Search (166 results, page 1 of 9)

0.017609475 = product of:
  0.061633162 = sum of:
    0.029979186 = weight(_text_:with in 60) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029979186 = score(doc=60,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3194935 = fieldWeight in 60, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=60)
    0.031653978 = product of:
      0.063307956 = sum of:
        0.063307956 = weight(_text_:22 in 60) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063307956 = score(doc=60,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 60, 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=60)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

2. 2.2003 18:31:22

0.014674564 = product of:
  0.051360972 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
    0.026378317 = product of:
      0.052756634 = sum of:
        0.052756634 = weight(_text_:22 in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052756634 = score(doc=899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 899, 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=899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers

0.013929911 = product of:
  0.048754685 = sum of:
    0.03028986 = weight(_text_:with in 2816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03028986 = score(doc=2816,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.32280442 = fieldWeight in 2816, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2816)
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 2816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=2816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2816, 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=2816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

IRM is a major management reform that deals with information as an organizational resource that is planned, managed and controlled in ways similar to other resources, such as human resources. Describes the characteristics of IRM and its relationship with Knowledge Management (KM). Describes also the characteristics of IRM and KM and their influence on its executives: the Chief Knowledge Officers; and compares them with the old ones: IRM and Chief Information Officers

Date

30. 1.1999 18:28:22

0.013929911 = product of:
  0.048754685 = sum of:
    0.03028986 = weight(_text_:with in 3557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03028986 = score(doc=3557,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.32280442 = fieldWeight in 3557, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3557)
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=3557,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3557, 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=3557)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The MEMOIR project supports researchers working with a vast quantity of distributed information, by assisting them in finding both relevant documents and researchers with related interests. It is an open architecture based on the existing Web infrastructure. Key to the architecture is the use of proxies: to support message routing for dynamic reconfiguration and extension of the system, to collect information about the trail of documents that a user visits, and to insert links on the fly. Presents the MEMOIR framework and its rationale, and discusses early experiences with the system

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.011739651 = product of:
  0.041088775 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
    0.021102654 = product of:
      0.042205308 = sum of:
        0.042205308 = weight(_text_:22 in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042205308 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3697, 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=3697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Report of inerviews with 7 members of the Editorial Board of 'Electronic Library' to determine their views on how information professionals should position themselves and what new and different things ought they to do in the face of the rise of the Knowledge Economy and in the face of incursions into the information field by other professional groups, such as accountants and information technology managers

Date

22. 5.1999 19:59:16

0.010689031 = product of:
  0.074823216 = sum of:
    0.074823216 = weight(_text_:interactions in 6668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074823216 = score(doc=6668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22965278 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3258102 = fieldWeight in 6668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.8977947 = idf(docFreq=329, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6668)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.010272195 = product of:
  0.03595268 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 14) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=14,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 14, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=14)
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 14) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=14,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 14, 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=14)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Library world is actually facing 2 major changes. The one described by the concept of the Digital or Virtual Library let us already anticipate fundamental changes in the products and services libraries will deliver in the future. At present libraries also must react to important economic changes with phenomena like privatisation, deregulation and globalisation of economic processes which - at least in Germany - have now a growing impact on the library and information business. This situation is a real challenge for library management. But unfortunately new management concepts are hardly found in library literature and practice in Germany. Therefore the article wants to give to the library world some ideas on new management and business concepts like the 'learning organisation' or the 'innovative collaborator'

Date

20.12.1997 10:28:22

0.010272195 = product of:
  0.03595268 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=913)
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 913, 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=913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Interorganizational knowledge creation has become a crucial factor for successful management of corporations in the environment surrounding them today. Collaboration with other organizations is indispensable for a corporation to resolve complex and Jong range issues such as customer satisfaction and sustainable development. One of the most fundamental obstacles in creating knowledge among organizations is partial or incomplete communication due to incommensurable point of view. Policy exercises can improve commensurability and facilitate inter-organizational knowledge creation by providing a shared model of the system under investigation. This paper will discuss it taking Intelligent Transportation System (TTS) Deployment Exercises as an example.

