Cap8 repositórios maio 2013

719 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
719
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Page 195, introduction Knowledge repositories are important mechanisms for managing knowledge content in a systematic and methodical way. As the last session illustrated, they are important in pulling together the core knowledge which should be readily accessible to the knowledge community. However, the real value of the repository emerges when it is managed in a systematic manner to provide a single access point for all critical knowledge activities and sources. In this case, the repository provides an authoritative and well managed conduit to knowledge. Repositories are designed to optimise the use bey knowledge users. Careful planning and management ensures it is strongly used and supported by those users, so that it generates ongoing relevance to their needs. Today’s session will examine two major processes in detail: the development of the knowledge repository, and the related process of creating knowledge map which assists with structuring the repository content. It will also explore the maintenance issues which need to be considered to ensure the repository remains relevant.
  • LO1, page 195. Effective repositories fulfil a number of purposes. In particular, they: Link users and core knowledge; Operate as a single point of entry to help people find relevant information from many different organisational sources; Codify explicit knowledge in a logical manner to enable better use and identification of core knowledge; Direct the user to enabling sources (such as people, organisational units or groups, websites, policies and other sources) which can guide or inform the knowledge user; Provide a vehicle for contributing new knowledge which ensures it is well managed and retrievable by all concerned parties; Provide personalised knowledge services which enable the individual to keep track of new content and additions.
  • Page 196 A repository can include many features. This slide gives some examples of what might be linked to the repository. It can be seen that many of these features encourage ongoing interaction and effective use of the sources which are to be found across the organisation. While the front screen of a web-based repository may be very simple, there can be many complex system linkages operating in the background. A key element of repositories is the encouragement of interaction as well as interrogation. Repositories are designed to build new knowledge through organisational engagement with the content. This means that knowledge in the repository will be dynamic, evolving and growing as people use it and share it back. This is why content management and control is important. Notice too, the emphasis on providing user assistance. Repositories provide strong support to users so that they can gain the optimal outcomes from using the system. This is partly achieved by anticipating user needs and building support of various types to enable that interaction.
  • Page 195. Repositories draw together many different forms of knowledge about the organisation and its operation. Salisbury and Plass suggest that four types of knowledge are normally represented. These are: Factual – terminology, specific details and elements or organisational practice. Conceptual – theories, models, principles and generalisations Procedural – skills, techniques and methods Meta-cognitive – learning, thinking, problem-solving These layers of knowledge can be represented in many different ways – for example, users might draw out knowledge in the form of content , such as topics, projects or reports. methodologies , such as research approaches, templates and data presentation, or longitudinal developments such as case documents which build an historical perspective.
  • Page 196 – 197, Figure 8.1 Two major processes support repository development and management. As this figure illustrates, these create to content structure and content quality control. Content structure describes the various ways in which core knowledge may be classified and defined within a particular organisation. It encompasses four processes: the building of the knowledge map, the description of sources to build a reliable and authoritative system, the identification of sources which should be included in the repository and the provision of a suitable user interface to encourage successful use. This approach is used when it is decided that content management is critical to the successful adoption of the KMS by users. The structures are designed to help users search for their desired knowledge in a smooth and streamlined manner by providing structured search avenues. Content quality control describes the processes which are undertaken to preserve the quality and usefulness of the repository content. It comprises three major processes: evaluation and verification; monitoring of currency and archiving. Each of these seven processes will be discussed in turn.
  • LO2, page 198. Repositories are based on knowledge maps which guide the user to the right sources. The ultimate goal of the knowledge map is to save users time and effort in finding the maximum number of highly appropriate sources. Given the complexity and size of many organisational repositories, this is quite critical. The map operates in two ways: it provides direction as to where and what resources might be found, and illustrates the various ways in which knowledge is structured in the repository. It also demonstrates intellectual and organisational content so that users can find material based on the knowledge focus, format or source. The map facilitates greater probability of successful retrieval for users. The text mentions two measures of retrieval success (recall and precision). Recall describes the percentage of relevant sources which are retrieved by a user from the total relevant sources held in the repository. Precision reflects the percentage of retrieved sources which are perceived to be relevant by the user. A good repository will be structured so that there is high recall and high recision. That is, the user will be able to find most or all of the available sources of knowledge from a query, and will also feel that these are pertinent to the focus of the investigation. To achieve this level of effectiveness, the map must be most carefully designed –as the next slides illustrate.
