• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Knowledge Generation, Use and ManagementinSustainable Infrastructure Engineering
 

Knowledge Generation, Use and Management in Sustainable Infrastructure Engineering

on

  • 202 views

Engineers (and many others) have difficulties understanding intangible stuff like “knowledge”. ...

Engineers (and many others) have difficulties understanding intangible stuff like “knowledge”.
Engineers are good at establishing and applying formal rules and standards to discover and build solutions for well analyzed problems, but they are not so good at solving problems involving people or other chaotic components. Engineers work in and with organizations comprised of people who are inherently error prone and sometimes chaotic. By recognizing these problems of knowledge and organization, engineers can build systems to minimize uncertainty and manage knowledge.

This presentation covers some key frameworks of understanding for sustainability practice:
* The "tragedy of the commons"
- Garrett Hardin
- Elinor Ostrom (Nobel Laureate)
Models of governance
* Herbert Simon (Nobel Laureate)
- Theoretical basis for decision support
- Theory of hierarchically complex systems
* Intersecting theories of organization and knowledge
Engineering for sustainability unavoidably involves understanding the social use of resources
* People, communities and their imperatives
* Social systems & infrastructure
Knowledge & decision support

Statistics

Views

Total Views
202
Views on SlideShare
202
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Knowledge Generation, Use and ManagementinSustainable Infrastructure Engineering Knowledge Generation, Use and Management in Sustainable Infrastructure Engineering Presentation Transcript

    • Knowledge Generation, Use and Management in Sustainability Infrastructure Engineering William P. Hall President Kororoit Institute Proponents and Supporters Assoc., Inc. - http://kororoit.org Principal EA Principals – http://eaprincipals.com william-hall@bigpond.com http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net Access my research papers from Google Citations A unique area in the state space of the Mandlebrot set definition An attractor Presentation for CVEN90043 Sustainable Infrastructure Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering, 15 May 2013 Attribution CC BY
    • Some more readings in answer to questions  Government relations: – Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Best, R. 2010. Free technology for the support of community action groups: theory, technology and practice. Knowledge Cities World Summit, 16-19, November 2010, Melbourne, AustraliaNousala, S., Hall, W.P., Hadgraft, R. 2011. – Socio-technical systems for connecting social knowledge and the governance of urban action. 15th WMSCI, CENT Symposium, July 19-22, 2011, Orlando, Florida, USA. – Hall, W.P., Kilpatrick, B. 2011. Managing community knowledge to build a better world. Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 30th November - 2nd December, 2011, Sydney, Australia.  Context of decision making – Hall, W.P., Else, S., Martin, C., Philp, W. 2011. Time-based frameworks for valuing knowledge: maintaining strategic knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working Papers No. 1: 1-28.  Engineering knowledge management (maintenance organization) – Hall, W.P., Richards, G., Sarelius, C., Kilpatrick, B. 2008. Organisational management of project and technical knowledge over fleet lifecycles. Australian Journal of Mechanical Engineering. 5(2):81-95. – Hall, W.P. 2007. Managing lifecycles of complex projects. Government Transformation Journal, July 2007. – Nousala, S., Miles, A., Kilpatrick, B., Hall, W.P. 2005. Building knowledge sharing communities using team expertise access maps (TEAM). Proceedings, KMAP05 Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific Wellington, N.Z. 28-29 November 2005. – Hall, W.P. and Brouwers, P. 2004. The CMIS solution for Tenix's M113 program. MatrixOne Innovation Summit. Shangri-La's Rasa Sentosa Resort, Singapore, 12 - 14 August, 2004. – Hall, W.P. 2008. Presentations for 421-672 Management of Technological Enterprises - Managing Knowledge in Technological Enterprises, Masters in Engineering Management, University of Melbourne: Lecture 1 , Tutorial 1 , Lecture 22
    • Background  Early life: Naturalist/evolutionary biologist by training (PhD Harvard, 1973)  1990-2007: Documentation and knowledge management systems analyst and designer for Tenix Defence while it grew to be Australia’s largest defence engineering prime contractor and then failed. How did it succeed and why did it then fail?  2001-present: Independent researcher trying to understand what knowledge is and why organizations (especially engineering organizations) have such major problems managing and applying it.  You might call me an “organizational biologist” and/or a “enterprise engineer” 3
