The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management aims to publish perspectives on topics relevant to the study, implementation and management of knowledge management
Become a Reviewer for EJKM click here
Click here to see other Scholarly Electronic Journals published by API
For a range of research text books on this and complimentary topics visit the Academic Bookshop

Information about the European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM) is available here.

For info on the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organisational Learning (ICICKM), click here
Information about the European Conference on Intellectual Capital (ECIC) is available here
 

Journal Article

Educational Ontology and Knowledge Testing  pp123-130

Réka Vas

© Mar 2007 Volume 5 Issue 1, ECKM 2006, Editor: Charles Despres, pp1 - 130

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

The Bologna declaration aims at providing solutions for the problems and challenges of European Higher Education. One of its main goals is the introduction of a common framework of transparent and comparable degrees that ensures the recognition of knowledge and qualifications of citizens all across the European Union. This paper will discuss an ontology‑based model that supports the creation of transparent curricula content (Educational Ontology) and the promotion of reliable knowledge testing (Adaptive Knowledge Testing System). Beside the description of the evolution of the Educational Ontology, which has been developed within a research project by the Department of Information Systems, role of the ontology in managing, mapping and sharing the knowledge of curricula will be discussed in details as well. The Educational Ontology addresses establishing relation between the requirements of labour markets and the content of curricula through competencies that can be acquired during a given training program. Another critical aspect of this research concerns the measuring of knowledge. The second part of the paper will focus on the possibilities of adaptive knowledge testing and describes how a suitably elaborated ontology model can support adaptive testing of students by enabling a detailed exploration of missing knowledge and knowledge areas.

 

Keywords: knowledge representation, ontology, adaptive testing

 

Share |

Journal Article

Being and Knowing — Ontological Perspectives on Knowledge Management Systems  pp283-290

Deborah A. Blackman, Steven Henderson

© Aug 2007 Volume 5 Issue 3, Editor: Charles Despres, pp257 - 347

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

This paper undertakes an ontological analysis of knowledge management systems from two perspectives: Popperian and Heideggerian. Earl's taxonomy of knowledge management schools is used as the proxy for the variety of systems that can be found in practice. The paper takes two contrasting ontological systems to identify generic strengths and weaknesses at the level of the School. The argument is made that many of the issues and difficulties frequently encountered in organisations are unlikely to have managerial or technological solutions as they are ontologically implied by the very systems themselves.

 

Keywords: Knowledge management systems, ontology, Popper, Heidegger

 

Share |

Journal Article

Folksonomies, Collaborative Filtering and e‑Business: is Enterprise 2.0 One Step Forward and Two Steps Back?  pp411-418

Kevin Johnston

© Jan 2008 Volume 5 Issue 4, Editor: Charles Despres, pp347 - 550

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

Enterprise2.0 is the use of emergent social software tools to improve knowledge sharing and collaboration within and between firms, their customers and partners. This paper proposes that Enterprise2.0 is a double‑edged sword and should be adopted cautiously. Emerging trends in e‑business are specialisation and collaboration, creating a diverse population of organisations, each tightly defined by its core competences, interacting in a constant sequence of transient relationships, each motivated by a particular market opportunity. These dynamic business networks depend on the establishment of appropriate platforms and global standards to enable smooth interaction between the service components, in particular, appropriate metadata such as ontologies. The dynamism of such an interconnected yet free‑ wheeling economy is constrained unless risks relating to investment in a new business relationship are reduced to levels where the risk‑reward ratio favours agility rather than inertia. For its advocates, Enterprise2.0 techniques promise to contribute to the evolution of dynamic, agile, collaborative e‑commerce. However, its egalitarian and permissive nature creates challenges. Folksonomies allow a more customer‑centric view of an organisation's value proposition but may also undermine carefully devised official ontologies. Collaborative filtering may provide a mechanism for mitigating risk but the trust created is dependent upon the perceived credibility of the reviewers. A high profile example of an initiative designed to facilitate dynamic e‑commerce which failed due to unsatisfactory classification of its members and the perceived risk of interacting with unknown reputations is examined. Recent academic research and practical applications that address these conflicts are reviewed.

