知識管理的迷思
Presenter: 杜清敏
Email: duh@mail.ytit.edu.tw
The most common definition of
knowledge is that it is an inner
representation, which corresponds
to daily life and the real world.
(Aadne et al. 1996).
Wiig (2000) states that
knowledge is insight,
understanding and practical
know-how, and it is the
fundamental resource that
allows us to function
intelligently.
Knowledge is context-specific and relational. Knowledge
is dynamic, as it is dynamically created in social
interactions. … we define knowledge as “a dynamic
human process of justifying personal belief toward the
'truth'” (Nonaka and Nishiguchi, 2001, 14)
Preceptual and conceptual filters
Activates
Event
(data source)
Information
Extracts
Derives
Agent
(knowledge source)
Data
Return
Return
Data, Information and Knowledge adapted from Boisot, 1999
資料、資訊與知識
Common Sense is Often
Uncommon...
記憶機能的分類
記憶
程序記憶
陳述記憶
事件記憶
一生中個
人事件的
回憶
語意記憶
事實與圖表
如何做
The systematic, explicit and
deliberate building, renewal,
and application of knowledge
to maximize an enterprise’s
knowledge-related
effectiveness and returns from
its knowledge assets. (Wiig,
1993)
Managing knowledge
emphasizes the quantity of
knowledge, the core tasks of
managing knowledge are
information collecting,
acquisition, organisation and
maintaining.
Knowledge
Management
The essence of knowledge
management is to employ the
knowledge effectively.
Managing knowledge is
merely a way to achieve the
goal of knowledge
management.
Knowledge management targets
the creation of new knowledge
on top of existing and embodies
this new knowledge into an
organisaional knowledge pool.
Technology(+):
IT constructs the infrastructure
of knowledge management
Framework of
Knowledge Managament
Share
S
KM=(P+K)
People:
Knowledge deliver
Knowledge: data,
information, knowledge,
wisdom
Framework of Knowledge Management (Arthur Andersen, 1998)
Five Steps
• Sharing tacit knowledge
• Creating concept
• Justifying concepts
• Building a prototype
• Cross-levelling knowledge
TO
T acit Knowledge
T acit
Knowledge
(Socializat ion)
Sympathized
Knowledge
Explicit Knowledge
(Ext ernalizat ion)
Conceptual
Knowledge
From
Explicit
Knowledge
(Int ernalizat ion)
Operational
Knowledge
(Com binat ion)
Systemic
Knowledge
顯性與隱性知識轉換
Knowledge Transformation (Nonaka and Takuchi)
SECI Self-transcending Process (Nonaka et al. 1998)
SECI
BA
BA
BA
Any Questions? Arguments?
1. Knowledge at the individual level is not convert
into separate set of explicit individual knowledge
(Polayni, 1967, Tuomi, 1999)
2. Cultural and language barrier
3. The units of SECI process
Garyson and O’dell - Knowledge creation
SECI-BA at 7-11
SECI_7-11
1.
2.
Conceptual Frameworks of 7-11
Knowledge Creation Process in collaborative learning
Ephemeral
representaion
Intangible Knowledge (I)
Agent
I
Socialization
Agent
Evaluat e and
select dat a,
evidence, and
claim
Externalisation
Select Arguments,
generates graph,
diagram and records
I
Ephemeral
representaion
Combination
Internalisation
arguments,
graph
Target KG
argumentation
text
Internalisation
Tangible
Knowledge
(T)
I. Introduction
Argumentation is a
process that involves the
question, justification and
conclusions. During
the process conclusions are
drawn, reasons are adduced,
counterarguments are raised.
(Verheij, 1999)
Argumentation is
arises when conflict
or decision making
situations occurred.
(Sillince, 1996)
Argumentation
Decision Making is a
collaborative process, where
decision makers have to
follow a series of communication
actions in order to establish a
common belief in the dimension
of the problem.
