Knowledge Generation, Use and ManagementinSustainable Infrastructure Engineering

Knowledge Generation, Use and Management

inSustainability Infrastructure Engineering

William P. HallPresidentKororoit Institute Proponents and Supporters Assoc., Inc. - http://kororoit.orgPrincipalEA Principals – http://eaprincipals.com

[email protected]://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net

Access my research papers from Google Citations

A unique area inthe state space of the Mandlebrot set

definition

An attractor

Presentation for CVEN90043 Sustainable Infrastructure Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering, 15 May 2013

AttributionCC BY

Some more readings in answer to questions

Government relations: – Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Best, R. 2010.

Free technology for the support of community action groups: theory, technology and practice. Knowledge Cities World Summit, 16-19, November 2010, Melbourne, AustraliaNousala, S., Hall, W.P., Hadgraft, R. 2011.

– Socio-technical systems for connecting social knowledge and the governance of urban action. 15th WMSCI, CENT Symposium, July 19-22, 2011, Orlando, Florida, USA.

– Hall, W.P., Kilpatrick, B. 2011. Managing community knowledge to build a better world. Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 30th November - 2nd December, 2011, Sydney, Australia.

Context of decision making– Hall, W.P., Else, S., Martin, C., Philp, W. 2011.

Time-based frameworks for valuing knowledge: maintaining strategic knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working Papers No. 1: 1-28.

Engineering knowledge management (maintenance organization)– Hall, W.P., Richards, G., Sarelius, C., Kilpatrick, B. 2008.

Organisational management of project and technical knowledge over fleet lifecycles. Australian Journal of Mechanical Engineering. 5(2):81-95.

– Hall, W.P. 2007. Managing lifecycles of complex projects. Government Transformation Journal, July 2007.

– Nousala, S., Miles, A., Kilpatrick, B., Hall, W.P. 2005. Building knowledge sharing communities using team expertise access maps (TEAM). Proceedings, KMAP05 Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific Wellington, N.Z. 28-29 November 2005.

– Hall, W.P. and Brouwers, P. 2004. The CMIS solution for Tenix's M113 program. MatrixOne Innovation Summit. Shangri-La's Rasa Sentosa Resort, Singapore, 12 - 14 August, 2004.

– Hall, W.P. 2008. Presentations for 421-672 Management of Technological Enterprises - Managing Knowledge in Technological Enterprises, Masters in Engineering Management, University of Melbourne: Lecture 1 , Tutorial 1 , Lecture 2

2

Background

Early life: Naturalist/evolutionary biologist by training (PhD Harvard, 1973)

1990-2007: Documentation and knowledge management systems analyst and designer for Tenix Defence while it grew to be Australia’s largest defence engineering prime contractor and then failed. How did it succeed and why did it then fail?

2001-present: Independent researcher trying to understand what knowledge is and why organizations (especially engineering organizations) have such major problems managing and applying it.

You might call me an “organizational biologist” and/or a “enterprise engineer”

3

Formed 1987 to bid for $7 BN defense project to build 10 ANZAC Frigates for Australian (8) & New Zealand (2) Navies

Oct. 1989 began stringently fixed price contract, with many difficult warranty/ liquidated damages milestones

Project completed 2007 with every ship delivered on-time, on-budget, company profit and happy customers

Staff learned many things about shipbuilding & management of complex projects

Mid 2004 began a $500 M project to build 7 ships to commercial standards for New Zealand, to be completed in 2007

By 2007 only one ship had been delivered – and that with substantial defects. Tenix costs were so far over contract value that Tenix auctioned its Defence assets to highest bidder (BAE Systems Australia)

Tenix management thought the company knew how to build ships, but line management policies prevented transfer of staff personal knowledge from ANZAC project to NZ project.

Last ship delivered by BAE Systems in 2010 together with NZ$86.4 settlement for delays and remaining defects.

– Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Kilpatrick B. 2009. One company – two outcomes: knowledge integration vs corporate disintegration in the absence of knowledge management. VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems 39(3), 242-258

Success & failure of Tenix Defence

4

Some lessons I learned from Tenix Defence about engineer’s management of knowledge

Engineers (and many others) have difficulties understanding intangible stuff like “knowledge”

Engineers are good at establishing and applying formal rules and standards to discover and build solutions for well analysed problems

They are not so good at solving problems involving people or other chaotic components

Engineers work in and with organizations comprised of people who are inherently error prone and sometimes chaotic

By recognizing these problems of knowledge and organization, engineers can build systems to minimize uncertainty and manage knowledge

5

Topics for today

Key frameworks of understanding for sustainability practice– Tragedy of the commons

Elinor Ostrom (Nobel Laureate)– Models of governance

Herbert Simon (Nobel Laureate)– Theoretical basis for decision support– Theory of hierarchically complex systems

– Intersecting theories of organization and knowledge Engineering for sustainability unavoidably

involves understanding the social use of resources – People, communities and their imperatives– Social systems & infrastructure– Knowledge & decision support

In time available today, I can only introduce topics

6

Sustainability and the “tragedy of the commons”

Based on Else, S., Hall, W.P. 2012. Enterprise knowledge architecture for community action. Kororoit Institute International Symposium and Workshop - Living Spaces for Change: Socio-technical knowledge of cities and regions. 29 February – 2 March 2012, North Melbourne, Australia

The tragedy of the commons

“The tragedy of the commons”Garrett Hardin 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science Vol. 162, No 3859, pp.

1243-1248– Sets out the consequences of an uncompromising economic

logic governing the harvesting of valuable but limited resources from a commons

Unfettered individuals make a net profit of +1 for every unit of resource they extract/harvest and use

The future loss due to the removal of that unit is shared with all other individuals extracting the resource for a net loss of -1/n

It is always to the net economic advantage of every individual to continue extracting the resource until it is totally consumed

Situation grows worse if the resource’s unit value rises with scarcity Any individual refraining from extraction only benefits those who

thus have more resource to extract Only through some form of higher level control or

governance (e.g., social or despotic) over the scarce resource can its extraction be limited to some socially beneficial level8

SUCCESSFULLY GOVERNING THE ENVIRONMENT WE LIVE IN IS DIFFICULT!

Governance is the exercise of authority over the actions, affairs, etc, of a political unit, people, etc, as well as the performance of certain functions for this unit or body; the action of governing; political rule and administration.

In other words, governance is the application of socio/political constraints over individual action by some higher level entity above the individual self.

Governance can have good or bad consequences

9

Governmentcentralizedmanagement

Community self-governance and self- management

Co-management

I nformingConsulting

CooperatingCommunicating

Exchanging informationAdvising

Acting (jointly, separately)Partnering

ControllingCoordinating

Government-basedmanagement

Community-basedmanagement

Communi

ty inv

olvement

Governmentcentralizedmanagement

Community self-governance and self- management

Co-management

I nformingConsulting

CooperatingCommunicating

Exchanging informationAdvising

Acting (jointly, separately)Partnering

ControllingCoordinating

Government-basedmanagement

Community-basedmanagement

Communi

ty inv

olvement

Government powers and resources vs local knowledge

Trade offs– local knowledge

vs scientific knowledge

– timely decision vs adequate knowledge

– power to act vs will to act

Elinor Ostrom (2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Science) for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons– Understanding the different kinds of markets

– Types of goods– Management economics– Showed resources can be managed successfully by involving

people who use them in the governance process

Governing the commons

I mpact of exploitation on depletion of resource

Diffi culty to exclude potential exploiters

Toll Goods► theatre► private clubs► daycare centres

Private Goods► f ood► clothing► automobile

LOW

Public Goods► peaceful & secure community► national defense► knowledge► fi re protection► weather forecasts

Common Pool Resources► groundwater basins► lakes► fi sheries► f orests► air quality

HI GH

LOWHI GH

I mpact of exploitation on depletion of resource

Diffi culty to exclude potential exploiters

Toll Goods► theatre► private clubs► daycare centres

Private Goods► f ood► clothing► automobile

LOW

Public Goods► peaceful & secure community► national defense► knowledge► fi re protection► weather forecasts

Common Pool Resources► groundwater basins► lakes► fi sheries► f orests► air quality

HI GH

LOWHI GH

Basic forms of resource governance

Autocracy/despotism (Wikipedia): – supreme political power to direct all state activities is concentrated in

the hands of one person (autocracy) or group (despotism), whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control

