Voir aussi un plan de cours sur l'architecture de l'information

Noise Between Stations weblog on Info Architecture (mostly), some interesting. Noise Between Stations weblog on Info Architecture (mostly), some interesting stuff, though a little hard to find... [Semantic Web Blog, featuring RDF]

6:22:43 PM  []   rétroliens[]

Manifestations d'excellence au Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Stephen Downes publie une très intéressante analyse de la présence Internet du Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) dans le dernier numéro du journal The Technology Source. Il touche dans l'ensemble à deux points principaux : (a) l'architecture du site et (b) l'initiative de diffusion en ligne des contenus de cours de cette institution de renommée internationale.

On cite communément aujourd'hui l'importance de la convivialité et de la fonctionnalité d'une interface de site. Ironiquement, ces aspects vont généralement de  soi tant certaines pratiques « convenables » sont devenues l'apanage de la majorité et que peu dérogent aux normes. C'est à cette enseigne que l'analyse de Downes prend de l'intérêt.

La page d'accueil du MIT : on la franchirait sans s'y attarder, ce qui en soi constitue l'objectif fondamental. Mais au-delà de cette interface d'accueil simple et plaisante, Downes relève plusieurs détails particulièrement intéressants dont deux me fascinent : d'abord le concept de spotlight, qui constitue en lui-même une sorte de cybercarnet des événements « éditoriaux » du moment peuvant être consultés depuis 1996 dans la galerie des spotlights; et ensuite la nature dynamique de ce menu d'accueil dont les liens spécifiques apparaissent au gré des mises à niveau du site. Par exemple, adjacente à la catégorie news, une liste de sujets et un seul hyperlien : OpenCourseWare.

Côté fonctionalités, Downes note avec raison un calendrier, ingénieux par sa disposition et son efficacité, et des fonctions de recherche à différents niveaux. Passant à la rubrique des contenus de formation ouverts au public (OpenCourseWare), la simplicité et la fonctionnalité dominent à nouveau. Downes compare la présentation des cours, leur approche et leurs contenus d'ensemble, établissant à juste titre la distinction entre la disponibilité de contenus de cours en ligne et la plus commune prestation de cours en ligne :

In fairness, it should be stated that it was never MIT's intention to produce self-supporting learning materials. As has been noted by numerous commentators, "It is important not to confuse the terms 'open course-ware' and 'open and distance learning.'

Je m'attarde sur cet article parce que cette initiative de MIT, bien qu'elle ne soit pas passée inaperçue, n'a peut-être pas suscité l'analyse concurrentielle qu'elle mérite, particulièrement à la lumière du calibre des cerveaux qui habitent cette institution. La vigie dort-elle chez vous aussi?

[Co-construction des savoirs à IDITAE]

6:16:07 PM  []   rétroliens[]

Reading Just-in-time delivery comes to knowledge management by Thomas H. Davenport and John Glaser… This article describes a case of creating an integrated medical system for knowledge-based order-entry, referral, computerized medical record, and event-detection. This is an interesting case of a “smart IT-based KM”, and it includes the whole chain of analysis of business problem, KM solution, outcomes and success factors.

Specific things:

Why embedding knowledge into the work processes of high-end professionals is not easy (I added bullets to the citation; p.111):

• they’re generally paid more and receive more intensive training;
• they make decisions based largely on intuition and years of experience;
• they’ve historically enjoyed high level of autonomy;
• they are sufficiently powerful  that the organisations they work for are reluctant to tinker with their work processes;
• and, perhaps most important they do most of their work away from computer screens.

Key success factors (next to the technical groundwork) - pp.110-111:

• Convincing knowledge workers to support the system and the new way of working. In this case it was a pressing need to reduce medical errors.
• Involving experts in creating and maintaining knowledge repository: use of several (existing or new) experts groups, which considered prestigious to participate.
• Selecting truly critical knowledge processes to address with the initiative.
• Leaving final decision-making to the people themselves, as people can start "resenting or rejecting the system if it challenged their role".
• A culture of measurements "to justify the time and money spent on an embedded-knowledge systems, and to access how well it’s working".
• "An IT organisation that knows the business and can work closely with key executives and knowledge-rich professionals".

General:

Authors start with suggesting that KM initiatives are only marginally successful because they add an "extra": knowledge workers are expected to participate in KM activities in addition to doing their regular job. Then embedding knowledge as part of their work seems to be logical solution as it makes "knowledge so readily accessible that it can’t be avoided".

They suggest to start with technology:

While there are several ways to bake knowledge into knowledge work, the most promising approach is to embed it into the technology that knowledge workers use to do their jobs.

At this point I have two questions:

• what are the other ways to embedd knowledge? 
• why embedding knowledge into technology is the most promising one?
  

[Mathemagenic]

6:12:30 PM  []   rétroliens[]

Blog as a learning tool.

"Seb" is faster than me in linking You have to see the production by "Matt" with his processes versus products [in Processes and products].

Matt in You have to see the production:

"cit"Lilia has pointed me at Knowledge work as craft work an article from April 2002 by Jim McGee which is most pertinent given my new focus on visibility.

It's a good read.  Of particular interest to me was where Jim talks about how, with the advent of purely digital methods of working, only the finished product survives.  This implies that it is only the finished item, and not how it was derived, that has value.  But we know that's wrong, our experience tells us that seeing the production is how we learn.

Another key aspect to visibility into a process is what you do when the finished item turns out to be wrong.  If you need to backtrack and try a new direction, what are you working from?"citc"

Seb in processes versus products (which was long waiting in my aggregator for a comment)

"cit"The gradual erosion of the "product" mindset is a direct offshoot of the availability of practically unlimited many-to-many communication. A product is a nice package that you can "get" and "consume", and it definitely has its usefulness. But in many ways, processes, as things you can "live" and "take part" in, mean more to most humans.

It's the difference between going at a live music show and listening to a recording of that show. It's the difference engaging a conversation with an author and reading his book. You often get more out of living a process than consuming a product."citc"

But this is not the end of story: today my Aggregator brings more about the topic from "SebF" commenting on Jim McGee's Knowledge work as craft work (bold is mine):

"cit"I would say that any type of complex knowledge construction can benefit from making the overall process visible. While Jim focuses on the context of knowledge work, I choose to look at it from a more general perspective of self-organized learning. People initiate intentional learning for all kinds of purposes. These purposes do not have to be related to "work" all the time. But reflecting on one's processes is also an important step towards improving your personal learning. The British psychologists Harri-Augstein and Thomas (1991) have put it this way: "To the extent that a person is aware of his or her constructions of experience - that is, personal meanings - he or she acquires consciousness. To the extent that a person becomes aware of his or her processes of construction and takes control of them that person acquires self-organisation in learning." "citc"

Summarising this discussion from learning perspective I would say that articulated (visible) process of constructing knowledge is good for (at least) two sides:

• self-directed learning of the author
• apprenticeship learning of others [see also my Evolution of thinking ]

Then I would also add organisational learning* in a sense that knowledge flows faster in a company [see The Tipping Blog].

*I have to add that I don't like the term organisational learning. For me it means the same as knowledge management. 

[Mathemagenic]

6:11:54 PM  []   rétroliens[]