km audit paper

Joseph Rega Architect BOAQ, eMBA in progress RMIT University, B Architecture B Science University of NSW

29 March 2012

"to transform knowledge

into a

living vision"

... to improve business performance through investment in high quality

social learning organizations

which promote

enterprise kinetics and spontaneous knowledge environments as the means by which

one does business ...

Knowledge Audit

Joseph Rega [[email protected]] OMBA720 / BUSM4175: Knowledge Management 1

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET FOR SUBMISSION OF INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP WORK

Department/School Open Universities Australia

Course/Unit Name Program Title

This statement should be completed and signed by the student(s) participating in preparation of the assignment. Declaration and Statement of Authorship: I/we hold a copy of this assignment, which can be produced if the original is lost/ damaged. This assignment is my/our original work and no part of it has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made. No part of this assignment has been written for me/us by any other person except where such collaboration has been authorised by the lecturer/teacher concerned and is clearly acknowledged in the assignment. I/we have not previously submitted or currently submitting this work for any other course/unit. This work may be reproduced, communicated, compared and archived for the purpose of detecting plagiarism. I/we give permission for a copy of my/our marked work to be retained by the School for review and comparison, including review by external examiners. I/we understand that Plagiarism is the presentation of the work, idea or creation of another person as though it is your own. It is a form of cheating and is a very serious academic offence that may lead to expulsion from the University. Plagiarised material can be drawn from, and presented in, written, graphic and visual form, including electronic data, and oral presentations. Plagiarism occurs when the origin of the material used is not appropriately cited. Enabling plagiarism is the act of assisting or allowing another person to plagiarise or to copy your work

Family name Given Name Student Number Student Signature Date Rega Joseph s3362256 Joseph Rega 29.03.12

Course/Unit Code Assignment Number

Assignment Due Date

Group/Session name (if applicable)

OMBA720 BUSM4175

1 01.04.12

Session 1 2012: Individual Assignment - Knowledge Audit

Knowledge Management

MBA (Executive)

Lecturer/Teacher’s Name Tutor (or Marker’s) Name (if applicable) Arthur Shelley Arthur Shelley

Further information relating to the penalties for plagiarism, which range from a notation on your student file to expulsion from the University, is contained in Regulation 6.1.1 Student Discipline (http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse?SIMID=m62x4h7g8iep1) and Academic Policy: ‘Plagiarism’ (http://www.rmit.edu.au/course-admin/operating-procedures). For Assessor only: Assessor’s comments___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Grade:

School Date Stamp (For office use only)

Knowledge Audit


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................... 3

KM Automated Mode .......................................................................... 3

Social Dimension ............................................................................... 5

Social Psychology .............................................................................. 6

Heuristic Model ................................................................................. 8

Social Learning Organization ................................................................ 9

Review ......................................................................................... 10

Reference List ................................................................................ 11

Knowledge Audit


Executive Summary

This report exposes the power of the knowledge audit, not so much in the automated mode of codified

information, but as knowledge leadership … hunting as a pack” (McCormack 2006). Proposed is

a supplemented model; the intelligible knowledge audit blackboard, a holistic assiduous

knowledge compendium, of respondent individuals working across the seams of a business sequence,

sustaining knowledge improvisation, and capturing, sharing and reprocessing, propagating freely

social media, (Bradley & McDonald 2011a&b) and supporting key stakeholder participation.

The extent of success of a company will be determined through new knowledge … creation, and

knowledge sharing on a global basis, [where] knowledge constitutes a competitive advantage,” (Ichijō

& Nonaka 2007 p3) and core competency.

The report briefly considers the knowledge audit in terms of knowledge management [KM] in its

automated mode, but fundamentally considers the knowledge audit as a continuum of empirical

evaluation, and consequently assumes the underpinning of all aspects of KM, and efficaciously the

social dimension. The knowledge audit is viewed as the catalyst of the stimulating membership of

valuable and validated knowledge, mobilizing the social learning organization, (Bradley & McDonald

2011a&b) and exploiting creation spaces (Hagel III, Seely Brown, & Davison 2010) caveat with the

21st C corporate workplace.