(Karacapilidis et al., 2000)
In effective collaborative
argumentation, participants
focus on the same issues,
different points of view
are discussed and elaborated
upon. These processes are known
as processes of “Knowledge
transforming”
(Bereiter et al., 1987)
團隊合作及協同學習
Teamwork and Collaborative Learning
Collaborative Learning is regarded as an activity encouraging participants articulate their
perspectives, negotiate their knowledge or beliefs, and co-constructing of knowledge and
conception (Piaget, 1977; Johnson & Johnson, 1993; Baker, 1996; Littleton & Hakkien,
1999)
Individual Memory
Individual Memory
construction
conflict
construction
coherent
conflict
exploation
coherent
exploation
representation
representation
conflict
negotiation
coherent
Shared Artifact
Source: Miao, Y. et al., 2000
Concrete
Experience
Grasping via
Apprehension
Acco m m o d a tive
Kn o wled g e
Active
Experimentation
Diverg en t
Kn o wled g e
T ransform at ion
via Ext ension
Co n verg en t
Kn o wled g e
T rsnaform at ion
via Int ension
Reflective
Obseration
Assim ila tive
Kn o wled g e
Grasping via
Com prehension
Abstract
Conceptualisation
Structural Dimensions of the Experiential Learning Process
Source: Kolb, D. A. (1984, 42)
III. Research Questions
1. How does collaborative argumentation-based setting help knowledge
transforming ?
2. How does Computer Supported Collaborative Argumentation-based
system help knowledge transformation?
3. What is the effectiveness of knowledge transformation in the CSCA model?
4. How can an Automatic Argumentation Facilitator (AAF) in CSCA
model help knowledge transformation?
5. What is the effectiveness of knowledge transformation with the support of
an Automatic Argumentation Facilitator?
Central to the approach is to find the role of an argumentation-based
system in CSCA model.
School of Management
University of London
IV. Research Hypotheses
Interation model
Argumentation
W/O
Argumentation
Communiction Treatment
Traditional
Argumentation >
W/O
Argumentation
H1
A
Dependent Variables
A
Arg+Traditional
>
Arg+CSCA
H3
A
CSCA
H2
H4
A. Subject Knowledge
B. Argumentation Interaction
Quality
C. Knowledge Interaction
Quality
D. Motivation and
Participation
E. Problem solving ability
Improved
Argumentation structure
Structured+CSCA
>
Unstructed+CSCA
B
H5
C
Structured
Unstructured
Structured
>
Unstructed
H6
D
H7
E
V. Research Procedure
1. Subjects: The 120 2nd year undergraduate students in MIS courses at
Royal Holloway. Two groups of 60 students are formed:
the treatment group with CSCA setting and control group
without CSCA setting.
2. Experimental group design
Experimental Group setting
Without
Groupware
setting
Self-study
Face-To-Face
Argumentation
With
Groupware
setting
Email
System
Automatic
Argumentation
Facilitator (AAF)
Argumentation-based Knowledge Transformation Experimental Group Setting
3. Experiment Procedure
Scenario: LOST KINGDOM OF THE SAHARA
Flashlight (4 battery size)
Jack Knife
Sectional air map of the
area
Plastic raincoat (Large size)
Magnetic compass
Compress kit with gauze
15 Caliber pistol (loaded)
Parachute (red and white)
Bottle of salt tablets (1,000)
tablets
1 quart of water each
person
A book entitled “Edible
animals of the desert”
1 pair of sunglasses each
person
2 quarts of 180ºproof
vodka
1 top coat each person
1 cosmetic mirror
Your
individual
Ranking
Your arguments, reasons
(Because …of …, so …)
(Since the situation.. so….)
Condition
(special condition
for your ranking
this item)
Example
Husband. Honey, we’ve been thinking about buying a new car. Do you have
something particular in mind?
Wife. Well, yes. We should buy Volvo station wagon.
Husband. But… that’s such a family car. Let’s buy a nice fast sport car. A Porsche
would be great.
Wife. Isn’t a Porsche pretty expensive? And besides, I think we should buy a safer
car. Volvos are built like a tank.
Husband. What makes you think Volvos are so safe?
Wife. Don’t you watch TV? Haven’t you seen advertisements?
Husband. Oh, come on Honey. I read a report in Auto Sports Today the other day
which cited some government accident statistics. Do you know what?
Volvos were said to be involved in more fatal accidents than almost any
other brand. And besides, having a fast car is more important to me than
having a safe car.