Gargantuan (R.C. Wood via V. Ostrom): – formation of a single metropolitan government over all

Multi-level governance (European Union via Wikipedia):– many interacting authority structures work at various hierarchical

levels in the emergent global and local economy Polycentric

– (V Ostrom et al. 1961): traditional pattern of government in a metropolitan area with its multiplicity of political jurisdictions

– (E Ostrom 2009): many centers of decision making that are formally independent of each other. Whether they actually function independently, or instead constitute an interdependent system of relations, is an empirical question in particular cases

Community-based resource management (Berkes 2006)– local resource usage governed by local community

Co-management (Berkes 2009): – sharing of power and responsibility between the government and local

resource users

Ostrom’s model for environmental governance

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTINGENCIES & CONSTRAINTS IMPACT OF

REALIZEDOUTCOMES

RULES RESPOND TO CONSTRAINT

S

Successful governance structures based on sets of rules regulating exploiters to ensure optimum management/exploitation of resource

– Rules respond to constraints– Impacts are consequences of realized outcomes of the application of the rules

Ostrom’s resource governance model

Conceptual changes: common property resource– common pool resources– common property regimes– recognized 5 property types

access, withdrawal, management, exclusion & alienation– Property rights systems for different resources mix all five

Concluded that successful systems followed certain practices (i.e., design principles) reflecting knowledge of particular environments– Clear user & resource boundaries– Congruence between benefits & costs– Regular monitoring of users & resource conditions– Graduated sanctions– Conflict resolution mechanisms– Minimal recognition of rights by government– Nested enterprises

Hoped, but failed, to find optimal set of rules used by robust & successful systems of governance

Need to engineer the structure of the project/community enterprise to optimize resource governance (social engineering?)

Governance = making and imposing decisions on communities with

costs/benefits

Herbert A. Simon (1978) Nobel Prize in Economic Science for his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations and the limits to rationality – Perfect decisions only possible with perfect knowledge and

unlimited time to consider alternatives– Real world requires “satisficing” – i.e., best guess given the

available knowledge and time, optimizing time, knowledge, and urgency

– Simon’s other work explored the architecture of hierarchically complex systems (i.e., nearly decomposable)

Effective governance depends on– Availability of appropriate knowledge– Sufficient time for thinking before the next problem arises– Capabilities to act– Availability of resources to support action

Theories of organization and

knowledge

physical theories are the basis for structural

engineering

theories of knowledge and organization are the basis for

enterprise engineering

Knowledge has a physical basis

17

Causation in hierarchical structure

Holon – a “two faced” system that looks upward to the supersystem that constrains its behavior, and downward to the subsystems that determine what it is possible for it to do.

Downward causation - Every organized entity (holon) is a component within a higher-level supersystem (e.g., “the economy”, “the system of government”) forming an environment that constrains what the holon can or must do to survive

Every holon interacts with other holons at its own focal level of organization to form that higher level supersystem

Upward causation - Every holon is comprised of lower-level subsystems (e.g., people, machines) whose capabilities and law-like behavioral interactions determine what is possible for the entity to do

18

Knowledge-based “adaptive” systems exist at several hierarchical levels of structural organization– Nation– State– Council– Community group– Person– Body cell

For effective action, flows of knowledge, decision and action must pass through several hierarchical levels

Seeing the complex hierarchy

Constraints and boundaries, regulations determine what is physically allowable

People joining

Other inputs

Other outputsSubsystems and Subsystems and

processesprocesses

"universal" laws governing component interactions determine physical capabilities

The entity's imperatives and goals

The entity's history and present circumstances

HI GHER LEVEL SYSTEM / ENVIRONMENT

SUBSYSTEMS / COMPONENTS

People leaving

Constraints and boundaries, regulations determine what is physically allowable

People joining

Other inputs

Other outputsSubsystems and Subsystems and

processesprocesses

"universal" laws governing component interactions determine physical capabilities

The entity's imperatives and goals

The entity's history and present circumstances

HI GHER LEVEL SYSTEM / ENVIRONMENT

SUBSYSTEMS / COMPONENTS

People leaving

Working with complex hierarchies

Understanding community action in the complex hierarchy

– hierarchical bottom-up construction of knowledge

– hierarchical top-down devolution of decision & action Knowing and acting entities are complex adaptive systems that

must continually work to maintain their survivals– May act as components in higher level systems– May be comprised of lower level systems– Knowledge must pass across systems at same level and up & down

hierarchy19

What is an enterprise?