  • LO3 Pages 198 – 199. Knowledge maps draw together the diverse structures used to describe knowledge into one integrated approach. They reflect the different relational and operational knowledge structures which can be found across the knowledge community. The map operates as an ontology : a formal classification of the organisational knowledge structure to ensure all of the important elements are captured and reflected. As the next slide shows, the ontology draws many different perspectives together to illustrate how knowledge in applied in eh organisation.
  • Figure 8.2 page 199. This ontology shows many different ways in which knowledge is organised in this media company. It can be seen that knowledge draws on relational structures in the form of topics and themes which are explored in the ontology. Technology and products , for example, are major organisational content areas. Research and business process are other forms of relational categories, based on the functions which are undertaken in the organisation. Operational elements can relate to organisational structure (such as the joint venture, region or organisation category) and document type . They reflect the way the organisation sutures and manages its knowledge elements. These two forms of mapping provide a very comprehensive view of the organisation and how it operates to generate its core knowledge. This small overview illustrates the importance of clarifying what knowledge exists and how it can be identified. The better the ontology, the better the overall capture of core knowledge in the repository.
  • The map draws on a number of taxonomies which describe the various relational and operational approaches to organisational knowledge. Each taxonomy normally provides a hierarchical, multilevel listing of significant core knowledge topics or areas. As the term hierarchical indicates, this is structured from broad general areas to more specific content. Taxonomies enable knowledge suers to find knowledge content which supports their needs – whether very general and highly specific. For example, if a person wished to gain a sense of a new content area, a search using a broad concept would be satisfactory. A highly expert user wishing to update knowledge of a specialised topic might be very precise in the focus of search. The taxonomy should support these different levels of need. The next slide provides an illustration of the way a hierarchy is structured.
  • Figure 8.3, page 200, text page 199. Notice how each layer is more specific. Customer relations management, for example, moves to the second level, where aspects of this important focus are further explored. In this organisation, four main activities are identified: customer records, market research, campaigns, and customer service. The third level drills down further into the customer service aspect. Similar breakdowns into smaller topics would be undertaken for the other three aspects listed in that second hierarchy. Again, a more specific aspect of customer feedback, complaints handling, is then identified further. This would be another element of the core business. (Students might wish to take one of the other terms from the second level and develop a similar hierarchy.) The organisation determines these hierarchies. It can draw on its own practices and community perceptions of how knowledge is applied, or it might use formal taxonomies which are
  • Page 200. Thesauruses assist the user in clarifying and identifying the most accurate terms to be employed. They provide a hierarchical overview of the ways in which content is linked to more general and or more specific content, and can also be used to check the correct terms for content via an alphabetical listing. Descriptors are the keywords which describe the content listed in the thesaurus and incorporated into the repository. As formally defined terms, they provide the rigour needed to build high precision and recall when many different users seek knowledge. Highly developed thesauruses include a number of helpful cues to the enquirer. Fore example, they can offer a definition of the content, and outline the way in which that knowledge is applied in the organisation. They can also indicate how that knowledge might relate to other areas. They might also provide an outline of narrower terms which are more specialised content areas, related terms which are linked to that content, but take a different focus, or broader terms, which are more general in nature. If a searcher looks for content on a knowledge issue and finds little coverage, a broader focus can be more useful. The next slide illustrates the structure of a thesaurus.
  • Page 201, Figure 8.4 Note the various headings which are used in the heading. Some points to note: Project management is the descriptor . The use of this defined term ensures all searchers who come into the repository can find suitable sources, and similarly, knowledge contributors can also categorise their knowledge based on these same terms to ensure others find the new source. The usage note is helpful, in that it outlines how much this term is used. Increased usage can indicate escalated interest in an area, while an lost contributions and usage may indicate that the content is no longer actively addressed as core content. It can also provide an indication to the searcher as to how important it is within the wider community. Scope note describes the content coverage and focus and how people should interpret the descriptor. This helps maintain standardised interpretation of the descriptor. Narrower terms direct the user to more appropriate keywords if they wish a very tight and specialised focus. Related terms provide guidance on associated topics and Broader terms direct the searcher to more general descriptors which might be explored.
