An IS for archaeological finds
management as a platform for
knowledge management
The ArcheoTRAC case
Alessio Maria Braccini
CeRSI, LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, Italy, and
Tommaso Federici
DiStATeQ, University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this study is to describe the context, the activity, and the outcome of a project,
which led to the creation of ArcheoTRAC, the first information system (IS) designed to run all the daily
activities in archaeological finds management, to share information among the different professionals
and to support in this way knowledge creation.
Design/methodology/approach – The study focuses on the ArcheoTRAC system and on the
project that contributed to its development. Since the authors of this paper have been involved in the
project (one of them since its very beginning), an action research paradigm has been used to derive
scientific knowledge out of the experience. Both organizational and technological aspects are
investigated under the respective theoretical knowledge management perspectives.
Findings – There were two effective choices in order to foster knowledge sharing in a context of a
scarcity of interactions among professionals involved. Grouping representatives of possible users in
the project contributed to create a mutual understanding of their interdependent and complementary
needs and activities. Moreover, some system features of the ArcheoTRAC system (views, fields and
thesauri customization, non-prescriptive workflows) were effective in letting each user adapt
him/herself to the new system.
Practical implications – The study sheds light on the characteristics of a system designed in order
to maximize the information exploitation and sharing and, at the same time, to minimize the
introduction impact, in a context denoted by manual processes, lack of habit of cooperation, and poor
IT literacy.
Originality/value – The study deals with an innovative IS that supports all activities performed by
every professional involved in archaeological finds management. The study describes the architecture
of this IS that has been designed to minimize impacts on professionals’ behaviour and maximize
knowledge sharing.
Keywords Archaeology, Knowledge management, Cultural studies, Heritage, Knowledge sharing,
Information systems
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Archaeological finds management encompasses all the activities performed on
archaeological finds, from excavation, to restoration, study, and conservation. Each
find is not just an object that comes from the past. It may rather be a valuable source of
data and information.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm
VINE
40,2
136
Received 27 October 2009
Revised 17 February 2010
Accepted 1 March 2010
VINE: The journal of information and
knowledge management systems
Vol. 40 No. 2, 2010
pp. 136-152
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0305-5728
DOI 10.1108/03055721011050659

Each find, after its discovery, starts a new life cycle composed of several stages: at
every stage, much information is produced. This information can contribute to increase
the stock of knowledge on the specific find, on finds related to it, and more generally,
on the specific period of the human history the find belongs to.
To fully exploit the informative potential embedded in archaeological finds,
knowledge management practices and, if possible, a supporting information system
(IS) could help. Anyhow, observations from reality suggest that organizational
routines in place in finds management in archaeology do not adopt optimized
knowledge management practices, nor is any IS specifically available to support them
(Watrall and Siarto, 2007).
In this descriptive case study we analyse the activity and the outcome of the project
named “giSAD – Recouvrement du Potentiel Informatif des Sites Arche´ologiques
De´monte´s” (“Potential Information Retrieval of Archaeological Mobile Sites”), by
means of which the first IS supporting daily operations of all professionals working in
archaeological finds management, ArcheoTRAC (Archaeological Heritage Tracking,
Recovery, Assessment and Conservation), has been designed and developed.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Firstly, some insights on the organizational
landscape and on the work practices currently adopted in archaeological finds
management is provided, in order to depict some peculiar, not commonly known
contexts. Afterwards, the theoretical framework and the design of the research are
discussed, followed by the case study description. A discussion on the findings and
some conclusions will follow.
2. Information and knowledge management in archaeology
How to manage knowledge in the archaeological field is not a new issue: many scholars
have dealt with it over the last decades. However, they have mostly addressed the
problem of sharing among archaeologists the results of their studies and research,
which is a twofold issue: how to make documents and information available, and how
to match the interpretation of a find provided by a scholar (following a school of
thought) in a study. Gardin, one of the very first to discuss the knowledge management
subject in archaeology together with the possible support of information technology
(Gardin, 1971), suggested the use of the web and a special hypertext structure for
documents in order to solve the first concern (Roux and Gardin, 2004), and the use of a
type of logic inference to make interpretation more explicit (Gardin, 2003).
As already stated, such works deal with the management of knowledge resulting
from studies performed by archaeologists on finds, which were possibly discovered a
long time before, and had already received more changes of status. This paper, which
also discusses the role of information technology as a support for knowledge
management in archaeology, handles a quite different point of observation. The system
discussed here, in fact, has the aim of collecting all the possible information regarding
an archaeological find, since the very beginning (its recovery) and from then onwards.
By doing so, it targets all the professionals involved in finds management, coming to
constitute a platform for knowledge sharing and creation. In order to deepen the
relevance of this system, the following paragraphs describe what happens to an
archaeological find following its discovery, and how pertinent data are managed in the
process.
An IS for
archaeological
finds
137

