pdf 820Kb - INSEAD CALT

Evaluation report of the use of Onto-Logging
platform in the user site
Deliverable ID: D8b
Page : 52 of 110
Version: 1.0
Date: 27 january 2004
Status: Final
Confid.: Public
• Collaboration services
o Directory, calendar, agenda services
o Threaded discussions (forums)
o Asynchronous (e-mail)
o Shared spaces (document sharing, white -boarding).
• E-learning and human resource management portal (Employee Application Portal). This
portal is still however in a prototypical stage.
All these tools are not integrated under the common framework of a knowledge management
system, but appear mainly as a set of tools independent from one another. The level of usage
is also different and can be ranked according to the following order: email, search tools (such
as Google), databases, communication tools, and the portal.
It has to be noted that since the core business of INDRA is centred on information
technologies (they propose and integrate IT solutions to their clients), the company’s culture
is very favourable to the use of technology, and people are very keen to adopt new
technologies.
5.1.1.3 Suggestions for improvements of the actual KM tools
The end-users do not seem to be satisfied by the solution currently offered by the knowledge
management tools and ask (for instance in the pre-questionnaire) for many improvement and
advanced features.
Examples of desires include:
• To better organize the content of the knowledge management tools and the ”quality of
content” is perceived as a very important issue. “Content is not correctly organized, not
updated or duplicated.”
• To make experience of people more visible in organization: “to know what people know
and to make their experience with technology and products accessible”.
• Personalization and adaptive features “to include mechanisms in order to acquire
knowledge about user profile and filter information and noise”, “adapt the tools to each
company or secto r”
• To integrate collaborative tools
• To improve the interface and to integrate the functionality under a common framework;
• KMSs are still “document management systems” enabling to access documents in an
organized way. “A KM should be more powerful, should be able to relate in an active
way people and knowledge, should be more dynamic and make know people profile
evolve.”
• To address Information overload. “Yes, this tools need major improvement to allow users
use Knowledge tools in an easy way, spending few time and don’t lose among hundreds
of document”
• More intelligent search of documents (“not only by descriptors”)