    •  Formed 1987 to bid for $7 BN defense project to build 10 ANZAC Frigates for Australian (8) & New Zealand (2) Navies  Oct. 1989 began stringently fixed price contract, with many difficult warranty/ liquidated damages milestones  Project completed 2007 with every ship delivered on-time, on-budget, company profit and happy customers  Staff learned many things about shipbuilding & management of complex projects  Mid 2004 began a $500 M project to build 7 ships to commercial standards for New Zealand, to be completed in 2007  By 2007 only one ship had been delivered – and that with substantial defects. Tenix costs were so far over contract value that Tenix auctioned its Defence assets to highest bidder (BAE Systems Australia)  Tenix management thought the company knew how to build ships, but line management policies prevented transfer of staff personal knowledge from ANZAC project to NZ project.  Last ship delivered by BAE Systems in 2010 together with NZ$86.4 settlement for delays and remaining defects. – Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Kilpatrick B. 2009. One company – two outcomes: knowledge integration vs corporate disintegration in the absence of knowledge management. VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems 39(3), 242-258 Success & failure of Tenix Defence 4
    • Some lessons I learned from Tenix Defence about engineer’s management of knowledge  Engineers (and many others) have difficulties understanding intangible stuff like “knowledge”  Engineers are good at establishing and applying formal rules and standards to discover and build solutions for well analysed problems  They are not so good at solving problems involving people or other chaotic components  Engineers work in and with organizations comprised of people who are inherently error prone and sometimes chaotic  By recognizing these problems of knowledge and organization, engineers can build systems to minimize uncertainty and manage knowledge 5
    • Topics for today  Key frameworks of understanding for sustainability practice – Tragedy of the commons  Elinor Ostrom (Nobel Laureate) – Models of governance  Herbert Simon (Nobel Laureate) – Theoretical basis for decision support – Theory of hierarchically complex systems – Intersecting theories of organization and knowledge  Engineering for sustainability unavoidably involves understanding the social use of resources – People, communities and their imperatives – Social systems & infrastructure – Knowledge & decision support  In time available today, I can only introduce topics6
    • Sustainability and the “tragedy of the commons” Based on Else, S., Hall, W.P. 2012. Enterprise knowledge architecture for community action. Kororoit Institute International Symposium and Workshop - Living Spaces for Change: Socio-technical knowledge of cities and regions. 29 February – 2 March 2012, North Melbourne, Australia
    • The tragedy of the commons  “The tragedy of the commons” Garrett Hardin 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science Vol. 162, No 3859, pp. 1243- 1248 – Sets out the consequences of an uncompromising economic logic governing the harvesting of valuable but limited resources from a commons  Unfettered individuals make a net profit of +1 for every unit of resource they extract/harvest and use  The future loss due to the removal of that unit is shared with all other individuals extracting the resource for a net loss of -1/n  It is always to the net economic advantage of every individual to continue extracting the resource until it is totally consumed  Situation grows worse if the resource’s unit value rises with scarcity  Any individual refraining from extraction only benefits those who thus have more resource to extract  Only through some form of higher level control or governance (e.g., social or despotic) over the scarce resource can its extraction be limited to some socially beneficial level 8
    • SUCCESSFULLY GOVERNING THE ENVIRONMENT WE LIVE IN IS DIFFICULT! Governance is the exercise of authority over the actions, affairs, etc, of a political unit, people, etc, as well as the performance of certain functions for this unit or body; the action of governing; political rule and administration. In other words, governance is the application of socio/political constraints over individual action by some higher level entity above the individual self. Governance can have good or bad consequences 9
    • Government centralized management Community self- governance and self-management Co-management Informing Consulting Cooperating Communicating Exchanging information Advising Acting (jointly, separately) Partnering Controlling Coordinating Government-based management Community-based management Community involvement Government centralized management Community self- governance and self-management Co-management Informing Consulting Cooperating Communicating Exchanging information Advising Acting (jointly, separately) Partnering Controlling Coordinating Government-based management Community-based management Community involvement Government powers and resources vs local knowledge  Trade offs – local knowledge vs scientific knowledge – timely decision vs adequate knowledge – power to act vs will to act
