Friday, 31 May 2013

History [edit]

There is no known occurrence of this precise phrase in Bacon's English or Latin writings. However, this phrase does appear in Thomas Hobbes' 1658 work De Homine, cap. x  : "Scientia potentia est, sed parva; quia scientia egregia rara est, nec proinde apparens nisi paucissimis, et in paucis rebus. Scientiae enim ea natura est, ut esse intelligi non possit, nisi ab illis qui sunt scientia praediti.
This was translated as "The sciences, are small power; because not eminent; and therefore, not acknowledged in any man; nor are at all, but in a few, and in them, but of a few things. For science is of that nature, as none can understand it to be, but such as in a good measure have attained it" in Thomas Hobbes, The English Works, vol. III (Leviathan) [1651] in The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; Now First Collected and Edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart., (London: Bohn, 1839–45). 11 vols. Vol. 3. p 47. This passage from Chapter X ("Of power, worth, dignity, honour, and worthiness" occurs in a list of various attributes of man which constitute power; in this list, "sciences" or "the sciences" are given a minor position.
It is asserted that Hobbes also wrote "The end of knowledge is power ... the scope of all speculation is the performing of some action or thing to be done. " inDe Corp, EW, i, I, 1, 6, 7. According to Thomas Hobbes,[1] "In Jean Hampton, Hobbes and the social contract tradition (1988), 46. Hampton indicates that this quote is 'after Bacon' and in a footnote, that 'Hobbes was Bacon's secretary as a young man and had philosophical discussions with him (Aubrey 1898, 331).
The closest expression in Bacon's works is, perhaps, the expression "scientia potestas est", found in his Meditationes Sacrae (1597), which is perhaps better translated as "knowledge is His power", because the context of the sentence refers to the qualities of God and is imbedded in a discussion of heresies that deny the power of God: Dei quam potestatis; vel putius ejus partis potestatis Dei, (nam et ipsa scientia potestas est) qua scit, quam ejus qua raovet et agit; ut praesciat quaedam otoise, quae non praedestinet et praordinet.
The English translation of this section includes the following:
"This canon is the mother of all canons against heresies. The cause of error is twofold : ignorance of the will of God, and ignorance or superficial consideration of the power of God. The will of God is more revealed through the Scriptures… his power more through his creatures… So is the plenitude of God’s power to be asserted, as not to involve any imputation upon his will. So is the goodness of his will to be asserted, as not to imply any derogation of his power. … Atheism and Theomachy rebels and mutinies against the power of God ; not trusting to his word, which reveals his will, because it does not believe in his power,to whom all things are possible… But of the heresies which deny the power of God, there are, besides simple atheism, three degrees…
The third degree is of those who limit and restrain the former opinion to human actions only, which partake of sin: which actions they suppose to depend substantively and without any chain of causes upon the inward will and choice of man; and who give a wider range to the knowledge of God than to his power; or rather to that part of God’s power (for knowledge itself is power) whereby he knows, than to that whereby he works and acts ; suffering him to fore know some things as an unconcerned looker on, which he does not predestine and preordain : a notion not unlike the figment which Epicurus introduced into the philosophy of Democritus, to get rid of fate and make room for fortune; namely the sidelong motion of the Atom; which has ever by the wiser sort been accounted a very empty device. " (p. 94-95; works of Bacon, Vol XIV, Boston; Brown and Taggard, 1861)
Interpretation of the notion of power meant by Bacon must therefore take into account his distinction between the power of knowing and the power of working and acting, the opposite of what is assumed when the maxim is taken out of context.[2] Indeed, the quotation has become a cliche.
In another place, Bacon wrote, "Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known the effect cannot be produced. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed; and that which in contemplation is as the cause is in operation as the rule."[3] a

Origins and parallels [edit]


Information Awareness Officeseal with it's motto scientia est potentia
A proverb in practically the same wording is first found in Hebrew, in the Biblical Book of Proverbs (24:5): גֶּבֶר-חָכָם בַּעוֹז; וְאִישׁ-דַּעַת, מְאַמֶּץ-כֹּחַ, translated (in the KJV) as A wise man is strong, a man of knowledge increaseth strength.
This early 1st millennium BC sentence became considerably widespread, as witnessed by a reference (around 1000 AD) in Ferdowsi's Shahname: توانا بود هر که دانا بود "One who has wisdom is powerful"[4] - and by Bacon's wording (although whether he was deliberately quoting Proverbs cannot be determined - cf. Vulgate vir sapiens et fortis est et vir doctus robustus et validus).