2.1 The second life of an archaeological find
Once discovered, an archaeological find (both a mobile object, like a jug, and an
immobile one, like a site) starts a sort of new “life cycle”, throughout which it will come
across several events (among them: storage, cleaning, restoration, study, exhibition,
grouping or consolidation with other finds. . .), sometimes repeatedly. Even though
people might be forced to think intuitively about archaeological finds as statues, pieces
of jewellery, pieces of pottery, or other artworks, the largest part of them is merely
formed by small fragments that only in a few cases can be used to rebuild (virtually or
physically) an object. Even if these items are usually not suitable to be displayed in
museums or exhibitions, they are, as well, valuable sources of information.
Just for its discovery in a certain place, at a certain depth, close to some other
objects, each find brings with it a lot of information (about its nature and history), even
when it is impossible, at first glance, to interpret its original form or material (e.g. in the
case of single or multiple fragments). For example, the discovery of a group of pieces of
Etruscan black ceramic in a specific zone in a northern part of Italy at a certain depth,
even when it is impossible to identify the object(s) they were originally part of, testifies
the existence of some kind of relations between that zone and Etruria in a certain
period.
Each event a find may come across (restoration, study, exhibition etc.) generates a
lot of additional information. Sometimes such actions change the nature of the find (as,
for example, in the case of the consolidation of fragments found in different moments),
or the related information (e.g. after a study that details its origin or dating). All the
information gathered is useful, and often crucial, in order to deepen the present and
future scientific contribution received by the find (Kintigh, 2006), to make each time the
best decision about its management, and, in the end, to make sense of its discovery and
overall of its expensive conservation.
Despite its fundamental role, information is often not specifically managed in
archaeology (Kintigh, 2006; Karmacharya et al., 2008), almost always not filed in digital
archives, and then with difficulty transferred (Watrall and Siarto, 2007) to persons not
involved in each single event. The problem of the use and sharing of the knowledge
potentially brought by an archaeological find is further increased by the presence
throughout its life cycle of several professionals (archaeologists, restorers,
storekeepers, archivists . . . ), who usually work separately, even when they cross
over each other’s activity. Things get even more complicated when considering that
normally, data collection methodologies vary deeply from one project to another, and
that many times data collection in archaeology is still made with paper and pen
(Watrall and Siarto, 2007).
All these circumstances make information and knowledge sharing among
professionals in archaeology difficult. As a result, after the recovery on a site, and
for a long-lasting period (often forever), the object is merely known by the person who
collected it. Such an information black-out not only involves the information linked to
the historic and scientific perspective, but also even collocation and needs of
conservative interventions of the find, with an evident negative reflection on
traceability and, at the same time, on management and programming of interventions.
Figure 1 illustrates the typical organizational chart of an archaeological department
of a European country. The chart shows that professionals with the same profile may
work in different divisions, usually without direct connections. Every Department is
VINE
40,2
138

autonomous, has an exclusive territorial competence (in most cases a regional one), and
also for this reason, each one can have its own procedures. As a consequence, the
processes of finds management (like retrieval, collection, interventions management
and others) follow highly diversified procedures, specific for each department, and
even for each individual that works on them, also because of the weak relations among
different areas. Because of the relevance of culture and personal know-how in this field,
very often operations follow non standard practice or context pressure, as in the case of
an urgent excavation during works on a railway, when the excavation has to take the
shortest time.
Actually, information on finds, when immediately collected, is recorded on many
different kinds of supports, such as: single sheets of paper, registers, sides of the
wooden/plastic boxes where finds are kept, and so on. In this scenario, the objects
maintenance (where archaeologists exit the stage, leaving room for archivists,
librarians, restorers, storekeepers and others kinds of professionals) also encounters
problems, because of poor information management. In the vast majority of cases,
finds are stored in boxes inside depots, and the identification of box contents is based
on hand-written data on their sides. In a context where different persons, on many
different kinds of supports, have registered information on a find it can be hard to use
and connect all these pieces of information in order to properly manage and even
identify single objects.
2.2 IS for finds management in archaeology
All these considerations have not to suggest that no IS has been designed in the
archaeological field. Since about 1960 a variety of electronic tools have been invented,
copied, and adapted, to manage archaeological enterprises and analyse archaeological
problems (Voorrips, 1998).
Today different technologies are used during excavation, and also some ISs support
them (Karmacharya et al., 2008). Many of them can be classified as a customized and/or
extended Geographical Information System (GIS), an important tool in archaeology
that can be used to map a site and to document its structure and shape. Combined with
adequate supporting systems, GIS can also be used to produce three-dimensional
representations of objects or sites. Examples of these systems are 3D MURALE
(Cosmas et al., 2001) and DILAS (Wu¨st et al., 2004).
Figure 1.
Typical organization chart
of an archaeological
department
An IS for
archaeological
finds
139

The adoption and the development of GIS in archaeology had an exceptional
development starting from the eighties (Tokmakidis et al., 2004). A GIS simply targets
a small subset of data pertinent to archaeological sites and the outcomes of an
excavation campaign (in a specific case, spatial data), and therefore can be used to
share only a limited proportion of the total informative potential a find might embody.
Moreover, GIS data do not span the entire life cycle of archaeological finds, and are
mainly addressed to archaeologists.
As examples of ISs that try to overcome the limitations of GIS based systems,
OpenArcheo (Fronza et al., 2002), and iAKS (Watrall and Siarto, 2007) can be cited.
Even though it contains some information management facilities, OpenArcheo still
relies heavily on the GIS functionalities, and it is targeted only to support the work of
archaeologists. iAKS instead is proposed as a management system designed to support
the main activities of archaeologists and to share information among them. However,
the iAKS system is not available so far, its release having only just been announced.
Besides these, the systems devoted to support the “Official Catalogue” must be
mentioned. The Catalogue is a tool based on a set of multiple forms, mainly introduced
to serve scientific purposes. The Catalogue is usually supervised by a public agency (in
Italy, the Cataloguing and Documentation Central Institute, under the Ministry for
Cultural Properties and Activities), and contains only the file cards related to the
archaeological finds studied, analysed, and moved to the Public Inventory. Each file
card reports an ample and structured set of information on many aspects of the find:
discovery, material, state of conservation, origin, relevance, connection with other
objects, and so on. All these data must be manually filled in and signed by an operator
with a high level of competence, usually an archaeologist. Such time-consuming
operations can be done only after the find has been involved in some activity (cleaning,
restoration . . .), and after an appropriate period of study and research. For all these
reasons, only a small proportion of all the finds (about 30 percent) is inserted in the
Official Catalogue, however long the time after its discovery.
All the systems mentioned here substantially address only two phases of the
archaeologists’ work: the geo-localizations of finds, and the post-study documentation
of the most important finds. All the other activities related to the finds management
are, so far, rarely and only partially supported by an IS. Under these circumstances,
information on a find, and on treatments received by it, might be stored on a computer,
only because the person in charge of the treatment has keyed it into his/her personal
archive. This often happens after a long delay, and personal files have different
formats and supports (Watrall and Siarto, 2007). This makes these data difficult to be
transferred or interoperated (Lauzikas, 2005).
2.3 Exploiting archaeological finds knowledge potential
In such a scenario, the informative potential of each find (characteristics of the object,
characteristics of the site where the object has been found, type of interventions
received and so on) can be lost (even forever), or not fully exploited. This makes the
recovery and the storage of a scientific “alien” (not known to everyone) and “dumb”
(without scientific informative potential) object useless.
The ArcheoTRAC system emerges then as a relevant IS to support all the daily
activities performed by professionals working in archaeological finds management, to
share information among them and to support in this way knowledge creation. Due to
VINE
40,2
140

the characteristics of the context where the system had to be employed, denoted by the
presence of many different competences, manual processes, lack of habit of cooperation
and poor IT-literacy, the system has been designed to be both powerful and simple
enough to be adopted by every professional and to support information and data
sharing across the entire archaeological finds management life cycle.
3. Theoretical framework
The case of the giSAD project and the ArcheoTRAC system can be studied under
several theoretical perspectives. Since knowledge sharing was one of the aims that
guided the activities of the giSAD project, and the ArcheoTRAC system has therefore
to support knowledge management processes among professionals working in finds
management, the theory we decided to apply to analyse the case is that of knowledge
management.
From a theoretical point-of-view, knowledge (and thence knowledge management)
can be seen in many different ways. There is the objective and subjective knowledge of
Popper (1979), the personal knowledge of Polanyi (1962), and the tacit and explicit
knowledge introduced by Polanyi and later deepened by Nonaka (1994). The
theoretical framework adopted in this paper is based on Polanyi’s and Nonaka’s works
on personal, tacit, and explicit knowledge. We have chosen to adopt their perspective
on knowledge since it is a largely agreed theoretical perspective on knowledge, and
because the epistemology of their work was much closer to our work compared with
that of Popper.
Regarding theory selection, the case of the giSAD project and the ArcheoTRAC IS
have two aspects that guided us on the identification of the theoretical framework.
First of all there is a human and organizational dimension. In the giSAD project people
and organizations cooperated for the development of the ArcheoTRAC IS. By doing so,
they have also exchanged knowledge. For this reason, theoretical contributions that
give insights on how knowledge is managed among individuals and organizations suit
this study. Secondly, this case also takes into consideration ArcheoTRAC, which is an
IS that also supports knowledge sharing. For these reasons theoretical contributions
describing knowledge management processes supported by ISs are also of help for this
study.
3.1 Knowledge management
According to Polanyi (1962, 1967) and Nonaka (1994), knowledge, when viewed in an
organizational context, assumes two different forms (tacit and explicit), and involves
different processes of transformation from one form to the other (socialization,
externalization, internalization, and combination). Figure 2 shows these processes
referring to the knowledge exchange between two hypothetical individuals X and Y
(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
The tacit dimension of knowledge includes both cognitive (the individual’s mental
models formed by mental maps, beliefs, paradigms and viewpoints) and technical
elements (concrete know-how to be applied to a specific context) (Alavi and Leidner,
2001). The explicit dimension of knowledge, instead, can be codified in symbolic form
and/or natural language and then communicated (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
Moreover knowledge can be individual or collective (Nonaka, 1994): individual
knowledge is created, and exists in only one person, while collective knowledge is
An IS for
archaeological
finds
141