  • Page 201, Figure 8.4 Note the various headings which are used in the heading. Some points to note: Project management is the descriptor . The use of this defined term ensures all searchers who come into the repository can find suitable sources, and similarly, knowledge contributors can also categorise their knowledge based on these same terms to ensure others find the new source. The usage note is helpful, in that it outlines how much this term is used. Increased usage can indicate escalated interest in an area, while an lost contributions and usage may indicate that the content is no longer actively addressed as core content. It can also provide an indication to the searcher as to how important it is within the wider community. Scope note describes the content coverage and focus and how people should interpret the descriptor. This helps maintain standardised interpretation of the descriptor. Narrower terms direct the user to more appropriate keywords if they wish a very tight and specialised focus. Related terms provide guidance on associated topics and Broader terms direct the searcher to more general descriptors which might be explored.
  • Page 201. The areas which might be included in a knowledge map can be quite expansive, as this list shows. It can be seen that these different perspectives encourage reflective practice, dynamic interchanges and management of operational and functional roles. They also provide the framework for the many forms of knowledge held by individuals, so that they may be accessed by others. Clearly, the depth and breadth of the map will predict its usefulness. The more comprehensive, the greater the value to the searcher. However, the time spent in contributing these many different forms of knowledge will also need to be taken into account when measuring value. Ideally, much of this knowledge should be managed when it is used to undertake normal work roles. This is particularly the case for products, services and processes and customer databases, where the normal system should be readily accessible and managed in such a way that they link to the KMS and the repository. KM Viewpoint 8.1 on pages 202 – 203 illustrates the many ways in which knowledge can be categorised. In the case of Arup, a resources company, operational thesauruses relating to geography and locations, organisations, clients, contractors and architects, and internal organisational structures were generated. In addition, a relational thesaurus was compiled. This led to a very effective knowledge map which captured the intellectual assets and actives of the firm.
  • Page 203 – 204 While the organisation may choose to start from scratch in creating their taxonomies, this can be very challenging and quite time consuming. Where possible, existing structures and classification schemes should be used to support the creation process. There are many different sources which can be accessed. From an operational perspective, the existing processes and patterns which can be identified in the organisation and which are commonly recognised form a logical basis for classification. Some major sources can include: Job descriptions of key strategic positions. Causal mapping which documents hard-to-describe processes. This is developed through interviews with experts and identifying how they undertake important processes. Organisational analysis and classification of key areas, activities and outcomes. Some of this information may be drawn from the clarification of core knowledge activities. Relational taxonomies can be found in many professional disciplines, and provide a good starting point for clarifying the intellectual activities which are undertaken in the firm. Some useful sources include Authoritative professional taxonomies such as library taxonomies Other firms which have built knowledge repositories Commercial providers who can provide the expertise to discuss and collect local terms and usage. An important point to note through this process is that the terms should be accessible and meaningful to the community. As K Viewpoint 8.2 illustrates, if there is a major gap between the official words and the local words, the system will be quite dysfunctional.
  • L04, Page 206 – 208. As technology has advanced in terms of capability and creative applications, the capacity to build flexible and highly responsive knowledge strategies has also grown. Increasingly, companies are structuring the knowledge maps with the assistance of metatags: labels which are used to classify the system according to various categories, such as author, date of contribution, level of access, contact names, project titles. This greatly assists in retrieving knowledge sources based on their functional characteristics. For example, if a person were to recall the name of the project leader, it would be possible to find projects with which the individual was associated. In many cases, the ascribing of metatags can occur automatically, as the knowledge artefact is developed. Many firms are increasingly aiming to standardise their records so that searching via metatags is possible. Templates assist with this process, as each knowledge creator is provided with a structured format that allows the fields of information to be recorded. In many situations, new templates can be established so that they pull information from prior records. This reduces the load. When identifying suitable metatags for a source, it is most important to keep the focus very tight. Ackerman and Mandel suggest very precise labels should be used. This assists with retrieval, so that
  • LO5, page 207 – 209. The first screen that a user sees plays an important part in determining people’s attitude to the repository and its ease of use. An important concept is the level of accessibility the screen displays. The complexity of the screen, the icons and colours that are used, and the overall design needs to reflect current knowledge of how users best explore a computer interface. The design should be undertaken by an expert who understands how people interact with computers. Similarly, the navigation around the interface and the ways in which the user is drawn into the repository needs to be considered carefully. Can a user easily come back to the front menu from wherever the search led to? Speed and efficiency are very critical factors in gaining user acceptance and adoption of a KMS. The ease of retrieval and lodgement of knowledge contributions also needs to be developed as a very smooth, effortless process. Ideally, the user should be only slightly delayed in gaining access. We all expect fast and rapid technologies these days. Users are not happy with clunky systems which are difficult to use and explore. This also relates to the security on the system: is it hidden, and simply enabled when a work computer is logged into through a secure entry screen, or is it necessary to again enter the same data? These days, most work systems can be linked to the same security processes to reduce duplicated keying. Another factor that the repository design needs to reflect is the recognition that this could become the most used screen in the workplace. As a consequence, it will need to provide access to associated sites and services which are extremely valuable, and to enable the user to develop individual profiles. These and many other strategies make for a very user-friendly system which is well liked by its patrons. The next two slides display two versions of a repository entry screen. Compare the differences.