Interpretation [edit]

The phrase implies that with knowledge or education one's potential or abilities in life will certainly increase. Having and sharing knowledge is widely recognised as the basis for improving one's reputation and influence, thus power. This phrase may also be used as a justification for a reluctance to share information when a person believes that withholding knowledge can deliver to that person some form of advantage. Another interpretation is that the only true power is knowledge, as everything (including any achievement) is derived from it.

See also [edit]

References [edit]

  1. ^ "Thomas Hobbes Quotes - 14 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes". Todayinsci.com. 2012-01-19. Retrieved 2012-09-20.
  2. ^ Vickers, Brian (1992). "Francis Bacon and the Progress of Knowledge". Journal of the History of Ideas, 53 (3): 495–518. JSTOR 2709891.
  3. ^ Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, Part I, Aphorism III. Boston: Taggard & Thompson, 1863, volume VIII, p.67-68.
  4. ^ "The Modern Magazine for Persian Weddings, Cuisine, Culture & Community". Persianmirror.com. Retrieved 2012-09-20.

Further reading [edit]

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, 30 May 2013

Knowledge management

Knowledge management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organisation to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences.[1] Such insights and experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organisations asprocesses or practices.[2][3] More recently, other fields have started contributing to KM research; these include information and media, computer science,public health, and public policy.[4]
Many large companies and non-profit organisations have resources dedicated to internal KM efforts, often as a part of their business strategy, information technology, or human resource management departments (Addicott, McGivern & Ferlie 2006).[5] Several consulting companies also exist that provide strategy and advice regarding KM to these organisations.[5]
Knowledge management efforts typically focus on organisational objectives such as improved performance, competitive advantage, innovation, the sharing of lessons learned, integration and continuous improvement of the organisation.[6] KM efforts overlap with organisational learning, and may be distinguished from that by a greater focus on the management of knowledge as a strategic asset and a focus on encouraging the sharing of knowledge.[1][7] It is seen as an enabler of organisational learning[8] and a more concrete mechanism than the previous abstract research.[9][10]

Contents

  [hide] 

History [edit]

KM efforts have a long history, to include on-the-job discussions, formal apprenticeship, discussion forums, corporate libraries, professional training and mentoring programs.[1][9] More recently, with increased use of computers in the second half of the 20th century, specific adaptations of technologies such asknowledge bases, expert systems, knowledge repositories, group decision support systems, intranets, and computer-supported cooperative work have been introduced to further enhance such efforts.[1]
In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced which refers to the management of knowledge at the individual level (Wright 2005).[11]
In terms of the enterprise, early collections of case studies recognized the importance of knowledge management dimensions of strategy, process, and measurement (Morey, Maybury & Thuraisingham 2002).[12][13] Key lessons learned included: people and the cultural norms which influence their behaviors are the most critical resources for successful knowledge creation, dissemination, and application; cognitive, social, and organisational learning processes are essential to the success of a knowledge management strategy; and measurement, benchmarking, and incentives are essential to accelerate the learning process and to drive cultural change.[13] In short, knowledge management programs can yield impressive benefits to individuals and organisations if they are purposeful, concrete, and action-oriented.[13]
More recently with the advent of the Web 2.0, the concept of Knowledge Management has evolved towards a vision more based on people participation andemergence.[14] This line of evolution is termed Enterprise 2.0 (McAfee 2006).[14] However, there is an ongoing debate and discussions (Lakhani & McAfee 2007) as to whether Enterprise 2.0 is just a fad that does not bring anything new or useful or whether it is, indeed, the future of knowledge management (Davenport 2008).[15][16]