Within this social dimension … a dynamic heuristic model for wise and reflective knowledge

rehearsal … is also proposed, contextually deliberating on social psychology in terms of a model

methodology of knowledge traits and value framing [attached] as a means of eliciting positive

contributions from respondent individuals and the prudent use of knowledge through repetitive

techniques. The report purposely takes on a metaphoric mode in parts, to capture colour, sound and

movement, particularly in its narrative of the social learning organization, and resourcefully reviews

the propagation of knowledge by way of champion leadership and knowledge team.

KM Automated Mode

KM in its automated mode of codification, (Dalkir 2005) employs the knowledge audit to empirically

review the organization’s respondent individuals, and determines, with a knowledge metrics

assessment, a systematic knowledge mapping (Smartdraw 2012) of an … organization’s current

knowledge capabilities. Current performance against world-class practice [is assessed, identifying]

critical areas for” (Dalkir 2005) a deliberate and capability development of the organization’s people,

technology, and processes; a KM base or models, securely keyboarded.

Figure 1 … consists of three major elements: context, transformation, and [knowledge] outcomes”

(Davenport et al. 2001). Context refers to the empirical knowledge audit, and analytic effort required

from a knowledge metrics assessment, monitored by data mining knowledge generation. The …

Knowledge Audit


transformation element is where the data is actually analyzed, and used to support a business

decision. Finally, [knowledge] … outcomes are the changes that result from the analysis, and

decision-making,” (Davenport et al. 2001; Eccles & Davenport 2011) and the categorization of

succession planning.

Figure 1: Knowledge Audit / Metrics Assessment to Knowledge Creation to Knowledge Base or Model

(extrapolated from Davenport et al. 2001).

In this context Dalkir (2005) defines the knowledge audit as fundamentally an empirical evaluation that

… can reveal the organization’s management needs, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats,

and risks, [and] provides an [experiential] assessment of where [an organization needs] to focus its

knowledge management efforts” (Dalkir 2005). I believe seven years on Dalkir (2005) may well reflect

on the knowledge audit as an empirical continuum.

Perceived only in its automated mode, the KM procedure discloses nuisance in captivating the

knowledge worker. Hagel III et al. (2010) suggest that while … the best KM [procedures] succeeded

at capturing and institutionalizing the knowledge of the firm, the repositories and directories remained

fragmentary and the resources didn't get used in their quest to capture what the firm already knows,

most knowledge managers lose sight of the fact that the real value is in creating new knowledge,

rather than simply ‘managing’ existing knowledge”, an IT and HR competency, rather than a

leadership purpose.

Context

Knowledge Audit / Metrics Assessment

Strategy

Skills & Experience

Organization & Culture

Technology & Data Mining

Transformation

Knowledge Creation

Analysis

Decision Making

Knowledge Outcomes

Knowledge Base or Model

Financial

Process

Behavioral

Knowledge Audit


Social Dimension

The creation of new knowledge, and sharing culture requisites a holistic approach rather than just

concentrating on … knowledge mapping and collection” (Dalkir 2005). Viewed positively from a social

dimension, the intelligible knowledge audit blackboard can swathe the imagination as a social

organization (Bradley & McDonald 2011a&b).

In response to Dalkir’s (2005) sample knowledge audit questionnaire, is the assumption that an

organization’s community of practice, including key stakeholders, are respondent to knowledge

centers. The knowledge audit underpins knowledge and its management, and as Carol Kinsey (cited

in Babcock 2004) stresses … knowledge management is change management, and, if you don’t

understand people’s perspective, all the strategy and technology in the world means very little.”