created by the collective actions of social groups. In an organizational perspective,
knowledge is also referred to as memory and assumes two different forms: semantic
and episodic (El Sawy et al., 1996; Stein and Zwass, 1995). The semantic memory is
linked to explicit and articulated knowledge inside the organization (embodied, for
example, in reports and archives), while the episodic memory is linked to specific
circumstances and their related decisions, actions or outcomes.
Usually knowledge is derived from one or more pieces of information, which are
formed by one or more data (Laudon and Laudon, 2006). Adopting a different point of
view, Tuomi (1999) affirms that the data/information/knowledge hierarchy can be
reversed, since a certain stock of knowledge must exist in the mind of the knower
before information and data can be identified or measured. As a matter of fact “raw”
data do not exist: each piece of data is the result of a knowledge flow that influenced its
identification. As a consequence, a pre-requisite for establishing a knowledge exchange
among individuals is the sharing of a certain knowledge base (Tuomi, 1999).
To be effective, knowledge transfers need to take place in a particular context. To
describe such a context, Nonaka and Konno (1998) introduce the concept of Ba to
indicate a shared space where knowledge creation processes may take place, and
describe the Ba as a foundation for knowledge creation. According to Nonaka and
Konno (1998) there might be four different types of Ba: Originating Ba, Interacting Ba,
Exercising Ba and Cyber Ba. Each form of Ba supports one of the knowledge
management processes.
3.2 Knowledge and IS
Seen under the data/information perspective, knowledge does not present particular
challenges for ISs, since it is not so different from data or information (Fahey and
Prusak, 1998). ISs can support knowledge sharing providing help in acquiring, storing,
distributing and applying knowledge, as well as in supporting processes for creating
new knowledge, and integrating it into the organization (Laudon and Laudon, 2006).
Computer-based ISs with storage and retrieval technologies can contribute then to
enhance organizational memory (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). These ISs are required to
deal both with the explicit and the tacit dimension of knowledge: therefore they have to
work with unstructured sources of information.
Figure 2.
Knowledge creation
processes
VINE
40,2
142

ISs working with knowledge, to be useful, have to connect people and support
knowledge exchanges among them. Therefore, besides being only knowledge-oriented,
they also have to inherit technical characteristics from other specific systems like
business intelligence, collaboration, distributed learning, knowledge discovery,
knowledge mapping and opportunity generation (Sher and Lee, 2004). To enhance
knowledge sharing among people and organizations, ISs supporting knowledge-based
processes have to be guided by an understanding of the nature and types of the
organizational knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). The explicit dimension of the
knowledge presents minor challenges for implementation of ISs. It is therefore common
to focus primarily on it in an implementation process (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
Under an organizational perspective computer-based ISs promise to increase and
enhance the effectiveness of organizational knowledge by embedding knowledge into
organizational routines (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). In spite of the great interest and
attention devoted to the application of technology in knowledge management
processes, it has been noticed that technology, by itself, does not offer a proper solution
to the problem. There might be some barriers hindering effectiveness of ISs applied to
knowledge management processes. First of all, knowledge management processes
supported by computers are frequently impeded inside organizations by the weakness
of the systems in use, and by the ignorance of the loci where knowledge is stored inside
them (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Second, the impact of such systems on people’s
behaviours and routines might also prevent organizations from fully exploiting their
capabilities (Chua, 2004). In general, every information system possesses some
structural features that have to be aligned with organizational structures in order for
the system to have a successful path of usage (DeSanctis and Poole, 1994).
As a matter of fact, the real effectiveness of these systems is disputable (Shin, 2004)
and needs to be evaluated case by case. On the one hand, these systems have to
manage a blurred and multi-faceted object (the knowledge). The IS has then to be
designed to take this aspect into consideration. On the other hand, users need to be
freed from any constraints, to have the possibility to make their own links, and to have
available the required techniques for constructing and interacting with knowledge
inside these systems (Walsham, 2001).
4. Research design and methodology
The ArcheoTRAC IS and the giSAD project compose the unit of analysis addressed in
this paper where such a system has been developed. When studying this unit of
analysis, the authors of this paper have had a privileged point of observation. One of
the two authors has been involved in project activities since the very beginning. He
joined all project meetings and played an active role in the project. He contributed to
the writing of the preliminary project, helped in its management, and followed the
design and development of the ArcheoTRAC system. Both authors had direct access to
all the project minutes of meetings and all the project documentation.
Being actively involved in the project activities, a participatory action research
paradigm (Wadsworth, 1998) has been adopted for this study. According to Jo¨nsson
(1991), and to Baskerville and Myers (2004), in action research projects researchers
cooperate with domain experts to identify solutions to practical problems, extending, at
the same time, their scientific knowledge. This pragmatic orientation is seen to be a
good active approach that best suits IS studies in real contexts (Avison et al., 2001).
An IS for
archaeological
finds
143

This is very close to the case study investigated in this paper, where at least one author
had constant interaction with project members during all project activities.
According to the theoretical framework adopted for this study, the analysis of the
giSAD and of the ArcheoTRAC IS is made with the aim of answering the following
study question:
RQ1. How can knowledge-sharing processes be fostered and reinforced in finds
management in archaeology, given the context described in the introduction?
Theories on knowledge management inform that knowledge sharing is both a matter
of people involved in it, of loci where such sharing takes place, and of the
characteristics of ISs available to support such knowledge-sharing processes. Thence,
the research question is articulated in the following propositions:
P1. The role of actors working in finds management in archaeology, given the
context described, shall be investigated.
P2. The spaces where knowledge management processes happen in finds
management in archaeology, given the context described, shall be
investigated.
P3. The (eventual) role of ISs in support of finds management in archaeology,
given the context described, shall be investigated.
P4. The structure of ISs adopted in finds management in archaeology, given the
context described, shall be investigated.
5. Case description
The Italian autonomous Region Valle d’Aosta, by means of its Co-financed Projects
and Research Direction under the Monuments Department, after a long pilot
experience, promoted in 2003 an ambitious project, named giSAD, co-financed by the
European Union. A partnership was established with other regional Monuments
Departments, both Italian and European (from France, Portugal and Spain). Even
though each partner’s context was different (for rules, practices, resources, size of the
territory, number of finds managed), they all operated in the same field (the
archaeological heritage management), facing a scenario similar to the one described at
the beginning of this paper.
Their common aims were then to define an integrated, shareable and transversal
operative methodology and to create on such basis an interdisciplinary IS, capable of
supporting everyday activities related to finds management (such as: recovery,
documentation, depots management, storage and valorisation).
The multiple objectives addressed with this project can be classified in three
dimensions:
(1) Strategic, with regard to:
. the exploitation of the huge amount of finds not studied, through the
recovery and sharing of their informational potential; and
. the opportunity of improving resources use, by estimating interventions cost
and by planning interventions on the basis of their possible information
contribution;
VINE
40,2
144

(2) Organizational, referred to the achieving of higher finds protection, improved
management, reduced costs, and overall, of a greater collaboration and
involvement of all the professionals.
(3) Scientific, in terms of research progresses achievable through the availability of
much more information, based on more trustworthy data, and a greater
exchange of knowledge among diverse disciplines.
Another ambitious goal was the creation of conditions for the implementation of
innovative policies in finds management, up to the re-burying of those finds whose
informational potential has been totally “extracted” and acquired in a reliable system.
The choice of involving other (even foreign) partners, was explicitly made to raise
the expectations and the possible results of the project, on the basis of the thought that
in this domain practices and knowledge were (and still are) individual, or however not
largely shared. Therefore, the greater the experience involved and the number of needs
considered, the more effective the know-how acquired and the operational
methodology defined, thus increasing the organizational memory stock (El Sawy
et al., 1996; Stein and Zwass, 1995).
Another important choice of the project was the involvement of all professionals –
archaeologists, restorers, archivists – who act all along the life cycle of the finds. The
aim of such choice was to promote knowledge and needs exchange, as these subjects
often operate without a close connection among them, even when they work around the
same object.
The project was designed involving a first long phase devoted to declare, and to
analyse the practices adopted by each type of professional. The intent was to find a
common methodology that could, at the same time, suit everyone’s culture, and be
applicable to everybody. Moreover, this phase included sessions devoted to search for a
possible way to retrieve, store, and share information among different professionals,
with the aim of identifying the most feasible way to anticipate data collection, in order
to avoid multiple keying and to exclude the risk of losing data.
All the possible situations were examined, including every kind of find (either
mobile objects or sites), any event they may come across, and also the treatment of the
huge amount of finds actually stored in the depots, even when many of the respective
data could already be lost. In 2005, once the preliminary activity of study and design
was over, the development of an archaeological and documental heritage management
support system (with the name of ArcheoTRAC) was launched. Having in mind the
project goals, and taking into account the knowledge acquired in the previous phase,
the system was designed in order to maximize users’ ability to share and interrelate
data (respecting the different needs of each professional at the same time), and to
guarantee the traceability of each object in any situation (Pedelı`, 2008).
The system presents some interesting features: it is a totally web-based Open
Source licensed system, and it largely uses advanced technologies, like HSDPA
connections, UHF RFId tags, handhelds, accesses control, and so on. However, there are
three characteristics that are of interest for the scope of this study: interdisciplinary
collaboration, adaptability to different needs and cultures, knowledge maps of a find.
Regarding the first aspect, ArcheoTRAC lets all the professionals use the same IS
and share the same database (see Figure 3): thence a continued interdisciplinary
co-operation is promoted among experts in different branches of learning. In this way,
An IS for
archaeological
finds
145