    •  Elinor Ostrom (2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Science) for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons – Understanding the different kinds of markets – Types of goods – Management economics – Showed resources can be managed successfully by involving people who use them in the governance process Governing the commons Impact of exploitation on depletion of resource Difficulty to exclude potential exploiters Toll Goods ► theatre ► private clubs ► daycare centres Private Goods ► food ► clothing ► automobile LOW Public Goods ► peaceful & secure community ► national defense ► knowledge ► fire protection ► weather forecasts Common Pool Resources ► groundwater basins ► lakes ► fisheries ► forests ► air quality HIGH LOWHIGH Impact of exploitation on depletion of resource Difficulty to exclude potential exploiters Toll Goods ► theatre ► private clubs ► daycare centres Private Goods ► food ► clothing ► automobile LOW Public Goods ► peaceful & secure community ► national defense ► knowledge ► fire protection ► weather forecasts Common Pool Resources ► groundwater basins ► lakes ► fisheries ► forests ► air quality HIGH LOWHIGH
    • Basic forms of resource governance  Autocracy/despotism (Wikipedia): – supreme political power to direct all state activities is concentrated in the hands of one person (autocracy) or group (despotism), whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control  Gargantuan (R.C. Wood via V. Ostrom): – formation of a single metropolitan government over all  Multi-level governance (European Union via Wikipedia): – many interacting authority structures work at various hierarchical levels in the emergent global and local economy  Polycentric – (V Ostrom et al. 1961): traditional pattern of government in a metropolitan area with its multiplicity of political jurisdictions – (E Ostrom 2009): many centers of decision making that are formally independent of each other. Whether they actually function independently, or instead constitute an interdependent system of relations, is an empirical question in particular cases  Community-based resource management (Berkes 2006) – local resource usage governed by local community  Co-management (Berkes 2009): – sharing of power and responsibility between the government and local resource users
    • Ostrom’s model for environmental governance ENVIRONMENTAL CONTINGENCIES & CONSTRAINTS IMPACT OF REALIZED OUTCOMES RULES RESPOND TO CONSTRAINTS  Successful governance structures based on sets of rules regulating exploiters to ensure optimum management/exploitation of resource – Rules respond to constraints – Impacts are consequences of realized outcomes of the application of the rules
    • Ostrom’s resource governance model  Conceptual changes: common property resource – common pool resources – common property regimes – recognized 5 property types  access, withdrawal, management, exclusion & alienation – Property rights systems for different resources mix all five  Concluded that successful systems followed certain practices (i.e., design principles) reflecting knowledge of particular environments – Clear user & resource boundaries – Congruence between benefits & costs – Regular monitoring of users & resource conditions – Graduated sanctions – Conflict resolution mechanisms – Minimal recognition of rights by government – Nested enterprises  Hoped, but failed, to find optimal set of rules used by robust & successful systems of governance  Need to engineer the structure of the project/community enterprise to optimize resource governance (social engineering?)
    • Governance = making and imposing decisions on communities with costs/benefits  Herbert A. Simon (1978) Nobel Prize in Economic Science for his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations and the limits to rationality – Perfect decisions only possible with perfect knowledge and unlimited time to consider alternatives – Real world requires “satisficing” – i.e., best guess given the available knowledge and time, optimizing time, knowledge, and urgency – Simon’s other work explored the architecture of hierarchically complex systems (i.e., nearly decomposable)  Effective governance depends on – Availability of appropriate knowledge – Sufficient time for thinking before the next problem arises – Capabilities to act – Availability of resources to support action
    • Theories of organization and knowledge physical theories are the basis for structural engineering theories of knowledge and organization are the basis for enterprise engineering Knowledge has a physical basis
    • 17 Causation in hierarchical structure  Holon – a “two faced” system that looks upward to the supersystem that constrains its behavior, and downward to the subsystems that determine what it is possible for it to do.  Downward causation - Every organized entity (holon) is a component within a higher-level supersystem (e.g., “the economy”, “the system of government”) forming an environment that constrains what the holon can or must do to survive  Every holon interacts with other holons at its own focal level of organization to form that higher level supersystem  Upward causation - Every holon is comprised of lower-level subsystems (e.g., people, machines) whose capabilities and law-like behavioral interactions determine what is possible for the entity to do
    • 18  Knowledge-based “adaptive” systems exist at several hierarchical levels of structural organization – Nation – State – Council – Community group – Person – Body cell  For effective action, flows of knowledge, decision and action must pass through several hierarchical levels Seeing the complex hierarchy
    • Constraints and boundaries, regulations determine what is physically allowable People joining Other inputs Observations Other outputs Actions Subsystems andSubsystems and processesprocesses "universal" laws governing component interactions determine physical capabilities The entity's imperatives and goals The entity's history and present circumstances HIGHER LEVEL SYSTEM / ENVIRONMENT SUBSYSTEMS / COMPONENTS Codified knowledge People leaving Codified knowledge Constraints and boundaries, regulations determine what is physically allowable People joining Other inputs Observations Other outputs Actions Subsystems andSubsystems and processesprocesses "universal" laws governing component interactions determine physical capabilities The entity's imperatives and goals The entity's history and present circumstances HIGHER LEVEL SYSTEM / ENVIRONMENT SUBSYSTEMS / COMPONENTS Codified knowledge People leaving Codified knowledge Working with complex hierarchies  Understanding community action in the complex hierarchy – hierarchical bottom-up construction of knowledge – hierarchical top-down devolution of decision & action  Knowing and acting entities are complex adaptive systems that must continually work to maintain their survivals – May act as components in higher level systems – May be comprised of lower level systems – Knowledge must pass across systems at same level and up & down hierarchy19
    • What is an enterprise?  A coherently definable organized entity that may be: – Comprised of multiple interacting entities – Unified by a common system of governance – Working towards a common goal  “A complex, adaptive, evolving system” (Mathet Consulting, Inc.) – Existing in complex & changing environments (physical, economic, technological, and legal) – constantly receives, uses, transforms, produces and distributes products and services that have value to itself and its customers – exhibits characteristics of hierarchical complexity, reactivity, adaptability, emergence, downward and upward causation, self-organization, non-linear chaotic responses  An organized, notionally bounded socio-technical system, addressing its internal / external imperatives for business / survival (i.e., an “organic” entity), comprised of – People (participants in the organization from time to time) – Processes (automated, documented, tacit routines, etc.) – Infrastructure (Web, ICT, physical plant, etc.) – Organizational knowledge (i.e., contributing to organizational structure/success)  Knowledge as a deliverable product (e.g., technical documentation)  Knowledge about and embodied in deliverable products  Knowledge about and embodied in organizational processes and infrastructure  Members’ personal knowledge relating to their organizational roles Organizational knowledge Leave one of the legs off, and the stool will fall over
    • Enterprises exist in contexts  No enterprise or subsidiary component should be considered in isolation from its existential contexts – What are its imperatives for continued existence?  to maintain survival and wellbeing  to maintain resource inputs necessary to survival  to produce and distribute goods necessary to survival  to survive environmental changes  to minimize risk  to maintain future wellbeing – Organizational systems satisfying imperatives must track continually changing contexts with observations, decisions and actions  Beware of empty rhetoric and mismatches with real imperatives (e.g., “mission statements”)
