KM log11 A content analysis of literature regarding knowledge management opportunities for librarians

PART I
1. Knowledge management is about creating, capturing, organising, retrieving, disseminating, sharing and re-using knowledge for the benefit of organizations.
2. The concept of corporate memory refer to the collective tacit and explicit knowledge.
3. Librarians need to get engaged with issues that have not been part of their tasks previously, and change and adapt their duties from gatekeepers to gateways of information to fulfill the role of knowledge manager successfully.
4. Traditional information management principles include organizing, retrieving, repackaging and uilising information, which are important for effective knowledge management applications.
5. Librarians understand the information seeking behaviour of users, which give them an advantage over those people who deal exclusively with the technology of information because they add human value to information.
6. Enhancing the role and employers expectations of the profession depends on the efforts of individual librarians.

PART II
The authors used content analysis to discuss the opportunities of KM for librarians. They said, the librarians need to improve their value to rejucenate profession.
Because of the training and specialty of librarians, they are suitable to be consultants for company which want to implement KM. But there were still something need to learn, like socail skill, IT knowledege and manage skill .etc..

PART III
Topic: KM careers.

From this article, we realize the outline of abilities except librarian of KM. For instance, socail interaction, risking taking, management skill and bussiness knowledge, technology skill.

PART IV
In terms of the author's oppinion, librarian could be a KM consultant for company. Although they described a lot of abilities of librarian for knowledge manangement, I still think that librarian is not the only one candidate for the career of KM. More exactly, the expert of business or management are more suitalbe for that kind of job. After all, the business environment is a extremly practicle place. If librarians didn't invole in there for enough time, they might not engage in the job very well, because the surrounding is totally different from library.

log10 Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via infomaiton technology & Knowledge management in practice

PART I

Too great an emphasis on technologically based knowledge management initiatives has been shown to reinforce existing cultures rather than help transform them.

Trust between individuals has been shown to be necessary in order to facilitate knowledge sharing.

The objectivist epistemology will be shown as being founded on one foundational assumption: the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge.

Tacit and explicit knowledge do not represent the extremes of a spectrum, but instead represent two pure and separate forms of knowledge

Practice perspective suggests that tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are inseparable and are mutually constituted.

Knowledge is highly tacit; the effective sharing of it requires a significant amount of intense social interaction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although these executives understand that knowledge is highly people-based, they are stuck with an investment model that is geared primarily toward technology implementations.

When asked about the biggest difficulties in managing knowledge in their organization, 56 percent of the study participants cited “changing people’s behavior”.

They generally start with the implementation of a technological capability.

Only after the technological capability exists that many firms realize how vital the people factors are.

If technology solves your problem, yours was not a knowledge problem.

Technology won’t bring down your greatest knowledge sharing barriers. This doesn’t mean that IT can’t lead the effort, but there had better be plenty of folks involved who are ready to resist the strong pull of the technology-only solutions.

PART II

Hislop emphasized on social interaction, and Ruggles emphasized that human involved in IT. Both of these papers emphasis on human, but from different prospection.

Hislop’s paper distinguished the difference between objectivist and practiced knowledge management. The most different feature between both approaches was theory of knowledge. Objectivist’s knowledge was a well know theory that knowledge could be represented by two pure and separate forms, that is, explicit and tacit. Another’s knowledge was that the two forms of knowledge were indivisible. If the knowledge was based on the later approach, the sharing of explicit knowledge would have some trouble, because explicit Knowledge included some tacit knowledge. That is, when the theory of the knowledge is challenged, some conflictions of KM will arise, especially KM by IT.

Ruggle’s paper used empirical study to implement. Through the study of 431 U.S. and European organization, he found that although these executives understand that knowledge is highly people-based, they are stuck with an investment model that is geared primarily toward technology implementations.

PART III
Topic: KM technology

Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing konwledge via informaiton technology? My answer to this question is that it's possible. But remember that IT, obvioursly, is a auxiliary character, it make the KM process more efficent. The main character is still human. Since we have a KM class this semaster, many cases told us the balance of technology and human is importante.

PART IV

Hislop's notion almost denied the benefits of IT. I think no matter the objectivist or the practiced KM, they have the same objective, that is, make more change to let knowledge managed. KM is a kind of approach of management, and the value of management are make things more efficienct and profitable. If the researchers always care about the original philosophy of knowledge, the things will be complicated. That's say, whatever approach was used, the value of it is the thing which should be considered.

In this class, I heard a notion which I am impressive with it. Knowledge has somewhere ambiguous, even in explict knowledge. This question could be arison forever, but if you really want to implement KM, you had better endure the ambiguous boundary of knowledge.

