MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232637482 · doi:10.4018/9781605667010.ch015

Exploiting KM in Support of Innovation and Change

2011· book-chapter· en· W4232637482 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Smith, Elayne Coakes

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter emphasizes the importance of formally promoting close social interaction and open knowledge sharing to achieve superior innovation capability. It does so by discussing the advantages of developing Communities of Innovation and citing a case study that exemplifies these concepts. This chapter addresses the challenges and opportunities faced by businesses in today’s complex and often unpredictable business environments. For success, an organization must be able to combine and recombine their resources in novel ways, eliminating or reconfiguring resources that are no longer relevant, and acquiring new resources. An organization’s capability to change by manipulating resources continuously and rapidly—to innovate—is a competitive advantage that is not readily imitated by competitors. Innovation is critical to an organization’s viability since it enables the development and introduction of new products and services and thus enables an organization to maintain, or improve, its current business position. The chapter reviews the numerous theories of change and change management in the literature based on practice and precept. However, research shows that competitive advantage is increasingly located by authorities in an organization’s intellectual resources including the skill base, business systems and intellectual property of its employees: its Human Capital. Organizational innovation depends on the individual and collective know-how of employees, and innovation is characterised by an iterative process of people working together, sharing insights, and building on the creative ideas of one another. The chapter emphasizes that an organization’s intellectual resources have significant potential to realize innovation and change capabilities, but that the impact of these capabilities largely depends on the means of an organization to foster close community social interaction and open knowledge sharing, and to leverage its informal leadership as a precursor to and part of any related Knowledge Management (KM) initiative.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207