Suchocki, M (2005) Knowledge identification within the information infrastructure of a large multidisciplinary consultant. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
Knowledge Management (KM) practitioners and technology suppliers are eager to promote the value of advanced tools and techniques for identifying and extracting knowledge from digital data. Difficulties exist in applying these KM methods to organisations and this is particularly true where there exists complexity in the information technology (IT) infrastructure, geographic dispersion as well as technical diversification. The IT infrastructure of a large multidisciplinary consultant coupled with particular characteristics in the information-seeking behaviour of engineers and managers need to be fully understood, and potentially changed, before attempting to implement knowledge management improvements.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | knowledge management; civil engineering; organizational culture; information technology infrastructure |
| Index terms: | information technology, diversification, complexity, engineer, practitioner, organizational culture, manager, knowledge management |
| Subjects: | market analysis, practitioner, computing systems, profession, professional development, sociology, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here