  • Figure 8.5. bottom figure, page 209. What is wrong with this series of slides? How many passes would a person need to undertake to enter this system? What does the front screen tell about the repository? Is it sufficiently informative? Does it look inviting or active? Let’s look at version number 2.
  • Figure 8.5. top figure, page 209. This is a better layout, although it still isn’t perfect. Notice though, how easy it is to access many of the key elements of the knowledge system, including interactive networks, creative ideas and the latest news. In this network, research community, there are many different ways in which users can search, including relational and operational aspects. Note too, the ease of posting or searching for new contributions. (Students may wish to criticise this screen too – what else could be done to improve the interface?)
  • Page 196 – 197, Figure 8.1 Two major processes support repository development and management. As this figure illustrates, these create to content structure and content quality control. Content structure describes the various ways in which core knowledge may be classified and defined within a particular organisation. It encompasses four processes: the building of the knowledge map, the description of sources to build a reliable and authoritative system, the identification of sources which should be included in the repository and the provision of a suitable user interface to encourage successful use. This approach is used when it is decided that content management is critical to the successful adoption of the KMS by users. The structures are designed to help users search for their desired knowledge in a smooth and streamlined manner by providing structured search avenues. Content quality control describes the processes which are undertaken to preserve the quality and usefulness of the repository content. It comprises three major processes: evaluation and verification; monitoring of currency and archiving. Each of these seven processes will be discussed in turn.
  • Page 210. This second part of repository management relates to sustaining the repository as a viable and functional knowledge channel. It ensures users are able to find the most relevant and useful sources when they access the repository. There are three main elements to repository quality control. Ensuring the value and suitability of contributed sources, so that users can be assured the system is a valid source of knowledge. Ongoing monitoring of the relevance and applicability of the repository to user needs. The repository needs to be cultivated to retain its currency and linkage to ongoing business needs. Sources which are no longer relevant, accurate or current need to be dealt with to ensure they do not clog the system. We will look at each of these in turn.
  • LO6, page 210 - 211. Some knowledge sources remain very relevant for a long time, and possibly, grow more useful as their credibility and wisdom are shared and become a critical part of organisational folklore. Others lose their value as they become dated or supplanted. Still others have little value in the first place. Knowledge life describes the length of time that a knowledge source of object will be of value to other users. This is an important concept, as it ensures the repository is linked to valuable sources, not irrelevant items that will diminish the credibility of the KMS. There are a number of ways in which the content can be quality controlled. Some practical methods include: Including metatags which describe the authoritative basis for the item, so that users can judge the relative merits of each item. The text suggests a number of metatags that would offer strong guidance to users, including synopsis of content, an indication of the source authority, a summary by the author, outlining which elements are important, a designation of the types of users who may find the material to be of value, and a description of how the material is structured and organised. These signposts to the prospective user provide stronger guidance as to the likely value. Contributor profiles offer an overview of the author’s title, role statement, history, qualifications, past projects, publications, external linkages and partnerships, patents, contributions to organisational innovations, and areas of expertise. This is another form of validation. Verification of quality sometimes occurs before a source is added to the repository. In this situation, the accuracy of the inputs (including typing), and editorial policies and guidelines are some examples of controls linked to quality input. Knowledge officers may be employed to monitor the quality of inputs. The use of knowledge officers enables stronger regulation of styles of entries, accurate metadata provision, and greater monitoring of the quality of entries. However, this is a high cost commitment by an organisation, and needs to be maintained to ensure the initial investment is followed through. Users may also act as vetting or approval agents, ensuring that new sources are not allowed to become part of the knowledge repository until they are verified and approved for incorporation. Two methods are often used. Downstream filtering involves users in the process of collaborative filtering, defining criteria, rating knowledge objects and labelling them. This form of bottom-up quality control creates stronger ownership but has resourcing implications as users allocate more of their time to knowledge system management. upstream filtering occurs when a third party monitors the quality of the repository, rather than the users by checking, verifying and adjusting knowledge records to maintain consistency and accuracy.
