Search (346 results, page 3 of 18)

0.024208048 = product of:
  0.048416097 = sum of:
    0.048416097 = sum of:
      0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047357627 = score(doc=1461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1461, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1461)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 1461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=1461,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1461, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1461)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2003 10:50:22

Type

a

0.024089992 = product of:
  0.048179984 = sum of:
    0.048179984 = sum of:
      0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010739701 = score(doc=660,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In companies, people often work together in order to understand and change the business. Some of this is explicitly considered development work, with a focus an working for tomorrow. A common element of much development work - whether implicit or explicit - is the use of various types of models. In model work, there are a number of differences that affect the process and outcome of co-operative development work. Drawing an theories of signs, learning, and knowledge, this paper develops a conceptual framework of model work. The framework examines differences and alternatives within three areas: models, activities, and basic assumptions. Recognition and exploration of a larger part of the framework are suggested as important means to utilising the differences to facilitate understanding and change within the company.

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

0.023691658 = product of:
  0.047383316 = sum of:
    0.047383316 = sum of:
      0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00994303 = score(doc=911,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 911, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=911)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=911,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 911, 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=911)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Are organizations interested in realizing the potential of their personnel? How far have they progressed in utilizing performance assessment instruments for developmental purposes? There is a growing need for redirecting organizations toward greater knowledge productivity, and using personnel's competencies in a knowledge productive way. Development centers haue the potential of analyzing and diagnosing relevant competencies of personnel while at the same time providing a match wich further development. It was studied, within a representative set of large Dutch organizations, already familiar with the concept of assessment centers, to what degree management conceptions and actual implementation conditions are present for the introduction of development centers. The advantages of development centers as a knowledgeproductive tool for assessment in organizations are elaborated.

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

0.023258494 = product of:
  0.04651699 = sum of:
    0.04651699 = sum of:
      0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009076704 = score(doc=915,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 915, 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=915)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the competitive equation for the future Economies become knowledge-based. Therefore in Knowledge Intensive Firms (KIFs) the strategie management of knowledge becomes increasingly important. Im this paper three important conditions for efficient and affective knowledge acquisition are identified: Coordination, Communication and long term Contract. Research by the author showed that co-ordination is a relative important condition for Small and Medium sized industrial KIFs. For larger national and multinational industrial KIFs communication and Jong term contracts are relative important conditions. Because of the lack of time for co-ordination and communication a small and medium sized KIF should welcome am extemal knowledge broker as intermediary. Because knowledge is more than R&D a larger industrial KIF should adapt am approach to strategic knowledge management with am intemal knowledge broker, who is responsible for co-ordination, communication and establishing long term contracts. Furthermore, a Strategic Knowledge Network is an option im KIFs and between KIFs and partners for effective and efficient co-ordination, communication and Jong term cont(r)acts.

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

0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=884,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 884, 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=884)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=884,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 884, 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=884)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Peter Drucker (1993) claims that Western profit and non-profit organizations are not becoming more labour-intensive, material-intensive or capital-intensive, but more knowledge-intensive. The government of the Netherlands not only shares this vision but actively propagates it. Knowledge on the Move (1995), the memorandum drafted by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries and Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science, places the national interest inherent in knowledge (for organizations) explicitly on the agenda. Conscious knowledge management is crucial to the future of the Netherlands. If the Netherlands wishes to be regarded as a knowledge-intensive country then the supply of and demand for knowledge must be encouraged.

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

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

0.020383961 = product of:
  0.040767923 = sum of:
    0.040767923 = sum of:
      0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009567685 = score(doc=905,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 905, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=905)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=905,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 905, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=905)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge, being the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration's (DTCA) most important asset, caught the attention of DTCA's top management and has been studied by a working group an knowledge management since 1993. This paper is the result of one of several studies initiated by this working group and is based upon the assumption that the retum an the production factor `knowledge' can be raised through knowledge management. The starting point of this study is that a manager in a decision making situation can be supported by means of a quantitative model, with which the consequences of decisions can be simulated. Therefore, the problem was posed whether it would be possible to quantify and to model (the use of) knowledge, in such a way that the consequences of decisions with respect to knowledge can be simulated. The study aimed at developing a quantitative model for managing knowledge and proved that with certain limits a quantative knowledge model can be made.

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

0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=912,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 912, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=912)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=912,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 912, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=912)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It has been suggested that the labour production factor is being replaced by the knowledge production factor in the West and in Japan. Knowledge is a person's capacity to carry out a particular task well. Knowledge capacity is thought to be composed of information, experiences, skills and attitude. The product of that capacity can be a combination of deterministic, stochastic or heuristic assertions, causal associations, intuition, predictions and decisions which are relevant to the task at hand. Leaming is considered to be the production process by which knowledge is generated. Corresponding managementproblems arise because the competitive resource knowledge is not owned by the corporation for it is captured in the heads of autonomous professionals and therefore hardly controllable in the way traditional production factors such as raw materials, capital and labour are controlled. Knowledge management - i.e. increasing the yield of learning processes in the knowledge value chain - is thus important in organizations in which the collection of knowledge workers has a dominant position. Such organizations are referred to as knowledge-intensive organizations. Some tools intended to improve the mastering of the intangible asset knowledge in those organizations, are presented.