they can share the common knowledge base that, according to Tuomi (1999), is
necessary to activate knowledge transfers.
With regard to the second aspect, any professional has the possibility of adapting
the system on the basis of his/her needs and culture, by:
. Choosing (see Figure 3) the presentation form (view) that better suits his/her
needs and preferences (Walsham, 2001), as it contains only the relevant
information for him/herself.
. Including in the system (then in the database and the views) other non-standard
pieces of information which only he/she will store and read, because he/she is
used to collecting and making use of them (for personal culture or practice). This
solution then minimizes a possible barrier that may prevent the use of KMS
(Chua, 2004).
Finally, by recording all the events of any sort (even when repeated), ArcheoTRAC can
trace the entire history of each object after its discovery. It can therefore build two
kinds of maps, which give a great contribution both to the research and the
management:
(1) a timeline for each find (see Figure 4, where finds are identified by a code),
reporting all the treatments, the movements, and other scientific activities
concerning it; and
Figure 3.
Different views for every
professional, although
sharing the same data
Figure 4.
Timeline of the events in
the life cycle of a find
VINE
40,2
146

(2) a network of relationships of a find with others (see Figure 5), that shows its
active connections, both deriving from a scientific activity (“Concerning”) or by
a restoration action (“Aggregated in”).
This sort of map, as well as many forms, links data on the same object, possibly
inserted by different persons. Different interpretations (if any) embedded in the shown
data can then be directly compared and mixed up, contributing in this way to increase
the knowledge on such object.
At the beginning of 2008, the development of ArcheoTRAC ended and the same
team that has been involved all along the entire project started an experimental
programme to validate the system against the requirements. The pilot has been
performed with selected users of the main partner (the Region Valle d’Aosta). As a
result, users asked for some changes to further customize the views in the system. At
the same time we have been able to observe that the first users started to use
ArcheoTRAC in a short time, and expressed quite positive judgements regarding their
experience with it, since they noticed some speeding up in their work.
However, things in archaeology run at a very slow speed. Due to a lack of human
resources, the full implementation of the system experienced a delay. Another
important partner (the Monumental Department of Rome) started a larger pilot more
than one year ago, but it was paused after few months (only end users’ training and
system set-up were completed by that time), because of a change in leading
management.
6. Discussion on findings
In this section we discuss the case described in the previous paragraphs under the light
of the study question, and the theoretical framework that have been described
previously in the text.
First of all, if we look at the context where the giSAD project took place with the
knowledge management perspective, we can argue that the organizational settings
were not committed to an efficient management of the knowledge gathered from finds.
The absence of linkages among actors, and the diversity in routines among
organizations involved in finds management were not in the right position to foster the
Figure 5.
Relation network among
single finds
An IS for
archaeological
finds
147

explicit and semantic nature of knowledge. The giSAD project contributed in this light
to inject changes into this landscape.
At first we would like to discuss our P1 (the role of actors involved in knowledge
processes), and P2 (the role of spaces where knowledge processes take place) together.
Referring to the knowledge taxonomy and the knowledge transformation processes
described, respectively, by Polanyi (1962, 1967) and Nonaka (1994), professionals
involved in daily organizational routines in archaeology have a small opportunity of
sharing their knowledge with others without being involved in a face-to-face
interaction. All the other forms of knowledge sharing, by means of knowledge
representations of some sort (documents, data pertinent to finds filed in digital
archives . . . ) suffer from the described lack of harmonization. The case is even worse
for professionals working on different stages of the find life cycle. Since their work on
finds is normally situated in two different points of time (i.e. the restoration normally
happens after the excavation), they might have no opportunity of being in contact at
all.
When professionals meet each other, they can start the knowledge transformation
process called socialization by Nonaka (1994), in the context of an Originating Ba
(Nonaka and Konno, 1998). The Originating Ba is the place where individuals share
feelings, emotions, experiences, and mental models. This process constitutes the
primary form of knowledge creation where socialization processes happen in a
face-to-face context (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). This process, even if it is the foundation
of knowledge transformation processes, in the described scenario, previous to the
giSAD project, was not exhaustive (not spanning the entire organization and the entire
life cycle management process).
Under this perspective the giSAD project had the major merit of pushing
knowledge-creation processes and knowledge spaces a bit further, putting a
representative of all professionals working on finds around the same table, where
they had the chance to discuss their needs and to better know each other’s activities
and their intersections. The giSAD project constitutes therefore a different form of Ba,
an Interacting Ba, which is a more consciously constructed space compared to the
Originating Ba (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). In an Interacting Ba, different persons (with
a mixture of specific knowledge and capabilities) in a group, converse and share mental
models, but also reflect on and analyse their own. By doing so they enable knowledge
to be made explicit by means of externalization processes (Nonaka and Konno, 1998)
that contribute to create meanings and values that are shared and agreed in the whole
organization. The giSAD project was therefore able to provide the pre-requisites for the
promotion and/or the reinforcement of knowledge transfer processes (Gupta and
Govinjarajan, 2000), nurturing a rich soil on which making knowledge explicit among
involved individuals could take place. At the same time, it helped in the sharing,
among different professionals, of that specific amount of knowledge (Tuomi, 1999) that
is necessary to start knowledge transfer processes.
Moving on, we would like to add now our P3 (the role of technology in knowledge
management processes) to the discussion. The case description discusses the role and
the importance of the ArcheoTRAC system, the result of the joint discourse among
professionals that happened in the giSAD project. By itself, the ArcheoTRAC system
assumes the role of a virtual space in which actors can store and share their knowledge,
that is to say, a Cyber Ba. In a Cyber Ba actors combine new explicit knowledge with
VINE
40,2
148