 

Keywords: Enterprise 2.0, ontology, folksonomy, metadata, collaborative filtering, trust

 

Share |

Journal Article

Enhancing the Reusability of Inter‑Organizational Knowledge: an Ontology‑Based Collaborative Knowledge Management Network  pp233-244

Nelson Leung, Sim Kim Lau, Joshua Fan

© Jun 2009 Volume 7 Issue 2, ICICKM 2008, Editor: Kevin O'Sullivan, pp199 - 296

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

Researchers have developed various knowledge management approaches that only focus on managing organizational knowledge. These approaches are developed in accordance with organizational KM strategies and business requirements without the concern of system interoperation. The lack of interoperability means that heterogeneous Knowledge Management Systems from different organizations are unable to communicate and integrate with one another, this results in limitation to reuse inter‑organizational knowledge. Here, inter‑organizational knowledge is defined as a set of explicit knowledge formalized and created by other organizations. In this research, a collaborative inter‑organizational KM network is proposed to provide a platform for organizations to access and retrieve inter‑organizational knowledge in a similar domain. Furthermore, ontology and its related mediation methods are incorporated in the network. The concept of ontology enables organizations to explicitly represent their knowledge of a specific domain with representational vocabulary in terms of objects and their interrelated describable relationships. Although different organizations may possess their own set of ontologies, the mediation methods that include mapping, merging and integration are capable of reconciling the underlying heterogeneities of ontologies. In this way, it is possible for the participant organizations to reuse inter‑organizational knowledge within the network even though there are fundamental differences among organizations in terms of KMS structures and knowledge formats. The retrieved inter‑organizational knowledge could then be used to support knowledge creating, storing, dissemination, using and evaluation of the organizational KM process. In additional, a selection framework is also proposed to assist organizations in choosing suitable ontology mediation approaches, ranging from mapping approaches, levels of automation, mediation methods to matching techniques. While knowledge engineers could reuse inter‑organizational knowledge to create and evaluate organizational knowledge, general users are benefit from the effectiveness and efficiency in searching for relevant inter‑organizational knowledge within the network.

 

Keywords: knowledge management, ontology, mapping, merging, integration

 

Share |

Journal Article

Building a Taxonomy for Understanding Knowledge Management  pp453-466

Kun Nie, Tieju Ma, Yoshiteru Nakamori

© Jan 2008 Volume 5 Issue 4, Editor: Charles Despres, pp347 - 550

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

As an interdisciplinary research field emerging recently, Knowledge Management (KM) has been given many different definitions. This paper introduces two studies we carried out to provide a holistic and better understanding of KM. By applying the methodology of domain analysis to investigate leading peer‑reviewed journals regarding KM, the first study explores six fundamental issues regarding KM, which are: why is KM necessary; what enables the birth of KM and triggers actions on KM; what does KM deal with; how to implement KM; how to support KM by information technology; and where has KM been applied. By building an ontology structure of research topics within the community of the Graduate School of Knowledge Science at Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST), the second study examines KM within a more general disciplinary called Knowledge Science, which gives a description of how KM is related to other research topics.

 

Keywords: knowledge management, domain analysis, ontology

 

Share |

Journal Article

A Framework for Assessing Commensurability of Semantic Web Ontologies  pp91-102

Liam Magee

© Jan 2010 Volume 8 Issue 1, Editor: Ettore Bolisani, Enrico Scarso, pp1 - 180

Look inside Download PDF (free)

Abstract

The Semantic Web proposes a framework for establishing a "web of data", analogous to the "web of documents" of the World Wide Web. It envisions a series of interconnected ontologies, underwritten by formal languages such as OWL and RDF. The problem of co‑ordinating disparate ontologies has led to the development of various ontology matching approaches. However, as these approaches are algorithmic they cannot make use of background or tacit information about the ontologies they examine — information only available in the broader social context in which ontologies are created and used. In many practical knowledge management scenarios, such information is vital in understanding the costs, feasibility and scope of ontology alignment projects. Prior to undertaking the detailed task of concept‑to‑concept mapping between two ontologies, it is therefore useful to ask: are these ontologies broadly commensurable? This paper presents a framework for describing and comparing cultural information about ontologies, developed as part of a joint project conducted by RMIT University and FujiXerox Australia, "Towards the 'Semantic Web': Standards and Interoperability across Document Management and Publishing Supply Chains". The framework is intended for practitioners to use as a tool to arrive at better estimates and assessments of the scope of work required to develop an adequate translation between two or more ontologies. The framework has been piloted as an online software toolkit, which is presented to a small group of participants. After using the software, participants complete an evaluation, which elicits quantitative and qualitative feedback on both the framework and the software. The paper presents the results of the pilot testing process, along with some considerations of how the framework might be further improved.

