Advertisement

Acquiring Innovation Knowledge

  • Peter Busch
  • Debbie Richards
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4303)

Abstract

There are few possibilities for acquiring knowledge related to innovation. Firstly, acquiring knowledge using machine learning typically requires structured and classified data and/or cases, and lots of them. Secondly, manual acquisition of knowledge requires human expertise. Both approaches seem impractical when it comes to innovation knowledge. While innovation is recognized as a vital part of sustainability within organizations, there is little assistance with how we can acquire, reuse or share the innovation knowledge that may exist. We suggest a technique and present preliminary results of an evaluation study using this approach.

Keywords

Innovation knowledge knowledge acquisition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bell, G., McNamara, J.F.: McHigh-Tech ventures: the guide for entrepreneurial success. Perseus Books Publishing L.L.C, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Busch, P., Richards, D.: Building and Utilising an IT Tacit Knowledge Inventory. In: Proceedings 14th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2003), Perth Australia, November 26-28 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Busch, P., Richards, D.: Acquisition of articulable tacit knowledge. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (PKAW 2004), in conjunction with The 8th Pac.Rim Int.l Conf. on AI, Auckland, NZ, August 9-13, pp. 87–101 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busch, P., Richards, D.: An Approach to Understand, Capture and Nurture Creativity and Innovation Knowledge. In: Proc. 15th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2005), Sydney, Australia, November 30-December 2 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fenwick: Innovation: examining workplace learning in new enterprises. Journal of Workplace Learning 15(3), 123–132 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganter, R., Wille, R.: Formal concept analysis: Mathematical foundations. Springer, Germany (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gough, H.: Studies of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in a Personality Assessment Research Institute. In: Fourth National Conference on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Stanford University, CA (July 1981)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirton, M.: Adaptors and Innovators: why new initiatives get blocked. In: Henry, J. (ed.) Creative Management, 2nd edn., pp. 169–180. Cromwell Press Ltd, London (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leonard, D., Sensiper, S.: The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation California Management Review Berkeley; Spring 40(3) (electronic) (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schweizer, T.S.: An Individual Psychology of Novelty-Seeking, Creativity and Innovation ERIM Ph.D. Series, 48 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sternberg, R., Wagner, R., Williams, W., Horvath, J.: Testing common sense. American psychologist 50(11), 912–927 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Busch
    • 1
  • Debbie Richards
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing Department, Division of Information and Communication SciencesMacquarie UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations