Feedback
Efficienty
to Knowledge
to Information
Multiple
Internal -
External
ASSUMPTIONS

Purpose
CREATIVITY
CHAOS
Method
STATUS
Individual
Organization
Individual
Organization
1971
A Communications Model for Knowledge Sharing
the process, and White (2004) does so through
the implication that KM is neither knowledge nor
management.
At the organizational level, culture and climate
especially convey assumptions. The organiza-
tional culture ranges from family or team styles
to dictatorship or even anarchy. The culture may
determine whether informal or formal norms will
guide activities, including such issues as com-
munication processes and dress codes. As Safdie
DQG(GZDUGVFRQVLGHUNQRZOHGJHVKDULQJDV³D
culture, not a system” (1998, p. S2); and this cul-
ture must encourage ideas, encourage knowledge
VKDULQJDQGUHZDUGLQQRYDWLRQ³1HW5HVXOWV´
2000). The assumptions also include the climate
of the organization. An open climate fosters the
sense of creativity and innovation among indi-
viduals, where people feel free to ask questions,
suggest changes, and brainstorm alternatives.

,QFRQWUDVWDFORVHGRUGHIHQVLYHFOLPDWHVWLÀHV
communication and reduces interaction, as people
spend psychic energy protecting themselves from
real or perceived threats if they step out of bounds
(Beck, 1999). An open environment that stimulates
intellectual creativity has been termed an infor-
mation ecology (Abell, 2000), which increases
both individual and corporate capability. Effec-
tive knowledge sharing requires an environment
that respects individuals (DeTienne & Jackson,
2001) and enhances the information literacy of
an organization as essential underpinnings for
knowledge sharing and for learning organization
practices (Oman, 2001).
Integration Purpose: Intentions
For an organization to capture and leverage the
knowledge assets, it must determine its pur-
pose, that is, it must determine what action it
intends to take after collecting data. Otherwise,
organizations can merely generate data, with
OLWWOHXQGHUVWDQGLQJRILWVVLJQL¿FDQFHDQGZKDW
should be done because of it. The systems model
of knowledge sharing adapts the concept that all
human communication systems must begin with
D VHQVH RI SXUSRVH E\ FODULI\LQJ WKH VSHFL¿F
intentions of the activity and the audience or
audiences involved.
Intentions, the objectives an organization
wishes to achieve, focus on the extent of the
NQRZOHGJHQHHGDQGWKHWLPHIUDPHIRUWKH¿QDO

product. The extent ranges from informal to for-
mal, and the time frame can either be short term
or long term. Table 1 presents the quadrants for
the purpose element of intentions.
Using this framework, organizations ask a
series of questions:
• Do we need just a single data point or do
we need a synthesis of trends?
• Are we answering a simple question for a
client or preparing a long-term action strat-
egy?
• :LOODTXLFNUHVSRQVH¿OOWKHQHHGRUPXVW
we test and verify before creating our rec-
ommendations?
• ,VRXUREMHFWLYHWR¿OODRQHWLPHQHHGRUWR
establish a long-term commitment?
The type of information sought will vary de-
pending on the intended use of that information.
Overall, a company needs a knowledge-manage-
PHQWVWUDWHJ\WKDWUHÀHFWVLWVFRPSHWLWLYHVWUDW-
HJ\$FRPSDQ\DWWKLVSRLQWIDFHVDVLJQL¿FDQW
challenge: to take unrelated ideas and innova-
Table 1. Intentions

Long Term
Good Will

Contract
Adequacy


Strategy
Informal


Formal

Connections

Obligation
Quick Answer Tactics

Short Term


1972
A Communications Model for Knowledge Sharing
tions and bind them together so they have useful
application value.
Integration Purpose: Audience
Levine and Pomerol (2001) show how the audience
expectation in contracts, forms the starting point
for knowledge models, and Ennals (2003) cautions
against getting trapped in spreadsheets rather than
knowledge for users. To gain strategic advantage,
a company must ensure that information-sharing
SUDFWLFHVEHFRPHVLJQL¿FDQWDWDOOOHYHOVRIWKH
organization (Launchbaugh, 2002). In adapting to
the information age, organizations must rethink
WKHQDWXUHRIWKHZRUNSODFH³:RUNSODFHVPXVW
be understood as social settings of negotiated

meanings in which knowledge becomes inextri-
cably and idiosyncraticly embedded within the
particular activit y system that is generating these
meanings” (Porac & Glynn, 1999, p. 583).
As Table 2 indicates, the needs may change if
we focus on those external to the organization,
ranging from a single user or a narrow market
niche to national and international users or gov-
ernment regulators.
Internal audience. Knowledge sharing inter-
nally concerns availability and extent of knowl-
edge within an organization. Often described as
information literacyWKLVLQWHUQDOIRFXVLGHQWL¿HV
an individual’s ability to recognize when infor-
mation is needed, then he/she can locate, evalu-
ate, and effectively use the needed information
(Oman, 2001). Although some theorists envision
information literacy as dependant on individual
attributes such as intelligence, education, and
experience, any one employee only possesses a
subset of the knowledge available and that re-
TXLUHGE\WKHZKROHRUJDQL]DWLRQ³.QRZOHGJH
Management,” 2000). To enhance the process,
organizations could establish a chief knowledge
RI¿FHU&.2ZKRGHYHORSVLQWHUQDOWD[RQRPLHV
RINQRZOHGJHWRKHOSHPSOR\HHV¿QGZKDWWKH\
are looking for (Friedmann, 20001). The faster
rate new knowledge information is changing,
thereby increasing the obsolescence of knowl-
edge in individuals; consequently, the audience

