Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Essers, J."
  1. Essers, J.; Schreinemakers, J.: ¬The conceptions of knowledge and information in knowledge management (1996) 0.02 
    0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=909,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 909, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=909)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=909,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 909, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=909)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The emergence of Knowledge Management (KM) over the last decade has triggered the question how or even whether this new management discipline can be distinguished from the established field of Information Management (IM). In this paper we critically examine this demarcation issue from two angles. First we will investigate to what extent the difference between IM and KM can be anchored an a conceptual distinction between their respective objects: information and knowledge. After having shown that this widely adopted strategy promises little success, we will shift our attention to an examination of the fundamental objectives or guiding principles behind both disciplines. Seen from this angle we argue that KM in order to foster organizational learning, innovation and strategy flexibility, should adopt a postmodern epistemological perspective that is geared to the management of incommensurability and difference within and between organizations.
    Source
    Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers
    Type
    a
  2. Essers, J.; Schreinemakers, J.: Nonaka's subjectivist conception of knowledge in corporate knowledge management (1997) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 7468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=7468,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 7468, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In recent years management and business studies have witnessed the emergence of a new field of activity, named corporate knowledge management (CKM). The primary goal of this management discipline is to enhance and improve the use of knowledge as a corporate resource in organizations. Theoretical and practical initiatives in this area of management, however, have met with some difficulty regarding the conception of knowledge that should guide these efforts. This paper critically examines the contribution of Nonaka (1994) to this conceptual problem. While we support Nonaka's reasons for chossing a subjectivist epistemology in this managerial context, we argue that he is seriously misguided with regard to the philosophical and managerial ramifications of his choice. Consequently, we doubt whether Nonaka's views can serve as a successful paradigm for corporate knowledge management
    Type
    a
  3. Essers, J.; Schreinemakers, J.: Critical notes on the use of knowledge in knowledge management (1996) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 5178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=5178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5178, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a

Themes