A coherently definable organized entity that may be:– Comprised of multiple interacting entities– Unified by a common system of governance– Working towards a common goal

“A complex, adaptive, evolving system” (Mathet Consulting, Inc.)– Existing in complex & changing environments (physical, economic,

technological, and legal)– constantly receives, uses, transforms, produces and distributes products and

services that have value to itself and its customers– exhibits characteristics of hierarchical complexity, reactivity, adaptability,

emergence, downward and upward causation, self-organization, non-linear chaotic responses

An organized, notionally bounded socio-technical system, addressing its internal / external imperatives for business / survival (i.e., an “organic” entity), comprised of

– People (participants in the organization from time to time)– Processes (automated, documented, tacit routines, etc.)– Infrastructure (Web, ICT, physical plant, etc.)– Organizational knowledge (i.e., contributing to organizational

structure/success) Knowledge as a deliverable product (e.g., technical documentation) Knowledge about and embodied in deliverable products Knowledge about and embodied in organizational processes and

infrastructure Members’ personal knowledge relating to their organizational roles

Peop

le

Pro

cess

Infra

stru

ctu

re

Organizational knowledge

Leave one of the legs off, and

the stool will fall over

Enterprises exist in contexts

No enterprise or subsidiary component should be considered in isolation from its existential contexts– What are its imperatives for continued existence?

to maintain survival and wellbeing to maintain resource inputs necessary to survival to produce and distribute goods necessary to survival to survive environmental changes to minimize risk to maintain future wellbeing

– Organizational systems satisfying imperatives must track continually changing contexts with observations, decisions and actions

Beware of empty rhetoric and mismatches with real imperatives (e.g., “mission statements”)

Knowledge = solutions to problems

22

Pn a real-world problem faced by a living entity

TS a tentative solution/theory.Tentative solutions are varied through serial/parallel iteration

EE a test or process of error elimination

Pn+1 changed problem as faced by an entity incorporating a surviving solution

The whole process is iterated All knowledge claims are constructed, cannot be proven to be true TSs may be embodied as “structure” in the “knowing” entity, or TSs may be expressed in words as hypotheses, subject to objective criticism; or

as genetic codes in DNA, subject to natural selection Objective expression and criticism lets our theories die in our stead Through cyclic iteration, sources of errors are found and eliminated Solutions/theories become more reliable as they survive repetitive testing Surviving TSs are the source of all knowledge!

Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge – An Evolutionary Approach(1972), pp. 241-244

Where does knowledge exist?

23

Energy flowThermodynamics

PhysicsChemistry

Biochemistry

Cyberneticself-regulation

CognitionConsciousness

Tacit knowledge

Genetic heredityRecorded thoughtComputer memory

Logical artifactsExplicit knowledge

Reproduce/Produce

Develop/Recall

Drive/Enab

le

Reg

ulate/Control In

ferr

ed lo

gic

Des

crib

e/Pr

edict

Test

Observe

World 1

Existence/Reality

World 2

World of mental orpsychological states and processes, subjective experiences, memory of history

Organismic/personal/situational/ subjective/tacit knowledge in world 2 emerges from world 1 processes

World 3

The world of “objective” Knowledge Produced / evaluated by world 2 processes

“living/personal

knowledge”

“codified /explicit

knowledge”

Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge – An Evolutionary Approach (1972)

Hall, W.P. 2011. Physical basis for theemergence of autopoiesis, cognition and knowledge. Kororoit Institute Working Papers No. 2: 1-63

“living/personal

knowledge”

Personal (i.e., human) knowledge

24

Forms of knowledge– Tacit (W2)– Implicit (W2)– Articulated (W2)– Explicit (W3)– Procedural (W2)– Declarative (W2/W3)

●Sense making– W2 process

constructing tacit understanding in context

– We only know what we know when we need to know it

Nickols, F. 2000. The knowledge in knowledge management (KM). in J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods, eds. The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2001-2002. Butterworth-Heinemann

Personal vs organizational knowledge

Important difference– individual knowledge (in any form) is known only by a person – organizational knowledge is available and physically or socially

accessible to those who may apply it for organizational needs– Even where explicit knowledge exists, individual knowledge

may be required to access it within a useful response time. People know:

– what knowledge the organization needs, – who may know the answer, – where in the organization explicit knowledge may be found, – why the knowledge is important or why it was created, – when the knowledge might be needed, and – how to apply the knowledge

This human knowledge is critical to the organization Snowden, D. 2002.

Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self-awareness. J. Knowledge Management 6:100-111– Personal knowledge is volunteered; it cannot be conscripted. – People always know more than can be told, and will tell more

than can be written down. – People only know what they know when they need to know it.

26

OODA system of systems in the socio-technical knowledge-based organization

PROCESS

PEOPLE

CULTURE & PARADIGMS

INFRASTRUCTURE

“CORPORATE MEMORY”

INPUT

ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS

PEOPLEPEOPLE

GENETIC HERITAGE

DATA CONTENTLINKS

RELATIONSANNOTA-

TIONS

OBSERVE DECIDE, ACT

DOCS RECORDS

Building and processing knowledge in the organization

IFK(W2)

FK

CK

EK}Semantics of explicit

knowledge are only available via World 2 processes

Code:

EK – Explicit KnowledgeCK – Common KnowledgeFK – Formal KnowledgeIFK – Integrated Formal

KnowledgeFor the purposes of this diagramCK and FK are expressionsof explicit knowledge (EK)

WORLD 1

WORLD 2PERSONAL

KNOWLEDGE

WORLD 3

KNOWLEDGE BUILDING

PROCESSES

KNOWINGORGANIZATION

(including organizational tacit knowledge)ENVIRONMENTAL

CONTEXTS

SEMIPERMEABLEBOUNDARY●

●DRIVE & ENABLE

ANTICIPATE & INFLUENCE

OBSERVE, TEST & MAKE SENSE

KNOWLEDGE FLOW

S

& EXCHANGESIFK(W2)

FK

CK

EK}Semantics of explicit

knowledge are only available via World 2 processes

Code:

EK – Explicit KnowledgeCK – Common KnowledgeFK – Formal KnowledgeIFK – Integrated Formal

KnowledgeFor the purposes of this diagramCK and FK are expressionsof explicit knowledge (EK)

WORLD 1

WORLD 2PERSONAL

KNOWLEDGE

WORLD 3

KNOWLEDGE BUILDING

PROCESSES

KNOWINGORGANIZATION

(including organizational tacit knowledge)ENVIRONMENTAL

CONTEXTS

SEMIPERMEABLEBOUNDARY●

●DRIVE & ENABLE

ANTICIPATE & INFLUENCE

OBSERVE, TEST & MAKE SENSE

KNOWLEDGE FLOW

S

& EXCHANGES

Vines, R., Hall, W.P. 2011. Exploring the foundations of organizational knowledge.

Turning personal into explicit knowledge

28

29

Organizational knowledge from personal knowledge

Error reduction in new knowledge claims

Kno

wle

dge

qual

ity a

ssur

ance

thro

ugh

criti

cism

and

rea

lity

test

ing

WORLD 3Formal

knowledge

WORLD 3Explicit

knowledge

WORLD 3Commonknowledge

Kno

wle

dge

exch

ange

Reviewprocessing

Error reduction in new knowledge claims

Kno

wle

dge

qual

ity a

ssur

ance

thro

ugh

criti

cism

and

rea

lity

test

ing

WORLD 3Formal

knowledge

WORLD 3Explicit

knowledge

WORLD 3Commonknowledge

Kno

wle

dge

exch

ange

Reviewprocessing

Personal

Accessible and shared in

groupOrganizational

30

Hierarchy of knowledge-building cycles

3 stages in building reliable knowledge– Personal/individual– Group/team– Peer review/formal publication

W1

Context

I ndividual

NOOSPHERE

Peer review / formalization

Rework

Publication

Group/teamreview/extension

W1

Context

I ndividual

NOOSPHERE

Peer review / formalization

Rework

Publication

Group/teamreview/extension

world knowledge-base

application of existing

knowledge

Knowledge construction

cycle

Vines et al. 2011Hall, Nousala 2010Nousala et al. 2010Hall et al. 2010

31

Creating and building knowledge is cyclical

Following Karl Popper, knowledge is solutions to problems of living– Cycles of creation and destruction (Boyd, Osinga)