Log9 Learning from notes: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation

PART I

1. Metal models and structural properties significantly influence how groupware technology is implemented and used.
2. The findings suggest that where people's mental models do not understand or appreciate the collaborative nature of groupware, such technologies will be intepreted and used as if they were more familiar technologies, such as personal, stand-alone software.
3. Where the premises underlying the groupware technology are counter-cultural to an organization's structural properties, the technology will be unlikely to facilitate collective use and value.
4. Cognitive elements are the mental models or frames of references that individuals have about the world, their organization, work, technology, and so on.
5. How users change their technological frames in response to a new technology is influenced by (i) the kind and amount of information about the product communicated to them, and (ii) the nature and form of training they receive on the product.
6. If people have a poor or inappropriate understanding of the unique and different features of a new technology they may resist using it, or may not integrate it appropriately into their work practices.
7. Training users on new technology is central to their understanding of its capabilities and appreciating how it differs from other technologies with which they are familiar.
8. Structural properties of organizations encompass the reward systems, policies, work practices, and norms that shape and are shaped by the everyday action of organizational members.
9. The pyramidal structure and the hierarchical "up or out" career path promote and reinforce an individualistic culture among consultants, where those who have not yet attained principal status vie with each other to get the relatively few promotions handed out each year.

PART II

This paper explores the introduction of a groupware technology - Lotus Corporation's Notes - into one office of a large organization to understand the chages in work practices and social interaction facilitated by the technology.

The finding are that mental model and structural property are important elements which influence IT in one organization.

In mental model, regarding as cognitive elements, in Alpha was not performed well. They didn't communicatie about Note and train their workers. In structural elements, the Alpha didn't establish reward system, police and procedure of access. In addition, the firm culture and norms in Alpha were totally opposite to Note. Consequently, at the initial time when Note was launched was almost failure.

PART III

Topic: Organizational Issues

The communication of new IT is important. It's will influence the usage and notion of employees. In addition, the structure of a company is also an important issue. If the policy and culture do not fit the IT, the resualt of it won't be controled as the beginning as you thought.

PART IV

Although this paper didn't metion any knowledge management, but the purpose is the same as KM.

After I read this paper, I thought the culture in a organization need to change to fit the KM. But I remembered that couple weeks ago, we had an article about culture barriers. The conclusion was that there is no need to change culture to fit KM, but find the way to link with the core values. So, I reconsidered the paper we read this week, culture changing is not really easy, and may course some serious damage. Like the Alpha, it not suitalble to change their work style or to force them to share something. On the other hand, if they had found the core value and made the Note improve or fit it, Note could have been successful in another way.

KM8 Building a learning organization

PART I
1. In the absence of learing, campanies - and individuals - simply repeat old practices.
2. Their discussion of learning organizations have often been reverential and utopian, filled with near mystical terminology.
3. Three critical issue: 1st is the question of meaning; 2nd the question of management; 3rd the question of measurement.
4. Without accompanying changes in the way that work gets done, only the potential for improvement exitsts.
5. All these organizations have been effective at creating or acquiring new knowledge but notalby less successful in applying that knowledge to their own activities.
6. Learning organizations are skilled at five main activities: 1st: systematic problem solving, 2nd: experimenttation with new approaches, 3rd: learning from their own experience and past history, 4th learning form the experiences and best practicies of others, 5thtransferring knowlege quickly and efficiently throughout the organization.
7. If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it.
8. Most successful examples are the products of carefully cultivated attitudes, commitments, and management processes that have accrued slowly and steadily over time.
9. The first step is to foster an environment that is conducive to learning. And to open up boundaries and stimulate the exchange of ideas.

PART II
There are numbers of companies doing continuous improvement programs, but few of them are succucefull. Because they didn't grasp a substance of whole things, that is "Learning".
This paper started from the 3M of learning organization, Meaning, Management and Measurement. And suggest that base on these 3M, skilling the activities of solving problem systematicly, experiment of new business approach, learning from the history, learning from others, and distributing knowledge effiently.
In the end, it said that most successful examples are the products of carefully cultivated attitudes, commitments, and management processes that have accrued slowly and steadily over time.

PART III

TOPIC: Organizational Learning

T do organizational learning, in order to be a Learning Organization. But how to let your employees learn in organization? Building a sharing environment is the first step, and then make your stuffs comfortable and free when they share their idea. Gradually, your organization will become a learning organizaion.
The most important factor of organizational learning is employees, all magangers can do are support, encourage, and supervise them.

PART IV
This paper used many examples for each part, it makes me understand clearly what learning organization is.
After I read it, I have a conclusion that stratagy is important. The stratagy include the environment, rewarding system, measurment, etc, anything can make your empolyees involve learning further. And these stratagies are made by top supervisors which are usually managers, so the manager level of an organization is important.
In terms of it, this paper was wroten through manager's vision to let them follow. But I still think the employees' vision is also essential to discuss. Maybe the Measurement mentioned in this paper is the way to care about employees. If it can describe measurements like the detail of questionnaire and interview's question more clearly, it will make these two side (manager and stuff) more balanced.

KM7 Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge

PART I

1. Culture is often seen as the key inhibitor of effective knowledge sharing.
2. Potential users said that they liked share system online, but just didn't have time for it.
3. Sharing was not built into the culture enough for people to actually take the time to do it.
4. However strong your commitment and approach to knowledge management, your culture is stronger.
5. Companies that successfully implement knowledge management do not try to change their culture to fit their knowledge management approach.
6. We defined culture as the shared values, beliefs and practice of the people in the organization.
7. The main reason knowledge management progams fail is a lack of a clear connection with a business goal.
8. It is the most important for the style of your effort to match how things get done in your organization.
9. Link these invisible values and visible elements of knowledge management is the behavior of peer and managers.

