Cited by 267Personal Information Management and User BehaviorKnowledge Management and SharingInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Knowledge Worker Roles and Actions—Results of Two Empirical Studies

Open access
Reinhardt, Wolfgang, Schmidt, Benedikt, Sloep, Peter, Drachsler, Hendrik·2011·Knowledge and Process Management

Abstract

This paper proposes a typology of knowledge workers and their respective knowledge actions. The extant literature on the definition of knowledge work actions is examined and evaluated. The existing classifications of roles of knowledge workers are evaluated and extended with additional literature and empirical findings on the definition of a typology of knowledge worker roles. The empirical data in this paper comes from two studies. In the Task Execution Study 20, a knowledge worker had to carry out a selection of prepared tasks. The computer system that the participants were using was equipped with sensors, so that the execution steps of the tasks could be traced and analyzed. The data from the second study comes from a questionnaire survey of knowledge workers, which yielded 43 responses. The paper shows that the sampled users take on all identified knowledge worker roles, and that the knowledge work actions can be recognized in the sensor data from the first study. This paper contributes to the literature by proposing a new way of classifying the roles of knowledge workers and the knowledge actions they perform during their daily work. Furthermore, the paper provides a preliminary understanding of the relation between knowledge‐intense work tasks, the roles they are executed in, and the tools that are used to accomplish the respective tasks. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/kpm.378

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 85 · Cited by 267

Authors
Reinhardt, W., Schmidt, B., Sloep, P., & Drachsler, H.
Affiliations
  • Paderborn University (DE)
  • Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
  • Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
Corresponding author
Reinhardt, Wolfgang
Venue
Knowledge and Process Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
150-174
ISSN
  • 1092-4604 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1441
OpenAlex
W1947309134
Cited by
267
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 7
FWCI
39.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Knowledge and Process Management (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01IA08006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
knowledge workers, role typology, task execution, work tools

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review