existing information and knowledge, systematizing explicit knowledge throughout the
organization (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). The ArcheoTRAC system constitutes
therefore a further space where knowledge transformation processes in finds
management can take place. ArcheoTRAC also supports the transformation of
episodic knowledge to semantic ones (El Sawy et al., 1996; Stein and Zwass, 1995) since
knowledge stored in the system can easily be accessed also by new professionals who,
starting to work on a specific find, use ArcheoTRAC to rebuild its life cycle and to get
information on it, even when they had not played a specific role in previous find
history.
Finally, the ArcheoTRAC system also offers each actor his own space inside which
he/she can work seeing data and information on finds in a way compatible with his/her
perspective and culture (Walsham, 2001). This is mainly made possible due to its
specific structure (P4) that has been designed in the project. Under this perspective, its
key features, according to us, are the extensive customization opportunities that try to
minimize adoption barriers (Chua, 2004). These features are the following:
. a common database with a minimal set of information needed by each type of
professional;
. a workflow decomposed into segments of activities that can be freely
recomposed by users; and
. customizable views, fields, and thesauri.
7. Conclusions
This study discusses the role of the first IS that supports daily operations in
archaeology of all the professionals working on finds management. There are three
elements of understanding gained in this study, which can be generalized.
The first element regards the methodology adopted for this study. We have
observed that the participatory action research approach worked quite well in the
interchange between the developer side and the research side. Thanks to this approach,
it was possible to involve all relevant figures in the development of the system and, at
the same time, it was possible to mutually integrate necessary (and sometimes
complementary) competences of researchers, domain actors, and system developers.
Moreover, the specific design of the ArcheoTRAC system has been possible thanks
to the precedence of the giSAD project. As already discussed, the involvement in the
project activities of all the professionals the system would have targeted, helped to
share among them the necessary knowledge base. This enabled the definition of
system requirements valid for everyone, and at the same time coherent. We can
therefore affirm that, when developing a knowledge-related IS, an organization of the
design activities similar to the one described in this paper could contribute in
generating the necessary pre-conditions for effective knowledge transfers.
Finally, when addressing knowledge-related aspects, particularly in a
multi-disciplinary context, the system also has to be designed to meet every user
culture or need, without imposing rules, workflows, or (as much as possible) data
formats. This consideration however needs further sound proof, as the system usage
(the experimental programme started by the Region Valle d’Aosta) that has been
observed during this study is quite limited. This conclusion might then be revised
when the large-scale implementation of the ArcheoTRAC system is over.
An IS for
archaeological
finds
149

As future research, to deepen the understanding gained regarding the involvement
of users, domain experts, and researchers, we are now investigating the dynamics of
the interplay among these subjects. Furthermore, we are planning to perform a
post-adoption study, as the system will have undergone a large-scale implementation,
to eventually revise or extend the considerations here formulated.
References
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (2001), “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 107-36.
Avison, D., Baskerville, R. and Myers, M. (2001), “Controlling action research projects”,
Information Technology & People, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 28-45.
Baskerville, R.L. and Myers, M.D. (2004), “Special issue on action research in information
systems: making IS research relevant to practice – foreword”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 329-35.
Chua, A. (2004), “Knowledge management system architecture: a bridge between KM consultants
and technologists”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 87-98.
Cosmas, J., Itagaki, T., Green, D., Grabczewski, E., Weimer, F., Van Gool, L., Zalesny, A.,
Vanrintel, D., Leberl, F., Grabner, M., Schindler, K., Karner, K., Gervautz, M., Hynst, S.,
Waelkens, M., Pollefeys, M., DeGeest, R., Sablatnig, R. and Kampel, M. (2001),
“3D MURALE: a multimedia system for archaeology”, Virtual Reality, Archaeology, and
Cultural Heritage, Proceedings of the 2001 Conference in New York, November 2001,
ACM, New York, NY, pp. 297-306.
DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. (1994), “Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use:
adaptive structuration theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 121-47.
El Sawy, O.A., Gomes, G.M. and Gonzalez, M.V. (1996), “Preserving institutional memory:
the management of history as an organization resource”, Academy of Management Best
Paper Proceedings, Vol. 37, pp. 118-22.
Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), “The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management”,
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 265-76.
Fronza, V., Nardini, A. and Valenti, M. (2002), “An integrated information system for
archaeological data management: latest developments”, Proceedings of CAA2002 –
The Digital Heritage of Archaeology, pp. 147-153, available at: http://archeologiamedievale.
unisi.it/NewPages/Testi/fronza02.pdf (accessed 28 January, 2009).
Gardin, J.C. (1971), “Archaeology and computers: new perspectives”, International Social Science
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 189-203.
Gardin, J.C. (2003), “Archaeological discourse, conceptual modelling and digitalisation: an interim
report of the logicist program”, in Doerr, M. and Sarris, A. (Eds), The Digital Heritage of
Archaeology, Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Heraklion, pp. 5-12.
Gupta, A. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge flows within multinational corporations”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-96.
Jo¨nsson, S. (1991), “Action research”, in Nissen, H.E. (Ed.), Information System Research:
Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 371-96.
Karmacharya, A., Cruz, C., Boochs, F. and Marzani, F. (2008), “Managing knowledge for spatial
data – a case study with industrial archaeological findings”, paper presented at Digital
VINE
40,2
150