Research [edit]

KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the earlier 1990s.[17] It was initially supported solely by practitioners, when Skandia hired Leif Edvinsson of Sweden as the world's first Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO).[18] Hubert Saint-Onge (formerly of CIBC, Canada), started investigating various sides of KM long before that.[1] The objective of CKOs is to manage and maximize the intangible assets of their organisations.[1] Gradually, CKOs became interested in not only practical but also theoretical aspects of KM, and the new research field was formed.[19] Discussion of the KM idea has been taken up by academics, such asIkujiro Nonaka (Hitotsubashi University), Hirotaka Takeuchi (Hitotsubashi University), Thomas H. Davenport (Babson College) and Baruch Lev (New York University).[20][16] In 2001, Thomas A. Stewart, former editor at FORTUNE Magazine and subsequently the editor of Harvard Business Review, published a cover story highlighting the importance of intellectual capital in organisations.[21] Since its establishment, the KM discipline has been gradually moving towards academic maturity.[1] First, there is a trend towards higher cooperation among academics; particularly, there has been a drop in single-authored publications. Second, the role of practitioners has changed.[19] Their contribution to academic research has been dramatically declining from 30% of overall contributions up to 2002, to only 10% by 2009 (Serenko et al. 2010).[22]
A broad range of thoughts on the KM discipline exist; approaches vary by author and school.[19][23] As the discipline matures, academic debates have increased regarding both the theory and practice of KM, to include the following perspectives:
Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM include people, processes, technology (or) culture, structure, technology, depending on the specific perspective (Spender & Scherer 2007). Different KM schools of thought include various lenses through which KM can be viewed and explained, to include:
The practical relevance of academic research in KM has been questioned (Ferguson 2005) with action research suggested as having more relevance (Andriessen 2004) and the need to translate the findings presented in academic journals to a practice (Booker, Bontis & Serenko 2008).[12][12][32][33]

Dimensions [edit]

Different frameworks for distinguishing between different 'types of' knowledge exist.[9] One proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge.[30] Tacit knowledge represents internalized knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of, such as how he or she accomplishes particular tasks. At the opposite end of the spectrum, explicit knowledge represents knowledge that the individual holds consciously in mental focus, in a form that can easily be communicated to others. (Alavi & Leidner 2001).[19] Similarly, Hayes and Walsham (2003) describe content and relational perspectives of knowledge and knowledge management as two fundamentally different epistemological perspectives.[34] The content perspective suggest that knowledge is easily stored because it may be codified, while the relational perspective recognizes the contextual and relational aspects of knowledge which can make knowledge difficult to share outside of the specific location where the knowledge is developed.[34]

The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi.
Early research suggested that a successful KM effort needs to convert internalized tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in order to share it, but the same effort must also permit individuals to internalize and make personally meaningful any codified knowledge retrieved from the KM effort.[5][35] Subsequent research into KM suggested that a distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge represented an oversimplification and that the notion of explicit knowledge is self-contradictory.[11] Specifically, for knowledge to be made explicit, it must be translated into information (i.e., symbols outside of our heads) (Serenko & Bontis 2004).[11] Later on, Ikujiro Nonaka proposed a model (SECI for Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) which considers a spiraling knowledge process interaction between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995).[36] In this model, knowledge follows a cycle in which implicit knowledge is 'extracted' to become explicit knowledge, and explicit knowledge is 're-internalized' into implicit knowledge.[36] More recently, together with Georg von Krogh, Nonaka returned to his earlier work in an attempt to move the debate about knowledge conversion forwards (Nonaka & von Krogh 2009).[3]
A second proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between embedded knowledge of a system outside of a human individual (e.g., an information system may have knowledge embedded into its design) and embodied knowledge representing a learned capability of a human body’s nervous and endocrine systems (Sensky 2002).[37]
A third proposed framework for categorizing the dimensions of knowledge distinguishes between the exploratory creation of "new knowledge" (i.e., innovation) vs. the transfer or exploitation of "established knowledge" within a group, organisation, or community.[34][38] Collaborative environments such as communities of practice or the use of social computing tools can be used for both knowledge creation and transfer.[38]

