{"title":"Are the Knowledge Management Times “A-Changin’”?","authors":"J. Edwards","doi":"10.34190/ekm.20.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Knowledge management (KM) is no longer the new kid on the block. The term has been in use for over 30 years, it has been an established field of study for over 25, and this is the 21 st ECKM. But how much has KM changed in that time? This paper considers that question by briefly comparing articles dated 1999 in the Web of Science database with those in 2019, and then looking in depth at practical case studies of KM published in 2019 according to that same database. It is common knowledge that the technology available has improved vastly du ring KM’s history, but how has this impacted on other aspects of KM? Major themes from the earliest days of KM, such as repositories and communities of practice, are still highly visible in the literature. The approach taken in this paper is to use a people-processes-technology framework, separate the business processes from the knowledge processes that support them, and examine the linkages between the three elements of the people-processes-technology framework for both types of process. Current research shows processes to be the most studied of the three elements, especially the link whereby people help to design and then operate processes. The technological advances that have had most effect on KM are in technologies for general application. This is in contrast to the focus of technology research in KM in the 1990s, which had been on specific technologies for KM. Whether the latest technologies for artificial intelligence and analytics are general or specific to KM is a moot point, and probably depends on the background of the person you ask. The weakest current linkages are clearly those in which people should be helping to design the technology in use. Analytics developments in particular are as likely to be inflicted on the users/customers as to be designed by them. Artificial intelligence developments for KM in 2019 do not even include practical case studies, which is worrying.","PeriodicalId":244054,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of 21st European Conference on Knowledge Management","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of 21st European Conference on Knowledge Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ekm.20.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
: Knowledge management (KM) is no longer the new kid on the block. The term has been in use for over 30 years, it has been an established field of study for over 25, and this is the 21 st ECKM. But how much has KM changed in that time? This paper considers that question by briefly comparing articles dated 1999 in the Web of Science database with those in 2019, and then looking in depth at practical case studies of KM published in 2019 according to that same database. It is common knowledge that the technology available has improved vastly du ring KM’s history, but how has this impacted on other aspects of KM? Major themes from the earliest days of KM, such as repositories and communities of practice, are still highly visible in the literature. The approach taken in this paper is to use a people-processes-technology framework, separate the business processes from the knowledge processes that support them, and examine the linkages between the three elements of the people-processes-technology framework for both types of process. Current research shows processes to be the most studied of the three elements, especially the link whereby people help to design and then operate processes. The technological advances that have had most effect on KM are in technologies for general application. This is in contrast to the focus of technology research in KM in the 1990s, which had been on specific technologies for KM. Whether the latest technologies for artificial intelligence and analytics are general or specific to KM is a moot point, and probably depends on the background of the person you ask. The weakest current linkages are clearly those in which people should be helping to design the technology in use. Analytics developments in particular are as likely to be inflicted on the users/customers as to be designed by them. Artificial intelligence developments for KM in 2019 do not even include practical case studies, which is worrying.
知识管理(KM)不再是一个新生事物。这个术语已经使用了30多年,它已经成为一个既定的研究领域超过25年,这是第21届ECKM。但在这段时间里,KM发生了多大的变化?本文通过将Web of Science数据库中1999年的文章与2019年的文章进行简要比较,然后根据同一数据库深入研究2019年发表的KM的实际案例研究,来考虑这个问题。众所周知,在KM的历史中,可用的技术已经大大改进了,但是这对KM的其他方面有什么影响呢?早期KM的主要主题,例如知识库和实践社区,在文献中仍然非常明显。本文采用的方法是使用人员-流程-技术框架,将业务流程从支持它们的知识流程中分离出来,并检查人员-流程-技术框架中两种类型流程的三个元素之间的联系。目前的研究表明,过程是三个要素中研究最多的,尤其是人们帮助设计和操作过程的环节。对知识管理影响最大的技术进步是普遍应用的技术。这与20世纪90年代知识管理技术研究的重点形成鲜明对比,当时的重点是知识管理的具体技术。人工智能和分析的最新技术是通用的还是专门针对知识管理的,这是一个有争议的问题,可能取决于你问的人的背景。目前最薄弱的联系显然是那些人们应该帮助设计正在使用的技术的联系。特别是分析开发,既可能是由用户/客户设计的,也可能是由用户/客户造成的。2019年KM的人工智能发展甚至没有包括实际案例研究,这令人担忧。