    • Knowledge = solutions to problems 22 Pn a real-world problem faced by a living entity TS a tentative solution/theory. Tentative solutions are varied through serial/parallel iteration EE a test or process of error elimination Pn+1 changed problem as faced by an entity incorporating a surviving solution The whole process is iterated All knowledge claims are constructed, cannot be proven to be true TSs may be embodied as “structure” in the “knowing” entity, or TSs may be expressed in words as hypotheses, subject to objective criticism; or as genetic codes in DNA, subject to natural selection Objective expression and criticism lets our theories die in our stead Through cyclic iteration, sources of errors are found and eliminated Solutions/theories become more reliable as they survive repetitive testing Surviving TSs are the source of all knowledge! Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge – An Evolutionary Approach (1972), pp. 241-244
    • Where does knowledge exist? 23 Energy flow Thermodynamics Physics Chemistry Biochemistry Cybernetic self-regulation Cognition Consciousness Tacit knowledge Genetic heredity Recorded thought Computer memory Logical artifacts Explicit knowledge Reproduce/Produce Develop/Recall World 1 Existence/Reality World 2 World of mental or psychological states and processes, subjective experiences, memory of history Organismic/personal/situational/ subjective/tacit knowledge in world 2 emerges from world 1 processes World 3 The world of “objective” Knowledge Produced / evaluated by world 2 processes “living/personal knowledge” “codified /explicit knowledge” Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge – An Evolutionary Approach (1972) Hall, W.P. 2011. Physical basis for the emergence of autopoiesis, cognition and knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working Papers No. 2: 1-63 “living/personal knowledge”
    • Personal (i.e., human) knowledge 24  Forms of knowledge – Tacit (W2) – Implicit (W2) – Articulated (W2) – Explicit (W3) – Procedural (W2) – Declarative (W2/W3) ●Sense making – W2 process constructing tacit understanding in context – We only know what we know when we need to know it Nickols, F. 2000. The knowledge in knowledge management (KM). in J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods, eds. The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2001-2002. Butterworth-Heinemann
    • Personal vs organizational knowledge  Important difference – individual knowledge (in any form) is known only by a person – organizational knowledge is available and physically or socially accessible to those who may apply it for organizational needs – Even where explicit knowledge exists, individual knowledge may be required to access it within a useful response time.  People know: – what knowledge the organization needs, – who may know the answer, – where in the organization explicit knowledge may be found, – why the knowledge is important or why it was created, – when the knowledge might be needed, and – how to apply the knowledge  This human knowledge is critical to the organization  Snowden, D. 2002. Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness. J. Knowledge Management 6:100-111 – Personal knowledge is volunteered; it cannot be conscripted. – People always know more than can be told, and will tell more than can be written down. – People only know what they know when they need to know it.
    • 26 OODA system of systems in the socio-technical knowledge-based organization PROCESS PEOPLE CULTURE & PARADIGMS INFRASTRUCTURE “CORPORATE MEMORY” INPUT ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS PEOPLE PEOPLE GENETIC HERITAGE DATA CONTENT LINKS RELATIONS ANNOTA- TIONS OBSERVE DECIDE, ACT DOCS RECORDS
    • Building and processing knowledge in the organization IFK (W2) FK CK EK }Semantics of explicit knowledge are only available via World 2 processes Code: EK – Explicit Knowledge CK – Common Knowledge FK – Formal Knowledge IFK – Integrated Formal Knowledge For the purposes of this diagram CK and FK are expressions of explicit knowledge (EK) WORLD 1 WORLD 2 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE WORLD 3 KNOWLEDGE BUILDING PROCESSES KNOWING ORGANIZATION (including organizational tacit knowledge) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXTS SEMIPERMEABLE BOUNDARY ● ● DRIVE & ENABLE ANTICIPATE & INFLUENCE OBSERVE, TEST & MAKE SENSE KNO W LEDG E FLO W S & EXCHANG ESIFK (W2) FK CK EK }Semantics of explicit knowledge are only available via World 2 processes Code: EK – Explicit Knowledge CK – Common Knowledge FK – Formal Knowledge IFK – Integrated Formal Knowledge For the purposes of this diagram CK and FK are expressions of explicit knowledge (EK) WORLD 1 WORLD 2 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE WORLD 3 KNOWLEDGE BUILDING PROCESSES KNOWING ORGANIZATION (including organizational tacit knowledge) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXTS SEMIPERMEABLE BOUNDARY ● ● DRIVE & ENABLE ANTICIPATE & INFLUENCE OBSERVE, TEST & MAKE SENSE KNO W LEDG E FLO W S & EXCHANG ES Vines, R., Hall, W.P. 2011. Exploring the foundations of organizational knowledge.
