Knowledge Management Patterns Model for a Flight Test Environment

Abstract

This paper investigates how Knowledge Management patterns in a Brazilian Air Force flight test environment can be simulated using a System Dynamics approach. The research has been conducted initially by a literature review on the main Knowledge Management and System Dynamics theories. Data for this research has been collected in a previous study consisted of documental research regarding the flight test environment Knowledge Management and a questionnaire-based survey which identified both a low Knowledge Management maturity level and the flight test core competence as the capability of performing flight test campaigns. The issued problem was the tradeoff between actions focused on performing flight test campaigns versus Knowledge Management to transfer the core competence inside organization in order to keep it in a high level. A system dynamics quantitative model has been developed as a result of this research. Fluxes and stokes were identified within the model and the relation between them emerged by identifying systemic feedback loops that may compromise the Knowledge Management and the core competence transferring. These features enable a holistic visualization and better understanding of the problem as well as the possibilities of identifying ways of improvement. KEYWORDS: 264Follador RC, Trabasso LG of the core competence inside the organization preventing an ideal sharing of important knowledge. The objective of this paper is to simulate and analyze the KM patterns, in a BAF FTO, in order to apprehend the relationship between the activities of performing flight test campaigns and those of KM within the organization. This problem has been addressed using a system dynamics approach, where a quantitative model is proposed to identify the main stakeholders of the FTO KM system, pointing out fluxes and stocks as well as the relationships between them.This article is organized as follows: the second section presents the literature review and describes the contribution of this paper. The third section describes the methodology used to construct the model. The following section presents the results and discussions about FT KM model, regarding the commitment between performing flight test campaigns and KM activities necessary to maintain the core competence in the organization. The final section summarizes the contribution of this research and discusses future studies. Sterman (2002) suggested that, in a world of accelerating complexity and change, thoughtful leaders increasingly recognize that the management tools that had been used have not only failed to solve the persistent problems encountered, but may, in fact, be causing them. Examples of organizational policy resistance are: well-intentioned efforts to solve pressing problems create unanticipated side effects. "Learning about complex systems when you also live in them is difficult. We are all passengers on an aircraft, we must not only fly but redesign in flight" (Sterman 2002, p. 4). LITERATURE REVIEWTo understand the system a literature revi...

Knowledge Management as a Domain, System Dynamics as a Methodology

“…The authors reported the level of knowledge sharing liquidation, the level of knowledge requiring barrier, and the level of knowledge gap as outputs from the simulation. Follador & Trabasso [40] assessed the Air Force's suitability for KM. The authors have produced a CLD describing the KMP.…”

“…According to Table 3, the SD was utilised as a tool for knowledge management in the following domains (in ascending order): business, miscellaneous management disciplines, software development, general, food system, health, miscellaneous knowledge areas, other, and product-related area (RQ4). The following articles are examples for each category in Figure 7: business [35,37,38,43,50]; miscellanies management disciplines [49,52,53]; miscellanies knowledge area [41,48,54]; education [42,56,57] knowledge management system [46,47]; general [40,44,58]; product-related area [45,70]; software development [62,77].…”

“…following articles are examples for each category in Figure 7: business [35,37,38,43,50]; miscellanies management disciplines [49,52,53]; miscellanies knowledge area [41,48,54]; education [42,56,57] knowledge management system [46,47]; general [40,44,58]; productrelated area [45,70]; software development [62,77].…”