Internet Guide to Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital

Diplomarbeit von Sabine Pekarz

Abstract:

This survey has shown that, although the internet is full of information, it is difficult to find the information required fast. Before starting an internet survey, it is essential to be conscious of the intention of the search and the expected results and to translate this into one or more keywords. The intention of the keyword searches „knowledge management” and „intellectual capital” was to find out how the topic is treated on different pages.

The categorization by content has shown that a main part of the links can be assigned in the advertisement categories. This is the case for both, the hits of MetaCrawler and those of Umap. A further community of the results of the two search instruments is that the catego-ries „knowledge base” and „best practices” only take a small part whereas the categories „content discussion” and „collection of resources” are relatively well-attended.

Great importance has been attached to the categorie „content discussion” in the index and chapter 6 is fully dedicated to interesting links concerning the content. This is because the discussion of the topics, combined with definitions and explanations, is the background and the basis for the rest of the categories.

As the assignment to the categorie „content discussion” does not declare anything about the quality of the discussions, the index in chapter 4 has to be included in the study. Strictly speaking, a great part of those links is dedicated to advertisement and gives some explanations concerning the topics. It has been detected that most of the pages with content discussion give only a short introduction into the topic. The pages that examine the topics more closely are an exception to the rule. Five links of this minority are introduced in chapter 6. Two of them are very interesting pages concerning the content. They are listed at top position, because different opinions concerning knowledge management and intellectual capital are introduced, the topics are treated in great detail and the explanations are good and quite easy to duplicate.

In order to find out, if the results are capable to represent the totality, the reliability of the categorization, built up with Umap (artificial intelligence) and that built by human intelligence have been analyzed with the means of hypothesises. The test of the hypothesises, that are based on a comparison of the results and processes of the categorizations, has shown that the categorization by human intelligence is more reliable than that by artificial intel-ligence. Although the process of categorization by Umap is more objective, human intelligence has been successful. But how well do the instruments come off in a comparison, concerning the quality? Examining Umap and MetaCrawler for their capability to find relevant information on the internet shows that they can be considered as equal. Therefore, the decision which instrument to use, remains in the responsibility of the internet user. The test has been based on a scoring tabulation with the criteria: elimination of duplicates, dead and irrelevant links, number and quality of the search engines used, homogeneous language of the links and the possibility of graphical analysises.

Although the internet allows easy access to libraries, universities, newspapers, companies and so forth all over the world, internet researches often run into obstacles. There is no limitation of access and nearly no control of the information stored on the net. There-fore, the internet user has to select carefully the information received and has to be even more criti-cal than by using traditional media. Consequently, the user has to be able to discriminate the essential from unessential things in order to manage the heaps of informa-tion.These problems are combined by technical problems like overload or problems in the connection By paying attention to these problems, making a good internet research is not as easy as it sounds. By being critical of the truth and the reliability of the information available, by using the correct syntax and by defining the keywords as clearly as possible, an internet research, however, can yield good results.

Table of contents:

0.	PREFACE	6
1.	OLD VINE IN NEW SKINS?	7
1.1	IS KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT REALLY NECESSARY?	7
1.2	HOW HAS THE CHANGE INTO A KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY BEEN INITIATED?	8
1.3	DEFINITIONS	10
1.4	LOOKING FOR THE FAMOUS PIN IN THE HAYSTACK	19
2.	SPIDER, CRAWLER & CO: ZOOLOGY OR INTERNET?	19
2.1	CATALOGUE OR INDEX?	19
2.2	WHAT IS METACRAWLER?	21
3.	GRAPHICAL INTERFACE	23
4.	INDEX OF THE LINKS	26
4.1	METACRAWLER	26
4.1.1	Index of the knowledge management links	26
4.1.2	Index of the intellectual capital links	49
4.2	UMAP	69
5.	CATEGORIZATION	71
5.1	SEARCH ENGINES	71
5.1.1	MetaCrawler	71
5.1.2	Umap	73
5.2	PAGES TO BE ELIMINATED	73
5.2.1	MetaCrawler	73
5.2.2	Umap	74
5.3	EXISTENCE OF DEFINITIONS	75
5.3.1	MetaCrawler	75
5.3.2	Umap	76
5.4	CONTENT	76
5.4.1	MetaCrawler	76
5.4.2	Umap	78
6.	DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED LINKS	80
6.1	BRINT.COM/KM/	80
6.2	SVEIBY.COM.AU	87
6.3	KNOWLEDGE-AT-WORK.COM	88
6.4	KNOWLEDGE-NURTURE.COM	89
6.5	WWW.UTS.EDU.AU/FLAC/HSS/DEPARTMENTS/DIS/KM/SITEEX.HTM	91
7.	RELIABILITY & QUALITY OF THE CATEGORIZATIONS	93
7.1	TEST OF HYPOTHESIS 1	96
7.2	TEST OF HYPOTHESIS 2	98
7.3	TEST OF HYPOTHESIS 3	100
7.3.1	MetaCrawler	100
7.3.2	Umap	101
7.3.3	Comparison of the processes of categorization	102
7.3.4	To be reliable or not to be reliable	103
8.	COMPARISON OF THE QUALITY OF THE SEARCH INSTRUMENTS	105
8.1	CRITERIA OF THE SCORING TABULATION	105
8.2	HYPOTHESISES	108
8.3	PROOF OF THE HYPOTHESISES	109
9.	SUMMARY	112
10.	REFERENCES	115
11.	APPENDIX	119