Wife. Why?
Husband. Look, I ‘ve been wanting a fast sports car ever since I finished law school.
An attorney in this town has to have a dynamic image.
Wife. Yes, deal. But what about Betty and Susan. We have to think of the safety of
our kids first.
Husband. I guess you’re right about that. But I still think I rather pay a few thousand
dollars more for a Porsche than drive such a boring family car.
VI. Automatic Argumentation Facilitator System Approach
• Toulmin’s Model
Claim
Claim
Data
(The College has recently
Incurred vast additional expenses.)
Warrant
(In the past tuition
has been the principal
means the colleges uses
to pay its expenses. )
(The
college
probably )
(Tuition
willwill
be increased.
resort to a tuition increase.)
Qualifier
(Attempt to modify the
strength of claim)
Rebuttal
Backing
(Over the past 40 years,
each time the college
incurred large expenses,
it raised tuition.)
(Unless the college
manages to secure
private donations
from friends and alumni.)
AFF run
ephemeral
representaion
Intangible Knowledge (I)
Agent
I
Socialization
Agent
Share
Knowledge
Concept
Articulation
Argumentation
content, Graph
Diagram
I
Combination
Agent
I
Internalisation
Instrumental
Target
Tangible
Knowledge
(T)
Internalisation
Knowledge Transformation and types in argumentation-based model, adapted from Smith (1994)
IX. Conclusions
• Current Progress
- Questionnaire data analysis.
- Transcripts analysis.
- Knowledge Transformation process in argumentation process.
• Future Work
- Intelligent automatic argumentation facilitator.
- Language independent.
School of Management
University of London
薩哈拉沙漠失去的帝國
Lost Kingdom of the Sahara
Your twin engine plane has completely burned after your group
salvaged 15 itmes. The immediate area is quite flat and except for
barrel and square cacti appears to be rather barren. The last
weather report indicated the temperatures would reach 43 degrees
C. that day. You are dressed in lightweight clothing - short
sleeved shirts, trousers, socks and town shoes. Everyone has a
handkerchief. Collectively, your pocket contains $2.83 in change,
$85 .00 in notes, a packet of cigarettes , and a ball point pen.
The pilot was unable to notify anyone of your position before the
crash. However, he indicated that your group were 70 miles south
- southwest from a mining camp which is the nearest known
habitation and that you were approximately 65 miles off the
course that was filed in your Flight Plan.
Desert Survival Kits
1. Flashlight (4 battery size)
手電筒
2. Jack Knife
折疊式水果刀
3. Sectional air map
區域鳥瞰登山地圖
4. Plastic raincoat
塑膠雨衣
5. Magnetic compass
指南針
6. Compress kit with gauze
急救箱
7. 15 Caliber pistol (loader)
左輪手槍
8. Parachute (red and white)
紅白相間降落傘
9. Bottle of salt tablets (1,000 tablets) 鹽片
10. 1 liter of water per person
一個人一公升水
11. A book entitled “Edible animals of the desert” 食譜
12. 1 pair of sunglasses per person 一人一副太陽眼鏡
13. 2 quarts of 100 proof vodka
2 品脫純伏特加酒
14. 1 top coat per person
一人一件短上衣
15. 1 cosmetic mirror
一個化妝用小鏡子
Benefits
Knowledge
organisation
Knowledge
Worker
Effective knowledge
sharing and
organizational
learning
Knowledge
practice
Enhance individual’s
ability and decision
making
Increase organization’s
competence and
performance
Approach
- Management (Strategic)
• Select Knowledge Management Framework and Strategy
• Knowledge Management Assessment
- Data (Knowledge base)
• Structured encounter documentation
• Resources bulletin board and networks
- Process (Sociality)
• Knowledge networks and community in organisation
• Review inventories of existing knowledge through
meetings and discussions
• Knowledge management targets the creation of new
knowledge on top of existing and embodies this new
knowledge into an organisaional knowledge pool.
• Knowledge creation includes 5 steps, sharing tacit
knowledge, create concept, justify concept, building
prototype, cross-levelling knowledge.
• The approach of knowledge management in an organisation
are management, data and process.
• People is the most important factor.