  • LO6, page 210 - 211. Some knowledge sources remain very relevant for a long time, and possibly, grow more useful as their credibility and wisdom are shared and become a critical part of organisational folklore. Others lose their value as they become dated or supplanted. Still others have little value in the first place. Knowledge life describes the length of time that a knowledge source of object will be of value to other users. This is an important concept, as it ensures the repository is linked to valuable sources, not irrelevant items that will diminish the credibility of the KMS. There are a number of ways in which the content can be quality controlled. Some practical methods include: Including metatags which describe the authoritative basis for the item, so that users can judge the relative merits of each item. The text suggests a number of metatags that would offer strong guidance to users, including synopsis of content, an indication of the source authority, a summary by the author, outlining which elements are important, a designation of the types of users who may find the material to be of value, and a description of how the material is structured and organised. These signposts to the prospective user provide stronger guidance as to the likely value. Contributor profiles offer an overview of the author’s title, role statement, history, qualifications, past projects, publications, external linkages and partnerships, patents, contributions to organisational innovations, and areas of expertise. This is another form of validation. Verification of quality sometimes occurs before a source is added to the repository. In this situation, the accuracy of the inputs (including typing), and editorial policies and guidelines are some examples of controls linked to quality input. Knowledge officers may be employed to monitor the quality of inputs. The use of knowledge officers enables stronger regulation of styles of entries, accurate metadata provision, and greater monitoring of the quality of entries. However, this is a high cost commitment by an organisation, and needs to be maintained to ensure the initial investment is followed through. Users may also act as vetting or approval agents, ensuring that new sources are not allowed to become part of the knowledge repository until they are verified and approved for incorporation. Two methods are often used. Downstream filtering involves users in the process of collaborative filtering, defining criteria, rating knowledge objects and labelling them. This form of bottom-up quality control creates stronger ownership but has resourcing implications as users allocate more of their time to knowledge system management. upstream filtering occurs when a third party monitors the quality of the repository, rather than the users by checking, verifying and adjusting knowledge records to maintain consistency and accuracy.
  • LO7, page 211 – 213 The capacity to maintain and monitor the usefulness of the repository is a very critical aspect of knowledge management. Self-evident, defunct, incomplete or inaccurate guidance can undermine the credibility and sustainability of the knowledge strategy. The repository needs to be monitored for its ongoing relevance to the user. There are many ways in which knowledge can lose currency. Terminology and the business focus may evolve into new and different areas. Areas of expertise which were core knowledge when first developed and tested, may gradually become basic and accepted practice, or of little practical use over time. People who act as expert sources may leave the organisation or move to different roles and no longer have the current knowledge identified in the repository. The maintenance of the repository needs strong commitment – as much as the commitment to establish the repository in the first place. A simple analogy is that a repository is like a garden. We spend a lot of time and money planting and cultivating a garden to reflect our design and expectations. Over time, it will need weeding, reshaping, and some items will need to be replaced with others which will flourish and thrive better in that setting. To some extent, the monitoring part of this process is the weeding and replacement of healthier elements. There are several ways in which this can be undertaken. First, the terms and their application can be regularly reviewed to ensure that they reflect the usage in the local organisational community. Analyses of users’ search requests and patterns of usage offer useful guidance on shifting patterns. The maintenance of source accuracy needs to be carefully considered. Contributor profiles offer a useful mechanism to ensure currency. Each contributor could be asked to update their profiles on an annual basis. Similarly, the date of each contribution can be registered and the level of access to a source can be reviewed.
  • LO8, page 213 – 214. Some knowledge is critical for the long-term, but potentially little used. One aspect of repository management is the need to maintain and preserve knowledge which will have potential value to some users over time, although it is not of widespread interest. Archival management is the process of determining the knowledge life of an object and developing a strategy to preserve critical sources, or remove unrequired items from the repository. Obviously, this is a very strategic process that needs to be undertaken with care. There are several ways in which sources of questionable value can be reviewed. First, various levels of review might be initiated. Sources could be evaluated by users, expert sources, review panels or knowledge audits of critical strategic themes. This would also help to identify gaps or inconsistencies which might need to be further explored. If a knowledge object is less relevant, but still has some value which requires ongoing, but qualified, access, the record may be identified as an archival resource to guide the user. However, any item which is relegated to the archives still needs to be accessible, particularly if it is also an element of legal record for the firm. A policy on archiving can help to guide decisions on this process. Questions which will need to be considered by the organisation include: How will knowledge relevance be monitored? How will less relevant knowledge be treated? How will users be guided in their access and consideration of older knowledge? How often should archived sources be further reviewed? Should they be accessed via an archival repository, or kept as part of the main repository?
