The basic idea is to use events and the processing of associated data to bridge the gap between operational and decision-making systems.
http://caminao.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/events-meaning/
I guess it is possible to come up with a real time KM framework for bridging the gap between operational and decision making systems. However, this requires that the context is the ideal world.
In the real world where one is also dealing with humans and everything that can ensue from either human -human and/or human-technology interactions, I would suggest that such a framework would form part of an organizations KM system.
On the contrary, when information is traced back to events it becomes possible to deal with its origin, human or otherwise, and therefore to take the real world into account.
Is it possible to expand on the issue of dealing with the human factors wrt KM utilising this framework?
It depends on what is considered. From an organizational perspective, the "human factor" is characterized by:
Dear Remy,
Probably the framework proposed by Kaplan could be a useful pointer. He categorizes risks into preventive, strategic and external. [1st Paper attached]
I have used the framework in categorizing Cloud Risks.
I will assume that internal events are meant to be managed, which means that risks are by definition external. Then I will use the classic distinction:
Operational: full information on external state of affairs allows for immediate appraisal of prospective states.
Tactical: partially defined external state of affairs allow for periodic appraisal of prospective states in synch with production cycles.
Strategic: undefined defined external state of affairs don’t allow for periodic appraisal of prospective states in synch with production cycles; their definition may also be affected through feedback.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Internet