Rather than navigating a perfect conclusion, knowledge is incessantly reprocessed. The intelligible

knowledge audit blackboard prospects the future as complex adaptable systems … the more

general name for the field is complexity theory [within which ‘chaos’ is a particular mode of

behaviour],” (Rosenhead 1998) and within which irregularity may occur … co-evolving,” … self-

organizing behavior in adaptation to change by applying concepts of [social] organization theory and

[social] organizational behavior … knowledge has emerged as the creator of wealth in today’s global

economy: knowledge applied to work is productivity; knowledge applied to knowledge is innovation …

accumulating knowledge is applied to the marketplace by some self-organizing, entrepreneurial

companies in the process of adaptation to change” (Drucker 1993 cited in Coleman Jr 1999).

The intelligible knowledge audit blackboard is a perspicacious investigation … into an

organization’s knowledge health” (Dalkir 2005). When KM is seen as a social phenomenon, (Coleman

Jr 1999; Bradley & McDonald 2011a&b) then the intelligible knowledge audit blackboard yields the

domicile of a living organism or living creative playing field that is not sequential or reactive but

seeks episodically free flowing knowledge improvisation, capturing and reprocessing validated truth.

Envision … a living chorale of knowledge spontaneity … a workplace blackboard. The

intelligible knowledge audit blackboard focuses on the promotion of creating, sharing, and

illumination of valuable validated knowledge, including the nurturing of treasured … lessons learned,”

(Dalkir 2005) essentially determining the willing induction of an organization’s respondent individuals

in surroundings of convincing, and trusting (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei 2005) peer pressure and social

communication, connection, and collaboration (Li & Bernoff 2011). In this light, the whistleblowing of

morally irresponsible knowledge workers is deemed apposite.

The living creative playing field is determinably a learning organization of innovation, mental

imagery and symbols, (Doyle & Sims 2002) stories and the theatrical, which embed the individual to

the organization, lessons learned and good tales are key to organizational culture. Those

individuals reflect the 3 Dimensional Marketing, culture and brand of the social organization

(Bradley & McDonald 2011a&b) and corporate structures (The McKinsey Quarterly 2006).

Knowledge Audit


Social Psychology

… Knowledge is defined as what we know: knowledge involves the mental processes of

comprehension, understanding and learning that go on in the mind and only in the mind … uttering

messages of one kind or another - oral, written, graphic, gestural or even through body language”

(Wilson 2002).

Reassuringly through knowledge brokering, (Dalkir 2005) and mental models, the intelligible knowledge audit blackboard or living creative playing field, enhances positive emotion,

(Frederickson 2003) and psychological capital (Peterson et al. 2008) embraces optimism, hope,

confidence and resiliency. Regularly coming together, the organization’s respondent individuals are

exposed to social intelligence, (Goleman & Boyatzis 2008) and proximate mentoring (Claman 2012;

Gibson 2004; Hewlett et al. 2011) of tacit knowledge, its elicitation (Dalkir 2005) and conversion to

explicit knowledge, rethinking the explicit back to new tacit knowledge, seeking renovated

knowledge (Nonaka & Toyama 2007).

The intelligible knowledge audit blackboard is the qualitative mechanisms of harnessing what

people tacitly know, and how they objectively express it, (Nonaka & Toyama 2007) coupled with what

Knowledge Audit


they have created in respect of that knowledge, through neural satirizing, (Goleman & Boyatzis 2008)

and the capturing of knowledge where the social organization (Bradley & McDonald 2011a&b)

operates as a prospecting anticipation machine rather than just a machine for information

processing (Choo 2003).

The Japanese see knowledge as tacit, and highly personal, something not easily visible, … deeply

rooted in an individual’s action and experience, as well as the ideals, values, or emotions he or she

embraces” (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). The broadening of strategic thinking through the art of

reflective practice, stepping back, outside space and time, considering options and then ordering

the wise choice amongst them is called for, (Gibson 2008) and leads to stewardship of tacit

knowledge, (Dalkir 2005) and projects for knowledge transfer.