  • This chapter has reviewed the process of developing a highly relevant repository through the use of a structured and systematic process. Key strategies explored included the development of an organisational ontology which incorporates a range of taxonomies. The support of thesauruses in constructing those taxonomies ahs also been reviewed. It was noted that the use of metatags and quality control are also very important considerations. As we have seen through this session, the maintenance of the system also needs to be rigorously preserved and managed. Repositories require ongoing commitment to maintain their relevance. They are a major investment by an organisation, and need to be resourced appropriately to ensure they continue to reflect the user needs and requirements over time. If maintained in this manner, they will be a significant source of organisational advantage and will greatly enhance performance and effectiveness of many staff.
  • Cap8 repositórios maio 2013

    1. 1. Lição 7Desenvolver e gerir repositórios deconhecimentoAnabela Mesquita
    2. 2. Objectivos da aula1. Descrever as características chave de um repositório de conhecimento2. Desenhar o mapa do conhecimento e ver como este pode ajudar arecordar factos / momentos passados3. Descrever os processos envolvidos na criação do mapa doconhecimento e traçar as principais características referentes àconstrução de uma taxonomia do conhecimento4. Discutir os métodos de identificação das fontes de conhecimento5. Avaliar a qualidade do design do repositório tendo em atenção ointerface a disponibilizar ao utilizador6. Explicar como se pode determinar a qualidade dos repositórios7. Providenciar orientações de como o repositório de conhecimento podeser mantido eficazmente para assegurar condutas relevantes8. Desenvolver uma estratégia de arquivo de conhecimento eficaz para agestão do conhecimento
    3. 3. Introdução• Os repositórios do conhecimento são mecanismosimportantes para a gestão de conteúdos de uma formasistemática e metódica.• Mas o seu valor real emerge apenas quando ele é gerido deforma sistemática, fornecendo um único ponto de acesso atodas as actividades e fontes de conhecimento• Os repositórios são desenhados para optimizar o trabalho dosfuncionários, pelo que necessitam de um bom planeamento egestão• Vamos ver 2 processos• Desenvolvimento de um repositório• Processo de criação de um mapa do conhecimento para ajudarna estruturação do conteúdo do repositório
    4. 4. Repositórios de conhecimento• Objectivos:• Fazer a ligação entre os utilizadores e o conhecimento nuclear• Constituir um único ponto de entrada para ajudar os utilizadores aencontrar informação relevante a partir de diversas fontes• Codificar o conhecimento explicito de uma maneira lógica, ajudando àsua posterior identificação e utilização• Permitir que os utilizadores usem as fontes (pessoas, grupos, websites,políticas, etc)• Constituir um veículo que contribua para um novo conhecimento• Providenciar serviços de conhecimento personalizados
    5. 5. Repositórios deconhecimento (cont.)Características do repositório do conhecimento• Ligações a fontes organizacionais internas e externas• Fóruns de comunicação• Relatos de casos e histórias• Tópicos de discussão• Canais de distribuição• Referência a materiais e fontes• Índices e assistência ao utilizador• Motores de busca
    6. 6. Repositórios deconhecimento (cont.)Os repositórios são compostos por muitas formas diferentes deconhecimento. Pelo menos 4 tipos de conhecimento estãorepresentados:• Factual – terminologia, detalhes específicos e elementos ou práticasorganizacionais• Conceptual – teorias, modelos, princípios e generalizações• Processual – competências, técnicas e métodos• Meta-cognitive – aprender, pensar, resolução de problemas• Podem ser representados de diversas formas. Ex:• Conteúdo – como tópicos, projectos, relatórios• Metodologias – abordagens de investigação, modelos e apresentação dedados• Desenvolvimento longitudinal – documentos sobre casos
    7. 7. Desenvolvimento dorepositórioEstrutura de conteúdosControlo da qualidadedos conteúdosMapa do conhecimentoDescrição das fontesIdentificação das fontesAnálise da interfaceAvaliação e verificaçãodos conteúdosManutenção dosconteúdosArquivo dos conteúdosRepositório doconhecimentonuclear
