Knowledge Management


Published on

Presentation for course of Information management at Åbo Akademi. Paper is available if anyone would like to have it, just send me a message.

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Knowledge Management

    1. 1. Knowledge management in concideration to Web 2.0 Barbora Poláková Åbo Akademi - April 2009
    2. 2. Society <ul><li>postindustrial information society </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1977 ; Marc Uri Porat </li></ul></ul><ul><li>postindustrial knowledge society </li></ul><ul><ul><li>21st century </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Information/Knowledge <ul><li>Information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>contextual independent; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>indexable, organizable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>contextual engaged </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>information in use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>pragmatical reflection of information presented by intellectual capital of individuals (Bukh, 2001) </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Economical potential <ul><li>complex understanding of situation </li></ul>
    5. 5. Knowledge management How to manage knowledge in the way of distribution, usage and other connected processes?
    6. 6. Conventional approach <ul><li>„ Knowledge“ : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>independent of individuals who posses it </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Principle : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>codification, normalization </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Where find knowledge : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>inter-organizational </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>intra-organizational </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Long tail effect <ul><li>How to manage : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>collecting of knowledge in the centralized repository - intranet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>long tail effect (Tredennick, 2006) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>needed X trendy „knowledge“ (Case, 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Conversational approach <ul><li>Knowledge : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>contextual , user dependently </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Principle : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>standardi z ed by codifications of knowledge management system with direct connection to author </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Interactivity <ul><li>Key point = INTERACTIVITY </li></ul><ul><li>integration and collaboration of knowledge creation amongst knowledge possessors </li></ul>
    10. 10. Web 2.0/Interactive web <ul><li>“ 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 &quot;architecture of participation,&quot; and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences . ” </li></ul><ul><li>(O´Reilly, 2005 In Lee, 2007) </li></ul>
    11. 11. Web 2.0/Interactive web <ul><li>shift in understanding and usage of information – knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>user-centred approach </li></ul><ul><li>users role – active ; direct participation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>updating, publishing, evaluating, creating of own or shared space in web environment or communication with other users. </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Characteristics of Web 2.0 (Lee, 2007)
    13. 13. Contribution / publishing / organization <ul><li>„ Every Internet user has the opportunity to freely provide their knowledge content to the relevant subject domains. “ </li></ul><ul><li>effects: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>speed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>volume </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>anonymity </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Sharing / Open source <ul><li>„ Knowledge contents are freely available to others. Secured mechanisms may be enforced to enable the knowledge sharing amongst legitimate members within specific communities. “ </li></ul>
    15. 15. Collaboration 1. <ul><li>„ 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. “ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Synchronous technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>instant chat, video, conferences and shared Group Decision Support System (GDSS) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asynchronous technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Weblog, wiki, e-mail, moderated discussion forums </li></ul></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Collaboration 2. <ul><li>long term goal: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>same-place and same-time technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>two-way interaction – provider/recipient </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>realtime </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>one web space </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>many-to-many model of communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>social networking, collective knowledge intelligence (Baker, 2000) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Dynamic / Actuality <ul><li>„ knowledge contents updated constantly to reflect the changing environment, situation “ </li></ul><ul><li>actual =faster and relevant </li></ul><ul><li>elimination of long tail effect </li></ul>
    18. 18. Reliance <ul><li>„ Knowledge contribution should be based on trust between knowledge providers and domain experts. “ </li></ul><ul><li>trust degree – profiles... </li></ul>
    19. 19. Web 2.0 applications <ul><li>Blog – </li></ul><ul><li>Wiki – </li></ul><ul><li>RSS – mash-up – </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual communities – </li></ul><ul><li>Indexing – </li></ul>
    20. 20. Web 2.0 - knowledge management
    21. 21. Group Decision Support System (GDSS) <ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    22. 22. Concrete examples <ul><li>TeamPage </li></ul><ul><li>Velocity 6.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Meet Stan </li></ul>
    23. 23. Complex knowledge management system <ul><li>Scale to larg group </li></ul><ul><li>I ntegrate applications accros enterprise </li></ul><ul><li>B lend of traditional and Web 2.0 approaches </li></ul><ul><li>user experience design </li></ul><ul><li>Schema–flexibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>data analyzing, retrieving, managing regardless of source or structure </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. Wisdom 1. <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>(Umeda, 2006) </li></ul>
    25. 25. Wisdom 2. <ul><li>Knowledge management is no longer about connecting people to content; it is about connecting people to people. “ </li></ul><ul><li>( Lamont, 2009 ) </li></ul>
    26. 26. <ul><li>Any Questions? </li></ul>
    27. 27. References 1. <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>BUKH, P.N., Larsen, H.T., Mouritsen, J. (2001)Constructing intellectual capital statements. Scandinavian Journal of Management vol. 17, pp. 87 – 108. </li></ul><ul><li>CASE, D. O. (2006). Information behaviour. In: Cronin Blaise. (ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), vol. 40 (2006). pp. 293-327 </li></ul><ul><li>LAMONT, J. (2008). KM past and future: Web 2.0 kicks it up a notch. KMWorld . no1. </li></ul>
    28. 28. References 2. <ul><li>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: </li></ul><ul><li>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: </li></ul>