Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

|   


  |  
 
     
   !     "  
 

  #  $


%   &'   (
% ' )%  

'#!   #   ) * +,-,

14th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Taipei, Taiwan


 
È rganizations in a versatile and
unpredictable environment
È How to achieve ` `
 
  h arney, 2000)?

È How to be    hvon Hippel,


1988)?
Microsoft Kin Apple iPhone

È How to be
  heick and Sutcliffe,
2006)?

  ` ` `


     

 ``
  
È Research Issues
È Research Motivation
È Research Design: Methodology
È Preliminary Key Artifacts
È Research Design:Validation
È Timeline
È Key Artifacts: Current State and Future Direction
  ! 
È á plicit - Tacit
È á plicit knowledge is relatively easy to represent and manage hack,
1999). Tacit knowledge is often seen as being far more valuable while
also being more difficult to manage hrant, 1996).
È Individual - rganization
È Individuals are evidently able to apply knowledge and use it in a creative
way hrant, 1996; Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Davenport and Prusak, 1998).
It is far more difficult to understand how organizations as a whole can
coordinate their knowledge resources in order to react to a comple
environment heick, 1979; Kogut and ander, 1992).
È Static ² Dynamic
È The level of knowledge appears to differ in different organizational
entities hKogut and ander, 1992; lackler, 1995; old, Malhotra and
Segars, 2001). However, these capabilities are only of real value in the
conte ts in which they are enacted hFeldman and Pentland,. 2000).
È There is a ´leapµ from the basic phenomena to the comple
phenomena
  
È ´... properties that make their first appearance in a comple
system as consequence of nonadditive interactions among
components of the system are called Y YYhould,2003, p.
223)

È á plicit knowledge can emerge into tacit knowing honaka,


1994)
È Individual knowledge can emerge into collective dynamic
capability hrlikowski, 2002)
È Static capability can emerge into situational application
hThompson and alsham, 2004)

È The individual dimensions of emergence were in the focus of


many research projects.
       
È —nderstand the individual dimensions as interrelated and
address in an integrated fashion
È Attempt to conceptualize the interactions between
components in a network

´... properties that make their


first appearance in a comple
system as consequence of
nonadditive `

 
`of the
system are called Y YY
hould,2003; p. 223)
   !   |  
È Components and interactions are often e pressed in
e plicit networks.
È Concept Maps, Semantic eb,Various Knowledge
Modeling Approaches, MindMaps

È Issues
È ften these tools are rarely used in an organizational conte t.
In contrast, technologies, which work with networks implicitly
are far more widely used hThe , file systems)
È The network conceptualizations often focus on static,
structured and e plicit aspects of knowledge. In practice, many
approaches fail to leverage individual knowledge for the
organizational advantage.
    
È Practical: hen I was studying, working as a software
tester, áRP programmer, project manager « what
annoyed me the most.
È Interest: How can we conceptualize and represent
knowledge.

È How can we uY, 


Y Y and Y
Y a system,
which
È supports the emergence of knowledge considering the
dimensions tacit-e plicit, individual-organization and static-
dynamic
È works with networks implicitly but leverages all the advantages
of network representations
   
È Udiscoverthrough design· h askerville, 2008)
È Multi-methodological approach hunamaker, Chen and
Purdin, 1991): design, implementation and evaluation of
theory, framework, architecture and implementation
  .   /   . 

r   mTheories and Frameworks


mSustained Competitive Advantage, Innovativeness,
Mindfulness
mValue
mVery important for knowledge related phenomena
'   mImplementation
  mData
mProof of concepts
mbservable
   
ridging Social and Technological orld by applying the
principles:
È ð : close alignment of artifacts on different
semiotic levels hPurao,2002; Sheffield, 2005)
È ': well-reasoned and well-documented design
process hD'Souza and ills, 1998)
'  

Ä   
È Composition: Reuse of already e isting
information to define new knowledge
È Domain-Independence
È Individual-centric
È Standard-oriented: XML, HTML,
RDF, Maven, Si
'  

' 
`
È Information System Architecture,
which guides the design of the
prototype as well as the design
of effective IT landscapes to
support the composition of
knowledge.

hRohde and Sundaram, 2010a)


'  

j `  
Knowledge Discusses the dynamics of emergence of knowledge
ámergence:Theory of entangled between the dimensions of individual-
Dynamic Knowledge collective, e plicit-tacit and static-dynamic into sustained
Potentials competitive advantage, innovativeness and mindfulness.
Knowledge Representation: Knowledge conceptualization, which allows to represent
etwork language dynamic knowledge using few fundamental network
structures.
Knowledge Interaction: Conceptualizes a number of basic interactions, which
Conceptual Framework individuals and collectives undertake with knowledge
networks.