 

Keywords: ontology matching, commensurability, knowledge-producing cultures

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 5 Issue 1, ECKM 2006 / Feb 2007  pp1‑130

Editor: Charles Despres

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Editorial

"The 7th annual European Conference on Knowledge Management 2006 held in Budapest produced a particularly interesting set of papers. KM as a field of academic endeavor continues to produce signs of maturity in the sense that the quality of contributions is markedly higher than in the past. But the tendency to fracture along multiple disciplinary boundaries remains.

The result is that selecting papers from the conference for inclusion in the Journal is more challenging than ever. Fourteen papers were chosen in the end however, and these from a wide range of authors based in Universities around the world.

Topics addressed by papers included in this edition are especially eclectic which, given KM´s multidisciplinary roots and transversal nature, reflects the multiplicity of the basic phenomenon (human and collective cognition, secondarily applied to organizational contexts). In some respects this characteristic is frustrating but also challenging, and there are researchers who find this motivating. Perhaps because the intellectual perimeters are multiple and loose. Perhaps because paradigms shift by traversing a path of intellectual mosaics.

On the other hand the fact is that after about two decades of serious research by the academic community KM is ‑ at best ‑ showing only weak signs of convergence. If maturing in terms of quality and productivity, it remains young in terms of disciplinary comportment. I once listened to a French cultural anthropologist explain to a French television crew why he had chosen to live and work in the United States (his business being to de‑code European culture for the American marketing machine).

He told them that European culture was an old culture with its codes well sorted and established. He characterized American cultural codes as young, searching and mixed, not unlike adolescents the world over no matter what their national origin. In the end he explained that after weighing the pros and cons he finally decided that he thoroughly preferred being mixed up with the young and the restless. The freedom and frontiers of youth being ""better"" than the standards and strictures of establishment.

This could very well be part of the attraction that KM has for a growing number of academics around the world. I have found the papers in this edition of value and I hope that you will as well."

 

Keywords: adaptive testing, affects, collective search, communities of practice, concept design, discourse analysis, information exchange, innovation, intellectual capital, knowledge cooperation, knowledge process, knowledge sharing, knowledge spiral model, knowledge transfer, Nonaka, online communities, ontology, organisational learning, story telling, tacit knowledge, university-industry interactions, user-centred design

 

Share |

Journal Issue

Volume 5 Issue 2, ICICKM 2006 / May 2007  pp131‑254

Editor: Dan Remenyi

View Contents Download PDF (free)

Editorial

This Special Issue of EJKM originated from the papers delivered at ICICKM 2006 in Santiago de Chile in October last year. Of course the papers have been improved by their authors since they were first presented and are now offered to a much wider audience.

The 12 papers in this edition are especially interesting in that I have seldom seen such a wide diversity of subjects. This collection is indeed strong evidence that the topic of Knowledge Management and its co‑traveller Intellectual Capital have a remarkably diverse scope. A few years ago, perhaps a dozen or so, some academics might have thrown up their hands in horror. ""How can we have a discipline with such porous boundaries?"" I imagine them to have said. Well in today's academic world boundaries are increasingly difficult to define and more difficult to maintain. Subjects blur into each other. And this phenomenon is not the result of a new way of research or thinking. It is simply the result of being more cognoscente of the way the world actually works.

It would of course be wrong to say that boundaries between subjects no longer exist or that they are no longer relevant. But it is true to say that we have now a much more open mind about how we think of research and how we combine different fields of studies. We have for a while been talking about multidisciplinary research. Then we focused on interdisciplinary research. Today we sometimes talk about trans‑disciplinary research. When anyone is brave enough to ask what these terms actually mean academics often run for cover.

For me the terms multidisciplinary research or interdisciplinary research or trans‑disciplinary research signals that we are focusing on a real problem which like so many situations in business needs to be understood and managed while bearing in mind that it is unlikely that any one centre of knowledge will be able to provide the whole answer.

The diversity in this edition of EJKM supports this notion.

 

Keywords: adaptive testing, affects, collective search, communities of practice, concept design, discourse analysis, information exchange, innovation, intellectual capital, knowledge cooperation, knowledge process, knowledge sharing, knowledge spiral model, knowledge transfer, Nonaka, online communities, ontology, organisational learning, story telling, tacit knowledge, university-industry interactions, user-centred design

 

Share |