Knowledge management in concideration to Web 2.0 Barbora Poláková Åbo Akademi - April 2009

Society postindustrial information society 1977 ; Marc Uri Porat postindustrial knowledge society 21st century

postindustrial information society

1977 ; Marc Uri Porat

postindustrial knowledge society

21st century

Information/Knowledge Information contextual independent; indexable, organizable Knowledge contextual engaged information in use pragmatical reflection of information presented by intellectual capital of individuals (Bukh, 2001)

Information

contextual independent;

indexable, organizable

Knowledge

contextual engaged

information in use

pragmatical reflection of information presented by intellectual capital of individuals (Bukh, 2001)

Economical potential complex understanding of situation

complex understanding of situation

Knowledge management How to manage knowledge in the way of distribution, usage and other connected processes?

Conventional approach „ Knowledge“ : independent of individuals who posses it Principle : codification, normalization Where find knowledge : inter-organizational intra-organizational

„ Knowledge“ :

independent of individuals who posses it

Principle :

codification, normalization

Where find knowledge :

inter-organizational

intra-organizational

Long tail effect How to manage : collecting of knowledge in the centralized repository - intranet long tail effect (Tredennick, 2006) needed X trendy „knowledge“ (Case, 2006)

How to manage :

collecting of knowledge in the centralized repository - intranet

long tail effect (Tredennick, 2006)

needed X trendy „knowledge“ (Case, 2006)

Conversational approach Knowledge : contextual , user dependently Principle : standardi z ed by codifications of knowledge management system with direct connection to author

Knowledge :

contextual , user dependently

Principle :

standardi z ed by codifications of knowledge management system with direct connection to author

Interactivity Key point = INTERACTIVITY integration and collaboration of knowledge creation amongst knowledge possessors

Key point = INTERACTIVITY

integration and collaboration of knowledge creation amongst knowledge possessors

Web 2.0/Interactive web “ the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences . ” (O´Reilly, 2005 In Lee, 2007)

“ the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences . ”

(O´Reilly, 2005 In Lee, 2007)

Web 2.0/Interactive web shift in understanding and usage of information – knowledge user-centred approach users role – active ; direct participation updating, publishing, evaluating, creating of own or shared space in web environment or communication with other users.

shift in understanding and usage of information – knowledge

user-centred approach

users role – active ; direct participation

updating, publishing, evaluating, creating of own or shared space in web environment or communication with other users.

Characteristics of Web 2.0 (Lee, 2007)

Contribution / publishing / organization „ Every Internet user has the opportunity to freely provide their knowledge content to the relevant subject domains. “ effects: speed volume anonymity

„ Every Internet user has the opportunity to freely provide their knowledge content to the relevant subject domains. “

effects:

speed

volume

anonymity

Sharing / Open source „ Knowledge contents are freely available to others. Secured mechanisms may be enforced to enable the knowledge sharing amongst legitimate members within specific communities. “

„ Knowledge contents are freely available to others. Secured mechanisms may be enforced to enable the knowledge sharing amongst legitimate members within specific communities. “

Collaboration 1. „ Knowledge contents are created and maintained collaboratively by knowledge providers. Internet users participating in the knowledge contents can have conversations as a kind of social interaction. “ Synchronous technologies instant chat, video, conferences and shared Group Decision Support System (GDSS) Asynchronous technologies Weblog, wiki, e-mail, moderated discussion forums

„ Knowledge contents are created and maintained collaboratively by knowledge providers. Internet users participating in the knowledge contents can have conversations as a kind of social interaction. “

Synchronous technologies

instant chat, video, conferences and shared Group Decision Support System (GDSS)

Asynchronous technologies

Weblog, wiki, e-mail, moderated discussion forums

Collaboration 2. long term goal: same-place and same-time technology two-way interaction – provider/recipient realtime one web space many-to-many model of communication social networking, collective knowledge intelligence (Baker, 2000)

long term goal:

same-place and same-time technology

two-way interaction – provider/recipient

realtime

one web space

many-to-many model of communication

social networking, collective knowledge intelligence (Baker, 2000)

Dynamic / Actuality „ knowledge contents updated constantly to reflect the changing environment, situation “ actual =faster and relevant elimination of long tail effect

„ knowledge contents updated constantly to reflect the changing environment, situation “

actual =faster and relevant

elimination of long tail effect

Reliance „ Knowledge contribution should be based on trust between knowledge providers and domain experts. “ trust degree – profiles...

