Abstract
KMS were defined in section 4.3 - “Knowledge management systems” on page 82. In the following, first the technological roots of KMS are reviewed (section 7.1). Then, the contents of KMS are analyzed along with their structure, the types of media used, a maturity model for knowledge elements and some aspects of quality of contents (section 7.2). The definition of KMS is detailed with the help of a review of KMS architectures that have been proposed in the literature or have been implemented as standard KMS platforms. Based on this analysis, an amalgamated architecture for a centralized KMS is presented. The architecture is discussed in detail with the help of a structured list of KMS functions that will be used in the empirical study (section 7.4). As an alternative to this ideal architecture for a centralized KMS, an architecture for a distributed or peer-to-peer KMS is presented (section 7.5). The development of tools and systems will be discussed in a structured way leading to a classification of KMS (section 7.6). Finally, the important integration layer is discussed in more detail, reflecting on meta-data and ontology management as well as the Semantic Web (section 7.7).
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Business Process
- Resource Description Framework
- Knowledge Worker
- Knowledge Management System
- Knowledge Element
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Weblogs and Wikis have become popular in the Internet (Wikipedia, Blogosphere). However, many organizations attempt to profit from the benefits of easy content handling also for professional use within the organizational boundaries. Some authors even consider Weblogs and Wikis as (simple) tools for knowledge management (e.g., Efimova 2004, Röll 2006).
For an overview of Internet technologies see Röckelein (1999, 22ff). Röckelein uses a model with three layers to describe (1) base technologies, (2) net technologies as well as (3) information services that can be found in public electronic networks such as the Internet. Additionally, he gives a short overview of support technologies and presents numerous examples for the use of Internet technologies for organizations’ market communications (Röckelein 1999, 7ff and 109ff respectively). For potentials of an Intranet for businesses see Jaros-Sturhahn/Hießl 1998.
E.g., Gray/Watson 1998, 123ff, Chamoni/Gluchowski 1998, Bissantz et al. 1998, Watson 1999, 469ff, Grothe/Gentsch 2000, 21.
DeSanctis/ Gallupe 1987, 589, Turban et al. 1996, 501, see also Zigurs/Buckland 1998, 320 for an overview of classifications of GSS technologies.
See e.g., Mandl/Fischer 2000 for an overview of mapping techniques which can be applied in knowledge management.
There are many more terms in use that denote the application of software for teaching and/or learning purposes (e.g., Bodendorf 1990, 37f) which reflects the vivid interest in this field, especially since the 80s and the wide-spread use of the PC.
For examples see Schanda 1995, 21ff, Ballin/Brater 1996, 41ff, Möhrle 1996, 24f, Schulmeister 1997.
See also Möhrle 1996, 32ff, Mertens et al. 1997, 46, Behrendt 1998, Kerres 1998, Schreiber 1998, 11ff, 16f, Lehner/Klosa 2000, Schäfer 2000, 38ff, Lehner 2001, Nikolaus 2002, 22ff.
See also Kühn/Abecker 1997, 931ff, Mertens et al. 1997, Probst et al. 1998, Wargitsch 1998, 23ff, Krallmann et al. 2000, 234ff, Lehner 2000, 330ff, Mertens/Griese 2002, 49ff.
For an extensive analysis and discussion of the potentials of CBR see also Althoff/Aamodt 1996, Mertens et al. 1997, 74f, the special issues on case-based reasoning of the journal WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Ehrenberg 1996 or the journal KI, Bartsch-Spörl/Wess 1996; examples of CBR tools are listed on the support Web site for this book http://iwi.uibk.ac.at/maier/kms/; see also the overview of CBR tools and applications, URL: http://www.cbr-web.org/.
For a more detailed discussion and examples of recommender systems see Konstan et al. 1997 (GroupLens; for netnews articles), Kautz et al. 1997 (ReferralWeb; for people), Terveen et al. 1997 (PHOAKS; for URLs) and Rucker/Polanco 1997 (Imana’s CommonQuest; for URLs).
For examples of actual implementations of some of these technologies see Brenner et al. 1998, 189ff, Zarnekow 1999, 163ff and the list of KMS provided on the support Web site for this book http://iwi.uibk.ac.at/maier/kms/.
See also Watson 1999, 15 who concentrates on people and electronic organizational memories and Amelingmeyer 2000, 51ff who distinguishes between persons, material media and collective media as locations for knowledge. The idea of a collective or organizational memory is discussed in section 4.1.1-“From organizational learning to knowledge management” on page 22; different types of knowledge including collective knowledge are investigated in section 4.2.2-“Types and classes of knowledge” on page 66.
In the sense of a group of companies belonging to the same concern, e.g., the BMW Group.
See Will/Porak 2000, 195f for an extensive model of corporate communication that covers internal and external communication.
See also Kampffmeyer/Merkel 1997, 1999, Karakas 2003, Götzer et al. 2004, Maier et al. 2005, 247ff, Maier/Trögl 2006.
See Schmidt 2005, Maier/Schmidt 2007 who considered project experiences as reported in Bayer et al. 2005, Schmidt/Braun 2006 as well as metaphors of organizational knowledge and learning discussed in chapter 6-“Organization” on page 153 and also the empirical results on types of contents presented in section 14.2.1-“Types of contents” on page 532.