Strategies [edit]

Knowledge may be accessed at three stages: before, during, or after KM-related activities.[39] Different organisations have tried various knowledge captureincentives, including making content submission mandatory and incorporating rewards into performance measurement plans.[40] Considerable controversy exists over whether incentives work or not in this field and no consensus has emerged.[6]
One strategy to KM involves actively managing knowledge (push strategy).[6][41] In such an instance, individuals strive to explicitly encode their knowledge into a shared knowledge repository, such as a database, as well as retrieving knowledge they need that other individuals have provided to the repository.[41]This is also commonly known as the Codification approach to KM.[41]
Another strategy to KM involves individuals making knowledge requests of experts associated with a particular subject on an ad hoc basis (pull strategy).[6][41] In such an instance, expert individual(s) can provide their insights to the particular person or people needing this (Snowden 2002).[30] This is also commonly known as the Personalisation approach to KM.
Other knowledge management strategies and instruments for companies include:[6][26][30]
  • Rewards (as a means of motivating for knowledge sharing)
  • Storytelling (as a means of transferring tacit knowledge)
  • Cross-project learning
  • After action reviews
  • Knowledge mapping (a map of knowledge repositories within a company accessible by all)
  • Communities of practice
  • Expert directories (to enable knowledge seeker to reach to the experts)
  • Best practice transfer
  • Knowledge fairs
  • Competence management (systematic evaluation and planning of competences of individual organisation members)
  • Proximity & architecture (the physical situation of employees can be either conducive or obstructive to knowledge sharing)
  • Master-apprentice relationship
  • Collaborative technologies (groupware, etc.)
  • Knowledge repositories (databases, bookmarking engines, etc.)
  • Measuring and reporting intellectual capital (a way of making explicit knowledge for companies)
  • Knowledge brokers (some organisational members take on responsibility for a specific "field" and act as first reference on whom to talk about a specific subject)
  • Social software (wikis, social bookmarking, blogs, etc.)
  • Inter-project knowledge transfer

Motivations [edit]

A number of claims exist as to the motivations leading organisations to undertake a KM effort.[42] Typical considerations driving a KM effort include:[30]
  • Making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision of products and services
  • Achieving shorter new product development cycles
  • Facilitating and managing innovation and organisational learning
  • Leveraging the expertise of people across the organisation
  • Increasing network connectivity between internal and external individuals
  • Managing business environments and allowing employees to obtain relevant insights and ideas appropriate to their work
  • Solving intractable or wicked problems
  • Managing intellectual capital and intellectual assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and know-how possessed by key individuals)
Debate exists whether KM is more than a passing fad, though increasing amount of research in this field may hopefully help to answer this question, as well as create consensus on what elements of KM help determine the success or failure of such efforts (Wilson 2002).[43] Knowledge sharing remains a challenging issue for knowledge management, and while there is no clear agreement barriers may include time issues for knowledge works, the level of trust, lack of effective support technologies and culture (Jennex 2008).[44]

Technologies [edit]