Creation = assembly of sense data and information to suggest claims about the world

Destruction = testing and criticizing claims against the world to eliminate those claims that don’t work

– Solutions are those claims which prove to work (at least most of the time)

Knowledge is mentally constructed Cannot logically prove that any claimed solution is

actually true All claims must be considered to be tentative (i.e.,

potentially fallible) Follow tested claims until they are replaced by something

that works better Knowledge building cycles are endlessly iterated

and may exist at several hierarchical levels of organization

32

Building and maintaining an adaptive KM architecture to meet organizational

imperatives

DRIVERS ENABLERS &

IMPEDIMENTS PEOPLE PROCESS

STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGICREQUIREMENTS

OBSERVATIONOF CONTEXT & RESULTS ORIENTATION & DECISION

ENACTEDSTRATEGY

I n competition Win more contracts

Perform better on contracts won

Minimise losses to risks and liabilities

Meet statutory and regulatory requirements

Operational Excellence

Customer satisfaction

Stakeholder intimacy

Service delivery Growth Sustainability Profitability Risk mitigation

Knowledge audit Knowledge mapping

Business disciplines

Technology & systems

I nformation disciplines

I ncentives & disincentives

Etc.

I nternal / external communication

Taxonomies Searching & retrieval

Business process analysis & reengineering

Tracking and monitoring

I ntelligence gathering

QA / QC

Strategic management

Architectural role

Communities of Practice

Corporate communications

HR practices Competitive intelligence

I T strategy Etc.

…ITERATION …

New tools extending human cognition introduce radical capabilities for knowledge

infrastructure

“Instant” observation/communication/decision/action possible– Every smart phone in a hand is an intelligent sensing node also

capable of organizing and supporting action visual (photo & video sharing) auditory (Skype, etc.) spatial (geotagging) textual (twitter, email, blogging, etc.)

– Polling & voting (e.g., SurveyMonkey)– Acting (e.g., Mechanical Turk)

Crowd sourcing tools for assembling knowledge– wiki– databases

Unlimited access to knowledge resources– cloud computing– Google Scholar / Google Translate

> 50% world knowledge available free-on-line via author archiving > 95% available via research library subscriptions

– University of Melbourne accesses 105,000 eJournals– Scholar offers direct access from search result to university subscription

Etc. – beyond imagining

Sample community action groups

34

Click picture to open link

See: Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Best, R. 2010. Free technology for the support of community action groups: theory, technology and practice.

Some references on relevant technology for building knowledge infrastructures for

sustainability

Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Best, R., Nair, S. 2012. Social networking tools for knowledge-based action groups. (in) Computational Social Networks - Part 2: Tools, Perspectives and Applications, (eds) Abraham, A., Hassanien, A.-E. Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 227-255

Nousala, S., Hall, W.P., Hadgraft, R. 2011. Socio-technical systems for connecting social knowledge and the governance of urban action. 15th WMSCI, CENT Symposium, July 19-22, 2011, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Vines, R., Hall, W.P., McCarthy, G. 2011. Textual representations and knowledge support-systems in research intensive networks. (in) Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Magee, L. (eds). Towards a Semantic Web: Connecting Knowledge in Academic Research. Oxford: Chandos Press, pp. 145-195.

Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Best, R. 2010. Free technology for the support of community action groups: theory, technology and practice. Knowledge Cities World Summit, 16-19, November 2010, Melbourne, Australia

Hall, W.P., Nousala, S. 2010. What is the value of peer review – some sociotechnical considerations. Second International Symposium on Peer Reviewing, ISPR 2010 June 29th - July 2nd, 2010 – Orlando, Florida, USA

Hall, W.P., Nousala, S., Vines, R. 2010. Using Google’s apps for the collaborative construction, refinement and formalization of knowledge. ICOMP'10 - The 2010 International Conference on Internet Computing July 12-15, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Nousala, S., Miles, A., Kilpatrick, B., Hall, W.P. 2009. Building knowledge sharing communities using team expertise access maps (TEAM). International Journal of Business and Systems Research 3(3), 279-296.

35