    8. 8. Repositórios deconhecimento efectivo (cont.)Traçar a estrutura dos conteúdos• Os repositórios são construídos tendo por base mapas deconhecimento que guiam os utilizadores para as fontesapropriadas• Objectivo final: poupar tempo e esforço aos utilizadores paraestes encontrarem o máximo número de fontes apropriadas• O mapa indica uma direcção, apontando para onde e quais asfontes a serem identificadas e ilustra de que forma oconhecimento está estruturado no repositório• Mostra os conteúdos intelectuais e organizacionais• Permite uma recuperação bem sucedida da informação(recuperação e precisão)
    9. 9. Repositórios deconhecimento (cont.)Criar o mapa do conhecimento• Integra os conceitos relacional e operacional• Funciona como uma ontologia: uma classificação formal daestrutura organizacional do conhecimento, assegurando quetodos os elementos importantes do conhecimento sãocapturados e aí reflectidos
    10. 10. A ontologia do mapa doconhecimentoFonte: S. Robertson, ‘A tale of two knowledge sharing systems’,Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 6, no. 3, 2002, p. 297)
    11. 11. Repositórios deconhecimento (cont.)Criar um mapa do conhecimento• O mapa baseia-se em taxonomias que descrevem as váriasabordagens relacionais e operacionais ao conhecimento daorganização• Cada taxonomia fornece uma hierarquia multinível, partindodos conteúdos gerais para os específicos• Pode permitir a procura por áreas de conhecimento mais amploou a partir de aspectos mais específicos, dependendo dasnecessidades e do campo de conhecimento do utilizador
    12. 12. Exemplo de uma hierarquia na taxonomiaActividadesestratégicasPlaneamento organizacionalGestão de Recursos HumanosGestão FinanceiraGestão de ProjectosGestão de relacionamentocom os clientesRegistros dos clientesPesquisa de MercadoCampanhasServiço ao clienteAcordo do serviço ao clienteTreino de cuidados a ter como clienteDocumento das políticasFeedback do clienteManipulação das queixas
    13. 13. Repositórios deconhecimento efectivo (cont.)Criar um mapa do conhecimento• Enciclopédia (Thesaurus) — lista alfabética e hierárquica das áreasdos conteúdos do conhecimento que recorre a descritores paradescrever o índice• Descritores são palavras chave que descrevem o conteúdo listado nothesaurus e que são incorporados no repositório• Podem incluir definições do conteúdo e fornecer uma explicaçãosobre a forma como ele é aplicado na organização, bem como assuas interligações com outro conhecimento• Tal base explicativa pode ser uma óptima ajuda, sobretudo para osprincipiantes
    14. 14. As principais característicasdas enciclopédias doconhecimento
    15. 15. As principais característicasdas enciclopédias doconhecimento
    16. 16. Repositórios deconhecimento (cont.)Identificar temas estruturais para incluir no mapa doconhecimento• A profundidade e abrangência do mapa vão determinar a suautilidade. Quanto mais completa, maior o seu valor. Noentanto, é preciso ter em conta o tempo gasto necessário,para o seu desenvolvimento (tempo vs custo)• Conhecimento sustentado pelos indivíduos• Boas práticas• Experiências passadas• Produtos, serviços e processos• Peritos existentes na rede• Base de dados de clientes• Alcance dos recursos intelectuais
    17. 17. Repositórios deconhecimento efectivo (cont.)Gerar títulos de taxonomia• Operacional:• Descrição de funções e de posições estratégicas• Mapas causais com documentos que descrevem processos.• Análise e classificação de áreas chave, actividades e resultados• Relacional:• Taxonomias profissionais autoritárias, tais como bibliotecas• Outras empresas que já desenvolveram repositórios• Fornecedores comerciais que podem contribuir comconhecimento para discutir e recolher termos usadoslocalmente• Os termos devem ser acessíveis e ter significados para acomunidade
    18. 18. Repositórios deconhecimento (cont.)Descrição das fontes• Aumento da classificação das fontes baseado em metatags• etiquetas usadas para classificar o sistema de acordo comdiversas categorias tais como: autor, data da contribuição, nívelde acesso, nomes para contacto, título dos projectos, etc.• Os modelos e a uniformização podem ajudar na classificaçãodos dados• Modelos – cada criador de conhecimento tem à sua disposiçãoum formato que lhe indica qual a informação a ser registada• Na definição de metatags devem utilizar-se etiquetas muitoprecisas / concretas pois tal ajuda na recuperação dos dados
