Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026301075 = product of:
  0.065752685 = sum of:
    0.041615978 = weight(_text_:study in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041615978 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.2873863 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
    0.02413671 = product of:
      0.04827342 = sum of:
        0.04827342 = weight(_text_:22 in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04827342 = score(doc=4546,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4546, 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=4546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Describes a study of the nature of information processing projects and some of the project management programming packages used. Also describes an in house interface program developed to utilize a selected project management package, TIMELINE, by using ORACLE Data Base Management System tools and the Pascal programming language for the management of information system projects. Studies a sample application by using the developed system

Date

22. 7.1996 19:40:59

0.020747647 = product of:
  0.051869117 = sum of:
    0.036783673 = weight(_text_:study in 905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036783673 = score(doc=905,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.25401598 = fieldWeight in 905, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=905)
    0.015085445 = product of:
      0.03017089 = sum of:
        0.03017089 = weight(_text_:22 in 905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03017089 = score(doc=905,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.016598118 = product of:
  0.041495293 = sum of:
    0.02942694 = weight(_text_:study in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942694 = score(doc=2346,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.2032128 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
    0.012068355 = product of:
      0.02413671 = sum of:
        0.02413671 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02413671 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.013150537 = product of:
  0.032876343 = sum of:
    0.020807989 = weight(_text_:study in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020807989 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.14369315 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
    0.012068355 = product of:
      0.02413671 = sum of:
        0.02413671 = weight(_text_:22 in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02413671 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.01150672 = product of:
  0.0287668 = sum of:
    0.01820699 = weight(_text_:study in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01820699 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.1257315 = fieldWeight in 906, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=906)
    0.010559811 = product of:
      0.021119623 = sum of:
        0.021119623 = weight(_text_:22 in 906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021119623 = score(doc=906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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