PART II

Culture is often seen as the key inhibitor of effective knowledge sharing. This paper interview 5 companies to find their organization culture.

Culture of organization can split into two dimensions - visible and invisible. The visible one is like espouse values, philosophy or mission. Even the stories, space and sturcture of one company is also regard as visible culture. And the invisible cultures such as their simple precepts are seen but unspoken background of the company.

Although culture affect knowledge sharing deeply, companies need not to change their culture to fit knowledge approach. Because culture is the foundation of a company, it is stronger as well. Instead, try to make KM approachs to fit your own culture and existent network, in addition, to let your employee get used to them. It will exert knowledge management more successfully.

PART III

TOPIC: Organizational Culture

This paper didn't define the organizational cuture clearly. But after Dr.Pheobe's interpretion, I knew more about this paper.

We can observe Organizational Culture by three things, that are atifacts & behaviors, values and assumptions. These three things is like an onion's skins. From the outside to inside is as the order above. These three can be split into visible and invisible dimension as well.

PART IV

I think there is only one insight in this paper, that is, building KM on solving problems.

And in my opinion, that's OK even your culture need to fit KM approach, if you can really solve problems and get profit from KM. Because, as a whole, there are still number of companies do not have that kind culture which suit to fit KM. In this case, the company need to create a new one for KM approachs.

The conclusions were only made from the companies which have knowledge sharing already. This is the biggest blind part of this paper, the authors didn't considered about other companies which have not had KM yet.

There is another interesting thing, that is, don't let your employees feel you are undergoing KM activities. Make KM approach as a routine of their work, and encourage them to get used to. I agree with it, and I think if the employees know what you required is about KM at first, they will feel overloaded. But I still think it is need to let them know what is KM step by step. It may make them agree more what you did.

KM6 Assessing Knowledge Assets: A review of the models used to measure intellectual capital

PART I

1. Stewart defines intellectual capital as intellectual material - Knowledge, information, intellectual property and experience - that can be put to use to create wealth.
2. IC could be an addendum accompanying with traditional financial reports.
3. The value an organization place on its IC is wholly dependent upon the goals of the organization and the state of the market.
4. A 500-year-old system of accounting must make way for a system of non-financial knowledge flow and intangible assets that use new proxies.
5. The pursuit of measuring IC assets objetively is a noble but difficult one.
6. The measurement examples thus far have been too firm-specific and no set of indicators could hope to be general enough to encompass the needs of a variety of international and industry settings.
7. Pursuing standards at this point might be more harmful given the nascent stage of research development.

part II

This paper reviews six assessments of IC and interprets their strengths and weaknesses. In the content, the author mentioned that many companies agree IC is important, but a few companies really practice it.

According to this paper, IC have different definitions among scholars. But it still has some similar parts, for example, human capital, finance of firm, renewal and development, customer etc. IC assessment the paper listed are trying to measure value of above items, even it is intangible.

In conclusion, IC assesment is almost firm-based, but pursuing standards might be more harmful given the nascent stage of research development. Academic should keep push this field into advance.

PART III

TOPIC: Knowledge assets assesment

This paper consider knowledge assets as intellectual capital. We could notice that there are many ways to assess IC and each of them have strenghs and weakness. It is also firm-based.

PART IV

After reading this paper, I felt something seems to be lost. First, I still cannot practice IC assesment, it is too abstract. Second, IC assesments are usually customization, but the author didn't talk about how to choose or create an appropriate one for each company. Third, because of the firm-based assesment, how to judge the way you used is right and efficient? After all, right or wrong, good or bad, those concept is relative as well as basing on comparing. But firm-base assesments can't compare with each other.

Now that it cannot compare, and the items which be assessed resemble knowledge map. I think, somewhere, knowledge mapping is enough and can be replaced IC assesment with it.

[統計] 第七章 抽樣分佈與估計式

第一節 抽樣誤差

1. 不對母體抽樣的原因：

• 母體太大
• 無法知道母體的範圍
• 破壞性檢測

2. 要如何抽樣才能有效的推估母體? 在於估計誤差的大小。

3. 估計誤差來源：

• 抽樣誤差： 使用恰當的樣本數來估計母體
• 非抽樣誤差：樣本無代表性，計算錯誤等

第二節 抽樣方法

1. 簡單隨機抽樣
先將母體編號，再以抽籤方式抽出

2. 間隔抽樣
每隔幾個就取幾個

3. 分層抽樣
要先決定有哪些重要的"層"

4. 集群抽樣
抽樣前，先將母體分為好幾個相似的集群，再以集群為單位來抽樣。如從全國小學10000所裡抽20所。

5. 分段抽樣
使用複合式的抽樣方法。如先進行集群抽樣後，再由每個集群裡，簡單隨機抽樣。

6. 配額抽樣(主觀)
類似分層抽樣，但事先不知道母群的各層比例

7. 判斷抽樣
最為主觀無根據的抽樣方法。