    19. 19. Repositórios deconhecimento (cont.)Análise da interface• Acessibilidade apresentada pelo ecrã• A complexidade, os ícones, as cores usadas e o design geral têmque reflectir a melhor forma de exploração• Navegação• Facilidade de recuperação e alojamento das contribuições• Sistema de segurança• Ferramentas e outras ajudas – permitir o acesso a outros sitese serviços e permitir que o utilizador desenvolva perfisindividuais
    20. 20. Criação de um interface amigávelpara o repositório deconhecimento
    21. 21. Criação de um interface amigávelpara o repositório deconhecimento
    22. 22. Desenvolvimento dorepositórioEstrutura de conteúdosControlo da qualidadedos conteúdosMapa do conhecimentoDescrição das fontesIdentificação das fontesAnálise da interfaceAvaliação e verificaçãodos conteúdosManutenção dosconteúdosArquivo dos conteúdosRepositório doconhecimentonuclear
    23. 23. Controlo da qualidade dorepositório• Principais elementos para o controlo da qualidade do repositório• Assegurar o valor e a adequação das fontes de forma a que osutilizadores se sintam seguros em relação à validade das fontes• Monitorar a relevância e aplicabilidade do repositório• Verificar a credibilidade dos dados• Arquivar as fontes que já não são utilizadas, relevantes ou precisas
    24. 24. Controlo da qualidade dorepositório (cont.)Verificação / avaliação dos conteúdos• Vida do conhecimento – descreve durante quanto tempo umafonte de conhecimento terá valor• Formas de assegurar o controlo da qualidade:• Metatags descrevendo a autoria• Sinopse do conteúdo, autoria, sumário, descrição dos elementosimportantes, descrição do tipo de utilizadores que podem acharrelevante o conteúdo, descrição da forma como o material estáestruturado e organizado• Perfil do contribuinte• O seu título, história, qualificações, projectos passados, publicações,parcerias, patentes, contribuições, áreas do conhecimento• Exactidão de entradas / política editorial
    25. 25. Controlo da qualidade dorepositório (cont.)Verificação / avaliação dos conteúdos• Agentes do conhecimento• Regulam o estilo das entradas, monitoram a sua qualidade• Utilizadores podem agir como agentes que vetam ou aprovam asentradas. 2 métodos podem ser utilizados:• Filtragem downstream – envolve os utilizadores num processo defiltragem colaborativa, através da definição de critérios, classificaçãode objectos de conhecimento e sua etiquetagem. Controlo dequalidade bottom-up que cria um grande sentimento de pertençamas com implicações pois os utilizadores dispendem bastante tempona gestão do sistema• Filtragem upstream – ocorre quando uma 3ª pessoa intervem namonitorização da qualidade do repositório, verificando e ajustandoos registos para manter a sua consistência e qualidade
    26. 26. Controlo da qualidade dorepositório (cont.)Manutenção dos conteúdos• O conhecimento é actual?• Mudanças da terminologia, alteração do foco do negócio• As áreas do conhecimento que determinaram o desenvolvimento dorepositório podem, gradualmente, ter-se alterado• As pessoas que constituíam fontes de conhecimento específicopodem ter deixado a organização ou desempenharem papeisdiferentes• A manutenção do repositório necessita de um elevado compromissode recursos• Taxonomia e monitorização do descritor• Manter a exactidão das fontes de informação
    27. 27. Controlo da qualidade dorepositório (cont.)Arquivo dos conteúdos• Gestão de arquivos• Processo de determinar a vida de um objecto e desenvolver umaestratégia para a preservação de fontes críticas ou remover itemsdesnecessários• Formas de rever fontes de valor questionável:• As fontes podem ser revistas pelos utilizadores, peritos, painéisde peritos ou auditores• Usabilidade• Valor percebido• Rotulado conforma a importância
    28. 28. Conclusão• Os repositórios do conhecimento são mais eficazes seestiverem estruturados de uma forma sistemática• Estratégias que podem ser consideradas: desenvolvimento deontologias, enciclopédias, utilização de metatags, fortecontrolo da qualidade• Os comportamentos correntes e a integridade do sistemanecessitam de ser, rigorosamente, preservados e protegidos

    ×