您在這裡

Implementation Differences

8 九月, 2015 - 10:57

Amidst the presence of general organizational processes for knowledge harvesting, however, there is a lot less similarity in how firms have implemented each process. Some have used technological approaches, some have used human-based approaches, some have used interviewing, and some have used observations to support knowledge harvesting processes. Despite such variety in implementation practices, this has helped firms to distinguish themselves and their knowledge harvesting agendas from competitors.

We have already discussed how many firms implement focus by determining target audiences and their knowledge needs. We have also seen how CALL also focuses on the ‘strategic value’ of harvested knowledge. Yet another method to determine what knowledge to harvest is to focus only upon knowledge has been successful in the past. Currently, firms have implemented this solution with a technology-based approach; Intellectual Capital Management (ICM) software is employed to focus solely on extracting and recording employee expertise during successful business process creation or change. This method tries to capitalize on “practices that have proven efficient and effective” (Duffy, 59).

Find and elicit has even more varied implementation than focus. We have already observed some of these different implementations in the first-, second-, and CALL’s third-person approaches. However, whereas these approaches defined humans as the experts from whom to gather knowledge, some implementations choose non-human experts to ‘interview.’ Hewlett-Packard’s implements find and elicit by using software to examine the company’s own technical notes, frequently asked questions, help files, call log extracts, and user submissions (Delic, 75). Roche Labs, a healthcare company, gathers desired knowledge by ‘interviewing’ “global news sources, specialty publishers, health care Web sites, government sources, and the firm’s proprietary internal information systems (Laudon and Laudon, 424).

Lastly, the organize process has also seen a number of different implementation. We have seen how CALL uses a human-centered approach. Another example of this is KPMG, an international auditing and accounting firm. To organize gathered knowledge, KPMG employs an extensive staff of “analysts and librarians” to categorize elicited information and to assess its quality (Laudon and Laudon, 424). Another method of organizing is to use a software- centered approach, which can be exampled by Cerabyte’s Infinos System. After eliciting best practices knowledge, the system itself will try to ascertain bottlenecks, risks, and tradeoffs. The system will then interact with users and experts to solve these issues (Duffy, 60).