After: Maier/Schmidt 2007. When comparing this basic model with the model of organizational information processing (see Figure B-22 on page 154), all processes in the basic model are also part of the model of information processing. The emergence of ideas corresponds to the process of individual learning, distribution in communities corresponds to sharing, formalization is reflected in institutionalization, ad-hoc training in feedback and formal training in the refining and repackaging processes. The basic model sets the focus on a pragmatic chain of knowledge development tasks that can be designed so that formal, mature knowledge products are the outcome of the respective knowledge maturing process.
For a good overview of multimedia and electronic publishing formats see Steinmetz/Nahrstedt 1995, Henning 2000.
In the category (hyper-)text documents the focus is still on the text component whereas in multimedia contents the focus shifts to audio or video files, graphs or pictures. In the following, formats can be codecs, file layouts or both; see also Henning 2000 for details.
Eppler 2003, 23, 41ff and the literature cited there.
For example Schwinn et al. 1998, 210f
See Lehner et al. 1995, 58ff for a definition and overview of the term.
Source: Maier/Remus 2007, 10
Source: Maier/Remus 2007, 12
See for example Stein/Zwass 1995, 98; see also section 4.3-“Knowledge management systems” on page 82.
Ruggles 1997a, 5ff, Angus/Patel 1998, Apostolou/Mentzas 1998, 3.3ff, Borghoff/Pareschi 1998a, 5ff, Warschat et al. 1999, 56f, Krallmann et al. 2000, 233f, Seifried/Eppler 2000, 29.
Source: Apitz et al. 2002, 33.
See e.g., Baubin/Wirtz 1996, 139 for Accenture’s Knowledge XChange, see Sippach et al. 1999, 65f for Multimedia Software GmbH’s Intranet Knowledge Management System; see also the white papers on the homepages of KMS vendors: e.g., of the Empolis Knowledge Management Suite (Empolis), Hummingbird KM suite (Hummingbird, now Open Text), Hyperwave Information Server (Hyperwave), Intraspect 4 (Intraspect) or Livelink (Open Text). More recently, vendors modularize their offerings and package these modules according to application scenarios or concrete business needs for which the platform is used. Knowledge management is one of those application scenarios. For a more detailed analysis of Open Text Livelink see section 7.4.9-“Example: Open Text Livelink” on page 336.
Source: CompassWare 1998.
See e.g., Applehans et al. 1999, 87ff for a layered knowledge architecture, Bach 1999, 69 who proposes a tool architecture for business knowledge management, CZ 1999, 13 for the comprehensive KM architecture proposed by the Meta Group, Versteegen 1999, 118 who describes OVUM’s six-layer KMS architecture, Seifried/Eppler 2000, 31ff who suggest a structured set of functionality expected from knowledge management suites and Vieser 2000 who presents the Siemens three-layered architecture for ICT tools, services and KM applications.
Source: Applehans et al. 1999.
Source: Bach 1999, 69.
Source: Becker et al. 2002, 24.
The input part of a data warehouse architecture has been called data acquisition layer, Gray/Watson 1998, 17 or input layer, Muksch/Behme 1998a, 45.
Examples are Parameswaran et al. 2001, Benger 2003, Susarla et al. 2003, Maier/Sametinger 2004.
See also Maier/Sametinger 2004, Maier/Hädrich 2006.
See also Maier/Sametinger 2004, Maier et al. 2005, 367.
This section summarizes joint work done by the author and Sametinger which has been presented e.g., in Maier/Sametinger 2002, 2003, 2004.
European Conference on Knowledge Management 2002.
See also Maier/Sametinger 2004 for a preliminary version of this figure.
See also Maier/Klosa 1999c, 8ff, Klosa 2001, 63ff for a detailed discussion of some of the classifications listed here.
See Hansen et al. 1999.
The KM focus areas used here have been elicited by Wiig (1999, 158) as (1) intellectual asset focus, (2) enterprise effectiveness focus, (3) people focus and (4) information technology and information management focus.
Examples can be found in Davies et al. 2003, particularly 197ff, or in Tochtermann/Maurer 2006, particularly 249ff, Fensel 2004, 89ff. However, Fensel also sees some shortcomings of OWL compared to other ontology languages, particularly OIL, but predicts that only OWL has a chance of survival (Fensel 2004, 39ff). It should also be noted that there are more ontology languages following other types of logic such as predicate logic, e.g., CycL, KIF or frame-based logic, e.g., Ontolingua, Frame Logic (see Fensel 2004, 21ff and the literature cited there).
For this and the following detailing of these integration tasks see Maier/Peinl 2005.
Martínez et al. 2002
For speech-act theory see Austin 1962, Searle 1969, adapted to electronic communication and computers by Winograd/Flores 1986.
Carr et al. 2003, Schimkat 2003, Maier/Trögl 2006.
See Schimkat 2003, 54ff, Maier/Trögl 2006, 6ff.
After: Maier/Trögl 2006, 8.
See also Maier/Peinl 2005.
See section 7.5.3-“Example: Infotop” on page 349 and Maier/Sametinger 2007.
After: Staab 2002, 204, Sure/Studer 2003, 34.
This architecture integrates the architecture for Semantic-Web-based KM after Davies et al. (2003a, 6) with the architecture presented in Figure B-59, “Architecture for centralized KMS,” on page 319.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Systems. In: Knowledge Management Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71408-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71408-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71407-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71408-8
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)