Early KM technologies included online corporate yellow pages as expertise locators and document management systems.[24] Combined with the early development of collaborative technologies (in particular Lotus Notes), KM technologies expanded in the mid-1990s.[24] Subsequent KM efforts leveragedsemantic technologies for search and retrieval and the development of e-learning tools for communities of practice (Capozzi 2007).[45] Knowledge management systems can thus be categorized as falling into one or more of the following groups: Groupware, document management systems, expert systems, semantic networks, relational and object oriented databases, simulation tools, and artificial intelligence[6]
More recently, development of social computing tools (such as bookmarks, blogs, and wikis) have allowed more unstructured, self-governing or ecosystem approaches to the transfer, capture and creation of knowledge, including the development of new forms of communities, networks, or matrixed organizations.[33][46] However such tools for the most part are still based on text and code, and thus represent explicit knowledge transfer.[47] These tools face challenges in distilling meaningful re-usable knowledge and ensuring that their content is transmissible through diverse channels(Andrus 2005).[4]
Software tools in knowledge management are a collection of technologies and are not necessarily acquired as a single software solution.[45][48] Furthermore, these knowledge management software tools have the advantage of using the organisation existing information technology infrastructure.[17] Organisations and business decision makers spend a great deal of resources and make significant investments in the latest technology, systems and infrastructure to support knowledge management.[49] It is imperative that these investments are validated properly, made wisely and that the most appropriate technologies and software tools are selected or combined to facilitate knowledge management.[32]
Knowledge management has also become a cornerstone in emerging business strategies such as Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) with companies increasingly turning to software vendors to enhance their efficiency in industries including, but not limited to, the aviation industry.

See also [edit]

Journals:

