DOC PREVIEW
UT INF 385T - Intranets and Knowledge Management

This preview shows page 1-2-20-21 out of 21 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 21 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Intranets and Knowledge Management April 29, 2003 Paper by Lisa Baehr, M.S.I.S candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, School of Information for a Knowledge Management Systems class _____________________________________________________________________________ In their book Working Knowledge, Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak explore the complexity of knowledge, distinguishing it from data and information. “Most people have an intuitive sense that knowledge is broader, deeper, and richer than data or information” (p. 5). Davenport and Prusak describe a knowledgeable person as someone with a thorough, informed, and reliable grasp of a subject, someone who is both educated and intelligent. Businesses and organizations are recognizing that their employees and members are a valuable source of knowledge, but often aren’t sharing it. Several reasons for this exist. Organizational culture might prevent members from feeling comfortable about sharing knowledge. Geographical and technological hurdles might physically prevent members from interacting. Millen, Fontaine, and Muller (2002) describe how large organizations are increasingly interested in the development and support of communities to promote collaboration, to improve social interaction and organizational performance, and to increase productivity. The groups, often called “communities of practice” or CoPs, are defined by a common disciplinary background, similar work activities and tools, and shared stories, contexts, and values (p. 69). Various types of knowledge management systems are being developed with the hope that knowledge can be captured and shared within CoPs—to the benefit of the sponsoring organization and its members. Many of these systems combine technological and human elements. Intranets are one example.Baehr, Intranets and Knowledge Management, 4/29/2003, p. 2 What Is an Intranet? For some, intranet is a misspelling of internet. Although these two gateways to information have many similarities, they are not identical. Whereas the Internet is a world-wide network, an intranet is a network within an organization. Although intranet users usually have unlimited access to the Internet, reverse access is restricted if not altogether prevented (Schneider & Davis, n.d.b, ¶ 2). Several other intranet definitions have been proposed, some vague and some specific: • An intranet is a Web site designed to be used internally within a company (Van Duyne, Landay & Hong, 2003, p. 681). • The intranet is a standard-based, open, cross-platform network able to deliver information through a combination of text, graphics, sound, and objects through the use of web technology (Harvey, et al., 1997, p. 113). • An intranet is a network within an organization that uses Internet technologies to enable users to find, use, and share documents and Web pages. Corporations use intranets to communicate with employees (Dunne & Horgan, 2001, ¶ 1). • Intranets centralize the business process in an easily accessible, platform-independent virtual space (Schneider & Davis, n.d.a, ¶ 2). According to Harvey, Palmer, and Speier (1997), the underlying philosophy behind intranet usage is “information pull”: the user determines what (either the specific nature of the information or just that some form of information is needed) and when to access the information resources. This differs from the information push of traditional corporate environments where memos, employee handbooks, and reports are distributed to all organizational members on a pre-Baehr, Intranets and Knowledge Management, 4/29/2003, p. 3 defined distribution list. Also, within an intranet context, a user does not have to wait for a response from another entity; access to desired information is immediate (p. 112). One benefit to intranets providing “just-in-time” information, say Bates, et al., is that printed information material is reduced. Stacks of print memos, reports, and industry magazines no longer need to be read or skimmed to find the kernels of information a specific user needs. Instead, users are empowered with the responsibility for determining and tracking their changing information needs and may actively and efficiently acquire the information when they need it (p. 112). Intranets as Groupware In their 1997 book Intranets vs. Lotus Notes, Sinclair and Hale hesitate to define groupware because the concept is so broad, encompassing all the human collaborative activity that takes place online now or that will take place online in the future. They do, however, identify five realms within groupware that provide some scope and context: communication, work management, conferencing, publishing, and training (p. 2-4). They also mention key features that every groupware alternative must include. The computers that use the groupware must be networked so they can to pass data to and from one another. Groupware should be easy to use. Groupware should also be able to run on whatever hardware is already in place in the organization (p. 26). The widespread use of groupware probably occurred as early as the 1970s during the infancy of the Internet (p. 25). Lotus Notes is the archetypal groupware program against which all groupware programming must be compared. It emerged as the leader in integration and functionality. However, Sinclair and Hale suggest that maximum integration and functionality may not be for everyone because they come at a high cost: the cost of training. Instead they recommend easy-to-learn and easy-to-use intranets as a viable alternative (p. 2).Baehr, Intranets and Knowledge Management, 4/29/2003, p. 4 Intranets as Portals A Web portal is a “supersite” on the Internet that provides, ideally, a comprehensive entry point for a huge array of resources and services. Corporate portals are internal websites that provide proprietary information to employees, suppliers, partners, clients and stockholders. When they serve only the needs of employees, they’re called intranets (Berkman, 2000, ¶ 1 & 3). Intranets as a Tool for Creating Knowledge D. Stenmark (2000) asserts that intranets are particularly suitable for supporting and facilitating corporate creativity and the knowledge creation process. “Managing creativity is about raising the probability of creative acts by stimulating the factors that works in favour of creativity.” He describes eight factors for creativity. 1. Alignment (being aware of, and working


View Full Document

UT INF 385T - Intranets and Knowledge Management

Documents in this Course
Load more
Download Intranets and Knowledge Management
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Intranets and Knowledge Management and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Intranets and Knowledge Management 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?