Knowledge based types of innovation

[German title: Wissensbasierte Innovationsarten (Translate text to: Deutsch)]

Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related?
Silvio Popadiuk and Chun Wei Choo
International Journal of Information Management
Volume 26, Issue 4 , August 2006, Pages 302-312

Abstract: Innovation and knowledge creation—these two concepts have a strong relationship but this relationship has not been examined systematically. This paper reviews the important theoretical work in both streams of research, highlighting the fundamental similarities and differences. Four major models of innovation are compared, and the distinction between radical and incremental innovation is examined. The nature of organizational knowledge and the process of knowledge creation are presented. We then compare the principal findings of the research on innovation and knowledge creation, and conclude with a new framework that differentiates types of innovation based on a knowledge creation perspective.

Keywords: Radical innovation; Incremental innovation; Knowledge management; Knowledge creation

Read the article online.

© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

Call for Papers for the Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) Journal

[German title: Aufruf Artikel für das Knowledge Management for Development (KM4D) Journal beizutragen (Translate text to: Deutsch)]

Call for Papers: KM4D Journal  Vol. 2, Issue 3, December 2006
‘Bridging knowledge divides: the role of partnerships and cross-cutting initiatives’

The ‘Knowledge Management for Development Journal’ (KM4D Journal) is an open access, peer reviewed, community-based journal on knowledge management in development – for and by development practitioners and researchers. It is published three times a year in May, September and December. The journal is strongly related to the KM4dev community of practice, and can be viewed and downloaded at: www.km4dev.org/journal
Vol. 2, Issue 3, to be published in December 2006, will focus on ‘Bridging knowledge divides: the role of partnerships and cross-cutting initiatives.’

Rationale
Over the past decade, many international development agencies have broadened their activity portfolios beyond financial support of development projects or programmes, focusing increasingly on capacity development and knowledge sharing. This development is a response to the need for enhancing development understanding, expressed both within these agencies as well as amongst their constituents and/or partners. Reflecting a complementary development, academic institutes are responding to this need by expanding their scope beyond the research community, and are progressively including stakeholders such as policymakers and practitioners in the process of knowledge generation.
Despite this convergence of focus between development research and practice, a wide gap still exists: knowledge transfer between the two is limited, collaboration is restricted, and there is still a dearth of relevant knowledge reaching Southern stakeholders. Many efforts to bridge this gap have been initiated; almost as many have failed. The main factors standing in the way of effective partnership between research and practice might be roughly categorised as institutional, communicative and philosophical differences.
The challenge of bringing together research and practice towards the achievement of mutual development objectives is fascinating. It is a field much explored, but an adequate response is rare. Initially motivated by diminishing public extension services available to counterparts in the South, especially in the field of agriculture and health, and augmented by the ongoing demands of the ‘Information Society’ in which access to information has become an increasingly important condition for personal development, the logical step forward would be for the development of knowledge partnerships between practitioners, researchers and policymakers. The elaboration of such partnerships is not yet common practice. There is a lack of literature exploring why this is. What are the challenges? What are the opportunities? What can be learnt from past efforts, successes or failures? Is it worth pursuing such partnerships? Or are the differences simply too overwhelming to be overcome?
In addition to the knowledge divides between practitioners, researchers and policymakers, there are also a multitude of further knowledge divides created by language, culture and even the physical distance between North and South. Efforts are also being made to bridge these divides in a variety of different ways.
 

This issue
This issue of the KM4Dev Journal will address the partnerships and other cross-cutting initiatives which are aiming to bridge the multitude of knowledge divides. The emphasis will be on lessons to be learnt from both successful and less successful experiences.
The issue will include papers from practitioners, researchers and policymakers who have been involved with ‘out of the box’ thinking with partnerships and initiatives which have aimed to cross one or more knowledge divides.
We invite practitioners and researchers involved with networks, NGOs, resource centres, research institutes, think tanks, bilateral and multilateral development agencies and other organizations working in the context of knowledge management for development cooperation to propose papers on the following general themes:
– Experiences of bridging knowledge divides
– Specific approaches or tools that have or have not  worked
– Future agenda for bridging knowledge divides

Within this broad theme, papers should address the following, or related, topics:
– What is the specific purpose of initiatives, including partnerships, which aim to bridge development divides?
– Which divides (constituencies, language, culture, distance and so on) are they bridging?
– Which constituencies (practitioners, researchers, policymakers etc) are they aiming to integrate?
– What barriers do such initiatives face?
– What are the main challenges facing the bridging of development divides and how can these be resolved?
– What are the effects or achievements of these initiatives?
 