must constantly change and produce change, or
become extinct.
External audiences. The external audience
focus involves competitive intelligence (CI), which
consists of two phases: developing data, then
transforming it into information (McGonagle &
Vella, 20002). The developing data phase builds
usable information from public sources about
the competition, competitors, and the wider
market. The transformation phase analyzes the
data to create usable information to support busi-
ness decisions. As with the internal audience,
information may come from anyone within the
organization. Sharing beyond the normal orga-
nizational boundaries increases security risks,
raising concerns about access to information
(Malhotra, 2004). With a more narrow concern,
external audiences may focus on creating data
bases on most-valued customers. Such initiatives
take time and effort—valuable if the organiza-
tion knows which customers are worth the cost
(Davenport, Harris, & Kohli, 20001)—requiring
SROLF\ PDNHUV WR FOHDUO\ GH¿QH WKH SURFHVV RI
knowledge acquisition.
Integration Method: Technical Tools
The method portion of the model integrates
technology and humanity. Although it may use
technology, knowledge sharing itself is not a tech-
Table 2. Audiences


Multiple

Organization International

Supervisors National

Internal

External
Colleagues

Target Market

Self Specific User

Few


1973
A Communications Model for Knowledge Sharing
nology (Shaw & Hickok, 2000). Rather, method
integrates the two central aspects of information
processing: information technology and the hu-
man thought process.
The information age has expanded technology
to facilitate information processing, using tools
ranging from fast computer chips and expanded
memory in personal and mainframe computers,
to the changing technology for distance commu-
QLFDWLRQXVLQJSKRQHOLQHV¿EHURSWLFFDEOHDQG

satellite transmissions. With such tools changing
s o r a p i d l y, p e o p l e c a n n o l o n g e r r e l y s olely o n t h e i r
experience, which quickly goes out of date. For
technical tools, the model considers the capacity
and the connectivity, which range from extensive
WROLPLWHG7KHWHFKQRORJ\PHUHO\³HQDEOHV´WKH
WUDQVIHURILQIRUPDWLRQEXWPRUHVLJQL¿FDQWLV
³WKH DELOLW\ WR DFW RQ´ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ /LP
Ahmed, & Zairi, 1999, p. 615). Although the
DUHD RI ³WHFKQLFDO WRROV´ XVXDOO\ LPSOLHV HOHF-
tronic systems, the model of knowledge sharing
LQFOXGHVPDQXDOVWRUDJHLQQRWHERRNVDQG¿OHV
along with conversations to obtain knowledge
(see Table 3).
The model incorporates storage and connec-
tivity, each addressing different KM objectives.
Information management tools attempt to cap-
ture and manage explicit product and customer
knowledge, then codify and organize it in central
UHSRVLWRULHV³1HW5HVXOWV´$VDVLJQL¿-
cant limitation, however, the technical tools and
techniques selected for looking at problems and
VLWXDWLRQVWHQGWRLQÀXHQFHZKDWZH¿QG'XII\
2001b). Furthermore, the technical tools involved
in knowledge sharing may represent a fad, includ-
LQJVXFKEX]]ZRUGVDV³H[SHUWV\VWHPV.0GDWD
mining, intranets, extranets, universal in-boxes,
SDSHUOHVV RI¿FHV DQG H[HFXWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ
systems” (Craig & Mittenthall, 2000, p. 38). In
contrast to fads, a true focus on knowledge sharing

FDSLWDOL]HVRQWKH³EHVWEUDLQV´LQDQRUJDQL]D-
tion, regardless of their location or position in that
organization (Duffy, 2001a). As an example of
integrating the best brains, intranets may consist
of four broad categories: (1) internal communica-
tion, (2) collaborative/cooperative work, (3) KM,
and (4) process redesign (Baker, 2000).
Integration Method: Human
Processes
Human cognition, the central processes in
the model, encompasses multiple viewpoints:
philosophy (epistemology), psychology, and
popular culture. For organizations, clarifying
these human processes involves asking the right
questions (Zuckerman & Buell, 1998). In creating
knowledge, cognitive behavior exhibits a broad
UDQJHIURPVSHFL¿FXQLTXHVLWXDWLRQVWRWKHPRVW
comprehensive integration of information. The
more comprehensive approach involves theory
and wisdom, whereas individualistic processes
LQYROYHDFTXDLQWDQFHZLWKDVSHFL¿FHYHQWRUD
serendipitous one (see Table 4).
Table 3. Technical tools

Extensive
Data Warehouse WWW
Mainframe Internet/LAN
Storage

Connectivity

PC/PalmPilot Phone/fax
Notbook/file Conversation

Limited


Table 4. Human processes

Comprehensive
Theory

Wisdom

Explanation Imagination

Analytic

Synthetic

Description Intuition
Acquaintance Serendipity

Individualistic