—nderreview
å   

ð     Implementation in itself


  e periment hewell and
mKnowledge and KM Simon, 1976; Rapp, 1981)
Theories
mKnowledge r 
Conceptualization Implementation
Representation m—nit tests
Methodologies mIntegration tests
metwork Theory mVersioning
má isting KMS mModularity and
mArchitectures and mRelease Management
Standard ávaluation
  
lack bo test according to test cases derived
from requirements from conceptual work
lack o hFunctionality) as well as general software quality
Release of software as public Test criteria h—sability, Reliability, Performance,
download, offering user support Supportability) hrady & Caswell, 1987)
using email, discussion forums
and social media groups Continuous publication
of preliminary findings,
Software Presentations incorporation of
Release & Publications peer review feedback
in design process.
ávaluation

Analysis of usage logs and Prototype in Iteration 1 usable and


created databases, Quantitative used to document development
aggregation of gathered and Continuous progress, continuous evaluation with
user feedback Qualitative —se close collaborators hSupervisor,
Analysis Supervision Committee)
å   $#   

È Artifacts will be validated with different methods and may


e hibit varying levels of validity
È The contribution is driven by validity of the individual artifacts
but also by the coherence of the whole artifact system. verall
coherence is evaluated interpretatively.
å   $/ 0 

Track riting, Publications and Reviews

Track Source Code

Track LiteratureReview Track Close Collaborator Feedback


å   $/ 0 
È Project log

È Publications
È Conferencepapers and bookchapters
/ 
#   
È Research aims to address a comple and long prevailing
practical and research problem. ill not find Y Y
but seeks to Y Y  Y Y.
È The direction is set but the outcome is  Yu 
Y
È Research designed u
 and Y  Y
È ámphasis on YYY between social, conceptual, and
technological artifacts and on  Y 
 of design process
    
È Rohde and Sundaram, forthcoming, "Challenges in
Knowledge Management",AMCIS 2010, AIS álectronic
Library

È Rohde and Sundaram, 2010a, "Knowledge


Composition:Theory, Architecture and
Implementation", eK 2010, Iááá Digitial Library

È Rohde and Sundaram, 2010b, "Knowledge between


Capability and ánactment:Towards Dynamic
Knowledge Potentials", eK 2010, Iááá Digital
Library

È Rohde, 2009, "An Integrated Collaboration Platform


for Sustainable Development: Project Proposal and
Initial á ploration", RS 2009

citeulike
    
È Lawrence, C.A., & Rohde, M. á. hforthcoming). Information
technology innovation spirals in cross-cultural collaboration: A case
of software localization in africa. In Ä 

È Sundaram, D., & Rohde, M. á. hforthcoming). @


 YY


uY

 YuY   


  Y Y!Y" Y 
ÄY  Y#Y
 "Y
$YuY
Y

È Peko, ., Rohde, M. á., Dong, C. S., &Sundaram, D. hforthcoming).


Conte t-aware mediated learning system for organisational
transformation. In  

  Y%Y
Y&%'

È Vodanovich, S., Rohde, M., Dong, C. S., &Sundaram, D. h2009). ikis


to support collaborative web spaces to promote youth well-being. In
·( )*ÄYYuY+Y 
  ·(
u, Y

 & '!Y-(!-.  @


    
È Alavi, M., &Leidner, D. á. h2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. @
/ Y
+&'
È Armour, P. . h2003). %Y  YÄY !Y@uY
YÄu  u@  Y Y Y Y  Ä 
 Yu
È arney, J. . h2000). ü Y Y u  Yu Y Y u  Y 
 0& 0'
È askerville, R. h2008). hat design science is not.   Y 1 
 Y 02222
È lackler, F. h1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. , 3  uY&·
YuY4 Y 4 $564'
&'
È Davenport, T. H., &Prusak, L. h1998). ·(6
YuY$, 3 @  Y· %Y6&Ä Y ('
È D'Souza, D. F., & ills, A. C. h1998). ,7Y Y uü Y(.@ %Y 
&@'   uu·Y
YÄY

È Feldman, M. S., &Pentland, . T. h2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of fle ibility and change. u   YYY/ Y
28&'
*28
È old, A. H., Malhotra, A., &Segars, A. H. h2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. 1 
@  Y Y Y 
8&'8+2
È ould, S. J. h2003). %Y$YuYYü uY@ Y) Ä@YuY4 "YYYYY uY$ Y$  Yu
È rady, R. ., & Caswell, D. L. h1987).  Y@Y 
  ·uYÄ ÄYY$


È rant, R. M. h1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.  Y@  Y Y1 
0*
È von Hippel, á. h1988). %Y Y ,u. YÄY
È Kogut, ., &ander, —. h1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. , 3 YY&'8*09
È agurney, A., & Dong, J. h2002).  YY(Y@ (Y  Y&!Y Y!Y('u u
 Ä 


 YuY
È onaka, I. h1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. , 3 YY+&'209
È unamaker, J. F., Chen, M., &Purdin, T. D. M. h1991). Systems development in information systems research. 1 
@  Y Y Y 0&'
È rlikowski, . J. h2002). Knowing in practice: ánacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. , 3 YY&'2*0
È Purao, S. h2002). Design research in the technology of information systems: Truth or dare.
È Sheffield, J. h2005). Systemic knowledge and the v-model. 1" Y Y &:'8
È Thompson, M. P. A., &alsham, . h2004). Placing knowledge management in conte t. 1 
@  Y Y uY2&+'0+020
È eick, K. á. h1979). %Y
 
 3;Y u@ . uu·Y
YÄ YuYu
È eick, K. á., & Sutcliffe, K. M. h2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. , 3 YY0&2'+2+2
È ack, M. H. h1999). Managing codified knowledge. hcover story). 
 @  Y Y;Y Y2&2'

Вам также может понравиться