Knowledge Management Systems (6688) Knowledge Management Systems (8570)
Knowledge Management Systems (6688) Knowledge Management Systems (8570)
Assessment 3 Guide for Students
Winter Semester 2015
Knowledge Management Systems PG (6688)
Knowledge Management Systems UG (8570)
The assignments for this unit have been designed to allow you to acquire and use the concepts in the unit as a way to better understand knowledge and the systems we use to manage it. There are many possible designs for the unit – if you wish to propose some different work, covering the same intellectual territory, I’d be delighted to work something out with you!
Assessment Item 3: A Knowledge Management Solution
Due Date: 24 July
Weighting Percentage: 40%
Addresses learning outcome(s):
On successful completion of this unit, students will be able to:
1. Analyse personal and organisational situations in terms of theories of knowledge;
2. Analyse the knowledge needs of an organisational situation;
3. Select and apply appropriate systems components and design a knowledge management system;
4. Critique different forms of knowledge in light of current research (PG only).
6688 (PG) Task: To design an intervention to improve the situation described in the case study for Assessment 2 using KM principles, practices and tools and describe an approach to implementing the solution. This assignment builds on the analysis undertaken in assignment 2 and should describe the architectural model/approach used for the design and the reasons for that selection. Students in an appropriate work situation may alternatively examine the prospects for (or of) a KMS in their workplace with approval from the Lecturer.
This should be presented as a discussion paper of 2000 – 3000 words or you may prefer to present it as a 10 minute presentation in PowerPoint (or similar), complete with ‘speakers’ notes and audio or video.
8570 (UG) Task:
To design an intervention to improve the situation described in the case study for Assessment 2 using KM principles, practices and tools. This assignment builds on the analysis undertaken in assignment 2. It should also identify the architectural model/approach used for the design. Students in an appropriate work situation may alternatively examine the prospects for (or of) a KMS in their workplace with approval from the Lecturer.
This should be presented as a discussion paper of 1500 – 2500 words or you may prefer to present it as a 10 minute presentation in PowerPoint (or similar), complete with ‘speakers’ notes and audio or video.
The sorts of questions you might seek to answer are:
1. Are there any existing knowledge assets or solutions that may be part of the system?
2. What are the candidate techniques for intervention?
3. What is the proposed KMS?
4. What functions or processes are required to enable the system?
5. Who would manage the KMS?
6. What infrastructure, tools, equipment or techniques are required to address the problem?
7. What are changes required to policy, procedures, attitudes, organisational structure or physical location to be made to improve the way the organisation operates? (PG only)
8. How would the organisation know if the intervention produced benefits and what they were? (PG only)
(nb. this list is not a contents page for your assignment!)
There are several alternative options for this assignment. Students may:
1. review the knowledge used (misused or hidden) in public debate;
2. write a report on the claims of KMS vendors with particular attention being given to the means of evaluation of their products;
3. build a prototype computer artefact that embodies knowledge representation.
Submission of an alternate option must have the prior approval of the Lecturer
Submission: via the Unit Moodle website – see unit outline.
Format: Essay or presentation
Assessment Criteria: This essay requires the critical analysis of a knowledge management a concept, model, definition, theory or technique of knowledge management. This requires students to research the topic sufficiently to gain a working understanding of the topic.
We are looking for you to demonstrate your ability to:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the models and techniques of KMS and how they interrelate
2. Demonstrate an understanding the case study situation
3. Describe how the organisation will work in a different (better) way
4. Show how the Knowledge in the organisation could be systemised
5. Justify your analysis by what you’ve researched
6. Articulate your proposal in a cogent and presentable report.
Be imaginative! You are free to speculate about (or to invent) systems that don’t exist but that would be wonderful to have.
Students who do well in this assignment pick a very discrete aspect of knowledge management and provide a comprehensive design. Students who attempt to design an enterprise-wide system usually fail to provide sufficient detail or fail to address all of the design areas.
The Study Guide on Moodle, the introductory lecture for this assignment and key references in the unit Resources.
ONE case study of those presented on the site and start your analysis and design. Alternatively you can do a case study of your own, but you’ll need approval from work – send a brief description of the case to the Lecturer.
The material in step 1, with a view to finding material on KMS components and on
analysing and designing knowledge systems. Find an architectural/design model that is appropriate to your case study, justify your choice and use that as a basis for your design.
Your observations, thoughts and ideas on the Moodle forum for Assignment 3. You can contact the lecturer to see that you are on the right track.
A simple but cogent design of a KM system to manage the human and/or social capital of an organisation.
Your paper to ensure it meets the assessment criteria – refine an redevelop weak sections.
You assignment on time!
Credit grade, (7 out of 10), is the ‘expected’ grade for this unit and is a good solid result. Some students think that 100% is normal and they have done something wrong if they don’t get it. Not so. 70% is a ‘very good’ grade and normal- it recognises ‘Credit where credit is due’. A Credit grade is work of good quality showing more than satisfactory achievement on the learning outcomes, or work of superior quality on a majority of the learning outcomes.
Distinction grade fully meets the requirements showing additional creativity, research, argument or insight beyond that expected for a credit. Work of superior quality on the learning outcomes.
High Distinction strongly meets the requirements, is highly perceptive, well-argued and researched, effectively structured and well presented. Work of outstanding quality on the learning outcomes recognising particular originality or creativity.
Pass grade is considered ‘fair’ – flawed in some way. It may only partially meet the requirements or show little research or weaker argument.
Unacceptable assignments are given a grade of Fail.
“All my own work”
Warning: be very aware of plagiarism – always correctly cite the sources of your writing. If you don’t understand this message, see the unit outline for more details and places you can go to learn more about plagiarism. If you are unsure of the rules for sourcing material, the Academic Integrity Module (AIM) teaches you how to refer to sources ethically and appropriately in your studies at the University of Canberra. This is essential knowledge for success at university.