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

0.01938208 = product of:
  0.03876416 = sum of:
    0.03876416 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=907,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 907, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=907)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=907,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 907, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=907)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge-containing documents and data about knowledge have been handled in stable environments by bureaucratic systems using very stable knowledge ontologies. These systems, though not always very effective in such environments, will become highly ineffective in environments where knowledge has to be updated and replaced frequently. Moreover, organizations in such dynamic environments also use knowledge from extemal resources extensively. This makes the development of a stable ontology for knowledge storage and retrieval particularly complicated. This paper describes eight context classes of knowledge ontology development and explores elements of a method for ontology development. These classes are based an the differences in contexts defined along three dimensions: knowledge dynamics, complexity and social dispersion. Ontology development matches these contexts and ontology needs defined by (logical and social) structure and ontology maturity. The classification framework and methodology are applied to two cases. The first case illustrates a descriptive use of our framework to characterize ontology development in an academic environment. The second case illustrates a normative use of our framework. The method proposed seemed to be empirically valid and rich and be useful for detecting options for ontology improvement.

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

0.01938208 = product of:
  0.03876416 = sum of:
    0.03876416 = sum of:
      0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075639198 = score(doc=914,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 914, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=914)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=914,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 914, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=914)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We are in the midst of a new business revolution driven by information technology. The centerpiece of this business revolution is a new kind of product which delivers instant customer gratification in a cost-effective way. The ability to make such products will determine the successful corporations of the next century. The new business revolution demands drastic changes in organizational knowledge creation, among corporations as well as in a corporation. The key attributes of Japan's success in creation of organizational knowledge are: (1) participative management, (2) "Kaizen," and (3) "Keiretsu." In today's world of fast-moving markets and fierce competition, however, the Japan model betrays its weakness: too much time required for organizational decision making, difficulty to make revolutionary change, and obscurity of responsibility. To solve the problems, Japanese companies are decentralizing the organizations and forming virtual corporations. The changes from consensus management to responsibility management and from "keiretsu" groups to virtual corporations pose three fundamental challenges to Japanese corporations in organizational knowledge creation: (1) co-existence of firm central direction and maximum individual autonomy; (2) construction of sophisticated information networks; and (3) intercultural communication. Corporations, MITI, and universities in Japan are making concerted efforts to deal wich the winds of change that are sweeping through industry and the economy.

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

0.018720143 = product of:
  0.037440285 = sum of:
    0.037440285 = product of:
      0.07488057 = sum of:
        0.07488057 = weight(_text_:22 in 3873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07488057 = score(doc=3873,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3873, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3873)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 7.1999 12:22:42

0.017358676 = product of:
  0.03471735 = sum of:
    0.03471735 = sum of:
      0.009757163 = weight(_text_:a in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009757163 = score(doc=908,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As interest in the study of complex systems has grown, a new vocabulary is emerging to describe discoveries about wide-ranging and fundamental phenomena. Complexity theory research has allowed for new insights into many phenomena and for the development of a new language. 'his paper argues that a shared language based an the vocabulary of complexity can have an important role in a management context. The use of complexity theory metaphors can change the way managers think about the problems they face. Instead of competing in a game or a war, they are trying to find their way an an ever changing, ever turbulent landscape. Such a conception of their organizations' basic task can, in cum, change the day-to-day decisions made by management. If part of the problem of knowledge management is the need to identify value added knowledge, language and metaphor play a key role - for they are the very tools of the identification [what is knowledge] and ascription [what makes it value-added] process. Complexity theory metaphors, it is argued, are not panaceas. There are limits to the types of organizations where the notion of a "fitness landscape" and "degree of coupling" can make a positive contribution to managements understanding of the world. The author argues that one potential distinction - between worlds where complexity metaphors can contribute and those where they cannot - can be drawn by measuring the degree to which an organization perceives that value-added investments are to be made in a) the development of new knowledge or b) infrastructure. In this context, infrastructure is defined as those items to which an economist might (once such investment is made) ascribe the label "sunk costs", but which management would not willingly walk away from. For this purpose then, emotional investments, legacy systems, existing bureaucracy, and material goods could all constitute "infrastructure". Infrastructure investments it is argued are pari of what Brian Arthur of the Sante Fe Institute defines as the world of diminishing retums. Investments in knowledge are different. While the ability of an organization to effectively deal wich new knowledge is limited by a variety of constraints, the leverage which can be obtained from such knowledge gives rise to the potential for increasing retums. As organizations leam to remove some of the constraints an their ability to absorb and lever new information, they force themselves down to the increasing retums part of the "S" curve. Several case studies are presented to illustrate the potency of complexity metaphors in driving managerial perceptions of knowledge management businesses.

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

0.01560012 = product of:
  0.03120024 = sum of:
    0.03120024 = product of:
      0.06240048 = sum of:
        0.06240048 = weight(_text_:22 in 3038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06240048 = score(doc=3038,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3038, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3038)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1999 17:13:55

0.01560012 = product of:
  0.03120024 = sum of:
    0.03120024 = product of:
      0.06240048 = sum of:
        0.06240048 = weight(_text_:22 in 4274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06240048 = score(doc=4274,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4274, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4274)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 7.2002 19:48:22

0.0146640325 = product of:
  0.029328065 = sum of:
    0.029328065 = sum of:
      0.0074878987 = weight(_text_:a in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0074878987 = score(doc=906,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14100032 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
      0.021840166 = weight(_text_:22 in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021840166 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In contemporary practice it is widely asserted, that smart management of knowledge (KM) could be a new panacea for the ever-increasing market and environmental demands put an companies in order to become more flexible, leaming and innovative at the same time. Effective KM is becoming a strategic issue in innovative organizations. Traditionally, managers view knowledge as intangible: Being spread all over the company, it is predominantly hidden in all sorts of databases and in the tacit customs of their employees, and often of course it is securely and unattainable locked in their heads. Often managers have asked themselves difficult questions like: "How to manage something you can't see?" and "How do I know whether it is worth the effort?". Although KM as an issue can hardly be evaded nowadays, design-oriented research an how to come to grips with managing the company's intellectual capacities is still very limited. Action research, showing how KM is dealt with in actual practice, is lacking. Our contribution to the conference is straightforward. We wart to discuss the preliminary results of an action-research project that is currently carried out in a large Dutch bank. Our paper supports the ISMICK conference theme an the organization dimension of KM. Based an the literature an innovation, organizational learning and socio-technical systems design, a number of in-depth interviews were held to determine the possible contribution of KM to increase the controllability and flexibility of the automation department. A qualitative analysis of the data Show that over half of the problems (i.e. poor knowledge about the distinctive systems in the organization, insufficient skills levels, unproductive redundancy of activities, 'islands' of knowledge, and recurring mistakes) could be attributed to the company's inability to successfully manage its intellectual capital. Further analysis of the data showed, that the organizational structure and the maturity of the organization - in terms of Bolwijn & Kumpe (1991) - proved to be the dominant factor in determining the KM approach that would fit the organization. In order to lift the rigidities that resulted from the stock of systems to be maintained and from its bureaucratic structure, several suggestions were made in an attempt to solve the problems mentioned. Those suggestions have been discussed with stakeholders in the organization to increase their fitness for implementation. To improve KM in this organization asks for a multifocus renewal effort. Several approaches are distinguished (i.e. competence centers; dedicated career paths; cluster organization; knowledge infrastructure), each focused an a particular knowledge management problem. These proposals form a design oriented research agenda for the study at hand, while at the same time take the explicit aim to foster implementation in close collaboration with the main stakeholders.

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

0.012480095 = product of:
  0.02496019 = sum of:
    0.02496019 = product of:
      0.04992038 = sum of:
        0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 4261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04992038 = score(doc=4261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4261, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 7.2002 19:22:06

0.009360071 = product of:
  0.018720143 = sum of:
    0.018720143 = product of:
      0.037440285 = sum of:
        0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037440285 = score(doc=3939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3939, 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=3939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25. 7.1999 20:22:18

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 3781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=3781,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 3781, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0035878818 = product of:
  0.0071757636 = sum of:
    0.0071757636 = product of:
      0.014351527 = sum of:
        0.014351527 = weight(_text_:a in 6668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014351527 = score(doc=6668,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.27024537 = fieldWeight in 6668, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is a time-consuming and difficult task for an individual, a group, or an organization to systematically express and organize their expertise so it can be captured and reused. Yet the expertise of individuals within an organization is perhaps its most valuable resource. Q&A attempts to address this tension by providing an environment in which textual representations of expertise are captured as a byproduct of using the system as a semiautomatic question answering intermediary. Q&A mediates interactions between an expert and a question-asking user. It uses its experience referring questions to expert users to answer new questions by retrieving previously answered ones. If a user's question is not found within the collection of previously answered questions, Q&A suggests the set of experts who are most likely to be able to answer the question. The system then gives the user the option of passing a question along to one or more of these experts. When an expert answers a user's question, the resulting question answer pair is captured and indexed under a topic of the expert's choice for later use, and the answer is sent to the user. Unlike previous work on question-answering systems of this sort, Q&A does not assume a fixed hierarchy of topics. Rather, experts build the hierarchy themselves, as their corpus of questions grows. One of the main contributions of this work is a set of techniques for managing the emerging organization of textual representations of expertise over time by mediating the negotiation of shared representations among multiple experts

Type

a

0.0033826875 = product of:
  0.006765375 = sum of:
    0.006765375 = product of:
      0.01353075 = sum of:
        0.01353075 = weight(_text_:a in 2279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01353075 = score(doc=2279,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 2279, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information management for information services - economic challenge for the 90's: Proceedings of a Workshop for Participants from Countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Developing Countries, Berlin, 13.-19. Oct. 1991. Ed.: B.G. Goedegebuure u. K.A. Stroetmann

Type

a