Source

Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers

0.009949936 = product of:
  0.034824774 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=905,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 905, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=905)
    0.013189158 = product of:
      0.026378317 = sum of:
        0.026378317 = weight(_text_:22 in 905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026378317 = score(doc=905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 911, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=911)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=911,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=915)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.008396085 = product of:
  0.058772597 = sum of:
    0.058772597 = product of:
      0.117545195 = sum of:
        0.117545195 = weight(_text_:humans in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.117545195 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26276368 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.44734186 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7481275 = idf(docFreq=140, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We need to use dynamic knowledge organization approaches in order to facilitate effective access and use of domain knowledge. Although there are many approaches to knowledge organization available, it is a challenge to systematically organize evolving domains, because it is not feasible to rely only on humans to create relationships among individual knowledge sources. Additional problems arise because knowledge may not be consistently and completely described, and quality control may not always be in place in distributed knowledge environments. In this article we describe a generic approach to knowledge organization by using systematic knowledge management and applying knowledge-discovery techniques. We use a case-based reasoning system, called TA3, as a core component for knowledge management. Application of symbolic knowledge-discovery component of TA3 supports three main tasks: system optimization, knowledge evolution and evidence creation. To explain advantages of this approach, we use our experience from biomedical domains

0.007959949 = product of:
  0.027859818 = sum of:
    0.017308492 = weight(_text_:with in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017308492 = score(doc=2346,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.18445967 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
    0.010551327 = product of:
      0.021102654 = sum of:
        0.021102654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021102654 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

0.0076343627 = product of:
  0.026720269 = sum of:
    0.017487857 = weight(_text_:with in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017487857 = score(doc=906,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1863712 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
    0.009232411 = product of:
      0.018464822 = sum of:
        0.018464822 = weight(_text_:22 in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018464822 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.0063950703 = product of:
  0.04476549 = sum of:
    0.04476549 = product of:
      0.08953098 = sum of:
        0.08953098 = weight(_text_:22 in 4179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08953098 = score(doc=4179,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 4179, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

29.11.1999 12:18:22

Source

International Herald Tribune. 15. Nov. 1999, S.22

0.0060293297 = product of:
  0.042205308 = sum of:
    0.042205308 = product of:
      0.084410615 = sum of:
        0.084410615 = weight(_text_:22 in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084410615 = score(doc=2027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Insider. 1995, Nr.4, Juli, S.19-22

0.0060293297 = product of:
  0.042205308 = sum of:
    0.042205308 = product of:
      0.084410615 = sum of:
        0.084410615 = weight(_text_:22 in 6563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084410615 = score(doc=6563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6563, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:42:34

0.0058698254 = product of:
  0.020544387 = sum of:
    0.009993061 = weight(_text_:with in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009993061 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.10649783 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
    0.010551327 = product of:
      0.021102654 = sum of:
        0.021102654 = weight(_text_:22 in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021102654 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Knowledge management: organization competence and methodolgy. Proceedings of the Fourth International ISMICK Symposium, 21-22 October 1996, Netherlands. Ed.: J.F. Schreinemakers

0.005586292 = product of:
  0.039104044 = sum of:
    0.039104044 = weight(_text_:with in 5109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039104044 = score(doc=5109,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.41673872 = fieldWeight in 5109, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5109)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The explosion of the Internet and information technology in general has created challenges and opportunities for information professionals that are redefining their role. Information professionals now interact with different groups within an organization, such as the Management Information System (MIS) staff and must have the ability to work effectively with MIS as a team to make the content of the system readily available. To do this they must keep up with the latest technologies related to text retrieval, content organization, search technologies, and knowledge management. Explores the opportunities for information professionals to expand their role with these new technologies and with MIS. Discusses metadata, search engines, and information retrieval agents and provides a glossary of buzzwords and a list of Web sites for additional information