Tacit knowledge involves human processes such as creativity, conservation, judgement, and teaching

and learning, which is founded on … emotional knowledge and care in the organization, one that

highlights how people treat each other, and encourages creativity and even playfulness” (Ichijō &

Nonaka 2007). Nonaka and Toyama (2007) consider subjective tacit knowledge held in an

individual’s mind is externalized or converted into objective, explicit knowledge, to be synthesized

within the social organization (Bradley & McDonald 2011a&b) as new knowledge creation, viewed as

the social process of validating truth (Nonaka, Nonaka & Takeuchi cited in Nonaka & Toyama

2007).

Knowledge Audit


Heuristic Model

Figure 2: “A Dynamic Heuristic Model for Wise and Reflective Knowledge Rehearsal.” The nature of

practical wisdom in action generates a Playfield of the Social Process of Knowledge Rehearsal Validating

Truth and in the contemplative integrates reflective experience and tacit knowledge over time, brokering cognitive

schemas, character and perception, and enabling the wise object of explicit knowledge, engendering new

knowledge creation, sighted through value framing sharing knowledge episodically and dynamically in synthesis

and judgment as a holistic membership, rather than separately, sequentially or reactively (Gibson 2008; Gosling &

Mintzberg cited in Gibson 2008) – advisable to review the Model Methodology of Knowledge Traits and Value

Framing: The elicitation of Tacit Knowledge creating new Knowledge.

Playfield of the

Social Process of

Knowledge Rehearsal Validating

Truth

Knowledge Sharing

Cultivation of

Membership and

Reprocessing

Chaotic Contemplation

Reflection Tacit Knowledge

Control and

Structure

Complex Cognitive Schemas

Dynamically Improvise

Collaborate Human Resource

and

Canvas Character Explicit

Knowledge Compete Politically

in Coalition

with

Clarity and

Perception New Knowledge

Creation Symbolic Values

Capture

Knowledge Audit


Social Learning Organization

An exhilarating intelligible knowledge audit blackboard, as freely social media, (Bradley &

McDonald 2011a&b) will open doors into the world of knowledge. Enduringly 24/7 as a … playfield of

the social process of knowledge rehearsal validating truth … will transfix knowledge workers,

encompassed in socially trusting, (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei 2005) and rewarding channels, regularly

coming together. Owen’s (cited in Dalkir 2005) open space technology [OST] groupings augment

empirical knowledge auditing of the social learning organization, improvisation, and capturing,

sharing, and reprocessing knowledge.

Interspersed throughout the 21st C corporate workplace, you’ll find a freely social media (Bradley &

McDonald 2011a&b). Knowledge captured formally or informally, inside or outside the workplace;

more than audio/visual medium, tele/videoconferencing, texting, blogs and wikis. Consider the

apparatus of informative technology, robotics, (Palmer 2012) and diversion (Waldmeir 2010).

What does the intelligible knowledge audit blackboard look like as an erudite bureau?

TelePresence centers and dynamic personalized, and shared virtual interactive blackboards,

tablets vast and small, inviting key stakeholders to tap in and participate, guest speakers

beamed in on diverse channels, holographic imagery are more than just a thought. Contemplative spaces for heuristic rehearsal techniques and reflective practice of self-

awareness and the awareness of others (Drucker 2005) are prudent. Ethical culturing, (Gibson

2008) and cross culturing (Deng & Gibson 2009) are reflections.

Senators contemplative cloister, PM & Cabinet Sydney office designed by the author.

Corporate culture, character and symbols and branding; social capital (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei 2005;

Peterson et al. 2008) reinforcing ethics, probing social psychology, (Goleman & Boyatzis 2008)

Knowledge Audit


paradoxically archival contemplative cloister for tacit reflection, and gathering creation spaces,

(Hagel III, Seely Brown, & Davison 2010) yet propulsion!