To Access The Academic Integrity Module Click Here
The university takes a very dim view of students attempting to defraud and deceive by passing off others’ work as their own. All assignment are subject to electronic text matching to detect and report on plagiarism.
KMS Case Study 1
NBN & Asbestos
Work has stopped at the rollout of the National Broadband Network on sites around Australia. Thousands of telco-pits across Australia are being prepared for fibre optic cables, including old pits containing asbestos. Some of these pits are alleged to being removed using techniques that expose workers and the public to asbestos fibres. Telstra subcontractors in Tasmania are being investigated for asbestos safety breaches by Comcare. There are concerns the deadly fibres have been released into residential areas during the works.
Discussion in the media and discussion sites links the failure to properly identify and treat asbestos telco pits to the practice of subcontracting out of operations to workers without appropriate skills, knowledge and tools to identify and deal with asbestos.
In December 2012, a lawn mowing contractor’s discovery of asbestos near a pit where the NBN was being installed south of Perth led inspectors to uncover more of the potentially deadly fibers at other locations where the high-speed broadband network was being installed.
Federal workplace safety agency Comcare inspected 80 sites where NBN contractors had been working south of Perth after lawn mowing contractor Trevor Stone found asbestos on the verge of a property in Mandurah.
The discoveries prompted Comcare to write a report in February with recommendations for the remainder of the NBN rollout.
Asbestos has now been turning up in pits all over the country, with reports coming in from Penrith in NSW, Ballarat in Victoria, Launceston in Tasmania, and in Adelaide in South Australia.
Kate Muir described this as a KM failure in her post to actkm.com on 12/6/2013 stating ‘Telstra, cut costs, got rid of their permanent technical staff and started contracting technical work out to small outside companies. With the exit of the permanent technical staff went the knowledge of lots of things but particularly in this case, the Telstra telephone line pits, which were put down in the days when asbestos was used everywhere and in fact was used in very many telephone underground pits. Why would the techos even think to share this with anyone, even if there was at the time someone or some company to share it with? And as they were being got rid of, why would they even bother? This is a failure of KM!’.
The following are some quotes from the media in early June 2013:
The discovery of asbestos in pipes and pits owned by Telstra remains a safety concern, the boss of the company building the national broadband network says. Telstra has stopped work preparing underground pipes and pits currently used by copper phonelines to house its fibre-optic cables, and deployed 200 specialists to look into breaches in asbestos management by its contractors. The telco giant launched an audit of contractors this week after finding several cases of “non- compliant asbestos management and removal”.
“Telstra retain ownership of the pit and pipe infrastructure and retain the primary responsibility for the remediation of its infrastructure to make it fit for NBN practice,” NBN Co chief executive Mike Quigley told a parliamentary hearing on Thursday.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said she expected Telstra to follow Australia’s asbestos laws amid fears workers may have been exposed to the hazardous fibre. NBN Co is leasing the pits and ducts from Telstra for its cable rollout.
Liberal senator Michael Ronaldson asked Senator Conroy if he agreed with Communications Electrical and Plumbing Union official David Mier’s comparison of the rollout to the government’s failed pink batts insulation scheme. “Telstra has acknowledged that the handling of the material has been insufficient, hasn’t followed procedure and requirements,” Senator Conroy replied.
Australia Post says it has stopped delivering mail to a western Sydney street amid fears of asbestos contamination near a pit at Penrith.
Launceston resident Bridget Arkless saw asbestos being removed in her street without being watered or fully covered to prevent the material from spreading. “What they’re doing with the asbestos is just not good enough. This is a massive breach of trust,” Mrs Arkless said. The development adds to fears over asbestos handling at six sites in four states by contractors working for Telstra or NBN Co, the government company building the network.
Telstra said yesterday it was still working on an audit of the asbestos incidents across its network, which was meant to be completed last Friday but is taking more time as the company talks to the federal workplace safety regulator, Comcare.
Telstra and NBN Co have been accused of failing to check properly on contractors who are trying to cut costs by flouting standard safety procedures, with some of the checks dismissed as “desktop audits” conducted over the phone.
Mr O’Farrell says the Telstra contractors who had been working on the pit had “no idea” what they were doing and he says some of them cannot speak English.
“I’ve watched the owner of the company communicate with them from metres away with hand signals, telling them to break up the pits with their hands and putting it into bags,” he said.
“[They were] hitting the pits with sledgehammers, pitchforks and crowbars.
“It’s just exploding everywhere, all over the road, down the driveways, all over the front yards of our properties.”
As part of the NBN rollout, Telstra is required to repair and modernise the telecommunications pits around the country.
While Telstra has strict guidelines concerning asbestos management and removal, it has outsourced the job in Penrith to sub-contractors Service Stream.
There have been similar breaches at NBN sites in Ballarat, Victoria and Mandura, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia. But Mr Riley says the asbestos at those two sites has already been removed.
Mr Riley says Telstra takes full responsibility for the clean-up.
NSW Assistant Secretary Shane Murphy says Telstra is to blame for subcontracting the work to companies who failed to properly train their workers to handle the toxic material.
“Some years ago, when Telstra used to manage this work and do these work functions in- house, its workers were put through proper safety and training courses in relation to handling asbestos,” he said.
“What’s now happening is – and for some time – Telstra has outsourced those responsibilities to the contractors, who then outsource it to other contractors down the food chain.
“And again, it’s as simple as we’ve got the processes and policies in place, but there’s actually no real training going on other than people signing off and saying ‘I’ve worked with asbestos or been trained in its safe handling’.”