Mapping Of Knowlegde

I want to explain about the spread of knowledge in my group. My group is consist of some person, they are Kartika (me), Ayu, Dyah and Marhamah.

readmore »»  

Chapter 6 - Knowledge Management in Practice

Knowledge management or knowledge sharing manifest themselves in many ways in the workplace; that may include ordinary events, such as facilitated meetings or informal conversations or more complex interactions that require information and communication technology.

FINDING INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Since building knowledge may require the analysis and synthesis of information, the lines between working with information and working with knowledge or knowledge artifacts easily become blurred. Under the aegis of ‘knowledge management’, there are three types of processes that are generally considered to be essential: finding or uncovering knowledge, sharing knowledge, and the development of new knowledge. All may play a role in assisting with decision making and encouraging innovation. The chain is straightforward, a pyramid, in fact, leading from Data at the bottom through Information, Knowledge, Intelligence, Decision, and Action, to Value. Finding information and knowledge refers to processes that allow organizations to make sense and make use of data, information, and knowledge objects that may be present but are not codified, analyzed, nor accessible to members. Knowledge exists in all organizations, but all knowledge may not be explicit.

SHARING INFORMATION ANDKNOWLEDGE

Sharing of information for knowledge development is the most traditional collection of processes, easily understood, but often overlooked in a systematic knowledge management program. Sharing refers to the willingness and ability of the knowledgeable to share what they know to help others expand their own learning and knowing.Teaching and learning activities, such as online universities in industry, mentoring programs, apprenticeships, and training programs all serve as opportunities for individuals to share knowledge. The live interactions that occur in lectures and other kinds of learning sessions can now be captured fairly easily with digital video or audio equipment. Even mobile devices have these capabilities.They can then be indexed and placed on a shared file platform or in an intranet.

DEVELOPMENT OFKNOWLEDGE

Knowledge development takes place when individuals work to create new understandings, innovations, and a synthesis of what is known already together with newly acquired information or knowledge. Although individuals can intentionally develop their own knowledge through seeking opportunities to be creative and learn, the development of knowledge is often a social process. Meetings, teleconferences, planning sessions, knowledge cafes, and team think tank sessions all serve to help workers develop knowledge together. The synergies brought about by effective meetings can encourage the development of new knowledge. Allowing individuals to take risks and occasionally make mistakes (and learn from them) can also develop a culture of innovation that fosters the creation of new knowledge through research and experimentation.

KNOWLEDGE AUDIT

The obvious first step in launching a formalKMprogram throughout an organization is to conduct an information or knowledge audit.An audit answers the questions of what information and knowledge exists in the organization and where is it?Who maintains it?Who has access to it? Etc. The idea of an information auditory much predates KM as we have defined KM here. Accompanying, or more accurately a component of, the Information Resources Management (IRM) movement of the 1970’s was a strong emphasis upon the information or knowledge audit. At that time, the Internet and Web portals did not yet exist, and there was a very legitimate concern that data was being captured in an unplanned and decentralized fashion and that the data was held as the “slave of the program.” While tacit or implicit information was not ignored, the emphasis was very much upon explicit captured data and information. Clearly, the techniques used in creating a knowledge audit or knowledge map are those borrowed from social network analysis and anthropology, and appropriately so, since Knowledge Management is interdisciplinary by nature, spanning boundaries of thought and interests. The second stage focuses on programs, projects, and products. It’s critical for all involved in such an endeavor to remember that knowledge grows from information, so careful oversight of information is necessary as a foundation for knowledge development and the formation of a knowledge sharing culture.

TAGS, TAXONOMIES, AND CONTENT MANAGEMENT

Having identified and located information and knowledge, the obvious next step is to make it relocatable and retrievable, made possible by tagging and creating taxonomies. The tag and taxonomy stage of KM consists primarily of assembling various information resources in some sort of portal-like environment and making them available to the organization. This can include internally generated information, including lessons learned databases and expertise locators, as well as external information, the open web and also deep web information subscribed to by the organization.With the arrival of extensive email use by virtually all organizations the extentof internal information to be managed has exploded.

LESSONS LEARNED DATABASES

Lessons Learned databases are databases that attempt to capture and to make accessible knowledge that has been operationally obtained and typically would not have been captured in a fixed medium (to use copyright terminology). In theKMcontext, the emphasis is typically upon capturing knowledge embedded in persons and making it explicit.The lessons learned concept or practice is one that might be described as having been birthed by KM, as there is very little in the way of a direct antecedent. Early in the KM movement, the phrase typically used was “best practices,” but that phrase was soon replaced with “lessons learned.” The reasons were that “lessons learned” was broader and more inclusive, and because “best practice” seemed too restrictive and could be interpreted as meaning there was only one best practice in a situation. The implementation of a lessons learned system is complex both politically and operationally. Most successful lessons learned implementations have concluded that such a system needs to be monitored and that there needs to be a vetting and approval mechanism before items are mounted as lessonslearned. How long do items stay in the system? Who decides when an item is no longer salient and timely? Most successful lessons learned systems have an active weeding or stratification process. Without a clearly designed process for weeding, the proportion of new and crisp items inevitably declines, the system begins to look stale, and usage and utility falls.

EXPERTISE LOCATION

If knowledge resides in people, then one of the best ways to learn what an expert knows is to talk with one. Locating the right expert with the knowledge you need, though, can be a problem. The basic function of an expertise locator system is straightforward, it is to identify and locate those persons within an organization who have expertise in a particular area. There are nowthree areas which typically supply data for an expertise locator system, employee resumes, employee self identification of areas of expertise, typically by being requested to fill out a form online, or by algorithmic analysis of electronic communications from and to the employee.

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE (COPS)

Communities of Practice (CoPs) are groups of individuals with shared interests that come together in person or virtually to tell stories, discuss best practices, and talk over lessons learned [Wenger, E., 1998a,Wenger and Snyder, 1999].Communities of practice emphasize the social nature of learning within or across organizations. Conversations around the water cooler are often taken for granted, but organizations find that when workers give up a company office to work out of their home, that the natural knowledge sharing that occurs in social spaces must be replicated in an online form. In the context of KM, CoPs are generally understood to mean electronically linked communities. Electronic linkage is not essential of course, but since KM arose in the consulting community from the awareness of the potential of Intranets to link geographically dispersed organizations, this orientation is understandable and inevitable. The organization and maintenance of CoPs is not a simple and easy undertaking. As Durham, M. [2004] points out, there are several key roles to be filled, which she describes as manager, moderator, and thought leader. They need not necessarily be three separate people, but in some cases they will need to be.

PROCESSES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES MATRIX

That matrix reveals several interesting things. Almost everything one does in KM is designed to help find information and knowledge.However, if we assume that the main goal ofKM is to share knowledge and even more importantly to develop new knowledge, then the Knowledge Audit and the Tags, Taxonomies and Content Management stages are the underpinnings and the tools. It is the knowledge sharing and knowledge creation of one on one communications enabled by expertise locators, and the communal sharing and creation of knowledge enabled by communities of practice toward which KM development should be aimed.

readmore »»  

Chapter 5 - Knowledge “Acts”

QUESTION ASKING AND ANSWERING

Question asking and answering is a foundational process by which what people know tacitly becomes expressed, and hence, externalized as knowledge. Boahene and Ditsa [2003] suggest that Information Management systems target a base of expressive speech acts by mainly supporting the recall of meaning-attribution while Knowledge Management systems target regulative and constantive speech acts primarily to support the organization and management of dynamic complexity. They reason that IM addresses questions such as ‘Where,’ ‘Who,’ ‘When,’ and ‘What,’ while KM targets problems involving dynamic complexity, addressing solutions to questions such as ‘How’ and ‘Why.’ Another category of questions, “What-if,” will also fall in the domain of knowledge activity. Since such questions necessitate predicting and prioritizing outcomes, attempts to address such “what-if ” questions will require integrating understanding of “what” with “why” and “how” to arrive at reasonable resolution.

POSTING CONTENT TO REPOSITORIES

Contributing content such as lessons-learned, project experiences, and success stories is another approach to knowledge sharing. Professionals may not have the time to hand off a document for submission to an appointed surrogate either. For many professionals who are used to online communication and accessing databases and discussion lists, we could argue that it is quicker and easier for the professionals to make the contribution themselves. As awareness increases for the importance of making knowledge explicit, more and more products will appear to help with creating knowledge bases and decision recommendations, but it is a mindset open to using, sharing, and creating knowledge that will make a difference in creating an organizational knowledge culture.

(RE)USINGKNOWLEDGE

Desouza et al. [2006] assert that the decision to consume knowledge can be framed as a problem of risk evaluation, with perceived complexity and relative advantage being identified as factors relating to intentions to “consume” knowledge. However, it is essential that the knowledge consumer is able to reasonably frame his or her knowledge needs.

KNOWLEDGE-BASEDDECISIONMAKING

In general, decision making involves identifying alternatives, projecting probabilities and outcomes of alternatives, and evaluating outcomes according to known preferences and implications for stakeholders.

Information used in one activity that results in new knowledge will, in turn, be used to guide selection of alternatives in future tasks that involve decision making. Codified rules and routines would be relied on to support evaluation of alternatives and selection of action decisions. Choice of alternatives, and decision outcomes then provide the backdrop upon which sense making, or justification, of decision rationale occurs. Such decision rationale, and its associated sense making can then be codified for (re)use in other contexts, applied to future activities that draw on it to create new instances of knowledge. In such decision oriented activity, we have proposed that “what-if ” questions are the dominant type of speech act performed.Support for such scenario predicting questions will demand rich context upon which to apply knowledge of the past and the present to bear on the problem or situation at hand.

readmore »»  