Heritage in the New Knowledge Environment: Shared Spaces and Open Paths to Cultural
Content, Athens, October 10-November 2.
Kintigh, K. (2006), “The promise and challenge of archaeological data integration”, American
Antiquity, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 567-78.
Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (2006), Management Information Systems, 10th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lauzikas, R. (2005), “Digitization of cultural heritage: model of an integral, three-dimensional
spatio-temporal thesaurus”, Archeologia e Calcolatori, Vol. 16, pp. 93-112.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), “The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge
creation”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Pedelı`, C. (2008), “An information system for the ordinary management of the archaeological and
documental patrimony: overview of the conceptual model”, paper presented at the
6th International Conference on Science and Technology in Archaeology and
Conservation, Rome, 8-14 December.
Polanyi, M. (1962), Personal Knowledge: Toward a Post-Critical Philosophy, Harper Torch Books,
New York, NY.
Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Popper, K. (1979), Objective Knowledge: an Evolutionary Approach – Revised Edition, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Roux, V. and Gardin, J.C. (2004), “The Arkeotek project: a European network of knowledge bases
in archaeology of techniques”, Archeologia e calcolatori, Vol. 15, pp. 25-40.
Sher, P.J. and Lee, V.C. (2004), “Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic
capabilities through knowledge management”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 8,
pp. 933-45.
Shin, M. (2004), “A framework for evaluating economics of knowledge management systems”,
Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 179-96.
Stein, E.W. and Zwass, V. (1995), “Actualizing organizational memory with information
systems”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 85-117.
Tokmakidis, K., Kalyvioti, M.E. and Nanakou, P. (2004), “Geographic information system applied
in archaeological site”, paper presented at the Workshop – Archaeological Surveys –
WSA3 Spatial Information Systems for Archaeology, Athens, May 22-27.
Tuomi, I. (1999), “Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge
hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 103-18.
Voorrips, A. (1998), “Electronic information systems in archaeology. Some notes and comments”,
Archeologia e Calcolatori, Vol. 9, pp. 251-67.
Wadsworth, Y. (1998), “What is participatory action research?”, Action Research International,
paper 2, available at: www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/pywadsworth98.html
Walsham, G. (2001), “Knowledge management: the benefits and the limitations of computer
systems”, European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 599-608.
An IS for
archaeological
finds
151

Watrall, E. and Siarto, J. (2007), “A proposal for a Web 2.0 archaeological knowledge
management system”, in Trant, J. and Bearman, D. (Eds), Proceedings of the International
Cultural Heritage Informatics Meeting, ICHIM07, Archives and Museum Informatics,
Toronto.
Wu¨st, T., Neibiker, S. and Landolt, R. (2004), “Applying the 3d GIS Dilas to archaeology and
cultural heritage projects – requirements and first results”, International Archives of
Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 5,
pp. 407-12.
About the authors
Alessio Maria Braccini (1977, Italy) is a Research Fellow at the CeRSI research center of the
LUISS Guido Carli University in Rome (Italy). He has achieved a PhD in Management of
Information Systems at the LUISS Guido Carli University in 2010. In the past three years he has
been actively involved in several research activities managed by the CeRSI research center. As
author or co-author, he has published research papers and book chapters (the full list is available
at: www.cersi.it/abraccini). Besides knowledge management, his research interests include the
assessment of Business Value of IT, Business Modelling, and the adoption of Open Source
Software in organizations. Alessio Maria Braccini is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: abraccini@luiss.it
Tommaso Federici (1960, Italy) teaches Information Systems Management and Organization
Theory at the Faculty of Economics of the University of Tuscia, in Viterbo, Italy, and
Organization Theory at the Faculty of Sociology of the University “La Sapienza”, in Rome, Italy.
He also taught at other Universities or Schools of management. As author or co-author, he
published papers, articles and books (a list of them is available at: www.tommasofederici.it).
Beside the innovation in the archaeological sector, his recent research domains are:
e-procurement and FLOSS, both seen as boosters to foster organizational change in the public
sector, and the ERP introduction in the SMEs segment.
VINE
40,2
152
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints