Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02495974 = product of:
  0.04991948 = sum of:
    0.04991948 = sum of:
      0.025251195 = weight(_text_:b in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025251195 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045518078 = queryNorm
          0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
      0.024668286 = weight(_text_:22 in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024668286 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045518078 = 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