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f g "Introduction to Knowledge Management". University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  2. ^ Nonaka, Ikujiro (1991). "The knowledge creating company". Harvard Business Review 69 (6): 96–104.
  3. ^ a b Nonaka, Ikujiro; von Krogh, Georg (2009). "Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory". Organization Science 20 (3): 635–652. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0412.
  4. ^ a b Bellinger, Gene. "Mental Model Musings". Systems Thinking Blog. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  5. ^ a b c d Addicot, Rachael; McGivern, Gerry; Ferlie, Ewan (2006). "Networks, Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks".Public Money & Management 26 (2): 87–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9302.2006.00506.x.
  6. ^ a b c d e f Gupta, Jatinder; Sharma, Sushil (2004). Creating Knowledge Based Organizations. Boston: Idea Group Publishing. ISBN 1-59140-163-1.
  7. ^ Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge Management Systems: Information And Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management (3rd edition). Berlin: Springer.
  8. ^ Sanchez, R (1996) Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management, Wiley, Chichester
  9. ^ a b c Sanchez, R. (1996). Strategic Learning and Knowledge Management. Chichester: Wiley.
  10. ^ "Bloomfire". CrunchBase. Retrieved 17 April 2013.
  11. ^ a b c Wright, Kirby (2005). "Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker performance". Knowledge Management Research and Practice 3 (3): 156–165. doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500061.
  12. ^ a b c Booker, Lorne; Bontis, Nick; Serenko, Alexander (2008). "The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research". Knowledge and Process Management 15 (4): 235–246. doi:10.1002/kpm.314.
  13. ^ a b c Morey, Daryl; Maybury, Mark; Thuraisingham, Bhavani (2002). Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works. MIT Press. p. 451. ISBN 0-262-13384-9.
  14. ^ a b McAfee, Andrew (2006). "Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration". Sloan Management Review 47 (3): 21–28.
  15. ^ Lakhani, Karim; McAfee, Andrew. "Wikipedia's Enterprise 2.0 Article". Harvard Business School. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
  16. ^ a b Davenport, Tom. "Enterprise 2.0: The New, New Knowledge Management?". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  17. ^ a b McInerney, Claire (2002). "Knowledge Management and the Dynamic Nature of Knowledge". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (12): 1009–1018. doi:10.1002/asi.10109.
  18. ^ a b "Information Architecture and Knowledge Management". Kent State University. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  19. ^ a b c d Bray, David. "SSRN-Literature Review – Knowledge Management Research at the Organizational Level". Papers.ssrn.com. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  20. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named 37HBR (see the help page).
  21. ^ Stewart, Thomas A. (1998). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. Crown Business Publishers. ISBN 0385483813.
  22. ^ Serenko, Alexander; Bontis, Nick; Booker, Lorne; Sadeddin, Khaled; Hardie, Timothy (2010). "A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature (1994–2008)". Journal of Knowledge Management 14 (1): 13–23. doi:10.1108/13673271011015534.
  23. ^ Langton Robbins, N. S. (2006). Organizational Behaviour (Fourth Canadian Edition). Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  24. ^ a b c Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (1999). "Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits". Communications of the AIS 1 (2).
  25. ^ Rosner, D.; Grote, B.; Hartman, K.; Hofling, B.; Guericke, O. (1998). "From natural language documents to sharable product knowledge: a knowledge engineering approach". In Borghoff, Uwe M.; Pareschi, Remo. Information technology for knowledge management. Springer Verlag. pp. 35–51.
  26. ^ a b Bray, David. "SSRN-Knowledge Ecosystems: A Theoretical Lens for Organizations Confronting Hyperturbulent Environments". Papers.ssrn.com.
  27. ^ Carlson Marcu Okurowsk, Lynn; Marcu, Daniel; Okurowsk, Mary Ellen. "Building a Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory". University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
  28. ^ "TeacherBridge: Knowledge Management in Communities of Practice". Virginia Tech. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  29. ^ Groth, Kristina. "Using social networks for knowledge management". Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  30. ^ a b c d e Snowden, Dave (2002). "Complex Acts of Knowing – Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness". Journal of Knowledge Management, Special Issue 6(2): 100–111.
  31. ^ Wyssusek, Boris. "Knowledge Management - A Sociopragmatic Approach (2001)". CiteSeerX. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  32. ^ a b Ferguson, J. (2005). "Bridging the gap between research and practice". Knowledge Management for Development Journal 1 (3): 46–54.
  33. ^ a b Andriessen, Daniel (2004). "Reconciling the rigor-relevance dilemma in intellectual capital research". The Learning Organization 11 (4/5): 393–401.doi:10.1108/09696470410538288.
  34. ^ a b c Hayes, M.; Walsham, G. (2003). "Knowledge sharing and ICTs: A relational perspective". In Easterby-Smith, M.; Lyles, M.A. The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 54–77. ISBN 978-0-631-22672-7.
  35. ^ "Rhetorical Structure Theory Website". RST. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
  36. ^ a b Nonaka, Ikujiro; Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-19-509269-1.
  37. ^ Sensky, Tom (2002). "Knowledge Management". Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 8 (5): 387–395. doi:10.1192/apt.8.5.387.
  38. ^ a b "SSRN-Exploration, Exploitation, and Knowledge Management Strategies in Multi-Tier Hierarchical Organizations Experiencing Environmental Turbulence by David Bray". Papers.ssrn.com. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
  39. ^ Bontis, Nick; Choo, Chun Wei (2002). The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.ISBN 0-19-513866-X.
  40. ^ Benbasat, Izak; Zmud, Robert (1999). "Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance". MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 3–16.doi:10.2307/249403. JSTOR 249403.
  41. ^ a b c d "Knowledge Management for Data Interoperability". Retrieved 18 April 2013.
  42. ^ Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy E. (2001). "Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues". MIS Quarterly 25 (1): 107–136. doi:10.2307/3250961. JSTOR 3250961.
  43. ^ Wilson, T. D. (2002). "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'". Information Research 8 (1).
  44. ^ Jennex, M.E. (2008). Knowledge Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. pp. 1–3808. ISBN 978-1599049335.
  45. ^ a b Capozzi, Marla M. (2007). "Knowledge Management Architectures Beyond Technology". First Monday 12 (6).
  46. ^ Calvin, D. Andrus (2005). "The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence Community". Studies in Intelligence 49 (3). SSRN 755904.
  47. ^ McAdam, Rodney; McCreedy, Sandra (2000). "A Critique Of Knowledge Management: Using A Social Constructionist Model". New Technology, Work and Employment 15 (2).
  48. ^ Akscyn, Robert M.; McCracken, Donald L.; Yoder, Elise A. (1988). "KMS: A distributed hypermedia system for managing knowledge in organizations".Communications of the ACM 31 (7): 820–835.
  49. ^ Nanjappa, Aloka; Grant, Michael M. (2003). "Constructing on constructivism: The role of technology". Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education 2 (1).

External links [edit]

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)