Proposed Deadlines
– Submission deadline for the title and abstract: 21 September 2006
– Acceptance of paper proposal: 1 October 2006
– Submission of paper: 1 November 2006
– Peer-review completed: 15 November 2006
– Author revision completed and final version of paper submitted:  7 December 2006
– (e)-publication date: 21 December 2006

If you would like to be actively involved in this initiative, or have ideas or questions, please send an e-mail to km4dj-editors@dgroups.org The team of Guest Editors is currently being contacted. In the short-term, please address your comments to Julie Ferguson or Sarah Cummings, co-Chief Editors for this issue, at this e-mail address.

Reference
Ferguson, J. (2005) Bridging the gap between research and practice. Knowledge Management for Development Journal Vol. 1(3) p. 46-54 http://www.km4dev.org/journal/index.php/km4dj/article/viewFile/39/101

Knowledge-Based Systems Journal, Volume 19, Issue 6, 2006 available

[German title: Knowledge.Based Systems Journal, Jg. 19 Nr. 6, 2006 erschienen (Translate text to: Deutsch)]

Knowledge-Based Systems Journal
Volume 19, Issue 6, 2006

Stages of knowledge management systems in police investigations
Petter Gottschalk

A new algorithm for automatic knowledge acquisition in inductive learning
Ömer Akgöbek, Yavuz Selim Aydin, Ercan Öztemel and Mehmet Sabih Aksoy

Integrating fuzzy data mining and fuzzy artificial neural networks for discovering implicit knowledge
Mu-Jung Huang, Yee-Lin Tsou and Show-Chin Lee

Automated conversion between different knowledge representation formats
Haining Yao and Letha Etzkorn

Predictive and comprehensible rule discovery using a multi-objective genetic algorithm
S. Dehuri and R. Mall

A preprocess algorithm of filtering irrelevant information based on the minimum class difference
Zhiping Chen and Kevin Lü

Risk and confidence analysis for fuzzy multicriteria decision making
Norman Fenton and Wei Wang

Using multiple and negative target rules to make classifiers more understandable
Jiuyong Li and Jason Jones

Read the articles online.

© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Knowledge construction and group collaboration in web-based MBA

[German title: Wissenskonstruktion und Gruppenarbeit in webbasierten MBA-Kursen (Translate text to: Deutsch)]

Separating the effects of knowledge construction and group collaboration in learning outcomes of web-based courses
Raquel Benbunan-Fich and J.B. Arbaugh
Information & Management
Volume 43, Issue 6 , September 2006, Pages 728-739

Abstract: We proposed and empirically assessed a KMS success model. This was derived through an analysis of current practice of knowledge management and review of IS success literature. Five variables (system quality, knowledge or information quality, perceived KMS benefits, user satisfaction, and system use) were used as dependent variables in evaluating KMS success, and their interrelationships were suggested and empirically tested. The results provide an expanded understanding of the factors that measure KMS success and implications of this work are discussed.

Keywords: Knowledge management; Knowledge management system; Information system success; System quality; Knowledge or information quality; Perceived KMS benefits; User satisfaction; System use

Read the article online.

© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Understand the factors that measure Knowledge Management Systems success

[German title: Die Faktoren mit denen man den Erfolg von Wissensmanagementsystemen mißt verstehen (Translate text to: Deutsch)]

Measuring KMS success: A respecification of the DeLone and McLean’s model
Jen-Her Wua and Yu-Min Wang
Information & Management
Volume 43, Issue 6 , September 2006, Pages 728-739

Abstract: We proposed and empirically assessed a KMS success model. This was derived through an analysis of current practice of knowledge management and review of IS success literature. Five variables (system quality, knowledge or information quality, perceived KMS benefits, user satisfaction, and system use) were used as dependent variables in evaluating KMS success, and their interrelationships were suggested and empirically tested. The results provide an expanded understanding of the factors that measure KMS success and implications of this work are discussed.

Keywords: Knowledge management; Knowledge management system; Information system success; System quality; Knowledge or information quality; Perceived KMS benefits; User satisfaction; System use

Read the Article online.

© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.