Chapter 4 - Conceptualizing Knowledge Emergence

GATEKEEPERS, INFORMATION, STARS, AND BOUNDARY SPANNERS

A substantial body of research has been developed on the transmission of information within organizations, particularly R&D organizations. The “information stars” were central to information flow both within the organization at large, and within their project or projects. The characteristics that distinguished these stars were:

• · extensive communication with their field outside of the organization

• · greater perusal of information sources, journals, etc., information mavens

• · a high degree of connectedness with other information stars, one can infer that their utility was not just having more information at their fingertips, but knowing to whom to turn within the organization for further information

• · an above average degree of formal education compared to their project teammates

RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY AND KNOWLEDGE

The productivity measure was, at base, simply the number of approved new drugs (new drug applications or NDAs) per millions of dollars of R&D budget. This measure, however, was refined by weighting the NDAs in regard to:

1) whether or not the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) judged the drug to be an “important therapeutic advance,”

2) the chemical novelty of the drug, and

3) the filing company’s patent position in regard to the drug, an indicator of where the bulk of the research was done.

The more productive companies were characterized by:

• A relatively egalitarian managerial structure with unobtrusive status indicators in the R&D environment,

• Less concern with protecting proprietary information,

• Greater openness to outside information, greater use of their libraries and information centers, specifically, greater attendance by employees at professional meetings,

• Greater information systems development effort,

• Greater end-user use of information systems and more encouragement of browsing and serendipity. Increased time spent browsing and keeping abreast,

• Greater technical and subject sophistication of the information services staff.

LACK OF RECOGNITION OFTHESE FINDINGS IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

a subset of an even larger problem - the lack of recognition of or even obtuseness to the importance of information and information related managerial actions in the business community. The three most important characteristics are all related to the information environment and information flow – specifically:

1) easy access to information by individuals;

2) free flow of information both into and out of the organizations;

3) rewards for sharing, seeking, and using “new” externally developed information sources.

It analyzed various aspects of the behavior of research project managers as perceived by their staff and team members, and it found that in the more productive organizations (as defined by rates of growth and return on assets), the managers were perceived to be significantly more characterized by three aspects of their behavior, all information related:

1) they routed literature and references to scientific and technical staff,

2) they directed their staff to use scientific and technical information (STI) and to purchase STI services, and

3) they encouraged publication of results and supported professional meeting attendance and continuing education.

Particularly striking was the finding that not only did information related management behavior tendstrongly to discriminate between “high-performance” and “low-performance” companies, but also that none of the non information related management behaviors measured had any discriminatory value. Here, given the inability to find any significance for other managerial factors, the failure to remark upon the importance of information and knowledge factors can truly be described as remarkable.

COMMUNITY-BASED MODELS

The Community of Practice (CoP) is not necessarily department-based nor centered in one organization.ACoP can consist of those in charge of human resources training, for example, in a number of organizations.This model is based on the premise that organizational members with similar interests or practices meet to discuss issues of mutual concern and to help each other solve problems. The meeting can often happen in electronic-based forums, and these online discussions are usually self-managing. Group Decision Support Systems (GDSSs) were originally conceived of as collaborative tools where groups came together, participated in brainstorming and then, through human facilitation, voted on items and issues important to the organization. Generic Decision Support Systems (DSS) that act more like expert systems with the added feature of suggesting decision options are well suited to the Web, and they are proliferating as the Web becomes the ubiquitous information and communication platform for information storage and retrieval, and for interaction as well. The GDSS has not migrated easily to theWeb, however, some web-based systems are available and have adapted to an asynchronous situation.

ACTIVITY-BASED MODELS

The model was implemented with limited workflow functions at a global telecommunications company.While repositories and workflow support have largely developed with limited integration, designs such as this, grounded in case implementations, provide some empirical validity as to the appropriateness and value of incorporating activity as context for knowledge reuse.

readmore »»  

DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF BEAUTY

I believe that the concept of beauty differs according to time and places. During the renaissance period, people thought that plump women were gorgeous. In contrast, nowadays women who are slim are considered attractive. In the 1950’s, fashion thrends made women believe that they would look more stunning if they had curly hair, whereas today, a straight and long hairstyle is preffered. Previously in America and Europe, people with light complexions were considered attractive, while nowadays many people think that they look more exotic if they are tanned.

SNSD - Girl Band from South Korea

Angelina Jolie - Holliwood Artist

However, geography also plays a role in determining the concept of beauty. For example, an Indian woman with long and straight black hair is considered beautiful. In Africa , on the other hand, a woman with curly hair is thought of as good looking. In some parts of Africa , women wear tattoos as symbols of beauty while Chinese women go for flawless skin without any marks. So time and place really determine people’s perspectives of beauty

Miss Angola Miss Universe 2011

The participants of the Miss Universe beauty pageant are diserve, some of them, especially those who come from European countries, have fair complexions. On the other hand, the participants who come from latin America countries are more tanned. Indonesians are generally fair skinned, however people in the eastern part of Indonesia have darker complexions.

Dian Sastro - Indonesians Artist

readmore »»