Knowledge Worker Roles and Actions—Results of Two Empirical Studies
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- green
- research.ou.nl
- Licence
- 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