Affiliation:
1. Narvik University College, Norway
2. SINTEF Technology and Society, Norway
Abstract
In this chapter, the authors argue that “Knowledge Markets” might be used as a term to describe how individuals can be engaged in a democratic process where their competence, background, and personal information resources are mobilized in full in a broad and non-biased process. The contribution of each individual is aggregated and averaged in a way the authors believe will yield more accurate results, personal involvement, and learning than traditional approaches to group efforts. Recent work on crowdsourcing (Surowiecki, 2004) highlights the strength of a collection of individuals over traditional organizational entities. This contribution will extend these principles to fit into an organizational setting. The chapter discusses how knowledge markets can create an arena for change. Moreover, it shows that if certain principles are observed desired effects could be achieved for relatively limited groups. The authors extend this to propose theories about collective learning and performance improvement. They further describe how the principles defined can help to meet some fundamental challenges related to petroleum activities such as drilling. The authors think that the Knowledge Market approach can serve as a model for designing IO arenas to increase collaboration, to improve shared problem solving, and make collective learning more effective. In all kinds of operations performance improvement is strongly related to learning. It is a cognitive ability that must be exercised and maintained through motivation, discipline, and other stimuli. Collective learning applies to the effort whereby a group of people detect threats or opportunities and learns how to take early advantage of this in order to assure change.
Reference52 articles.
1. Apache. (2011). Web server. Retrieved from http://httpd.apache.org/
2. So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making
3. Barsa, M., & Dana, D. A. (2011). Reconceptualizing NEPA to avoid the next preventable disaster. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 38(2). Retrieved from hhtp://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol38/iss2/2
4. Böhn, K. (2008). KnowledgeCraft proposal preparation. Workshop FHG AIAIS, Bonn, 31.1.2008
5. The HBS method;B. A.Bremdal;Norwegian: HBS metodikken. Basert på FAROS Metodebok for HAMP Business System) v1.1 juni 2001,2001
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献