pdf 820Kb - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation report of the use of Onto-Logging platform in the user site Deliverable ID: D8b Page : 66 of 110 Version: 1.0 Date: 27 january 2004 Status: Final Confid.: Public structured interviews with the end-user emphasized the fact that certain users are concerned with privacy and trust issues. This categor y of users seems to be reluctant related to the use of their data by the organization. Therefore according to the user opinion the user profiles should be made partial available to the other end-users and fully available to human resources. What would be the main motivation for knowledge sharing and creation for Indra end-users (money, virtual rewards, recognition versus other incentives)? The behaviour of the users in the system can be associated with incentives provided to the users to share their knowledge and be active in the system. Of course the issue of sharing knowledge and contribute in the system is complex and it shouldn’t be limited to simple incentives. It might imply changes of the current work practices and it can be associated with other managerial interventions. We have surveyed different types of incentives a company might use to stimulate knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. According to the user’s opinion from Indra, reputation and promotion in organization would be the right incentives to stimulate a knowledge sharing culture in the organization. However a bonus associated with the salary seems to be also a right incentive for experts to spend extra time-sharing their knowledge. Some expert knowledge workers have expressed their concern in being recognized as experts and having to do extra work. Conclusions on the evaluation of the advanced user -centred mechanisms o Personalization of KMSs is important due to two important factors: “information overload” problem and the heterogeneity of the users. Ontologging uses very simple personalization mechanisms such as: the adaptation of content using templates and notifications of users through knowledge distribution agents. Both mechanisms are perceived as very useful by the knowledge workers. o Expertise modelling is important because it facilitates collaboration between the peer knowledge workers and implicitly facilitates taking decisions and work processes. At the same expertise modelling facilitates a better management of the tacit know ledge of the organization. o Some users are concerned with privacy and trust issues and therefore user’s profile should be only partial available for all the users of a KMS o Recognition seems to be key incentive for knowledge sharing; 5.5 A Comparison with a more traditional knowledge management system (KnowNet) To conclude our work, we have also compared the Ontologging system with a more traditional knowledge management product (KnowNet) that is currently developed by Meta4, one of the main partner of this pr oject. The aim of this comparison is to better evaluate the aspects of Ontologging that are directly connected to the use of an ontology approach rather than the aspects related to knowledge management in general.
5.5.1 Description of the evaluation Evaluation report of the use of Onto-Logging platform in the user site Deliverable ID: D8b Page : 67 of 110 Version: 1.0 Date: 27 january 2004 Status: Final Confid.: Public Meta4 has considered two alternative scenarios for Onto-KnowNet The evaluation focused on the approach, (i.e. what are the benefit of introducing ontologies in the considered scenarios.) Focus on some of the aspects (browse and search, knowledge edition), in particular to allow a comparison with their existing knowledge management product (KnowNet). Two different ontologies, oriented to different type of users: • First modelled scenario described the knowledge base of customer support cases, and product bugs. This was intended for developers that were currently using a proprietary application based on relational database. • Second modelled scenario described competences, knowledge areas and knowledge units. This scenario was presented to some managers to compare with our existing KM and HR solutions. 5.5.2 Comparing the two systems Meta4 has compared and assessed the added value of an ontology approach comparing it with KnowNet. The comparison was done not only at product level but also taking into account usage experience, acceptance, etc. Product managers wanted to evaluate whether the approach of ontologies/semantic techniques could be a strategy for some future products. The main enhancements compared to KnowNet are: • Providing navigational capabilities: allow browsing fr om one object to other related objects, finding important knowledge by visual means. Ontology navigation complements the directed search, similarly to browsing the Internet. • Easiness of the knowledge creation process, the integration with the Office environment • Enhanced search capabilities: allow searching for documents related to other entities (projects, etc.) • Permitting easy extension/modification of the data model (domain ontology) • Integrating logical inferences 5.5.3 Lessons learned from this comparison • Use of ontologies seems to be an important enhancement to knowledge-oriented applications, and it is critical to support a flexible evolution of the domain. • Ontology navigation complements the directed search, similarly to browsing the Internet.
Page 1 and 2:
The ONTO-LOGGING Consortium consist
Page 3 and 4:
Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 5 and 6:
Executive Summary Evaluation report
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16: Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 53 and 54: • List of connected users to the
Page 65: Evaluation report of the use of Ont
Page 69 and 70: 6 Discussion and Conclusions Evalua
Page 75 and 76: 8 Annex Evaluation report of the us
Page 93 and 94: esolver consultas. C42 Existen axio
Page 103 and 104: 1 The functionalities provided by D
show all

pdf 820Kb - INSEAD CALT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?