The social learning organization is founded on trust, (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei 2005) hope and

happiness … a model methodology of knowledge traits and value framing … of individuals and

cross, intra-functional and virtual interdependent groups, (Quinn et al. 2011) employing repetitive

techniques and mentoring, training and working together. Connecting with global institutions,

university libraries, responding to articles and journals, incorporating a 12Manage or similar

automated codification, (Dalkir 2005) of methods and disciplines where every individual has

specialisations, responding to constituent requests. The social learning organization is also founded

on socially responsible sustainability, devised and packaged around a question and answer social network such as Quora, (Dembosky 2012) or Jive, (Akbari 2012) or Intelpedia.

The 21st C corporate workplace features frequency of interaction amongst colleagues, shaping

freely innovation of thought, rewarding knowledge membership in cheerful spontaneous public,

semi-public, (Dalkir 2005) bar and breakfast bays; simulating natural surroundings for explicit capture,

sharing an ingenuous knowledge journey within the unique imagery of the social learning

organization; dynamic freely social media, holographic blackboards of people crossing stratums

… wherever that may be!

Review

The prevalence of social media has created a social savvy workforce, eager to operate as they do

personally … social networking … it implies living, working and communicating with a group of

people instead of being isolated,” says Jeff Schick, vice president of Social Software at IBM … what’s

new today is the use of technology to allow these communities to come together, to share ideas,

expertise, and a sense of purpose and trust” (Akbari 2012).

… Appropriately, in an era of the knowledge-based economy, it seeks to place the person with

knowledge or the knowing person at the heart of organisational complexity” (Rosenhead 1998).

However organizations have mainly … grown by acquisition and they are in many cases nothing more

than a federation of loosely coupled, and often antagonistic, units” (McCormack 2006). A champion

leader and knowledge team, empirical continuum and metrics measure are called for, and so it

is with the intelligible knowledge audit blackboard, the anchor of knowledge at the very core of

the social learning organization, and the metaphoric tacit elicitation creating a culture of

knowledge.

Word Count: 1649 less 217 reference citations = 1432 (over maximum of 1320)

Knowledge Audit


Reference List

Akbari, A 2012, The social workplace: rethinking the way work gets done, Financial Times, 9 March 6:46pm, viewed 13 March 2012, <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/15f7c4c0-6a11-11e1-a26e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1owFwwbsy> Aldebaran Robotics Nao Robot Show.mp4, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIuRc1r_N34> Babcock, P 2004, ‘Shedding light on knowledge management’, HR Magazine, 49 (5), pp. 46-50. Bolman, L & Deal, T 2008, Reframing organizations, 4th edn, Jossey-Bass, USA, EBL: EBook Library. Bouthillier, F & Shearer, K 2002, 'Understanding knowledge management and information management the need for an empirical perspective', viewed 20 March 2012. <file://localhost/MBA/OMBA720%20BUSM4175%20Knowledge%20Management/KM%20Group/Bouthillier,%20F%20&%20Shearer,%20K%202002,%20'Understanding%20knowledge%20management%20and%20information%20management%20%20the%20need%20for%20an%20empirical%20perspective'.html> Bradley, AJ & McDonald, MP 2011a, ‘All organizations are social, but few are social organizations’, Harvard Business Review, 3 October 9:26am. Bradley, AJ & McDonald, MP 2011b, ‘The Social Organisation’, Harvard Business Review, October, viewed 14 March 2012, <http://www.gartner.com/it/products/research/media_products/social_org/index.jsp> Chapel of Remembrance Garden Island Sydney designed by the author. Cheek, LW 2012, In new office designs, room to roam and to think, The New York Times, 17 March, <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/business/new-office-designs-offer-room-to-roam-and-to-think.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120319> Chesbrough, H 2011, ‘Bringing open innovation to services’, MITSloan Management Review, winter, vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 84-91. Chia, R & Holt, R 2008, ‘The nature of knowledge in business schools’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 318-385. Choo, CW 2003, Perspectives on Managing Knowledge in Organizations, viewed 23 March 2012, <http://choo.fis.utoronto.ca/fis/respub/ccq/default.html> Claman, P 2012, ‘Employ a personal board of directors’, in Harvard Business Review (ed), Guide to Mentoring. Coleman Jr, HJ 1999, ‘What enables self-organizing behavior in businesses’, in M Lissack (ed), Emergence: a journal of complexity issues in organizations and management, The New England Complex Systems Institute, Vol. 1, Iss: 1, pp. 33-48. Dalkir, K 2005, Knowledge management in theory and practice, Burlington: Elsevier, KM management strategy, Chapter 9, pp. 247-282, Glossary, pp. 468-470. Davenport, TH, Harris, JG, De Long, DW & Jacobson, AL 2001, ‘Data to knowledge to results: building an analytic capability’, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, Winter, pp. 117-138. Davidson, MN 2001, ‘Expressing emotion in interpersonal interactions’, Darden Business Publishing, Note, UV0643. Dembosky, A 2012, Facebook entrepreneurs in hot demand, Financial Times, 9 March 8:12pm, viewed 9 January 2012, <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9449d86c-5c9d-11e1-911f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1oeoheoQc> Deng, L & Gibson, P 2009, ‘Mapping and modeling the capacities that underlie effective cross-cultural leadership’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 347-366. Donahue, KB 2001, ‘Knowledge management: Beyond databases’, Harvard Business School Publishing, pp. 20-29, article reprint, No.U0105C. Doyle, JR & Sims, D 2002, ‘Enabling strategic metaphor in conversation: a technique of cognitive sculpting for explicating knowledge’, in AS Huff, & M Jenkins (eds), Mapping strategic knowledge, SAGE Publications London, <http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LE95fcRz_IcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false> Drucker, PF 2005, ‘Managing oneself’, Harvard Business Review, January, pp.100–109. Eccles, RG & Davenport, TH 2011, ‘Cognizant 2.0: embedding community and knowledge into work process’, Harvard Business School, rev: 10 February, 9-410-084. Frederickson, B 2003, ‘The value of positive emotions’, American Scientist, July-August, Vol. 91, pp. 330-335. Gibson, P 2004, ‘Where to From Here?’, Career Development International, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 176-189. Gibson, P 2008, ‘Developing practical management wisdom’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 528-536. Goleman, D & Boyatzis, R 2008, ‘Social intelligence and the biology of leadership’, Harvard Business Review, September, pp. 74-81.

Knowledge Audit


Hewlett, SA et al. 2011, ‘Guide to getting the mentoring you need’, Harvard Business Review, various chapters and authors. Hagel III, J, Seely Brown, J & Davison, L 2010, ‘A better way to manage knowledge, Harvard Business Review, 19 January 5:43pm. Have love in your heart, <http://www.youtube.com/user/TheWayshower1982#g/u> Ichijō, K & Nonaka, I 2007, ‘Introduction’, in K Ichijō & I Nonaka (eds), Knowledge creation and management: new challenges for managers, Oxford University Press, NY, <http://books.google.com.au/books?id=71lMIxdKif4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false> Intelpedia, <http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshb/sets/72157600222688443/show/> Interactivity On Stage at www.philippe-gerard.com, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKyoczWgZg0&feature=channel > Jive, <http://www.jivesoftware.com/events/webcast/access-lifetechnologies> Kankanhalli, A, Tan, BCY & Wei, KK 2005, ‘Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation’, MIS Quarterly, March, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 113-143. Leonard, D & Sensiper, S 1998, ‘The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation’, California Management Review, Spring, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 111-132. Li, C & Bernoff, J 2011, ‘The groundswell inside your company: using social technology to foster employee communication, connection, and collaboration’, Harvard Business Review, 8357BC. McAfee, AP 2006, ‘Enterprise 2.0:The dawn of emergent collaboration’, MITSloan Management Review, Spring, Vol. 47, No. 3. McCormack, A 2006, A powerful idea whose time may be still to come, Financial Times, 24 January 4:58pm, viewed 1 March 2012, <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/bd3673ba-8ce8-11da-9daf-0000779e2340.html#axzz1nlHekr1X> McGee, J & Thomas, H 2007, ‘Knowledge as a lens on the jigsaw puzzle of strategy: reflections and conjectures on the contribution of a knowledge-based view to analytic models of strategic management’, Management Decision, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 539-563. Movie 3D Relief: "Fitou" (Anaglyph), <http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=MGGxcfGm940 > Moving Holograms anaglyph stereoscopic 3D Demo (July 2009), <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb2LWOqRQtE> Nonaka, I & Takeuchi, H 1995, The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press, NY, <http://books.google.com.au/books?id=B-qxrPaU1-MC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false> Nonaka, I & Toyama, R 2007, ‘Why do firms differ’, in K Ichijō & I Nonaka (eds), Knowledge creation and management: new challenges for managers, Oxford University Press, NY, <http://books.google.com.au/books?id=71lMIxdKif4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false> Palmer, M 2012, Softbank puts faith in future of robots, Financial Times, 11 March 5:20pm, viewed 13 March 2012, <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c531491e-6b7b-11e1-ac25-00144feab49a.html#axzz1owFwwbsy> Peterson, S, Balthazard, P, Waldman, D & Thatcher, R 2008, ‘Are the brains of optimistic, hopeful, confident, and resilient leaders different?’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 342–353. Pugh, K & Dixon, NM 2008,’don’t just capture knowledge-put it to work’, Harvard Business Review, May, pp.1-3. Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Mind STUART HAMEROFF (P.1), <http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=OEpUIcOodnM > Quinn, R, Faerman, S, Thompson, M, McGrath, M & St Clair, L 2011, Becoming a master manager, 5th edn, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken NJ. Quora, <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/quora> Rosenhead, J 1998, ‘Complexity theory and management practice’, The Human Nature Daily Review, viewed 16 March 2012, <http://human-nature.com/science-as-culture/rosenhead.html> Senators contemplative cloister, PM & Cabinet Sydney office designed by the author. Smartdraw 2012, ‘Knowledge Mapping Software’ <http://www.smartdraw.com/videos/t/demo/> Staats, BR & Upton, DM 2011, ‘Lean knowledge work: The “Toyota” principles can also be effective in operations involving judgment and expertise’, Harvard Business Review, October, pp. 1-11. The McKinsey Quarterly 2006, Competitive advantage from better interactions, No.2. <https://docs.google.com/a/student.rmit.edu.au/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=c3R1ZGVudC5ybWl0LmVkdS5hdXxvdWE3MjBfYnVzbTQxNzVfa21fczEtMjEwMS1pLXp8Z3g6MmRkMjVlNDFiZjk1MjU1YQ> The Quantum Apocalypse of The Holographic Universe, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs>

Knowledge Audit


Tuan, LT 2012, ‘Behind Knowledge Transfer’, viewed 20 March 2012, <http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/emerald-publishing/behind-knowledge-transfer-zq8mQEahg0> Un-authored photographs were taken from Hubblesite.org. Victor, B & Boynton, AC 2008,’Renewal: Transforming back to the advantages of tacit knowledge’, Chapter 10, extracted from, Invented here: Maximizing your organization’s internal growth and profitability, pp. 1-10, ISBN-13: 978-1-9945-9, 9940BC. Waldmeir, P 2010, Sick of the world cup? How about robofootie, Financial Times, 18 June 3:47pm, viewed 13 March 2012, <http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/06/18/robofoot/#axzz1owHvs01z> We are living in a Fractal HOLOGRAM! <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o5FMTHkLQg> Wilson, TD 2002, 'The nonsense of 'knowledge management', viewed 20 March 2012, <http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html> 12Manage, <http://www.12manage.com/> 3D Hologram Meetings? Unbelievable Real Telepresence, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAIDXzv_fKA>

km audit paper

Documents