„ Knowledge contribution should be based on trust between knowledge providers and domain experts. “

trust degree – profiles...

Web 2.0 applications Blog – www.blogspot.com Wiki – www.pbwiki.com RSS – mash-up – www.igoogle.com Virtual communities – www.ning.com Indexing – www.blinklist.com

Blog – www.blogspot.com

Wiki – www.pbwiki.com

RSS – mash-up – www.igoogle.com

Virtual communities – www.ning.com

Indexing – www.blinklist.com

Web 2.0 - knowledge management

Group Decision Support System (GDSS) mostly content wikis and blogs as publishing systems, discussions and instant messangers as communication system, supporte folksonomy and quality evaluation of content as indexing system.

mostly content wikis and blogs as publishing systems, discussions and instant messangers as communication system, supporte folksonomy and quality evaluation of content as indexing system.

Concrete examples TeamPage Velocity 6.0 Meet Stan

TeamPage

Velocity 6.0

Meet Stan

Complex knowledge management system Scale to larg group I ntegrate applications accros enterprise B lend of traditional and Web 2.0 approaches user experience design Schema–flexibility data analyzing, retrieving, managing regardless of source or structure

Scale to larg group

I ntegrate applications accros enterprise

B lend of traditional and Web 2.0 approaches

user experience design

Schema–flexibility

data analyzing, retrieving, managing regardless of source or structure

Wisdom 1. The most important feature of Web 2.0 is not to make money from it, but that we can cooperate to create a new world of dynamic knowledge and collective intelligence. (Umeda, 2006)

The most important feature of Web 2.0 is not to make money from it, but that we can cooperate to create a new world of dynamic knowledge and collective intelligence.

(Umeda, 2006)

Wisdom 2. Knowledge management is no longer about connecting people to content; it is about connecting people to people. “ ( Lamont, 2009 )

Knowledge management is no longer about connecting people to content; it is about connecting people to people. “

( Lamont, 2009 )

Any Questions?

Any Questions?

References 1. BAKER, W. (2000) What is social capital and why should you care about it? In Achieving success through social capital . University of Michigan Business School. BUKH, P.N., Larsen, H.T., Mouritsen, J. (2001)Constructing intellectual capital statements. Scandinavian Journal of Management vol. 17, pp. 87 – 108. CASE, D. O. (2006). Information behaviour. In: Cronin Blaise. (ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), vol. 40 (2006). pp. 293-327 LAMONT, J. (2008). KM past and future: Web 2.0 kicks it up a notch. KMWorld . no1.

BAKER, W. (2000) What is social capital and why should you care about it? In Achieving success through social capital . University of Michigan Business School.

BUKH, P.N., Larsen, H.T., Mouritsen, J. (2001)Constructing intellectual capital statements. Scandinavian Journal of Management vol. 17, pp. 87 – 108.

CASE, D. O. (2006). Information behaviour. In: Cronin Blaise. (ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), vol. 40 (2006). pp. 293-327

LAMONT, J. (2008). KM past and future: Web 2.0 kicks it up a notch. KMWorld . no1.

References 2. LEE, M. R. & Lan, Y. (2007) From web 2.0 to conversational Knowledge Management: towards collaborative intelligence. [online] Journal of Entrepreneurship Research , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 47-62. Available on: http://www.cme.org.tw/journal/search/JournalFile/v02n02/V02N2-3.pdf TREDINNICK, L. (2006) Web 2.0 and business: a pointer to the intranets of the future?. [online] Business Information Review , 23(4), pp. 228-234. Availanble on: http://bir.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/23/4/228.pdf

LEE, M. R. & Lan, Y. (2007) From web 2.0 to conversational Knowledge Management: towards collaborative intelligence. [online] Journal of Entrepreneurship Research , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 47-62. Available on: http://www.cme.org.tw/journal/search/JournalFile/v02n02/V02N2-3.pdf

TREDINNICK, L. (2006) Web 2.0 and business: a pointer to the intranets of the future?. [online] Business Information Review , 23(4), pp. 228-234. Availanble on: http://bir.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/23/4/228.pdf