    • Turning personal into explicit knowledge 28
    • 29 Organizational knowledge from personal knowledge Error reduction in new knowledge claims Knowledgequalityassurancethroughcriticismandrealitytesting WORLD 3 Formal knowledge WORLD 3 Explicit knowledge WORLD 3 Common knowledge Knowledgeexchange Review processing Error reduction in new knowledge claims Knowledgequalityassurancethroughcriticismandrealitytesting WORLD 3 Formal knowledge WORLD 3 Explicit knowledge WORLD 3 Common knowledge Knowledgeexchange Review processing Personal Accessible and shared in group Organizational
    • 30 Hierarchy of knowledge-building cycles  3 stages in building reliable knowledge – Personal/individual – Group/team – Peer review/formal publication W1 Context Individual NOOSPHERE Peer review / formalization Rework Publication Group/team review/extension W1 Context Individual NOOSPHERE Peer review / formalization Rework Publication Group/team review/extension world knowledge- base application of existing knowledge Knowledge construction cycle Vines et al. 2011 Hall, Nousala 2010 Nousala et al. 2010 Hall et al. 2010
    • 31 Creating and building knowledge is cyclical  Following Karl Popper, knowledge is solutions to problems of living – Cycles of creation and destruction (Boyd, Osinga)  Creation = assembly of sense data and information to suggest claims about the world  Destruction = testing and criticizing claims against the world to eliminate those claims that don’t work – Solutions are those claims which prove to work (at least most of the time)  Knowledge is mentally constructed  Cannot logically prove that any claimed solution is actually true  All claims must be considered to be tentative (i.e., potentially fallible)  Follow tested claims until they are replaced by something that works better  Knowledge building cycles are endlessly iterated and may exist at several hierarchical levels of organization
    • 32 Building and maintaining an adaptive KM architecture to meet organizational imperatives DRIVERS ENABLERS & IMPEDIMENTS PEOPLE PROCESS STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REQUIREMENTS OBSERVATION OF CONTEXT & RESULTS ORIENTATION & DECISION ENACTED STRATEGY In competition Win more contracts Perform better on contracts won Minimise losses to risks and liabilities Meet statutory and regulatory requirements Operational Excellence Customer satisfaction Stakeholder intimacy Service delivery Growth Sustainability Profitability Risk mitigation Knowledge audit Knowledge mapping Business disciplines Technology & systems Information disciplines Incentives & disincentives Etc. Internal / external communication Taxonomies Searching & retrieval Business process analysis & reengineering Tracking and monitoring Intelligence gathering QA / QC Strategic management Architectural role Communities of Practice Corporate communications HR practices Competitive intelligence IT strategy Etc. … ITERATION …
    • New tools extending human cognition introduce radical capabilities for knowledge infrastructure  “Instant” observation/communication/decision/action possible – Every smart phone in a hand is an intelligent sensing node also capable of organizing and supporting action  visual (photo & video sharing)  auditory (Skype, etc.)  spatial (geotagging)  textual (twitter, email, blogging, etc.) – Polling & voting (e.g., SurveyMonkey) – Acting (e.g., Mechanical Turk)  Crowd sourcing tools for assembling knowledge – wiki – databases  Unlimited access to knowledge resources – cloud computing – Google Scholar / Google Translate  > 50% world knowledge available free-on-line via author archiving  > 95% available via research library subscriptions – University of Melbourne accesses 105,000 eJournals – Scholar offers direct access from search result to university subscription  Etc. – beyond imagining
    • Sample community action groups 34 Click picture to open link See: Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Best, R. 2010. Free technology for the support of community action groups: theory, technology and practice.
    • Some references on relevant technology for building knowledge infrastructures for sustainability  Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Best, R., Nair, S. 2012. Social networking tools for knowledge- based action groups. (in) Computational Social Networks - Part 2: Tools, Perspectives and Applications, (eds) Abraham, A., Hassanien, A.-E. Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 227-255  Nousala, S., Hall, W.P., Hadgraft, R. 2011. Socio-technical systems for connecting social knowledge and the governance of urban action. 15th WMSCI, CENT Symposium, July 19- 22, 2011, Orlando, Florida, USA.  Vines, R., Hall, W.P., McCarthy, G. 2011. Textual representations and knowledge support- systems in research intensive networks. (in) Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Magee, L. (eds). Towards a Semantic Web: Connecting Knowledge in Academic Research. Oxford: Chandos Press, pp. 145-195.  Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Best, R. 2010. Free technology for the support of community action groups: theory, technology and practice. Knowledge Cities World Summit, 16-19, November 2010, Melbourne, Australia  Hall, W.P., Nousala, S. 2010. What is the value of peer review – some sociotechnical considerations. Second International Symposium on Peer Reviewing, ISPR 2010 June 29th - July 2nd, 2010 – Orlando, Florida, USA  Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Vines, R. 2010. Using Google’s apps for the collaborative construction, refinement and formalization of knowledge. ICOMP'10 - The 2010 International Conference on Internet Computing July 12-15, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA  Nousala, S., Miles, A., Kilpatrick, B., Hall, W.P. 2009. Building knowledge sharing communities using team expertise access maps (TEAM). International Journal of Business and Systems Research 3(3), 279-296. 35